Christian apology by a non-Christian

[Felasco]

"Is it possible that there exists *some* communication, however received or recorded, directly from the Source of All that Exists, that 'explains all'?"

If we wished to better understand a member of this forum we would look to what that member created, their forum posts. We might try the same with God.

We know human beings played a part in creating holy books, but it's unclear whether a God was involved in writing these books or not. So even if we understood the holy books perfectly, we wouldn't know whether the nature of the holy books reflects the nature of God, or only the nature of human beings.

In an attempt to escape this muddle, we might try studying something we know human beings had no hand in creating, the universe, reality. This still doesn't tell us if there is a God, but at least now we know we are looking at something uncontaminated by human hands.

What is the universe? It's overwhelmingly nothing. A single unbroken nothing which extends from the farthest reaches of space through the innermost subatomic core of every something.

If a God created reality, the evidence suggests he has quite a fondness for nothing.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

#2 "We are lost and need redemption".

You ask in response: "How might we conceive and understand 'lostness' and 'need of redemption'?" I would suggest that "need of redemption" is universal, and is based on a "falling away from righteousness" that might occur *anywhere* in any of the billions if not trillions of planets in our universe that you mention. And what is righteousness? Compliance with Law. And what is Law? Essentially, "the details of how one should treat oneself, one another, and one's spiritual betters, correctly". You say that the "essence" goes beyond "laws", but I suggest instead that there are *universal* laws. Christ was quite assertive about the nature of those laws.

I am quite frankly in a bind when anyone mentions 'Christ' and plays the 'Christ-card'. I suppose this is the point where I would become the most blasphemous because I think that it is totally necessary to diminish the 'role', if you will, of Jesus Christ. There is a whole group of reasons why this is so. One is that it is almost impossible to locate 'Jesus' in the Gospels. There are in fact a number of 'Christs'. Two is that one needs not just a few snippets of conversation of a god-man walking around Galilee in order to construct a functional ethical and moral system. Three is that the teaching of such a god-man, though he deal in radical essences, or truly important teachings, or what-have-you, must connect with the structures of physical existence on the Earth. They cannot come out against them, and this is a 'note' one hears in Christianity, or which one of those Christs speaks, and which is there at the base of Christianity. Essentially it is hatred of Rome and this science-fiction notion that God was going to come storming back on the scene, roll up the carpet of material creation, punish the wicked and exalt the good, and start all over again. I believe this HAS to be seen as dysfunctional. So, the question is, Which Christ shall we follow?

I can do nothing but agree with you about the importance of 'law', though I would refrain from putting it in false-piety capitals. Yet in order to understand 'law' I think we would have to 'come fully into the present' and actually understand where we are located, and the nature of the physical system in which we are located. In your recent post on the 'Calvin on the Sensus Divinitatis' thread, I follow the theological soarings only up to a point (damaged wings I reckon!). In order to explain God and 'evil', one is required to posit a Fall. There is simply no other way. But the real issue here is that the very system itself, and by that I mean the material world, the planet, the ecological system, and the nature of competition and struggle, necessitates the 'evil' one is all twisted up by. Evil is part-and-parcel of the System and begins when one creature must kill and devour another creature. So, if one ascribes the creation of this world to 'God' then one has no choice but to understand God as having created the circumstances in which all beings must function. The totally inelegant way that Christianity does this (Judaism doesn't I should add) is to imagine that long ago at some point there was a perfect circumstance and man blew it, got exiled, and all troubles began at that point. It is for all intents and purposes a ridiculous way of seeing the problems. It means that you or I have to assume responsibility for the 'nature of nature' which is completely neurotic. How could we?

If we are going to define 'righteousness', I believe, we have to place the whole issue on the table again and we have to look at it all anew. Doing so, we have to topple the icons. I suggest that by its very nature the world is essentially unjust. Man can never really be righteous in the sense you imagine because your God is something like the Good Fairy of Absolute Beneficence but you are located in a Devil World. But so is the Christian, essentially. The Dark Prince of the World and all that. In actual point of fact, I suggest, we actually have to become a Dark Lord ourself, or we have to create political deals between the Dark Lord on one side and the Purely Good God on the other in order to function in this world as it is. We have to handle property and ownership, we have to structure the economic systems of the world, we have to extract out of the bowels of the Devil-Earth the materials we need to live here, etc. It is an ugly and difficult proposal and it will never be picture-perfect. It never was, it isn't now, and it never will be. It is all problematic and fraught.

But once we have 'come down to Earth' in a real way, at the very least we can begin to 'play a realistic game'. But because it is tangible, because it has to be tangible, it also cannot be any number of different things. Meaning, it cannot be ill-defined. To define life here and the structures in which it will occur is to engage in cruel definitions. The minute you have taken the first decision you have stepped into the problem. Those first decisions are definitions of value.

It occurs to me that Christianity, in itself, in its Gospel form, is uniquely problematical. One because it is based in taking a stand against ANY civic order. It is a (neurotic) rejection of 'the world'. This is pathological. It was established as a sort of 'escape route' out of Reality. One has to understand this in order to come back into Reality, really, and realistically.

It seems to me that 'redemption' would then take on different meaning, and yet I do also recognize that it remains problematic, depending on other 'metaphysical' definitions. I do not myself reject the notion of 'salvation' traditionally understood ('arrive at a special inner stance in yourself and you will be assured of a movement to a better reality and the profound problem---of existing in unsolvable conflict---will begin to be solved'), but I think it has to be tied and wedded to a 'total ethic' for life in the here and now, in a bodily frame, and in tangible institutional forms. To me what this begins to look like is a 'conversion process' of becoming an agent, even if a tiny one, for engagement with the better processes of civilization in the bringing forth of civilization.

(I have a self-imposed rule that I cannot venture off of this thread and plan to stay on this one for the next 14 years and so cannot post anywhere else. But one Kuznetzova posted an interesting, if problematic, Jungian idea which is one that I subscribe to. It supports my idea that we have to be 'dual' to function here. It is not an easy road by any means. What do you think of it?)

