Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 2:44 pmI hope a few comments of mine will not rouse too much ire.
Of course not, as long as you extend the courtesy in any discussion with me of refraining from omitting what I have stated during our discourse and address all of my replies to you.
It’s rare to find anyone on the forum these days that keep the conversation in its entirety which is a shame, and cowardly in my opinion.
Alexis Jacobi wrote:First, I must say that I have read Atto for months and months now and, I notice, that he has next to zero comprehension of the inner structure of the Christian religion and philosophy.
RE: Christianity - I've got a lot more than 'zero comphension' of it - I know enough to know that I don't agree with the interpretations of the Bible that have created "Christianity".
I know that I am a Christian (and apparently a good one, as sage/God have stated to me about three times: "Good Christian").
Alexis Jacobi wrote: I could not say this in such a way that it is not a critique, that would be dishonest, and what I note is odd and peculiar but not atypical: raised in Catholicism, but the post-Vatican ll perversion of it (that according to traditional Catholics), he shows what happens when one becomes separated from the 'inner structure' of the religion as a religion and philosophy.
Yes, raised through Catholic school system, I learned to accept people for who they are and help those in need.
Since then, and with regards to the Catholic stance on homosexuality and contraception, they can shove it.
So, I am a Christian regardless of Christian "philosophy".
You are clearly homophobic. I think I was slightly, until about the age of 18 when a friend told me the story of his homosexual brother. At that point, I understood that sexual attraction is not clearly defined, certainly not by what is between one’s legs.
RE: Philosophy. - Since joining this forum I have stated many times that I have barely read a word that any philosopher has written. I like to read books on physics and science in general.
Part of the reason I have kept away from writings of philosophers is that I always wanted to develop my own ideas about things but always with a view (now) to start reading more on the area. Over the years, if ever there was a philosophical subject area I was not familiar with, I would at least do some research to comprehend what people are debating.
Philosophy requires an extremely good comprehension of applying ones rational, logic to subject matter. I have nothing lacking in this ability.
In fact, the original term for philosophy being "love of wisdom", I consider my approach to be very wise. Not only do I comprehend, and love Christ and learnt a great deal about God and the nature of reality through my faith, I balance this with my understanding of scientific theories and technology.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: When that happens, all relationship to the substantial structure of the religion, which is based in clearly expressed doctrines, is lost. Atto cannot, for reasons of ignorance (of these doctrines) make any intelligent statements about Christianity and, oddly but predictably, he regards any such statements and allusions to such doctrines as superfluous. In any case this is what I have gathered.
Again, shove man's ridiculous interpretations of the Bible, if you feel I cannot make any intelligent statement about Christianity because I don't agree with its poorly reasoned tenets, then clearly you are rather daft.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: I naturally draw a distinction between the intensely subjective and idiosyncratic nature of Atto's experience (which he refers to as something like the true and honest inner dimension of Christianity)..
There you go, an irrational statement. My extensive experience of God has little to do with man’s creation of the religion labelled "Christianity", so you certainly should not infer from anything I have written that I consider my comprehension of God as a true and honest "inner dimension of
Christianity". You need to differentiate my own Christian faith, from that of the established religion Christianity. I don’t disagree with everything with mainstream Christianity, but I disagree with what I consider contradictory to what Christ is believed to said and done.
Most of those that adhere to “Christianity” would scoff at my analysis of experience and remain in belief with what is preached by those with NO actual experience of God (Priests\Pastors etc..)..and thus their BIGOTRY will remain.
Alexis Jacobi wrote:But Atto can be studied (examined, questioned, looked at) as an example of the destructiveness of the various 'reform' processes of Vatican ll which have, again according to Catholic traditionalists, led to extremely destructive currents entering the Church itself. It is a difficult topic, I admit, but their arguments are not incoherent.
You are ignorant of anything I have written, you have not examined my "Simulation or Divine Reality" thread, and I doubt you would have the intelligence to comprehend it. You are knowledgeable, and a wordsmith enjoyable to read, but not particularly skilled where analytical comprehension of subject matter is concerned (like so many "philosophers" here).
Alexis Jacobi wrote:Lex orandi, lex credendi: the rule or influence of what one's prayers are composed of, the content of one's enunciated prayers (which can be extended to mean all that one honestly and truly believes and therefore recites as part of one's "lived liturgy"), determine what one "believes", which I take to be more than simply statements that one makes about some aspect of doctrine, but the entire way that one lives life -- this is what Lex orandi, lex credendi actually means.
Such WONDERFUL knowledge. I said a prayer about an hour before the sage introduced himself to me from the aether. I asked for the pain in my fractured arm to go (since I had no pain killers, screw up with a hospital prescription)
"Would you like me to erase that?" - was the reply - "Yes" I said.
All the pain in my fractured arm dissapeared...for 10 mins, and then the pain started to return.
"Do you understand?" was said to me.
At the time I didn't, but I can reason why now, in hindsight.
So prayers above as you state require
true belief in doctrine I guess with your poor, vague comprehension of what I believe re doctrine, is bollocks.
Alexis Jacobi wrote:It is curious to me that one of the major oppositions to traditional Christianity comes from those on the front of *radical sexuality*. First, it was homosexual rights. And incrimentally it progresses from those rights (granted) to ever-new demands for the *right* to give oneself justification for many other radical (or "liberated") sexual forms. The *curious* part is that it will not stop. It is in the nature of sexual license that once permission is granted or attained, that a next step is inevitable.
Provide anything from Bible scipture that you feel support doctrine within Christianity opposing homosexuality.
Realmente haces suposiciones mal fundamentadas sobre mí.