Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:55 pm Thank you for your response. I'll answer your post in small bites to try to help keep my statements and meaning simple and clear. :)
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:07 pm I am reminded that you once described the motto "Jesus Christ, the same then and forever and ever" (paraphrased) on a plaque of the pulpit at your childhood church. It rubbed you the wrong way. It did not seem 'true'. For I suppose you say, and according to your doctrine you must say, that whatever Jesus Christ is must be ever in evolution, ever in development and transformation.
I say it because I see that everything/everyone in our world/life/view evolves and there are many dimensions/facets to be seen/realized from many angles/perspectives. So, a singular, unchanging perspective does not reflect some kind of 'full truth', and it shouldn't claim to. That seems obvious to me. Do you disagree?

I recognized (even as a child) that the adults were trying to confine, control, limit things that they didn't and couldn't understand, accept, or know fully, completely, specifically, etc. It made much more sense to me that any such creative force would be way beyond our comprehension and our definitions and stories. That was more magnificent and inspiring to me than the caricatures that were being propped up and paraded around in Christianity (or any other kind of religion).
The life and work of Jesus of Nazareth as told by The Gospels is capable of application to people in this century. Your interpretation of the Gospels obviously is different from those adults who were trying to confine, control, limit things that they didn't and couldn't understand, accept, or know fully, completely, specifically, etc. . Your thoughts are free, and you can control who is to be permitted to influence you.
It's probably already obvious to you, Lacewing, that the historical Jesus of Nazareth and the Jesus Christ of myth aren't the same. Some iconic persons move with the times with no lessening of their wisdom, and Jesus was one of those.
Maybe if you think of him as a penetrating and secure needle point on a pair of compasses of which you are the movable hinge.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:07 pm You say that men "fabricate a structure/idea based on their own limitations".
What more can we do? As human beings, we have limits to our perception and thinking and understanding. We build our ideas of what is and what can be and what should be, based on our limits. Yes?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:07 pmI propose that if this idea-statement were examined more closely that I would likely find that it dovetails with some modern, perhaps 'revolutionary' ideas, that have come to the fore in the Sixties and post-Sixties.
It's just logic. It's not dependent on any era or belief system. Human beings have all kinds of limitations. They see what they see and may assume there is nothing more to see. :) What they think they know at any given point, or in any particular circumstance or mindset, can expand or shift throughout their lives... or even in a moment. Until that shift or expansion occurs, we build within the limits we know.

I consider the implications of that.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:35 pm Some iconic persons move with the times with no lessening of their wisdom, and Jesus was one of those.
Maybe if you think of him as a penetrating and secure needle point on a pair of compasses of which you are the movable hinge.
Ah, okay... that's an interesting way of viewing it. So, might the issue be how so many people may interpret and ultimately distort the 'reading' and 'directions'... and then fight amongst themselves over who is more accurate and true.

My own interpretation of Jesus was of him being beyond his time/companions and very likely being misunderstood and misinterpreted. I think he suffered from human limitations and distortions just like any of us do. The enlightenment he had is demonstrated throughout humankind... in a variety of locations and ways, through countless beautifully wise and loving beings (who have been and are human).

There is something oddly twisted, it seems to me, about suggesting that 'God sent his only son' to save all of God's other creations. The divisive nature of these stories and symbols which are controlled by men is the exact opposite of what should be regarded as sacred. If I were to try to express by borrowing some Christian language, I would say that the glory of the divine is pulsating throughout all and everything in every moment. There is no division. There is no judgement. It is perfect. Only on the human 'level' do we judge and suffer because we are flesh and bone with noisy needy brains. :) It's not because we are 'bad'. It's because we don't know any better and we are rather fragile.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:55 pm I say it because I see that everything/everyone in our world/life/view evolves and there are many dimensions/facets to be seen/realized from many angles/perspectives. So, a singular, unchanging perspective does not reflect some kind of 'full truth', and it shouldn't claim to. That seems obvious to me. Do you disagree?
You have hit upon something here that I will try to bring out. It is not very complex, of course, but it could be interesting: the world (or *the world* if you wish to indicate a notion that must be defined) is the mutable substance. It can do nothing else but shift, mutate and change. The human world, the world of man and culture, is created, or set in motion, by Idea. The foundation of (advanced) culture is, in the best of circumstances, advanced Idea.

