Christianity

[Age]

I actually agreed with you thus far. Nietzsche's not speaking of any fact there: he's using a metaphor for "Modern people tend not to even have a relevant place for the God concept anymore."

He is speaking of facts in certain senses. One is that 'the modern view' undermined, in numerous senses, the 'story' through which Christianity had been normally communicated. One metaphysical system (a means of explanation) overturned the previous one in certain important, relevant, crucial and also somewhat irrefutable ways. For example: the notion of the Red Sea parting, the notion of a primordial garden in which two God-created beings existed in deathlessness.

Really there are a whole range of things that cannot any longer be believed by people who have been raised up in the new metaphysics (which is sort of a non-metaphysics) unless they make a deliberate choice to believe what cannot be believed.

Oddly, the will must enter in here to *patch up* the belief-fabric that had been rent.

The way I see it is that the Christian Story operates in much the way that the former Epics did. They are stories which have been concretized in absoluteness. They are *set in stone* so to speak and cannot be altered. If they are altered, and to push on my metaphor of fabric, they unravel in weird ways. And then (it seems to me) people exist within a semi-unbelievable story that is hard to defend. In fact they might try (as you seem to try by referring to Adam & Eve as some original mating pair) in a willed act of reconciliation, an attempt to bridge or reconcile two distinct epistemes.

But we can only deal with Christianity, and the elements of belief, as in a Novel. And the Novel is still being written. (If you catch my drift).

To say 'God has died . . . and we killed Him' is to express a series of ironical truths. The first Christ was nailed to the cross, but the undermining of the Story of Christianity is a murder in another sense.

As you know my view is that the Christian Story requires a special exegesis, but that exegesis is necessarily gnostic. However, I also tend to believe that most people either find a way to hold together, intact, a Story that they can believe in and do not have the energy, or perhaps the mental agility (?) to penetrate the many seeming metaphors that Christianity deals in.

It is also true that the more that one sees how the World really functions (I refer to ecological and natural systems and the reality of *will-to-power* as an accurate description of how power actually functions in this world) the more that one must internalize this understanding, and that means seeing that we are all profoundly complicit within *systems* that cannot but operate according to these principles.

I think that is what Nietzsche *saw* is just this:

“And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by “nothingness” as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be “empty” here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms striving toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self- creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my “beyond good and evil,” without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself— do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!”

In my view this is a description, an overpowering one that must have come on him quite strongly, that has to do with the 'world outside of ourselves'. That is to say the natural and the ecological world of 'life' within a material biological system.

What 'God' is, and how God enters this world, only occurs in human persons. I do not see the Christian God as being present in the natural world, because that world is really cruel and amoral. If mankind were subtracted from the picture, there would be no Christian God operating in this material-biological world. Whatever God is there, in that world, would carry life on as it now exists in the jungles and forests. It is a world that feeds on itself. Life and death in a horrifying, yet beautiful (in an utterly strange sense), system.

God in this sense comes through men (through people). God 'imposes' in men through the invisible world of metaphysics. How could metaphysics apply in the natural world (that is through a transcendental metaphysics?) What need as *the world* (the natural world) for transcendentals? None at all that I can discern.

So it seems to me that with Nietzsche (and I suppose many others) the order of focus shifts. That is, if one has seen what Nietzsche saw. I almost feel bad in pointing some of these things out but even Sartre, in a way, got it ironically right.

At a certain point the realization dawns: It is just you & me and here we are stuck in this strangely decorated room, no longer really fitted to us, where we have no choice but to work it out here.

Nietzsche describes the earth as a machine transforming substances through the interaction of lawful forces. Life within it takes part in this same function through the transformation of its life forces. There is no need for God in this machine.

However, can Man be other than an animal serving this machine? Can Man evolve from a mechanical being into a conscious being? I believe that the purpose for the essence of Christianity is to produce this potential.

What has "christianity", itself, got to do with the human being becoming more aware of the Life it has found itself within?

And, what is the essence of "christianity" to you, EXACTLY?

[Age]

There is no need for God in this machine.

What a remarkable irony, though: we are talking about a "machine," and marvelling at its workings and denying the exitence of any "Machinist."

However, can Man be other than an animal serving this machine? Can Man evolve from a mechanical being into a conscious being? I believe that the purpose for the essence of Christianity is to produce this potential.

