Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

The Jaina seven-valued logic.

Well, if you appeal to Jainism, you're back to a binary. You're saying, "either one uses Jaian SV"L" or one uses Aristotelian logic." That's a binary.

But as it is, I have to say that the SV"L" isn't "L" at all.

if something exists, then by definition, it does not not-exist. If it does not exist, then by defintion, it does not exist at all, in any sense, in any way.

Nothing could be more evident or more absolute. It is, in fact, exactly what we mean when we use the predicate "exist." The Jainist scheme is therefore irrational and anti-logical, not simply an alternative "logic."

What you desire to do is to apply a very strict limit to who is and who is not a Christian.

No, what I have is a Biblical definition. I simply would like you to put some substance in your use of the word.

I assert that the Gospels do not in any sense provide enough information on which to base a Christian Philosophy -- of social organization, economics, social hierarchy, statecraft, conquest, science, ecology, and so much else.

You're correct...not only the gospels, but the epistles and the rest of the Scriptures do not provide the things you ask of it. In fact, the gospels refuse even to entertain some of the things you mention, such as "conquest," "statecraft," "social organization," and so on. (And who knows what you mean by most of them, actually?)

That's the point. Christianity is not a political system, a strategy of conquest, an economic scheme, a case of statecraft, or whatever. That's what makes it unreasonable even to think of calling those things "Christian civilization." They're just not. And nothing in Scripture supports the view that they ever can be.

"Christian civilization" makes as much sense as the term "accountancy dancing."

The fact of the matter is that everything that Christian thought entails, all of it was developed later.

Well, that's clearly not the case. Paul himself was a contemporary of people like Peter, James and John. Luke wrote Acts. Peter himself wrote two books, and James wrote one.

But even if we grant your incorrect assumption, it would not help your case: for the "later" stuff you mention also refuses any thought of politics, conquest and whatnot.

So while it it true that in a given society -- a Christian society -- some will be nearly completely uncommitted to Christian values or to living in a Christian way, and others will have a marginal relationship, and then others on the farther end will be more and also greatly committed -- still we are describing a Christian culture.

That's a bizarre claim, given that those features you, yourself call "culture" are the very things that the Bible either says nothing about or outright denigrates.

And you admit it...for you say, that "social organization, hierarchy, statecraft" etc. are not Biblical things. And then you say, "But I'm going to call it all 'Christian' anyway"?

There are some, let's say, post-Christian philosophers who wish to diminish the relevance of the sin-concept.

"Post-Christian"? Like "Postmodernist"?

If somebody's a "Post-Christian," it means he's not one at all. The word that Biblically occurs for such a person is "apostate."

AJ: There is a gradation in 'Christian culture'. But it is still Christian culture and it is still (or it was still) 'the Body of Christ'.

IC: If you suppose that, then you haven't any idea what the term "Body of Christ" means, either. It's not cultural. It depends 100% on the internal disposition of the individual purported members being consonant with the character and faith required by Christ. No frauds are allowed.

Again you can only deal in the most strict binaries.

Not me. Scripture. I'm just the guy who's pointing it out.

[iambiguous]

"Impotent," then. Nothing you assert is more than a personal feeling, you say?

It's not just my "personal feeling" that the Pope resides in the Vatican.

It's a merely empirical question.

Well, guess what: I'm looking for empirical answers!!! Of which [so far] you have provided me with...none.

True, I'm not in the Vatican now myself to confirm his presence, but there are any number of others who can confirm precisely where he is now.

So you're putting your faith in where you THINK he ought to be, and where somebody else TELLS you he is. And if your guess is right, and your informers don't lie or be mistaken, then that's good.

But you're still not sure.

Come on, stop wiggling around your clear refusal to own up to the fact that you have absolutely no empirical evidence to offer us that the Christian God resides in Heaven. Obviously, down here on planet Earth, in not being with the Pope right now, in never having met the man personally, I am forced to fall back on that mountain of empirical evidence out there that establishes his existence. Sometimes in the Vatican, sometimes not.

