Smart Christianity / Dumb Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Regarding historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, I did not say evidence I said primary sources and circumstancial evidence.

You really need to read the book, or another like it. There are not only primary sources, but far more that circumstantial evidence, and in far greater quantities and with greater probative value than much of the historical data we routinely accept. Caesar's whole Gallic campaign is nowhere near as historically attested as the life of Christ. And no serious scholar today, even among those who deny that Jesus Christ was more than a man, is prepared to argue there simply was no historical Jesus Christ.

So you're really in need of investigation of the evidence there: unilaterally declaring there is none is simply wishful thinking.

I am concerned to keep Xian ethics alive by means of a new and reasonable myth .

There's no such thing. By definition, a "myth" is not "reasonable." That's what makes it "mythical."

The divine law giver is not a personal deity but is a way of saying "cosmic orderliness".

Not for Francis Bacon, it wasn't. He was as enthusiastic about his theological writing as his scientific work, and it was explicitly Christian, and explicitly referred to the Person you insist existed only as a "myth." Bacon would not have agreed.

Cosmic orderliness would be very nice if we could know it, but we can't.

Sure we can. We take for granted the order in the cosmos, perform experiments based on it, and see if they work reliably. That's science.

If , on the other hand , the divine law giver is a person then he could intervene in history whenever he wanted.

That's the point. There is thus no reason to think that he HAS not done so, unless a) we know of no claims of such interventions (which, of course, we do), or b) we knew exactly what DID happen, and it wasn't the proposed intervention. But there is zero warrant in the observation, "People do not walk on water, as a rule," to conclude, "Therefore God Himself could not walk on water."

Your remarks about Marx are ad homimen.

Actually, they're totally verifiable. Just look up any biography on Marx, or read what he actually wrote about religion. I wouldn't say those things if they were even controversial. Marx's famous "opium of the masses" attitude to religion is probably his most quoted line. And his sexual assault of his housekeeper, Lenchen, resulted in an illegitimate child, Frederick, so that's hard to hide, too.

So I'm just telling you what the man was actually like. He was no saint. And he hated religion.

[Belinda]

Regarding historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, I did not say evidence I said primary sources and circumstancial evidence.

You really need to read the book, or another like it. There are not only primary sources, but far more that circumstantial evidence, and in far greater quantities and with greater probative value than much of the historical data we routinely accept. Caesar's whole Gallic campaign is nowhere near as historically attested as the life of Christ. And no serious scholar today, even among those who deny that Jesus Christ was more than a man, is prepared to argue there simply was no historical Jesus Christ.

So you're really in need of investigation of the evidence there: unilaterally declaring there is none is simply wishful thinking.

I am concerned to keep Xian ethics alive by means of a new and reasonable myth .

There's no such thing. By definition, a "myth" is not "reasonable." That's what makes it "mythical."

The divine law giver is not a personal deity but is a way of saying "cosmic orderliness".

Not for Francis Bacon, it wasn't. He was as enthusiastic about his theological writing as his scientific work, and it was explicitly Christian, and explicitly referred to the Person you insist existed only as a "myth." Bacon would not have agreed.

Cosmic orderliness would be very nice if we could know it, but we can't.

Sure we can. We take for granted the order in the cosmos, perform experiments based on it, and see if they work reliably. That's science.

If , on the other hand , the divine law giver is a person then he could intervene in history whenever he wanted.

That's the point. There is thus no reason to think that he HAS not done so, unless a) we know of no claims of such interventions (which, of course, we do), or b) we knew exactly what DID happen, and it wasn't the proposed intervention. But there is zero warrant in the observation, "People do not walk on water, as a rule," to conclude, "Therefore God Himself could not walk on water."

Your remarks about Marx are ad homimen.

Actually, they're totally verifiable. Just look up any biography on Marx, or read what he actually wrote about religion. I wouldn't say those things if they were even controversial. Marx's famous "opium of the masses" attitude to religion is probably his most quoted line. And his sexual assault of his housekeeper, Lenchen, resulted in an illegitimate child, Frederick, so that's hard to hide, too.

So I'm just telling you what the man was actually like. He was no saint. And he hated religion.

There are no primary sources either documentary or archeological for Jesus of Nazareth. There are criteria for good historiography.

