Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

I am that I am? I can say the same thing about you, me and everything else alive.

Actually, you can't.

It's a Hebraism, meaning, "I am the Self-Existent One." See, for example, John 8:58-59, where Jesus is accused of blasphemy even for pronouncing that line in reference to Himself. His listeners certainly knew what it meant.

At other times, God puts his reputation on the line by sayings such as, "As I live, says the Lord..." or "By My Name..." Those things mean that if what He says does not come about, He is not who He is. So He's putting His reputation and authority behind the ensuing claim, in each case.

[attofishpi]

To give it even more credibility as one of the great ethical documents, the kind of nonsense miracles theists believe in to endorse their god for their own salvation, which are among its most unoriginal parts, can be dispensed..

To the contrary. I've been witness to far more than a glass of water changing into wine, and I don't like the term "miracle", it clearly is plausible at the sub-atomic scale that this entity you don't agree exists, operates.

To dispense with the concepts of these miracles, and the resurrection itself is to fail to comprehend THE ultimate message that Christ was continually insisting his disciples were lacking (faith) - something Christians must comprehend to ever understand the true nature of reality, indeed heaven.

I'll go as far to say, the ultimate philosopher, one that truly loves wisdom, IS a Christian (philosopher) ...well, that should rattle a few cages!!

I think many Christians alive now are more prone to believe in the sayings of Jesus than in the miracles he reportedly performed.

Well, then they are misunderstanding the entire point!!! Indeed, not to sound ICish, but I for one would not consider them Christians.

Faith in what? What is its goal; why is it important that one must have faith or hope in Jesus or anyone else asserted to be divine? What does reality have to do with faith? Reality or the science thereof, though never measured in absolute terms of proof, are nevertheless determined by their probability; but how does faith lead to understanding reality? Faith, seems to me, to be more of a hope in a future event usually of a religious nature. Faith, as also seems to me, only requires itself as background with no further additions; it can, in effect subsist on its own until the end of one's days having performed its function in the living.

Just asking! I'm curious to know in what way faith can be denoted instead of simply connoted?

I understand why you inquire, although you forced me to look up words *: )

The way I see it is rather simple, sort of. So Christ asked for faith in what he said, and did...and this, according to him was the only way one would come to know God. When I say 'to know God', to me and from my experience, it is to understand the truth to the nature of reality, to understand the POWER of this entity. To ultimately live as a sage, where NOTHING can harm you (apart from ones feelings perhaps when looking at the silly world around, with silly people and the silly things they do.)
In effect, yes, to live in heaven upon Earth. I for one would not want to live in whatever other theists think might be their version of heaven!
I love this planet, I love seeing what science can discover and achieve. I love dirty jokes, and stories of criminals, mafia all that naughty stuff..if heaven doesn't include all the stupid shit people do, I'll just hang out here thank you very much.

I'm still not sure if I have answered your question, to me that is one goal.

So you ask, how does faith allow one to understand reality? Not sure why Christ/God required it first, but belief IS required, and then things get revealed regarding the true nature of reality (that there IS an intelligence behind its construct, in real-time)

[attofishpi]

** wrote an essay **

Sorry Alexis, I will address your earlier post later, I've got to get on with painting the Portal of the last Judgement, other_wise God gets angry

I'll leave you with a question for a joke:

What do you get when you cross a Christian with a Jew?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What do you get when you cross a Christian with a Jew?

You caught me off-base there Atto. Though I do know what you get when you cross a Jew with a Buddhist:

a JewBu ….

[henry quirk]

I find that there is such stark difference between your position and the ideas I have and am committed to, that in relation to your position, I cannot see a way forward.

I agree.

I would ask for you to extract from the Gospels you refer to the specific scenes or quotes that support the positions that you define. Is it possible that you write out a brief outline of who Jesus Christ was and what he set out to do? If you did so I would better understand your position and why you have it. Did Jesus Christ have a mission and a plan? If so, what was it?

