The Christ and the Power

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby felix dakat » Thu Nov 25, 2021 6:17 pm

Bob wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Relevant to this discussion is the book "How Jesus became God" by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman. Another scholar who has studied this problem at length is Larry Hurtado whose book is entitled "How on Earth did Jesus become God" where he presents a different theory. Of course, this takes the matter out of the realm of faith into the realm of historical probability with its relative uncertainties.

If you start off with the theory that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, like Bart Ehrman does, there are enough statements in the Gospels that point to his being an apocalyptic prophet and it would explain his original attraction, which I find quite convincing. The further developments led to the various exaltations of Jesus which develop mythologies or Christologies, which speculate on where he came from. Each are making a point, trying to understand how Jesus relates to the one God. The initial idea seems to have been that Christ was born as Jesus and adopted by God at his baptism, or at his resurrection. This wasn’t enough for others, so we had then the incarnation of a (semi) divine Christ and then, in St. John’s Gospel, Christ was at the beginning of creation. In the end it was the emperor Constantine had the leaders of the church in 312AD vote on what was to be believed.

The obvious problem here is that the discussions 300-400 years after Jesus have different issues to the man Jesus, or to the issues mentioned in the Beatitudes. That means that it isn’t what Jesus was preaching that we have in the church, but a teaching about who Jesus was and what his death meant, and even more importantly, what happened after his death. Those that claim that Christianity followed the biblical tradition and assert unity obviously ignore the fact that we find various traditions in the Bible, sometimes not apparent to modern Bible readers, but obvious to those reading in Greek. The thing is though, the academic discussions over millennia have only affected the peasant population insignificantly, and that belief developed over time. There was also a rise of superstition during this time, often a bastardisation of rites and ceremonies, brought on by the failure to relate them to the illiterate population.

But I hold on to the fact that the mythology around Christ developed a meaning beyond those rites and ceremonies, especially in monasteries and convents, in which the divine mystery was expressed. People grasped the symbolism and used it to describe the mystery of life. When I speak to people about faith, I find that very few are intent on orthodoxy, but have their own ideas and views which they are very shy about. Many ceremonies we developed in geriatric care were so that the participants could be active or passive, and many who had only been passive expressed their thanks for such a wonderful ceremony. Even patients with dementia displayed an understanding of the numinous, especially if they had been churchgoers before their affliction.

So, although we can discuss what is orthodoxy or not, I believe that everyone finds their own understanding, and participates in the way they feel comfortable with, even in the fundamentalist groups.


When you read many theories of the historical Jesus including now the considerable output of the so-called mythicists who deny that he was a historical person, you may come to see that there is a lack of the historical facts necessary to come to a firm in certain conclusion. Traditional theology attempted to unite the various views presented in the New Testament into an integrated view of who and what Jesus was. But the canonical gospels and Paul and the other New Testament writers can also be read as having various christologies that is various views of who he was. So, for example, the Gospel of Mark has a lower christology than that of the Gospel of John. According to Mark, Jesus may be identified with the son of man who appears first in the book of Daniel where he is seen in heaven. Ehrman proposes that when the son of man is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark Jesus is not referring to himself but the one who is to come with the Apocalypse. The Gospel of John has so-called Doubting Thomas called the resurrected Jesus God. If the biggest doubter among the disciples calls Jesus God then what should we suppose the author was suggesting?

Anyway I like your suggestion

"So, although we can discuss what is orthodoxy or not, I believe that everyone finds their own understanding, and participates in the way they feel comfortable with, even in the fundamentalist groups."

But, easier said than done. The closest I have seen to that was in Unitarian Universalist Church. But even that church split over doctrinal issues. The church split into two factions the rationalists and the spiritualists I'll call them. They voted and kicked out the pastor who was on the spiritual side. It was perhaps less rancorous then ILP, but a man lost his livelihood over it.
Last edited by felix dakat on Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10095
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby promethean75 » Thu Nov 25, 2021 6:34 pm

"They voted and kicked out the pastor who was on the spiritual side. It was perhaps less rancorous then ILP, but a man lost his livelihood over it."

Wait, people get paid to talk about this nonsense?

