Philosophy Now Forum

I became curious when thinking on Atto’s question Is anyone going to talk about Jesus the Christ? about what, precisely Jesus the Christ himself would talk about were he a forum participant. Or were he ‘returned’ and reincarnate on Earth.

My assertion is that all imagined scenarios of Jesus the Christ in some terrestrial office with lieutenants and underlings carrying out divine orders always resorts in absurdity. Best if left unimagined.

Thus Christ has always seemed to me a symbol that is best left abstract. As in the very early days of iconographic representation: a loosely drawn face with a halo but yet indistinct. Or merely the Greek capital letters of his name.

It has always seemed to me ridiculous whenever dialogue is given to an imagined Jesus. Whenever his visitations (to children, to people in need) are theatricalized it becomes tawdry. I admit that some of the Gospel portrayals have a certain force — some more than others. Yet I have never seen any version of Jesus the Christ projected into modernity that ‘worked’.

Yet there should be no reason why Jesus the Christ should not speak, should not proffer opinions (that could only be pronouncements of course), should not take sides, should not declare.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:30 pm I became curious when thinking on Atto’s question Is anyone going to talk about Jesus the Christ? about what, precisely Jesus the Christ himself would talk about were he a forum participant. Or were he ‘returned’ and reincarnate on Earth.

My assertion is that all imagined scenarios of Jesus the Christ in some terrestrial office with lieutenants and underlings carrying out divine orders always resorts in absurdity. Best if left unimagined.

Thus Christ has always seemed to me a symbol that is best left abstract. As in the very early days of iconographic representation: a loosely drawn face with a halo but yet indistinct. Or merely the Greek capital letters of his name.

It has always seemed to me ridiculous whenever dialogue is given to an imagined Jesus. Whenever his visitations (to children, to people in need) are theatricalized it becomes tawdry. I admit that some of the Gospel portrayals have a certain force — some more than others. Yet I have never seen any version of Jesus the Christ projected into modernity that ‘worked’.

Yet there should be no reason why Jesus the Christ should not speak, should not proffer opinions (that could only be pronouncements of course), should not take sides, should not declare.

Yes it's a good area for thought.

I must say that since 1997 being made aware of God and many years later the sage and many years later certain things regarding heaven on Earth and where the sage resides. Well, yes I want to meet him, and I hope to meet the Christ. It's been a dream of mine in recent years to play a game of pool with the sage and Christ (ever since the sage told me he wants to buy me a beer) and I'll never forget driving my van in a really good mood considering such things and on my talk back AM radio a chap had a laugh that Jesus pots the white ball! Brilliant, although interfaced to the God system, Jesus doesn't cheat at pool...I had such a laugh when I woke up one morning and sage told me that he buys his cornflakes. (I found it funny since the God system can just materialise a bowl of cornflakes, but sage still will go to the shops and buy them!
So yes, I have little doubt that Jesus the Christ is among us and among the sages...appearing to us as an ordinary fellow but secretly known to the sages as the Christ. I wonder what his name is currently. I truly believe he has a good sense of humour and is just a bloody good bloke.
Well done for opening this for discussion.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:24 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:59 am Attofishpi wrote:

We are on an English speaking forum, surely Christianity reads better than Xianity and only takes an extra five key presses. Still not sure how Xianity is pronounced, perhaps I need to live in Greece, learn Greek and find a forum there to discuss Christianity.

You make me self conscious! In evaluating which institutions are on the side of the angels Christianity is one of the foremost. Xians often have outdated , pre-enlightenment, ideas. And the hellish behaviour of many self styled Christians has been pointed out often on these pages. Nevertheless despite all that the core message of Christianity, altruism, is intact. I don't think it helps the cause of enlightened altruism to get het up about mere "disrespect" as Xianity must be in fighting mode now the crisis is upon us. Sheep and goats time now.

That's ok and I wouldn't expect you to change your mode. '
Personally I think it reads poorly as Xianity, it's not something one can enunciate on reading the lettering. Pretty certain it's not a Greek thing to tap the X in front of ianity...I'd be surprised if any Christians would write it that way. Each to their own.

