Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

And if AJ and Dubious agree even a small way … this indicates that the Great Wheels of the Revolution in Consciousness has just begun.

Maybe colors will seem brighter! You’ll look upon your companion’s face and everything will seem new. Weird & mystic signs will appear in the skies!

[attofishpi]

So I have made an effort here to allude realistically to the psycho-spiritual conditions that we are all facing while this rather abstract conversation has been going on. We are not so much talking about a general and constant 'religiousness' that could be defined as a general outline of what religious life should be, but about ourselves in the present conditions which are anything but clear.

I read your entire post and generally agree, however, what you see as a unclear reasoning to Christian religion I do not. It only becomes somewhat unclear where Evangelists are attempting to convert non-believers (and also Christians of a differing denomination) to their own and I must say ridiculous fundementalist notion of Christianity.

As I grew through a Catholic school upringing in England, it became very apparent to me that everyone was free to believe what they like. A very 'soft' indoctrination I would have called it. There was no presssure, no judgement - simply, this is what Christ did and said, try and be nice people throughout your life. That is the way I see established "old-school" Christian faith in UK, Catholic & Anglican.
The religions don't appear to require anything. One is not required to go out and convert others, one is not required to attend church or wear strange clothes that identify oneself.

As far as the general secular community is concerned, WE HAVE BEEN WARNED. Thus whether you are atheist or not, you still have that little niggle in the back of your head regarding your actions, that hey, there just might be a God, and I just might be judged.

So to me, Christianity is rather clear, the golden rule is extremely important. Christ suffered immensley to insist we have faith in love and respect one another.

[Dubious]

And if AJ and Dubious agree even a small way … this indicates that the Great Wheels of the Revolution in Consciousness has just begun.

I, Dubious, leave that honor indubitably to you alone.

Maybe colors will seem brighter! You’ll look upon your companion’s face and everything will seem new. Weird & mystic signs will appear in the skies!

Indeed! God will be becoming down to congratulate both of us and all the meaning humans have striven for since first inquired will be inscribed in the heavens themselves in a revelation of celestial fireworks arranged by the almighty Himself...a new covenant no-longer written upon some ancient stony edifice or altar but displayed simultaneously to all nations now made manifest coordinated to His rule. The central core of the mind will be its host, the Sanctum Sanctorum having the whole of truth revealed unto it becoming dense with knowledge and insight...one which forgives our holocaustal histories with no clairvoyant calls to higher mysteries for all such will have received its final resolution having merged itself in the complete synthesis of all objective meaning!

...but in the meantime...

[Nick_A]

After 400 posts we still don't know the purpose of Christianity.

Well, plausibly, it's been offered...but among the hordes of wrong ideas and bad answers, it may have gone unnoticed anyway.

Your better strategy is to research it for yourself. Otherwise, how will you recognize the right answer when you hear it?

No, in fact it has not really been offered, or revealed, or made plain, because the central fact is that religiousness has hit a wall. But let us suppose that there is a God that overrules existence, and our existence -- I must express it like this because, truthfully, there are conscious perspectives that are highly respectable which negate the necessity of *believing in* God. It is quite possible today to be an atheist and to get on just fine and it is just as possible not to give any particular thought to God. I do not think that such a stance negates 'spiritual life' if that is taken to mean living in a spirited, aware & conscious state. So it seems to me that what we are facing is a very real shift in essential perceptual modes.

To say *religiousness has hit a wall* means that the purpose of religion, the reason for getting involved in it, is no longer clear. So in fact what we see is (many) people who exist within this perceptual mode, and in a sense suffer in it (in the sense of suffering the wiping-away of the 'horizons' Nietzsche referred to and facing reality in a certain nakedness and vulnerability), come to a point of desperation, a crisis of soul, an existential crisis, and in that state then take action which may involve, and seems to involve, seeking out a religious community and religious ritual as a means to buttress themselves against something like *chaos*.

The fact of the matter is that it is existential crisis that is the real issue. And existential crisis requires, or provokes, response. Now, the fact of the matter is, when we examine the cultural landscape (the present state of affairs in the US is my reference-point) the entire culture is subsumed in a Criss of real proportion. It is as if the ground has shifted so quickly, and so radically, that -- think about it -- people have clearly lost their bearings. And therefore I think it is better (more productive to this conversation) to focus on that loss of bearing. That is the real condition that people face. Now one could say that *if there if a God* that this God stands behind this event in its fullest sense. How could it be otherwise? I think this points in the direction of strange shifts in god-definition. On one hand you have those solid and dependable images or 'pictures' of God as a pillar of stability and as a place of refuge to which one can retreat. But in fact the very realm that we are in, this terrestrial existence, is the realm where we experience what reality is. And in that experience stability is threatened.

