Philosophy Now Forum

I am sorry, Nick_A, but you jumped straight into Ph.D. stuff without laying down the basic rules of multiplication table, so to speak.

I desperately need to know the answers to these:

1. Who is the ultimate source that says to be Christian is to follow the precepts of Christ? Your quote in the one previous post mentioned the most important one, but it's not the only one. And your quote in the one previous post certainly did not say what you had said your basic definition of a Christian is.

2. Is every line in the bible a teaching? a positive imperative (thou shalt), a negative imperative (thou shalt not) in a text of neutral narrative?

3. Whose decision is to separate the negative imperatives from the positives ones, and from the neutral text?

4. Only words attributed directly to Jesus are to be taken as his words, or also words by the apostles and prophets are to be taken as words of god?

These are almost axiomatic-strength, basic concepts. Without laying down the ground rules of how to read the bible, the bible readings are meaningless.

Please do not attempt to read me the bible without first answering these four questions comprehensively.

Please, Nick_A, answer these four questions. Directly, head-on, without waffling.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:24 pmIt is clear by what you've written that you don't know Jesus mission on earth, the initial purpose of Christianity and what it refers to and the nature of Man.

Not really. What is clear is that I haven't cherry picked the same bible passages, for the same purpose as you. So I pick one like this:

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:44 am“And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire…where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire.” Mark 9:43, 48-49

And you pick one like this:

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:14 am 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)

As someone who aspires to this standard, to achieve it you have to be able to say 'Dear uwot, I love you as much as I love myself'. If you can't do that, then I'm afraid christianity is not for you and you will go to hell, to the unquenchable fire, where your worm will not die.
Simone Weil tones it down a bit and speaks only of respect:

Simone Weil wrote: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.

But note that she describes "the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good" and "a reality beyond the world" as facts. Either or both may actually be facts, and you may choose to believe them, but the behaviour of people suggests strongly that the first is not true, and the range of beliefs about the world beyond the veil of appearance demonstrates the cultural and subjective influences that shape those beliefs. What Simone Weil calls "that reality" is simply her own feeling. Because you happen to like that feeling, you cite passages that support it and ignore the fact that Simone Weil was quite prepared to shoot and kill human beings as part of her role in the Spanish Civil War and WWII.
As with the bible, you can cherry pick passages to create your own simplified narrative, even when a more complex reality is staring you in the face.

-1-

Remember that the purpose of Christianity primarily refers to the inner man.

1. Who is the ultimate source that says to be Christian is to follow the precepts of Christ? Your quote in the one previous post mentioned the most important one, but it's not the only one. And your quote in the one previous post certainly did not say what you had said your basic definition of a Christian is.

There is no ultimate source; it is just common sense. The state is the ultimate source that decides who is a lawyer or a doctor and participate in what it means to be a doctor or lawyer but we do know that a doctor or lawyer has to be able to practice medicine or law.

A person attracted to Christianity can experience and verify that they are unable to practice even the basic precepts of Christ and ask why it is so. This is the beginning of the Christian path. The ultimate source begins with the verified recognition that you not master of yourself.

2. Is every line in the bible a teaching? a positive imperative (thou shalt), a negative imperative (thou shalt not) in a text of neutral narrative?

The Bible is a psychological rather than a historical or scientific document. The New Testament is written in a way designed to bypass the outer man so it can touch the inner man. It is the same reason why Jesus spoke in parables when he did.

When you look at a work of art do you get close to it and examine it inch by inch or do you stand back and contemplate the big picture before getting into details of technique? It is the same with the New Testament. The purpose of the New Testament is to arouse questions rather than provide answers.

Jesus had twelve apostles. These twelve were representative of the basic human types. What Jesus taught in private was not written down. It was an oral teaching meant to be understood and not copied.

3. Whose decision is to separate the negative imperatives from the positives ones, and from the neutral text?

This is where it gets difficult. Initially a Christian church was an esoteric school in which methods could be taught which would enble a person to experience and verify the truth of the teaching. As Christianity began to be secularized into the many varieties of Christendom the Christian Church had to go underground. The Apostles taught students and when students began to understand and their deeds reflected understanding, they in turn taught their students. It went on like that. Of course the process of secularization allowed people with secular influence to gain positions of authority. Christendom became a religion of power as opposed to the humility which was the original intent of Christianity.

