Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:12 pm..or behind a cloak of Christianity (which actually makes them seem more insidious

LW, perhaps I can comprehend someone of the USAdian xian crap - ya Evangelist preaching twaddle.

It makes me puke to be quite honest..

But if you have not read any of the four main gospels, not sure if you have - i think i was about 25 when i read them all.

Worth a read, I think the ilk u were around did not comprehend a flying fook from a fook tap.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:26 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:13 pm
Premise 1: Like all organisms, human beings have a specific nature that requires the manner of behavior necessary for them to live successfully as the kind of (intellectual, rational, volitional) beings they are.

Premise 2: There is no mystical source for that knowledge or supernatural being to tell them how to live or what to do.

Therefore: They must use their ability to learn (intellect) what their nature is and what it requires, and must use that knowledge and their ability to think (reason) to judge which actions will produce what their nature requires and then must consciously choose (volition) to do it.

That's an invalid syllogism, meaning it's incorrectly formed. Are you unfamiliar with the rules of logic?

No. Never heard of them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:26 pm You have to have what's called a "middle term" to tie the first premise to the conclusion. Otherwise, the conclusion is unwarrranted by the premises.

The middle term is, "knowledge." If you really need it explained I'll be glad to, but don't ask, please, unless you intend to try to understand.
[/quote]
Well, formally, your alleged "middle term" doesn't appear in your premise 1. So it's not logically gluing anything to anything else. Your second premise floats without basis in premise 1, and the conclusion doesn't contain either of the key terms in premises 1 or 2.

So, rationally speaking, nothing "follows" from any premise you've supplied there. Can you fix that, or am I asking too much?
[/quote]
No! If you cannot figure out on your own that, that it is knowledge that fulfills the requirements of human nature, "human beings have a specific nature that requires the manner of behavior necessary for them to live successfully as the kind of (intellectual, rational, volitional) beings they are," I'm not going to spell it out for you.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:41 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:12 pm..or behind a cloak of Christianity (which actually makes them seem more insidious

LW, perhaps I can comprehend someone of the USAdian xian crap - ya Evangelist preaching twaddle.

It makes me puke to be quite honest..

But if you have not read any of the four main gospels, not sure if you have - i think i was about 25 when i read them all.

Worth a read, I think the ilk u were around did not comprehend a flying fook from a fook tap.

I read and studied the Bible a lot while growing up. I actually find value in the teachings as I interpreted them. It did not make sense to me to take the stories literally -- but rather to recognize that they were influenced by those who experienced or imagined them, and the limited understandings and agendas of the people at that time. I remember large lettering on the wall over the preacher's podium: 'Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever'. That didn't make sense to me. Statements like that seemed to be for convincing ourselves -- even brainwashing ourselves -- by repeating things over and over. Everything to do with life evolves and expands... including our understanding and awareness. To lock ourselves down to ideas of long ago, and to claim to 'know the mind or purpose' of an infinitely capable god, simply makes NO SENSE. It even sounds ridiculously self-serving.

The Christians I've known have been really sweet, generous, and well-intentioned people. I do not challenge their beliefs, as they draw comfort and inspiration from it. They see for themselves what I think and how I am, and I hope it models for them another view of positive potential. On this forum, however, where we should surely ALL be thinking and challenging beyond our small, stagnant, self-entitled stories -- here, it seems most appropriate to call those out. What better place? It can be healing and transformative (I think) to have those discussions.

Are we fearful and brainwashed, perpetuating nonsense along a linear path... or are we vibrantly ALIVE in each of our vastly creative moments?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:51 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:13 pm
Premise 1: Like all organisms, human beings have a specific nature that requires the manner of behavior necessary for them to live successfully as the kind of (intellectual, rational, volitional) beings they are.

Premise 2: There is no mystical source for that knowledge or supernatural being to tell them how to live or what to do.

Therefore: They must use their ability to learn (intellect) what their nature is and what it requires, and must use that knowledge and their ability to think (reason) to judge which actions will produce what their nature requires and then must consciously choose (volition) to do it.

The middle term is, "knowledge." If you really need it explained I'll be glad to, but don't ask, please, unless you intend to try to understand.

The syllogism is valid but it is unsound in practice at present.

Premise 1 should be;

• Premise 1: Ideally, human beings have a specific nature that requires the manner of behavior necessary for them to live successfully as the kind of (intellectual, rational, volitional) beings they are.

