Christianity

[Age]

And again, to repeat the point: I am anyway open to the idea of the reality of the resurrection, and tend towards believing that it happened.

In what sense or context, EXACTLY?

Historically.

The words, " 'of the' resurrection " and " that 'it happened' '', gave away the Fact that you meant in the historical sense or context. But, if that is the only sense or context you can refer to, then okay.

[Age]

The hope then would be that eventually evil is conquered, and hell is not eternal.

You will be glad to know that 'your hope' is fulfilled, and was achieved very simply and very easily, by the way.

I would be, if it were true,

But it IS True.

but there seems to still be plenty of evil left in this world, so, why would I believe you?

When 'you' say the word, "this world", what are you meaning or referring to, EXACTLY?

By the way, there was PLENTLY of Wrong, or evil, being done by 'you', adult human beings, back in the days when this was being written. But, because human beings kept evolving, although ever so slowly back then I will add, 'you' learned WHY 'you' ALL do Wrong and evil things, which in turn was what was ABLE TO prevent and stop Wrong, and evil, from ever being done AGAIN.

WHY would you WANT to 'BELIEVE' 'me'?

I just KNEW how to CHANGE 'that world', which 'you' are currently living in, when this was being written, INTO a MUCH BETTER 'world'. And, WHEN this knowledge became 'common knowledge', along with other knowledge and behaviors, then 'that world' TURNED INTO and BECAME 'the world' in which ALL of 'you', human beings, Truly WANTED and DESIRED.

And, by the way, 'the world' in which EVERY one AGREED UPON and WITH.

[Dontaskme]

You can deal with it, or try to dodge it.

Christianity has brought forth many sects that were against procreation: Encratites, Tatianites, Messalians, Cathars, Gnostics, Shakers. Often they also refrained from eating meat. They always achieved their goal: escaping from existence.

This suggests there is something in the core of Christianity that drove them to anti-natalism. Let us take a look at the words of Jesus and his followers in the Bible. The first set of quotes shows that he teaches that the earthly life is worthless:

Life is spiritual. The body is of no value. (John 6:63)

I tell you, do not worry about your life. (Matthew 6:25)

Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. (John 12:25)

Life is inherently evil (Mark 7:21-22 & 10:18), yes, existence and the world are always used as synonym for evil and are ruled by it:

The world hates me because I testify that its works are evil. (John 7:7)

Now is the judgment of this world. Now the ruler of this world will be cast out. (John 12:31)

Now, how can people be stimulated to refrain from procreation in a time without contraceptives? It is declared to be the highest virtue, those who practice it will obtain the greatest of all rewards:

Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it. (Matthew 19:11-12)

And Jesus said to them, The sons of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: for neither can they die any more: for they are equal to the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36)

These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they are virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever He goes. They have been redeemed from among men as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb. (Revelation 14:4)

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good to abstain from sexual relations. (1 Corinthians 7:1)

An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world. (1 Corinthians 7:32-33)

St Augustine openly confesses two times that the annihilation of life and the kingdom of heaven are one and the same. Let us finish with another great citation:

Salome: How long shall this miserable world of finitude last? How long shall death prevail?

Jesus: As long as women bear children.


Life sucks, just accept it and enjoy the suckers, it's not like you have any other choice but to suck....sucking is your intrinsic nature. You got sucked in...because you are, have always been a Sucker!

[Age]

While one is BELIEVING that they are feeling 'no pain', and this BELIEF is last ALWAYS, then ARE and WILL ALWAYS feel 'no pain'.

I see: believing something makes it real,

OF COURSE NOT.

And, if you just keep making ASSUMPTIONS, and do NOT seeking CLARIFICATIONS, then you WILL keep MAKING the SAME MISTAKES that you ARE MAKING here.

just as, if everybody believes something, it's true.

LOL Contrary to what you BELIEVE is true, I have NEVER even SAID this, as PROVED IRREFUTABLY True throughout these writings, although you KEEP thinking or BELIEVING that I HAVE.