A "reasonable myth" is a myth that besides being an important story is based in history . Jesus of Nazareth represents many Jews who were crucified by the Romans and in that he was not unique but represents the innocent martyred man of good character. Even without the historicity Jesus of Nazareth myth would be powerful but the superstition that has attached to the myth puts it up a gumtree for increasing numbers of people most of whom now find the myth to be irrelevant.

There are academic criteria for source material but you don't seem to know what these are.

No scientist believes they can ever know the whole truth. However good the inductive method there is always room for doubt. Experiments do verify more or less but the results are always falsifiable.

Why do you you believe the cosmic law giver is a Person and not a Orangutan or a Wasp?

Telling me what the man was "actually like" is not relevant to the worth of his ideas and to do so is ad hominem.

[Immanuel Can]

There are no primary sources either documentary or archeological for Jesus of Nazareth.

Like I say...you really need that book. Because to be frank, you don't know what you're talking about here.

No scientist believes they can ever know the whole truth. However good the inductive method there is always room for doubt. Experiments do verify more or less but the results are always falsifiable.

Well, that's true. Science is a probabilistic endeavour, since no person has ever completed all the possible experiments and gathered all the possible data for even one hypothesis. What we go with is the idea of sufficient data, enough that we can stop experimenting and estimate reasonably that the pattern of data we have will be likely to continue. That's all.

Why do you you believe the cosmic law giver is a Person and not a Orangutan or a Wasp?

Because I know what an Orang and a wasp are. I've seen both. I think you'll find they're not capable.

Telling me what the man was "actually like" is not relevant to the worth of his ideas and to do so is ad hominem.

But I wasn't telling you what the worth of his ideas was. I was only speaking of the source of his ideas. So were you, when you said he borrowed Christian values to decide to "help" the poor...though he never really helped them at all, of course.

However, you're right that nothing about Marx's nasty biography tells us for certain what the quality of his ideas were. But for that, we have recent, modern history. We know exactly where Marx's ideas led, regardless of his biography; they led to bloody revolution, the death march, tyranny, the firing squad, the gulag and to national economic collapse. That's well established, and we need say no more about Marx himself to know it.

[Lacewing]

How do you keep other people's trip from becoming your trip? Or how do you keep your own vibration? I seem to have great difficulty with actually doing that. Do you just avoid narcissists? Do you seek out people with good vibrations?

Well, it can be an ongoing challenge for sure. I avoid being around crazy/intoxicated trips as much as possible. I've let go of people who were continually spun up. My intuition tells me who to avoid from the start, if I listen. I recognize that there are always more paths than the one at any given moment, and I stay present as much as I can -- which (I think) makes me more conscious and light-hearted about the paths I choose to be on at any given time. I question options/answers/authority enough to try and assess what's driving them -- so I don't typically jump on board or over a cliff, no matter how convincing or intoxicated someone else (even a loved one) may be.

Most of all: It seems to me that our most authentic intentions and energy vibrations are supported and reflected by the Universe. Whether that be darkness or light, twisted or smooth, rigid or flowing, hateful or loving -- our thoughts and feelings manifest as the reality we experience. We are the creator behind it. Doesn't mean we are responsible for everything bad in the world that we experience/perceive... just means we are responsible for our own energy vibration in response/relationship to everything.

Why are you so wise? You weren't born knowing how to do that, were you?

Are you stroking me for some devious reason? I do not know what anyone else's life or potential for awareness is like -- but I imagine that we all have similar choices and capabilities to explore for ourselves. As I've said before on this forum about my own experience, I remember early on as an infant/toddler, seeing/understanding that my parents didn't know what they were doing. Further experiences continually reinforced that I was on my own. My life has included trials and errors, exploring and discovering on various levels, growing up in the church while observing it and beyond it, testing boundaries and power, being entangled with the wrong people/situations (as well as great ones), and lots of choices/mistakes that I wish I could rewrite (as well as those I treasure). I realize, without all of it, I might not be experiencing what I do now.

I wonder: Isn't it simply a matter of any of us questioning what we think, do, believe, perceive? And as we're questioning, truly desiring/embracing clarity beyond that? What makes us hold onto what we do? What is the payoff in doing so? Do we become an unquestioning servant to it? Or even a slave...or a delusional prophet of a certain limited madness? Why not seek to explore a more vast and ever-expanding landscape? Isn't that more truthful and fascinating? Why not expand and demonstrate one's increasing capabilities in that process? Isn't that what life inspires and makes possible? Why cling to limited stories... even turning them into religions to perpetuate them? We do not need to cower in constructs. We do not need to create/align identities for ourselves with such things. Exploring reveals so much more... and it is not scary when one is filled with love and feels already at home.