The above ideal is inherent within all human but it is dormant in the majority.
At present all humans are not in their ideal state or even near it at all.
In reality and on the evolutionary scale, in the present state all humans are being-more-animal than being-more-human.

Being more animal and only partly & lesser human [albeit progressively] the majority of humans [>75%] are at present more predisposed to theism as a balm to soothe the inherent mental sufferings.

Islam is heavily evil-laden, the most optimal religion at present [not future] for the masses is Christianity which is overridingly pacifist.

However humanity must take steps to move and strive towards the above ideal strategically and expeditiously.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 7:13 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:41 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:12 pm..or behind a cloak of Christianity (which actually makes them seem more insidious

LW, perhaps I can comprehend someone of the USAdian xian crap - ya Evangelist preaching twaddle.

It makes me puke to be quite honest..

But if you have not read any of the four main gospels, not sure if you have - i think i was about 25 when i read them all.

Worth a read, I think the ilk u were around did not comprehend a flying fook from a fook tap.

I read and studied the Bible a lot while growing up. I actually find value in the teachings as I interpreted them. It did not make sense to me to take the stories literally -- but rather to recognize that they were influenced by those who experienced or imagined them, and the limited understandings and agendas of the people at that time. I remember large lettering on the wall over the preacher's podium: 'Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever'. That didn't make sense to me. Statements like that seemed to be for convincing ourselves -- even brainwashing ourselves -- by repeating things over and over. Everything to do with life evolves and expands... including our understanding and awareness. To lock ourselves down to ideas of long ago, and to claim to 'know the mind or purpose' of an infinitely capable god, simply makes NO SENSE. It even sounds ridiculously self-serving.

The Christians I've known have been really sweet, generous, and well-intentioned people. I do not challenge their beliefs, as they draw comfort and inspiration from it. They see for themselves what I think and how I am, and I hope it models for them another view of positive potential. On this forum, however, where we should surely ALL be thinking and challenging beyond our small, stagnant, self-entitled stories -- here, it seems most appropriate to call those out. What better place? It can be healing and transformative (I think) to have those discussions.

Are we fearful and brainwashed, perpetuating nonsense along a linear path... or are we vibrantly ALIVE in each of our vastly creative moments?

There are Christians and Christian sympathisers who are not fearful, brainwashed,or who perpetuate nonsense.

It's reasonable to pray to God "Help thou mine unbelief! " just as long as the forthcoming help actually comes from the spirit of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty and not from some egotistical charlatan.

Note: I formerly wrote on this forum under the name Gustav Bjornstrand and am now writing under Alexis Jacobi. The present post was set a number of days back but because it was a first post it took some days to be approved and was buried pages back.
_________________________________

Immanuel Can wrote:

Let's view John 3:16 as a "contract."
Terms of Contract
God's Contractual Duties, as specified in John 3:16

1. Love the world.
2. Give His unique Son to pay the price for man's sin.
3. Open up a universal way of salvation.
4. Provide eternal life.

Man's Contractual Duties:
Believe God has done it.

Now, that's the contract as spelled out by John 3:16. Does it still actually look "contractual" to you?

I tend to the view that there is a 'contractual' basis though the salvation offered is given by pure grace (charity in the Greek sense: undeserved good fortune).

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

While it seems clear to me that Immanuel Can’s position is one with tremendous stress on the aspect of assent — the simple act of surrender — it does seem to me that a great deal more is implied and also necessary once the door to faithfulness has been opened by the surrender. So, while the debate over covenant and contract is interesting and important, it is inconceivable that there are no ‘contractual responsibilities’ implied and necessary.

The part about ‘doeth truth’ does, it seems to me, imply a whole range of actions and activities. I did understand you when you clarified that initial belief and faith will have to be confirmed by faithfulness (a life-long project). It is a good clarification to have made.

It seems to me that one could, as Immanuel Can seems to do, simplify the initial act of faith (and it seems true that Christianity is predicated on a simple choice), but this does run up against some historical truths about Christian initiation. Way back in the early days, in the first few centuries, the neophyte went through a long period of spiritual preparation and trial, or perhaps simply of *purification*, before he or she was considered ready to enter the body of Christ (the Cristian believers).

It seems fair to say that if a mere child could, by a simple act of faith, become a Christian, that this would have to be confirmed time and time again by ‘confirmation’ and ‘recommitment’.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:42 am There are Christians and Christian sympathisers who are not fearful, brainwashed, or who perpetuate nonsense.

