Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Wizard22]

No, it was merely intended to point out that the sooner you and AJ realize that compared to the true intelligence presiding over this universe, we humans are nothing more than the metaphorical equivalent of amoebas suspended in a drop of water,...

Well, I haven't dropped acid, so you can lord that experience over me all you like.

I can agree with that, Wiz, to which I would add my usual assertion of how the west (more specifically, America) is reaping the negative (necrotizing) karma from all of the death, destruction, and treachery it has sown across the planet over the last 6 or 7 decades through its Imperialistic endeavors.
_______

...which is why Americans will increasingly look to, and depend upon, Authoritarian cult-leaders to deal with the compounding chaos accrued by such bad karma. US Politicians are short-sighted. USA has a spiritual debt and fiscal debt that it increasingly cannot pay.

[Lorikeet]

Do you believe that there are no incorporeal souls within human bodies?

No.

If yes, then why, exactly?

Many reasons...
1- there is no need for it.
2- there is no evidence for it.

Words have been corrupted for over two-thousabnd years of Abrahamic infestation.
Psyche, according to the Greeks, was a reference to mind/body synthesis.
Plato offering his model as a triad: reason/will/passions, corresponding to mind/body/nervous system where mind/body merge.

Mind is a projection of body.....and this is where this delusion of a divinity is located.

Mind interprets sensorial input, and by interpreting it I mean it reduces it to a form it can process and store and use.
This interstation can be synthesized, e.g., unicorns, satyrs, centaurs etc.
and inverted.....
Nihilism inverts these interpretations (abstractions), representations.

So, when Abrahamics refer to 'God' they mean their collective minds, where such abstractions are collectively maintained in the form of narratives.
In Christianity one such narrative is of Jesus being resurrected....meaning his corporeal being is replaced by a purified version - a spiritual version....meaning an ideal.
Such ideas/ideals can be shared and adjusted over time to meet collective psychological needs.

The idea of an immortal soul is a persistent trope, alleviating the anxiety associated with death.
Essentially, what is immortalized is the idea of an individual....so that any time his name is mentioned he is said to be recalled into existence.
Power of words/symbols can be explored later.
Genetic death is dealt with by a memetic immortality.
DNA deconstructs but language can be propagated indefinitely, or as long as people sharing a language and the same narratives exist.

[Age]

Do you believe that there are no incorporeal souls within human bodies?

No.

If yes, then why, exactly?

Many reasons...
1- there is no need for it.
2- there is no evidence for it.

Why did you answer with a, 'No', but then replied here after the, 'If yes, ...'?

Words have been corrupted for over two-thousabnd years of Abrahamic infestation.

What words have been corrupted 'from', and 'to', exactly?

Psyche, according to the Greeks, was a reference to mind/body synthesis.

Okay, but so what?

Plato offering his model as a triad: reason/will/passions, corresponding to mind/body/nervous system where mind/body merge.

Mind is a projection of body.....and this is where this delusion of a divinity is located.

If you say so, but could you have been corrupted anywhere here?

If no, then how come?

Mind interprets sensorial input, and by interpreting it I mean it reduces it to a form it can process and store and use.
This interstation can be synthesized, e.g., unicorns, satyrs, centaurs etc.
and inverted.....
Nihilism inverts these interpretations (abstractions), representations.

So, when Abrahamics refer to 'God' they mean their collective minds, where such abstractions are collectively maintained in the form of narratives.

Where are they, and what are these 'minds', exactly, which you talk about and reference here?

In Christianity one such narrative is of Jesus being resurrected....meaning his corporeal being is replaced by a purified version - a spiritual version....meaning an ideal.
Such ideas/ideals can be shared and adjusted over time to meet collective psychological needs.

The idea of an immortal soul is a persistent trope, alleviating the anxiety associated with death.

What 'anxiety'?

Where did your anxiety associated with death come from, exactly?

Essentially, what is immortalized is the idea of an individual....so that any time his name is mentioned he is said to be recalled into existence.
Power of words/symbols can be explored later.
Genetic death is dealt with by a memetic immortality.
DNA deconstructs but language can be propagated indefinitely, or as long as people sharing a language and the same narratives exist.

Is the 'corrupted version' or the 'non corrupted version'?

[Lorikeet]

Why did you answer with a, 'No', but then replied here after the, 'If yes, ...'?

Nobody is omniscient.
We deal in probabilities.

What words have been corrupted 'from', and 'to', exactly? .

Many.....
a sample:
God, soul, spirit/soul, will, race/ethnicity, sex/gender, morality/ethics, love, good/evil...nihilism....

Okay, but so what?

you are evidence of the 'so what.'

If you say so, but could you have been corrupted anywhere here?

To prevent "corruption" we use a shared objective standard:
Nature....or empiricism.
All subjective perspectives must be evaluated by this standard.

Where are they, and what are these 'minds', exactly, which you talk about and reference here?

Mind is process.
Brain is where it occurs.
What we call 'mind' is our subjective experience of these brain, and all the body's, processes.

Ignorance is not an argument for or against any position.
The fact that we do not understand how mind works, does not make any hypothesis equally plausible.

What 'anxiety'?
Where did your anxiety associated with death come from, exactly?