And Ideas, in this sense (or a specific sense) have strong or weak links to defined metaphysical notions. And metaphysical notions, seen in a certain way, or appreciated in a certain way, are where *constants* are located. I could not say that Idea is opposed to *world* in the mutable sense, yet Ideas act in some, or many ways, against or contrary to the world (of nature).

So yes, I certain see that things evolve and that things can advance as well. But innovation and novelty, in and of themselves, do not necessarily reflect or contain or express high-minded ideas or idealism. So, things can evolve but so too can they devolve. Or evolve non-positively and also negatively.

The question is (I think) -- what are the underlying predicates? What are the values, and the idea-values, that mold those things we create?

So when I examined, let's say, traditionalist, critical literature (critical expositions), and a good one to mention is René Guénon's The Crisis of the Modern World, I was exposed to a detailed critical analysis of what we term modernity. You could look up quotes to get a sense of where he is coming from. But suffice it to say that this critique exists and, in certain specific senses, many people, but for different reasons, have a critical stance in regard to strains of modern novelty. These critiques can be examined. Now, one that influenced me was David Kupelian's The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom. It helped orient me to a specifically Christian (likely Evangelical) critical posture about certain specific trends being enacted today. Yet his critique is what I would call a *foundational-based critique* because it is located, and built on, a foundation in metaphysical concepts.

So, if we accept that these bad trends exist, the question becomes what is their antidote? More 'progression' or the same negative trends? An accentuation? Their 'evolution'? Logically no. What is required is their antithesis. And where is that antithesis located? In structured, defined, clearly seen and clearly expressed principles. *First principles* if you wish. And these are -- always -- linked to metaphysical notions. And more often than not to conservative ideas.

So I think you can see that I would approach these issues and problems differently.

Note: I encountered another perspective, another *level of critique*, which I also discern comes from a position within a defined structure of value. The Hacking of the American Mind by Dr. Robert Lustig. What interest me is that it is a critical position that is, by nature, conservatively-based. That is it is an idea-set that confronts corruption and negative development in culture.

The reason this interests me is because it seems to represent the introduction of the 'antidote' I mentioned earlier.
I recognized (even as a child) that the adults were trying to confine, control, limit things that they didn't and couldn't understand, accept, or know fully, completely, specifically, etc. It made much more sense to me that any such creative force would be way beyond our comprehension and our definitions and stories. That was more magnificent and inspiring to me than the caricatures that were being propped up and paraded around in Christianity (or any other kind of religion).
This is actually another problem. I do believe I have encountered similar sorts of people and groups. I accept that there are people who "confine, control, limit things". But those people, and these specific groups, would have to be discussed one by one.

I am interested more in arresting decay and confronting what I understand to be destructive decadence. So my critical and my *assertive* efforts take the form they do. But the platform that I defend, as it were, is classical liberalism and also classical liberal arts. Our cultural paideia. Within it there is a tremendous degree of variability and also possibility.

I think I would have to acknowledge closed-circles and perhaps ingrown communities among some religious groups. I certainly grant you that. But I think that we are speaking (here) more about the defining of bedrock values and also ethical principles.
Last edited by Alexis Jacobi on Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:19 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:35 pm Some iconic persons move with the times with no lessening of their wisdom, and Jesus was one of those.
Maybe if you think of him as a penetrating and secure needle point on a pair of compasses of which you are the movable hinge.
Ah, okay... that's an interesting way of viewing it. So, might the issue be how so many people may interpret and ultimately distort the 'reading' and 'directions'... and then fight amongst themselves over who is more accurate and true.

My own interpretation of Jesus was of him being beyond his time/companions and very likely being misunderstood and misinterpreted. I think he suffered from human limitations and distortions just like any of us do. The enlightenment he had is demonstrated throughout humankind... in a variety of locations and ways, through countless beautifully wise and loving beings (who have been and are human).