It's reasonable to pray to God "Help thou mine unbelief! " just as long as the forthcoming help actually comes from the spirit of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty and not from some egotistical charlatan.

Your post leads to many questions. I think that most who reject Christianity reject it because in its essence, at its core, it is seen as unreal when examined through philosophical lenses. I do not mean just a part. The entirety of it. The idea of the incarnation of God into the human form to initiate specific world-historical processes is beyond the range of defense. So, when you refer to *Christians* in contrast with *Christian sympathizers* I wonder if you refer to Christians who believe and continue to believe the essential core terms of Christianity.

If there is a prayer "God help my unbelief", what help could come? What I mean is if (so-called) God did act to 'cure' unbelief, and if a cure were brought about, what then would one see, think, perceive and believe?

I believe that I do understand what you mean by 'brainwashed believers' who 'perpetuate nonsense'. Yet I would have to remain with the general perception that if genuine, historical, and perhaps I can say necessary Christian belief is present and intact, it is now being seen and understood to be a symptom of mental derangement. Christian belief is no longer 'the sane perspective' but is all of it now described as nuttery.

I am very interested in the idea of 'Christian sympathizers' as well. A Sympathizer would be one who, himself or herself, is not capable of being a Christian Believer and yet chooses to support or encourage those who do have and accept the fundamental beliefs of Christianity?

[Note: I wrote some years back under the username Gustav Bjornstrand and am now writing under the name Alexis Jacobi]

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:35 pmBe honest; you we're raised Christian, right? You were indoctrinated from infancy and are so emotionally invested you're willing to claim on a philosophy forum that knowledge and belief are the same thing. So religiously, you're a post modernist. Your epistemology regarding this subject, has become relative. Your 'lived experience' is equivalent to fact. That's the very thing I find unsatisfactory; and the very thing at the heart of Galileo's arrest and trial for the heresy of proving earth orbits the sun. Its the very reason science has been denied the authority it rightfully owns as truth, such that it was reduced to the status of a tool - used in service to religious, political and economic ideological belief. It's the reason we applied the wrong technologies, and are now threatened with climate change. But what do you care? You believe you're going to Heaven! Everything is fated. It's all part of God's plan, so don't worry about it, and don't try change it. What if you're wrong? Faith has such an obvious political purpose; what if science as valid knowledge of Creation is the path to God - yet from faith you've clung to the religious 'social contract' of our dim distant ancestors, and in doing so, to the cost of science - condemned humankind?

This is an idea that seems clear to me, but you might have a different view of it. I do not think that *science* can offer at any level, and never wil be able to offer, any idea, perception, view or perspective that will be able to be defined as 'truth'. Science only offers assemblies of facts. Science cannot interpret meaning nor value (in the higher realms of understanding we all live in accord with, to one degree or other).

It seems to me that 'science' is just a series of observed facts. And when Man is observed through the lens of those facts that what we actually understand to be "Man' disappears and is made unreal in the face of those facts. All human ideas, all our values, all our beliefs and hopes about ourselves, our lives, the life we have here, our creations -- all of these are essentially illusory and in that sense false.

Faith has such an obvious political purpose; what if science as valid knowledge of Creation is the path to God.

As I understand 'religious belief' (and my orientation is Christian) I have come to see that my own religious belief is part-and-parcel of an epistemological domain that is very distinct from that if 'material science'. It is another domain of concern altogether. If the topic is "What is salvation of my incarnated (immortal) soul?' I do not think that material science has any way to under into that domain -- except, perhaps, as an idea-set that undermines the notion of the immortal soul.

In various ways these are antithetical systems of understanding. I am not sure how they can be, or should be, reconciled.

[Note: I formerly wrote on this forum under the username Gustav Bjornstrand and am now writing under the username Alexis Jacobi]

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:31 pmYou are very naive when it comes to religious philosophical debates. The religiously inclined are more than willing to fight to their death for their beliefs, it a cold blooded bloodsport they ardently believe they have true mastership over.

This is an interesting assertion and worth exploring. I think you are right, of course, yet I am more interested in exploring why those religiously inclined are so adamant in their beliefs, and why the same can be said for those arguing against those core beliefs.

The way I understand these differences is that each of them operate under very different metaphysical systems. There is an emerging metaphysics (and it is a metaphysics) that defines itself as a necessary evolution of the old metaphysics. It demands, in fact, that the old metaphysics be seen now as 'unreal' and requiring supplanting. There is a battle going on. The better the battle is seen and understood the better for all concerned.