I won't, or rather can't. To do it right would demand a commitment of time I won't take away from my kid and that I can't afford to take away from my work. I got 24 hours a day like anyone, and a good chunk of it is for him and it (and he and it are never on the table for short-changin'). As compromise, I suggest Jefferson's cut & paste experiment. His result isn't perfect but strippin' away all supranatural elements allows one to get to the meat of the man, and His morality. At the same time, from a more conventional Christian perspective, becuz His divinity is taken off the table for consideration, Jefferson's work might be thought of as rootless. It would be the same, I figure, if I wrote an essay. Right off the bat someone would complain I've neuter'd the hound and rendered Him useless.

I am confused by another element: Jesus Christ is defined by the Gospels, and through the Gospels, as being -- literally -- the Godhead incarnated into a man's body. Jesus Christ is, therefore, God incarnate. Do you hold that view?

No. I don't accept His divinity. As I say: my interest lies in the morality of the man which I find elegant (but not without flaw: many Christian Anarchists were, are, pacifists, turning the other check. I will not, not figuratively or literally, turn the other cheek. All in all: were I Christian -- orthodox, so to speak, or anarchistic -- I'd be a bad one).

And if you do hold that view why then, or on what basis, do you define yourself as a deist?

I'm a deist becuz of a conundrum : how can man be a free will in a deterministic universe? He is, and it is, and each precludes the other. And yet here we are, free willed men and women livin' in a universe that ought not allow for us.

Then there's natural rights which I sum up as a man belongs to himself; his life, liberty, and property are his. Each man, every man, any where, any when, knows this is true. He knows he is his own, and he knows it's wrong for another to murder him or leash him or abuse him or rob him. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows this about himself.
While this knowledge, this deep-in-the-bones intuition may be simply a brute fact it seems far too clean and direct to just be some adaptive trait.

So the impossible reality of man as free will coupled with man's natural claim to himself and no other (plus some illuminatin' conversations with a dear friend, a Christian) moved me from a dead end atheism to (a peculiar kind of) deism.

Do you see Jesus as representing a Law (a set of demands and proscriptions) or do you imagine that Jesus-God allows any particular thing (in the sense of being lawless or 'open to anything' or perhaps unconcerned). If you clarify some of this I will likely be beter able to understand how you orient yourself.

As I see it: God built man with reason, free will, and conscience (to think & feel, to exercise causal & creative power, to be moral & morally discerning). He built man with this, as I say, deep-in-the-bones intuition or knowledge of his own self-possession or ownness. What it comes to: man self-directs, self-relies, is self-responsible. He recognizes himself as sumthin' more than an animal. He chooses to recognize the same of the other guy (to be moral) or he chooses to ignore that recognition (to be immoral).

Vanilla deism sez God is indifferent. He may be absent, but, as He made man as a creature with a moral aspect, it does not seem to me He is indifferent to what man does over a lifetime.

I could write more, explain more, but I'll spare everyone and stop here.

[attofishpi]

What do you get when you cross a Christian with a Jew?

You caught me off-base there Atto. Though I do know what you get when you cross a Jew with a Buddhist:

a JewBu ….

Wow! I really thought you of all people would have got it!!

YOU!

[henry quirk]

One more thing...

You say...

I am confused by another element: Jesus Christ is defined by the Gospels, and through the Gospels, as being -- literally -- the Godhead incarnated into a man's body. Jesus Christ is, therefore, God incarnate. Do you hold that view?

Do you?

After all, you also say...

I have explained that I am not closed to the notion, and the real existence of metaphysics -- ideas let's say that are in no sense part-and-parcel of our world and which only come into the world through human kind but which are enormously powerful and transformative -- and I am not closed to an 'idea of God' nor to the god-experience that saints and mystics describe.

If I read you right: you have, shall we say, doubts?