There is something oddly twisted, it seems to me, about suggesting that 'God sent his only son' to save all of God's other creations. The divisive nature of these stories and symbols which are controlled by men is the exact opposite of what should be regarded as sacred. If I were to try to express by borrowing some Christian language, I would say that the glory of the divine is pulsating throughout all and everything in every moment. There is no division. There is no judgement. It is perfect. Only on the human 'level' do we judge and suffer because we are flesh and bone with noisy needy brains. :) It's not because we are 'bad'. It's because we don't know any better and we are rather fragile.
"God sent His only son" is an example of peculiar church language. What it means to me is God is visible among men when a man does something that the iconic Jesus would have done, such as sacrificing life and health to serve another person. You can sometimes see these everyday Christs in photos, or read about them in good reportage.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:07 pm
What if we notice and explore what is possible, rather than arguing over the nebulous notion of 'what is true'?
This to me is -- permit me the honesty -- an absurdly premised statement. If something is not *true* it should not become the foundation for the structures we build.
I didn't expect to come back but can't help replying to this.

The quote made by Lacewing, I believe, is perfectly true in the sense that truth remains relative to what we believe to be true. It remains an entry within an index of probabilities. Bayesian logic works on much the same principle. A lie can easily appear true if given credence century after century, tantamount to a lie creating a history for itself. What may change are its interpretations yet nevertheless remain true within its context. In effect, it's the lie which created the truth of Christianity. As a controlling millennial structure, it amounts to a historical fact established on a plethora of highly rationalized indoctrinated lies.

If, as you say, If something is not *true* it should not become the foundation for the structures we build - or at least has no truth prerogative, imagine how many structures would never have existed.

If humans had established and supervised themselves purely on what is true, there would have been no accomplishments of any kind, including the good, the bad and all the ugly it entailed.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:09 pmThe quote made by Lacewing, I believe, is perfectly true in the sense that truth remains relative to what we believe to be true. It remains an entry within an index of probabilities. Bayesian logic works on much the same principle. A lie can easily appear true if given credence century after century, tantamount to a lie creating a history for itself. What may change are its interpretations yet nevertheless remain true within its context. In effect, it's the lie which created the truth of Christianity. As a controlling millennial structure, it amounts to a historical fact established on a plethora of highly rationalized indoctrinated lies.
It does seem true "that truth remains relative to what we believe to be true" if truth is determined by our own decision, or whimsy. Yet I think that most all of us would, if pressed, actually present some pretty defined and solid notion of *the true* -- when we have made a careful analysis of what we have learned in living life.

My sense of it, when Lacewing speaks of there always being something more beyond any specific concretization of values or principles, is that she does not elucidate some actionable content, but proposes a somewhat abstract idea, as a challenge to those who work within defined systems. So when she says (or if you were to say) that we should explore the possible and put aside trying to define what is true, I did not take it that she is not interested in what is true, but simply desires to have more open possibilities before her.

Since your position is one where you expose and confront the "plethora of highly rationalized indoctrinated lies" you have your work before you. I admit that based on some of your other assertions I have no idea to what project this will lead you (something related to the non-dualism you refer to?)

I think your view and your critique must have an 'active' side, a propositional side. If so what is it?
Age
Posts: 20201
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:43 am
Age wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:09 am
Also, WHY would you love, let us say call them a 'blood relative' more than say the child from down the room?
I would never adopt a child or foster one...even if I or my husband found out that we were both infertile, or even if just one of us was infertile and my husband suggested the idea of adoption to me, I would have declined the idea..In that case scenario, I would continue on living a childfree life, and my husband would have been totally free to choose whether to stay with me childfree or leave me to find someone else who he could have children with, if that's what he wanted. I would be saddened if he did leave, but ultimately I would have to have let him go and accept that it wasn't meant to be. Luckily for us, we both wanted children and were able to have them naturally.
Okay, BUT, ONCE AGAIN, NONE of this has absolutely ANY thing AT ALL to do with what I just ASKED you. 'you' REALLY do have some very serious TROUBLE just understanding what thee ACTUAL questions I pose to you are ASKING FOR, EXACTLY, "dontaskme".
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:43 am
Age wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:09 amAnd, the father of your children was NOT a 'blood relative' correct?
When I took the marriage vow to love only him until death do us part, where two become one, that to me, meant he was my blood, becoming an even stronger bond when he planted his seed into my body that brought about blood children that were from my partner, making my partner my blood bond.
So no contradiction there for me...