Why do we cast life as some sort of torment to be escaped, and create fantasies about something we define as better that we claim we deserve? Then we wait for it. ??? The potential for exploration and expansion is right here, right now. I say: Stock up on love for the journey of exploration, and then go forth questioning and loving and expanding. In addition to being a wonderful and entertaining experience, the expansion and clarifying of one's energetic signature might persist beyond one's physical life. We are certainly free to choose particular stories... but (I wonder) why do so with such a magnificent opportunity before us?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Because I know what an Orang and a wasp are. I've seen both. I think you'll find they're not capable.

I don't agree men are better than wasps or orangutans. Sometimes men are like devils from hell.

As for communism, good ideas are not always fulfilled and with hindsight we see why.Nothing to do with Marx's sexual encounters.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't agree men are better than wasps or orangutans. Sometimes men are like devils from hell.

NOBODY even suggested they were. I certainly didn't.

You asked if wasps or orangs could be "the cosmic lawgiver." I think that's pretty evidently silly, but I gave it a respect perhaps the comment didn't actually merit, and answered it. And now you can't even remember what it was that you yourself asked?

As for communism, good ideas...

"Good ideas" and "Communism" are manifestly opposites. Always have been. Over one hundred million dead people would say "amen" to that assessment, if they could. But Communism got them.

[Nick_A]

Why did Jesus speak in parables? If he had something to say why not come out with it and make it clear? Was it a trick to make him appear important or is there an objective purpose for myths and parables the literal mind has become closed to?

[Immanuel Can]

Why did Jesus speak in parables? If he had something to say why not come out with it and make it clear? Was it a trick to make him appear important or is there an objective purpose for myths and parables the literal mind has become closed to?

This quotation might be relevant:

And He was saying, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven.”

And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables? The sower sows the word..."

[This is followed by a full explanation of the meaning of this, and various other parables, but only to the disciples, that is, to those who "have ears to hear". Mark 4.]

[Systematic]

OK, so what is the ideal of Christianity, if not being kind to others? And what about my other assertion: Would an ideal, expressed over centuries or even millenia, cause a biological change down to the DNA?

Christianity is what you make it. Look in the Book, you can find anything you want there, and any contradiction you want to refute it. What makes you think it has an "ideal"?

Imagine that you had the ability to rewrite the Bible. You have an ideal that you want to accomplish. But no one can follow that ideal, because it is not in the genome to accomplish anything like that. No one can write a perfect book on how to become superintelligent, because they themselves are not superintelligent. (For example).

Like most Christians you've not got a clue how evolution works.
The only things that effect changes in the DNA is death, mutation and differential reproductive success.

Success in the materialistic sense, could have effect on success in the reproductive sense. Most women won't even date a pauper--not even Courtney Love. You could be the biggest genius the world had ever seen, but if you got yourself blacklisted, you wouldn't have much of a chance of sowing your oats.

Also, let's say that everyone believes in one idea, and you believe in something else. You might have trouble surviving unto the age where you can reasonably be expected to reproduce.

[Nick_A]

Why did Jesus speak in parables? If he had something to say why not come out with it and make it clear? Was it a trick to make him appear important or is there an objective purpose for myths and parables the literal mind has become closed to?

This quotation might be relevant:

And He was saying, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven.”

And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables? The sower sows the word..."

[This is followed by a full explanation of the meaning of this, and various other parables, but only to the disciples, that is, to those who "have ears to hear". Mark 4.]

This is opening a can of worms but what is inadequate about our eyes and ears? Why do we need new eyes and ears? Is the purpose to create a mindset vulnerable to indoctrination or does the deeper meaning refer to a concept normally forgotten but is essential to experience what Christianity offers

Modern education indoctrinates the literal mind. Jesus is referring to our potential to not only experience literally but psychologically or internally. It makes possible bypassing the prison of the literal mind and open to "understanding"; to awaken the need for meaning the soul craves

[Immanuel Can]

This is opening a can of worms but what is inadequate about our eyes and ears? Why do we need new eyes and ears? Is the purpose to create a mindset vulnerable to indoctrination or does the deeper meaning refer to a concept normally forgotten but is essential to experience what Christianity offers

The latter, decidedly, I would say.