'Xianity' is nothing to be afraid of as it's only an alternative way to spell the same thing, as Alexis Jacobi explained.

I too would be heartened if any Christians who visit these pages were to be unconventional Xians; for these are sorely needed.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:05 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:24 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:59 am Attofishpi wrote:


You make me self conscious! In evaluating which institutions are on the side of the angels Christianity is one of the foremost. Xians often have outdated , pre-enlightenment, ideas. And the hellish behaviour of many self styled Christians has been pointed out often on these pages. Nevertheless despite all that the core message of Christianity, altruism, is intact. I don't think it helps the cause of enlightened altruism to get het up about mere "disrespect" as Xianity must be in fighting mode now the crisis is upon us. Sheep and goats time now.

That's ok and I wouldn't expect you to change your mode. '
Personally I think it reads poorly as Xianity, it's not something one can enunciate on reading the lettering. Pretty certain it's not a Greek thing to tap the X in front of ianity...I'd be surprised if any Christians would write it that way. Each to their own.

'Xianity' is nothing to be afraid of as it's only an alternative way to spell the same thing, as Alexis Jacobi explained.

OMG. AFRAID!!?? Why are you going on about this, now I am annoyed where I've already said 'each to their own' - as in, move on, forget about it.

Xianity only exists in the realm of people that disregard CHRIST. My Mum found it disrespectful and I find it disrespectful. X does not replace Christ in the term Christianity unless you are being a fuckwit.

Belinda wrote:I too would be heartened if any Christians who visit these pages were to be unconventional Xians; for these are sorely needed.

What the fuck is a Xian? If you are referring to Christian, then I am as unconventional as they come..but you've hit a nerve woman. I'd recommend you don't bring the subject up again, and any ridiculous argument for putting an X at the front of ianity.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:24 pm
Xianity only exists in the realm of people that disregard CHRIST. My Mum found it disrespectful and I find it disrespectful. X does not replace Christ in the term Christianity unless you are being a fuckwit.

I would say you are showing far more disrespect towards Belinda than she is towards Christ, Fishy. Not only that, Christ is long dead (if he were ever alive) and is beyond being offended, whereas Belinda still seems to be alive. Besides, why would Jesus mind being referred to as X?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:52 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:24 pm
Xianity only exists in the realm of people that disregard CHRIST. My Mum found it disrespectful and I find it disrespectful. X does not replace Christ in the term Christianity unless you are being a fuckwit.

I would say you are showing far more disrespect towards Belinda than she is towards Christ, Fishy. Not only that, Christ is long dead (if he were ever alive) and is beyond being offended, whereas Belinda still seems to be alive. Besides, why would Jesus mind being referred to as X?

Really? Atheists are bloody idiots. Find an English dictionary where a search for xian or xianity comes up with a definition. Can someone tell me everytime I read Xian or Xianity how in my head do I pronounce it to myself - it reads poorly, only a fuckwit atheist would think it sensible to write that way.

Hey Belinda, let's all talk about X. wow, so intellectual!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:00 pm Really? Atheists are bloody idiots. Find an English dictionary where a search for xian or xianity comes up with a definition. Can someone tell me everytime I read Xian or Xianity how in my head do I pronounce it to myself - it reads poorly, only a fuckwit atheist would think it sensible to write that way.

Hey Belinda, let's all talk about X. wow, so intellectual!

Well the matter is between you and Belinda, and nothing to do with me, really, but just as it seems to annoy you that a dead, semi-mythical character is not getting the respect he deserves, it rather annoys me that one of the few people here who actually deserves respect is being called a "fuckwit". Also, in view of the stuff you say you believe, you are in no position to call anyone an idiot.

[a pin drops]

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:05 pm 'Xianity' is nothing to be afraid of as it's only an alternative way to spell the same thing, as Alexis Jacobi explained.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:24 pm OMG. AFRAID!!?? Why are you going on about this, now I am annoyed...you've hit a nerve woman. I'd recommend you don't bring the subject up again...