From the realization that life ends.
Life's primary, primal, motive is self-preservation.
Humans overcome this by identifying with a collective or an abstraction representing it.

Is the 'corrupted version' or the 'non corrupted version'?

The nihilistic corruption of words/symbols can be measured by the DEGREE they've been detached from objective reality.
Those with no external referents, like your definition of "spirit."
I assume you have adopted the prevailing Abrahamic version of an immutable, eternal, spirit.

The world as it is experienced must anchor our abstractions, through words/symbols....otherwise they are prone to go off into flights of fancy, compelled by human desire, fueled by anxiety.

_________________________________________________
The Socratic method is often used by those with an agenda.
I luv it....though it can be tiresome to be interrogated knowing where it all leads.

The interrogators choice of questions, and they way he forms them, exposes his objective.
It isn't truth.

The method attempts to catch the interrogated in a self-cotnradiction, so as to dismiss the perspective, without challenging it directly.
If it fails it will, nevertheless, substitute the interrogated perspective with the interrogator's understanding of it, so as to manufacture the desired contradiction.
It always leads there.
The underlying presumption is that an absolute is offered, because the interrogator is infected with absoluteness.
The slightest fault, or absence of complete knowledge will be used to remain loyal to its own delusions, like the existence of an immutable, indivisible, immortal soul in a mortal, divisible, mutable form.

This goes back to Judaism' sparks, trapped in kellipots, awaiting to be released form their imprisonment to return to the eternal one.
Abrahamic to the core.

[Age]

Why did you answer with a, 'No', but then replied here after the, 'If yes, ...'?

Nobody is omniscient.
We deal in probabilities.

Why are you now deflecting?

you contradicted "yourself" above here. you answered, 'No', but then replied as if you answered, 'Yes'.

What words have been corrupted 'from', and 'to', exactly? .

Many.....
a sample:
God, soul, spirit/soul, will, race/ethnicity, sex/gender, morality/ethics, love, good/evil...nihilism....

you seem to have missed or misunderstood the actual question I asked, for clarification, here.

What have 'these words', supposedly, been corrupted 'from', and 'to', exactly?

Okay, but so what?

you are evidence of the 'so what.'

If you say so, but are you able to explain how, exactly?

If you say so, but could you have been corrupted anywhere here?

To prevent "corruption" we use a shared objective standard:
Nature....or empiricism.
All subjective perspectives must be evaluated by this standard.

So, are you here trying to suggest that you have not been corrupted or that the words and/or their definitions have not been corrupted?

Also, what is the exact 'nature' of the 'human being', which you, supposedly, use a shared objective standard, from?

And, whatever you say or claim could that just be your 'subjective perspective'?

Where are they, and what are these 'minds', exactly, which you talk about and reference here?

Mind is process.
Brain is where it occurs.
What we call 'mind' is our subjective experience of these brain, and all the body's, processes.

So, when you said and claimed, 'when "abrahamics" refer to 'God' they mean their collective minds', you mean 'they' mean their collective process, right?

And, what is the difference between when so-called "abrahamics" refer to 'God' and when "non abrahamics" refer to 'God' and when each mean, exactly?

Ignorance is not an argument for or against any position.

Are you here trying to suggest that you are not ignorant of any thing?

The fact that we do not understand how mind works, does not make any hypothesis equally plausible.

Hopefully, you are not trying to speak of all of 'us' here.

Otherwise, if you were, then you would be Wrong.

What 'anxiety'?
Where did your anxiety associated with death come from, exactly?

From the realization that life ends.

Could words here have been corrupted?

Could your 'realization' be False and/or Wrong?

Could your anxiety be unwarranted?

Life's primary, primal, motive is self-preservation.

Could 'Life', Itself, never end?

Humans overcome this by identifying with a collective or an abstraction representing it.

Could this be based on False or Wrong misinterpretations of things here?

Is the 'corrupted version' or the 'non corrupted version'?

The nihilistic corruption of words/symbols can be measured by the DEGREE they've been detached from objective reality.

Are you here suggesting that you know 'objective reality' and that if anyone has differing views from yours that it is 'them' who has corrupted versions and views?

Those with no external referents, like your definition of "spirit."

Who are you talking to here, exactly?

Who has a definition of 'spirit' here, and what is that definition, exactly?

I assume you have adopted the prevailing Abrahamic version of an immutable, eternal, spirit.

you are absolutely free to assume absolutely any thing. But, doing so is a very foolish thing to do. As you are showing and now highlighting, here.

The world as it is experienced must anchor our abstractions, through words/symbols....otherwise they are prone to go off into flights of fancy, compelled by human desire, fueled by anxiety.

Of which you have, right?

_________________________________________________
The Socratic method is often used by those with an agenda.
I luv it....though it can be tiresome to be interrogated knowing where it all leads.

How do you know where it 'all' leads, exactly?

And, where, exactly does it 'all' lead to?

The interrogators choice of questions, and they way he forms them, exposes his objective.
It isn't truth.

Okay, if you say and believe so. But, who are you talking about here, and what is "his objective", exactly, which has, supposedly, been exposed, to you?

The method attempts to catch the interrogated in a self-cotnradiction,

But you have already contradicted "your" 'self' here.

so as to dismiss the perspective, without challenging it directly.

Would you like 'your perspective' challenged directly?