[Felasco]

Tool Bias: A state of being more committed to the tool one is using to conduct an inquiry than to the inquiry itself.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Though I understand your point, Felasco, and how it resolves into the only point you desire to make, I discern that your point dissolves, essentially, to nothingness and to silence, and there is no commentary possible, only agreement. Once you have made your point there is really nothing more to say. Conversation ends. The points that you function with, therefor, have as a function (and certainly as a result) to bring the possibility of conversation to an end. If not an end then they conduce strictly to the essence you wish to discuss, which is undiscussable, which resolves to nothingness and to silence. Why would you desire to talk about nothing and about silence? It makes no sense. It would make more sense, then, to just post two---possible three words---to any post at all:

• :::love:::
  :::nothingness:::
  :::silence:::

[Felasco]

Though I understand your point, Felasco,

We'll see....

Once you have made your point there is really nothing more to say. Conversation ends.

It ends for those who want it to end, so that they can get back to their tool bias, and have it continue for thousands of more years without interruption. This is called doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

If the inquiry is continued without fear or favor, staying faithfully on the evidence trail as philosophy suggests, and if it should be discovered that there is actually little evidence that thousands of years of more complex philosophy will lead to a different result than we already have...

Then a conversation about exploring beyond the boundaries of philosophy might begin. Such a conversation would of course not itself be beyond those boundaries, but it could point in that direction.

I suspect that when you do understand my point, you will yourself see that the endless complex analysis you are engaged in has already been pounded to death for centuries. Here is the result of that experiment.

At the beginning of the inquiry some people believed in God, some didn't, and nobody could prove anything.

Thousands of years later in the present day, after exhaustive efforts by some of the best thinkers mankind has produced, the situation is...

Some people believe in God, some don't, and nobody can prove anything.

I'm sorry I'm interrupting what you most want to do, but the evidence simply doesn't point to the usefulness of that process, and this is a philosophy forum, and the general idea is that we are supposed to follow the evidence as best we can.

See? Still plenty left to be said. Just not what you want to hear, that's all.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

• To say "we'll see", from my angle of view, suggests a special knowledge that, when revealed, with make your position clear. I believe I have read everything you have written in this thread but I have not received anything 'positive' (in the sense of an indication of where you stand yourself and what you propose). But I do pick up a general complaint about the way things are.
• When you say 'This is called doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results' you reveal a Core of your own sense of things and of your philosophy. You put it out as a predicate as if it is self-established and obvious that something is 'dreadfully wrong'. I have sensed that this is your essential position and that you have come across some alternative *way* or some group of ideas, practices or perhaps no-way or no-practices. Perhaps that is 'silence' and perhaps that is the 'nothing' you refer to. However, I come at these things quite differently. I suggest that things in general are really quite well, overall. I suggest that things in general might have been very much more bad, and even intolerable. And I suggest that right now, for you and for me, we have undreamed of opportunity; opportunities that have been inaccessible for many people throughout history. But I would also suggest that things could be even better and that the blemishes or the problems, large and small, can be ameliorated. And I suggest that the way this will happen is not though inactivity or not-doing but through specific doing (which would not exclude stopping doing of certain things, too). So right at the start I come at the question from a largely optimistic position. I start with different predicates.
• When you propose, rhetorically, that the 'inquiry [be] continued without fear or favor, staying faithfully on the evidence trail as philosophy suggests', you imply that the 'doing of philosophy' will lead naturally and inevitably to whatever result or conclusion you are proposing, which in my view tends to remain vague or I think 'limited' would be a better word. It is quite possible to follow a 'evidence trail' and to come to other conclusions. But if you are going to take that tack I think it behooves you to get much more specific as to what you are speaking about. I don't accept your notion that *thought* itself is divisive, and that *thinking* is necessarily the problem in itself. But if you can at least outline what you mean perhaps it could be made a little more clear. In my own view I don't think it is 'thought' itself but rather the entire condition we find ourselves in that is the source of the problem. But I am interested to hear what you have to say.
• 'Exploring beyond the bounds of philosophy' will place you right within the bounds of philosophy, or so it seems to me. What if you proposed to 'consider beyond the bounds of the considerable'? Would that appear cogent? It may indeed be true that we or things might be determined or that everything depends on what lies 'beyond the considerable'. But how would one consider it? I have the sense, and I have had the sense, that you propose a sort of 'zennish manoeuvre'; some tactic by which the mind is stopped or stilled or perhaps 'stymied', or perhaps a manoeuvre where, somehow, the mind is by-passed? If so I think you should reveal your hand, so to speak.
• You state '...but it could point in that direction'. Why mystify? Can what you propose not be spoken of in simple terms?
• You write: 'I suspect that when you do understand my point, you will yourself see that the endless complex analysis you are engaged in has already been pounded to death for centuries'. I think that I grasped your point right about the time that you stated it, frankly. I think the notion of relaxing thought, or refraining from thought for periods of time, and also finding silence, and certainly living from a platform of 'lovingness', can only be a good thing. But unlike some schools of thought that suppose that 'not-doing' will somehow allow all things to be done, and to be done very well or even 'perfectly' (some Buddhists imagine that by aligning themselves with [insert your own term] that their actions become the actions of universal or cosmic forces, etc., etc.), I don't see things quite this way.
• You wrote: 'I'm sorry I'm interrupting what you most want to do, but the evidence simply doesn't point to the usefulness of that process, and this is a philosophy forum, and the general idea is that we are supposed to follow the evidence as best we can.' Again, you seem to start from the position that something is direfully wrong, and I say that things are tremendously positive and that the present offers zillions of people unfathomed opportunities to develop, construct, enjoy, in short to live. So, I do not see 'uselessness of process' but rather a need to remember what those 'processes' are. Civilization is that achievement and though it has innumerable flaws and blemishes, and there is no way to know how badly things might have gone if certain people did not act creatively in their world to establish this present, I suggest that it is a flawed perspective to start from a critical and pessimistic position, as you seem to. There is no need to apologize at all for making any sort of contribution that you feel inclined to. I guess if I were to request anything I would request becoming more tangible and exact. But, you have an escape naturally built in: 'Silence', 'nothingness', 'love'.

[Felasco]

Hi again Gustav, thank you for your ongoing interest in my honking bloviations.