In these times a person must have inner taste. In other words for some reason they have experienced the truth of Christianity but have learned they were surrounded by people reflecting the blind belief of secularized understanding. So they begin to search for people with understanding. As is said: “when the student is ready, the teacher appears.”

4. Only words attributed directly to Jesus are to be taken as his words, or also words by the apostles and prophets are to be taken as words of god?

These ideas reflect higher meaning. The problem isn’t the words but rather the interpretations from our personality. It is common problem in all the traditions initiating with a conscious source – how to bypass the limitations of our acquired personality so as to access and feel objective meaning and purpose.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:41 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:24 pmIt is clear by what you've written that you don't know Jesus mission on earth, the initial purpose of Christianity and what it refers to and the nature of Man.

Not really. What is clear is that I haven't cherry picked the same bible passages, for the same purpose as you. So I pick one like this:

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:44 am“And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire…where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire.” Mark 9:43, 48-49

And you pick one like this:

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:14 am 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)

As someone who aspires to this standard, to achieve it you have to be able to say 'Dear uwot, I love you as much as I love myself'. If you can't do that, then I'm afraid christianity is not for you and you will go to hell, to the unquenchable fire, where your worm will not die.
Simone Weil tones it down a bit and speaks only of respect:

Simone Weil wrote: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.

But note that she describes "the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good" and "a reality beyond the world" as facts. Either or both may actually be facts, and you may choose to believe them, but the behaviour of people suggests strongly that the first is not true, and the range of beliefs about the world beyond the veil of appearance demonstrates the cultural and subjective influences that shape those beliefs. What Simone Weil calls "that reality" is simply her own feeling. Because you happen to like that feeling, you cite passages that support it and ignore the fact that Simone Weil was quite prepared to shoot and kill human beings as part of her role in the Spanish Civil War and WWII.
As with the bible, you can cherry pick passages to create your own simplified narrative, even when a more complex reality is staring you in the face.

IN a recent work, Henri Nouwen emphasizes the essence of spirituality in a most succinct fashion: “To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God’s people.”

You seem totally involved with the world and and its "endless chain of urgencies and emergencies". You don't understand the attraction of someone to the level of reality of what Plato described as the Good or the source of what we experience as creation. That's OK. Your side has enough support. I support the minority who are attracted to their source

Nick_A wrote:I am saying that I don’t believe in Christendom or man made interpretations of Cristianity. …

So why do you keep quoting the Bible?

Christianity doesn’t have a personal God. Christianity has the truth of the Cross, No one is being slaughtered. Both mechanical and conscious life follow the cycles of universal laws. Man has the potential for both involution and conscious evolution. The developing human seed of the soul takes part in the ascending path of evolution, the descending path of involution, or be saved for later in the body of the Christ as good seed. …

Not having a personal 'God' is not the same as there being no 'God' Nick_A, so do you believe or not that there is a 'God' as Christianity describes and do you believe that there is a heaven or a hell that the good or bad get to go to after-death?

Do you believe Christ will come again?

Do you believe that there will be a Second Coming and this 'God' will bring Armageddon to us?

My main interest is in the potential for society to adopt a religious perspective which reveals objective human meaning and purpose that doesn’t insult either the scientific mind or the spiritual heart. It can be done and if it isn’t done society will destroy itself. …

Which society and which religious perspective do you think we should adopt?

By-the-by still not heard from you what it is you think we should teach above and beyond a liberal Science, Arts and Humanities course?

If you believe your ideas of Christianity are foolish why do you think they would make sense to me?

I don't think they are foolish I just don't believe them. What I'm interested in is which beliefs of Christianity you actually hold?

Arising,

The Bible opens a person to Christianity. It also invites all sorts of interpretations which produce Christendom. As I told -1- this happens to all the traditions initiating with a conscious source. It is lawful mechanical devolution. Our subjective interpretations over time cover over objective meaning. Krishnamurti gives a good example:

'We are going to discuss this morning the dissolution of the Order of the Star. Many people will be delighted, and others will be rather sad. It is a question neither for rejoicing nor for sadness, because it is inevitable, as I am going to explain. “You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, “What did that man pick up?” “He picked up a piece of Truth,” said the devil. “That is a very bad business for you, then,” said his friend. “Oh, not at all,” the devil replied, “I am going to let him organize it." Krishnamurti

Not having a personal 'God' is not the same as there being no 'God' Nick_A, so do you believe or not that there is a 'God' as Christianity describes and do you believe that there is a heaven or a hell that the good or bad get to go to after-death?