But if we are in a strictly Materialistic "machine," man would have no such "potential."

Once again, the thing we are noting and talking about gives us compelling reason to consider the Creator.

And, when ANY of 'you' consider what the Creator IS, EXACTLY, from thee Truly OPEN viewpoint, then you CAN and WILL SEE and UNDERSTAND what thee Creator IS, EXACTLY.

Why should lumps of clay manipulated by mechanistic forces within a great "machine" have any "potential" beyond being lumpy and manipulated? What interest has the indifferent, mechanistic universe, in creating creatures with such "potential"? And even if we swallow all that, what makes us so convinced that that "potential" has even the potential to be actualized at any time in the future? It might well lay fallow forever, in a mechanistic machine that has no interest in its realization.

Very odd language for us to use.

OF COURSE that is.

You PURPOSELY made it ILLOGICAL and ODD, in an ATTEMPT to 'try' and make what you CLAIM sound a tiny bit more believable. But, very sadly for you, you are absolutely FAILING, ONCE AGAIN, and MORE.

[Age]

There is no need for God in this machine.

What a remarkable irony, though: we are talking about a "machine," and marvelling at its workings and denying the exitence of any "Machinist."

However, can Man be other than an animal serving this machine? Can Man evolve from a mechanical being into a conscious being? I believe that the purpose for the essence of Christianity is to produce this potential.

But if we are in a strictly Materialistic "machine," man would have no such "potential."

Once again, the thing we are noting and talking about gives us compelling reason to consider the Creator. Why should lumps of clay manipulated by mechanistic forces within a great "machine" have any "potential" beyond being lumpy and manipulated? What interest has the indifferent, mechanistic universe, in creating creatures with such "potential"? And even if we swallow all that, what makes us so convinced that that "potential" has even the potential to be actualized at any time in the future? It might well lay fallow forever, in a mechanistic machine that has no interest in its realization.

Very odd language for us to use.

Remember Plato's chariot analogy. It represents the tripartite soul. The dark horse on the left is mortal and has become corrupt. Where it should serve the higher it now rules the higher. Man on earth is ruled by appetites The white horse on the right is immortal and serves its natural purpose attracted to higher realities. The driver which is reason has the obligation to reconcile the attractions to the earth with its evolutionary potential from above. Being out of balance it cannot do so. This is the human condition

Man rejects the potential to heal a sick horse. It needs the help of spiritual energy. So what you see in the world is a natural result of the rejection of the spirit necessary for animal Man to become conscious Man.

And, when 'you', human beings, finally become conscious of "yourselves", then 'you' can and WILL step up further and become Truly Conscious, in the HIGHER SPIRITUAL realm, and world.

[Age]

What a remarkable irony, though: we are talking about a "machine," and marvelling at its workings and denying the exitence of any "Machinist."


But if we are in a strictly Materialistic "machine," man would have no such "potential."

Once again, the thing we are noting and talking about gives us compelling reason to consider the Creator. Why should lumps of clay manipulated by mechanistic forces within a great "machine" have any "potential" beyond being lumpy and manipulated? What interest has the indifferent, mechanistic universe, in creating creatures with such "potential"? And even if we swallow all that, what makes us so convinced that that "potential" has even the potential to be actualized at any time in the future? It might well lay fallow forever, in a mechanistic machine that has no interest in its realization.

Very odd language for us to use.

Remember Plato's chariot analogy.

Why? That has nothing at all to do with a mechanistic universe.

...what you see in the world is a natural result of the rejection of the spirit necessary for animal Man to become conscious Man.

Back the truck up.

What you're describing is not "mechanistic" at all. If man has a latent potential to be "conscious man" or "spirit man," where does that come from?

When 'you' become Conscious of who and what 'you', the human being IS, EXACTLY, then 'you' become Conscious of what the next level and stage along the evolutionary part and of who and what 'I', the Spirit IS, EXACTLY.

It's certainly not from some strict "mechanism." The universe (assuming it's an indifferent, mechanistic one, of course) has no "interest" in making such a creature, and no ability to "foresee" and hence to "install" such a potential in any being.

If the universe is merely mechanistic, then its dynamics are all impersonal and mechanistic, too.

Did ANY one here say, let alone suggest, the the Universe, Itself is 'merely mechanistic'?

If yes, then who was that, EXACTLY?