When you say 'This is called doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results' you reveal a Core of your own sense of things and of your philosophy

Well, I meant what I said above, when it comes to the issue of religious beliefs, little has been accomplished by thousands of years of philosophy. My philosophy here is only that we might do philosophy, and face up to the abundantly available evidence, and learn something from it.

You put it out as a predicate as if it is self-established and obvious that something is 'dreadfully wrong'.

Well, for rational people doing philosophy, doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is not exactly an example of clear reason in action.

I suggest that things in general are really quite well, overall.

How do you regard the fact that 10,000 years of human civilization could be erased by our hand by this time tomorrow, and this possibility is generally of little interest? If I was walking around with a loaded gun to my head, and didn't see the need to talk about that, would you consider me sane?

And I suggest that right now, for you and for me, we have undreamed of opportunity; opportunities that have been inaccessible for many people throughout history.

That opportunity arises from the development of knowledge, which is accelerating to exponential rates which human beings are not equipped to handle. The Adam and Eve story which you dismiss as clumsy accurately, if not literally, predicts where this is going to end up.

When you propose, rhetorically, that the 'inquiry [be] continued without fear or favor, staying faithfully on the evidence trail as philosophy suggests', you imply that the 'doing of philosophy' will lead naturally and inevitably to whatever result or conclusion you are proposing, which in my view tends to remain vague or I think 'limited' would be a better word.

I meant only that if we examine the evidence without fear or favor, we will see that thousands of years of philosophy have not either proven or disproven religious belief. Thus, the ideology part of religion seems largely pointless, while the experience side remains a worthwhile opportunity.

I don't accept your notion that *thought* itself is divisive,

What is the function of the noun?

Whatever the nature of thought might be seen to be, it seems important to understand, given that the properties of thought will affect everything made of thought.

This is a key premise of my point of view.

I'm suggesting a shift of focus from the content of thought (this idea vs. that idea) to the nature of thought (what all ideas are made of).

If we study say, communism, we learn something about that ideology. If we study thought, we learn something about all ideologies.

and that *thinking* is necessarily the problem in itself.

Here I would agree, it's the balance between thinking and non-thinking that is the problem.

In my own view I don't think it is 'thought' itself but rather the entire condition we find ourselves in that is the source of the problem. But I am interested to hear what you have to say.

Well, my view is that the broad scope of our condition arises from the nature of what we are, thought.

As example, while all the various ideologies are different on the surface level, on a deeper level they all divide against other ideologies, and subdivide within themselves as well, because the medium all ideologies are made of is divisive in nature.

If this is true, then a quest for the ideal ideology is likely a fool's errand. If this is true, then any ideology we come up will repeat the same patterns we've seen a million times.

Exploring beyond the bounds of philosophy' will place you right within the bounds of philosophy, or so it seems to me.

Talking about that exploration will, yes, agreed. Actually doing that exploration takes us beyond the boundaries.

But how would one consider it?

By stopping the considering, and experiencing instead. A shift from the symbolic to the real.

I have the sense, and I have had the sense, that you propose a sort of 'zennish manoeuvre'; some tactic by which the mind is stopped or stilled or perhaps 'stymied', or perhaps a manoeuvre where, somehow, the mind is by-passed? If so I think you should reveal your hand, so to speak.

I have no special secret system hiding in the wings to be sprung upon you at some dramatic moment. Simple meditation techniques are readily available, and require no special knowledge or experience. Or, perhaps one prefers fishing?

I think the notion of relaxing thought, or refraining from thought for periods of time, and also finding silence, and certainly living from a platform of 'lovingness', can only be a good thing.

There you go. Given that few if any of us have mastered this simple (but not easy) good thing, why complicate things further?

If we can't even find the off button for our own minds, what qualifies us to conduct an endless analysis of the most complex cultural and historical issues etc etc? Would you let me drive your car if I didn't know how to turn it on and off?

But unlike some schools of thought that suppose that 'not-doing' will somehow allow all things to be done, and to be done very well or even 'perfectly' (some Buddhists imagine that by aligning themselves with [insert your own term] that their actions become the actions of universal or cosmic forces, etc., etc.), I don't see things quite this way.

Agreed, me neither. Well rested clear sane minds have a better shot, but there are no guarantees.

You wrote: 'I'm sorry I'm interrupting what you most want to do, but the evidence simply doesn't point to the usefulness of that process, and this is a philosophy forum, and the general idea is that we are supposed to follow the evidence as best we can.' Again, you seem to start from the position that something is direfully wrong....

I meant only that thousands of years of analysis and debate have failed to resolve core questions of religious ideology, such as, is there a God.

It's not our ignorance that is the problem, our ignorance is a wonderful opportunity. It's our ignorance of our ignorance that keeps us from grasping that opportunity. Because we ignore thousands of years of clear evidence of our ignorance, we proceed with a huge complex analytical investigation as if it were a productive enterprise.

I guess if I were to request anything I would request becoming more tangible and exact. But, you have an escape naturally built in: 'Silence', 'nothingness', 'love'.

Silence and and love are pretty tangible and exact.

Speaking of exactness, I sense what you really want is something more complex, something elaborate and sophisticated to chew on.

It's not an escape to suggest, for instance, that Christianity might be a more powerful religion if it focused on the experience of love in action, rather than a big pile of ideological beliefs which can be neither proven or disproven, and which have led to centuries of conflict.

Love brings people together, ideology divides them. No complex analysis is really needed, as simple common sense is sufficient to suggest more love and less ideology.

Thanks again, and please pardon my writing style which we can easily agree is a good example of the divisive nature of thought in action.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Well, I meant what I said above, when it comes to the issue of religious beliefs, little has been accomplished by thousands of years of philosophy. My philosophy here is only that we might do philosophy, and face up to the abundantly available evidence, and learn something from it.

Though I understand, or at least I imagine that I do, what you are referring to and perhaps why, I find that I must take a stand against your statement. I do not see it like that. In actual point of fact---and this relates to my general thesis and my thrust---'we' have accomplished something utterly extraordinary with our 'religious beliefs'. I feel I am gaining more and more clarity about this with every passing day. But I have access and am actively involved in studying a range of material that indicates all this to me, whereas, I will suppose here, I don't know, you most likely do not really have an interest in the subject and so you are not 'studying it' as I am. From what I have read so far you seem interested and involved in Nature. In the experience of being in nature.