The God of Christianity as I understand is really the same as the ONE described by Plotinus. Heaven is a quality of being Man has the evolutionary potential for. Hell is really bad karma or the result of involution.

Do you believe Christ will come again?

The cycle of the Christ on earth is an aeon. The Christ appearance on earth begins the cycle. Over time the Christ influence is absorbed by the world ending the cycle. What happens to humanity in the absence of the Christ influence is an open question but not a pleasant perspective. Then it begins again if necessary and even possible.

Which society and which religious perspective do you think we should adopt?

We don’t have it yet. Its teaching would enable scientific facts to become included within a human conscious perspective which connects above and below. As of now it would be rejected by both blind belief and blind denial so prominent people aware of it must share in private.

By-the-by still not heard from you what it is you think we should teach above and beyond a liberal Science, Arts and Humanities course?

You would teach the secularized versions of the above. For example Plato thought it essential to teach music. I don’t think he meant rap. Why teach music? You have avoided the most important aspect of education which is teaching the ability to sustain conscious attention.

I don't think they are foolish I just don't believe them. What I'm interested in is which beliefs of Christianity you actually hold?

There is only one Christianity and variety of expressions of Christendom.

As a secularist you don’t discriminate even theoretically between Christianity and Christendom. They are all the same quality for you. You may also be a person who doesn’t discriminate in knowledge described by Plato and its devolution into opinions. You may believe they are all the same. Their truths are determined scientifically. If that is how you believe you are not alone. It seems to be the rage of the day.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:36 pm -1-

Remember that the purpose of Christianity primarily refers to the inner man.

-1- wrote:1. Who is the ultimate source that says to be Christian is to follow the precepts of Christ?

There is no ultimate source; it is just common sense.

2. Is every line in the bible a teaching? a positive imperative (thou shalt), a negative imperative (thou shalt not) in a text of neutral narrative?

The Bible is a psychological rather than a historical or scientific document. The New Testament is written in a way designed to bypass the outer man so it can touch the inner man.

-1- wrote:3. Whose decision is to separate the negative imperatives from the positives ones, and from the neutral text?

This is where it gets difficult. Initially a Christian church was an esoteric school in which methods could be taught which would enble a person to experience and verify the truth of the teaching. In these times a person must have inner taste. In other words for some reason they ?who they? have experienced the truth of Christianity but have learned they were surrounded by people reflecting the blind belief of secularized understanding. So they begin to search for people with understanding. As is said: “when the student is ready, the teacher appears.”

-1- wrote:4. Only words attributed directly to Jesus are to be taken as his words, or also words by the apostles and prophets are to be taken as words of god?

These ideas reflect higher meaning. The problem isn’t the words but rather the interpretations from our personality. It is common problem in all the traditions initiating with a conscious source – how to bypass the limitations of our acquired personality so as to access and feel objective meaning and purpose.

This is very perplexing, Nick_A.

You are very, very adamant in your ability that you can separate Christians from those who call themselves Christians but are not. Your criterion, it seems to me, is arbitrary however. "By whose authority" was the question, and your answer was, "by the authority of common sense".

Ay, this is problematic. What to Adolph is common sense, is not common sense to Vladimir, so to speak. Therefore common sense is not uniform, therefore your resolute faith that your definition of a Christian is solid and unerring, is not very convincing. Sorry to say this, but this is what I gathered.

---------------

You speak of the Inner Man. I am sure that when I was young, I had thought of people, of some exceptional people, as having an inner talent, an inner something that is unequal to the inner something of others. This view of personal psychology has been replaced in me by reading studies upon studies of psychological research, and also doing a lot of speculation and meditating about what makes me me.

The upshot of the exercise (which has lasted a lifetime) has sort of convinced me that there is no magic ingredient to man, to any man, that makes him different; it is the sum total of a billion bits of disparate elements of his personality that makes him unique. There is no mystical inner self, in other words, and that is how I look at it now.

I appreciate that you look at man's essence the same way as I had been viewing it back 40 years ago and before. I accept your resolution of seeing humans as comprised of an inner man and an outer man; I was there, been there, done that, I can accept and even support you in this way of viewing things, but I must say, I can't share this vision with you, despite knowing it well and having experienced it.