So what is the function of God? You have to ask yourself about the sort of *tools* that you yourself seek to make it through this world. Usually, knowledge is power. One desires to become more qualified, more adept, more skilled, more accomplished in order to live successfully. What is the main skill sought? What else could it be but an increase in consciousness, awareness and if you like of power: but I do not mean this in a brutal way. I mean creative power; power that comes from awareness.

Within this conversation our own Immanuel Can has (I think it fair to say) completely failed in nearly every aspect of the needed confrontation with 'reality' -- the real conditions we are ow facing. What he seems to call for, and this is the Evangelical Christian manoeuvre, is a bone fide jumping back into familiar tropes or familiar group-strategies for dealing with chaos, confusion, uncertainty and the radical loss of grounding I refer to. So the God that he imagines (Jesus of Nazareth and the Holy Spirit) are presented as, in a sense, an escape from the real conditions that are faced. And again I use the word imagine in a special sense since it is only and strictly in our 'imagined space' where we conceive of God and, let's say, interact with God.

And so we clearly notice that the god-believers are grouping together and networking among themselves, preparing themselves, for a take-over of the present cultural and governmental situation which is seen as chaotic and, let's face it, as overruled by demonic entity. Satan is loose upon the world. He is determining the loss of integrity which produces a shattered, confused person who falls apart in the world. There is not enough 'center' for a person to rally around -- and I mean within their own self. I think this is what Nick has referred to as the division within the person and the soul.

Now what seems to be on the threshold -- here I am speaking culturally and existentially (and again my reference point is the social situation in the US which seems to capture the world (or is this only because the media-systems are so US-centered?) is the retaking of the power of government from a bizarre and radical faction. The "Democrats" has become a general term for radical, sexual deviant, 'Marxist' underminer of an established order and, as things are playing out, a general field of opposition of coalescing in order to confront what they describe as 'the Swamp'. This is seen and described as 'the Devil's Terrritory' and onto that image is projected all manner of content.

So I have made an effort here to allude realistically to the psycho-spiritual conditions that we are all facing while this rather abstract conversation has been going on. We are not so much talking about a general and constant 'religiousness' that could be defined as a general outline of what religious life should be, but about ourselves in the present conditions which are anything but clear.

So I have made an effort here to allude realistically to the psycho-spiritual conditions that we are all facing while this rather abstract conversation has been going on. We are not so much talking about a general and constant 'religiousness' that could be defined as a general outline of what religious life should be, but about ourselves in the present conditions which are anything but clear.


What is the sense of speaking about the religious life if man as a whole is incapable of it? V A gave a good description of Buddhism as an earth religion but who is capable of organizing the soul? It seems better to me to admit why we can't and admit the human condition. Gurdjieff describes what a Christian is. He suggests it is possible to be less of a machine rather than a creature of reaction: an automaton.

"First of all it is necessary to understand that a Christian is not a man who calls himself a Christian or whom others call a Christian. A Christian is one who lives in accordance with Christ's precepts. Such as we are we cannot be Christians. In order to be Christians we must be able 'to do.' We cannot do; with us everything 'happens.' Christ says: 'Love your enemies,' but how can we love our enemies when we cannot even love our friends? Sometimes 'it loves' and sometimes 'it does not love.' Such as we are we cannot even really desire to be Christians because, again, sometimes 'it desires' and sometimes 'it does not desire.' And one and the same thing cannot be desired for long, because suddenly, instead of desiring to be a Christian, a man remembers a very good but very expensive carpet that he has seen in a shop. And instead of wishing to be a Christian he begins to think how he can manage to buy this carpet, forgetting all about Christianity. Or if somebody else does not believe what a wonderful Christian he is, he will be ready to eat him alive or to roast him on hot coals. In order to be a good Christian one must be. To be means to be master of oneself. If a man is not his own master he has nothing and can have nothing. And he cannot be a Christian. He is simply a machine, an automaton. A machine cannot be a Christian. Think for yourselves, is it possible for a motorcar or a typewriter or a gramophone to be Christian? They are simply things which are controlled by chance. They are not responsible. They are machines. To be a Christian means to be responsible. Responsibility comes later when a man even partially ceases to be a machine, and begins in fact, and not only in words, to desire to be a Christian."

