Secular Intolerance

[Nick_A]

scripture isn't historical, it is psychological. Its purpose is to touch the deepr mind that the literal mind blocks.

Don't you think scripture is MANY things? Was it not created by many, based on their own limitations, understandings, and purposes?

Doesn't it seem rather obvious that you're defining it NARROWLY to validate/glorify your belief in it, and to discredit others' criticism of it?

Do you think it is more spiritual to live by the words of other people and other times, than to live vibrantly in the here and now with all of the clarity and wisdom that we, ourselves, possess?

Why do you worship the past and those of it? What do you think they had that we don't? How would that make any sense?

Scripture may have more than one purpose but its primary purpose serves awakening to what secularism struggles against - awareness of conscious evolution. Secularism speaks of what we should DO. Scripture is concerned with what we ARE which sustains the fallen human condition.

The Gospels speak mainly of a possible inner evolution called "re-birth". This is their central idea. ... The Gospels are from beginning to end all about this possible self-evolution. They are psychological documents. They are about the psychology of this possible inner development --that is, about what a man must think, feel, and do in order to reach a new level of understanding. ... Everyone has an outer side that has been developed by his contact with life and an inner side which remains vague, uncertain, undeveloped. ... For that reason the teaching of inner evolution must be so formed that it does not fall solely on the outer side of man. It must fall there first, but be capable of penetrating more deeply and awakening the man himself --the inner, unorganized man. A man evolves internally through his deeper reflection, not through his outer life-controlled side. He evolves through the spirit of his understanding and by inner consent to what he sees as truth. The psychological meanings of the relatively fragmentary teaching recorded in the Gospels refers to this deeper, inner side of everyone.

- Maurice Nicoll; The New Man
i

[Lacewing]

Scripture may have more than one purpose but its primary purpose serves awakening to what secularism struggles against - awareness of conscious evolution.

Don't you think it's truly more accurate to say that ALL desire awareness of conscious evolution... and that ALL struggle with that... regardless of religion? Dividing people into groups that you assign arbitrary opposing characteristics to seems clearly manufactured for your own purposes. That is not truth. It serves you.

Secularism speaks of what we should DO. Scripture is concerned with what we ARE which sustains the fallen human condition.

The Gospels... are about the psychology of this possible inner development --that is, about what a man must think, feel, and do in order to reach a new level of understanding.

The quote you used to validate your claim says that the gospels are about what a man must think, feel, and do -- which you just said is an attribute of secularism, not scripture. It's not so black and white. You see, Nick, you use a selective form of comprehension to write/imagine things the way you want/need (just as ALL humans have done throughout history). That is not seeing broader truths -- that is feeding particular intoxications.

[Nick_A]

Scripture may have more than one purpose but its primary purpose serves awakening to what secularism struggles against - awareness of conscious evolution.

Don't you think it's truly more accurate to say that ALL desire awareness of conscious evolution... and that ALL struggle with that... regardless of religion? Dividing people into groups that you assign arbitrary opposing characteristics to seems clearly manufactured for your own purposes. That is not truth. It serves you.

Secularism speaks of what we should DO. Scripture is concerned with what we ARE which sustains the fallen human condition.

The Gospels... are about the psychology of this possible inner development --that is, about what a man must think, feel, and do in order to reach a new level of understanding.

The quote you used to validate your claim says that the gospels are about what a man must think, feel, and do -- which you just said is an attribute of secularism, not scripture. It's not so black and white. You see, Nick, you use a selective form of comprehension to write/imagine things the way you want/need (just as ALL humans have done throughout history). That is not seeing broader truths -- that is feeding particular intoxications.

You misunderstand. Secularism is concerned with before and after. It lives by past conditioning and in anticipation of a future. Dr. Nicoll is referring to the relative quality of now and what has to be done to affect the quality of NOW. The sacred refers to the quality of a moment while secularism lives in imagination and extending by imagination into the future.

Secularism is intolerant of efforts to consciously develop Man's "being." It considers it already developed. It is only concerned with telling people what to believe and do to satisfy the whims of its God - the Great Beast. It has no interest in the quality of "now" much less even know what it is,

[Lacewing]

Secularism is concerned with before and after. It lives by past conditioning and in anticipation of a future.

You've just described religion and yourself.

It is dishonest for you to try to pretend that theism in general focuses on the moment, when its whole foundation is built on looking back and promising forward. It is also dishonest for you to suggest that recognizing sacredness and living in the present moment is not experienced by people who don't want funky-ass religions distorting everything. The "Great Beast" you refer to, is your own imagination. You can dream up whatever you want... and that's the sort of shit that doesn't belong in social structures that are intended to serve and support everyone. Religion birthed your beast. Look to yourself for the hellish projections you try to blame on others.

[Nick_A]

Secularism is concerned with before and after. It lives by past conditioning and in anticipation of a future.

You've just described religion and yourself.