For that matter, I have never met Joe Biden or Vladimir Putin. I merely suggest that the proof of their existence is...substantial? Sans sim worlds and the Matrix and solipsism, of course.

Maybe when the nuclear holocaust commences it will become be more firmly established that yes they do both actually exist. One in the White House, the other in the Kremlin. You know, like the Pope in the Vatican.

Or not in the Vatican right now.

On the other hand, here and now, I do personally feel that the Christian God is not in Heaven. But that feeling is predicated on the fact that neither you nor anyone else has provided me with substantive evidence able to convince that He is in fact there.

Well, since there's no evidence you would ever accept, that's unsurprising. Those who have no standard of evidence never get any.

See, there you go again. Rather than provide us with some actual, factual evidence, you insist that if others don't accept your own intangible definitions and deductions about the Christian God, they have not met your own "standards" of evidence.

Just out of curiosity, do you know that you are doing this? In other words, are you fooling even yourself?

In fact, we get this from you:

But when I ask you to provide them on par with a ton of empirical facts available to confirm the existence of the Pope, you have nothing tangible to offer.

Au contraire: if you apply the same evidentiary standards you use on the Pope, then you would go on a combination of what you think and what others say. That's what you did with the Pope.

So there are lots of people who say God exists. Your personal disposition may incline you not to believe them. But that's not a very strong case against these particular informers, is it?

In point of fact, if you opened your own eyes, you'd figure out that there are a ton of evidences. The problem is that you won't accept any of them, not that they don't exist.

Again, nothing specific in regard to that ton of evidence. But trust him: it's all there "in his head".

Instead, he connects me to sixteen youtube videos!!!

The usual intellectual/spiritual contraption "arguments" for God's existence.

Note to others:

If you are inclined, view these videos. Then come back to us with what you believe to be the strongest empirical evidence provided in them that not only does a God, the God exist, but that it is in fact the Christian God.

If your morals are only subjective, then they are impotent with regard to anybody else. There is no reason why something particular to only you and your perspective should be regarded as binding -- or even necessarily interesting -- to another human being.

I couldn't agree more. But not every subjectivist is "fractured and fragmented". Many are willing to embrace democracy and the rule of law

That changes nothing.

Really? Tell that to those living in Russia or China or North Korea. Or, ironically enough, in one of the theocratic regimes around the globe.

Whether somebody "embraces democracy and the rule of law" does not turn their "laws" into moral facts. Islamists embrace Sharia. Nihilists embrace meaninglessness. Egoists embrace themselves. None of that matters at all, unless what they embrace is itself an objective moral truth.

Moral facts. The objective moral truth. Yours of course. Trust me. We get that part.

Only some predicate the Christian rendition of Sharia law on their own "private and personal" reading of the Bible.

How about you? If you were in a position of power in any particular community, what would the "rules of behavior" be predicated on if not your own dogmatic, authoritarian interpretation of "what would Jesus Do?" Or would you be open to moderation, negotiation and compromise in regard to, say, abortion? Or buying and selling bazookas?

You claim not to be a theocrat yet seem to dismiss democracy and the rule of law unless it is based on "the objective moral truth".

So, which is it? How would you go about rewarding and punishing behaviors in a community where you were in power? Ecumenically?

That, unless others accept Jesus Christ as their savior, it won't go well for them at Judgment Day?

I'm just telling you exactly what the Bible tells you about that. What you do with it, well, that's up to you.

Okay, then, what exactly does the Bible tell Henry?

Henry and I talk about that. But you don't imagine I'm inviting you into our conversation, do you?

Note to Henry:

What's the big secret? Why can't it be disclosed what IC thinks the Christian Bible tells you about Judgment Day?

But, sure, if you don't want to discuss that exchange, fair enough.

What matters is what the Bible has to say to you.

No, what matters is that in living very different lives in very different sets of circumstances historically and culturally each of us as individual is going to take out of the Bible what they first put into it: their own moral and political and spiritual prejudices. Back again to dasein. In other words, back again to this...