Now, when I refer to 'religious beliefs' (and to avoid the misunderstanding we seem to be having) I mean something quite wide-ranging: I mean 'the construction of self' that is, and becomes, the 'selves' that are here now in conversation. This requires a fair amount of explanation because the idea of a constructed Western self is unfamiliar to many. I am also referring to the construction of our institutions, civil and religious, educational, and everything that would go under the heading 'civilization'. 'Religious belief' is more that the group of notions a person holds, or perhaps doesn't really hold, and is more specifically 'a way of being in the world'. We come out of a whole structure, and as a result of incredible work done in the tangible realm. That is what I call 'our traditions'. And they are unique and distinct and deserve (in my view) 'special valuation'.

This contrasts, obviously, with what you are saying: That little has come out of this. And you imply that there is something else to be done, something more to be done. You say that there is something to be done on the basis of what is not done (in our cultural of civil lives) and with this I simply do not agree. If anything, 'we need' to make our activity more real, to define it, to focus it. And also: not to lose sight of what has brought us 'all this'.

How can a conversation with you go forward when we are not functioning with a similar predicate?

Well, for rational people doing philosophy, doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is not exactly an example of clear reason in action.

But so would be repeating the same reduction over and over again! I have no idea what 'results' you are placing in highlight here, and I do not understand what you mean by doing something 'over and over again'. What in the heck are you talking about?

How do you regard the fact that 10,000 years of human civilization could be erased by our hand by this time tomorrow, and this possibility is generally of little interest?

Clearly a form of madness. But I accept that at the core of man there is a sort of 'psychosis' and that we all confront it in one way or another. There are different ways to come to an understanding of what that is, or why it is, and all options are on the table. Yet it is also true that even if man doesn't destroy his whole world and ruin everything it is possible that 'nature' will do it. You know, the huge asteroid that lurks in our fears of 'imagined possibilities'. Still, and even if it were all to come to an end, I find it interesting to take into consideration that in modernity, with certain advances, millions if not billions of people, for their limited time anyway, have unimagined opportunity. But if you really want to push the nuclear devastation issue, I suppose I would have to buckle under to it: it is indeed a kind of madness that such a possibility exists.

Even though life is threatened at every moment (by disaster, war, 'suicide') we all still carry on. I think of life as occurring in an essentially 'tragic zone'. To understand life as 'tragic' (in the Greek sense) gives on the stoic option.

That opportunity arises from the development of knowledge, which is accelerating to exponential rates which human beings are not equipped to handle. The Adam and Eve story which you dismiss as clumsy accurately, if not literally, predicts where this is going to end up.

I see your point. It is pessimistic and rather dark though. You could just as easily access another 'myth'.

I meant only that if we examine the evidence without fear or favor, we will see that thousands of years of philosophy have not either proven or disproven religious belief. Thus, the ideology part of religion seems largely pointless, while the experience side remains a worthwhile opportunity.

You speak as one outside of all those considerations and investigations, I sense. In truth I think you are wrong. And that is part of my thrust: It takes a uniquely qualified and also 'higher' man to discern 'divinity', and that contention and strife occur at a 'lower level' of argumentation. 'Evidence' is likely a rather modern idea, a science-derived idea, and yes, there is no 'evidence' as you say. But that is part of the problem. I have discovered for myself that divinity is very real and functions. I have lived my life in this knowledge and experience for a long time. True, it is 'more than mere ideology' (to be able to live that way), but I personally think that ideology, and also defined theology, and the construction of a decent person and self to inhabit the civilized world, is a necessary thing to do, and that it can and should be done. I have had an opportunity to take my 'theology' to other levels but I don't know if the desire is shared. Most people need to be educated to be, simply, decent people and to fulfill some decent role in civilized life. I make an effort to do that and having now the responsibility for a couple of youngsters I see how they can be encouraged in that direction. If they later are inclined toward 'direct visionary experience', and they may not, then that is a road they will have to explore.

I think you are very

WRONG

when you say 'the ideology part of religion seems largely pointless'! But I think we have hit this same point 5-6 times so far. I believe we need to gather together and concentrate ideas into an iology and we very definitely need to 'have it'. Use it, operate it. A man's life is about defining values. But I am aware that you (excuse the jab) desire to transform yourself into a woman, to model your manliness on a womanish model? Then you can just be … whatever. Men create ideological structures, and also systems of civilization (and all else). Women … gestate human beings. It is in a very real sense a question of 'biological role'.

If we study say, communism, we learn something about that ideology. If we study thought, we learn something about all ideologies.

You have the floor. Elaborate!

[Harry Baird]

Well, Gustav, you've put a lot on the table in your last two posts responding to me. It's kind of hard to get a handle on it all and formulate a response. I am, though, going to summarise your first post as dealing in the universality of the spiritual message of deliverance from materialism, and your second as dealing in the unreality of Christ's ethic and the need to instead "be real" about the innate imperfections of our world. Phew, that gives me a bit of a better handle on things, and makes my response a little easier!

Firstly, let me just go back over what I've said in the past in this thread: I tend towards a view that Christ is a real historical figure who made a real spiritual sacrifice, and I do so not because I am a biblical literalist or what-have-you, but because I have seen and heard many reports of both contemporary and historical "ordinary people" who have had spiritual encounters with "a living Christ". Whilst I have not had such an encounter myself, I do not find it easy to dismiss those encounters which others report. No doubt, you would interpret things differently, presumably through some sort of view of "archetypes manifesting out of the unconscious" or whatever. This gets back to the questions I put to you earlier regarding the separability/independence of the "archetypes"/"higher spirits" which inform us/you. I understand that you prefer not to get into that territory though. That's fine.

I will simply say then that this is an empirical matter - one based on facts: whether the reports of spiritual encounters with Christ can be trusted and taken at face value - and it is possible that I am mistaken. Nevertheless, it is a matter that, at least provisionally, I *do* take at face value. It would be interesting if similar (contemporary *or* historical) encounters have been documented with spiritual figures from other religions - figures such as Krishna. That would really make things challenging to integrate. Nevertheless, I have neither researched nor accidentally discovered such a thing. I would be fascinated to know if it exists.