So, if, to you, just ANY human being who is NOT related to 'you', genetically, can also be or become a 'blood relative', and you do NOT SEE that as a contradiction AT ALL, then that is PERFECTLY FINE, with me.

I was just curious and so was just asking you to CLARIFY.
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:43 am but if you want to believe there is a contradiction there, I don't care, that's your skewed thinking not mine.
.
REALLY, HOW MANY TIMES do 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, have to be TOLD some 'thing' BEFORE 'you' can GRASP 'it', COMPREHEND 'it', and UNDERSTAND 'it'? I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing.

And also, here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of how if ANY one 'saw' things differently to 'them', these human beings would consider the "OTHER" to have the so-called "skewed thinking".

Yet, it was the same one who, to them, a 'blood relative' is someone they can marry.
Age
Posts: 20201
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:07 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:58 am LOL "contentious replies". YET, 'you' can NOT PROVE 'them' Wrong NOR even 'contest' them.
I can. So easily. They're mostly just silly objections to absolutely everything...especially common sense.

But they're not worth it. They might be challenging to a fifteen year old who's read nothing, gone nowhere and knows nothing; they're not even a minor challenge to a mature or thoughtful person. Talking to you is like swatting gnats...one can kill many, and at will; but there are always more little bugs that can appear and replace them...because you don't think. Instead, you just talk, and talk and talk.

Why do you think it is you have to launch off three or four messages, and lengthy ones at that, to elicit any response? It's because you're being boring, trivial and contentious...but you have nothing to offer the conversation.

So do better. Talk less. Think more. And people might start talking to you like a normal person would.
'you', "immanuel can", are the WEAKEST and MOST COWARD and USELESS 'arguer' there IS.

You CLAIM, LAUGHABLY, that you "CAN" "so easily" PROVE my replies Wrong, AND you "CAN" "so easily" contest what I write, YET, for SOME REASON you DO NOT NEITHER. So, WHY IS THIS?

You CLAIM my replies are;

1. "mostly just SILLY objections".

Which I, ALSO, could make the SAME CLAIM that "your replies are just SILLY objections" AS WELL. BUT, if I was to do this and NOT back up and support this CLAIM, then 'I' ALSO would be a VERY WEAK "accuser" and a LITTLE COWARD, just like 'you', "immanuel can", ARE being here.

2. "mostly just SILLY objections" "to ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing".

The STUPIDITY and NONSENSE of this CLAIM speaks for ITSELF. And, AGAIN, your COWARDLINESS to ACTUALLY PRODUCE ANY thing just SHOWS and PROVES how WEAK 'you' REALLY ARE being here.

3. "mostly just SILLY objections" to "especially common sense".

Which is BEYOND being RIDICULOUS now. If you want to now CLAIM that some thing that you have said is "common sense" and that I have made a "SILLY objection" to 'it', then you are MORE STUPID, MORE BLIND, and MORE of a COWARD, then FIRST SEEN.

And, for PROOF of just how much of a COWARD and USELESS "accuser" you REALLY ARE, your complete INABILITY to back up and support YOUR CLAIMS is ALL the PROOF NEEDED HERE.

SEE, the CLAIMS I MAKE about 'you', "immanuel can", here 'you', "yourself", LAUGHABLY, PROVE absolutely True, Right, AND Correct by your OWN INACTION.

Which MEANS I do NOT have to do ABSOLUTELY ANY thing FURTHER.