If yes, then just express 'your perspective', directly.

If it fails it will, nevertheless, substitute the interrogated perspective with the interrogator's understanding of it, so as to manufacture the desired contradiction.
It always leads there.

Always?

The underlying presumption is that an absolute is offered, because the interrogator is infected with absoluteness.

Well if one knows the 'absoluteness', then 'the other' does not, right?

The slightest fault, or absence of complete knowledge will be used to remain loyal to its own delusions, like the existence of an immutable, indivisible, immortal soul in a mortal, divisible, mutable form.

Do you believe, absolutely, that there is no such Thing?

This goes back to Judaism' sparks, trapped in kellipots, awaiting to be released form their imprisonment to return to the eternal one.
Abrahamic to the core.

So, do you have any actual proof, or logical argument, that there is, absolutely, no such thing as you profess and claim here?

If yes, then where and what is 'it/them', exactly?

But, if no, then why do you believe such a thing as what you do here? And, why are you so absolute or insistent in your belief here?

[Lorikeet]

Why are you now deflecting?

Here we go, as predicted.

you contradicted "yourself" above here. you answered, 'No', but then replied as if you answered, 'Yes'.

What did i say "yes" to?

you seem to have missed or misunderstood the actual question I asked, for clarification, here.

What have 'these words', supposedly, been corrupted 'from', and 'to', exactly?

Human desire.
Human emotions.
Nihilism.
More specifically, centuries of Abrahamism.

If you say so, but are you able to explain how, exactly?

Evidence of need and dogmatism, exploiting human frailty, corrupting human reason.

Sheesh...another den....
I knew it would be.
I freely chose to enter it, already predicting the consequences.

So, are you here trying to suggest that you have not been corrupted or that the words and/or their definitions have not been corrupted?

I am suggesting that words are to be returned to their original utility, connecting mental abstractions with the world.

Also, what is the exact 'nature' of the 'human being', which you, supposedly, use a shared objective standard, from?

Human nature is displayed in appearance and behaviour, as it is for all living organisms.

And, whatever you say or claim could that just be your 'subjective perspective'?

All subjective perspectives are not equal.
The objective world determines which is superior, or more probable.
Actions, applying perspective, can also evaluate a perspective's quality, from the ensuing consequences, juxtaposed with the original intentions.

This is nothing new....science does it.

So, when you said and claimed, 'when "abrahamics" refer to 'God' they mean their collective minds', you mean 'they' mean their collective process, right?

I mean their collective determined by their indoctrination into a shared world-view....linguistically indoctrinated.
With no external referents for the superstations they peddle, they refer to themselves - it's a form of collective solipsism.
Their conventional defined terms are self-referential - words referring to texts, existing only in their collectivized minds, and nowhere else.
The external world is replaced with their collective and its shared texts.
So, 'word of god' really means word of the collective, represented by iconic figures, acting as mediators. Priestly class.
'First was the word...' means the collective use of a word precedes all else.
Reality must then be warped to fit into this model.

And, what is the difference between when so-called "abrahamics" refer to 'God' and when "non abrahamics" refer to 'God' and when each mean, exactly?

What difficult to understand?
Abrahamic definition of god - as shared by the world's major cults: Christianity, Islam, and mother Judaism...all derived from Gnosticism.

Are you here trying to suggest that you are not ignorant of any thing?

Ha!!!
Another predictable example.
The opposite, in fact.....reread my post.
Your need is overwhelming your sight.

Hopefully, you are not trying to speak of all of 'us' here.

Otherwise, if you were, then you would be Wrong.

Of course...because you say so....and majority rules.
Isn't reality democratically determined?

Could words here have been corrupted?

Could your 'realization' be False and/or Wrong?

Yes...you are stuck in the method you've accustomed to for dealing with anything challenging your superstitions.
I've gone over this.

Could your anxiety be unwarranted?

Ha!!
There it is.
Best defence ever.

Could 'Life', Itself, never end?

Give me one example.

It is also possible that rocks are alive.
Anything is possible, right?
But is it probable?
Arguments or evidence.

Could this be based on False or Wrong misinterpretations of things here?

Unable to respond you turn the tables....as predicted.
Again....it is already stated.
The standard is existence....natural order.

Are you here suggesting that you know 'objective reality' and that if anyone has differing views from yours that it is 'them' who has corrupted versions and views?

Is that what you've understood?
Am I saying that I'm omniscient?

Ha!!
Well, this will soon come to an end.
At some point you'll have to resist the impulse to dismiss me and declare victory, returning to the delusions you need to deal with existence.
I urge you to do so sooner, than later, so as to spare me the wasted time.
We both know you will never consider your delusions to be anything but certainties.
You already know your spirit is immortal and etenral....why go through this Socratic interrogation, pretending to be a thinker and interested in truth?

Who are you talking to here, exactly?

Is there anyone else here?
I'm addressing they/them.

Who has a definition of 'spirit' here, and what is that definition, exactly?

We both do....you are afraid to reveal it.
Your method is to discredit, as if this credits yours.

you are absolutely free to assume absolutely any thing. But, doing so is a very foolish thing to do. As you are showing and now highlighting, here.

How generous of you.

Of which you have, right?

Sheesh...womanly methods.
Oh well.
______________________________________________

Would you like 'your perspective' challenged directly?