------------------

With regards to the higher meaning, I can see that in your world view the inner man is communicated to by undecipherable means sent to him by a source of all wisdom, and the topic of communicated information is the higher meaning.

This is all very mystical, and I was actually into that sort of thinking back in my adolescence and teens. I enjoyed reading books which brushed upon such areas of the cosmic world order that governed things in ways and by means which were completely undetectable and unseeable by man and his scientific devices. Again, much like with the mysticism of what made exceptional people unique, this world view also died out in me. I don't much regret the dying of it, because though that sort of imaginary conjecture gave me a nice feeling of having the hair stand on my neck, and losing that thrill, has been replaced by the riches of what I call a better world-view, a world view that makes more sense to me and though it lacks poetry and vivant coulours, it gave me more wisdom and more surety in life.

------------------

I don't know if you detest secular literature, but I wish to direct your attention to Ray Bradbury's collection of short stories, "Chronicles from Mars". In it, in very particular, there is a story where a man in his space ship and a Martian in his sand dune buggy, meet, converse, and it turns out they have lived millenia apart, they only met in that spot by a fluke of the world order.

I brought up that story, because you and I seem to have an understanding of each other, but we are thousand years and moonlights apart. We are having a conversation, yet if we reached out our hands to touch the other, our hands would slide into each other, like into some holographic images.

-----------------

All in all, I think you have a beautiful mind, and a nice world view. I can't share it with you, but I don't want to deprive you of it anyway.

As a reminder, for you to open up to be more accepting of other people's concept of Christianity or of the world, life, and everything, is for you to consider your own words: "The authority to decide rests within the power of common sense." Common sense is shared; nobody has a monopoly on it, not you, not me, no human being. So please, I ask you just one thing: please start to consider that other views may be acceptable, too. And not "Acceptable to others", but other views may have an equal place in the Parnassus of world views along with yours, because, as you said, the acceptability rests on common sense, and one man's common sense does not trump another man's common sense.

For one who wishes to be one of the elect you sure are a kissing liar as you evade any straight answer to a question.

Nick_A wrote:The Bible opens a person to Christianity. It also invites all sorts of interpretations which produce Christendom. …

So you don't think it the word of 'God' but just a man-made text open to whatever interpretation we wish to put upon it. As such our interpretations are as good as yours.

As I told -1- this happens to all the traditions initiating with a conscious source. It is lawful mechanical devolution. Our subjective interpretations over time cover over objective meaning. Krishnamurti gives a good example:

'We are going to discuss this morning the dissolution of the Order of the Star. Many people will be delighted, and others will be rather sad. It is a question neither for rejoicing nor for sadness, because it is inevitable, as I am going to explain. “You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, “What did that man pick up?” “He picked up a piece of Truth,” said the devil. “That is a very bad business for you, then,” said his friend. “Oh, not at all,” the devil replied, “I am going to let him organize it." Krishnamurti

Krishnamurti?! lmfao!

The God of Christianity as I understand is really the same as the ONE described by Plotinus. Heaven is a quality of being Man has the evolutionary potential for. Hell is really bad karma or the result of involution. …

So no actual heaven or hell then?

The cycle of the Christ on earth is an aeon. The Christ appearance on earth begins the cycle. Over time the Christ influence is absorbed by the world ending the cycle. What happens to humanity in the absence of the Christ influence is an open question but not a pleasant perspective. Then it begins again if necessary and even possible.

Blimey a Hindu Christian, who'd have thunk. You are a sheep in search of your shepherd and you know what happens to sheep.

We don’t have it yet. Its teaching would enable scientific facts to become included within a human conscious perspective which connects above and below. As of now it would be rejected by both blind belief and blind denial so prominent people aware of it must share in private. …

So you would teach some sort of mystical hermeneutics would you? Just another metaphysician with dreams above his station.

You would teach the secularized versions of the above. …

Still not hearing an answer to what you would actually teach our young? Just more kissing lies.

For example Plato thought it essential to teach music. I don’t think he meant rap. …

You think he meant Beethoven? What a small-minded little man you are. I'm betting you're also one of those idiots who think the white marble statues represent Greek culture at the time.

Why teach music? You have avoided the most important aspect of education which is teaching the ability to sustain conscious attention. …

What type of music do you think the Greeks listened to? There are better tools about nowadays to teach conscious attention.

There is only one Christianity and variety of expressions of Christendom. …

Tell it to those you don't think are Christian. Me, I just think you all Jews.

