Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:34 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:36 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 5:51 pm 379 pages and still no agreement as to what Christianity is. Is it really so surprising that Christianity, initiating with a conscious source, would devolve so quickly into so may forms of Christendom or man made Christianity appealing to political and personal motives of self justification? Does Christianity remain hidden in the world and passed on through word of mouth to protect its purity? Maybe so and it is obvious why it is necessary.

Interesting. How could God fail to convey his message properly?

Cuz, mebbe, He went about His business quiet-like, never lookin' for fame or fortune. Mebbe He never said diddly to Man. Mebbe all the messages of all the teachers are poop. Mebbe He inscribed His word in each man's soul exactly so none of us would have to go runnin' to shamans, priests, and politcians for counsel. So, mebbe, what we each need to do is: occasionally, put aside all the gadgets and books and whatnot, go into our rooms alone, close the door behind us, sit down, and listen.

...or mebbe some fairy-tales eventually and inevitably turnout not to be real after all. The Christian fairy tale is dead. It didn't die suddenly; as with any long-term eroding disease it was a slow death. Perhaps the worst of it is many haven't noticed its gradual liquidation from god the father [OT]; god the son[NT] into its current version, god the holy ghost.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 10:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:34 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:36 pm
Interesting. How could God fail to convey his message properly?

Cuz, mebbe, He went about His business quiet-like, never lookin' for fame or fortune. Mebbe He never said diddly to Man. Mebbe all the messages of all the teachers are poop. Mebbe He inscribed His word in each man's soul exactly so none of us would have to go runnin' to shamans, priests, and politcians for counsel. So, mebbe, what we each need to do is: occasionally, put aside all the gadgets and books and whatnot, go into our rooms alone, close the door behind us, sit down, and listen.

...or mebbe some fairy-tales eventually and inevitably turnout not to be real after all. The Christian fairy tale is dead. It didn't die suddenly; as with any long-term eroding disease it was a slow death. Perhaps the worst of it is many haven't noticed its gradual liquidation from god the father [OT]; god the son[NT] into its current version, god the holy ghost.

Well, I've done said more than enough on Christianity, in-thread (too much, I suppose, as I'm not Christian). But, someone, I'm certain, will address your comments.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:24 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 10:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:34 pm

Cuz, mebbe, He went about His business quiet-like, never lookin' for fame or fortune. Mebbe He never said diddly to Man. Mebbe all the messages of all the teachers are poop. Mebbe He inscribed His word in each man's soul exactly so none of us would have to go runnin' to shamans, priests, and politcians for counsel. So, mebbe, what we each need to do is: occasionally, put aside all the gadgets and books and whatnot, go into our rooms alone, close the door behind us, sit down, and listen.

...or mebbe some fairy-tales eventually and inevitably turnout not to be real after all. The Christian fairy tale is dead. It didn't die suddenly; as with any long-term eroding disease it was a slow death. Perhaps the worst of it is many haven't noticed its gradual liquidation from god the father [OT]; god the son[NT] into its current version, god the holy ghost.

Well, I've done said more than enough on Christianity, in-thread (too much, I suppose, as I'm not Christian). But, someone, I'm certain, will address your comments.

That's okay! It's just an observation of the historical process. No one has to agree or comment but I thank you for yours anyway.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:37 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:24 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 10:39 pm

...or mebbe some fairy-tales eventually and inevitably turnout not to be real after all. The Christian fairy tale is dead. It didn't die suddenly; as with any long-term eroding disease it was a slow death. Perhaps the worst of it is many haven't noticed its gradual liquidation from god the father [OT]; god the son[NT] into its current version, god the holy ghost.

Well, I've done said more than enough on Christianity, in-thread (too much, I suppose, as I'm not Christian). But, someone, I'm certain, will address your comments.

That's okay! It's just an observation of the historical process. No one has to agree or comment but I thank you for yours anyway.

Alexis will essay at you in due time.

And: you're welcome!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:21 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 5:51 pm379 pages and still no agreement as to what Christianity is. Is it really so surprising that Christianity, initiating with a conscious source, would devolve so quickly into so may forms of Christendom or man made Christianity appealing to political and personal motives of self justification? Does Christianity remain hidden in the world and passed on through word of mouth to protect its purity? Maybe so and it is obvious why it is necessary.

And no agreement will be forthcoming.