Yes.
Womanly methods are tiresome.

If yes, then just express 'your perspective', directly.

I did in my definition of 'spirit'.

Always?

Ha!!
Most probably so.
Do your methods work? Do they offer you solace?

just say it...you believed the human spirit, only, is immortal and eternal.
You can't prove an absurdity by discrediting a rational hypothesis.

Well if one knows the 'absoluteness', then 'the other' does not, right?

Reread my post...unemotionally....without your prejudices.
Don't waste my time.

Do you believe, absolutely, that there is no such Thing?

There ya go...even when I made a point of mentioning this response you could not resist. It's all you've got.
Reread my definitions.
'Truth is there is no truth' right?
HA!!

So, do you have any actual proof, or logical argument, that there is, absolutely, no such thing as you profess and claim here?

The burden of proof is on the one claiming an absolute.
I don't need to prove the non-existence of god.
I am simply mentioning the absence.
I also believe unicorns do not exist...do you need evidence of this?

If yes, then where and what is 'it/them', exactly?

But, if no, then why do you believe such a thing as what you do here? And, why are you so absolute or insistent in your belief here?

I smell a nihilist.

I am proposing an absolute?
I insist?
Did I force you in any way to abandon your delusions?


Here, allow me to rectify...
Ta, Ta,

[Age]

Why are you now deflecting?

Here we go, as predicted.

you contradicted "yourself" above here. you answered, 'No', but then replied as if you answered, 'Yes'.

What did i say "yes" to?

you seem to have missed or misunderstood the actual question I asked, for clarification, here.

What have 'these words', supposedly, been corrupted 'from', and 'to', exactly?

Human desire.
Human emotions.
Nihilism.
More specifically, centuries of Abrahamism.

If you say so, but are you able to explain how, exactly?

Evidence of need and dogmatism, exploiting human frailty, corrupting human reason.

Sheesh...another den....
I knew it would be.
I freely chose to enter it, already predicting the consequences.

So, are you here trying to suggest that you have not been corrupted or that the words and/or their definitions have not been corrupted?

I am suggesting that words are to be returned to their original utility, connecting mental abstractions with the world.

Also, what is the exact 'nature' of the 'human being', which you, supposedly, use a shared objective standard, from?

Human nature is displayed in appearance and behaviour, as it is for all living organisms.

And, whatever you say or claim could that just be your 'subjective perspective'?

All subjective perspectives are not equal.
The objective world determines which is superior, or more probable.
Actions, applying perspective, can also evaluate a perspective's quality, from the ensuing consequences, juxtaposed with the original intentions.

This is nothing new....science does it.

So, when you said and claimed, 'when "abrahamics" refer to 'God' they mean their collective minds', you mean 'they' mean their collective process, right?

I mean their collective determined by their indoctrination into a shared world-view....linguistically indoctrinated.
With no external referents for the superstations they peddle, they refer to themselves - it's a form of collective solipsism.
Their conventional defined terms are self-referential - words referring to texts, existing only in their collectivized minds, and nowhere else.
The external world is replaced with their collective and its shared texts.
So, 'word of god' really means word of the collective, represented by iconic figures, acting as mediators. Priestly class.
'First was the word...' means the collective use of a word precedes all else.
Reality must then be warped to fit into this model.

And, what is the difference between when so-called "abrahamics" refer to 'God' and when "non abrahamics" refer to 'God' and when each mean, exactly?

What difficult to understand?
Abrahamic definition of god - as shared by the world's major cults: Christianity, Islam, and mother Judaism...all derived from Gnosticism.

Are you here trying to suggest that you are not ignorant of any thing?

Ha!!!
Another predictable example.
The opposite, in fact.....reread my post.
Your need is overwhelming your sight.

Hopefully, you are not trying to speak of all of 'us' here.

Otherwise, if you were, then you would be Wrong.

Of course...because you say so....and majority rules.
Isn't reality democratically determined?

Could words here have been corrupted?

Could your 'realization' be False and/or Wrong?

Yes...you are stuck in the method you've accustomed to for dealing with anything challenging your superstitions.
I've gone over this.

Could your anxiety be unwarranted?

Ha!!
There it is.
Best defence ever.

Could 'Life', Itself, never end?

Give me one example.

It is also possible that rocks are alive.
Anything is possible, right?
But is it probable?
Arguments or evidence.

Could this be based on False or Wrong misinterpretations of things here?

Unable to respond you turn the tables....as predicted.
Again....it is already stated.
The standard is existence....natural order.

Are you here suggesting that you know 'objective reality' and that if anyone has differing views from yours that it is 'them' who has corrupted versions and views?

Is that what you've understood?
Am I saying that I'm omniscient?

Ha!!
Well, this will soon come to an end.
At some point you'll have to resist the impulse to dismiss me and declare victory, returning to the delusions you need to deal with existence.
I urge you to do so sooner, than later, so as to spare me the wasted time.
We both know you will never consider your delusions to be anything but certainties.
You already know your spirit is immortal and etenral....why go through this Socratic interrogation, pretending to be a thinker and interested in truth?

Who are you talking to here, exactly?

Is there anyone else here?
I'm addressing they/them.

Who has a definition of 'spirit' here, and what is that definition, exactly?