As a secularist you don’t discriminate even theoretically between Christianity and Christendom. ...

Once more for the hard of thought, you are abusing the English language as your 'secularist' does not exist in the way you wish them to. As such you have no idea whether I can discriminate between the Church and what Christ said.

They are all the same quality for you. …

You know this how?

You may also be a person who doesn’t discriminate in knowledge described by Plato and its devolution into opinions. You may believe they are all the same. Their truths are determined scientifically. If that is how you believe you are not alone. It seems to be the rage of the day.

I know that whenever I ask such as you to give an example of a form that you have recalled you are unable to do so. So shock me, tell me a universal truth that you have arrived at and what form it was that convinced you. By the by, your 'devolved into opinions' shows your slips as Plato just meant they were not completely certain truths, not that they were not truths but you'd not know this as you've not actually read him have you?

-1-

You are very, very adamant in your ability that you can separate Christians from those who call themselves Christians but are not. Your criterion, it seems to me, is arbitrary however. "By whose authority" was the question, and your answer was, "by the authority of common sense".

Ay, this is problematic. What to Adolph is common sense, is not common sense to Vladimir, so to speak. Therefore common sense is not uniform, therefore your resolute faith that your definition of a Christian is solid and unerring, is not very convincing. Sorry to say this, but this is what I gathered.

It isn’t a matter of me defining people. The question is if you theoretically accept the difference between Christianity and Christendom. If you don’t accept it, how can we discuss it?

By common sense I mean what the senses have in common. When a person experiences the same phenomenon by sensation, emotion, and intellect then they experience it by common sense - with what the senses have in common. Experiencing Christianity with common sense requires a quality of consciousness our attachments and preconceptions prevent.

The upshot of the exercise (which has lasted a lifetime) has sort of convinced me that there is no magic ingredient to man, to any man, that makes him different; it is the sum total of a billion bits of disparate elements of his personality that makes him unique. There is no mystical inner self, in other words, and that is how I look at it now.

I appreciate that you look at man's essence the same way as I had been viewing it back 40 years ago and before. I accept your resolution of seeing humans as comprised of an inner man and an outer man; I was there, been there, done that, I can accept and even support you in this way of viewing things, but I must say, I can't share this vision with you, despite knowing it well and having experienced it.

Please elaborate. As I’ve witnessed children up to around five years of age do not have an acquired personality so are really expressing what they are or the inner man. Gradually after five or so they begin to acquire a personality which lives their life for them. What sort of personality can a three year old have? I think you would agree that each of these three year olds are different. If so and if they don’t have a personality, it can only be the plurality of their inner man or the qualities they are born with are individual.

I don't much regret the dying of it, because though that sort of imaginary conjecture gave me a nice feeling of having the hair stand on my neck, and losing that thrill, has been replaced by the riches of what I call a better world-view, a world view that makes more sense to me and though it lacks poetry and vivant coulours, it gave me more wisdom and more surety in life.

A better world view is one thing but do you believe Man on earth expresses both the highest degree of consciousness in the universe and Man’s conscious potential? If you do, then religious contemplations are senseless for you and just get in the way of your worldly interests. If your world view satisfies your need for meaning then I’m happy for you. We may be different but that doesn’t require animosity.

All in all, I think you have a beautiful mind, and a nice world view. I can't share it with you, but I don't want to deprive you of it anyway.

Well that’s a relief. As an aside I’m an old Star Trek fan who does appreciate good science fiction.

As a reminder, for you to open up to be more accepting of other people's concept of Christianity or of the world, life, and everything, is for you to consider your own words: "The authority to decide rests within the power of common sense." Common sense is shared; nobody has a monopoly on it, not you, not me, no human being. So please, I ask you just one thing: please start to consider that other views may be acceptable, too. And not "Acceptable to others", but other views may have an equal place in the Parnassus of world views along with yours, because, as you said, the acceptability rests on common sense, and one man's common sense does not trump another man's common sense.

Look at it this way. I’m rated a class A chess player which is a notch below expert. I don’t have anything against lower rated players who enjoy the game but if I wanted to get better I would have to associate with higher rated players, study up, and play tournaments again.

If a person wants to understand Christianity they have to find and associate with those with similar interests who have evolved in their understanding. That’s how they learn. I’m against the spirit killers in universities who serve to inhibit the inner search and inflict metaphysical repression on the young. They spread a very repulsive form of egoism assured to lead to bad karma for them.