We are in a cycle of inevitable breakdown of agreements and well within processes of shattering disunity. All conversations, all attempts to convince others of what we see and understand, seem to turn into quicksand. But in order to understand why there can be no agreements now, it must be understood that especially in the early days (the 1st century BC and the first century AD) there was an extraordinary range of those existential/metaphysical models through which we organize our understanding of the world. At that time, perhaps, there was a will to winnow out discordant ideas and funnel things ideologically into ideological structures. But there is nothing like that going on today!

I suppose it might be possible to say that our own age, our own today, mirrors that former *confusion of peoples* and the *confusion of ideas* of those early centuries. Except that today things are even more convoluted and complex. Though today there actually does exist a substantial alternative model in a peculiar form and with a peculiar function that could be called the 'scientific view'. That peculiar model does not so much create a holistic ideology through which people feel that they resolve the difficulties of knowing and of knowledge, and it seems that if it does function as a model (that is, semi-religiously) its function is to operate as an alternative or contradiction to the religious models (such as Christianity, Islam, the religions of the East with their complex mythologies, etc.) But it has no unifying power. And it does seem to tend toward a techno-chemical totalitarian model when terrestrial power is given all emphasis.

Over the course of time you Nick have attempted to clarify 'what Christianity is' by focusing on aspects of it that seem more proper to mysticism or monasticism. The Christianity you define (I believe I must already have said this!) will be of use and relevance to one person out of one thousand and if that one person has made the determination that you have made they would certainly have no need for nor interest in the entire content of this thread!

But the interpretation that you favor, it must be said, was long long ago enunciated by people like Plotinus. Perhaps you will describe this Christianity as a veritable science? Almost like a 'spiritual technology'? Yet examining it, those who read your description would still see it as based in a series of metaphors which, when agreed to and understood, are taken up as a 'belief system' around which the person, the personality and the soul, can live within an interpretation that manages to keep them from being consumed by 'chaos'. It seems to me, therefore, that all interpretive models are 'strategies' to avoid the devastating entrapment within chaos and nihilism.

Still, what we call Christendom is in so many ways part of the foundations of who we are. (Europe is a creation of Christendom). You seem to give that word a negative spin. But to do so has a polemical function, doesn't it? To be critical of what only goes part-way and not all the way. Only lunatics like Kierkegaard (and other rare human types) can go 'all the way' while that 99.9% remain and will always remain in their partial stance. But your criticism is really just a prod in order to stimulate yourself to deepen your own commitments.

Before trying to experience the metaphysical, why not begin with the physical or what takes place "under the sun" If Simone Weil is right then it is impossible to receive help from above. There is no room for it in our hearts consumed with self serving negative emotions.. We can experience it when for some reason it is given to us through grace.

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil

We can verify for ourselves, for those who have the need and courage to do so, that we lack this power of conscious attention. The fallen human condition compels us to lose it and become involved with the shadows on the wall. Yet without it, how can a person experience higher values normal for Christianity and avoid sinking into arguing might makes right.

"Absolute unmixed attention is prayer. " As of now we are incapable of sustaining absolute unmixed attention.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 10:39 pm...or mebbe some fairy-tales eventually and inevitably turnout not to be real after all. The Christian fairy tale is dead. It didn't die suddenly; as with any long-term eroding disease it was a slow death. Perhaps the worst of it is many haven't noticed its gradual liquidation from god the father [OT]; god the son [NT] into its current version, god the holy ghost.

A couple of thoughts.

Having researched the spiritual side of Christianity, and what it can offer to an individual, and I mean by this a sort of outline presented to the practitioner of it that can be (and I think is) elevating to the personality and to the 'soul' (if you will permit such a term), it is for this reason, and these reasons, that I am a defender of Christianity. So the key is to see into the 'inner content' and (in my experience) this can only be done through a study of original material. It does not seem to be a popular idea but when one speaks of European Christianity one is speaking of Catholicism -- up until the Reformation of course. I could go on & on naming sources, quoting material, and it would likely influence no one who reads here and I accept this. It has been an area of my interest for at least 7 years now.

But what I want to communicate is that in our present the function of Christianity (mostly I speak of American branches of Christianity though England and Australia would have to be included) has morphed in very strange ways. I recognize that for example among the Evangelicals that the practice of their religion is also a sort of therapeutics. People get off drugs, deal with their addictions, get their marriages and their personal relationships back in order, and achieve the stability that gives a sense of worthy and admirable grounding in the life lived. It might appear maudlin at times, and it might also appear as deeply sincere -- there is a gamut -- but it exists and, in fact, it is not fading away. It is being extended widely. The third millennium is in fact an era of the increasing reach of Christianity. But though it fades (to a degree) in America and more so in Europe, it is 'spreading like wildfire' in the global south. And that is a fact.

