Christianity

[Age]

You mention a few people, Kierkegaard among them, who you define as 'truly Christian'. But no actual Christian group that I could visit with and learn about.

Well, you didn't stipulate that. "Ask, and you shall receive": I could point you to many...but I don't know the Colombian scene well enough to help you out at home.

I work with the idea, the fact really, that European Christianity is, in fact, Catholicism.

Yes, I got that.

Unfortunately for that hypothesis, almost all of what the Catholic Church does today, and even what it has done for many centuries past, bears any resemblance to the teachings of Christ Himself, whatsoever. So it's a singularly inapt identification...a fact you could verify for yourself, if you took the term "Christian" to have any necessary reference to the Person of Christ.

Where I can agree with you, and I do agree with you, is in working in the area of clarification, or highlighting, of what Christianity originally was, in contrast with how it developed and what it became. I do not have an issue with your thrust in this area. One could do this however within the Catholic tradition.

Actually, you couldn't.

What you would find, if you researched actual Catholic history, is that all their doctrines have come as innovations or insertions made by mere men. You could find the years in which these things were instituted, such as: Purgatory (1274), The Doctrine of Indulgences (1571), Papal Infallibility (1870), The Assumption of Mary (1950), and so on. (Imagine that: they only "discovered" that Mary was immaculate to the point of being magically transported to Heaven a half century ago; one wonders where she's been all this time.)

You'll find out that since it's very inception, the Catholic Church has been a morphing organization, on that took its shape on piecemeal, as political necessity developed, and has always been committed not to the Bible at all, nor even faithful to its own traditions, which it has continually modified, but rather devoted singularly to the alleged authority of its ecclesiastical men.

You can find out all this from the Catholic historians...you don't need me to confirm it. They don't like to give a singular clear timeline of their major doctrines, because that would make the whole sham too obvious; but you can find the dates in the individual documents by which they declared the particular doctrines themselves. It is as if they never really knew where they were going, or where they were going to end up. Of course, that always happens when one plays fast-and-loose with the Original.

If I can remark without offence, it seems to me that for some reason you seem inextricably wedded to melding "Catholic" and "Christian." I can only surmise it must be for the convenience of holding to some thesis you find winsome...maybe your theory of "Christian" civilization. Maybe a (rather Modern) desire to remain "inclusive" at all costs. Maybe because that supposition is foundational to another you are at pains to hold. I don't know. But I think the facts, examined carefully, simply won't assist that thesis. And keeping the thesis will only be purchasable by the expedient of keeping the facts in very fuzzy focus.

As your 'fuzzy' you BOTH have absolutely NO idea of what "christianity" REALLY IS.

As PROVED True by BOTH of your writings here.

[Age]

Age

If yes, then what would be 'real christianity'?

LOOK, when, and IF, 'you', human beings, EVER get around to discussing and coming to AN AGREEMENT on; 'What is 'chiristianity' EXACTLY?', then 'you' WILL get somewhere. Until then, you will remain STUCK, exactly, where you are now.

Christianity is the attempt with the help of the Spirit, to consciously evolve into a higher quality of being: REBIRTH. Without rebirth all that results are man made interpretations of what cannot be understood and what you see is what you get.

Is your OWN definition of 'real christianity' here an example of a so-called, "man made interpretation", of what cannot be understood?

A person begins after experiencing that "I Know Nothing." But in these days when education or what we know is so highly valued, who has the humility to admit they know nothing?

EVERY human being 'knows nothing' AT BIRTH.

Do you NOT have the humility to ADMIT this?

Real Christianity begins with the experience as Paul describes that we are a slave to Gods laws as well as a slave to sin.

But children are NEITHER.

'you', human beings, however, ARE.

We are dual natured.

'you' might be, but 'I' am NOT.

That is the human condition.

WHY do 'you' LOOK AT the 'human condition' ONLY here?

Christianity provides the means to suffer with conscious purpose in the cause of freedom from slavery and the evolution of human being: the purpose of the Crucifixion

LOL
LOL
LOL

And how MANY PEOPLE EXACTLY do or would agree with your OWN interpretation and definition here?

[Age]

So then, how does any of that metaphorization take us even one step toward what Catholicism has done? How does that justify syncretism with Rome, or the Inquisition, or the Reichskonkordat, or the Rat Lines, or the Deification of Mary, or Indulgences, or the promotion of salvation by works, or saints and prayers for the dead, or rosary beads, or the Papacy...or any of that? In other words, how does making metaphor of the life of Christ help justify anything at all that Catholicism has done? Help me out here, if you think there's a miracle in the New Testament the metaphorical meaning of which will explain.