All of that said, I probably have more faith than you do then that what Christ taught is what we should follow, even if it seems "unreal". The question remains, as you quite rightly point out: how well do the Gospels document what Christ actually taught? My own sense, and it is only a sense, is that the Gospels capture his message particularly well: I have a sort of spine-tingling feeling reading them, as though what I was reading were, to use that particularly Christian term, "living truth".

I must admit then, that I am a little confused by your view of "deliverance from materialism", because it seems to me that what we have in our modern world is not so much deliverance *from* materialism as deliverance *into* materialism, whereas, were we to follow Christ's message more literally, we would be living a very non-materialistic life (eschewing wealth, sharing unconditionally with the poor and with our spiritual brethren, etc). I think I understand though that by "materialism", you mean "enslavement to material forces over which we have no control", and by "deliverance from materialism" you mean something like, "power over material forces which otherwise would condemn us to early death / ill health / inescapable, life-long labour / etc".

From my perspective, however, this "power over" is not escape *from* materialism so much as a burrowing *into* materialism. I understand Christ's message to be that we can transcend *all of this material struggling* through faith. Now, I have not reached this point personally, but I am inclined to believe that what Christ said is true. I do know of people who have performed miracles through faith in Christ.

As far as the need to "be real" about the world goes: indeed, it is true that there are certain "uncomfortable" facts such as the necessity of predation for certain creatures. This does not invalidate my own perspective of a wholly good God, however, because it is not my view that God is necessarily responsible for all of creation: recall that in my view, this world cannot be explained without the existence of an opposite to God, an opposite who wishes the world (and God) harm. For me, then, such uncomfortable facts stem from the interaction of these opposites in "the generation of the parameters of existence". Why is such an interaction necessary, and/or why did it come about in the first place? I have no idea, save that it is the most rational view I can formulate of "what's going on in this place".

I wonder whether you would be interested enough to outline your own views in this respect. All I really know is that you believe in some sort of "trickster" God.

You ask me for my view on the Jungian idea posted by Kuznetzova, and I would pull one sentence out of it: "The ideal of spirituality striving for the heights was doomed to clash with the materialistic, earth-bound, passion to conquer matter and master the world". This, essentially, seems to be what you are saying; that the one requires reconciliation with the other. I think instead that the (truly, hoping I'm not committing a "no true Scotsman" fallacy) Christian view is that the former, through faith, overcomes the latter.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Soundtrack(-trick).

Firstly, let me just go back over what I've said in the past in this thread: I tend towards a view that Christ is a real historical figure who made a real spiritual sacrifice, and I do so not because I am a biblical literalist or what-have-you, but because I have seen and heard many reports of both contemporary and historical "ordinary people" who have had spiritual encounters with "a living Christ". Whilst I have not had such an encounter myself […]

In my view this is not a valid position. It is asserting a supposed position while having no familiarity with the 'inner dynamic'. I am going to be bold again and point out what I see: I sense you, personally, as a man who deals always in abstractions. You are comfortable establishing theoretical models, or theological models, in which you can 'play' and speculate but it is not brought down, as I am fond of saying, to the level of your own body. You deal in disembodied theologics.

You are really not alone, though. I think you point up the fact that many people as they conceive of 'Christ' are referring to something 'unreal' that is accepted as 'real'. So, they have a relationship more to an unreal thing, an ideal image, even a sort of fantasy (your references to others who have had the experience that you will not or don't have is truly a fantasy, classically defined), than to anything that one can really relate to as real. Therefor, the issue becomes 'becoming real', making it real; bringing it down into the body and into the life that one, really, lives. In my view any wishy-washiness, and most abstraction, is con-artistry.

I am also of the opinion that theology has advanced tremendously and especially with our modernity. To follow ideas forward is a necessity. To understand into what territories theology is moving is also necessary. I suggest that one area where theology is 'made real' is in psychology because one is forced to work, tangibly, with the self in a very imperfect circumstance: the body, the chaos of existence if you will. It is the point where the psyche combines with the physic.

In my view it is required that if a man is going to speak about 'Jesus' or 'Krishna' or any of this, he must have forged for himself some level of real relationship. Otherwise he is just bullshitting---himself and others. To me this resolves to concrete issues and specific questions: How do you live? What do you do in daily life? How do you make real your spiritual life and your theological notions? In what way do you employ your 'spirits', your gods or your Divine Helpers to lift yourself out of the mire of misdirected life? When one speak of one's 'god' but in this context, one is speaking really.

This gets back to the questions I put to you earlier regarding the separability/independence of the "archetypes"/"higher spirits" which inform us/you. I understand that you prefer not to get into that territory though. That's fine.

It should be obvious that I would regard the notion of 'separation' as neurotic. It is much more effective to function as if all things (on these levels) are part-and-parcel of oneself. But, if one is avoiding all that (heh heh) it will indeed be convenient to get into all the head trips and speculations whilst cleverly avoiding the 'real issue': What all this has to do with you and me.

I will simply say then that this is an empirical matter - one based on facts: whether the reports of spiritual encounters with Christ can be trusted and taken at face value - and it is possible that I am mistaken. Nevertheless, it is a matter that, at least provisionally, I *do* take at face value. It would be interesting if similar (contemporary *or* historical) encounters have been documented with spiritual figures from other religions - figures such as Krishna. That would really make things challenging to integrate. Nevertheless, I have neither researched nor accidentally discovered such a thing. I would be fascinated to know if it exists.

Indeed it is all rather 'fascinating'. It is also, taken at this academic level, not a productive avenue. I think you pick up that I discern---I don't hide it, do I?---that you really don't have much relationship at all to the cores of the issues you speak about. So, why are you engaged? A spirituality is something that one has to live.

All of that said, I probably have more faith than you do then that what Christ taught is what we should follow, even if it seems "unreal". The question remains, as you quite rightly point out: how well do the Gospels document what Christ actually taught? My own sense, and it is only a sense, is that the Gospels capture his message particularly well: I have a sort of spine-tingling feeling reading them, as though what I was reading were, to use that particularly Christian term, "living truth".