I think that one is obligated to broach the topic of 'Christian Zionism' and to talk about it in the context of mass-religion and within a technological structure that enables certain messages to reach, literally, a global audience. I have mentioned Evangelical Christian Zionism at various points in respect to you-know-who (and have also indicated my opposition).

So I thought, but with genuine trepidation given the extremely controversial nature of the topic, to thrown into the mix here a set of -- what are these? -- declarations? about what is described as a world-process in which Christianity is playing a part. I have continually pointed out that we are in times of *ideological warfare* and that religious viewpoints when considered in our present have all sorts of political implications. This is not about going into your closed room and praying to God as you conceive God.

I want to point out that all those speaking here, I think without exception, are "MOT" (members of the tribe which is sort of an inside Jewish reference, a code that Jews often use).

Now, how shall we receive what they are saying? What does it mean in our present if (and I assume all who read and write here are unaware of all the talk within Jewish and Israeli circles) about the rebuilding of the third temple (in Israel and, I assume, on the spot where the al-Haram al-Sharif (Al-Aqsa) compound now sits). This is being talked about on the fringes, or to put it more accurately came from the fringes to the center. These are topic that are being discussed more or less openly (in Israel and mostly among the semi-religious and up to the deeply religious).

My interest (obviously) is less in the inner dimension of spirituality (or any other religion for that matter) but much more about contemporary events and how people in various sides of the social and cultural equation *interpret* their world and the times they live in. I am wondering how any of those who have written in this thread would interpret what these illustrious figures are saying.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:36 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 5:51 pm 379 pages and still no agreement as to what Christianity is. Is it really so surprising that Christianity, initiating with a conscious source, would devolve so quickly into so may forms of Christendom or man made Christianity appealing to political and personal motives of self justification? Does Christianity remain hidden in the world and passed on through word of mouth to protect its purity? Maybe so and it is obvious why it is necessary.

Interesting. How could God fail to convey his message properly?

The message and the need for Christianity is being communicated. The problem is that the human condition prevents one from experiencing their conscience. Instead of becoming capable of experiencing ones objective conscience, a person is content to live by subjective indoctrinated earthly values or subjective morality and argue them into oblivion.

There Comes

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes
a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.

But this requires learning how to look and listen with new eyes and ears. But how many have the need, courage, and will to go against the Beast in the need for objective truth?

Dubious,

Alexis will essay at you in due time.

told ya so

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:36 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 5:51 pm 379 pages and still no agreement as to what Christianity is. Is it really so surprising that Christianity, initiating with a conscious source, would devolve so quickly into so may forms of Christendom or man made Christianity appealing to political and personal motives of self justification? Does Christianity remain hidden in the world and passed on through word of mouth to protect its purity? Maybe so and it is obvious why it is necessary.

Interesting. How could God fail to convey his message properly?

The message and the need for Christianity is being communicated.

The communication is not proper otherwise there was not a lot of discussion about the meaning of each verse in the Bible. Just look at the number of Christian sects.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am The problem is that the human condition prevents one from experiencing their conscience.

People are different when it comes to conscience. So conscience cannot resolve the conflict in humanity as we witness it.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am Instead of becoming capable of experiencing ones objective conscience, a person is content to live by subjective indoctrinated earthly values or subjective morality and argue them into oblivion.

There is no such thing as objective conscience.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am

There Comes

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes
a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.

What does this even mean?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am But this requires learning how to look and listen with new eyes and ears. But how many have the need, courage, and will to go against the Beast in the need for objective truth?

Not many.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:33 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:36 pm
Interesting. How could God fail to convey his message properly?

The message and the need for Christianity is being communicated.

The communication is not proper otherwise there was not a lot of discussion about the meaning of each verse in the Bible. Just look at the number of Christian sects.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am The problem is that the human condition prevents one from experiencing their conscience.

People are different when it comes to conscience. So conscience cannot resolve the conflict in humanity as we witness it.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am Instead of becoming capable of experiencing ones objective conscience, a person is content to live by subjective indoctrinated earthly values or subjective morality and argue them into oblivion.

There is no such thing as objective conscience.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am

There Comes

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes
a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.

What does this even mean?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am But this requires learning how to look and listen with new eyes and ears. But how many have the need, courage, and will to go against the Beast in the need for objective truth?

Not many.

Bahman wrote: "There is no such thing as objective conscience."