I STILL STAND by absolutely EVERY thing I have SAID and WRITTEN here, and if ANY one of 'you', posters, here do NOT even try to REFUTE or DISCREDIT what I SAY, then they will REMAIN absolutely and IRREFUTABLY True, FOREVER MORE.

What REALLY annoys 'you' to your inner core "immanuel can" here is that you KNOW, deep down, that my replies, which REFUTE AND DISCREDIT what you have SAID and WRITTEN here you can NOT 'counter'. So, you are now STUCK, forever more, for BEING SEEN for just how False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect your CLAIMS here have been, and for just how INVALID and/or UNSOUND your "arguments" have been ALSO.

NOW, I will, ONCE AGAIN, SUGGEST that if you want to continue to MAKE CLAIMS, then it will be much better for you that you are ABLE to back up and support YOUR CLAIMS BEFORE you even begin to write them down here for ALL to LOOK AT and SEE. Otherwise, you will just KEEP LOOKING as STUPID and as RIDICULOUS as you are HERE-NOW, or, in other words, FOREVER MORE.

Which, by the way, do NOT feel AT ALL 'bad' about this because it will be YOUR Wrongness here that IS HELPING in BRINGING MY GOAL to FRUITION, which is what IS in the BEST INTEREST of, and for, EVERY one.

So, just REALIZE the Wrong, and STUPIDITY, you are DOING and SHOWING here is for the BENEFIT OF ALL.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:02 am 'you', "immanuel can",
Irrelevant. What I am, for better or worse, will not help you.

This is your problem. You own it, alone. Either you fix yourself, or you don't. But if you don't, then you'll get the same reaction you've always gotten from everybody.

That's just how life works.
Age
Posts: 20201
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:55 pm Thank you for your response. I'll answer your post in small bites to try to help keep my statements and meaning simple and clear. :)
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:07 pm I am reminded that you once described the motto "Jesus Christ, the same then and forever and ever" (paraphrased) on a plaque of the pulpit at your childhood church. It rubbed you the wrong way. It did not seem 'true'. For I suppose you say, and according to your doctrine you must say, that whatever Jesus Christ is must be ever in evolution, ever in development and transformation.
I say it because I see that everything/everyone in our world/life/view evolves and there are many dimensions/facets to be seen/realized from many angles/perspectives. So, a singular, unchanging perspective does not reflect some kind of 'full truth', and it shouldn't claim to. That seems obvious to me. Do you disagree?
The words "jesus christ" in that "motto" was just referring to 'children', and the MEANING IS, 'children', as they were, are, and always will be, are just 'children', in Life. Referring to the Truly 'innocent' with the ABILITY to SEE 'things' for what they Truly ARE because ALL 'children', no matter in what 'age' or 'era' they are born into will ALWAYS LOOK AT 'the world' from a Truly 'wide-eyed' and OPEN perspective.

'Children, the same then and forever and ever'.

(Oh, and by the way, the term; 'the second coming of jesus', just refers to the REVELATION, and REALIZATION, that word 'jesus christ' just refers to 'children' while the word 'God' just refers to 'adults' in relation to 'this world', which is BEING CREATED by 'you', human beings. But, this is ANOTHER STORY for ANOTHER TIME.)
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:55 pm I recognized (even as a child) that the adults were trying to confine, control, limit things that they didn't and couldn't understand, accept, or know fully, completely, specifically, etc.
BUT EVERY CHILD RECOGNIZES this Fact.

Although most might NOT CONSCIOUSLY RECOGNIZE this, like 'you' did "lacewing".

EVERY time ANY adult 'tried to' CLAIM ABSURD and RIDICULOUS 'things' like; "God created everything", and EVERY time a child asks something like; 'But what created God', and the adult STUMBLES and FALLS, completely, in reply, then the child RECOGNIZES that the adults were just trying to confine, control, and/or limit things that they OBVIOUSLY have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL about.