We both do....you are afraid to reveal it.
Your method is to discredit, as if this credits yours.

you are absolutely free to assume absolutely any thing. But, doing so is a very foolish thing to do. As you are showing and now highlighting, here.

How generous of you.

Of which you have, right?

Sheesh...womanly methods.
Oh well.
______________________________________________

Would you like 'your perspective' challenged directly?

Yes.
Womanly methods are tiresome.

If yes, then just express 'your perspective', directly.

I did in my definition of 'spirit'.

Always?

Ha!!
Most probably so.
Do your methods work? Do they offer you solace?

just say it...you believed the human spirit, only, is immortal and eternal.
You can't prove an absurdity by discrediting a rational hypothesis.

Well if one knows the 'absoluteness', then 'the other' does not, right?

Reread my post...unemotionally....without your prejudices.
Don't waste my time.

Do you believe, absolutely, that there is no such Thing?

There ya go...even when I made a point of mentioning this response you could not resist. It's all you've got.
Reread my definitions.
'Truth is there is no truth' right?
HA!!

So, do you have any actual proof, or logical argument, that there is, absolutely, no such thing as you profess and claim here?

The burden of proof is on the one claiming an absolute.
I don't need to prove the non-existence of god.
I am simply mentioning the absence.
I also believe unicorns do not exist...do you need evidence of this?

If yes, then where and what is 'it/them', exactly?

But, if no, then why do you believe such a thing as what you do here? And, why are you so absolute or insistent in your belief here?

I smell a nihilist.

I am proposing an absolute?
I insist?
Did I force you in any way to abandon your delusions?


Here, allow me to rectify...
Ta, Ta,

Now this one's responses here are the absolute proof of why it is very foolish to assume things before one ever seeks out and obtains actual clarity first.

[Lorikeet]

As predicted....a victory dance is performed.

[seeds]

I can agree with that, Wiz, to which I would add my usual assertion of how the west (more specifically, America) is reaping the negative (necrotizing) karma from all of the death, destruction, and treachery it has sown across the planet over the last 6 or 7 decades through its Imperialistic endeavors.
_______

...which is why Americans will increasingly look to, and depend upon, Authoritarian cult-leaders to deal with the compounding chaos accrued by such bad karma.

In the immortal words of tennis legend John McEnroe screaming at a hapless umpire...

..."You cannot be serious!"

I mean, how utterly ironic it is that you would write something that seems to have an air or tone of warning against looking to authoritarian cult leaders,...

...while at the same time being a promoter and cheerleader for the most authoritarian-ish/cult leader-ish pus bucket to have ever emerged onto the scene of American politics.

In an alternate thread you said the following to me...

Here's how I see it, seeds...
You rubbed the Genie's lamp.
When confronted by the Jhinn,
You asked for World Peace.
You received 4 years of it, under Donald J. Trump.
It was then, in that moment, that you realized that your Wish was not worth the price...correct?
You spent the 60s and 70s in Woodstock, Vietnam, your life, fighting against War...but when you got it, you rejected it???
You rejected the Peace-Giver? Worse, you Crucify Him for it?!

You accuse me of "TDS" because I recoil in disgust at you (and millions of other cult members) treating the most brazen pathological liar in human history as if he were some kind of "Christ-like" figure.

Well, seeing how this is a thread in which AJ is pondering the merits of "Christian Nationalism," let's have a look at what the Christian Bible might be referencing with respect to our present age...

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."

And this...

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders;...



...insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

"

Now I don't know if you qualify as being a member of "...the very elect...", but like those pitiable fools in the picture above, you sure are being deceived by a false (wannabe) Christ.

Here's another verse that might be related to our situation...

"...God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth..."

To which I suggest that the "truth" mentioned in that verse is that the hedonistic and greedy, imperialistically dangerous America is (as we have discussed before) the contemporary version of Sodom and ̶G̶o̶m̶o̶r̶r̶a̶h̶ Gamera.

And Gamera (aka karma) is about to do a number on us...


_______

[Wizard22]

In an alternate thread you said the following to me...

Here's how I see it, seeds...
You rubbed the Genie's lamp.
When confronted by the Jhinn,
You asked for World Peace.
You received 4 years of it, under Donald J. Trump.
It was then, in that moment, that you realized that your Wish was not worth the price...correct?
You spent the 60s and 70s in Woodstock, Vietnam, your life, fighting against War...but when you got it, you rejected it???
You rejected the Peace-Giver? Worse, you Crucify Him for it?!

You accuse me of "TDS" because I recoil in disgust at you (and millions of other cult members) treating the most brazen pathological liar in human history as if he were some kind of "Christ-like" figure.

Well, seeing how this is a thread in which AJ is pondering the merits of "Christian Nationalism," let's have a look at what the Christian Bible might be referencing with respect to our present age...

I posted my response here:
viewtopic.php?p=707397

......Most of these types presume that World Peace is the objective, and not War. So their actual premise/value (Peace) is hidden, in an attempt to exploit and maneuver rhetorically around Subjective intentions. Obviously, one man's "Peace" is going to interfere with another's. For one man, "Peace" means that he is fed...but everybody else, not necessarily. So, through rhetoric and argument, it will be found out that the Subject is not so willing to starve himself, before all else are fed—but will capitulate at some point, sacrifice this supposed Utopianism, and feed himself before others. The hypocrisy, the contradiction, will become exposed for others to see.