We see all through the life of Christ that what he would do for people depended on their level of trust, or faith, in Him. If you came cynically, with a hard heart and a negative predisposition, you got the Pharisee treatment from Him. If you showed some willingness to listen -- and it didn't take more than a mustard seed worth -- He would reveal things. That's what we see in this incident.

And that's what it means to "have ears to hear." It's willingness to be convinced, if the evidence is there. Nobody who showed even a spark of good faith got turned away. But nobody who came just to dismiss got a thing.

[Systematic]

Are you stroking me for some devious reason?

I noted that you have found some wise actions or habits. And I am going on that as a fact.
In my epistemological theory, the point of wise thought is wise action. I think that you have wise action, so I wonder what the wise thoughts were behind the actions.

In theory, you should be able to find the truth (which is easier said than done), then derive actions or habits from the truth (another difficult task). The first step of course, is finding the truth, and I am almost certain that I don't have it.

I tried to do the whole Socratic Method for a while, or at least I tried: That's not true, because this (fill in the blank). I tended to get trapped inside what I now call "The Skeptic Box". It basically ends up with me not believing anything. So I'm on to door number two:

If it might be true, give it a chance. Obviously I don't want to run my life on things that might be true, but I would rather at least think that they might be true at least without jumping straight into The Skeptic Box, closing the door on exploration.

I do not know what anyone else's life or potential for awareness is like -- but I imagine that we all have similar choices and capabilities to explore for ourselves. As I've said before on this forum about my own experience, I remember early on as an infant/toddler, seeing/understanding that my parents didn't know what they were doing. Further experiences continually reinforced that I was on my own. My life has included trials and errors, exploring and discovering on various levels, growing up in the church while observing it and beyond it, testing boundaries and power, being entangled with the wrong people/situations (as well as great ones), and lots of choices/mistakes that I wish I could rewrite (as well as those I treasure). I realize, without all of it, I might not be experiencing what I do now.

I wonder: Isn't it simply a matter of any of us questioning what we think, do, believe, perceive? And as we're questioning, truly desiring/embracing clarity beyond that? What makes us hold onto what we do? What is the payoff in doing so? Do we become an unquestioning servant to it? Or even a slave...or a delusional prophet of a certain limited madness? Why not seek to explore a more vast and ever-expanding landscape? Isn't that more truthful and fascinating? Why not expand and demonstrate one's increasing capabilities in that process? Isn't that what life inspires and makes possible? Why cling to limited stories... even turning them into religions to perpetuate them? We do not need to cower in constructs. We do not need to create/align identities for ourselves with such things. Exploring reveals so much more... and it is not scary when one is filled with love and feels already at home.

Going along with what I was saying before, there needs to be some truth behind wise action. So how do you identify what is madness or strict religion? What is a construct? Are they ever good? Why would people use them? And yes, I realize the possible contradiction in that I am using a bit of a construct now.

Why do we cast life as some sort of torment to be escaped, and create fantasies about something we define as better that we claim we deserve? Then we wait for it. ??? The potential for exploration and expansion is right here, right now. I say: Stock up on love for the journey of exploration, and then go forth questioning and loving and expanding. In addition to being a wonderful and entertaining experience, the expansion and clarifying of one's energetic signature might persist beyond one's physical life. We are certainly free to choose particular stories... but (I wonder) why do so with such a magnificent opportunity before us?

I'm finding more that love is a good answer, but that you do need to be a little selfish. And often I find that a lot of people aren't really loving, even though they describe how much love is the answer. Love is the answer if and only if you can find others who will love you as well, and who won't make you drink the cool-aid. And the ability to work intelligently helps a lot too. Our society seems to be more based on working for money.

[Nick_A]

This is opening a can of worms but what is inadequate about our eyes and ears? Why do we need new eyes and ears? Is the purpose to create a mindset vulnerable to indoctrination or does the deeper meaning refer to a concept normally forgotten but is essential to experience what Christianity offers

The latter, decidedly, I would say.

We see all through the life of Christ that what he would do for people depended on their level of trust, or faith, in Him. If you came cynically, with a hard heart and a negative predisposition, you got the Pharisee treatment from Him. If you showed some willingness to listen -- and it didn't take more than a mustard seed worth -- He would reveal things. That's what we see in this incident.

And that's what it means to "have ears to hear." It's willingness to be convinced, if the evidence is there. Nobody who showed even a spark of good faith got turned away. But nobody who came just to dismiss got a thing.

New eyes and ears must refer to more than responding to nice people. What does being born again mean to you? When a person experiences Christian rebirth, do they automatically experience new eyes to see and ears to hear?