[henry quirk]

What do you get when you cross a Christian with a Jew?

A schizophrenic (He is the Messiah but he's not the Messiah, He is the Messiah but he's not the Messiah, He is the Messiah but he's...).

[Dontaskme]

I am that I am? I can say the same thing about you, me and everything else alive.

Actually, you can't.

It's a Hebraism, meaning, "I am the Self-Existent One." See, for example, John 8:58-59, where Jesus is accused of blasphemy even for pronouncing that line in reference to Himself. His listeners certainly knew what it meant.

At other times, God puts his reputation on the line by sayings such as, "As I live, says the Lord..." or "By My Name..." Those things mean that if what He says does not come about, He is not who He is. So He's putting His reputation and authority behind the ensuing claim, in each case.

"I am the Self-Existent One." is a duality...not ONE

[attofishpi]

Sort of a pastiche of definitions, isn't it? I did not mean to be evasive and I just wanted to get your sense of what a Jew is.

I know, all good. To be honest, I've always wanted to know a Jew. In fact, I once considered attending a synagogue, and see what happened!!
(I like testing things, but was interested in learning) I have read bits and bobs years ago, I recall something almost like a "sorcerer-mystical" side of Judaism, that possibly is shunned by orthodoxy - can't remember what it was called.

Historically, a Jew is one who despite all obstacles presented, holds to the identity and the mission provided through being chosen by God (the chosen people, etc.) to convert the Earth in accord with the Plan defined by God himself. That is the classical definition. Christianity extends from that sense of mission and Christianity is a carry-over or a reapplication of the same sense of mission but on a universal scale. Christianity can be seen therefore as a form of Judaism brought into the Gentile world.

There was a time -- not so long ago -- when it was not possible, or far less possible, for a traditional Jew to step out of the restraints and limits of the tradition. Because Jews lived in shtetles and being a Jew was as controlled and determined as being a Christian is in strict religious communities. It would not have been possible not to obey Jewish law (rules & regulations) and to have remained in that community. But it would have been extremely difficult to leave that community as well.

Yes, I was quite shocked by a story I saw on utube by the channel, Soft White Underbelly - if you haven't seen it, some really unfortunate people, often addicted to drugs etc are interviewed about their lives (tragic-awful parents often the case)

I just found the video:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtyqje3DY&t=1237s
A lovely girl that eventually broke free, emancipated herself as it were. Some awful things happened to her as a child, but she has turned out fine. (worth a watch, you might know of people in those types of strict upbringings)

But with the Emancipation -- an effort to free Jews from being strict religious people who needed to 'live apart' in order to fulfill God's project for them (as they conceive it) -- there was an effort to *assimilate* Jews into European cultures. Along with assimilation came various and different definitions of what a Jew is (and isn't). So it is true what you say: one can at least for a generation or so become non-religious and entirely secular and yet still identify as Jewish, but the definition will be 'culturally Jewish' with little, and sometimes no, religious implication.

Regarding further up and the God's "chosen" people - I do note, from watching interviews with a couple of Jeffery Epstein (a "Jew") victims (sorry to focus on the negative), but they said he and other Jews were very arrogant, treating other non-jews in a similar style to how a racist would treat a particular race, in this case however it was everyone that was NON Jew, they were considered "lesser" (ironic, sort of like the master race of Hitler's ideas). Of course, I am certain this would be the minority, there are idiots in all facets of whatever.

In my own case I have a technically Jewish parent (and a technically Christian parent) who are both post-Jewish and post-Christian insofar as 'being Jewish' and 'being Christian' became irrelevancies. The closest I came to Jewish culture was in the neighborhood enclave I grew up in (somewhat of a preponderance of Jewish families none of which were strictly practicing Jews (just a marginal observation of Jewish Christians more as a buffer against the Christian traditions of Christmas and Easter) and for a couple of summers was sent to JCC summer camps (Jewish Community Center i.e. Reform Judaism of a very 'lite religious' sort (virtually absent). We did not play with dreidels in my house and we did have a Christmas tree . . . If I remember right my parents took us to church a few times. But never to synagog.