What does it mean "To Be?" Doesn't it require first that a person be master of oneself to acquire a higher quality of consciousness?

[attofishpi]

Gurdjieff describes what a Christian is. He suggests it is possible to be less of a machine rather than a creature of reaction: an automaton.

"First of all it is necessary to understand that a Christian is not a man who calls himself a Christian or whom others call a Christian. A Christian is one who lives in accordance with Christ's precepts. Such as we are we cannot be Christians. In order to be Christians we must be able 'to do.' We cannot do; with us everything 'happens.' Christ says: 'Love your enemies,' but how can we love our enemies when we cannot even love our friends? Sometimes 'it loves' and sometimes 'it does not love.' Such as we are we cannot even really desire to be Christians because, again, sometimes 'it desires' and sometimes 'it does not desire.' And one and the same thing cannot be desired for long, because suddenly, instead of desiring to be a Christian, a man remembers a very good but very expensive carpet that he has seen in a shop. And instead of wishing to be a Christian he begins to think how he can manage to buy this carpet, forgetting all about Christianity. Or if somebody else does not believe what a wonderful Christian he is, he will be ready to eat him alive or to roast him on hot coals. In order to be a good Christian one must be. To be means to be master of oneself. If a man is not his own master he has nothing and can have nothing. And he cannot be a Christian. He is simply a machine, an automaton. A machine cannot be a Christian. Think for yourselves, is it possible for a motorcar or a typewriter or a gramophone to be Christian? They are simply things which are controlled by chance. They are not responsible. They are machines. To be a Christian means to be responsible. Responsibility comes later when a man even partially ceases to be a machine, and begins in fact, and not only in words, to desire to be a Christian."

What does it mean "To Be?" Doesn't it require first that a person be master of oneself to acquire a higher quality of consciousness?

Your quote from Gurdjieff starts of with contradictions, and then spouts waffle of absurdity. With regards to what does it mean 'to be'? Who cares with such a stunted statement?
What does it mean 'to be Christian'? ..well, that statement is worthy of query and I suppose is what this entire thread ultimately is about. (the answer is so simple one as myself is wondering Y this thread has spewed so much shite for so long on the subject)

[Harry Baird]

I’d like to hear more from [Harry].

You're in luck: Hopalong Harry and the Hopscotch Hotties are currently taking requests. What would you like us to play for you? An old favourite? One of our current hits? Or a new, original number especially customised to your preferences?

I dunno. But maybe something along these lines?

You will shortly be receiving the first of what I expect will be many bills from my therapist. The only effect of that sort of content is to cause PTSD. It is abhorrent and indefensible. I refer, of course, to the fake plucking in the first few seconds of the song.

[Dubious]

That quote from Gurdjieff is one of the dumbest I ever read. Crap like this is supposed to pass for wisdom! Gurdjieff is as close to wisdom as Vlad the Impaler was to being a humanitarian.

[attofishpi]

That quote from Gurdjieff is one of the dumbest I ever read. Crap like this is supposed to pass for wisdom! Gurdjieff is as close to wisdom as Vlad the Impaler was to being a humanitarian.

Lol. Yeah, I just thought I'd look him up:- George Ivanovich Gurdjieff was an Armenian philosopher, mystic, spiritual teacher, and composer of Armenian and Greek descent, born in Alexandropol, Russian Empire.

A non-stick mystic..
Nuff said!!

[Belinda]

So I have made an effort here to allude realistically to the psycho-spiritual conditions that we are all facing while this rather abstract conversation has been going on. We are not so much talking about a general and constant 'religiousness' that could be defined as a general outline of what religious life should be, but about ourselves in the present conditions which are anything but clear.

I read your entire post and generally agree, however, what you see as a unclear reasoning to Christian religion I do not. It only becomes somewhat unclear where Evangelists are attempting to convert non-believers (and also Christians of a differing denomination) to their own and I must say ridiculous fundementalist notion of Christianity.

As I grew through a Catholic school upringing in England, it became very apparent to me that everyone was free to believe what they like. A very 'soft' indoctrination I would have called it. There was no presssure, no judgement - simply, this is what Christ did and said, try and be nice people throughout your life. That is the way I see established "old-school" Christian faith in UK, Catholic & Anglican.
The religions don't appear to require anything. One is not required to go out and convert others, one is not required to attend church or wear strange clothes that identify oneself.

As far as the general secular community is concerned, WE HAVE BEEN WARNED. Thus whether you are atheist or not, you still have that little niggle in the back of your head regarding your actions, that hey, there just might be a God, and I just might be judged.

