Christianity

[Belinda]

Simone Weil wrote: "Absolute unmixed attention is prayer. "

The person who understands this IMO understands a great deal

Then I’m an inbetweener of another sort. My attention to my own spiritual life is constant, in its way, that I can say, but fluttery and wavering.

The next section (for what it is worth) in the definition of prayer (Catholic Encyclopedia) is:

The words used to express it in Scripture are: to call up (Genesis 4:26); to intercede (Job 22:10); to mediate (Isaiah 53:10); to consult (1 Samuel 28:6); to beseech (Exodus 32:11); and, very commonly, to cry out to. The Fathers speak of it as the elevation of the mind to God with a view to asking proper things from Him (St. John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith III.24); communing and conversing with God (St. Gregory of Nyssa, "De oratione dom.", in P.G., XLIV, 1125); talking with God (St. John Chrysostom, "Hom. xxx in Gen.", n. 5, in P.G., LIII, 280). It is therefore the expression of our desires to God whether for ourselves or others. This expression is not intended to instruct or direct God what to do, but to appeal to His goodness for the things we need; and the appeal is necessary, not because He is ignorant of our needs or sentiments, but to give definite form to our desires, to concentrate our whole attention on what we have to recommend to Him, to help us appreciate our close personal relation with Him. The expression need not be external or vocal; internal or mental is sufficient.

We cannot expect God to love us back. Petitionary prayers are either self expressive or superstitious.

To give definite form to our desires is a step in the right direction . The next step would be to examine our desires and detect any irrational desires. God or nature gave you reason in order to detect what is rational and what irrational.

[Dubious]

What would be the point of that? Care to explain?

I can think of reasons. But my reasons are not decisive, and I feel no inclination to speculate for you.

Whatever you say Mr. I.C. Quixote, which is usually based on not knowing what to say as clearly demonstrated once again!

If you need to speculate on a fact which the bible itself plainly states - and not just once - then even your knowledge of that is limited.

[Immanuel Can]

What would be the point of that? Care to explain?

I can think of reasons. But my reasons are not decisive, and I feel no inclination to speculate for you.

Whatever you say Mr. I.C.

Not what I say. What God says counts.

But you'll find that out.

[Nick_A]

Simone Weil wrote: "Absolute unmixed attention is prayer. "

The person who understands this IMO understands a great deal

Then I’m an inbetweener of another sort. My attention to my own spiritual life is constant, in its way, that I can say, but fluttery and wavering.

The next section (for what it is worth) in the definition of prayer (Catholic Encyclopedia) is:

The words used to express it in Scripture are: to call up (Genesis 4:26); to intercede (Job 22:10); to mediate (Isaiah 53:10); to consult (1 Samuel 28:6); to beseech (Exodus 32:11); and, very commonly, to cry out to. The Fathers speak of it as the elevation of the mind to God with a view to asking proper things from Him (St. John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith III.24); communing and conversing with God (St. Gregory of Nyssa, "De oratione dom.", in P.G., XLIV, 1125); talking with God (St. John Chrysostom, "Hom. xxx in Gen.", n. 5, in P.G., LIII, 280). It is therefore the expression of our desires to God whether for ourselves or others. This expression is not intended to instruct or direct God what to do, but to appeal to His goodness for the things we need; and the appeal is necessary, not because He is ignorant of our needs or sentiments, but to give definite form to our desires, to concentrate our whole attention on what we have to recommend to Him, to help us appreciate our close personal relation with Him. The expression need not be external or vocal; internal or mental is sufficient.

Prayer coming from ones personality reflects acquired needs and desires learned in life. These are superficial and cannot be heard from above. Simone is referring to a quality of attention which reflects the needs of the heart. The personality when active blocks out these needs. This quality of attention puts the personality to sleep and makes it possible for the depth of our being to be heard

[Alexis Jacobi]

We cannot expect God to love us back. Petitionary prayers are either self expressive or superstitious.

