uwot wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 10:59 am
Well, having recently written ten thousand words on medieval cosmology, I got a pretty good insight to what the various strands of christianity meant then and still do. I have slightly more respect for the dupes who follow the 'traditions' than for the narcissists who make their god themselves.
I read what you wrote in the other parts of your post. I believe I can fairly say that I 'understand where you are coming from'. I have ideas & perceptions that would qualify a good deal of it but ... I don't suppose you are interested.
But for the sake of interesting conversation and learning how other people see things, might you include some quotes from what you wrote about Medieval cosmology?
Right, and the moral of Christianity is that someone else pays for your sins.
I take the essential meaning to be that salvation (which of course is a prospect that must be defined and understood) comes about only through grace. While effort is required to respond to the call, in the end it cannot be achieved without grace. Essentially, it is a gift. It is given, not achieved. You may disagree -- and oppose -- the essence of this understanding of spiritual life and the nature of the world, and all that I might say is that for one who has recognized, in themselves, through some crisis or through hitting bottom, that they cannot rescue themselves in a spiritual sense (though they might do everything and anything else on their own), it not only 'makes sense' but open many interior, and exterior, doors.
The exception being the refusal to believe that, for which you will be tortured forever and never forgiven.
It cannot be denied that there is a sharp polarity within historical Christian thinking. I would suggest though that the crude representations of both heaven and hell, or perhaps I mean to say instead the 'raw' versions of the polarity, have been expanded upon by successive generations of theologians. But still, the issue really is: What
is perdition? And then: What
is salvation? But if these topics, or these metaphysical facts, are not expounded and understood initially, there could not develop a conversation about what hell means. Myself, I would prefer to understand that 'refusal to believe' has a great deal to do with unwillingness to participate in the processes of salvation, but that a gracious God is -- indeed -- tremendously forgiving and understanding. But, you will obviously notice that I have also clearly indicated -- or strongly suggested -- that there is a 'blind' state of man which is destructive to his 'life' (in the most essential, spiritual sense).
While life certainly goes on in this plane where we find ourselves (this world) and it really has very little -- nothing really -- to do with higher, spiritual life, the revelation of God and about God is about a higher dimension of consciousness that one can participate in and with. The world of Nature is a biological-mechanical world and is not 'spiritual'. But man can become aware of and opened to spiritual life. And as far as I am able to tell it is
spiritual life that concerns the Christian.
Exactly what use does an almighty God have for a dead animal?
What would an ultimate, transcendent being get out of any human act or any 'ritual'? You might also ask how it is that man can conceive of meaning through a symbol. Or why a symbolic act (such as giving a gift or performing a symbolic act for someone) has meaning and thus value. In fact, men have employed sacrifice since the human world began. One thing that substitutes for another. Symbolical enactment. Even 'sympathetic magic'. But the entire meaning of Christianity, and with advanced forms of Judaism, is that the conscious person must transcend this silly, imitative limitation. Thus, "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." That was put forth a long, long time ago. It obviously means that the entire emphasis must shift.
So a god that having tried and failed with flooding the planet, then thinks the best thing to do is get his son nailed to a cross is worth devoting your life to. Really?
And yet, all that we can say we value depends on self-sacrifice. Giving up something precious, or seemingly precious, in order to attain or receive something higher. The idea of 'laying down one's life for a friend' is not meaningless. Think of the sacrifices that some religious have made for others in hospitals and especially perhaps in education. I will admit that one could, if one wanted, ridicule the symbolism of the Crucifixion. But yet the meaning stands now and I suggest will always stand, because it is deeply meaningful! But, I agree that one has to 'ascend' to that meaning.