That's quite the epistemology you've got going there, pal.

That IS a COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING that you HAVE here. BUT, because of YOUR ASSUMPTIONS here, YOUR COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING here is NOT UNEXPECTED, AT ALL.

Maybe with some Christian thought. Probably not with the entirety of it. Some Christians are no doubt going to want to say, "There is always room in consciousness for physical pain, and that's exactly what you'll feel in hell."

How do 'you', supposedly, KNOW?

Why don't 'you' learn to read? [/quote]

You may not yet be aware but I have explained that I am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate BETTER, with 'you', human beings.

So, I am IN the process of LEARNING, to read AND write BETTER.

I qualified my opinions with "maybe", "probably", and "some". I made no claim to know.

Did you or did you NOT say, "... are NO DOUBT going to want to say, ..."?

Also, and by the way, I DID MISREAD what you wrote, ONCE AGAIN. I MISTOOK the last part of your last sentence here as what you think or BELIEVE is true. So, I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY. MISREADING ONCE is NOT GOOD ENOUGH, but doing it THREE TIMES ALREADY, in just a VERY SHORT PERIOD is REALLY BAD and TERRIBLE of me.

[Age]

Until you tell us what planet you're from or what galaxy I have no comments. Nevertheless, "we humans" appreciate all your efforts to set us straight!

If this was intended for 'me', then 'i' am from the EXACT SAME planet, galaxy, and, OBVIOUSLY, Universe that you are from.

We will SEE what comments commence forth now, correct?

I noticed in many of your posts you are an LOL aficionado, so please accept the following as an acknowledgment of your superior alien intelligence!

We humans have been searching, via Seti, for someone like you for a long time. Finally things are looking up!

WHY did you ASSUME such a thing here?

Here is another GREAT EXAMPLE of just how Truly SIMPLE and EASY it WAS to MANIPULATE the adult human being, back in the days when this was being written.

It took just three words for these ones to ASSUME and/or BELIEVE some thing, which was OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE AT ALL. Just like the three words, 'In the beginning' MANIPULATED them to ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that the WHOLE Universe BEGAN, which TRIGGERED them to go 'searching' for ACTUAL evidence or proof of 'this'.

ONCE AGAIN it can be CLEARLY SEEN, they would NOT just seek CLARIFICATION FIRST, but INSTEAD would JUMP to MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, and BELIEVING them to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and then go LOOKING FOR what they would HOPE backed up and supported those ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS of 'theirs'.

ALL THE TIME MISSING thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, which was ALWASY PRESENT, HERE BEFORE them.

[Belinda]

I guess you think of God as a supernatural person. I don't.

What do you think of God as, then?

Man's aim and hope towards the good, the true, and the beautiful is God. It's man's responsibility to work out what these are in real terms in the real world. We have prophets and seers such as Jesus and Socrates to help us in our quest for the good, the true, and the beautiful.

It's big help towards God-belief if you are a modernist not a postmodernist.

[Harry Baird]

just as, if everybody believes something, it's true.

LOL Contrary to what you BELIEVE is true, I have NEVER even SAID this, as PROVED IRREFUTABLY True throughout these writings, although you KEEP thinking or BELIEVING that I HAVE.

Dude, you wrote explicitly in this post:

"NOT EVERY one would agree on some thing as being true or right, if there was a possibility that that thing could be false or wrong"

You called that a Fact (capital F in the original). How does that claim not translate into "if everybody believes something, it's true"?

Are you quibbling over the distinction between everybody "believing" something to be true and everybody "agreeing" that it's true?

I'm not interested in that sort of cavilling. I'm out. Thanks for playing though.

[Age]

just as, if everybody believes something, it's true.

LOL Contrary to what you BELIEVE is true, I have NEVER even SAID this, as PROVED IRREFUTABLY True throughout these writings, although you KEEP thinking or BELIEVING that I HAVE.