That explains a lot. If true then by definition man and his interpretations must be the measure of all things. Lacking objective conscience the only alternative is the defense of subjective morality and all the conflicts arising from it. Christianity could not exist and the need for meaning would be replaced by man made Christendom and its many interpretations. Under the circumstance I can see why you must reject objective conscience. Opening to its potential invites contemplation of the purpose and potential for Christianity.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:13 pm

Bahman wrote: "There is no such thing as objective conscience."


That explains a lot. If true then by definition man and his interpretations must be the measure of all things.

Of course it's true, or at least true for "man". If you happen to be a swamp frog, then I suppose the swamp frog is the measure of all things. This is not rocket science, Nick.

Bahman wrote: "There is no such thing as objective conscience."

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:13 pmThat explains a lot. If true then by definition man and his interpretations must be the measure of all things.

The interpretations that man makes lead to applications of the measure. What you wish to assert is that there is an 'objective morality' that is pre-inscribed into the soul of man. That is what you mean when you say *conscience*.

You say: "The problem is that the human condition prevents one from experiencing their conscience".

The way I try to describe something similar is to refer to *metaphysics* -- ideas that already exist or that exist as part-and-parcel of the entire created manifestation. In our own traditions however there are 2 different means by which they become known. Consider Plato's means as one -- arrived at through rational consideration. The other pole is that of Hebrew revelation which came into that world as a series of commands. If the commands were disobeyed the angry God would, and did (in the stories) punish the disobedient.

But no matter what pole one subscribes to it is man who has the responsibility of interpreting.

Lacking objective conscience the only alternative is the defense of subjective morality and all the conflicts arising from it.

Moral systems, even if they come through revelation (as the Hebrew) still have to be worked out through a system of defined laws and guidelines. Those applications of law are always done by groups and they must arrive at consensus. The way that they arrive at consensus, and this is definitely true of the Hebrew sages, is through long back-and-forth conversations where the final determinations (of what should be law) are worked out.

Christianity could not exist and the need for meaning would be replaced by man made Christendom and its many interpretations.

The issue is not only (as you say) that "the problem is that the human condition prevents one from experiencing their conscience" but that people do not agree that there is, as you say, an 'objective source' (a God who sets down absolute rules and laws) that must be obeyed (or there will be consequences and punishments). Even if some people still hold to the general belief that there is a God they do not necessarily believe in all the elements of the moral and ethical codes.

Under the circumstance I can see why you must reject objective conscience. Opening to its potential invites contemplation of the purpose and potential for Christianity.

But it is not just Christianity that has developed, articulated and strict moral and ethical systems. So it becomes rather impossible to say that those other peoples (who have developed moral and ethical systems) are not responding to conscience (as you put it).

It is likely that Bahman (and many others who write here) do indeed reject the entire notion of 'objective morality' though. They must necessarily believe that these moral and ethical systems are made by man -- in just the same way that man invented the most basic tools, and then more and more complex tools.

This, in a nutshell, expresses the way they see things.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 10:39 pm...or mebbe some fairy-tales eventually and inevitably turnout not to be real after all. The Christian fairy tale is dead. It didn't die suddenly; as with any long-term eroding disease it was a slow death. Perhaps the worst of it is many haven't noticed its gradual liquidation from god the father [OT]; god the son [NT] into its current version, god the holy ghost.[MT]

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:47 amHaving researched the spiritual side of Christianity, and what it can offer to an individual, and I mean by this a sort of outline presented to the practitioner of it that can be (and I think is) elevating to the personality and to the 'soul' (if you will permit such a term), it is for this reason, and these reasons, that I am a defender of Christianity. So the key is to see into the 'inner content' and (in my experience) this can only be done through a study of original material.

Henry was right. I didn't expect you to reply since there's so little we see eye-to-eye on. Anyway, here is my take on your first paragraph...

Christian teaching is mostly a conglomerate, reordered and systematized, in effect, rechristianized as something new and revelatory. There's a reason for all the book burnings of pagan and Gnostic literature which was simply to cover their tracks. The creation of Christianity was based on pilferages and swindles compounded over and over again. It's not unusual for some religions, Christianity and Islam specifically, to begin as a form of subterfuge based on the will of one man - Paul in the first instance more than Jesus - the result being the creation of that will consequently dogmatized and institutionalized...in effect secularized. I don't see much wisdom or spirituality in Christianity or Islam that hasn't been borrowed and fixed as inviolable.