The 'Objective' intention, is exposed by the Subjective hidden motive: my food, my satiation, my hunger, comes before others'.......

[Alexis Jacobi]

The Golden One has some opinions on Catholicism.

All part of the conversation of course.

[Alexiev]

Huh? There have been Empires that were not Monotheistic (Rome for the first 600 years, Egypt, Babylon and more). There have also been Empires with diverse religions (the Mongols, who had the largest empire of all time and adopted a variety of religions from their conquests).

Of course all of these empires eventually fell apart, but many lasted longer than any monotheistic empires. It may be true that centralized morality helps empire building, but there's not much evidence supporting that.

Rome and the Vatican have been around for nearly 2000 years; the German nations called themselves the Holy Roman Empire in 1512.

Can you give me some examples of "many lasted longer than any monotheistic empires"?

The Vatican was never an empire. In addition, it didn't split from the Orthodox church until 1054.

The Holy Roman Empire came and went many times, from Charlemagne, to Barbarossa. But it was never a continuous empire for long.

Your best example would be the Roman Empire based in Constantinople, which did survive for 1000 years, although its boundries and power varied. It was Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You accuse me of "TDS" because I recoil in disgust at you (and millions of other cult members) treating the most brazen pathological liar in human history as if he were some kind of "Christ-like" figure.

For my part (your comment was directed to Wizard) I cannot accuse you of anything really. Accusation is not the purpose of anything I write. I am far more interested in *seeing* and understanding what is going on around us. True it is that I definitely and adamantly believe that the Christian revelation cannot and should not be side-stepped or negated. And the reason I have this opinion is because of the nature and the quality of the materials that I have at my disposal. What impresses me the most is how utterly ignorant most who write here are about our own historical traditions. It is that ignorance which, out there in the general public sphere, compounds itself in error upon error, until finally the thing which is to be seen and understood stands utterly maligned and completely misunderstood.

And so all that I can do is to double-down that much more strongly, with that much more certainty, on the core assertion of the relevance and valuableness of the Christian revelation in history. And I can only do this as a step I take in relation to my own understanding since no one else will or can listen. What we are, we have been made through hundreds of generations of men coming into contact with an *invisible structure* of meaning & value. In the terms of the Bible itself that is referred to as *the Word of God*, but these terms, so overused, so contaminated by those who we might label *false Christians*, are now obstacles to what the term should be, could be, understood to actually mean. It is only when what it could mean is revealed that the lead sheeting of ignorance is lifted slightly from around what it envelops.

In order to understand what it could mean is actually to become familiar with what it did mean and has meant -- and in relation to the formation of our civilization and to the cultural and social processes that have unfolded over hundreds of years. What is that? It is like asking what exactly is the power and force that stands behind an idea or a symbol (i.e. meaning) that moves people on an inner plane. What is that inner plane and what moves in it? Try to define and explain what that is. And where it is. The reference is to a consciousness and to a potency that is super-natural to the biological and material world in which we are ensconced.

How to talk about that among people who have set their will on cementing their sense of the validity of their own perspective which refuses to move beyond a set of operative conclusions that have been determined and maintained by the rigidity of their cemented will?

The above is to clarify the larger picture of what the Christian revelation has been in our history and it is presented in grand terms. The reason I make such a statement is related to the topic of this thread: Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue. The term *civilization* references not the physical structure but an overarching essence. The sense of the meaning in the term civilization refers therefore to a Grand Idea that is not locatable in physical reality. In fact it cannot really be located. But there of course you have my own sense of what *the metaphysical* means.

But we must face the fact that the farther you go down into the actual world of men today, where you actually go down into is a dense mire of mental, emotional, spiritual, political and economic confusion and static where everything is jumbled and unclear, and in fact seems as if it would be impossible to sort it all out. It is a world of madness quite frankly. I mean that of course in the specific Christian sense: that World because it is a mire is always a potential trap. It can and it will suck you into itself, and it can destroy you at a psychic level. And that is the world we all live in here and now. If I say that *that is the Modern world* and we are moderns in that world, this is what I mean. We are the subjects of this modern reality.

But what then does the prospect of *liberation from* that mire mean? The Question has a life of its own.

To refer to the Trump-inspired movement as a *cult* is a mistake of designation; is a mistake of accurate seeing. But it is not entirely inaccurate either. The one who creates this formulation, and the one the at stresses it against others which are more accurate and thus more revealing, is himself mired in that which I refer to as *confusion*. It is deep partisanship really. And that is my overall impression of your stance, Seeds. You block yourself from seeing through the superficialities to many other factors which your own willfulness keeps you from seeing. It is a classic vicious circle.

Well, seeing how this is a thread in which AJ is pondering the merits of "Christian Nationalism," let's have a look at what the Christian Bible might be referencing with respect to our present age...

This is actually an idiotic misstatement of anything I am attempting to say and for a number of reasons. In the first place what we refer to as *our country* and the inspiration for it, was conceived as a response to deeply held convictions about God, God's actions in history; about the meaning of history and revelation. For this reason there is no way around understanding the United States as a Christian nation. I.e. Christian nationalist. To say that I am *pondering the merits* of Christian nationalism when, in relation to our own country, we cannot but see that it was established as just such a Christian nation at its inception, indicates that I am speaking on a level that you do not understand.