Dude, you wrote explicitly in this post:

"NOT EVERY one would agree on some thing as being true or right, if there was a possibility that that thing could be false or wrong"

If that IS what I wrote, then YES, THAT IS Right.

You called that a Fact (capital F in the original).

If I did that, then YES, Correct ALSO.

How does that claim not translate into "if everybody believes something, it's true"?

VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

Are you quibbling over the distinction between everybody "believing" something to be true and everybody "agreeing" that it's true?

1. I NEVER used the 'everybody' word.

2. I ALSO NEVER used the 'believing' word.

3. You really should READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I use, and STICK TO THEM, while NOT ASSUMING absolutely ANY thing else, AT ALL.

4. I am NOT 'quibbling'.

5. The 'distinction' MAKES 'a world of difference', as some might say.

I'm not interested in that sort of cavilling. I'm out. Thanks for playing though.

ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER one RUNS AWAY, AFTER they REALIZE that what I have SAID and CLAIMED is IRREFUTABLE, and/or DIFFERENT from what they had first ASSUMED or BELIEVED, or that what they have SAID or CLAIMED is REFUTABLE.

And, as for 'cavilling', or 'pedantics', these two EXCUSES are sometimes USED when one does NOT want to LOOK AT things FULLY, nor ACCURATELY.

Also, what you are alluding to here is that you can just CHANGE the words AROUND that others use, and then CLAIM that what the "other" is SAYING is False, Wrong, or Incorrect, which is even MORE DECEPTIVE and DECEIVING than it ACTUALLY SOUNDS and LOOKS LIKE.

[Immanuel Can]

You have adopted it, endorse it, and wield it against others, so, functionally, yes, you are enough a part of it to bear responsibility for it as a threat.

Nope. Not my words.

Irrelevant. As I said, you have adopted and endorsed them, and wield them against others, so, functionally, there's no difference.

The difference is actually profound. When you answer to those words, you won't ever answer to me. I am no part of the Authority behind them.

Don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. He just told you how it was.

Just God's truth.

You bear the consequences for your belief...

Yes, we all do.

That's the point. And be careful what you say about the Judge of All the Earth. He's the One to whom you will make your answer.

Not me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I've been after [AJ] to define his most important term, "Christian." But he won't.

Yeah. Just like I've been after him for (literally) years to describe - in detail - the truths that he sees behind Christianity despite his criticisms of Christianity. All I ever get in response is (roughly) "Do your own work and read this book". Weak.

As I said it is not an easy thing, in my own case, to express what I feel is the 'essential' important thing, or even a set of important things that would define the importance and value of Christianity. The reason is, I am now thinking, because the essence which I feel is the most relevant is an effervescence; because it is metaphysical it is also mercurial; because it is spiritual, and because the spiritual is also metaphysical, it is that much harder to describe concretely.

So let me here mention a notion I came across in my present reading (Mysticism, 1899 by WR Inge). Let's say that there are three aspects of dimensions to historical Christianity or three different foci: 1) the incarnation of 'the Word' into the sphere of the world, 2) the cross and the crucifixion, and 3) the resurrection. My particular preference, or is it attraction? is to the notion of Incarnation. That is, everything that has does or can 'become manifest' in our world that is seen as coming 'from above'. It is in this area, this zone, where I find my thoughts and my imagination turn. But it is not entirely exclusive to Christianity nor Hebrew revelation. That which (and this is metaphor) comes down into the world is expressed, I think impressively, in Isaiah:

For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

So as it turns out -- and this is sort of an answer to the Devil Immanuel -- I am more or less exclusively interested in, and lets say taken by, this idea but applied in a very wide and universal sense. The Word, the Logos, must be absolutely universal. And similar patterns (I speculate) must occur on any planet or loka where there is advanced and advancing consciousness similar to that of ourselves. In those billions of galaxies I suspect there are such forms of life. And how within life and evolution on those (speculative) planets would a similar pattern show itself? That is, as presented through Isaiah? My assumption? That the larger and most essential, and most metaphysical, patterns of evolution in consciousness will and necessarily must repeat themselves everywhere. Thus I take the Gospel of John (In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God) as such a universal declaration.