But, because 'most children' are NOT that INTERESTED in 'that stuff', and much prefer to just 'run around and HAVE FUN', they WILL, usually, just 'run off and HAVE FUN', when adults answer or speak in those MOST IDIOTIC and RIDICULOUS of ways. Some, however, like "yourself" will WONDER and PONDER of 'those things' more than "other" children would have. But then EVERY child WONDERS and PONDERS over DIFFERENT 'things', which "others" will NEVER even give a 'second thought' to.

What can also be CLEARLY SEEN here is that what 'you' RECOGNIZED as a child "lacewing" has been WITH 'you' for such a long time that 'it' has become so habit forming that 'you' WILL NOW, literally, SEE this same 'thing' in just about EVERY thing. Even when 'it' is NOT even there. But this is just how 'bias-confirmation' works, exactly.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:55 pm It made much more sense to me that any such creative force would be way beyond our comprehension and our definitions and stories.
TELL us WHY do 'you' PERSIST with this BELIEF that thee 'Creative' "force", (and, by the way, the True, Right, AND Correct word is 'energy' and NOT "force", which can be explained later), anyway WHY do you BELIEVE that the 'Creative energy' is BEYOND 'our' comprehension?

Are you NOT YET AWARE that, if the 'our' word, in your sentence, relates to 'you', human beings, 'you', human beings, are ALWAYS evolving and thus are ALSO ALWAYS LEARNING and COMPREHENDING MORE and MORE?

'you', "lacewing", appear to be ONLY LOOKING at 'things' here FROM the perspective of 'you', people, in some particular period or time of human history without even considering just HOW MUCH is comprehend, in the days when this is being written, which could NEVER even been IMAGINED let alone COMPREHENDED, PREVIOUSLY.

Do you have so little faith in human beings ability to learn, understand, and reason that for as long as human beings live for, which you have absolutely NO idea of correct, that human beings will NEVER be ABLE to COMPREHEND what you can NOT even IMAGINE at the moment of when this is being written?
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:55 pm That was more magnificent and inspiring to me than the caricatures that were being propped up and paraded around in Christianity (or any other kind of religion).
And, what is 'magnificent' and/or 'inspiring' to one does NOT necessarily have absolutely ANY bearing AT ALL on what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct, correct?
Age
Posts: 20201
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:35 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:55 pm Thank you for your response. I'll answer your post in small bites to try to help keep my statements and meaning simple and clear. :)
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:07 pm I am reminded that you once described the motto "Jesus Christ, the same then and forever and ever" (paraphrased) on a plaque of the pulpit at your childhood church. It rubbed you the wrong way. It did not seem 'true'. For I suppose you say, and according to your doctrine you must say, that whatever Jesus Christ is must be ever in evolution, ever in development and transformation.
I say it because I see that everything/everyone in our world/life/view evolves and there are many dimensions/facets to be seen/realized from many angles/perspectives. So, a singular, unchanging perspective does not reflect some kind of 'full truth', and it shouldn't claim to. That seems obvious to me. Do you disagree?

I recognized (even as a child) that the adults were trying to confine, control, limit things that they didn't and couldn't understand, accept, or know fully, completely, specifically, etc. It made much more sense to me that any such creative force would be way beyond our comprehension and our definitions and stories. That was more magnificent and inspiring to me than the caricatures that were being propped up and paraded around in Christianity (or any other kind of religion).
The life and work of Jesus of Nazareth as told by The Gospels is capable of application to people in this century. Your interpretation of the Gospels obviously is different from those adults who were trying to confine, control, limit things that they didn't and couldn't understand, accept, or know fully, completely, specifically, etc. . Your thoughts are free, and you can control who is to be permitted to influence you.
It's probably already obvious to you, Lacewing, that the historical Jesus of Nazareth and the Jesus Christ of myth aren't the same.
Thank you.
Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:35 pm Some iconic persons move with the times with no lessening of their wisdom, and Jesus was one of those.
Maybe if you think of him as a penetrating and secure needle point on a pair of compasses of which you are the movable hinge.
Age
Posts: 20201
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:07 pm You say that men "fabricate a structure/idea based on their own limitations".
What more can we do?
Are you REALLY NOT that OPEN to ANY thing other than your OWN 'fabricated structures and ideas' here?