(u knew it was coming, kat. U practically handed it to me)
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5710
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby Bob » Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:09 pm

felix dakat wrote:When you read many theories of the historical Jesus including now the considerable output of the so-called mythicists who deny that he was a historical person, you may come to see that there is a lack of the historical facts necessary to come to a firm in certain conclusion. Traditional theology attempted to unite the various views presented in the New Testament into an integrated view of who and what Jesus was. But the canonical gospels and Paul and the other New Testament writers can also be read as having various christologies that is various views of who he was. So, for example, the gospel of Mark has a lower christology than that of the Gospel of John. According to mark Jesus may be identified with the son of man who appears first in the book of Daniel where he is seen in heaven. Ehrman proposes that when the son of man is mentioned in the gospel of Mark Jesus is not referring to himself but the one who is to come with the Apocalypse. The Gospel of John has so-called doubting Thomas call the resurrected Jesus God. If this if the biggest doubter among the disciples calls Jesus God then what should we suppose the author was suggesting?

The main takeaway I have from these variations in the Gospels (not to mention the Pseudo-Gospels of Nag Hammadi) is that we have stories here that were being told by multiple groups about an event that history hasn’t been able to fully confirm. This tells me that either the evidence has been lost, or the event wasn’t important enough to be recorded. What does sound right is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who saw himself in the lineage of David, and it was this that Judas betrayed to the officials and what got him killed. It could be very well true that this man was a healer, and a storyteller who left a huge impression on his followers, and when he was taken and killed, his followers were left trying to make sense of it all. Their idea of his murder being a representative sacrifice was an inspiration taken from scriptures, and after a long time being rejected by the Pharisees and Sadducees, it reached Saul of Tarsus and the realisation of a cosmic event knocked him off his horse. The rest can be read in his letters and in John’s Gospel.

felix dakat wrote:Anyway I like your suggestion

"So, although we can discuss what is orthodoxy or not, I believe that everyone finds their own understanding, and participates in the way they feel comfortable with, even in the fundamentalist groups."

But, easier said than done. The closest I have seen to that was in Unitarian Universalist Church. But even that church split over doctrinal issues. The church split into two factions the rationalists and the spiritualists I'll call them. They voted and kicked out the pastor who was on the spiritual side. It was perhaps less rancorous then ILP, but a man lost his livelihood over it.

Oh, I’m sure that people will find some problems with it. The dilemma I saw when I was in the church, was that people thought (without thinking about it) that we were all talking about the same thing, which, when people felt free to speak, you found wasn’t really true. People congratulated me on sermons and told me they liked things I’d said, but which I hadn’t said. They had just thought I had said it. I held a meeting at a ‘Free Church’ and was congratulated by the women and the young people on an ‘appealing’ talk, and at the door I was told by the men, “Not like that, young man, you can't do it like that ...” So, you see, we all pick up different things from what we hear, especially sermons if they last more than 30 Minutes.

The same happened when I used to hold a devotional with a friend of mine before staff events when we worked for the catholic church. We used to do a comic conversation, but one that had a devout punchline. That went down well too, but our bosses and the Priest picked up the devout stuff and the staff picked up the jokes.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby iambiguous » Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 pm

Bob wrote:I’m not sure that I can do that. From what I can tell from felix, pood, and Ierellus, they seem to have grasped in one way or another, how to use silence and solitude wisely.


iambiguous wrote:What on earth is that supposed to mean? Let them note contexts relating to the subjects being discussed on this thread, and describe more fully what it means to use silence and solitude wisely.

Give it a shot yourself.


Bob wrote: Again, you don’t seem to have grasped it. Leaving your troubled ego at the door, even if it is still knocking, and listening to silence, slowly allowing the thoughts to pass; or perhaps dissolving into a tune, taken up in an ecstatic intercourse with the music; or breathing in the sea air on a shore, surrounded by the wind, the spray, and the sound of waves pounding. Whatever way you find of going beyond yourself, of finding a refuge from the bustle of everyday engagement, it refreshes the mind.


Yes, this can be a technique any particular individual can use to soothe their soul. But if their soul is roiled when struggling to connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then...how far can it go here?

Which is my own main interest in God and religion.

And this part:

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but, in my view, the main reason that many come to philosophy venues is in order to discuss those part of their lives that revolve around meaning and purpose. With or without God. Moving in towards those experiences that they have had that prompted them to go there in the first place.