Is Christian rebirth rather than indoctrinated morality the essential message of Christianity? How do you understand Christian rebirth? How does it differ from emotional fantasy?

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]

To be born of woman is being born from below. Being born of the spirit is being born from above. Was making it possible for Man on earth Jesus mission?

[Lacewing]

In theory, you should be able to find the truth (which is easier said than done), then derive actions or habits from the truth (another difficult task). The first step of course, is finding the truth, and I am almost certain that I don't have it.

What if truth can vary depending on circumstance or position? What could we do to determine truth then? Wisdom is helpful -- but I don't think it can know or navigate everything, especially if things are varying and shifting. That requires -- it seems to me -- tapping into an informative and dynamic network/flow/radar (I don't know what it is), but I do tap into it for insights that would otherwise elude me. I don't even think much about doing it anymore, I just do it. And what I write in this forum is a combination of playfulness and what I've gathered from my experience and what I tap into. I, myself, watch it unfold.

I tried to do the whole Socratic Method for a while, or at least I tried: That's not true, because this (fill in the blank). I tended to get trapped inside what I now call "The Skeptic Box". It basically ends up with me not believing anything.

So, it's interesting (at least to me) to practice and refine having fun and playing well without needing to believe in ultimate truths. "Not believing anything" doesn't have to devolve into an immobilized, lost position. It can actually be a good way to perfect flexibility and responsiveness... to anything that arises. Like in a video game, where the scenes keep changing... but your reflexes and adaptability are multi-functional and skilled on many levels.

So I'm on to door number two: If it might be true, give it a chance. Obviously I don't want to run my life on things that might be true, but I would rather at least think that they might be true at least without jumping straight into The Skeptic Box, closing the door on exploration.

This one makes me a little more wary -- because I see belief as an intoxicating trap, at least for we humans who like to build limiting stories and then rigidly devote ourselves to them. Opening myself up to anything because it might be true, seems like a lot of energy being thrown off into space. I might feel compelled to tap into that network/flow/radar (or whatever it is) for insight.

I do think there's value in having an open mind and considering that there are many truths. Therefore, I wouldn't actually devote myself to any one of them, but I could interact with any of them as I saw fit.

So how do you identify what is madness or strict religion?

Hmm... I guess I would base it on a person's expressions and actions of energy/love/acceptance/ego. If they are fully tangled up such that they see only darkness beyond their own views, I see that as madness. In contrast with practicing their religion and still seeing light in others and all around.

What is a construct? Are they ever good? Why would people use them?

Like anything, I imagine the creations we build can be used in ways that are productive or not. The trick (maybe) is what kind of stories we make up about our creations, and then what we do with those stories/creations. If we (or others) end up living in fear or limitation because of them, we've created our own jail cells.

Instead of seeking security and comfort in limiting stories, it might be better to expand our awareness/love for being part of a larger, natural system. There is less to fear (I think) when one's world is larger than a story that defines one (and life) rather narrowly. Because everything beyond that story becomes a threat.

I'm finding more that love is a good answer, but that you do need to be a little selfish. And often I find that a lot of people aren't really loving, even though they describe how much love is the answer. Love is the answer if and only if you can find others who will love you as well, and who won't make you drink the cool-aid.

I love feeling love, simply as a vibration. It has nothing to do with other people. It's more like a cosmic dance of joy and acceptance. The kind of love we share with people is kind of different: it definitely can benefit from that awareness of broader love, but it often requires a mutually balanced interaction. I think it's really important to love oneself and life (because that's the most personal experience we have)... and then radiate out from that to embrace others.

And the ability to work intelligently helps a lot too. Our society seems to be more based on working for money.

Yes! Money is like another religion -- which people do very destructive and foolish things for.

What if, instead of seeking specific "truth"... we sought to eliminate/reject obvious lies? Is that possible? Then see what's left?

[Systematic]

What if, instead of seeking specific "truth"... we sought to eliminate/reject obvious lies? Is that possible? Then see what's left?

Awesome. I actually hadn't thought of that. What are some obvious lies? I'll start: The Earth is flat. Slavery is good for slaves.

And we could do some obvious truths too (particularly truths that are not accepted all the time) : Child abuse hurts children. Most people in the U.S. work only for money. We are all going to die someday. Evolution happened. Cigarette smoke is radioactive (i.e. alpha particles).

What else you got?