It doesn't sort of "plan" or "lay away" some potential for future dates, and it certainly has no teleological goal in it's "mind" when things happen.

And, a GREAT DEAL of what you say and CLAIM does NOT happen and occur in the way you say 'it' does.

So I don't see any application of Plato to that. One would have to have some belief in Plato's worldview...which was certainly not the mechanistic one.

LOL

If ANY has some BELIEF in ANY one's worldviews, even including their OWN worldviews, then they will continue on LOST and NOT being ABLE to SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' ARE.

[Age]

Remember Plato's chariot analogy.

Why? That has nothing at all to do with a mechanistic universe.

...what you see in the world is a natural result of the rejection of the spirit necessary for animal Man to become conscious Man.

Back the truck up.

What you're describing is not "mechanistic" at all. If man has a latent potential to be "conscious man" or "spirit man," where does that come from? It's certainly not from some strict "mechanism." The universe (assuming it's an indifferent, mechanistic one, of course) has no "interest" in making such a creature, and no ability to "foresee" and hence to "install" such a potential in any being.

If the universe is merely mechanistic, then its dynamics are all impersonal and mechanistic, too. It doesn't sort of "plan" or "lay away" some potential for future dates, and it certainly has no teleological goal in it's "mind" when things happen.

So I don't see any application of Plato to that. One would have to have some belief in Plato's worldview...which was certainly not the mechanistic one.

I begin with the premise that Man is in the image of God: three in one but at a much lower scale. It is like high C on a piano being the same pitch as low C but lower in scale or vibratory frequency.

When 'you' say, "Man", do you refer to 'you', human beings, or to 'you', men?

The horse on our left is our animal. It is meaningless as describe in Ecclesiastes 1.

What is MORE Truly MEANINGLESS is saying "our animal".

'you' do NOT even KNOW what the word 'our' means or refers to, EXACTLY, let alone the rest being able to logically follow.

I suggest you come to KNOW what the words you use ACTUALLY MEAN and refer to, BEFORE you even 'try to' use them in sentences.

“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”

The lower part of the collective tripartite soul like any machine is meaningless. Its meaning is a property of its creator. The meaning of a car is determined by its maker and driver. Everything under the sun or what is available to our senses is meaningless. Man is a creature of reaction obeying universal and cosmic laws

The meaning of "Everything is meaningless" is only determined by some, and so NOT necessarily True AT ALL.

However Man has the potential in his higher parts for consciousness of its creator.

This is ALREADY Consciously KNOWN.

Man can then serve nature through its REACTIONS and the universal purpose of our Source through its conscious ACTIONS uniting above and below: the levels of reality we know of as heaven and earth.

'you', human beings, are just that 'below' level, whereas, 'I' am on the 'above' level.

'you', human beings, can only REACT on and at 'your' level, whereas, at this higher level 'We' instead are PROACTIVE and so PROCREATE.

Man on earth is incapable of this unification.

Certainly NOT while 'you' REMAIN and ACT like a 'human being'

But UNIFICATION is done VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

Our negative emotions prevent it and it is only through justifying imagination that life becomes tolerable. Man needs the help of the Spirit to enable the collective soul to turn to the light instead of remaining attached to the shadows on the wall in Plato's Cave. Simone Weil wrote

"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

What is meant by "the average human beings can become ..."?

EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, CAN and DO become these things, and REMAIN so until that body stops breathing and pumping blood.

Grace enables one to be free of imagination long enough to sense his conscious purpose of serving a universal purpose and grow inwardly rather than serving only nature's needs through its bodily transformation of substances.

If this was possible, then what IS the conscious purpose of EACH and EVERY one of 'you'?

By the way, thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE 'purpose' for and of ALL of 'you', human beings, is Truly VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE to come to KNOW and understand.

Jesus Crucifixion made it possible for the energy of the Spirit to enter the world and provide the inner path we now know as Christianity

LOL

So, what you are essentially saying or suggesting here is that it was NOT possible for the energy of thee Spirit of, or, the Creator, Itself, to enter the 'world', in which it CREATES until AFTER some human being was nailed to a cross.

Now, this infers that the energy of the Spirit was NOT even able to enter in that human being known as "jesus".

[Age]

To experiment, you would have to live forever. I don’t advise you, you will die of boredom.

This is an idea, perhaps one would call it a *concern*, about an eternal life in a hereafter.