Catholicism has *done* all sorts of things, and many of them do not appear on your List of Horrors.

Quite so. And that does not help the case, of course.

I fully grasp your anti-Catholic stance and I do not ask you to modify it.

It's not "anti-Catholic." It's pro-Christian.

And that is the what TYPE of "christian", EXACTLY?

I simply have no desire to see what I believe tarnished with the deeds of those who do not believe it, so I insist on the two being recognized for what they have actually both believed and done. And the cause of truth is cause enough to want it that way.

Oddly, all who ascend to heaven, if I have it right, becomes Sons (and Daughter? of God.

Not according to John 1. According to John 1, it's "To as many as received Him [i.e. Christ, the Word] He gave the right to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe on His Name." In other words, a person becomes a child of God upon faith...immediately.

The role of Mary in the manifestation of Jesus,

Is spelled out decisively in the Annunciation and in Mary's own words. According to Mary, she was not infallible, and she too needed a Saviour (Luke 1:47). Not only that but in the Incarnation, Mary herself was utterly eclipsed by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). So the Bible does not support Mariolatry, but rather refutes it. She was nothing special in herself. She was just "blessed among women." (Luke 1:42) Ordinary women.

I am pretty sure that you are moving in the direction of associating Catholicism with Nazism

Do you know what the Reichskonkordat was? Look it up. Then look up "Vatican Rat Lines." Then tell me there's no connection there.

What the Papacy did to the Jews was made theologically possible by the Supersessionist theology of the RC's. If God has rejected the Jews, if they are accursed, if the RC's have replaced them in Divine favour, then it becomes possible for a person who believes that to do anything to them. And they did.

Note that the cult of the Saints also has a definite *logic* within the system.

Not within the Biblical "system." In the Bible, a "saint" (which means "set apart/sanctified one") refers to anyone who is a child of God, whether alive or dead. And there is but one Mediator between God and Man, Jesus Christ Himself. (1 Tim. 2:5) All the nonsense about prayers to dead people, or about somebody being such a naturally good person that they merit "sainthood"? Complete, contrabiblical nonsense; a pure invention.

What do you have to say about the Christian notion of a 'guardian angel'?

Angeology is an interesting subject. But the term and concept most people understand by the words "guardian angel" is not a Biblical one either.

May I also say that you have not to my knowledge made a definite statement about any of the more outrageous Christian beliefs.

You haven't asked before now.

And really, I have to wonder at the relevance at the moment. Would the ascent of Elijah make any difference to you, at this moment? The Parting of the Red Sea? (Well, maybe; because without that, there'd be no Israel.) But do you want to ask if Christ did the miracles attributed to Him (you mentioned the Feeding of the 5,000 earlier)? I say the burden of proof is on those who insist He didn't...because the eyewitness testimony and the testimony of subsequent history strongly implies He did.

And I believe He did. There's no way to call His teaching and conduct "moral," and then accuse Him of being a charlatan on miracles. So if a person rejects His miracles, he also rejects the Man Himself. The miracles are integrated with His teaching and life.

And of course, by definition of being a Christian, I believe also literally in the Resurrection: and after that, any other miracle looks tiny. Find a more "outrageous" miracle than offering oneself to death to atone for the sins of the world, then taking your own life up again and rising to God's right hand. If you can do that, there's nothing else you can't do.

[Belinda]

Lacewing wrote:

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:59 pm
Lacewing wrote:
How do you know what the 'divine' is or should be for everyone, such that you know they are disconnected from it?
I suggest that you set to work with the learning project that would enable you to answer the question you ask.
Your response makes no sense. It's another simple question put to you, based on what you said.

I guess AJ means is you have to choose for yourself what God means for you
and what 'God ' means to you.

That is how I read this also, BUT I also read that "alexis jacobi" was wanting "lacewing" to "find" and "see" God in the EXACT SAME WAY and LIGHT as "alexis jacobi" does.

For example, let us say, "lacewing" wanders off and does some study and comes to the conclusion that what God means for "lacewing" and what 'God' means to "lacewing" is the God, which is also known as Allah, and the koran the muslim meaning is FAR MORE correct. Then what I think you will find is just "alexis jacobi" will just say the SAME THING, which was; "I suggest that you set to work with the learning project that would enable you to answer the question you ask." AND, they will keep SAYING THIS until "lacewing" came back with the EXACT SAME views of God as "alexis jacobi" has, or "lacewing" came back saying; "I am a christian". And only then I think you will find that "alexis jacobi" will be 'satisfied'.