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths

The part that, in my view, you avoid like the plague because you have invested years and years in sustaining [psychologically] the comfort and the consolation that Christianity provides you.

Believe me, I unequivocally do get that part. Having once been a devout Christian myself.

What do you mean by "literally"? Do you mean that a "literal" person can't recognize poetry or parable, even when the speaker explicitly says that's what they are? Does a "literalist" have to say that everything men did that is recorded therein is automatically thereby only actions approved by God?

Oh, so you're saying that chapter by chapter, verse by verse, the true Christian [you, for example] can make these distinctions all the way through from Genesis to Revelations?

Of course. It's nothing even remotely hard. A poem looks like a poem. A parable starts with words like, "And Jesus spoke this parable..." And history is written as history, and a commandment as a commandment. So even a simple person can figure out which is which.

Back to this then:

Of course, if that is the case, how do you explain the fact that are so many different Christian denominations -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... of_members

They can't all be right in regard to what they tell their flocks about the Word of God...in all the Bible "affirms". Just look at how some Protestants despise Catholics almost as much as they do the Jews. Again, even though Christ Himself was a Jew!!

Maybe it's not as simple as you think.

And are you telling us that you yourself know what the "condition of salvation" is?

I'm just telling you what the Bible says about it. Again, it's up to you what you do with that knowledge.

I'm asking you to tell me what the Bible tells you the condition of salvation is.

See John 3:16.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

See! Back again to that!!

If you don't believe in Jesus Christ -- God in the flesh? -- no immortality, no salvation. So, Henry and other non-Christians die and it's Judgment Day for them. What then?

Well, of course: it's whatever your own existential leap of faith to the Christian God provides in the way of an "answer". Your own private and personal answer that you merely have to believe "in your head" to make it true.

I'm pointing out that Henry does not believe in the Christian God.

Henry is Henry's business. He's none of yours.

On the other hand, there are plenty of other Christians convinced that Henry's soul is very much their business. They want to save it. And, given John 3:16, it is certainly in need of saving.

Right?

And what of Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Shintos and Buddhists and all those many, many others who embrace the other denominations?

They all say essentially the same thing: that anybody who follows their system of belief is better off that somebody who doesn't. In that sense, all religions are exclusive. Because even those that purport to be inclusive insist the exclusive ones are wrong...so they are exclusive of the exclusive.

So that's not even unusual. All religions have a path they advocate. And the Bible says that, too. But it says this, about that:

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Okay, but, come on, what does this vague general description spiritual passage have to do with crunch time and all those who are not Christians -- or even construe Christians to be infidels -- are being judged for passage into Heaven?

You know what you need to do? You need to read the Bible for yourself. It's much more plain than you imagine on these topics.

I did read the Bible. From cover to cover. But that was some years ago. Now, you say the Bible covers the part about those who are not Christians -- or even war against Christians -- on Judgment Day. Okay, give us the John 3:16 rendition of that.

What of those who have never even heard of Christianity?

That isn't you

Okay, but what about those who have never heard of Christianity?

See Romans 1. It answers that question admirably.

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_1

What admirable answer? What's Paul got to tell us about the fate of those who at death had never even heard of Christianity or Jesus Christ.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, if you appeal to Jainism, you're back to a binary. You're saying, "either one uses Jaian SV"L" or one uses Aristotelian logic." That's a binary.

But as it is, I have to say that the SV"L" isn't "L" at all.

if something exists, then by definition, it does not not-exist. If it does not exist, then by defintion, it does not exist at all, in any sense, in any way.

Nothing could be more evident or more absolute. It is, in fact, exactly what we mean when we use the predicate "exist." The Jainist scheme is therefore irrational and anti-logical, not simply an alternative "logic."

Again, I am only observing how your mind works. You apply mathematically apparent, and logical truths, outside of the domain where they (best and perhaps solely) apply.