And, weirdly, you then proceed to apply Christian historical tools of analysis, based in aspects of Christian prophecy, to condemn certain polular and contemporary manifestations within politics, within society, that merely show the *mire* and the *static* and the density of the cultural soup which is a confusing mass of counter-currents. What a strange game you play.

In that sense your psychedelic inspired and determined Vision is actually a tripped-out version of the Christian Picture, but instead of the God of Theology and strict morality, your God is expressed in this floating *eye* which, according to your descriptions, looks down on mere amoebas. And your preaching, and your diagramming, is one directed to such uni-celled creatures.

My point is that you fail to understand, and because you do not understand you cannot really talk about, the fact that history is alive with actual actors -- and here I mean Christian actors -- who are stepping into the present with a certain strength and force. I could refer to 100 different actors of this sort whose ideas move in our present with a certain dramatic power. Some of them might be *murky* and some of them might be *ultra-clear* -- but they are responding from within a real and living tradition which fosters real and living responsa to those events and happenings of their present.

I too have been exposed to and have been forced to ponder and try to understand *what is going on* when we examine a photo like the one I submit here. (It is a photo I grabbed somewhere and then modified in LightRoom). What is going on here? How you answer that question will determine *your own lens of view*. Perhaps that lens will actually keep you from seeing something *real*. What you will see, then, is something like *hysterical enactment* by lunatic Christians.

Whose seeing brings the better clarification?

If you take the Christian body -- the totality of all those who *believe* -- you will I think be forced to see that what they do in their internal world (of prayer, of thought, of hope) is similar to what we see in this photograph. But then so do any mass of people who hold a *picture* of the world in their minds and imagination and respond to it. The real issue has to do I think with the purity of the person doing the imagining.

[Dubious]

You accuse me of "TDS" because I recoil in disgust at you (and millions of other cult members) treating the most brazen pathological liar in human history as if he were some kind of "Christ-like" figure.

For my part (your comment was directed to Wizard) I cannot accuse you of anything really. Accusation is not the purpose of anything I write. I am far more interested in *seeing* and understanding what is going on around us. True it is that I definitely and adamantly believe that the Christian revelation cannot and should not be side-stepped or negated. And the reason I have this opinion is because of the nature and the quality of the materials that I have at my disposal. What impresses me the most is how utterly ignorant most who write here are about our own historical traditions. It is that ignorance which, out there in the general public sphere, compounds itself in error upon error, until finally the thing which is to be seen and understood stands utterly maligned and completely misunderstood.

And so all that I can do is to double-down that much more strongly, with that much more certainty, on the core assertion of the relevance and valuableness of the Christian revelation in history. And I can only do this as a step I take in relation to my own understanding since no one else will or can listen. What we are, we have been made through hundreds of generations of men coming into contact with an *invisible structure* of meaning & value. In the terms of the Bible itself that is referred to as *the Word of God*, but these terms, so overused, so contaminated by those who we might label *false Christians*, are now obstacles to what the term should be, could be, understood to actually mean. It is only when what it could mean is revealed that the lead sheeting of ignorance is lifted slightly from around what it envelops.

In order to understand what it could mean is actually to become familiar with what it did mean and has meant -- and in relation to the formation of our civilization and to the cultural and social processes that have unfolded over hundreds of years. What is that? It is like asking what exactly is the power and force that stands behind an idea or a symbol (i.e. meaning) that moves people on an inner plane. What is that inner plane and what moves in it? Try to define and explain what that is. And where it is. The reference is to a consciousness and to a potency that is super-natural to the biological and material world in which we are ensconced.

How to talk about that among people who have set their will on cementing their sense of the validity of their own perspective which refuses to move beyond a set of operative conclusions that have been determined and maintained by the rigidity of their cemented will?

The above is to clarify the larger picture of what the Christian revelation has been in our history and it is presented in grand terms. The reason I make such a statement is related to the topic of this thread: Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue. The term *civilization* references not the physical structure but an overarching essence. The sense of the meaning in the term civilization refers therefore to a Grand Idea that is not locatable in physical reality. In fact it cannot really be located. But there of course you have my own sense of what *the metaphysical* means.

But we must face the fact that the farther you go down into the actual world of men today, where you actually go down into is a dense mire of mental, emotional, spiritual, political and economic confusion and static where everything is jumbled and unclear, and in fact seems as if it would be impossible to sort it all out. It is a world of madness quite frankly. I mean that of course in the specific Christian sense: that World because it is a mire is always a potential trap. It can and it will suck you into itself, and it can destroy you at a psychic level. And that is the world we all live in here and now. If I say that *that is the Modern world* and we are moderns in that world, this is what I mean. We are the subjects of this modern reality.

But what then does the prospect of *liberation from* that mire mean? The Question has a life of its own.

To refer to the Trump-inspired movement as a *cult* is a mistake of designation; is a mistake of accurate seeing. But it is not entirely inaccurate either. The one who creates this formulation, and the one the at stresses it against others which are more accurate and thus more revealing, is himself mired in that which I refer to as *confusion*. It is deep partisanship really. And that is my overall impression of your stance, Seeds. You block yourself from seeing through the superficialities to many other factors which your own willfulness keeps you from seeing. It is a classic vicious circle.