Hey, even atheists have a Christmas tree!

At this point I regard both he edifice of Judaism and the edifice of Christianity as 'hallucinated structures'. These are edifices of identification that are upheld by will, habit and desire. But as I have tried to explain I am essentially a post-manythings. I have explained myself and defined myself as someone on the far side of these former definitions (structures of definition). My own experiences have been (I'd say) completely and utterly gnostic. I have a very very different defining structure about what Life is and why I am here, et cetera et cetera. I came to them through my own efforts and seeking of experience.

But I am not too different from others writing on this thread. You Atto, also Promethean, likely Dubious (though he shrouds himself) and Nick in numerous areas. Belinda of course. We share common features directly relational to our post-Christian situation.

Our Father Who Art in Immanuel Can has quite a tough row to hoe with our likes!

I knew all this, I am sure, before I jumped in to researching both Judaism and Christianity (and cultural issues generally) but it was as a result of confronting, or being confronted by, Immanuel Can and his 'active hallucinations' that I realized the degree to which I am an example of the transcending of these identities.

I am happy to answer any other questions that you may have, if you have them.

You really need to stop including me as post-Christian!

Are you willing to share the location of this enclave that you grew up in? Most that know me around here know I live in Adelaide.

When I have crossed a certain line set by my sage\God..I sometimes attend this place, to get me back on board so to speak. It's lovely around 5pm when the Sun shines through the stained glass windows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St ... terior.JPG

Thanks for sharing some of yourself.
(Break over atto!! Back to work!!)

[Dubious]

To the contrary. I've been witness to far more than a glass of water changing into wine, and I don't like the term "miracle", it clearly is plausible at the sub-atomic scale that this entity you don't agree exists, operates.

To dispense with the concepts of these miracles, and the resurrection itself is to fail to comprehend THE ultimate message that Christ was continually insisting his disciples were lacking (faith) - something Christians must comprehend to ever understand the true nature of reality, indeed heaven.

I'll go as far to say, the ultimate philosopher, one that truly loves wisdom, IS a Christian (philosopher) ...well, that should rattle a few cages!!




Well, then they are misunderstanding the entire point!!! Indeed, not to sound ICish, but I for one would not consider them Christians.

Faith in what? What is its goal; why is it important that one must have faith or hope in Jesus or anyone else asserted to be divine? What does reality have to do with faith? Reality or the science thereof, though never measured in absolute terms of proof, are nevertheless determined by their probability; but how does faith lead to understanding reality? Faith, seems to me, to be more of a hope in a future event usually of a religious nature. Faith, as also seems to me, only requires itself as background with no further additions; it can, in effect subsist on its own until the end of one's days having performed its function in the living.

Just asking! I'm curious to know in what way faith can be denoted instead of simply connoted?

I understand why you inquire, although you forced me to look up words *: )

The way I see it is rather simple, sort of. So Christ asked for faith in what he said, and did...and this, according to him was the only way one would come to know God. When I say 'to know God', to me and from my experience, it is to understand the truth to the nature of reality, to understand the POWER of this entity. To ultimately live as a sage, where NOTHING can harm you (apart from ones feelings perhaps when looking at the silly world around, with silly people and the silly things they do.)
In effect, yes, to live in heaven upon Earth. I for one would not want to live in whatever other theists think might be their version of heaven!
I love this planet, I love seeing what science can discover and achieve. I love dirty jokes, and stories of criminals, mafia all that naughty stuff..if heaven doesn't include all the stupid shit people do, I'll just hang out here thank you very much.

I'm still not sure if I have answered your question, to me that is one goal.