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:11 am 1. I am a very happy individual unpeturbed by witless criticism.
2. I outwit everyone on this forum...

Forgive me for reaching for such a low-hanging platitude, but Mr. "...let's all slag each other off..." made me do it.

Fortunately, as he now seems to be competing with Veritas Aequitas for the title of biggest blowhard on the forum, he is "...unperturbed by witless criticism..."
_______

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:26 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:47 am

Agnosticism isn't a "religious doctrine".

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE?

Could the peoples of your day just had NOT YET LEARNED and become AWARE of what the 'religious' and 'belief' words were in relation to, EXACTLY?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:47 am An agnostic is not "religious" and therefore if it is a doctrine, then agnosticism it's not a "religious" doctrine.

So, BELIEVING (in) some 'things' is 'religious', to you, but NOT 'religious' with OTHER 'things', right?

Agnosticism is not a "religious doctrine". Believing that 2+2=4 is not a religious doctrine. Believing in gravity is not a religious doctrine. Being unsure if the universe is finite or not isn't a "theory" in physics.

If you say and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

Also, if you would like to HAVE A DISCUSSION, then I am KEEN TOO.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:24 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:59 am Attofishpi wrote:

We are on an English speaking forum, surely Christianity reads better than Xianity and only takes an extra five key presses. Still not sure how Xianity is pronounced, perhaps I need to live in Greece, learn Greek and find a forum there to discuss Christianity.

You make me self conscious! In evaluating which institutions are on the side of the angels Christianity is one of the foremost. Xians often have outdated , pre-enlightenment, ideas. And the hellish behaviour of many self styled Christians has been pointed out often on these pages. Nevertheless despite all that the core message of Christianity, altruism, is intact. I don't think it helps the cause of enlightened altruism to get het up about mere "disrespect" as Xianity must be in fighting mode now the crisis is upon us. Sheep and goats time now.

That's ok and I wouldn't expect you to change your mode. '
Personally I think it reads poorly as Xianity, it's not something one can enunciate on reading the lettering.

Talk about an example of one NOT being able to let go of their past experiences.

To 'your' way of thinking or BELIEVE "attofishpi", 'xmas' is not something one can enunciate on reading the lettering either, correct?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:24 pm Pretty certain it's not a Greek thing to tap the X in front of ianity...I'd be surprised if any Christians would write it that way. Each to their own.

But what "christians" can or can NOT do is NOT some 'thing' that "others" should necessarily follow or abide by, AT ALL.

"christians", after all, BELIEVE in 'things', which were and still are OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:30 pm I became curious when thinking on Atto’s question Is anyone going to talk about Jesus the Christ? about what, precisely Jesus the Christ himself would talk about were he a forum participant. Or were he ‘returned’ and reincarnate on Earth.

There has been mention of a 'second coming of christ'.

WHEN what this MEANS and REFERS TO, EXACTLY, THEN what "christ" DOES SAY and DO can be CLEARLY SEEN and HEARD.

THEN 'you', adult human beings, WILL START TO SEE WHAT 'you' have been doing Wrong, which WILL, in turn, CAUSE 'you' ALL to CHANGE for the BETTER. As WILL BE PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, True.

BUT, FIRST 'you' ALL HAVE TO GET RID of the RUBBISH that 'you', currently, BELIEVE to be true.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:30 pm My assertion is that all imagined scenarios of Jesus the Christ in some terrestrial office with lieutenants and underlings carrying out divine orders always resorts in absurdity. Best if left unimagined.

Well OBVIOUS your assertion here is CLEARLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. BUT, because you BELIEVE that your assertion is ABSOLUTELY TRUE you are NOT OPEN to DISCOVERING and FINDING OUT what the ACTUAL Truth IS here.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:30 pm Thus Christ has always seemed to me a symbol that is best left abstract.

Okay, but do you REALLY think that "others" REALLY care about 'things' that ONLY 'seem to be true', to you?

"others" are MUCH MORE INTERESTED in 'things' that you can back up, support, and PROVE to be true.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:30 pm As in the very early days of iconographic representation: a loosely drawn face with a halo but yet indistinct. Or merely the Greek capital letters of his name.