If, as you say, the key is to see into the 'inner content' through the study of original material, it's result would be more philosophy and less of religion; put another way, religion is philosophy institutionalized, secularized, legalized and thus made mandatory, any search for meaning frozen in creeds. A different example would be that of China and India who were once more prone to be metaethical and metaphysical respectively in their inquiries of "ultimate concern" through philosophy rather than religion.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:13 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:33 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am
The message and the need for Christianity is being communicated.

The communication is not proper otherwise there was not a lot of discussion about the meaning of each verse in the Bible. Just look at the number of Christian sects.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am The problem is that the human condition prevents one from experiencing their conscience.

People are different when it comes to conscience. So conscience cannot resolve the conflict in humanity as we witness it.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am Instead of becoming capable of experiencing ones objective conscience, a person is content to live by subjective indoctrinated earthly values or subjective morality and argue them into oblivion.

There is no such thing as objective conscience.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am

What does this even mean?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am But this requires learning how to look and listen with new eyes and ears. But how many have the need, courage, and will to go against the Beast in the need for objective truth?

Not many.

Bahman wrote: "There is no such thing as objective conscience."


That explains a lot. If true then by definition man and his interpretations must be the measure of all things.

That is true. In fact, we wouldn't even need the word of God if there was such a thing as objective conscience since we could reach an agreement about morality based on it.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am Lacking objective conscience the only alternative is the defense of subjective morality and all the conflicts arising from it. Christianity could not exist and the need for meaning would be replaced by man made Christendom and its many interpretations.

In fact, the existence of many religions and their sects indicates that people could not reach to an agreement about what the truth is.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am Under the circumstance I can see why you must reject objective conscience.

Because people just do not agree when it comes to morality. That not only means that there is no objective conscience but also means that there is no objective moral fact.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:56 am Opening to its potential invites contemplation of the purpose and potential for Christianity.

Unfortunately, there are lots of branches of Christianity which means that people could not agree and will not agree on what Christianity is.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:34 pmHenry was right.

I didn't expect you to reply since there's so little we see eye-to-eye on.

As I have often said: I am here for my own purposes. I usually take some idea or element that interests me and comment on it.

Christian teaching is mostly a conglomerate, reordered and systematized, in effect, rechristianized as something new and revelatory. There's a reason for all the book burnings of pagan and Gnostic literature which was simply to cover their tracks. The creation of Christianity was based on pilferages and swindles compounded over and over again. It's not unusual for some religions, Christianity and Islam specifically, to begin as a form of subterfuge based on the will of one man - Paul in the first instance more than Jesus - the result being the creation of that will consequently dogmatized and institutionalized...in effect secularized. I don't see much wisdom or spirituality in Christianity or Islam that hasn't been borrowed and fixed as inviolable.

My take on your manner and your position is that you are right, or course, in a way. But an animus pops through and, it seems to me, prejudices your statements.

So we do not disagree: I am sure that early Christianity is a conglomerate of various philosophies and also religious modes. I have been expressing that for months. But to say [that this was] "rechristianized as something new and revelatory" is not quite right. There was something deeply new about Christianity and this is one of the reasons it had the reach and power it did.

The conflicts with other interpretive modes (the Gnostics for example) is a complex area. Personally, though this is irrelevant to historical Christianity, I want to review all of the controversy and take all of it into consideration. But certain ly in those early days there were power-struggles and ideological struggles with winners and the defeated (and excluded). But that would happen in all cultural settings. You know, like the Zen lunatics were like rebellious teenagers subverting the too-settled Buddhist ideas wit their crazy wisdom. It is a constant feature.

I don't see much wisdom or spirituality in Christianity or Islam that hasn't been borrowed and fixed as inviolable.

I have been reading Augustine (Confessions) and it seems like an extended commentary and reflection on the Psalms.

If I asked you to define what you mean by 'spirituality' I have a paranoid sense that you'd avoid answering.

I do strongly agree that the Christianity we know is really Paulianity in strong senses.

If, as you say, the key is to see into the 'inner content' through the study of original material, it's result would be more philosophy and less of religion; put another way, religion is philosophy institutionalized, secularized, legalized and thus made mandatory, any search for meaning frozen in creeds. A different example would be that of China and India who were once more prone to be metaethical and metaphysical respectively in their inquiries of "ultimate concern" through philosophy rather than religion.

I strongly disagree that "religion is [exclusively or solely] philosophy institutionalized, secularized, legalized and thus made mandatory" though there is an element of truth in this. Philosophy can never become as encompassing as a 'lived religion'. But that would be another conversation.