There are plenty of venues both online and offline where one can go to pursue an interest in music and poetry and the night sky. Hardly any at all for what we do here. And look what ILP has turned into! I'm just more inclined to bring the words out into the world when the discussions revolve around moral and political and spiritual values.


Bob wrote: Strange, you don’t seem to be able to envisage the meaning and purpose that is served by silence and solitude. You, and others, seem to divide the world up. Reality is for you a series of compartments, which we enter at choice, entertaining aspects of life separately, but failing to take the wonder of the larger picture into consideration.


On the contrary, when it comes to meaning and purpose as most Christians construe it, what I "envisage" is "fractured and frsagmented". It is instead the overwhelming preponderance of Christians who don't "get" God as you do who divide up the world between in sync with God's will or out of sync with it.

And, given the staggering vastness of "all there is" cosmologically, what might that "bigger picture" be given your own infinitesimally tiny existence here on planet Earth? All the more reason then to invent Gods in order to subsume it in some essential meaning and purpose.

Bob wrote: Yes, we can consider the particulars of a certain argument, but we need to return to the larger whole. That is why you remain stuck in revolving discussions, never satisfied that someone may have found their answer, because you haven’t.


No, in a philosophy venue, it is generally not assumed that just because you have found your own comforting and consoling answer pertaining to what you personally construe the "larger whole" to be -- the Christian God -- that need be the end of the discussion.

Bob wrote: I experience very few conflicts with others on their own very different paths, because people know me and the fact that I have carried responsibility affords me some respect. I think the biggest conflict I had was with my employers, who didn’t like my policy of empowering my staff, finding perks for them and at the same time, ensuring that my patients received what care they needed. My balancing staff and customer satisfaction against profit was a thorn in their side. I have many acquaintances with who I differ in spiritual direction, but we meet at our common interests.


Conflicts of this sort often revolve around capitalism vs. socialism. Or the Me, myself and I mentality -- "show me the money" -- vs. "we the people" striving for the greater good of all.

But, again, how are individual narratives here not profoundly rooted existentially in dasein? And "spiritually" what is the One True Path for resolving conflicts of this sort?


Bob wrote: Resolving issues, settling a dispute in the way they present themselves is a challenge to anyone. The idealist probably feels betrayed or misunderstood, but often it is a case of losing a battle and continuing the struggle. The spiritual aspect is the frame of mind we go through these struggles, and whether we see our defeat as a personal loss, or just a sign of the times.


A challenge in which each of us an individuals respond, in my view, based on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here. And where, given that, does the political "I" end and the spiritual "I" begin?

Bob wrote: No, the exceptions are made as to whether the killing of a fetus is negative in all cases. There may be exceptions where that isn’t the case. But the exceptions prove the rule. You can’t judge by a hypothetical case, but you have to take as much as you can into consideration. It may be considered an act of compassion to discontinue a pregnancy in one case, but as a callous act of selfishness in another. Nothing is black and white.


iambiguous wrote: And how does this not revolve around the assumptions that individuals make regarding these exceptions? And how is that not the embodiment of dasein? You as an individual either have more compassion for the healthy fetus or for the parents who will encounter serious problems if the fetus is born. One or the other. You can't have both.


Bob wrote: I don’t see the problem you are alluding to. We are confronted with these choices every day, and the world consists of opposites which depend on each other. The matter of abortion is just a case in which we have to be clear in what we are doing, and act as best we can in the circumstances. We have to consider as many aspects as we can, in order to make a decision we can live with.


Well, some are clear in what they are doing in focusing their compassion on the unborn fetus about to be destroyed, while others are clear in focusing their compassion on the parents, who, in not destroying the fetus, and bringing it into the world, also bring serious problems for them. That's why there are Christians called Catholics who are far more adamant regarding where the true Christian compassion must lie in the eyes/will of God. The same God as yours but understood differently in regard to abortion.

iambiguous wrote:It's like with the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict. Some feel greater compassion for him, others for the people he killed. And how is that not rooted in political prejudices rooted in dasein? Spiritually, is there an optimal measure of compassion that those like the Dalai Lama can weigh in with?