Well, seeing how this is a thread in which AJ is pondering the merits of "Christian Nationalism," let's have a look at what the Christian Bible might be referencing with respect to our present age...

This is actually an idiotic misstatement of anything I am attempting to say and for a number of reasons. In the first place what we refer to as *our country* and the inspiration for it, was conceived as a response to deeply held convictions about God, God's actions in history; about the meaning of history and revelation. For this reason there is no way around understanding the United States as a Christian nation. I.e. Christian nationalist. To say that I am *pondering the merits* of Christian nationalism when, in relation to our own country, we cannot but see that it was established as just such a Christian nation at its inception, indicates that I am speaking on a level that you do not understand.

And, weirdly, you then proceed to apply Christian historical tools of analysis, based in aspects of Christian prophecy, to condemn certain polular and contemporary manifestations within politics, within society, that merely show the *mire* and the *static* and the density of the cultural soup which is a confusing mass of counter-currents. What a strange game you play.

In that sense your psychedelic inspired and determined Vision is actually a tripped-out version of the Christian Picture, but instead of the God of Theology and strict morality, your God is expressed in this floating *eye* which, according to your descriptions, looks down on mere amoebas. And your preaching, and your diagramming, is one directed to such uni-celled creatures.

My point is that you fail to understand, and because you do not understand you cannot really talk about, the fact that history is alive with actual actors -- and here I mean Christian actors -- who are stepping into the present with a certain strength and force. I could refer to 100 different actors of this sort whose ideas move in our present with a certain dramatic power. Some of them might be *murky* and some of them might be *ultra-clear* -- but they are responding from within a real and living tradition which fosters real and living responsa to those events and happenings of their present.

I too have been exposed to and have been forced to ponder and try to understand *what is going on* when we examine a photo like the one I submit here. (It is a photo I grabbed somewhere and then modified in LightRoom). What is going on here? How you answer that question will determine *your own lens of view*. Perhaps that lens will actually keep you from seeing something *real*. What you will see, then, is something like *hysterical enactment* by lunatic Christians.

Whose seeing brings the better clarification?

If you take the Christian body -- the totality of all those who *believe* -- you will I think be forced to see that what they do in their internal world (of prayer, of thought, of hope) is similar to what we see in this photograph. But then so do any mass of people who hold a *picture* of the world in their minds and imagination and respond to it. The real issue has to do I think with the purity of the person doing the imagining.

With all the sanctimonius bullshit here rendered by Herr Elder the master proselytizer on the site, I imagine it should be you who's centered in the picture. The fact is there are any number of ways to consider the modern dilemna and its future with or without the context of Christianity, it's ecumenical mandates or indeed, any centralized view by some visionary paraclete who happens to proclaim it.

Your statement The real issue has to do I think with the purity of the person doing the imagining historically has had some of the most inimical side-effects by enforcing a sense of infallibility on oneself or worse projecting such a near stainless persona on someone and following it as a infallible guide. Was there ever a guru who didn't consider himself replete with an innate sense of knowing, whether or not he actually knew, that could easily be thrust upon others within hearing distance. NO! Not even Jesus or the Buddha himself!

To a great extent, our future paradigms will depend on how many lies of the past we're still willing to accept.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your statement The real issue has to do I think with the purity of the person doing the imagining, historically has had some of the most inimical side-effects by enforcing a sense of infallibility on oneself or worse projecting such a near stainless persona on someone and following it as a infallible guide. Was there ever a guru who didn't consider himself replete with an innate sense of knowing, whether or not he actually knew, that could easily be thrust upon others within hearing distance. NO! Not even Jesus or the Buddha himself!

I am saddened to learn that even an extra-strength butt plug with remote control seems to have little helped.

What you fail to recognize in what you have written is that you are talking about yourself.

You act like the •guru• when you fill your pronouncements with such determined certainty.

Yet, and to be factual, there surely were and are gurus who did know what they professed to know within the episteme they worked within. Do you see my point, my Grumpy Griping Grandpa?

Your purpose here is in nothing but negation. It is your virulence which from my angle of view indicates a neurotic relationship to the material presented. That’s your issue to solve and forgive me for pointing this out yet these issues (embittered psychology among others) are really part of the issues and questions under examination.

To a great extent, our future paradigms will depend on how many lies of the past we're still willing to accept.

This implies that you, Mr Ultra-Grump, know of the real truths that overturn those false truths you believe you can expose. But what you propose, in the end, is empty of content. You go on tirades and then, like Chekhov’s geese, you shut your trap for a time, but cackle again with dawn’s light.

The real issue has to do I think with the purity of the person doing the imagining
is a fair statement — certainly within the context of the episteme (if that is as far as one can or will go) of Christian revelation.

Your real negation is, I think, that you absolutely deny validity to the Christian picture and metaphysic, and therefore to any revelation because you are certain it was hallucinated by a psycho.

This is really •old hat• Dubes.

The fact is that what has inspired and moved entire generations of men in their historical and civilizational constructions, has come from their greater or lesser purity in precisely the sense I meant.

I am unsure if you can distinguish between a •lie• and a •truth• because both exist in ephemeral zones of meaning & value.