I suggest that you would have more information, more 'real knowledge', if you were actually in the real world instead of an artificial and protected bubble of a world. Then you would actually be on the platform where your ideas about a Jesusonian ethic would be practiced and also challenged. My impression is that you order your world from the safety of your living room and your computer monitor. Can that be considered a 'sufficient' platform?

I must admit then, that I am a little confused by your view of "deliverance from materialism", because it seems to me that what we have in our modern world is not so much deliverance *from* materialism as deliverance *into* materialism, whereas, were we to follow Christ's message more literally, we would be living a very non-materialistic life (eschewing wealth, sharing unconditionally with the poor and with our spiritual brethren, etc). I think I understand though that by "materialism", you mean "enslavement to material forces over which we have no control", and by "deliverance from materialism" you mean something like, "power over material forces which otherwise would condemn us to early death / ill health / inescapable, life-long labour / etc".

I refer to a model that might be termed 'deliverance from materialism'. I think that one would have to extract a *meaning* or a group of meanings from the concept of 'being slaves in Egypt' and deliverance by God. The participants in this story were not delivered from the world but brought into a different part of the world with new knowledge and new responsibilities. It is true without question that Jewish idealism is non-otherworldly and practically engaged in THIS world. I think that at the very least we have an obligation to contrast the 'original story' with aspects of the Christian overlay. I suggest that there is no escape from the material---from this platform of existence---and IF there is it is only in 'the only way out is through'. What this means, to me, is that we have to actually BE here and work with all of it, including ourselves here, in matter, dealing with all of this. And that necessitates 'coming down into the body'.

From my perspective, however, this "power over" is not escape *from* materialism so much as a burrowing *into* materialism. I understand Christ's message to be that we can transcend *all of this material struggling* through faith. Now, I have not reached this point personally, but I am inclined to believe that what Christ said is true. I do know of people who have performed miracles through faith in Christ.

Again, I can only repeat what I have attempted to say earlier but which in fact I am more or less always stating: theology has moved forward into very new and very interesting---very relevant---territories. I suppose that I would say that there has been a recognition that 'to be real' we need to deal really with ourselves, here and now, in bodies. I don't know how else to put it except in those terms. But let me put it another way: If we DON'T bring our god and our theology down into the body and actually work with it, we will not actually engage in a real sense with ourselves and so we won't really make spiritual progress.

I suppose I would say that, as I see things, yes, it is possible to 'burrow down into materialism', but that would amount to regression toward the 'slave-in-Egypt' model, wouldn't it? But the model states or indicates that by forging a relationship with God or divinity or something that offers a potential as-against that materialism that we 'come into greater life'. In this sense I think that it is sober and wise to see 'greater life' as occurring here and now. This would not necessarily negate some notion of 'world beyond' but any 'beyond' still has to function in 'the only way out is through'. And with that we are back in the body…

I wonder whether you would be interested enough to outline your own views in this respect. All I really know is that you believe in some sort of "trickster" God.

I would state it somewhat differently. I think there are esoteric and exoteric knowledge-levels. I have discovered that 'we are given' in any particular time pretty much what we need to work with, but not necessarily more. That certainly implies, doesn't it? an overarching intelligence. A guiding intelligence. If that is so it is really only a question of linking to that guiding intelligence. But this is not done 'intellectually' or cerebrally or 'abstractly'. It is either done or it isn't.

The 'platform' of existence where we find ourselves, if one examines it naturalistically, is one of trickery and subterfuge. Coloration, camouflage, deceitful tricks, hunting and tracking skills, outfoxing, trapping, decoyism, etc.---these are dynamic elements of the natural world. The world in this sense 'conceals it purposes'.

From 'Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society', by Marcel Detienne:

• "In the first place, the intelligent ability referred to as μῆτις (metis) comes into play on widely varying levels but in all of them the emphasis is always laid on practical effectiveness, on the pursuit of success in a particular sphere of activity; it may involve multiple skills useful in life, the mastery of the artisan in his craft, magic tricks, the use of philters and herbs, the cunning strategems of war, frauds, deceits, resourcefulness of every kind. Secondly the term μῆτις is associated with a whole series of words which together make up quite a wide, well-defined and coherent semantic field."

Some examples:

• Dolos: Dolos (sometimes pronounced "Dolus") is the spirit of trickery and guile. He is also a master at cunning deception, craftiness, and treachery.
  Mechane: A mechane (pron.: /ˈmɛkəniː/; Greek: μηχανή, mēkhanē) or machine was a crane used in Greek theatre, especially in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Mechanism, device.
  Techne: Techne is a Greek term that is often translated as craftsmanship, craft, or art. It is etymologically derived from the Greek word τέχνη
  Kerdos: Gain, advantage, profit.
  Apate: In Greek mythology, Apate was the personification of deceit and was one of the evil spirits released from Pandora's box.
  Aiolos: Means "quick-moving, nimble" in Greek.
  Poikilos: Of various colours, variegated.
  
  "The man of μῆτις is always ready to pounce. He acts faster than lightning. This is not to say that he gives way to a sudden impulse, as do most Homeric heroes. On the contrary his μῆτις knows how to wait patiently for the calculated moment to arrive. Even when it originates from a sudden burst of action, the operation of μῆτις is diametrically opposed to that of impulsiveness. μῆτις is swift, as prompt as the opportunity that it must seize on the wing, not allowing it to pass. But in no way does it act lightly. With all the weight of acquired experience that it carries, it involves thought that is dense, rich and compressed. Instead of floating hither and thither, at the whim of circumstances, it anchors the mind securely in the projects which it has devised in advance thanks to its ability to look beyond the immediate present and foresee a more or less wide slice of the future."

It seems to me that we need to get very pragmatic in our view of The Realm in which we find ourselves. Doing so, I also think, brings us toward a greater understanding of ourselves, here. Then, I think, we are in a better position to understand what we mean when we refer to 'liberating God' but on another level to the 'god' of the place itself. I think that this is what you are attempting to do, in fact. To define a god that is outside of 'all this' and not any part of it.