It is dishonest for you to try to pretend that theism in general focuses on the moment, when its whole foundation is built on looking back and promising forward. It is also dishonest for you to suggest that recognizing sacredness and living in the present moment is not experienced by people who don't want funky-ass religions distorting everything. The "Great Beast" you refer to, is your own imagination. You can dream up whatever you want... and that's the sort of shit that doesn't belong in social structures that are intended to serve and support everyone. Religion birthed your beast. Look to yourself for the hellish projections you try to blame on others.

As I've said many times the authentic religions like Christianity initiate with a conscious source and over time are absorbed by the world producing secular man made versions. These are secular institutions which will suffer the same fate as any other secular institution like politics.

I'm not concerned with your "funky-ass religions. My concern is for keeping the sacred influence in the world alive. It is this same sacred influence that blind secular intolerance seeks to destroy by all means open to it.

The "Great Beast" you refer to, is your own imagination. You can dream up whatever you want... and that's the sort of shit that doesn't belong in social structures that are intended to serve and support everyone. Religion birthed your beast. Look to yourself for the hellish projections you try to blame on others.

I must have a helluva imagination. I learned of the Beast from Plato and by elaborations on it from Simone Weil. I'm not good enough to imagine this depth. Others understand it. For example:

https://muchtoilingant.blogspot.com/201 ... alogy.html

"The image of the Beast conveys a great deal of what Plato wanted to say about democracy. Fundamental is the thought that in a political system of direct popular rule, where key decisions are taken not by an individual or a body with restricted membership, but by the assembled populace itself, the people become the source of all values in the society. As we might put it, democracy is in this regard a totalitarian system. More specifically, the power of public opinion generates a radically corrupt system of values. This is because it is the passions and appetites of the populace which in the end dictate the contents of what passes for wisdom. If they like something, that counts as good (i.e. as what we should truly want), in the teaching of the sophists as for everyone else; if they dislike it, the opposite. Necessity--that is (presumably), political expediency--is what gets dignified by the language of moral approbation: 'just', 'fine'. What has happened to reason as the basis on which judgments are made? An animal has no reason, but simply passions and appetites. You might think that the sophist--a practitioner of wisdom, someone dedicated to education--would as animal-keeper bring independent reason to bear on the business of ethics. But not so. The message is that the Beast controls him, not the other way around." - Schofield, Plato: Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press: 2006"

I'm flattered that you believe I can come up with these ideas.

[fooloso4]

Nick_A:

You still don't get it. Great minds like Einstein, Spinoza, and Simone were well aware of the corruption of religion. Yet they knew and some like Jacob Needleman still know that Secularism that glorifies itself is futile for serving the needs of the heart which is drawn to higher consciousness.

In typical form you throw out the names of your favorite list of characters instead of discussing the specifics of what was said by a specific person.

Spinoza was not talking about the corruption of religion. When he says that the salutary role of religion is undermined by sectarianism he is talking about when those like you:

begin to regard themselves as special, disparaging and persecuting other groups ...

You may deny it but that is what your claims about "authentic religion" is about.

Spinoza goes on to talk about a universal or public or civil religion, a religion of, in your terms, the Great Beast.

In line with this your rants would not be tolerated. You would be suppressed by the State, the Great Beast.

In addition, your claims of higher consciousness and transcendent realities are incompatible with Spinoza’s concept of God and man and philosophy. His God is completely impersonal and does not serve the needs of the heart.

This is why you and those like fooloso4 will never open to scripture. You read esoteric ideas with the literal mind but scripture isn't historical, it is psychological. Its purpose is to touch the deepr mind that the literal mind blocks.

This is funny. You post something from scripture to defend your never ending divisiveness, I respond by discussing the passage in context, and you fall silent on the matter. Your “esoteric” reading ignores the text. Is this what you imagine what it means to be open to scripture, to ignore what is says and impose an interpretation that does not fit?

Greta:

Someone who says "snowflakes" chides others about conformity

Ain’t that the truth! It’s like a highly contagious conservative virus. A sure sign that he has been infected, indoctrinated, and controlled by the collective (Great Beast) run by Rupert Murdoch (Fox and others), the Mercers (Breitbart), Sinclair Broadcast (for anyone who is not familiar with them you would be surprised and disturbed). A victim of InfoWars.

Lacewing, nice to see you. Another refugee from OPC. Were you too banned like Nick and Harbal because of secular intolerance?

[Lacewing]

I must have a helluva imagination. I learned of the Beast from Plato and by elaborations on it from Simone Weil. I'm not good enough to imagine this depth. Others understand it.

Well, actually, others BELIEVE it. And I guess you do too. It's not elevated by labeling it as "understanding".

I'm flattered that you believe I can come up with these ideas.

You're flattered that I think you're coming up with absurdities? Well, okay, let's just agree that you're going along with them, and building on them, even if you heard about them elsewhere first.

[Harbal]

You're flattered that I think you're coming up with absurdities?

[Lacewing]

Lacewing, nice to see you. Another refugee from OPC. Were you too banned like Nick and Harbal because of secular intolerance?

Thank you. No, I've not been banned (at least not yet). I left OPC because the discussions seemed to become too stagnant and rigid with the increasing moderation and rules.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing, nice to see you. Another refugee from OPC. Were you too banned like Nick and Harbal because of secular intolerance?