I also think that what you wrote about those who defend the 'religious philosophical' side of things can as much, and sometimes more, be applied to those who genuinely feel it is right & good to undermine those religious-philosophical beliefs and to construct a new and different platform.

'Fighting to the death' is a feature of the time we are in, it seems to me.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:18 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:31 pmThe religiously inclined are more than willing to fight to their death for their beliefs, it a cold blooded bloodsport they ardently believe they have true mastership over.

This is an interesting assertion and worth exploring. I think you are right, of course, yet I am more interested in exploring why those religiously inclined are so adamant in their beliefs, and why the same can be said for those arguing against those core beliefs.

Alexis, I am enjoying reading your recent posts in this thread. It is interesting to examine the dynamics of opposing views/beliefs between Christians and non-Christians (and it is refreshing to hear/see a Christian doing it, which is why I also enjoy Belinda's posts) without degenerating into religious scriptures and claims which are meaningless to most non-Christians.

My response to your statement above is that I think (generally/possibly) the religiously inclined are so adamant in their beliefs because those beliefs are such a huge part of their identity. As for those arguing against such beliefs... I can speak for myself to identify two reasons why I do so: 1) Despite being raised as a dutiful and dedicated Christian, I've honestly seen no proof or consistency of any god as represented by human beings; and 2) I'm arguing against any belief or person that condemns non-Christians/non-believers, while holding themselves up as righteous or uniquely representative of god. And this is because I consider all of creation/life divine... and essentially representative (in all forms) of what we spring from. In other words, there is no separation or division except that imagined by humans. Despite my own view/reasons presented in an argument, I do not care what another believes as long as they are not trying to define me with it, nor do I think they are condemned if they don't think as I do, nor do I feel that I am defending anything.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:18 pm
The way I understand these differences is that each of them operate under very different metaphysical systems. There is an emerging metaphysics (and it is a metaphysics) that defines itself as a necessary evolution of the old metaphysics. It demands, in fact, that the old metaphysics be seen now as 'unreal' and requiring supplanting. There is a battle going on. The better the battle is seen and understood the better for all concerned.

I also think that what you wrote about those who defend the 'religious philosophical' side of things can as much, and sometimes more, be applied to those who genuinely feel it is right & good to undermine those religious-philosophical beliefs and to construct a new and different platform.

'Fighting to the death' is a feature of the time we are in, it seems to me.

I think the viewpoint you've presented is interesting -- but I'm not so sure what that 'new platform' actually is, because there are so many options. Rather, it's more like a desire to evolve out from under a system that has controlled and distorted (and been imprinted on) every factor of life for a very long time, and there are so many ways/directions to evolve beyond that. So, I don't think it's necessarily about replacing one platform with another -- it's not even about taking away the theist platform from anyone -- it's about asserting that 'This does not reign over me and everyone else who does not hold such beliefs', and it should not be given any more consideration than any other path of belief that people are free and inspired to choose from.

Janoah wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 3:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:45 am

Janoah wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:05 am Simultaneous infinity is absurd, but an eternal process in time can be.

This means that an infinite regress of causes in the past never starts.

That's right, an infinite regress of causes in the past never starts.
Or, say, it walks in a circle, like a dog following its tail.

In any case, creation from nothing is definitely absurd.

In a sense, yes: creation coming from absolutely nothing would indeed be absurd. But God isn't "nothing," obviously. Torah has it right.

What we do know for sure, though are two things -- firstly, that the universe we have is governed by cause-and-effect (which is exactly why science, as a method, can work), and secondly, that the universe itself is not past-eternal.

Of those two things, we need have no doubt.

as the red shift effect

This and other effects do not prove creation from nothing, if something exploded, then from the matter that was before the explosion.

That "matter" also needs an explanation.

Conventionally, the Big Bang is said to have come from things like hydrogen and quark-gluon plasma. But where did these things come from? Furthermore, the theory holds that they remained inert in the infinite past: so what catalyzed the reaction?

So you see, all that does is move the question back one level...but the universe still cannot be infinite in age, because you run into the causal-regress problem again, if you go in that direction.

"outside of the set of frames of references human beings presently understand,

Beyond understanding is the conversation of a parrot

No, not at all. I didn't say "permanently beyond any understanding," just "beyond our present understanding," a much more ordinary claim that could be applied to many things we know to be real.