I hope not but am beginning to fear that is correct.

[Belinda]

I guess AJ means is you have to choose for yourself what God means for you and what 'God ' means to you.

Somewhat. How could that not be so? But reading and grasping how and why it was relevant to our progenitors is also an important line.

What does the 'it' word here, refer to, EXACTLY?

Who or what does the 'our' word here, refer to, EXACTLY?

From what line of teaching and/or religion do you presume would be the BEST one to read and grasp how and why 'it' is relevant to "our" progenitors is also an important line?

The more liberal the better: the more authoritarian the worse.

[Belinda]

But faithful followers of the Christian moral code don't necessarily depend on Cartesian dualism, supernaturalism, or materialism.

I would choose to team up with and cooperate with those sorts. If people understand the code, they’d likely understand how it came about — where it came from. If they could not make the metaphysical leap, still they’d likely respect those who can and do.

However with that said — and I suppose you are speaking about yourself (?) — I do not think merely teaching a code is altogether sufficient. You received the code from a practitioner culture.

I don’t think it could be transferred for more than one or two generations merely intellectually. But could those who can no longer believe, genuinely, somehow discover belief again? Could a post-Christian culture?

No matter what, it would have to be encountered, and lived, authentically.

I did indeed receive the Code from a culture, in my case my middle class family and a particular Presbyterian Church in a small town including during wartime, when there were much respected Catholic Polish soldiers billeted in the town. Please note that cultures are very various and may adapt to times and seasons.

Later in life I learned a little about different religions, and a little about the history and sociology of Christianity. I like tradition especially the ones that have affected me during my life, but to cling to those, such as supernaturalism, when they are outworn is to be an idolater, or even a demented King Canute.

There is danger in the current lack of metaphysical inspirations. New Age is often despised but it shows the need to think and feel outside the box of tradition.
A reasonable faith is available, and Jesus Christ is a moving icon.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Quite so. And that does not help the case, of course.

Except you took what I referred to -- tremendous and enduring service offered by millions of Catholics over centuries -- as though I intended to add to the List of Horrors you define!

So here is where my thinking is going at this point. First, the fact is that I only have so many years in my endeavor to understand Christianity. My *process* would have to be understood in order to make sense of my relationship to it. So I have tried to explain simply because it can all be an interesting topic of conversation and that is why we all participate here. So when I examine the reason why I did all that I did (a great deal of reading and *external* work to gain an understanding of what Christianity is, while simultaneously undergoing my own *internal* processes which are, naturally, private) I am aware that one large motivator is 'sense of responsibility'.

I went back to the roots of Christianity, the Church Fathers, and the original form of European Christianity, Catholicism. And though that process I learned that the Greek world, and then the Northern European world (I refer to this as Indo-European culture) absorbed these religious impulses and ideas and *made them their own*. How can I do this? How can I accept that Indo-European peoples have a different existential lens? that they are not inclined to *other-worldly concepts* and largely, and on the whole, define that tendency as pathological to a degree? That these Christian forms have to do with building and constructing in this world, not in abandoning such construction (which includes civilization literally) for a world-beyond-this-world? Is this 'right' or is this 'wrong'?

Really, these are extremely fundamental questions and very important ones.

Some part of this I alluded to in a comment to Belinda, that is, about what we lend our support to. I will try to explain a bit more. It revolves around the existential, political, social and religious/philosophical conflicts that are evident and on-going today. Obviously, we are in a time of tremendous upheaval. When one examines the Conservative, right-leaning side, I could use as an example of a right-leaning centrist Jordan Peterson but there is a whole segment that is farther to the Conservative and the *traditionalist* side, the order of their concerns has to do with fundamental, ordering principles. Their tendency is to define and to try and recover and revivify those sets of ideas and I guess I'd say *practices* that are part of traditional culture. I often describe it as 'all that has made us what we are' and what is 'foundational' to ourselves. And when I say *ourselves* I mean it literally: how and through what our selves were constructed in the context of civilization.