Thank you. No, I've not been banned (at least not yet). I left OPC because the discussions seemed to become too stagnant and rigid with the increasing moderation and rules.

Go back. With the new mod attitude nothing is more welcome than the negativity of secular intolerance. The new motto is "An ad hom a day keeps incorrect thoughts away." So go and give em hell. Start with a left hook as opposed to a right cross. The word "cross" is now politically incorrect.

[Nick_A]

F4

This is funny. You post something from scripture to defend your never ending divisiveness, I respond by discussing the passage in context, and you fall silent on the matter. Your “esoteric” reading ignores the text. Is this what you imagine what it means to be open to scripture, to ignore what is says and impose an interpretation that does not fit?

You re a card carrying secularist and only sees humanity in the context of one level of reality. Jesus brings a sword to divide levels of reality. Nothing could be more clear. You haven't given any indication that you are open to universalist philosophy which recognizes levels of reality as opposed to the one level that defines secularism.

John 12: 23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

This is not political or historical, it is the psychology of "being" A life for a life - the evolution of mechanical reactive life into conscious life in which conscious human action in addition to animal reaction is possible. Not even you could secularize this.

[fooloso4]

Nick_A:

Jesus brings a sword to divide levels of reality. Nothing could be more clear.

So clear that you do not provide any textual evidence from the text being discussed to back that up. And this goes to support my claim that you ignore the text. So clear that there is nothing in the text you now cite about "levels of reality".

This is not political or historical, it is the psychology of "being" A life for a life - the evolution of mechanical reactive life into conscious life in which conscious human action in addition to animal reaction is possible. Not even you could secularize this.

The chapter you now introduce instead of discussing the one you made claims about that you could not defend, begins with Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. You may think of this a merely a spiritual death, but such a “psychological” interpretation actually diminishes and even trivializes the miraculous, reducing it to a matter of “conscious life”. A multitude did not come to see Lazarus because he had a spiritual awakening.

Glorification is the work of God and is not of “evolution … into conscious life”:

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead: What is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:42 - 15:44)

I will not quote the whole thing but the culmination makes it clear just how far your life of "conscious life" and “conscious human action” is from Paul’s vision of life after death.

"Death has been swallowed up in victory." (15:54)

Even with your “a life for a life” you are still clinging to this life and imagining it to have other levels. One might even say that you have managed to secularize the text. What Paul and John are talking about is not our temporal life but life everlasting, not of the physical body, but of the spirit body. I don’t think anyone here will fault you for loving this life, but you fool yourself if you think that what Jesus promised is what you imagine yourself to be “evolving” to.

[Nick_A]

F4

brings a sword to divide levels of reality. Nothing could be more clear.
So clear that you do not provide any textual evidence from the text being discussed to back that up. And this goes to support my claim that you ignore the text. So clear that there is nothing in the text you now cite about "levels of reality".

OK, here is the biblical passage in question

Matthew 10
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

This passage was not designed to appeal to literal reason. A person open to levels of reality and of understanding appropriate for each knows that the “man against his father” and the daughter against her mother is referring to two different levels of reality. One is conscious and the other is mechanical. One cannot be confused with the other.

Matthew 12:46-50New International Version (NIV)
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

You do not know how to read the Bible. You try to define with the literal mind what is designed for the psychological mind. The crowd only knows physical mothers and brothers. Jesus is referring to those with a quality of being who are consciously connected with the above.

Matthew 16:26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

Again we have two levels of reality. Winning the world refers to the outer man or personality. The soul is a potential for the inner man. You do not distinguish between the realites of the outer and inner man so scripture cannot make sense to you

Your lack of understanding is typical of the secular mind dominating early education. What could be worse for a kid whose mind has begun to open to be attacked by secularists and their intolerance?

"The danger is not lest the soul should doubt whether there is any bread, but lest, by a lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry." ~ Simone Weil

That is what secular intolerance often does to the young. It makes them suppress their hunger until it finally dies and the person becomes just another conforming atom of the Great Beast.

[Greta]

Matthew 12:46-50New International Version (NIV)
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

You do not know how to read the Bible. You try to define with the literal mind what is designed for the psychological mind. The crowd only knows physical mothers and brothers. Jesus is referring to those with a quality of being who are consciously connected with the above.

Exactly the rationale of religious cults for creating conflict in, and even breaking up, families. Family members are deemed unworthy if they don't buy into the religion's doctrine.

How tolerant have religions been throughout history? Hardly at all.

[fooloso4]

Nick_A:

This passage was not designed to appeal to literal reason.

Instead of allowing the text show you how it is to be read you impose your notion of “levels of reality” on it and call this esotericism. You have not shown anything in the text to support your arbitrary reading and instead throw up a defense and claim that anyone who does not agree with you does not know how to to read the Bible. Blame it on secular intolerance but some of us expect textual support for an interpretation. Otherwise anyone can claim that the words mean whatever they say they mean and then accuse others of not knowing how to read the Bible. Your claim that you know how to read the Bible is not enough for anyone to take your interpretation seriously.