So you ask, how does faith allow one to understand reality? Not sure why Christ/God required it first, but belief IS required, and then things get revealed regarding the true nature of reality (that there IS an intelligence behind its construct, in real-time)

Thanks for the response! Guess I'll just have to live with my limitations regarding lack of faith.

[attofishpi]

[Thanks for the response! Guess I'll just have to live with my limitations regarding lack of faith.

You're welcome, thanks for quizzing, sometimes I need to reflect upon such things.

RE Lack of faith. I think (if you actually want some), watch some docos by physicists pertaining to the quantum world and dimensions, implications for our comprehension of reality. Lately I've really enjoyed some Jim Al-Khalili documentaries:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Al-Khalili, but not re what i just stated!

Ya, I'm actually blown away by what I comprehend with regards to this entity, everyday. I hope people have an easier path than what I went through to comprehend. But it ALL absolutely is contrary to Occam's Razor! Knowing there is an intelligence at the backbone of what we perceive -God- only raises millions more questions, it truly answers few.

[Dubious]

Is objective meaning for Christians experienced beyond the realm of the senses? This reminds me of Meno's Paradox in philosophy:

The argument known as “Meno's Paradox” can be reformulated as follows: If you know what you're looking for, inquiry is unnecessary. If you don't know what you're looking for, inquiry is impossible. Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.

Do you agree that inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible? If true just decide what makes you happy and pursue it since there is no meaning other than your happiness.

"If you know what you're looking for", the goal is to find it without knowing if you ever will. As mentioned, striving is its own reward even as it remains open-ended. The summit may never be reached but you're still a long way from the beginning.

If you don't know what you're looking for but feel you should be striving toward some kind of meaning by which to anchor your life, let yourself be persuaded by your own thoughts instead of accepting too much those of others. They did it for themselves and wrote about it; so must you whether or not you remain silent.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I could write more, explain more, but I'll spare everyone and stop here.

I read your post with interest and I better understand your position. Given my proclivities and my interest in cultural phenomena in our present time, and as well in The Culture Wars which have now moved into more extreme and pronounced manifestations, I follow through on my own established trajectory by trying to 'locate' you, and by extension all of us. And what I say is that everyone who has contributed to this thread, and often in something like *opposition* to the harsh strictness of IC's position (more or less cut'n'paste from the Gospels or the Epistles), shows himself to be a post-Christian.

Now, Atto says that I should not include him under that label. Why? Because he sees his existential and spiritual relationship as connected to that of Jesus Christ (through identification with the figure of Jesus Christ and perhaps through metaphysical and mysterious currents that, perhaps, stand behind his varied and unusual psychic and spiritual experiences. So, the relationship, the connection, is still viable.

However, I would still include him in the category 'post-Christian' -- which is not a negative label -- insofar as I'd imagine his spiritual life is not a 'communal' one. Like many of us we have become 'atomized' into our separated and distinct positions. We know what we know, we have realized what we have realized, we understand and believe in what experience (something like Providence) has given to us, and we generally recognize some type or manifestation of Higher Intelligence which is, in one way or another and depending on how one explains it, our guide. So, what guides and if something guides how does it communicate?

Manifestations that rise up out of the Self. Signs, realizations, visions & epiphanies, but also those synchronicities (this lingo Promethean used) which, to quote CG Jung's scientistic terms, are expressions of an 'acausal connecting principle'. As someone commenting on the assertions of Phillip Rieff pointed out:

If the dominant character type of the twentieth century is really what Rieff calls 'psychological man', the consequences for western society are quite incalculable.

It has to be understood as a precondition to reading that sentence that Freud, Jung, Reich and Lawrence (here I follow Rieff) are referred to. Freud transformed the way Man is understood and the way men understand themselves. These are events of scale of the early 20th century. It presages, literally, a new anthropology (theory of man) as well as an applied anthropology' (therapeutics). It is 'incalculable' what it has done to theology.

Now, within that context just try to use the Olden Terms of a God 'out there' 'over there' and 'up there' (favored by IC) who anxiously surveils 'the world' and all the human sparrows in it.