'you', human beings, can and DO, when very young, MUCH MORE.

It is like you are REALLY 'trying to' say and suggest it is Wrong to have "our own" fabricated ideas, and to only look at everything else through our own fabricated ideas, but then you go and do this EXACT SAME thing "yourself".
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm As human beings, we have limits to our perception and thinking and understanding.
NOT AT ALL.

'you', ONLY have 'limits' to 'your' perception, thinking, and understanding when 'you' CHOOSE to have 'limits'.

There are NO ACTUAL 'limits' other than those of 'your' OWN MAKING.

And, the "BEST" way to 'limit' 'your' perception, thinking, or understanding is to just ASSUME or BELIEVE that 'you' ALREADY know what is true, right, or correct.

This can be and will be PROVED True, that is; IF ANY one is Truly INTERESTED.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm We build our ideas of what is and what can be and what should be, based on our limits. Yes?
OF COURSE 'we' do this, SOMETIMES. But, just as OBVIOUS is 'we' do OTHER 'things', at OTHER TIMES. And, what is ALSO just as OBVIOUSLY True is that 'you' do is NOT necessarily what 'we' do AT ALL.

So, ONLY when the word 'we' is CLARIFIED what 'you' are essentially saying here is NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY?

For example, 'you' may build 'your' ideas of what is and what can be and what should be, based on 'your' OWN limits, but 'we' do NONE of these things. Which 'you' could NEVER REFUTE, and this is because 'you' have absolutely NO IDEA AT ALL to what the word 'we' refers to here.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:07 pmI propose that if this idea-statement were examined more closely that I would likely find that it dovetails with some modern, perhaps 'revolutionary' ideas, that have come to the fore in the Sixties and post-Sixties.
It's just logic. It's not dependent on any era or belief system. Human beings have all kinds of limitations.
How about this continual CLAIM that human beings HAVE 'limitations' you START providing a list of them?

What I think will be found is there are probably nowhere AS MANY 'limitations' as you think or BELIEVE there are.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm They see what they see and may assume there is nothing more to see. :)
EXACTLY like 'you' do "lacewing".

You 'see' 'there is NOT just one truth' AND ASSUME there is NOTHING MORE to 'see'.

You have this MOST 'limited' of VIEW, and EXPECT EVERY one else to HAVE and HOLD this VIEW also.

Except there IS A Truth, which can NOT be REFUTED and so which EVERY one can agree with 'It'.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm What they think they know at any given point, or in any particular circumstance or mindset, can expand or shift throughout their lives...
OF COURSE. But, what appears here, SO OFTEN is that 'you' keep considering 'you' do NOT belong to these views of "others" that 'you' have.

'you' appear to speak 'of others" as though you do NOT do the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

And, if you want to now say that 'you' also do the EXACT SAME 'thing', then I suggest 'you' STOP 'limiting' "your" OWN 'self' and 'your' OWN view of 'things'.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm or even in a moment. Until that shift or expansion occurs, we build within the limits we know.

I consider the implications of that.
LOL 'considering' some 'thing' but NEVER doing ANY 'thing' to CHANGE 'it' is just a 'waste of time', as some would say.
Age
Posts: 20201
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:19 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:35 pm Some iconic persons move with the times with no lessening of their wisdom, and Jesus was one of those.
Maybe if you think of him as a penetrating and secure needle point on a pair of compasses of which you are the movable hinge.
Ah, okay... that's an interesting way of viewing it. So, might the issue be how so many people may interpret and ultimately distort the 'reading' and 'directions'... and then fight amongst themselves over who is more accurate and true.
OF COURSE 'this' is THE ISSUE.

I have been SAYING and POINTING 'this' OUT, since I have been in this forum.

What IS ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct is JUST HERE, in front of 'us' ALL, EXACTLY HOW 'It' IS, for ALL to LOOK AT and SEE.