So when you examine all of those people -- it could be Jordan Peterson (who though very centrist is still hated by the more radical Left) but I'd have to mention Wilmot Robertson, Jonathan Bowden, Greg Johnson, Julius Evola, René Guénon, Alain de Benoist, Francis Parker Yockey, Savitri Devi (truly a strange one), and dozens of others whose writings and ideas are *extremely forbidden* in our present climate -- all of these people attempt, in different ways, to define a bedrock within conservative, traditionalist existentialism. They are thoroughly excluded from all conventional forums of conversation and idea-exchange. Yet, as it happens, their influence creeps in in odd ways. As we all know even Tucker Carlson was accused of mentioning the absolutely forbidden ideas of Renaud Camus (The Great Replacement *theory* as it is called). Well, as I said, I spent years reading their material. That is why I say I consciously 'went down the Rabbit Hole' which is the term used to describe this investigation, this attraction, as a pathology. Is it? I would say certainly not. That is if one can keep one's wits about one and think straight (and fairly). I do not regret it at all and, on the other side of the scale, I also spent many many years closely reading leftist material.

But I did arrive at the sense that a civilization must have, and cannot not have, a solid basis within a religious ordering. My ideas here were influenced by an unlikely source, Waldo Frank (see for example The Re-Discovery of America). When the religious/metaphysical ordering is subtracted, people are adrift. It stands to reason: we have to ground ourselves physically and metaphysically in this *world*. But when the metaphysical ordering unravels the culture dies. But in dying (as Frank noted) each individual cell in the dying body lights up. Inanition is not uneventful! And the moribund processes are filled with all sort of intensity. A rotting cadaver is a total *world*.

So the more that I thought about it, the more I realized (intellectually in essence) that the *roots* of our own civilization had to be re-discovered. Frank himself turns America into his fetish, of course, and he was a man of the Left not of the Right, but his basic grasp of metaphysics as it pertains to Europe seems to me spot-on. So it was natural to turn back, concretely, deliberately, to the core Occidental paideia (See Werner Jaeger and his multi-volume work on Occidental paideia). I made the effort to read his work. And anyone who has a classics background will, of course, encounter all the sources of our European paideia. This includes, of course, the Christian metaphysics and Christian ethics, too.

So what I did, though it was sort of unnatural for me (not raised in any Christian tradition) was to jump into it all with both feet. But through reading old, forgotten, pushed-aside material. Going back to the roots. Idea-wise I referred often the the Oxford Companion to Christian Thought (quite modernist and liberal-oriented) but too The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, which delves into each Christian symbol and concept, tracing the origin of the ideas and the associated practices. There you will find 'the roots'. How can I describe the value and the relevancy of all of this to those who are so far outside of any ability to appreciate it or to understand it?

But what is the upshot of all of this? You see, people talk about their 'salvation' and their situation within their belief as if that is the end of the road. This has come not to make sense to me. You say that salvation is to be released from the consequences of sin. The idea is not unintelligible to me, of course. But I think I must say, now, that it is not all there is to it. And in a sense to say it like that is to make a mistake. Sin, error, misdeed, failing, wrong intention, consequence of error, all within our existential situation (our 'fallen condition') -- the recognition of these things is just the beginning, not the final end. To say "I am released from the consequence of sin" and therefore 'saved' cannot be the end of the process nor any process. The idea is skewed. But here, I hope obviously, you can note the influence of another interpretive school. It is the one that makes sense to me and I oppose, in certain senses, the definition that you put forth. I have no doubt, at least today, that there is and there must be a unity between one's inner. spiritual state and all of one's endeavors and activities. If you state it differently I would have to say, very respectfully of course, that I think you are wrong.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I hope not but am beginning to fear that is correct.

No, I do not think that is correct (and please note that I had to put Age on *ignore* as his (ITS?) posts take up far too much real estate. So I can't and don't read his posts).

What I believe that I am trying to say is that I feel that we should and we also must (I can define why I employ the imperative) make sincere and studied efforts to arrive at understanding of *our own traditions*. If I resist Lacewing it is for a specific reasons. And I have clearly expressed what those reasons are. Lacewing is part of a current that in involved not in discovery and valuation of anything relevant to *our traditions*, our history, our culture, and civilization processes, but is part of a current that undermines them. What I say here is a very general interpretive statement about *her*. But I am not really at all concerned about her in a personal sense. If what she does makes her *happy* and *fulfills* her, fine.

I am interested in a far larger context, and issues which totally transcend her (and us) in a personal sense. What I will say next might be interpreted as meanness but it is not meant in any sense in that way. What Lacewing thinks and does -- her endeavor -- is in the largest part totally irrelevant except to those very much on some fringe of culture and the fringes of idea.