Therefore I am interested in all accounts, all stories, all mythologies, where the notion of Incarnation is expressed. If I do anything at all I both expand the way that this *pattern* is expressed in Christianity through an extension of 'what is possible' into all places, all zones, all worlds, all possible worlds, as well as I take it out of a 'specific context' (which is emblematic of the mutable) and extend it back to where it came from, the Universal and in this sense the Absolute. In the beginning . . .

That eternal life, which was with the Father, has been manifested unto us.

Or another translation (KJV) "For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us".

The message of John, which is a unique message and quite strange in comparison to other messaging in the NT, opens up into an area, a possibility, which allows for an interaction, a productive and creative relationship, between the Third Person of the Trinity and, let's say, the human spirit as awareness & consciousness. So what I would express to you when you ask me to present to you a mechanic's list of 'Christianity's benefits' is what you more or less hold in contempt for being non-specific, non-clarified, and difficult to put one's finger on.

And what is that or where can *it* be found? Well, I did explain but you could not and you cannot hear. I said that the best outcome of Christian thought, which is an entire existential manifestation, could be described as occurring in Hamlet. If I had to find a theologian who could best describe life in all its dimension, its lightness and darkness, its good and evil, as well as the joy and luminousness and too the darkness and horror of all that we have to live here (and God knows why!) it would be through a voice like Hamlet's. So if there is an 'invention of the human' as Harold Bloom professes in his work on Shakespeare, one has to become aware of what came about and how it came about:

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

So what I would say is that no matter how low and vile and ruin (in the Spanish sense) Christians may allow themselves to become, that this has no bearing at all on the sense of the possibilities expressed in those amazing words of Isaiah.

What this expansive spirituality allows, and what it evokes, can best be understood not through a fucking parts list for a modern motor, but through the very best of man's spiritual creations: music, poetry, art generally. But since here, on this forum, we deal with the written word I would sugest that poetry is one of the areas where *higher meanings* of a spiritual sort are communicated. But who can hear poetry anymore? Who gets it? who is concerned?

So within this strange World which, in Christian perception, is a world of mysterious estrangement where the World came under the dominion of the Prince of Darkness, and which light, beautiy and effervescence which is always the higher longing of all men, all people, had been obscured and quenched -- but not permanently! and never permanently! -- into that world the Word incarnated. And this means, of course, into ourselves as possibility. So that when Christ is defined as the way, the truth, the life, the door, the living bread, the juice of the living vine, the revealer and the revealed, the guide and the way, the enlightener and the light -- I believe that all of these *things* (which are metaphors of possibility) are what can be focused on as 'the most important thing'.

What is it that *opens up* consciousness and awareness? What is it that 'quickens' it? You see, my view is that everyone hungers for and longs for just one single drop of some sort of elixir which enlivens life and resuscitates the sense of life and being alive. So in this, a symbolic sense, we are submerged into a Dark World (ruled it seems by a Prince of Darkness, your metaphysics of duality) but we can call down an antidotal power which, as we describe it, is of light and brightness ...

There are myriad ways that this can occur.

[Dubious]

So within this strange World which, in Christian perception, is a world of mysterious estrangement where the World came under the dominion of the Prince of Darkness, and which light, beautiy and effervescence which is always the higher longing of all men, all people, had been obscured and quenched -- but not permanently! and never permanently! -- into that world the Word incarnated. And this means, of course, into ourselves as possibility. So that when Christ is defined as the way, the truth, the life, the door, the living bread, the juice of the living vine, the revealer and the revealed, the guide and the way, the enlightener and the light -- I believe that all of these *things* (which are metaphors of possibility) are what can be focused on as 'the most important thing'.