What does this mean? In my own case it is still coming into focus. Yet a few things can be said. One is that whatever we perceive and experience is experienced through a sort of solitariness. If at one time -- say by being an incorporated member of a Catholic Church congregation -- our participation was on all levels, from the shared ritual of Mass to those years spent in school with one's peers, through marriage and child-raising, to shared events and activities outside of Church but in communal association -- now all of this has disappeared, vanished into thin air (for most). If such community exists it is a shadow or a mere trace of what it once was. And for most it is still dissolving, often right in front of our eyes. (And few can understand why so they observe the dissolution in mute silence).

We are thrown back onto and into our own selves. We are left to our own devices. We may not even share, even with intimates, the internal content of our experience. How could we? And that is one reason why I say "We no longer share agreements". Indeed we do not look out upon the same world.

These are some of the *symptoms* of a post-Christian state of affairs. This is just one smallish reference.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, I was quite shocked by a story I saw on utube by the channel, Soft White Underbelly -- if you haven't seen it, some really unfortunate people, often addicted to drugs etc are interviewed about their lives (tragic-awful parents often the case).

Yes, I had seen it, and previously many pages back I submitted a video of a Iraq veteran's interview from the same channel.

I know, all good. To be honest, I've always wanted to know a Jew.

There are about 90,000 Jews in Adelaide. There are a number of synagogues. That just with a quick Google search. You might want to sign up for the interfaith 'Take a Jew to Lunch' program. You pay of course .

Why look! here There is even a kosher restaurant in Adelaide. So, when you finally select and encounter the suitable Jew you will know where to take him or her. However, it is doubtful that that Jew will be too concerned about 'keeping kosher' given the high incidence of liberalism. My advice? Find yourself a nice Jewish vegan girl (vegan food is often mostly kosher) and invite here to nosh at Lord of the Fries (a wee bit of Jewish humor there I discern?) I just Google Earthed it (address 33 Jetty Road, Glenelg, SA 5045, Australia) and it is right there between the Lolly Shop and Boost.

Now, when you step inside say to the first one you meet "A gutn tag. Ikh volt vi tsu trefn a eydish mentsh. Iz es eyner arum?" (Good afternoon "I'd like to meet a Jewish person. Are any around?") (I know no Yiddish except Oy vey ist mir and Mazel tov and I got this off Google translate so don't get any strange ideas ...)
____________________________

As to the rabbi's daughter you can find such horror stories in any and every insular religious community. You can also find many many examples of Orthodox Jewish girls and boys who resisted and rebelled against their natal faith communities, lived outside of the community, and then reincorporated back into it -- often on somewhat renegotiated terms.

As to the enclave I grew up in -- Bay Area of California, north of San Francisco.

You might know of people in those types of strict upbringings.

No, as I said I grew up in nearly totally post-Jewish and post-Christian circumstances. My parents sat at the feet of gurus. That sort of thing. I became interested, intellectually, in better understanding Judaism much later (and did a good deal of reading). Living under strict Jewish rules & regulations seems to me utterly weird. Though I did live for a time right next to a very Orthodox Synagog in Panama City Panama. But it is more or less impossible to have any real contect with people like this who live in these extremely isolated communities. They don't want to know about you and, even if you were curious, you'd find you don't want to know anything about them.

I was there back in the day when you went to an Internet Cafe to check your email and such (early 2000s). I used to listen in on the conversations of the girls of one Orthodox family who I saw in the Internet place I often went -- girls around 12-15. Sharing of photos of recently married couples in Panama or back in Israel. Nattering about their hair. Looking down on the sluttishly dressed Latinas when they wore skirts down to their ankles. They are likely all married now and raising their own young kids. There were four girls in the family. And they used to walk behind their father Saturday mornings on the way to Temple like black-haired ducks. Very pretty though.

More I know not.