I think it is fair to say that all notions and ideas about an eternal after-life are completely speculative.

In my opinion, the idea of bliss in the afterlife with a good appetite is morally flawed.

WHY is this idea morally flawed to you?

Also, could you have an INTERPRETATION of that idea, which is NOT EXACTLY True, Right, AND Correct? And, the 'flaw' is ACTUALLY in YOUR INTERPRETATION and NOT in the idea, itself?

[Age]

And some say that 'I' am ACTUALLY the MOST SIMPLEST One there IS. But so what?

So you should consider a bit more humility.

Will you PROVIDE EXAMPLES of where you THINK or ASSUME that I could have shown a "bit more humility"?

If you will, then we can KNOW EXACTLY WHY you have come to such the ASSUMPTION that you have here.

And, then if you were NOT SO CLOSED we could DISCUSS 'this', and find out what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth REALLY IS.

But if you will NOT PROVIDE these EXAMPLES, then WHY NOT?

Are you REALLY that AFRAID of thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'? Or, is there some other reason?

(And by the way, it's "simplest" or more awkwardly, "most simple," but not "most simplest"). Humble people do not adopt the tone of a toddler trying to lecture his parents.

I'd like to think you're capable of more...of a less petulant, irritable, simplistic tone, something less adolescent and more thoughtful. So far, I'm not seeing it.

Maybe it's time to age a little faster, eh?

[Age]

He is speaking of facts in certain senses. One is that 'the modern view' undermined, in numerous senses, the 'story' through which Christianity had been normally communicated. One metaphysical system (a means of explanation) overturned the previous one in certain important, relevant, crucial and also somewhat irrefutable ways. For example: the notion of the Red Sea parting, the notion of a primordial garden in which two God-created beings existed in deathlessness.

Really there are a whole range of things that cannot any longer be believed by people who have been raised up in the new metaphysics (which is sort of a non-metaphysics) unless they make a deliberate choice to believe what cannot be believed.

Oddly, the will must enter in here to *patch up* the belief-fabric that had been rent.

The way I see it is that the Christian Story operates in much the way that the former Epics did. They are stories which have been concretized in absoluteness. They are *set in stone* so to speak and cannot be altered. If they are altered, and to push on my metaphor of fabric, they unravel in weird ways. And then (it seems to me) people exist within a semi-unbelievable story that is hard to defend. In fact they might try (as you seem to try by referring to Adam & Eve as some original mating pair) in a willed act of reconciliation, an attempt to bridge or reconcile two distinct epistemes.

But we can only deal with Christianity, and the elements of belief, as in a Novel. And the Novel is still being written. (If you catch my drift).

To say 'God has died . . . and we killed Him' is to express a series of ironical truths. The first Christ was nailed to the cross, but the undermining of the Story of Christianity is a murder in another sense.

As you know my view is that the Christian Story requires a special exegesis, but that exegesis is necessarily gnostic. However, I also tend to believe that most people either find a way to hold together, intact, a Story that they can believe in and do not have the energy, or perhaps the mental agility (?) to penetrate the many seeming metaphors that Christianity deals in.

It is also true that the more that one sees how the World really functions (I refer to ecological and natural systems and the reality of *will-to-power* as an accurate description of how power actually functions in this world) the more that one must internalize this understanding, and that means seeing that we are all profoundly complicit within *systems* that cannot but operate according to these principles.

I think that is what Nietzsche *saw* is just this:



In my view this is a description, an overpowering one that must have come on him quite strongly, that has to do with the 'world outside of ourselves'. That is to say the natural and the ecological world of 'life' within a material biological system.

What 'God' is, and how God enters this world, only occurs in human persons. I do not see the Christian God as being present in the natural world, because that world is really cruel and amoral. If mankind were subtracted from the picture, there would be no Christian God operating in this material-biological world. Whatever God is there, in that world, would carry life on as it now exists in the jungles and forests. It is a world that feeds on itself. Life and death in a horrifying, yet beautiful (in an utterly strange sense), system.

God in this sense comes through men (through people). God 'imposes' in men through the invisible world of metaphysics. How could metaphysics apply in the natural world (that is through a transcendental metaphysics?) What need as *the world* (the natural world) for transcendentals? None at all that I can discern.