This is so interesting for me: me, defending and explaining the Christian faith! What is interesting is that when you make these bizarre statement I immediately have to answer them. However I'd not really thought this through before. But let me say that at the very core of the Christian concept is the God who loves, and for this reason love (agape in the higher sense) is an idea that runs through Christianity from top to bottom. This is such basic stuff really.

So when you say 'we cannot expect God to love us back' I ask quo warranto? On what authority do you say such a thing?

So it seems to me that we would have to think a good deal about what God's love is, if it can be thought about as a thing or substance. It has to be of another order than the 'luv' we might refer to. It seems to me that the word 'expect' is not the right one. But certainly 'count on' must apply. It is a fundamental force. Can it be retracted or stop?

This is one reason why it seems to me there must be very few in hell -- if hell is real. There must always be a way except for some extreme cases. I think this is one reason the notion of purgatory is necessary. I read once that, according to the logic, the personality itself would recognize that it needed to be purged before ascent to the place called 'heaven'. So it is the person who chooses it.

But then the fate of hell is also, in the end, a choice.

To give definite form to our desires is a step in the right direction . The next step would be to examine our desires and detect any irrational desires. God or nature gave you reason in order to detect what is rational and what irrational.

By the definition I submitted *our desires* must be closely examined, that seems true. But even the most general books that I have examined on (Catholic) prayer clearly point this out.

Surely you are right: reason and intelligence must always operate.

[Dubious]

What I recommend is examining these pictures, these stories, these conceptualizations, perhaps I can say as metaphors for something that is done. The language, the picture, is not the thing that is done. What is done takes shape on an internal level -- at the level of the personality and also the soul. What is done is the establishment of a relationship to something ineffable. I think it can be fairly said -- consider for a moment Uwot's and Dubious' oppositional discourse -- that people react against the story-line, or the elements of the story-line as it is presented. They shoot down the story without understanding what the story pictures. So by using the term 'angel' for example, in the minds of Uwot and Dubious, the idea that is presented is seen as unreal, impossible, non-scientific, and false. But the reaction is really cognitive, perhaps linguistic. Since one cannot conceive of 'angelic being' all that language, the 'picture', and similar references and allusions, are seen as hallucinatory. And the entire topic is thus dismissed.

Your long-winded exposés into regions of uber-intellectualismus stands out as nauseating. I suggest you first learn how to read as preliminary to any such attempts, assuming you haven’t purposely distorted the intent like your sparring partner has done for more years than you’ve been here. So far, a resemblance is noticeable, especially in your mutual tendencies to distort.

It also wasn’t me who put down Joseph Campbell who, among many others, applies metaphor to myth to gain insight into its meaning(s) vis-a-vis taking it literally, concluding in absurdity...as the bible for instance. Why don't you debate that with I.C., or is that something you don't wish to inflict on yourself?

Your multicolored knickers are definitely showing here!

[Dubious]

I can think of reasons. But my reasons are not decisive, and I feel no inclination to speculate for you.

Whatever you say Mr. I.C.

Not what I say. What God says counts.

But you'll find that out.

If that were possible, we'd both arrive at the same unspoken conclusion.

[Belinda]

We cannot expect God to love us back. Petitionary prayers are either self expressive or superstitious.

This is so interesting for me: me, defending and explaining the Christian faith! What is interesting is that when you make these bizarre statement I immediately have to answer them. However I'd not really thought this through before. But let me say that at the very core of the Christian concept is the God who loves, and for this reason love (agape in the higher sense) is an idea that runs through Christianity from top to bottom. This is such basic stuff really.

So when you say 'we cannot expect God to love us back' I ask quo warranto? On what authority do you say such a thing?

So it seems to me that we would have to think a good deal about what God's love is, if it can be thought about as a thing or substance. It has to be of another order than the 'luv' we might refer to. It seems to me that the word 'expect' is not the right one. But certainly 'count on' must apply. It is a fundamental force. Can it be retracted or stop?

This is one reason why it seems to me there must be very few in hell -- if hell is real. There must always be a way except for some extreme cases. I think this is one reason the notion of purgatory is necessary. I read once that, according to the logic, the personality itself would recognize that it needed to be purged before ascent to the place called 'heaven'. So it is the person who chooses it.