It has always seemed to me ridiculous whenever dialogue is given to an imagined Jesus.

I think you WOULD FIND that it ALWAYS seems, to EVERY one, RIDICULOUS whenever dialogue is given to an IMAGINED ANY 'thing'.

However, people ONLY GIVE dialogue 'thing/s' that BELIEVE are TRUE and thus NOT IMAGINED, OR to 'those' that ACTUALLY exist or existed. 'you', human beings, ALSO GIVE dialogue to IMAGINED 'things' for ENTERTAINMENT, DESCRIPTIVE, or MORAL purposes or for other reasons as well.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:30 pm Whenever his visitations (to children, to people in need) are theatricalized it becomes tawdry. I admit that some of the Gospel portrayals have a certain force — some more than others. Yet I have never seen any version of Jesus the Christ projected into modernity that ‘worked’.

Here we have ANOTHER EXAMPLE of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, and/or when people ONLY SEE what they WANT TO SEE, as it is sometimes said and referred to.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:30 pm Yet there should be no reason why Jesus the Christ should not speak, should not proffer opinions (that could only be pronouncements of course), should not take sides, should not declare.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:30 pm I became curious when thinking on Atto’s question Is anyone going to talk about Jesus the Christ? about what, precisely Jesus the Christ himself would talk about were he a forum participant. Or were he ‘returned’ and reincarnate on Earth.

My assertion is that all imagined scenarios of Jesus the Christ in some terrestrial office with lieutenants and underlings carrying out divine orders always resorts in absurdity. Best if left unimagined.

Thus Christ has always seemed to me a symbol that is best left abstract. As in the very early days of iconographic representation: a loosely drawn face with a halo but yet indistinct. Or merely the Greek capital letters of his name.

It has always seemed to me ridiculous whenever dialogue is given to an imagined Jesus. Whenever his visitations (to children, to people in need) are theatricalized it becomes tawdry. I admit that some of the Gospel portrayals have a certain force — some more than others. Yet I have never seen any version of Jesus the Christ projected into modernity that ‘worked’.

Yet there should be no reason why Jesus the Christ should not speak, should not proffer opinions (that could only be pronouncements of course), should not take sides, should not declare.

Yes it's a good area for thought.

I must say that since 1997 being made aware of God

Being made aware of some 'thing' does NOT, in ANY way, mean that you have COME-TO-KNOW that 'thing'. And, as 'you' KEEP PROVING here "attofishpi" 'your awareness' of God and some so-called 'sage' still has a LONG WAY TO GO, BEFORE you COME-TO-KNOW.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm and many years later the sage and many years later certain things regarding heaven on Earth and where the sage resides.

Will you EXPLAIN, in SIMPLE and EASY terms, WHO and WHAT 'God' and 'sage' ARE and WHERE the 'sage' resides, and what 'heaven on Earth' IS, EXACTLY?

THEN will you ALLOW "others" to HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT 'your' OWN BELIEFS and VIEWS here, while at the SAME TIME REMAINING OPEN that 'your' BELIEFS and VIEWS could be Wrong or partly wrong?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm Well, yes I want to meet him, and I hope to meet the Christ.

WHO does the 'him' word here refer to, EXACTLY? And, you meet the "christ" just about EVERY day, anyway. 'you' are just NOT YET AWARE of this fact.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm It's been a dream of mine in recent years to play a game of pool with the sage and Christ (ever since the sage told me he wants to buy me a beer) and I'll never forget driving my van in a really good mood considering such things and on my talk back AM radio a chap had a laugh that Jesus pots the white ball!

MANY people have LOTS of DREAMS, but ...

ALSO, WHY would some so-called 'sage' WANT to buy a human being 'a beer'?