Appeal? No, refer. It is different. And the point is that different people, in different times and places, have examined life through different lenses. Other perceptual systems exist. And they are *possible* as I often say.

For you -- and here I cite the core topic being discussed -- you are either a Christian/or you are not. There is no in-between. You apply Aristotelean binary terms to an issue that in my has tremendous variables.

So no, nothing within this area of consideration is so "evident or more absolute". The strict binary cannot, and does not, function well in this domain, but that is also true in so many domains.

The Jainist system, to the degree that I understand it, provides a different schema and, I am also sure, there are reasons for this flexibility. That is, as a predicate system it serves purposes while offering different purposes.

AJ: What you desire to do is to apply a very strict limit to who is and who is not a Christian.

IC: No, what I have is a Biblical definition. I simply would like you to put some substance in your use of the word.

That is of course understood. I am not so much interested in denying that there is a 'logic' in your strict definition as I am in pointing out why it has come about that in many areas, and for many different reasons, this strict system has necessitated being modified and for some abandoned. That is one aspect. But there is another and I think it has to do with what became necessary, within a post-Christian culture, for people interested in 'knowing themselves'. I refer to Europe in the pivotal period of 1880-1930 (more or less). The Christianity that existed became, in definite ways and for many people, a sort of 'prison' that had to be broken out of. In my view this turns on the issue of the tension between European Paganism and European Christianity. It is an involved topic and there is no way to refer to it simply.

Yet we have talked about it on these pages. The reference point is between Dionysian necessity and experience and the Christian imposition. Within a cultural and social development and evolution, the static figure of Jesus Christ lost meaning. Or it did not suffice as a sufficient figure for self-identification. It sounds absurd of course but what was needed was a Jesus Christ who not only read Nietzsche and understood what Nietzsche said, and meant, but a Jesus who would be capable of speaking in these terms -- the terms of the developing and evolving modernity.

The figure of Jesus Christ seems to me to represent a figure encased in amber. It could not move, and it could not evolve.

So in this way, in order to 'progress', that figure, that conception, had to be superseded. The figure of Jesus that you refer to is an image embalmed in amber. It cannot move or change.

So what happened is that through an abandonment of the Image, and the exploration on new roads and new avenues, which required a very different sort of God-figure, that entire worlds of possibility opened up for people. But as with all human endeavors some part of this was good, and very good, which other parts were not so good and bad. I know that you will have no way to take what I am saying except as some sort of advocacy, but my advocacy (were it such) is irrelevant: what happened happened. The 'consciousness movements' that were defined in the early years of the 20th century in Europe then proceeded to influence America. And in the 1950s and 1960s whole new "modes" of understanding and seeing things entered the scene.

These represented both creativity as well as chaos. Both creativity and, in other domains, destructivity. And this brings me back to Robert Bork insofar as he outlined 'destructive effects' within these movements that contested hierarchical and established understanding. It is very hard to sort through it all and assign, in absolute terms, what was bad and what was good. My issue is that I tend to see a general decadence that has progressed and keeps progressing, but the cause of it I have not established yet. But I do think I understand what arrests it.

[More later]

[phyllo]

Well, if you appeal to Jainism, you're back to a binary. You're saying, "either one uses Jaian SV"L" or one uses Aristotelian logic." That's a binary.

But as it is, I have to say that the SV"L" isn't "L" at all.

if something exists, then by definition, it does not not-exist. If it does not exist, then by defintion, it does not exist at all, in any sense, in any way.

Nothing could be more evident or more absolute. It is, in fact, exactly what we mean when we use the predicate "exist." The Jainist scheme is therefore irrational and anti-logical, not simply an alternative "logic."

Multi-value logic is used to deal with unknowns, uncertainty and contradictory statements.

If one knows that "A exists" then multi-value logic considers it a true statement. But if one doesn't know, then "A exists" has the value 'unknown', 'uncertain', 'both true and false', 'neither true nor false', or some probability depending on the system used.

A modern example is Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment : the cat is considered both alive and dead until the box is opened and the actual state of the cat is observed.