So it seems to me that with Nietzsche (and I suppose many others) the order of focus shifts. That is, if one has seen what Nietzsche saw. I almost feel bad in pointing some of these things out but even Sartre, in a way, got it ironically right.

At a certain point the realization dawns: It is just you & me and here we are stuck in this strangely decorated room, no longer really fitted to us, where we have no choice but to work it out here.

Nietzsche describes the earth as a machine transforming substances through the interaction of lawful forces. Life within it takes part in this same function through the transformation of its life forces. There is no need for God in this machine.

However, can Man be other than an animal serving this machine? Can Man evolve from a mechanical being into a conscious being? I believe that the purpose for the essence of Christianity is to produce this potential.

Mainly I want to discuss Alexis Jacobi's gnostic stance , as I was troubled by the split between the God of Nature and the God of goodness, beauty, and truth.

Well the word 'God' refers to one thing; thee Creator, but in two different senses; in the visible (material) sense, in the spiritual or invisible sense.

Understand these two conceptions, and the rest just falls into place.

The latter emerges from the former, and is mainly a matter of stories and codified morality. Stories and codified morality pertain to man's facility with language. There is no division of kind, but only one of degrees, between men and other animals. Indeed in many respects the other animals are more good, more true, and more beautiful than man.

[Age]

Mainly I want to discuss Alexis Jacobi's gnostic stance, as I was troubled by the split between the God of Nature and the God of goodness, beauty, and truth.

The latter emerges from the former, and is mainly a matter of stories and codified morality. Stories and codified morality pertain to man's facility with language. There is no division of kind, but only one of degrees, between men and other animals. Indeed in many respects the other animals are more good, more true, and more beautiful than man.

I will just try to state some facts as I understand them.

WHY can you NOT just state 'facts', as they Truly ARE, EXACTLY?

One is that there is in my view clearly a difference between how the natural world operates, or the laws and rules that operate in it, and the *notion of God* which is held uniquely by human beings.

HOW, EXACTLY, is there ANY thing OTHER than the 'natural world'.

A Fact IS there is ONLY the 'natural world'. There is NOTHING other than the 'natural world', and, absolutely EVERY thing happens, happens in the 'natural world'.

This is just a Fact, which can NOT be refuted, true?

I cannot see any way around this and if anyone writing here can please describe how.

If there is, supposedly, some 'notion of God' that does NOT fit in with the 'natural world', then, OBVIOUSLY, that 'notion of God' is just False, Wrong, or NOT correct.

If you STILL can NOT see ANY way around 'this', then maybe if you explain what the word 'this' refers to, EXACTLY, then I could explain the way around 'this', FULLY and EXACTLY.

But since I am a theist, and my theistic position has been, let's say, verified by personal experiences, I have to attempt an explanation of what then is God? When I refer to God what am I referring to?

What is your 'theistic position', EXACTLY?

So what I have done is to perform what I call a manoeuvre. And what this means is pretty much what I have been saying: the God that we recognize and acknowledge is revealed uniquely through our own selves.

God is thee True Self, which is within EVERY thing.

I guess I would say that we are the metaphysical instrument, and we have a relationship with God (if we have one) through the instrument of our psyche.

UNDERSTAND who and what 'we' ARE, EXACTLY, then that one is a LOT CLOSER to thee ACTUAL relationship with God, Itself.

So I guess I would say that a) I recognize that God operates in nature as the designer and creator (because I do not see an alternative to the logic of the infinite regress and when one follows back causation there seems no alternative but to that of a conscious, intelligent creator).

What is it with this so-called 'infinite regress', which some of 'you', human beings, do NOT YET understand?

Also, WHY EXACTLY would one come to ASSUME that there seems to be NO alternative OTHER than a conscious, intelligent creator just because they, "them" 'self', can NOT follow causation ALL THE WAY BACK?

Surely, there ARE OTHER alternatives, like, for example; that material JUST EXISTS forever, and it JUST CHANGES in shape and form?

Yet though this is true it certainly seems that 'the world of nature' is left, completely, to itself.

Did you explain above, how it could even be logically possible for there to be ANY other 'thing' other than the 'natural world'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

It can almost be defined as 'another world'. Yet it is that world that is probed and explored by the material sciences.

And that world is *our world*. Distinct from that world is our inner world(s). This places the emphasis back onto man.

What about woman or children?