But, and in contrast, I would mention a 'incarnational christology', a 'carnal theology'. To become carnal, to bring spirit down into flesh, to live in flesh, to work with and through flesh. To abandon the false fragrance of sanctimoniousness and become fragrant with life-rich scents.

• 'Our thinking should have a vigorous fragrance, like a wheat field on a summer's night'. ---F. Nietzsche
• 'For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance of death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is competent for these things?' ---St Paul, 2 Cor. 2:16)

And while we are on the subject of scent:

• 'Do you not smell it? A smell is secretly welling up, a fragrance and smell of eternity, a rose-blessed, brown cold-wine fragrance of old happiness, of the drunken happiness of dying at midnight, that sings: the world is deep, deeper than day had been aware'. ---F. Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra.

"The ideal of spirituality striving for the heights was doomed to clash with the materialistic, earth-bound, passion to conquer matter and master the world".

This is sort of what I mean. But I think the core dynamic functions even at very minor levels. To gain and to hold anything in this world involves a form of sequestering. To plant a field to grow food means to displace all the other beings who live there. Even a beggar has to clean off a spot for himself to sit down and ply his trade.

But perhaps it is rather simple: when we strive upward (and away) we are forced it would seem to become that much more aware of where we are rooted.

I wonder whether you would be interested enough to outline your own views in this respect.

Outline, sketch, portrayal, symbolization, imagining, representation, simulacra, allusion, allegory, fable, lie, distortion, misrepresentation, child-view, deception, trickery.

[Clears throat…]

• “I believe that the earth is very large and that we who dwell between the pillars of Hercules and the river Phasis live in a small part of it about the sea, like ants or frogs about a pond, and that many other people live in many other such regions. For I believe there are in all directions on the earth many hollows of very various forms and sizes, into which the water and mist and air have run together; but the earth itself is pure and is situated in the pure heaven in which the stars are, the heaven which those who discourse about such matters call the ether; the water, mist and air are the sediment of this and flow together into the hollows of the earth. Now we do not perceive that we live in the hollows, but think we live on the upper surface of the earth, just as if someone who lives in the depth of the ocean should think he lived on the surface of the sea, and, seeing the sun and the stars through the water, should think the sea was the sky, and should, by reason of sluggishness or feebleness, never have reached the surface of the sea, and should never have seen, by rising and lifting his head out of the sea into our upper world, and should never have heard from anyone who had seen, how much purer and fairer it is than the world he lived in. I believe this is just the case with us; for we dwell in a hollow of the earth and think we dwell on its upper surface; and the air we call the heaven, and think that is the heaven in which the stars move. But the fact is the same, that by reason of feebleness and sluggishness, we are unable to attain to the upper surface of the air; for if anyone should come to the top of the air or should get wings and fly up, he could lift his head above it and see, as fishes lift their heads out of the water and see the things in our world, so he would see things in that upper world; and, if his nature were strong enough to bear the sight, he would recognize that that is the real heaven and the real light and the real earth. For this earth of ours, and the stones and the whole region where we live, are injured and corroded, as in the sea things are injured by the brine, and nothing of any account grows in the sea, and there is, one might say, nothing perfect there, but caverns and sand and endless mud and mire, where there is earth also, and there is nothing at all worthy to be compared with the beautiful things of our world. But the things in that world above would be seen to be even more superior to those in this world of ours.” ---Plato, Phaedo (109)

Bonus Notes:

• “And the journey is not as Telephus says in the play of Aeschylus; for he says a simple path leads to the lower world, but I think the path is neither simple nor single, for if it were, there would be no need of guides, since no one could miss the way to any place if there were only one road. But really there seem to be many forks of the road and many windings; this I infer from the rites and ceremonies practiced here on earth.” Plato, Phaedo, (108)
• "[Similarly, CG Jung wrote concerning the soul-process, that it is] 'made up, unfortunately, of fateful detours and wrong turnings. It is a longissima via, not straight but snakelike, a path that unites opposites in the manner of the guiding caduceus, a path whose labyrinthian twists and turns are not lacking in terrors."

___________________________________________________

• ♫Come down on your own and leave your body alone.
  
  Somebody must change.
  
  You are the reason I've been waiting all these years.
  
  Somebody holds the key♫

[Harry Baird]

Gustav, it is late, and, after finishing up my reply in the other thread, I have no energy left before bed for my reply in this one. I hope to get back to you in the next few days though. Sorry for the delay. Be well.

[Harry Baird]

"In my view this is not a valid position". --Gustav Bjornstrand

This is, in my own view, a revealing quote - not that you are trying to hide anything. To invalidate another's position, this is a "bold" step to take, and you invalidate mine in more ways than one - from my view in a living, revelatory Christ experienced by others, to my belief in the reality of separate spirit entities, to my overall theological views. Fine, invalidate away, Gustav, but in that you only alienate us (you from me), because my views are backed (variously) by experience, evidence and reasoning, and I will not give them up lightly. You fail to address that experience, evidence and reasoning, preferring (as is your wont) to speak in generalities, so I'm not sure what effect you could possibly hope to have upon me.

I have not had a personal experience of Christ myself, it is true. Nor have you had (or if you have, you sure have been keeping it secret) the experience of space travel, but what would be your reaction if I were to tell you that your view as to the possibility of men travelling into space was "not a valid position" simply because all you had to go on was the reports of others, and not your own experience of the "dynamic" of space travel?

Don't get me wrong, I accept that there are certain things of which I cannot speak with authority without having had the experience itself: how it might change a person, what it feels like to have that kind of encounter, the possibility of a continuing relationship from such an encounter and the kind of possibilities that open up after such an encounter - but then, I'm not trying to speak with authority on any of those things.

Too, is it not the case that talking about those experiences in which we believe often leads us to greater conviction in the importance of those experiences, and greater possibility of actually seeking out and/or attracting such experiences to ourselves?

I don't see, then, what's invalid about my position.

"your references to others who have had the experience that you will not or don't have is truly a fantasy, classically defined" --Gustav

Oh, and why would this be so? It seems to me that it could only be so if those others are/were all, for whatever reason, wrong in what they claim to have experienced. Is this, then, what you believe? That they are/were all wrong? If so, on what basis do you believe them to be wrong? Are/were they all lying? Deceived (but how)? Or what?