[Nick_A]

A J

If a culture legalizes late term abortion for convenience up to the point of birth, is it considered a Christian culture? I would say no.

Fake Republicans are called Rinos or Republicans in name only. A Christian culture in name only is a Cino culture or Christian in name only.

"People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works." Meister Eckhart

What people do by fear or to feel important doesn't define a Christian. What they are defines a Christian and this happens only after rebirth

[Immanuel Can]

"Impotent," then. Nothing you assert is more than a personal feeling, you say?

It's not just my "personal feeling" that the Pope resides in the Vatican.

It's a merely empirical question.

Well, guess what: I'm looking for empirical answers!!! Of which [so far] you have provided me with...none.

Not true. Check out the videos I sent you.

For that matter, I have never met Joe Biden or Vladimir Putin. I merely suggest that the proof of their existence is...substantial? Sans sim worlds and the Matrix and solipsism, of course.

Far more people have believed in God than believe in both of those put together. That won't make any difference to you, of course, but it's true.

Rather than provide us with some actual, factual evidence,

Done. Check the videos.

Instead, he connects me to sixteen youtube videos!!!

Which apparently, you refused to look at...or if you looked at any, you clearly didn't think about what you were looking at at all. Because they were full of empirical evidence, as well as logical claims.

That's what I mean about Atheists not allowing evidence to count as evidence. There is literally nothing I could ever show you that you would accept, I'm sure. You're dead set, prior to all investigation, that there is going to be allowed to be no evidence.

If your morals are only subjective, then they are impotent with regard to anybody else. There is no reason why something particular to only you and your perspective should be regarded as binding -- or even necessarily interesting -- to another human being.

I couldn't agree more. But not every subjectivist is "fractured and fragmented". Many are willing to embrace democracy and the rule of law

That changes nothing.

Really? Tell that to those living in Russia or China or North Korea. [/quote]
I mean about the question of whether or not morality is objective. Putin or Ji's belief that X is a moral value doesn't make it one. And no matter how many people follow them, their values don't become objectively true.

It's an objective fact that their bad values exist; it's not an objective fact that they value the right things.

But you knew all that.

How about you? If you were in a position of power in any particular community,

An absurd hypothetical. I'm not.

In any case, Christianity is apolitical, not political.

What matters is what the Bible has to say to you.

No,[/quote]
Yes.

You'll find out. But my advice is that you don't.

dasein

Fake word: no definition.

Having once been a devout Christian myself.

Well, maybe you thought you were. If you're not now, then you never understood it in the first place.

Back to this then:

Of course, if that is the case, how do you explain the fact that are so many different Christian denominations

Some are Christian. Some are not. But it's unimportant the the question you're asking.

No matter how many people have a question wrong, it doesn't make them right. It's called "bandwagon fallacy."

If you don't believe in Jesus Christ -- God in the flesh? -- no immortality, no salvation.

That is what the Bible says. So it's a conflict between you and God if you think otherwise.

Fight it out. See where it gets you.

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Okay, but, come on, what does this vague general description spiritual passage have to do with crunch time and all those who are not Christians -- or even construe Christians to be infidels -- are being judged for passage into Heaven?

Can you read?

If you can, you have your answer.

You know what you need to do? You need to read the Bible for yourself. It's much more plain than you imagine on these topics.

I did read the Bible.

I do not believe you. I simply cannot.

The degree of bad information you have forbids me to think you have. If you knew the Bible even marginally well, you would not be asking such basic questions, nor would you be in doubt of what the answers are.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if you appeal to Jainism, you're back to a binary. You're saying, "either one uses Jaian SV"L" or one uses Aristotelian logic." That's a binary.

But as it is, I have to say that the SV"L" isn't "L" at all.

if something exists, then by definition, it does not not-exist. If it does not exist, then by defintion, it does not exist at all, in any sense, in any way.

Nothing could be more evident or more absolute. It is, in fact, exactly what we mean when we use the predicate "exist." The Jainist scheme is therefore irrational and anti-logical, not simply an alternative "logic."