And, what is "our world" in relation to the 'natural world'?

And when that world is brought out into view it is a world non-dependent on the sort of metaphysical considerations that are relevant and indispensable to man (to people).

Sounds like this just gets to convoluted to even try and sort out.

Yet b) man is a unique instrument and the only creature of which I am aware that can have consciousness and awareness of God. All people in all cultures have such a conception,

Are you SURE?

If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

but each culture and people seems to work out its definitions differently.

Have, let us say, 'you', people, of the so-called "western culture", worked out the definition/s for that loosely used word 'God' yet, in the days when this is being written?

If no, then HOW COME.

So I propose that each person's view depends, if you will, on their 'lens'. The lens is the perceptual structure -- the structure of perception that *sees* the world. And by *see* I do mean *interpret*.

EACH and EVERY one of 'you', people, SEE 'things' DIFFERENTLY. And this is SOLELY because of what EACH and EVERY body has, literally, had DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES. This is REALLY JUST, this SIMPLE.

I propose that this way of understanding is gnostic but I only mean that to indicate 'special knowledge' or a form of knowledge that delves under the surface. (I do believe that I have been influenced by Heidegger's essay on Plato's Cave.)

'you' have been INFLUENCED, and IN FACT, ARE the way 'you' ARE solely because 'you' are being continually INFLUENCED, by what that body, which 'you' are WITHIN, continually EXPERIENCES.

But now let me say something about the sort of division I am referring to. That is, the division between the natural world and the world of man's (or my own) psyche. In my view *spirituality* occurs within a given individual.

Are you here suggesting that 'Spirituality' ONLY occurs in SOME individuals?

If yes, then WHY would 'Spirituality', Itself, choose to ONLY occur in SOME individuals.

They themselves are the instrument and the mechanism of this spirituality, and thus if there is a relationship with God or 'higher being' (or beings), the essential truth is that it occurs within that person. So special emphasis is placed on that individual. I really don't know how else to put it except to say exactly what I am saying.

Okay. Now, if you would like to SEE and UNDERSTAND MORE, then just let US KNOW.

Religion and spirituality do not exist outside of man. But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being, the nature of which I really can have no idea.

LOL So, supposedly, this is OBVIOUS, to you, but REALLY you have absolutely NO idea about this, correct?

And, what, EXACTLY, IS the so-called 'created world' and does 'that world' differ somehow to let us say an 'uncreated world'?

If yes, then how, EXACTLY?

When I say this I do not mean that I could not say something or other, or refer to some inner experience, or refer to other people's experience, or refer to some written text -- all this I can do! But in order to say anything at all about such transcendental matters I can only do so through allusion. An 'allusion' is not a fact. An allusion is an intimation. Facts operate in the tangible world. But in the intangible world the stuff that one deals with is non-definite and, as I try to say, is filtered through and expressed through the instrument that is man (the person, persons).

But there is NO 'intangible' 'world'. There is ONLY 'this world' ALONE, which is PERFECTLY sensible, reasonable, and logical, and which, by the way, Truly UNDERSTANDING is an EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY process. That is; once one KNOWS that process and HOW-TO do it, properly.

How has this view come about? So many different influences. Not the least (rather obviously) I would refer to CG Jung. If only because of the reference to *the psyche*. I guess I concluded that Jung is restating, in modern terms, some far older concepts about 'the nature of man'.

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of FOLLOWING "others" does NOT lead 'you', human beings, to what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

I suggest NOT using "others" to form 'your views' but use your experiences ALONE to back up if your views ALONE are the True, Right, and Correct ones.

How to verify, FOR SURE, and thus IRREFUTABLY, is ALSO VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to do, by the way.

[Age]

Correct. That experiment would last forever, because the infinite regress would never start.

QED

And, just like thee Universe, Itself, It NEVER did start.

If the chain of cause-and-effect never started, you would not be here. Neither would the universe.

LOL You REALLY ARE Truly BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS here.

You ONLY BELIEVE that cause-and-effect "started" because of your PREVIOUS and CURRENT BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about some thing, generally known as God, is the 'thing' that created everything, which MUST HAVE so-called "started" ALL-OF-THIS.

But the ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS of this BELIEF and ASSUMPTION, SPEAKS for Itself.