Could you have been somewhat DELUSIONAL at the time or 'it' just being a PART OF your DREAM? OR, is ANY 'thing' that EXPLAINS what ACTUALLY HAPPENED or what ACTUALLY COULD HAVE HAPPENED, but does NOT FIT IN with your CLAIM that 'it' ACTUALLY HAPPENED THE WAY IT DID, going to be WRONG?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm Brilliant, although interfaced to the God system, Jesus doesn't cheat at pool...I had such a laugh when I woke up one morning and sage told me that he buys his cornflakes.

'you' are sounding MORE and MORE like "garry childress" here, during episodes of 'psychosis' after not taking medication.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm (I found it funny since the God system can just materialise a bowl of cornflakes, but sage still will go to the shops and buy them!
So yes, I have little doubt that Jesus the Christ is among us and among the sages...appearing to us as an ordinary fellow but secretly known to the sages as the Christ.

Although the CONCLUSION might well be True and Right, how, in hell, does it LOGICALLY FOLLOW that "jesus the christ" is among EVERY 'thing' because of some so-called 'God system' where bowls of cornflakes exist?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm I wonder what his name is currently.

WHY is there a PRESUMPTION that there is ONLY 'one'?

Is it NOT AT ALL POSSIBLE to 'you', "attofishpi", that "jesus the christ" could be reincarnating in MORE than just one of 'you', human beings?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm I truly believe he has a good sense of humour and is just a bloody good bloke.

Well, it would appear to DEFEAT the PURPOSE is "jesus the christ" what NOT a 'good' one, correct?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm Well done for opening this for discussion.

Age, you are TOO WEIRD for me and this CAPS THING is frankly ANNOYING.

ATTO, you’ve GONE ROUND the BEND. Your EXPERIENCES are so completely subjective and indeed SOLIPSISTIC.

The two of you are BANGING ME on the head with a STICK OF WEIRDNESS.

When I think of YOU, the SAGE, and Jesus the CHRIST shooting pool — and AGE right there lecturing — my MIND SNAPS.

I am surrounded by LUNATICS and they are CLOSING IN!

Gaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:24 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:05 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:24 pm

That's ok and I wouldn't expect you to change your mode. '
Personally I think it reads poorly as Xianity, it's not something one can enunciate on reading the lettering. Pretty certain it's not a Greek thing to tap the X in front of ianity...I'd be surprised if any Christians would write it that way. Each to their own.

'Xianity' is nothing to be afraid of as it's only an alternative way to spell the same thing, as Alexis Jacobi explained.

OMG. AFRAID!!?? Why are you going on about this, now I am annoyed where I've already said 'each to their own' - as in, move on, forget about it.

Xianity only exists in the realm of people that disregard CHRIST.

Is this an ABSOLUTE TRUTH, or just some 'thing' that 'you' BELIEVE is true "attofishpi"?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm
My Mum found it disrespectful and I find it disrespectful.

Talk about a GREAT example of one who SERIOUSLY can NOT let go of 'their past'.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm X does not replace Christ in the term Christianity unless you are being a fuckwit.

Here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of being completely and utterly BLINDED by their OWN previously GAINED and WELL MAINTAINED BELIEFS.

This one, literally, can NOT YET SEE the xcross, or the chriscross, of the lines of SENSIBILITY, SANITY, and REASONED ABILITY.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm

Belinda wrote:I too would be heartened if any Christians who visit these pages were to be unconventional Xians; for these are sorely needed.

What the fuck is a Xian?

What 'the fuck' is Xmas?

Can you work 'that' out?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm If you are referring to Christian, then I am as unconventional as they come..but you've hit a nerve woman.

'This', coming from the one here who CHANGES the spelling of words to their OWN personalized spelling THE MOST comes across as REALLY HYPOCRITICAL.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:59 pm I'd recommend you don't bring the subject up again, and any ridiculous argument for putting an X at the front of ianity.

So this so-called "christianity" gets OFFENDED or has a 'nerve hit' JUST BECAUSE one word gets spelled DIFFERENTLY. This "xian" is thus PROVING that 'it' is NOT being "christian", NOR "xian", like, AT ALL.

Here we have ANOTHER example of ANOTHER so-called "christian" who, REALLY, does NOT UNDERSTAND "christianity" AT ALL.