Nobody actually knows how many stars there are in the sky or grains on the seashore. That's beyond our present understanding. But that doesn't imply there are no seashores and no stars, or that they have no number. It just means that we don't happen to know what the number is.

As He said to Abraham,

These words can only be understood allegorically.

Apparently, lots of people understand them literally...including most of Judaism. For if God only "allegorically" "spoke to Abraham," then there's no such real thing as a Jew. There is just a dissident group of leftover Chaldeans that perversely regard themselves as "a nation," and as "blessed by God," but are not, since literally, nothing of the kind happened.

Me, I'm fine with the Jewish claim to literal contact with Hashem. I believe it myself.

I'm interested. What's his explanation?

On the explanations of Rambam, it is better in a separate topic.

Feel welcome to start that. I'd be interested.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:26 pm Are you unfamiliar with the rules of logic?

No. Never heard of them.

Oh, fair enough. I remember you saying that you consider yourself more of an autodidact, and not formally educated. So you wouldn't necessarily have run into formal logic before.

Crash course: https://examples.yourdictionary.com/exa ... ogism.html

Can you fix that, or am I asking too much?

No! If you cannot figure out on your own...

It's really not my job to put words in your mouth or to complete an argument for you. And in this case, honestly, I can't figure out how somebody would even complete the argument. So you'll have to do it for me, if it's to be done at all...

And if you can't fix it, then maybe it's because it just can't be fixed.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 3:39 am

Janoah wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:15 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:15 am
Oi! Are you a Jew - from that mob that dobbed my mate in to the Romans?

Oh, so your friend is a Jew! And is his dad a Jew?

No my friend was a Jew,

what "no"?
What nationality was your Jewish friend's dad?

Judaism was replaced with Christianity

And, this is the Christianity that Islam replaced.

Note how the predominantly Christian nations (that formed Israel for the Jews to live) now protect Israel.

Who do they protect from and how?
Israel defended itself against a bunch of Arab countries that attacked Israel in the War of Independence.
Thanks to the atheistic USSR, which helped with weapons.
While Britain and the United States recognized Israel only de facto, the USSR recognized - de jure.

Now, and today, European states and the United States, are fiercely fighting the Jewish settlements in Judea.
The UN decided that the Temple Mount and Hebron have nothing to do with Jews, but the heritage of purely Arabs.
Demagoguery and perversion - are celebrating.
But let's not talk further about politics, this is not the topic of this forum.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 4:46 pmMy response to your statement above is that I think (generally/possibly) the religiously inclined are so adamant in their beliefs because those beliefs are such a huge part of their identity. As for those arguing against such beliefs... I can speak for myself to identify two reasons why I do so: 1) Despite being raised as a dutiful and dedicated Christian, I've honestly seen no proof or consistency of any god as represented by human beings; and 2) I'm arguing against any belief or person that condemns non-Christians/non-believers, while holding themselves up as righteous or uniquely representative of god. And this is because I consider all of creation/life divine... and essentially representative (in all forms) of what we spring from. In other words, there is no separation or division except that imagined by humans. Despite my own view/reasons presented in an argument, I do not care what another believes as long as they are not trying to define me with it, nor do I think they are condemned if they don't think as I do, nor do I feel that I am defending anything.

You bring up an intriguing notion and one that interests me: That we become identified with certain ideas, views and values, and these become 'wedded' to our sense of self. I have most noticed this when people are defining and defending the general structure of their beliefs (social, political). They have received certain ideas that they take to be 'true & correct', and which seem to them 'true & correct', and these are 'wedded to their self' and become a part of their selves. If you confront some 'cherished notion' you run up against their defensive self that defends against an attack 'on their very self'.

Christian belief, and the *metaphysics* I refer to (I was thinking and writing about these things years ago when I was writing here as Gustav) I take somewhat differently, because these beliefs, these ideas, these views and interpretations have been part of *who we are* and *what we are* and *what we have become* because our culture (if you are European and European descended) has been constructed around these platforms of understanding. So, in this view, we are really Christian people. Everything that we think, all our values, all categories of concern from philosophical to jurisprudential, have been so infused with values and meaning that derived from Christian ideas and philosophy (and so much else), that we cannot, in fact, separate our serves from these categories. I am not just making an assertion here, I think it is fundamentally true. In my own case the more that I look into it the more evidence of it I find.