So I think that we need to get beyond the issue of *personal consideration* and I also believe that we can, and indeed we must, speak to each other directly, politely, but without having to bend over backward to protect someone's feelings. Our sentiments are irrelevant when the importance of the issues are brought out.

Does this make any more sense? and what do you think?

[Immanuel Can]

Quite so. And that does not help the case, of course.

Except you took what I referred to -- tremendous and enduring service offered by millions of Catholics over centuries -- as though I intended to add to the List of Horrors you define!

Did you not?

These...what's your term: "horrors"? These "horrors," I don't "define" them, of course. All I have to do is mention them. They exist, and are already in the history of the RC's, as a matter of pure historical record. Am I at fault for simply saying what we all know very well, and even they admit, they have done? It's hard to see why that's our problem, rather than theirs.

And what business has a "Christian" church in generating "horrors"?

So I would think that would be the natural way to understand it. Broadly speaking, the deeds of the RC organization have not exactly been exemplary...a fact which no shortage of its detractors have been very willing to point out, not just me.

So here is where my thinking is going at this point....I went back to the roots of Christianity, the Church Fathers, and the original form of European Christianity, Catholicism. And though that process I learned that the Greek world, and then the Northern European world (I refer to this as Indo-European culture) absorbed these religious impulses and ideas and *made them their own*. How can I do this? How can I accept that Indo-European peoples have a different existential lens? that they are not inclined to *other-worldly concepts* and largely, and on the whole, define that tendency as pathological to a degree? That these Christian forms have to do with building and constructing in this world, not in abandoning such construction (which includes civilization literally) for a world-beyond-this-world? Is this 'right' or is this 'wrong'?

The only wrong bit is the thinking that "Christian" and "Catholic" are identical. But what you describe about Catholicism and Europe is generally correct, at least at the macro and political level.

At the personal level, at the more subtle, "chemical" level, there's something badly missing from such an account. That is, what is the "organic" or "chemical" effect of a society having within it large numbers of Christians? In other words, what do true believers and followers of Christ produce in a society? You're focused, at present, on the large-scale effects of Catholicism -- it's recorded philosophies and affinity with the Greeks, its political operations, its military activities, and so on -- much easier to study, because they are the kinds of activities that leave abundant literature and artefacts behind for a historian to play with. But what if the most important effect of Christianity had nothing to do with the building of cathedrals or the holding of synods, far less the Crusades and Inquisitions, the Reichskonkordat or wars of religion, or papal bulls? What if the most important effect of Christians is on the moral ethos of the places in which their numbers are significant? And what if it is this moral influence that is the most important element in the durability and success of Western society?

What if? It's worth thinking about. That which is easiest to study may not be the most important thing to know. Ease of study is not a measure of profundity.

Really, these are extremely fundamental questions and very important ones.

Yes: but are you presently asking the right question?

Some part of this I alluded to in a comment to Belinda, that is, about what we lend our support to. I will try to explain a bit more. It revolves around the existential, political, social and religious/philosophical conflicts that are evident and on-going today. Obviously, we are in a time of tremendous upheaval. When one examines the Conservative, right-leaning side, I could use as an example of a right-leaning centrist Jordan Peterson but there is a whole segment that is farther to the Conservative and the *traditionalist* side, the order of their concerns has to do with fundamental, ordering principles. Their tendency is to define and to try and recover and revivify those sets of ideas and I guess I'd say *practices* that are part of traditional culture. I often describe it as 'all that has made us what we are' and what is 'foundational' to ourselves. And when I say *ourselves* I mean it literally: how and through what our selves were constructed in the context of civilization.

I understand this, and agree.

But they have a problem. They are trying to revive things like love of truth, human rights, personal freedoms, critical thinking, respect for science, neutral politics, and so forth (all you will recognize as central "Conservative" concerns) without reference to the ethos that actually produced them! They want all the "fruits" of Christianity without having to return to the "tree" of belief in God. They want to assert their rights and freedoms without having to say Who gave them such rights and freedoms. They want to assert morality without any Guarantor of morality. They want to save Science without any reference to the belief in a stable, law-governed universe. And they want to assert their right to freedom in a world that increasingly only understands itself in terms of power and domination.

And if that's what they want, what do you estimate their chances of success as being?

When the religious/metaphysical ordering is subtracted, people are adrift.