And the ONLY 'things' in Life are the INTERPRETATIONS that 'you', human beings, continually MAKE. And, it is these Wrong INTERPRETATIONS, combined with the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS that those INTERPRETATIONS are true, right, AND correct which is what is CAUSING to "fight/argue" among EACH "other" as well as being what is STOPPING and PREVENTING 'you' from just SEEING what IS thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

ONCE one can SEE what IS IRREFUTABLY True, then that one can move, with the times, with NO lessening of wisdom.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm My own interpretation of Jesus was of him being beyond his time/companions and very likely being misunderstood and misinterpreted.
Absolutely EVERY human being gets MISINTERPRETED, and thus gets MISUNDERSTOOD, at times. The word 'jesus' refers to just ANOTHER human being. But, if EVERY one just CLARIFIED, BEFORE they ever JUMPED to an INTERPRETATION or an ASSUMPTION, then there would NOT be ANY more MISINTERPRETATION nor ANY more MISUNDERSTANDING. As I have just been SAYING, and POINTING OUT, here.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm I think he suffered from human limitations and distortions just like any of us do.
Just because 'you', human beings, can have limitations AND distortions, this has NO being on being MISINTERPRETED and/or MISUNDERSTOOD.

MISINTERPRETING and MISUNDERSTANDING just comes from PRESUMING and ASSUMING 'things', BEFORE just GAINING CLARITY, FIRST.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm The enlightenment he had is demonstrated throughout humankind... in a variety of locations and ways, through countless beautifully wise and loving beings (who have been and are human).

There is something oddly twisted, it seems to me, about suggesting that 'God sent his only son' to save all of God's other creations.
When, and IF, you learn what all the stories and fables are ACTUALLY referring to, EXACTLY, then this will make far MORE SENSE, and even PERFECT SENSE, eventually.

But while one has Wrong INTERPRETATIONS about what that sentence is referring to, then of course and obviously it would appear as 'oddly twisted', to 'them'.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm The divisive nature of these stories and symbols which are controlled by men is the exact opposite of what should be regarded as sacred.
But there is NO ACTUAL 'divisive nature' of those stories. There is ONLY 'division' within 'your, human being, INTERPRETATIONS'
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm If I were to try to express by borrowing some Christian language, I would say that the glory of the divine is pulsating throughout all and everything in every moment. There is no division. There is no judgement. It is perfect.
And that is what is being EXPRESSED through religious language.

The Divine/God is WITHIN EVERY 'thing', ALWAYS. There is NO division, and there is ONLY One UNIFIED 'thing', the nondual. There is NO judgement, except ALL of the judgments 'you', human beings, MAKE, of course. And, the WHOLE is PERFECT, EXACTLY how It IS. Including ALL of the Wrong that 'you', adult human beings, are DOING, in the days when this is being written. This is because of the VERY REASON this Wrong was ALLOWED to happen and occur.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm Only on the human 'level' do we judge and suffer because we are flesh and bone with noisy needy brains. :)
BUT, flesh, bone, AND brain does NOT 'suffer'. ONLY 'you', people, do.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm It's not because we are 'bad'.
Correct, it is because of the 'bad' and 'Wrong' 'you', adult human beings, do.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:49 pm It's because we don't know any better and we are rather fragile.
Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of one 'trying to" "justify" their Wrong behaviors.

'you' do NOT 'judge' because 'you' do NOT know any better. 'you' judge because of your insecurities and past experiences.

And, ONLY 'children' are fragile, oh and those 'adults' how have NOT matured YET.
Age
Posts: 20201
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:55 pm I say it because I see that everything/everyone in our world/life/view evolves and there are many dimensions/facets to be seen/realized from many angles/perspectives. So, a singular, unchanging perspective does not reflect some kind of 'full truth', and it shouldn't claim to.
BUT, A singular and unchanging perspective DOES reflect thee ACTUAL, and FULL, Truth.

Once you learn how to LOOK AT and SEE 'thing', properly AND correctly, then you WILL UNDERSTAND this FULLY, as well as also be ABLE to SEE what this FULL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

This is obvious, to me. Do you disagree?

If yes, then WHY, EXACTLY?
Post Reply