"I am also of the opinion that theology has advanced tremendously and especially with our modernity" --Gustav

I know that you are, but you are consistently unable to outline in what exactly an advanced theology consists - other than, in private correspondences, sharing a few pages from a couple of books of theology, from which, it must be said, it was insufficient to build an overarching picture of this theology.

Yes, I go on and on at you about getting specific, because it is not possible to tell whether or not ideas are good without examining their details, which you consistently fail to provide, not only in the case of this "advanced theology", but also in the case of those values of the Western Canon which you admire. I am sure that my nagging at you to get specific irritates you, just as your own invalidation of my views is not exactly heart-warming to me.

"It should be obvious that I would regard the notion of 'separation' as neurotic". --Gustav

And I would counter that the notion that all of the various spiritual entities are "a part of us" is an egotism, a vanity, and, depending on what you mean, incoherent: how could God, in particular, be wholly contained "within" each one of us; would this not mean that there are multiple Gods? But, again, you are not very specific about what you mean by a non-separable spiritual reality, so I cannot press you on that incoherence, and, were you to elaborate, it might not persist: unfortunately, all you have offered is in an earlier post by way of an allusion to a dream - a very vague explanation, again, it must be said.

"I suppose I would say that, as I see things, yes, it is possible to 'burrow down into materialism', but that would amount to regression toward the 'slave-in-Egypt' model, wouldn't it?" --Gustav

Sure, but isn't that what's happening with our modern consumer-culture? Isn't it possible to see our "power over" material reality - our "burrowing" into smart-phones, blu-rays, 3D printers, etc - as a type of "enslavement"? Don't get me wrong, I see the counter-argument in terms of the benefits of such technologies, and certainly I make personal use of our material advantages myself, but it seems to me that from a Gospel perspective, we ought to be utterly unconcerned with them, and instead to be concerned with matters of faith, letting the material take care of itself whilst we strengthen our spiritual relationships.

As an aside, it is quite frightening to think of the material "power over" and even "abdicated power" possibilities we are unleashing, what with armed artificial intelligences in the making, and armed remote-controlled drones already a reality.

"I have discovered that 'we are given' in any particular time pretty much what we need to work with, but not necessarily more. That certainly implies, doesn't it? an overarching intelligence. A guiding intelligence. If that is so it is really only a question of linking to that guiding intelligence". --Gustav

OK, so you believe in an intelligent God by whom one can be guided. That's a helpful start, but I would want to ask further: what else can be said (by you) about that God? This is, I think, about the most you've ever said to me on that subject, and it's not much. What motivates this God? If the God you believe in is not interested in "good", as you seem to believe, then in what *is* the God in which you believe interested? Is this God the Creator [of this realm / of all that exists]? Is this God associated only with our realm, or with other higher/lower realms too? Are there other (higher/lower?) Gods of other (higher/lower?) realms?

Or are these questions not "pragmatic" enough for you?

"I think that this is what you are attempting to do, in fact. To define a god that is outside of 'all this' and not any part of it". --Gustav

It is more that the God I believe in does not "support", and is not responsible for, everything that goes on here, even whilst being heavily invested in the outcome of what goes on here.

Having said all of that: Gustav, I'm not sure whether I have the stamina to continue this exchange. In conversations, I am a sprinter, not a marathon runner. I hope you pardon me if I refrain from further comment.

[Felasco]

Hi again Harry,

And I would counter that the notion that all of the various spiritual entities are "a part of us" is an egotism, a vanity, and, depending on what you mean, incoherent: how could God, in particular, be wholly contained "within" each one of us; would this not mean that there are multiple Gods? But, again, you are not very specific about what you mean by a non-separable spiritual reality, so I cannot press you on that incoherence, and, were you to elaborate, it might not persist: unfortunately, all you have offered is in an earlier post by way of an allusion to a dream - a very vague explanation, again, it must be said.

I understand it is Gustav you seek elaboration, specificity and clarity from, but in his defense, I've attempted to explain the illusion of separation to you repeatedly and you do seem a bit immune to such explanations.

And to be fair to you as well, I must admit I am quite puzzled as to why Gustav of all people keeps accusing you of living in your head.

Ok, if there's anybody left whom I haven't adequately insulted please let me know so I may correct the situation.

[Harry Baird]

Why, hello there, Felasco.

Well, and I don't want to get into an extended debate over this, but you raise a challenge and so I will respond at least once.

You talk about an "illusion" of separation, but I'm not sure what's so "illusory" about it. Is it not true that your thoughts are yours and not mine, and that I have only limited ability to affect them, especially when you are not reading my posts here? Doesn't that suggest that the separation of you and me is, in fact, quite "real" rather than "illusory"? Sure, in part it's a matter of perspective: one might suggest that our ability to *influence* one another speaks to a "unity" of sorts, but - well, as much as one person influences us, another merely irritates us; surely if separation were an "illusion", we would not experience such irritation.

But you speak, too, of the "divisiveness" of thought, about how it separates one thing from another: this, though, is not what separates us! "Divisive" thought merely reflects the pre-existing separateness of the concepts in which it deals, it does not (necessarily) create new separations!

So, yes, you might say that in some ways I am "immune" to your explanations. Feel free to reprise them if you think I've misrepresented them, or simply for the pleasure of it...

[Felasco]

"Divisive" thought merely reflects the pre-existing separateness of the concepts in which it deals, it does not (necessarily) create new separations!

I agree thought doesn't create separation in the real world it refers to. It only creates the sensation of separation in the mind of the thinker.

When does the next breath of air you inhale become you?

You might draw the boundary line at your nose. I might draw the boundary at the lungs. Gustav might draw the boundary at the bloodstream. Someone else might draw the boundary at the cellular level.

In a legal context, the nose might be the best answer. In a medical context, the lungs or bloodstream might be better. In a scientific context, perhaps the cellular boundary would be most useful.

Point being, where ever we might draw the dividing line between "you" and "not you" that boundary is a conceptual invention of the human mind.