What is most interesting here is not that there are people -- such as myself (more an 'intellectual Christian' in many ways than a Christian with a solid Christian practice) -- who continue to struggle to hold to and recover, and strengthen, their Christian faith, because this is the normal position, but rather that we are living in a time when every aspect of Christian belief is under devastating attack. Honestly, the philosopher that brought the harshest attack was Nietzsche. (Oddly, though I have been and still am very influenced by Nietzsche, I also believe that I 'overcame' him. He did not undermine my faith but he made it more real, my vital, more honest I might say, and more a conscious choice). I can easily see how a reading of Nietzsche could devastate, forever, a person's capacity to 'have faith'.

As you can see what interests me more is trying to understand better the nature of the attack (as I am calling it) and to try to see and comprehend how it has come about, why it has come about, and where it leads. Laying my cards on the table: I do not think it leads to a 'good place'. I do not think it leads to freedom. My view is that it leads to bondage-compounded! At the least I think I can express and clarify my views (though this does not mean they will be accepted).

The long and the short of it is this: Christianity defines Man. But all of this, this definition, takes place within the mind, the imagination of man, within the World that man perceives (some would say 'creates' or 'invents') that is his 'metaphysical dream of the world' (to quote Richard Weaver).

We all have -- test this, I think you will agree -- a 'metaphysical dream of the world'. There is no way not to have one. It is the nature of conscious awareness to *see* and *interpret* the World. Take for example your view that "I consider all of creation/life divine". A rock or a molecule, and perhaps no other living creature that I am aware of (though I have more faith in animal's awareness than might be supposed), could have nor does have such a 'metaphysical dream' as yours (dream = vision, view, perception).

I would agree with you if you said, for example, that there are other metaphysical systems, and thus other (valuable) 'metaphysical dreams of the world'. I have found the views and perspectives in the Bhagavad-Gita to be 'true' and valuable/useful.

However, there is something (in my view) genuinely and especially unique about the Christian revelation and the actual advent of Jesus Christ into time and history. But here is the thing: I could take that idea simply as 'comparative' (comparing one system to another as an intellectual exercise) but that would be, almost, to take it 'sociologically'. But I find that I must take it absolutely seriously, not 'theoretically seriously'. And the closer on gets, as one drills down into the Christian texts and the *meaning* there, is that there, in them, levels of truthfulness are revealed of the sort that require one to live, think and believe in relation to them. (Emmanuel has spoken of what 'faithfulness' requires, which comes after 'faith' is achieved).

The other part, for me in my case, is that I do not think Christianity is for everyone. The system itself, or the metaphysics of the system, is predicated on a kind of 'exclusivity'. The very texts themselves make this completely clear. And this is a very very strange fact about Christianity if one compares it to Hinduism (Vaishnavism for example) or Buddhism. Christianity sets itself 'against the World' and yet Christianity was the core religion and also governing structure of Europe for 1,000 years.

Perhaps as we go forward more of these things can be discussed. I am happy of course to share my thoughts (obviously!)

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 5:27 pm
Apparently, lots of people understand them literally...including most of Judaism. For if God only "allegorically" "spoke to Abraham," then there's no such real thing as a Jew. There is just a dissident group of leftover Chaldeans that perversely regard themselves as "a nation," and as "blessed by God," but are not, since literally, nothing of the kind happened.

From my point of view, a Jew is the one who is closer to the truth.

Abraham was a Chaldean by birth, and became a "dissident" by abandoning the Chaldean idols.
Rejection of idols was genetically entrenched in the heirs of Abraham.

The people are brought up more on parables and fairy tales than on the numbers of the historical chronicle.
What myths - such are the people.

That is why, by the way, Plato was so concerned about the content of the myths that are fed to the people.
Among the people there are a few wise men who adhere to a more true worldview against the background of the ignorant masses in one way or another.
The ancient Greeks had such wise men, but they could not cope with their people, Socrates was executed, Aristotle was forced to flee so as not to be executed, Plato fell into slavery.

Among the Jews, the regulation of life with the commandments that they adhered to helped such sages as the Rambam keep the people from falling into ignorance, although it was very difficult, there was a fierce struggle against the philosophical content of his works, the books and disciples of Rambam were given to be burned by Christian monks. Although, when the monks themselves were able to read the works of Rambam, they were very impressed, and Rambam became a great authority among Christian sages such as Thomas Aquinas.

In general, if the Jews were able, at the very least, to resist the temptations of idolatry, then it can be counted that they remained Jews, those who are closer to the truth, although a revision of the worldview is required in order to be closer to the truth.