Again, I am only observing how your mind works.

Logically, you mean?

Yes, thank you. I'll stay with Aristotle on that.

For you -- and here I cite the core topic being discussed -- you are either a Christian/or you are not.

For the Bible, one is saved or one is not.

Whether or not I think it will change nothing. It will still be the same, either way.

AJ: What you desire to do is to apply a very strict limit to who is and who is not a Christian.

IC: No, what I have is a Biblical definition. I simply would like you to put some substance in your use of the word.

That is of course understood. I am not so much interested in denying that there is a 'logic' in your strict definition as I am in pointing out why it has come about that in many areas, and for many different reasons, this strict system has necessitated being modified and for some abandoned.

You'll have to say who you're talking about. I'm unfamiliar with the case you seem to have in mind.

That is one aspect. But there is another and I think it has to do with what became necessary, within a post-Christian culture, for people interested in 'knowing themselves'.

That's very easy to answer: they won't.

To the degree that one loses association with God, one loses also awareness of oneself. And you can read about this in the current range of sociologists and psychologists who have remaked on the way the postmodern self is dissolving...from Walter Truett Anderson, to Anthony Giddens, to Zygmunt Bauman, to Kenneth Gergen, to Christopher Lasch, to Roger Lundin...they're all seeing the same thing: the secular self, long shored up on a sort of Cartesian view of the self, is now in rapid dissolution to what they call "the Protean self," which like the mythical character Proteus, assumes many forms and has none as its essential form.

People no longer know who they are. Why else are people looking to cosplay, or transgenderism, or even transpeciesism, to find some self they can believe in?

The figure of Jesus Christ seems to me to represent a figure encased in amber. It could not move, and it could not evolve.

Well, things "evolve" when they're flawed. That's in the definition of "evolving." Otherwise, it's called "devolving," which is more like what we're doing now.

So what happened is that through an abandonment of the Image, and the exploration on new roads and new avenues, which required a very different sort of God-figure

That's such an odd line.

Imagine if I said, "Well, the world requires a very different sort of Alexis Jacobi"?

Actually, it's even funnier than that...it's like saying, "The world requires a very different law of gravity..." Good luck calling for one. If we're talking about a reality, then you're going to get what's really there...not what you imagine you'd like in its place.

Only if you already are assuming that "God" just refers to a human construct does that idea even make coherent sense. But in that case, the world doesn't "need" anything of it at all. For it's a fake. Why would humanity "need" to be deluding itself? That would sure need an elaborate justification, wouldn't it?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What you desire to do is to apply a very strict limit to who is and who is not a Christian.

OK, but what cut-off date would you accept before which one remains *a Christian*?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Logically, you mean? Yes, thank you. I'll stay with Aristotle on that.

You are now playing your typical childish games. You deliberately miss the points I raised. Strict binary divisions do not work in many situations.

For the Bible, one is saved or one is not.

The entire idea of 'salvation' -- in exactly the sense that I bring the question to your attention -- no longer makes sense. Salvation from what? To what? The idea of a 'world beyond' that is better and more real than this world, became untenable and indeed an unhealthy idea to hold to. When this was realized, people consciously or semi-consciously, opted for terrestrial life. Therefore, new avenues within terrestrial life had to be created, established, forged.

This goes completely over your head.

Whether or not I think it will change nothing. It will still be the same, either way.

Yes, I do understand how binary thought-systems function. I do understand that changing how you see things is inconceivable. To think different would shatter you. But I am trying to draw to your attention *what happened*. What this means and what it portends -- that is another topic (and not an easy one).

For the Bible, one is saved or one is not.

Yes, but there are no other options available to you, so thought within the established parameters is your only option.

AJ: That is of course understood. I am not so much interested in denying that there is a 'logic' in your strict definition as I am in pointing out why it has come about that in many areas, and for many different reasons, this strict system has necessitated being modified and for some abandoned.