What is it that *opens up* consciousness and awareness? What is it that 'quickens' it? You see, my view is that everyone hungers for and longs for just one single drop of some sort of elixir which enlivens life and resuscitates the sense of life and being alive. So in this, a symbolic sense, we are submerged into a Dark World (ruled it seems by a Prince of Darkness, your metaphysics of duality) but we can call down an antidotal power which, as we describe it, is of light and brightness ...

There are myriad ways that this can occur.

It seems so common to express spirituality, mysticism, etc., in some kind of biblical christian context as if there can be no other kind. That seems to me paradoxical and limiting. Many of the sayings in the bible are mundane including the one by Isaiah; what makes it seem profound and meaningful is the language itself. In that regard the KJV will always be paramount in how it leverages a normal or assumed insight or story into some ultra-mundane expression of wisdom, intuition and truth...a kind of God proclamation.

Take Shakespeare for example. Translated into modern colloquial English the brilliant chromaticisms and metaphors inherent in the plays would be mostly missing, filtered to something as common as buttermilk. Language is ALL! Real bee honey is different from its retail counterpart.

[Dubious]

already saw that movie...EDBF3919-78B1-4991-9A55-70767DF6338F.jpeg...pay no attention to the computer behind the curtain

Movies aren't real.

you missed the point
which is not surprisin' at all

You haven't told me what the point is yet...which is not surprisin' at all.

I mean look! You're a John Wayne style American ready to shoot the first guy who steps on your lawn; why be sneaky about it?

[henry quirk]

Movies aren't real.

you missed the point
which is not surprisin' at all

You haven't told me what the point is yet...which is not surprisin' at all.

I mean look! You're a John Wayne style American ready to shoot the first guy who steps on your lawn; why be sneaky about it?

I think I'll let the minor mystery stand. A small puzzle for you, the guy who'd boxcar the un-jabbed to the camps, from me, the guy who'd shoot you if you tried.

[Harry Baird]

As I said it is not an easy thing, in my own case, to express what I feel is the 'essential' important thing, or even a set of important things that would define the importance and value of Christianity.

You made a good go of it though, which I appreciate.

I think I understand or at least have an inkling of understanding as to why you value so highly the metaphysical idea of Christianity's which you present as being your preference or maybe attraction: the Incarnation into the world of "the Word" (being Divine/Divinity in some respect, I believe you are suggesting), and all that that Incarnation manifests from above.

You acknowledge that this idea is not entirely exclusive to Christianity nor Hebrew revelation, and, if I were to cavil, I'd suggest that you still haven't explained why then Christianity in particular holds value for you - but a much fairer reading is that you find this mystical idea to be most potently expressed, represented, and maybe even explored in Christianity and Christian thought.

Let's cancel the mechanic's appointment then. It turns out the vehicle is just fine.

As for Hamlet, if I ever read it, it would have been as a schoolboy, and I've forgotten what I read. If I do end up reading it (again?), I'll bear in mind its significance to you. I do at least have its Wikipedia article open in a browser tab and am bit by bit making my way through it.

So within this strange World which, in Christian perception, is a world of mysterious estrangement where the World came under the dominion of the Prince of Darkness, and which light, beautiy and effervescence which is always the higher longing of all men, all people, had been obscured and quenched -- but not permanently! and never permanently! -- into that world the Word incarnated. And this means, of course, into ourselves as possibility. So that when Christ is defined as the way, the truth, the life, the door, the living bread, the juice of the living vine, the revealer and the revealed, the guide and the way, the enlightener and the light -- I believe that all of these *things* (which are metaphors of possibility) are what can be focused on as 'the most important thing'.

What is it that *opens up* consciousness and awareness? What is it that 'quickens' it? You see, my view is that everyone hungers for and longs for just one single drop of some sort of elixir which enlivens life and resuscitates the sense of life and being alive. So in this, a symbolic sense, we are submerged into a Dark World (ruled it seems by a Prince of Darkness, your metaphysics of duality) but we can call down an antidotal power which, as we describe it, is of light and brightness ...