So to me, Christianity is rather clear, the golden rule is extremely important. Christ suffered immensley to insist we have faith in love and respect one another.

That explains why all the Catholics I have met have been friendly, understanding, and forgiving.

[attofishpi]

That explains why all the Catholics I have met have been friendly, understanding, and forgiving.

Nice to know Belinda, you come across much the same.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is the sense of speaking about the religious life if man as a whole is incapable of it? VA gave a good description of Buddhism as an earth religion but who is capable of organizing the soul? It seems better to me to admit why we can't and admit the human condition. Gurdjieff describes what a Christian is. He suggests it is possible to be less of a machine rather than a creature of reaction: an automaton.

This is one reason why I always have spoken in terms of 'levels' and 'degrees'. By your definition: man is incapable of religious life. So what results from the position that you take? That only a rare and unusual sort of person can fulfill the demands. But that pertains to one 'level'. There is a whole range of things that have been developed for the 'average man' who, according to your definitions, cannot ever be a (real) Christian. That is why I refer to 'cultural paideia'. Once, there was a general education given to those average people, incapable of being (true) Christians. Certainly it involved the 3Rs but also a general moral and ethical training. What else could be given to people who are, as you indicate, incapable of higher spiritual and religious life? Why ask more of them? Why ask what cannot be given?

Now we have to turn to the position of someone like Immanuel Can who will fundamentally disagree with you. He will say that *even a little child* can be 'saved'. And if the little uncomprehending child can be 'saved' then all people, simply by getting down on their knees and praying to Jesus, not only can be 'saved' but are saved. According to Immanuel it might -- hypothetically -- take a lifetime to *be reconstructed* (a central tenet of his view: a reconstruction carried out by a transcendental spirit) or to *reconstruct oneself* into that Ideal Christian ("You must become perfect"), but no one is excluded.

Buddhism has become, for the West, a logical evolution of the Christian form. When examined, the position of Belinda and Attofish is simply an ethic of 'acting right'. It does not actually involve a spiritual and regenerating (metaphysical, transcendental) external power. Except that in Atto's case he describes a rather complex intervention by metaphysical entity. Nevertheless, the only 'point' of the intervention is to get the subject (him) to 'act right'. And that seems to be all there is to Christianity.

A Buddhist could do just as much and would have an even more developed ethical system with which to work. Buddhism can become very non-metaphysical and exclusively geared toward 'proper behavior' and certainly to 'proper attitude'. It is, one might propose, the perfect post-Christian semi-religious (or is it also aesthetic?) alternative and evolution of those Christians who can 'no longer believe'.

What does it mean "To Be?" Doesn't it require first that a person be master of oneself to acquire a higher quality of consciousness?

The question is not very relevant. If you want to encounter people who *are* just go outside and mingle with them. They are simply getting on as best they are able.

[Immanuel Can]

To say *religiousness has hit a wall* means that the purpose of religion, the reason for getting involved in it, is no longer clear.

An empty comment.

You have no definition of its key terms. So you're saying precisely nothing.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What does it mean 'to be Christian'? . . . well, that statement is worthy of query and I suppose is what this entire thread ultimately is about. (the answer is so simple one as myself is wondering Y this thread has spewed so much shite for so long on the subject)

I do not think that Gurdjieff could be considered to be a Christian. I gather that he uses the notion of a Christian, within his discourse and lectures, to paint a picture about his main point: that man becomes an automaton, someone asleep, who can (and must) awaken. His whole program is therefore about awakening. Gudjieff is one of a long line of such mystics and teachers who came on the scene when and after conventional Christianity collapsed. That conventional Christianity did not offer enough fluidity to expanding individuals. So they turned to other sources and traditions.

the answer is so simple

I'll just let that hang there . . . like the smile of the Cheshire Cat.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To say *religiousness has hit a wall* means that the purpose of religion, the reason for getting involved in it, is no longer clear.

An empty comment.

You have no definition of its key terms. So you're saying precisely nothing.

For me to comment directly to you, Immanuel, you will have to have made a contribution to my GulfStream G550 fund.

[Immanuel Can]

To say *religiousness has hit a wall* means that the purpose of religion, the reason for getting involved in it, is no longer clear.

An empty comment.

You have no definition of its key terms. So you're saying precisely nothing.

For me to comment directly to you, Immanuel, you will have to have made a contribution to my GulfStream G550 fund.

And yet...

What I said is true. No definition, no definite content. It's just that simple.