OBVIOUSLY, there could NOT be a "start" to something that is, by definition, CONTINUOUS. And, the Fact that cause-and-effect can be, logically possible, CONSTANT, even further backs up and supports the view that cause-and-effect is FOREVER.

In fact, when, and IF, one is Truly OPEN, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is what thee ACTUAL Truth REALLY IS. Cause-and-effect does NOT have to "start" for 'you' to be HERE, and to ASSUME otherwise is Truly STUPID and FOOLISH.

[Age]

In my view *spirituality* occurs within a given individual. They themselves are the instrument and the mechanism of this spirituality, and thus if there is a relationship with God or 'higher being' (or beings), the essential truth is that it occurs within that person.

Agreed... and I would add that a person's 'spirituality' may not even follow that model, as well. Similar to what you've said... what we perceive or experience may be a manifestation/appearance of that which uniquely suits ourselves, for whatever reasons. Some people may model it in a certain way, while others may not attempt to model it very distinctly at all. Therefore, I suggest, the modeling isn't an essential part or act, as the spirituality is an innate element to work with, existing throughout all of life. Humans turn it into what they will.

As 'I' continually ask, WHY 'try to' ASSUME, INTERPRET, GUESS, HYPOTHESIS, THEORIZE, or 'try to' MODEL what COULD BE true, when ALL one has to REALLY DO is just LOOK AT, observe, AND experience just what IS ACTUALLY True and REAL instead. This way, what is SEEN and UNDERSTOOD Is JUST, thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, Itself, ONLY. Without ALL of the confusing and Wrong MISINTERPRETED human being versions.

But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being

Why would we think there's 'a being'?

What could a, Truly, INTELLIGENT Being be EXACTLY, and how such a Being could create things, has to be KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD FIRST, BEFORE we could ACCURATELY discuss this issue here.

And why would we think that there's 'intelligence' that is anything at all like our concept of intelligence?

Well there is OBVIOUSLY 'intelligence' existing. But what EXACTLY 'it' IS needs to be KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD FIRST, BEFORE we can answer this question here for you.

It appears to me that we model the idea of a god based on ourselves: WE are 'beings'.

If that is what you do, then so be it. But would 'you' even be able to describe what being a 'being' ACTUALLY means or refers to, EXACTLY?

And then (at least in Christianity) we claim that WE are modeled after the god (the self-serving/glorifying/reassuring reasons for that, being rather obvious). Why would a 'god' that created everything we see (and more) be anything at all like US?

Why would It NOT?

It makes no sense.

A LOT of things do NOT make sense, to you. But this is just because you LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from a very NARROWED, CLOSED, or SHORT-SIGHTED field of view.

At the very least, why wouldn't we consider that such an immense creative energy would be reflected by ALL of creation (even beyond our perception of it)?

Why do you NOT just consider 'that', which are IRREFUTABLE Facts, and just STOP 'trying to' IMAGINE what 'things' COULD BE like?

And in considering that, we might also consider the true limits of our perception and our language/thinking, as there is so much about the natural world's perception and communication and interaction and vastness that we do not understand.

Yes, we can SEE, VERY CLEARLY, that there is still a LOT that 'you' do NOT YET UNDERSTAND.

If we accept/allow all to be more full of potential/capability than we can imagine, might we be able to notice/experience more than our own ideas?

WHY do you even IMAGINE what COULD BE the case and true to begin with?

WHY NOT just REMAIN OPEN and just LOOK AT what ACTUALLY occurs and happens ONLY?

All of this IMAGINING of what 'things' COULD BE like is only leading ALL of 'you', adult human beings, ASTRAY, in the days when this is being written.

[Age]

Lace: Why would we think there's 'a being'?

Why would we think there's not?

To think there is something there must be some evidence of it--something that can be seen or heard or perceived in some other way that raises the question, "what is that?"

What 'that' IS, is ACTUALLY seen, heard, AND perceived, in ALL ways.

Everything that is perceived is evidence of itself. What is the evidence for, "a being?"

Thee 'Mind', Itself.

What do you think is the evidence for 'you', human 'beings'?

[Age]

IC wrote

You don't need me to tell you that. You know it, from basic logic. As Aristotle pointed out, when two such "understandings" contradict directly, they can both be wrong, or one can be wrong and one can be right; but the one thing that is never true is that two genuinely contradictory propositions (meaning, those that actually say the direct opposite to each other) cannot be simultaneously true. It's just not possible.