Any kid with a deeper need for meaning will not accept the idea that they should create their own reality. If they are alive today they have witnessed the results of this strategy. We know who belittles their questions but who answers them? Jacob Needleman wrote in his book “The American Soul”

Our world, so we see and hear on all sides, is drowning in materialism, commercialism, consumerism. But the problem is not really there. What we ordinarily speak of as materialism is a result, not a cause. The root of materialism is a poverty of ideas about the inner and outer world. Less and less does our contemporary culture have, or even seek, commerce with great ideas, and it is the lack that is weakening the human spirit. This is the essence of materialism. Materialism is a disease of the mind starved for ideas.

Throughout history ideas of a certain kind have been disseminated into the life of humanity in order to help human beings understand and feel the possibility of the deep inner change that would enable them to serve the purpose for which they were created, namely, to act in the world as conscious individual instruments of God, and the ultimate principle of reality and value. Ideas of this kind are formulated in order to have a specific range of action on the human psych: to touch the heart as well as the intellect; to shock us into questioning our present understanding; to point us to the greatness around us in nature and the universe, and the potential greatness slumbering within ourselves; to open our eyes to the real needs of our neighbor; to confront us with our own profound ignorance and our criminal fears and egoism; to show us that we are not here for ourselves alone, but as necessary particles of divine love.

These are the contours of the ancient wisdom, considered as ideas embodied in religious and philosophical doctrines, works of sacred art,literature and music and, in a very fundamental way, an indication of practical methods by which a man or woman can work, as is said, to become what he or she really is. Without feeling the full range of such ideas, or sensing even a modest, but pure, trace of them, we are bound to turn for meaning.

I've both witnessed in the world and experienced that many of these ideas are repulsive to both blind believers and blind deniers. I support the efforts to arouse awareness of the poverty of ideas about the inner and outer world alive in the world regardless of the growls of the Great Beast. If they have been meaningful for me, why would I get any satisfaction from supporting their ridicule and denying them to others?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:58 pm

IN a recent work, Henri Nouwen emphasizes the essence of spirituality in a most succinct fashion: “To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God’s people.”

You seem totally involved with the world and and its "endless chain of urgencies and emergencies".

Well, I live there, so the "endless chain of urgencies and emergencies" is of interest, but I have my downtime.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:58 pmYou don't understand the attraction of someone to the level of reality of what Plato described as the Good or the source of what we experience as creation.

Can you demonstrate that this "level of reality" actually exists? I understand the attraction to utopian fictions very well, just as I understand that anyone who describes the universe as "creation" is making an assumption that they cannot support.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:58 pmThat's OK. Your side has enough support.

I also understand that your divisive characterisation of 'your side' and 'my side' is a result of your cherry picking passages from texts which are more subtle than you care to process. In that regard, it may be that you are in the majority. The available evidence is exactly the same for both of us, the difference is that you are prepared to accept some things uncritically, because you find them attractive...

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:58 pmI support the minority who are attracted to their source

...an example being the "source". If you could support your belief with some evidence, or at least a compelling argument, you would foster a great deal more respect than simply attributing someone's criticism to their being in league with "the Great Beast".

Uwot

...an example being the "source". If you could support your belief with some evidence, or at least a compelling argument, you would foster a great deal more respect than simply attributing someone's criticism to their being in league with "the Great Beast".

So we’re back to the same problem of introducing the triune reality to dualism. This is like trying to put a square peg into a round hole.

If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.. Simone Weil

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

We normally only recognize the interactions of two forces – yin and yang, positive and negative, yes and no, affirmation and denial etc. But every created phenomenon is the interaction of three forces. When a person opens to experience the third force it opens one to the vertical psychological direction which connects levels of reality. The problem then is how to open to the third dimension of thought especially for the young being harassed by spirit killers.

Of course a person can feel it which is the attraction to our source but if science and the essence of religion can ever become complimentary, there must be a way to demonstrate it intellectually. There is but it isn’t well known. There are many expressions of it and I am fond of the one offered by Basarab Nicolescu. Will our species find freedom from the limitations of reliance on duality and evolve psychologically as a whole to include the third dimension of thought is an open question since the spirit killers are quite skilled in defending dualism.