But then the fate of hell is also, in the end, a choice.

To give definite form to our desires is a step in the right direction . The next step would be to examine our desires and detect any irrational desires. God or nature gave you reason in order to detect what is rational and what irrational.

By the definition I submitted *our desires* must be closely examined, that seems true. But even the most general books that I have examined on (Catholic) prayer clearly point this out.

Surely you are right: reason and intelligence must always operate.

You can't expect God to love you in return because God is the Absolute, the Eternal, the Infinite. The Absolute includes what we in our ignorance name good and evil, and particular little egos. It's therefore up to us to harmonise as well as we can with the Absolute. In order to do so men need to be creative and embrace the sort of freedom that we get from 1. reason and 2. from the sacred that comes from wild nature and what in us is unspoiled by alienation from wild nature and our own bodies.
Nothing of our experiences ever dies because all experiences are unitary in the block universe where there is no past and no future, only the eternal now.

AJ wrote:

But let me say that at the very core of the Christian concept is the God who loves, and for this reason love (agape in the higher sense) is an idea that runs through Christianity from top to bottom. This is such basic stuff really.

The love of God for His creation is not like the love men have for particular people or particular causes, or particular things or places. The love of God for His creation could not be a human feeling, could not be eros. You can console yourself as much as you like with your Heavenly Loving Father but we are trying to do philosophy here.

[Immanuel Can]

Whatever you say Mr. I.C.

Not what I say. What God says counts.

But you'll find that out.

If that were possible, we'd both arrive at the same unspoken conclusion.

You're going to see.

And that's no threat. It's a promise. And it's one you have on infinitely better authority than my word.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You can't expect God to love you in return because God is the Absolute, the Eternal, the Infinite. The Absolute includes what we in our ignorance name good and evil, and particular little egos.

The entire meaning off Christianity, and of the second person of the Trinity, pretty much wipes off the board what you have just said.

You have a confused and I would say *tendentious* theological perspective.

The love of God for His creation is not like the love men have for particular people or particular causes, or particular things or places. The love of God for His creation could not be a human feeling, could not be eros.

Conceptually, I think I grasp what you are trying to assert. But I also think it is fundamentally incorrect -- at least if you were to compare it to *sound theology*. The love of God must function on all different levels and certainly have something to do with our *little egos*. If not, we're screwed . . .

You can console yourself as much as you like with your Heavenly Loving Father but we are trying to do philosophy here.

Curious way to put it -- to assume that what I am simply repeating as core Christian understanding you interpret as my needing consolation. So again I have never been put in a position of having to think this through yet it is pretty obvious that, quite literally, Christian solidarity has much to do with consolation (fellow feeling, etc.) And how could you remain unaware that the person of Jesus exhibited consolation, taught it?

The actual *philosophical* question here is what is the ground of justification for this wild opinion of yours? It is that that should be submitted to philosophical scrutiny, n'est-ce pas?

It would take some philosophical analysis to determine how it is that you wish to abstract the 'heavenly loving father' -- which is what Christianity is about! -- from the equation.

You seem to wish to assert that if I *did philosophy* that I would concur with your (strange) opinion. Yet obviously I cannot!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your long-winded exposés into regions of uber-intellectualismus stands out as nauseating. I suggest you first learn how to read as preliminary to any such attempts, assuming you haven’t purposely distorted the intent like your sparring partner has done for more years than you’ve been here. So far, a resemblance is noticeable, especially in your mutual tendencies to distort.

In so many forum settings when what one talks about is unliked the same sort of critique is brought out. It would be better if you focus on some specific element where the *distortion* you notice occurred.

You seem to believe that I distort your intent. What is your intent? What are you talking about?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Prayer coming from ones personality reflects acquired needs and desires learned in life. These are superficial and cannot be heard from above.

I do get what you are saying. And in many senses I agree. Where there is a small error is that there are many people, very unsophisticated people, whose entire reality is very raw and even primitive. But we understand, don't we? that there is a God who hears them.