Absolutely. But it's not just "religious" people. For "religion" can be superficial and even immoral, in some cases. It's only a particular KIND of "religion," a certain set of theological beliefs and moral commitments that keep people from drifting in bad directions. So any real analysis has to drill down very hard on the question, "What are the right theological beliefs and moral commitments to renew a society?"

Hint: you'll find that the answer isn't "Catholicism." You'll find plenty of Catholic dominated societies (particularly where you live) where retrograde superstitions, tyranny, oppression and poverty are the rule, and in fact, most of the society looks pre-modern. You and I both know that.

I've been to the Nelson Mandela barrio. I've stood in the midst of those 50,000 suffering souls, walked among them, and met some of them. If Catholicism is the secret of national stability and human rights, how does that happen in a predominantly Catholic country?

But what is the upshot of all of this? You see, people talk about their 'salvation' and their situation within their belief as if that is the end of the road. This has come not to make sense to me. You say that salvation is to be released from the consequences of sin. The idea is not unintelligible to me, of course.

Interesting.

I was reading about your experience this morning, then, Alexis. For I was reading Matthew 3:19. Jesus says that what He would teach, if not heard with "ears to hear" (v. 9, i.e. with a will to receive and understand) would not be understood, and ultimately would be "snatched away," and not become comprehensible anymore at all. It seems that has happened for this. But it doesn't have to -- it all depends on how one is willing to hear.

To say "I am released from the consequence of sin" and therefore 'saved' cannot be the end of the process nor any process.

That's because it's not a "process" at all. Salvation is an event-followed-by-a-process, not itself a process.

Human beings look for a process, not a rescue. The reason we prefer a process is that its gradualness, we think, will allow us to retain some control of what happens, some power in a situation in which we've started to feel deficient in power. But salvation is a rescue: and the rescue must first be performed by the Rescuer...the drowning man cannot save himself -- and if he does, he never needed or had a "rescue" in the first place.

God must rescue man. Jesus Christ is the Savior. And a Saviour saves somebody. Those who want a process, rather than salvation, shall have neither: for as Jesus said, "I am the door..." (John 10:9) The way into salvation is through Him, and no other way. There is no alternate route, no mere human process that can replace salvation.

And those who are not saved by Him are not rescued at all.

[promethean75]

"God must rescue man. Jesus Christ is the Savior."

629cje.jpg (32.62 KiB) Viewed 764 times

[promethean75]

629d44.jpg (43.88 KiB) Viewed 761 times

[Immanuel Can]

"God must rescue man. Jesus Christ is the Savior."

"The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

It's that plain.

All I can tell you is this: take your choice, P. And then live or die with those consequences.

You do have that right: and even God Himself will not take that right from you. But you will make a choice.

[promethean75]

https://youtu.be/MffpEVD0jww

[Lacewing]

Lacewing is part of a current that in involved not in discovery and valuation of anything relevant to *our traditions*, our history, our culture, and civilization processes, but is part of a current that undermines them.

Do you see natural evolution of humankind as undermining the past?

Focusing on the past, as if we can fully understand it in context and as if doing so might somehow provide us with all the 'divine' awareness/insight we need or can obtain, ignores and devalues the present moment as if the 'divine' got left behind somehow!

You, like many people, seem intent on making the present (and its momentum) "wrong"... as if to say that the past was better or more valid or significant. Yet, we are fully capable of being aware of where we've come from, learning from that, and creating further beyond that. We are not evil destroyers of the 'divine' past, we are thoughtful explorers of the 'divine' future. It's all part of the same -- and our perspectives within it shift and expand.

How many times in your life have you shifted/expanded your perspectives? That doesn't have to stop when we become adults (or ever), you know? There is a great deal to see/understand anew... always. In those times when you found value in shifting/expanding your perspective, and you no longer had interest to entertain certain paths or areas of thought, you were not losing the value of those things by simply moving on from them. The value gained is part of the process. We don't have to worship (nor cling to) the structures/forms/patterns.

Isn't it worth recognizing that your focus/'current' is not the only one worth having and that we are all doing our parts of exploring and expressing some thing/whole that is greater than any individual/parts can do at any time or place in history?

[promethean75]

Oh btw here's some nuggets dropped by the master that ch'all can chew on during your breaks from the edifying discourse in this thread. But remember, fritz is not tryna hurt you... he's tryna help you... tryna help you see a side of you that lies concealed behind itself. The goal is to make you uncomfortable, not to destroy you. That's the business of a priest.

https://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche. ... hrist.html