IC: You'll have to say who you're talking about. I'm unfamiliar with the case you seem to have in mind.

An entire wave that moved through Europe between approximately 1880 and 1930 (to choose general dates).

AJ: That is one aspect. But there is another and I think it has to do with what became necessary, within a post-Christian culture, for people interested in 'knowing themselves'.

IC: That's very easy to answer: they won't.

IC: To the degree that one loses association with God, one loses also awareness of oneself. And you can read about this in the current range of sociologists and psychologists who have remaked on the way the postmodern self is dissolving...from Walter Truett Anderson, to Anthony Giddens, to Zygmunt Bauman, to Kenneth Gergen, to Christopher Lasch, to Roger Lundin...they're all seeing the same thing: the secular self, long shored up on a sort of Cartesian view of the self, is now in rapid dissolution to what they call "the Protean self," which like the mythical character Proteus, assumes many forms and has none as its essential form.

they're all seeing the same thing: the secular self

I am not advocating for a 'secular self'. I am speaking of the ways that the concept of divinity changed.

When you use this term "God" you are referring to an abstraction. A grand moralizing abstraction that you can color-code in red or blue. And that abstraction is encased in amber. This is exactly what I mean. You have never, to my knowledge, given any indication of what God even means to you in any but the most remote sense.

But I can assure you that many people have looked into the issue with a degree of seriousness outside of which you stand, embalmed as it were, intellectually dead yet filled with your own measure of 'passionate intensity'.

And you also think that turning inward, and discovering the intimation of divinity on an inner plane, has no relationship with a personal revelation of God. For you, in your enclosed description, God is like a server in the sky, somewhere out there, and when you connect with God God then beams down to you whatever is godliness in your eyes. I say that this notion is false. What God is, what divinity is, is always encountered on an inner plane and it is always spoken of in those personal terms. Again, God is forver an abstraction for you. And the God you describe is unreal. Un-transformative.

People veered away from those closed concepts for a fuller, and in any case a different, sense of what God is. I say that this process is part-and-parcel of the post-Nietzschean world. The problem is that it also opens up into zones of chaos because when veering away from external authority (so conceived) one can only rely on an internal authority -- the place where God is conceived.

For some, a road unbounded by strict authority is dangerous and finally impossible. They cannot manage it. But there are some who can and do manage it. Fact.

People no longer know who they are. Why else are people looking to cosplay, or transgenderism, or even transpeciesism, to find some self they can believe in?

I would never have said that people, many people, do not get terribly lost when they encounter what 'personal freedom' really entails. When kids raised in strict Christian homes (I have known a few) break out of those constraints they often go ape-shit and wind up in bad places. But some find other paths. Again I have known a few and I have observed their processes. But here I am speaking of very strict Catholic and Protestant families with extremely regulated social circumstances. It almost requires being broken out of -- to then explore what freedom (and free-choice) actually entail. Responsibility.

The people you describe cannot handle freedom, it would seem. It seems therefore that they need strict limitations where their 'possibilities' are controlled. But there is another side as well: if the paths they choose are absurd and destructive what then happens? They crash and burn. And when they recover the pieces, they also grow and learn. The *God* that stands behind those processes needs to be better understood.

AJ: The figure of Jesus Christ seems to me to represent a figure encased in amber. It could not move, and it could not evolve.

IC: Well, things "evolve" when they're flawed. That's in the definition of "evolving." Otherwise, it's called "devolving," which is more like what we're doing now.

It does not surprise me that you miss the point! It flies over your head.

It is true that when people are stuck, psychically say, or personally, that they need to grow and evolve. When people opt for this surprising things result. And their realizations are surprising. What *God* or what divinity stands behind that? If I say that the *figure of Jesus* seems *encased in amber* it is not that image that will serve. Another concept is required. And that is my point: this is what happened in the time-period I referred to -- it is hard to assess rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness. Like so much in life it was and is dual.

AJ: So what happened is that through an abandonment of the Image, and the exploration on new roads and new avenues, which required a very different sort of God-figure.