That's some good writing on compelling ideas, AJ. Poetic even. Nice work!

You seem to have a unique view in the sense that you seem to see the historical Christ as merely a sort of symbol of "the Word become flesh" rather than as the actual Word become flesh. The interesting questions that come up for me at that point are who the historical Christ actually was (is?) - his spiritual nature, power, authority, and relevance - and what the actual Word "looks like" - if not the historical Jesus Christ - when it Incarnates. But that's just me with my kind of literal and dogged mind. They may not be of concern to anybody else, and I doubt that they are of concern to you, or, at least, not the first.

It seems fair to say in any case that, in your view, Incarnation in general (and not specifically as the historical Christ) serves to enliven, brighten, and enlighten hungering lives in a world darkened in the ways you have mentioned in the past - exemplified by the whole "red in tooth and claw" idea - rather than strictly to save individuals from hell. Is that fair, or is the possibility of hell a real one in your view (as per the Bhagavad Gita passage that you like to reference), and one from which Incarnation also saves us?

Finally, some (inter)personal housekeeping: on reflection, I was overly hard on you re your definition of Christianity. You were right: "wishy-washy" isn't a fair description of it. It is the pretty standard definition that most of us use, and, on reflection, there's no need to call for you to present it explicitly, even on a philosophy forum. I got a little carried away back there. If a phrase better than "wishy-washy" were to be chosen to describe it - in contrast to IC's definition, which is the context in which I used it - then it might be something more like "broad and inclusive", which is mostly only problematic for Christians such as IC who formulate much narrower and more exclusive definitions.

[Harry Baird]

The Church of No One Truth (NOT): A Cautionary Tale

A Play of Three Acts of Three Scenes Each

<< Act two, scene one | Act two, scene three >>

Act two, scene two

Characters:

Bjorn aGus

Aeon, who has Aged well.

Setting:

Outside the Town Hall

Aeon: Renegades of this time and age, mark THEE well that I have FINALLY used the word "THEE" correctly.

Bjorn aGus: I just happened to be passing, and I noticed you there, Aeon. A penny for your thoughts. Uh. Hold on a moment. Not just any thoughts.

Aeon: Challenge me, bro.

Bjorn aGus: Yeah, but that's not so much what I'm after. It's more... Pastor Wiola. What's your take?

Aeon: Define YEAH. And what EXACTLY are "you" as a HUMAN in the days in which THIS question was asked, 'after'?

Bjorn aGus: Well, "yeah" is a casual use of the term "yes", and I'm after incriminating evidence. Whatcha got?

Aeon: (Draws closer) OK, so, listen carefully. I'm not really a piece of mouldy cheese, y'know? That's just my disguise. Yes, in a former life, a relative of mine did poison a young researcher and grant him access to four different languages, but those reckless days are far behind us. Now, you want the skinny on Pastor Wiola? Follow me into Town Hall...

(Bjorn aGus and Aeon enter a hidden room inside Town Hall which Aeon accesses via a secret pass code.)

Bjorn aGus: Whoa! What are all of these works of art?

Aeon: Trippy, huh?

Bjorn aGus: Yeah, totally. They're like Salvador Dali after licking the whole blotter. Who made them?

Aeon: You haven't guessed yet?

Bjorn aGus: Not...

Aeon: That's right.

Bjorn aGus: But why would she hide... this? What does it have to do with the One Truth that she's trying to bury?

Aeon: Man, there are many things that you don't understand.

Bjorn aGus: Apparently. But I'm trying. Help me out.

Aeon: OK, so, look. I gotta know you're for real. How do I know I can trust you?

Bjorn aGus: Hey, I could ask the same thing of you.

Aeon: OK then, dude. If you're not sure you can trust me, then forget it. What happened in the land of One Truth denial stays in the land of One Truth denial. Now "you" can go the way of the other HUMANS of the days in which "this" was WRITTEN.

Bjorn aGus: Whatever.

<< Act two, scene one | Act two, scene three >>