Karen Voss provides a good summary of what Basarab Nicolescu invites us to open to. It provides the framework for the eventual integration of the duality of science with the trine reality of the religious calling. It doesn’t provide the proof those like Uwot and Arisng are demanding but inspires us to consciously verify it for ourselves. Once a person experiences the third dimension of thought the purpose of Christ’s precepts become clear. Social meaning and purpose is learned in the dualistic horizontal direction while human meaning and purpose is found in the vertical third dimension of thought which connects levels of reality - above and below..

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Reviews/NicolescuReview.htm

After reading Nicolescu's Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, it is hard to imagine how any thinking person could retreat to the old, safe, comfortable conceptual framework. Taking a series of ideas that would be extremely thought-provoking even when considered one by one, the Romanian quantum physicist Basarab Nicolescu weaves them together in a stunning vision, this manifesto of the twenty-first century, so that they emerge as a shimmering, profoundly radical whole.

Nicolescu’s raison d’être is to help develop people’s consciousness by means of showing them how to approach things in terms of what he calls “transdisciplinarity.” He seeks to address head on the problem of fragmentation that plagues contemporary life. Nicolescu maintains that binary logic, the logic underlying most all of our social, economic, and political institutions, is not sufficient to encompass or address all human situations. His thinking aids in the unification of the scientific culture and the sacred, something which increasing numbers of persons, will find to be an enormous help, among them wholistic health practitioners seeking to promote the understanding of illness as something arising from the interwoven fabric—body, plus mind, plus spirit—that constitutes the whole human being, and academics frustrated by the increasing pressure to produce only so-called “value-free” material.

Two opposing realities: wholeness and fragmentation. The vertical third dimension of thought reconciles them. It is the same idea which integrates Plato’s conception of knowledge and opinion. Of course the world struggles against it in defense of duality and life in Plato’s cave. But there does seem to be a slowly growing number of people who are opening to the third dimension of thought. Our future may well depend on this slowly growing number.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:24 pmSo we’re back to the same problem of introducing the triune reality to dualism.

The way I see it is that we are back to the same problem of you taking "the triune reality" for granted. The thing is, anyone can make up any story that they find attractive, and as I keep saying, if it isn't contradicted by the evidence and doesn't makes demands of people who don't find it so appealing, there is no harm in you or anyone else believing whatever they like. But if you are going to describe something as "reality", you need a bit more than the fact that you find it attractive to persuade others that it is in fact reality. As I said, ideally you need evidence. Failing that, a compelling argument might suffice. All you are saying though, is that you have found an idea to your liking, and there's a few people who have said something similar. So the strongest argument you are making for this "triune reality", is an appeal to authority. That is all that any religion is and those are 10 a penny. A maximum of one is actually the case.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:24 pmThis is like trying to put a square peg into a round hole.

Well, if you could at least demonstrate that the hole is actually round, we might make some progress.

Matthew 9

16 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. 17 Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

We are entering a time when the opportunity will be there to experience from a human perspective as opposed to the usual dominant socially indoctrinated perspective. It will enable those willing to "remember" what has been forgotten concerning objective human meaning and purpose. Of course the spirit killers will do all they can to deprive the young of this natural advance in conscious awareness but there will always be those willing to and capable of annoying the Great Beast.

Whether humanity can take advantage of the opportunity is an open question. Opposition is strong but those with the need to become open will have the help of grace to open their minds and hearts to experience the inner vertical direction leading to wholeness. Opposition will become more obsessed with fragmentation to satisfy their need for meaning.

Then the rare ones capable of reconciling wholeness and fragmentation from a human perspective will become more important for those seeking "understanding" What will their effect be on humanity? Who knows.

Indeed, what is needed is to convert the world into a quasi-Christian caliphate based on rememberings of what has been forgotten.

Then all of the problems of overpopulation and climate change will simply disappear! Poof!

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 1:59 am Indeed, what is needed is to convert the world into a quasi-Christian caliphate based on rememberings of what has been forgotten.

Then all of the problems of overpopulation and climate change will simply disappear! Poof!

See how it works. Aggressive secularism condemns. Attacks Trump, populations, natural climate change. Makes the mind and heart shallow. Crush the natural attraction to "meaning." Just obsess with worldly pragmatic situations.

Ecclesiastes 3

11 He has made everything [a]appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.

Yes, the sense of eternity. What is our life in eternity? For secularism it is just an annoyance and gets in the way of important matters like attacking Trump. When such questions arise in the young inviting contemplation of the source of eternity and they are ridiculed by the experts, what is more natural than violence?