The contradiction; the most hated but necessary tool for understanding Christianity.

Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

The contradictions offered by the conflict between my higher and lower natures can only be reconciled from the higher perspective of the Holy Spirit brought by the Christ in which the duality of the higher and lower become "one."

WHY do you say and claim that; "the conflict ... .. can ONLY be reconciled from the higher perspective of the Holy Spirit 'brought by the Christ"?

The Holy Spirit is within EVERY thing, and It was NOT ONLY brought by "christ". "christ' was just ANOTHER human being that was LISTENED TO and FOLLOWED, and was CERTAINLY NO one more special than ANY "other" human being.

[Age]

Lace: Why would we think there's 'a being'?

Why would we think there's not?

To think there is something there must be some evidence of it--something that can be seen or heard or perceived in some other way that raises the question, "what is that?"

Everything that is perceived is evidence of itself. What is the evidence for, "a being?"

If you walk up on a camp fire (there's no one there: just the nice little camp fire [logs arranged just so, a circle of stones surroundin' those logs], will you take that camp fire as a natural event or as sumthin' put in place by a now absent person?

The camp fire is evidence of itself, yes, but it's also evidence of an intelligent, purposeful, currently absent, fire starter, right?

Just because a human 'being' can and does light a fire, this, in itself, does NOT mean that that 'being' is 'intelligent'.

Also, if you want to use an example of a so-called "nice little camp fire" (with logs arranged "just so" (whatever that actually means), and with a circle of stones surrounding those logs) as some sort of evidence of some sort of 'absent person', or 'intelligent being/fire starter', then WHERE and WHAT IS the 'evidence' for an 'intelligent being'/starter of thee Universe, Itself?

Thee Universe is CERTAINLY NOT a "nice little camp fire" (with logs arranged "just so", nor with a circle of stones surrounding those logs) like It was 'started' AT ALL, by some absent thing, NOR ordered and nice, neither.

[Age]

To think there is something there must be some evidence of it--something that can be seen or heard or perceived in some other way that raises the question, "what is that?"

Everything that is perceived is evidence of itself. What is the evidence for, "a being?"

If you walk up on a camp fire (there's no one there: just the nice little camp fire [logs arranged just so, a circle of stones surroundin' those logs], will you take that camp fire as a natural event or as sumthin' put in place by a now absent person?

The camp fire is evidence of itself, yes, but it's also evidence of an intelligent, purposeful, currently absent, fire starter, right?

The inability to differentiate between the man-made and the metaphysical is the same mistake that fails to differentiate between the psychological (epistemological--like language, knowledge, science, history, fiction) and material (natural--like mountains, oceans, planets, and stars) ontological existence.

Here is ANOTHER one who says and claims that there is the 'natural', and then, 'OTHER things'. Which is ABSURD as it ACTUALLY SOUNDS.

There is nothing that exits ontologically, i.e. naturally, that requires a cause beyond itself.

LOL

Name just one thing that is NOT caused by some thing else.

And, after you have done that name one thing that is NOT caused by AT LEAST two OTHER things.

It is the ultimate existence. If there were such a thing as a, "first cause," or better, an "ultimate explanation," for what exists, material existence and its nature are that explanation.

There OBVIOUSLY could NEVER be a 'first cause' in the sense of some OTHER thing "started" EVERY thing.

Also, the ACTUAL 'ultimate' and ONLY ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE EXPLANATION is EXTREMELY EASY and SIMPLE to UNDERSTAND.

The only things that exist that require more explanation are those produced by living organisms or created by human beings.

Is this for EVERY one, some, or just for you ONLY?

Is it NOT possible, to you, that some people ACTUALLY require MORE explanation for WHAT, HOW, and WHY 'things' exist, other than just for those things that 'you', living organism, and human being things, produce or create?

For all such things there is clear evidence of how the behavior of those organisms produced those artifacts.

So, what MORE EXPLANATION is there that could be 'required' here?

If I see the remains of a camp fire, I recognize it as something a human being created, because I know they create them, and even how they do it, and that camp fires do not occur without human action.

How do you KNOW that a lightening strike did NOT start a fire in some logs, which were placed "nicely" within some stones?

The rocks, rivers, wind, and rain all exist and are what they are, and would be, even if there were no living creatures. Life and creation do not exist independently of physical living organisms.