It is a curious topic and one that I think about a lot. I live in a place where a significant percentage of the population lives in almost unbelievably difficult circumstances. They have little or no education and suffer tremendously just to earn a few pesos -- enough to get by for that day. How could they not *pray from their personality*? And what about the fact that what they are is walking, talking 'acquired need'?

I gather that you are speaking as a contemplative, and I certainly understand and respect this, but the fact is there is the other side of the human family -- very far outside of that.

[Belinda]

You can't expect God to love you in return because God is the Absolute, the Eternal, the Infinite. The Absolute includes what we in our ignorance name good and evil, and particular little egos.

The entire meaning off Christianity, and of the second person of the Trinity, pretty much wipes off the board what you have just said.

You have a confused and I would say *tendentious* theological perspective.

The love of God for His creation is not like the love men have for particular people or particular causes, or particular things or places. The love of God for His creation could not be a human feeling, could not be eros.

Conceptually, I think I grasp what you are trying to assert. But I also think it is fundamentally incorrect -- at least if you were to compare it to *sound theology*. The love of God must function on all different levels and certainly have something to do with our *little egos*. If not, we're screwed . . .

You can console yourself as much as you like with your Heavenly Loving Father but we are trying to do philosophy here.

Curious way to put it -- to assume that what I am simply repeating as core Christian understanding you interpret as my needing consolation. So again I have never been put in a position of having to think this through yet it is pretty obvious that, quite literally, Christian solidarity has much to do with consolation (fellow feeling, etc.) And how could you remain unaware that the person of Jesus exhibited consolation, taught it?

The actual *philosophical* question here is what is the ground of justification for this wild opinion of yours? It is that that should be submitted to philosophical scrutiny, n'est-ce pas?

It would take some philosophical analysis to determine how it is that you wish to abstract the 'heavenly loving father' -- which is what Christianity is about! -- from the equation.



You seem to wish to assert that if I *did philosophy* that I would concur with your (strange) opinion. Yet obviously I cannot!

The entire meaning off Christianity, and of the second person of the Trinity, pretty much wipes off the board what you have just said.

Maybe your idea of Jesus is too sentimental. He did say his followers may have to abandon their families to follow him.

The actual *philosophical* question here is what is the ground of justification for this wild opinion of yours? It is that that should be submitted to philosophical scrutiny, n'est-ce pas?

Spinoza mostly.

The love of God must function on all different levels and certainly have something to do with our *little egos*. If not, we're screwed . . .

We are screwed anyway by the Horsemen of the Apocalypse whose horses' thundering hoofbeats are closer and closer. The immediate problem of levels is difficult and it's true that interpretations must be aligned with the seeker's level of understanding.

Christian solidarity has much to do with consolation (fellow feeling, etc.) And how could you remain unaware that the person of Jesus exhibited consolation, taught it?

Yes, fellowship matters a lot in men's search to make the best of themselves and the world. Churchiness is sometimes despised but on the whole it's good. The way I find Jesus a consolation is he showed it is possible for men to be better men.

It would take some philosophical analysis to determine how it is that you wish to abstract the 'heavenly loving father' -- which is what Christianity is about! -- from the equation.

The Heavenly Loving Father is a necessary concept to teach young children but once they get to the stage they see the problem of evil they need a sterner more grown-up idea of the Almighty.

[uwot]

Gus you scoundrel, it is poor form to tell others what I believe, especially when I have made it clear that I do not believe what you think I believe. Clearly I need to remind you:

Could you, Wee Willy, explain here what it is that you do believe?

Certainly Gus. For perhaps the fourth or fifth time to you personally, and given that record probably not the last, what I believe is that all theories are underdetermined. Human creativity is such, in my belief, that for any phenomenon, there will always be alternative explanations. In the current context, the phenomenon is the bible. One explanation is that is inspired by a god who created the entire universe, but for inscrutable reasons during the iron age was entirely concerned with events in an area roughly the size of Denmark, and hasn't shown any obvious interest since. There are alternative explanations which I think are more plausible, but which cannot disprove divine inspiration.

Be bold! Be declarative! Win disciples!

No thank you.

[promethean75]

... well Stan said "this guy's pretty bizarre, Gus..."