IC: That's such an odd line.

Describe it as you wish to. I am here to inform you that there is a reason why the notion of God changed and why a God that was not binarily divided became a necessity. I am describing what happened so it can be seen. When people opted to exist in THIS WORLD they needed to leave the imagined OTHER WORLD to the side. And to live here, on this plane, honestly and with integrity, requires a non-dual God-figure.

If the object is to live authentically in this world, it would obviously mean that so much would have to be reassessed. And that is what I am talking about: what happened and why it happened.

Actually, it's even funnier than that...it's like saying, "The world requires a very different law of gravity..." Good luck calling for one. If we're talking about a reality, then you're going to get what's really there...not what you imagine you'd like in its place.

The reason you can make this ultra-silly statement is because you are trapped within your structured God-concept. What I am trying to point out to you is that many people needed to break out of that concept. In this sense they revisualized divinity. The old image, frozen in amber, could no longer work for them. They needed something else.

Thus I am not noting anything as absurd as an assertion that 'the law of gravity' could be changed by how it is conceived. But certainly how God is conceived, now that is completely reasonable. Does God support your terrestrial existence? Does God support all your creative efforts on this plane? Does God recognize the absurdity of devaluing this plane of life and existence for an abstract, imagined 'otherworld'?

So yes, the God-concept would have to modify. And that is largely what happened.

I do not deny (based on my observations) that one could return to the former concept. It could very well be the best choice for a soul who cannot handle freedom. We see this often I think. But I think there are some honest souls who can handle freedom. They are mature enough for it.

What then is 'reliance on God' if God (divinity, awareness, consciousness) stands behind that choice and that path?

[attofishpi]

Sorry. There's no such passage.

..well, what's this all about then?

Genesis 17:10
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

..it goes on...

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Written to the nation of Israel, not to the church. To understand why, and what it means, you'd need to read passages like Romans or Galatians, so you have the relevant application to the present day, which is spiritual rather than physical.

But I've got to ask: why is this such a big deal for you? It's pretty much the last thing I'd be worried about.

Ones penis condition should NOT be the last thing one is worried about Immanuel.

So.

Was it on the seventh day (the day of rest) where God kicked back on the sofa and came to the conclusion that he designed the penis shit. Then he realised, hang on...and got His typewriter out to make sure everyone in Israel chopped their skin off?

Indeed.

Try and climb into the mind of God, why would He want people to cut skin off of their willies?

[Belinda]

Try and climb into the mind of God, why would He want people to cut skin off of their willies?

God has often been co-opted for purposes of social control. ISIS is still using God for that purpose, as are Zionists and assorted fascists.

[Age]

Try and climb into the mind of God, why would He want people to cut skin off of their willies?

God has often been co-opted for purposes of social control. ISIS is still using God for that purpose, as are Zionists and assorted fascists.

Is there ANY religion where a God is NOT used for some sort of purpose of social control?

If yes, then will you list those religions?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[promethean75]

"I have no idea wot u r talkin about."

It was the placement that was perfecto.

Imagine coming into a thread and without knowing what is being discussed, you see this exchange:

Henry: You laid it out as though it were mine, which it wasn't; you laid it as though it was the only thing on the table, which it isn't.

Attofishpi: please tell me we are not still talking about one's penis.

[phyllo]

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

What kind of covenant is it if the baby has no choice in the matter?

If an adult wants to cut off his own 'whatever' as a covenant with God or 'whoever', then that means something.

Cutting off bits of babies and children is just child abuse.

[promethean75]

"why would He want people to cut skin off of their willies?"

Now yer axin the right questions, and the answer is, 'he' wouldn't. Cutting skin off a willy is so utterly arbitrary, morbid and plebian that 'he'd' have nothing to do with it.

You coulda replaced circumcision with some other kind of branding just as superfluous and arbitrary, and nobody would notice.

Really think about how silly that notion is. If I were 'god', I'd be offended to find human beings believing that I care one iota about what they do to their willies.