And, indeed, to the extent that "I" becomes fractured and fragmented, a black and white world is the last thing you experience.


Bob wrote: If you sit back and consider these things, you come to see where a process begins, and where the events you don’t want to happen start. In the case of Rittenhouse, it seems to me to start with leaving the house with a loaded gun as a juvenile and travelling to an area where emotions are clouding judgement. The result is that people are killed. He took it for granted that he could end up killing people, so he at least intended, given the right circumstances, to use his gun.


And that relates to the point I raise here...how? Rittenhouse had his frame of mind. Those he shot and killed their own. Again, in reacting to the consequences of that, where does one's political frame of mind end and one's spiritual frame of mind begin? And then some ask themselves "What would Jesus do?".

Okay, what would He do? Is there a Christian consensus here? Or is each individual Christian likely to think what they do based more on how I construe human identity in the is/ought world as the existential embodiment of dasein.

Bob wrote: 1] Can the fish demonstrate to another fish that there is a world outside of the pond? Considering that the best way to talk of God is to refer to what he is not, what kind of demonstration are you thinking of?


iambiguous wrote:Again and again and again: with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, the only demonstration that would suffice is one that made it absolutely clear which One True Path you had better be on.


Bob wrote: Okay, my demonstration is the way I live my life.


And the way you choose to live your life is profoundly embedded in the manner in which I construe the "self" here as an existential embodiment rooted in dasein. And the stakes are still the same. Only given your own understanding of the God that you've placed your bet on, He seems willing to allow each of us to follow their own path. Much like Maia's nature allowing each Pagan to follow their own path even if that results in completely conflicting moral convictions.

Bob wrote: 2] What do we know of immortality? Anything? We have stories, but I think they are more stories about here and now than about immortality.


iambiguous wrote:One thing that we do know considerably more about is this: we all die. And one option here seems to be oblivion. And that truly disturbs -- even terrifies -- many. Which, of course, is why "the Gods" or "a God, the God, my God" were/are/will be invented over and over and over again. With a leap of faith to them not only is oblivion discarded altogether but in its place is Heaven or Nirvana itself.


Bob wrote: Oblivion is just that. The worse part of a bad experience is the experience, but in oblivion there is no experience. It is like a dreamless sleep. If that is what you are expecting, okay, where’s the problem?


The problem? Well, here and now, that revolves around the fact that this "dreamless sleep" for all the rest of eternity entails that everything and everyone you love and cherish is taken from you. Forever. In other words, the very thing that disturbs -- even terrifies -- most. The very thing that prompts them to invent God and religion.

Bob wrote: If you are expecting to be confronted with your mistakes and held to account for them, that could be a harrowing experience. I would start thinking about how I intend to plead.


Then back to how that works on Judgment Day when you are pleading to the God of Moses and Abraham as a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew. Or if it all revolves instead around the Hindu or Shinto Deities. Or if it's Nirvana or Valhalla or Heaven that it all comes down to.

Bob wrote:3] The question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil is a question of what you know about God. See above.


iambiguous wrote:No, it's what, existentially, you have come to believe that you think you know about him. Either through indoctrination as a child or along a particular path out in a particular world understood in a particular way.


Bob wrote: You didn’t “see above” 1].


Oh, I saw it alright. Did you see my answer?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:26 am


MagsJ
wrote:
Jesus never called himself God, or the Son Of God, but he did call himself The Son Of Man,


A Shieldmaiden
wrote:
Are you certain of that?


MagsJ wrote:
Are you?

Feel free to share your thoughts on the matter..


I am interested to read your response to my question first, I may learn something from your emphatic statement that Jesus never called himself God, or the Son of God, but he did call himself The Son of Man.
Perhaps direct me to whatever documentation you have.
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2113
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby promethean75 » Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:57 am

Alright u guys got me all confused now. If jesus has called god the father, and all men are god's sons, and Jesus is a man, then Jesus is god's son like all other men. Even if Jesus was the son of man, he'd necessarily be a son of god, because men are sons of god. You feel me? I mean do u really need documentation to figure this shit out? A five year old could do it.

Anyway I'm tryna find a religion to join and I gotta tell ya, this Christianity is some pretty wonky stuff. Ya think I should be a shinto or a zen guy? I'm pretty good with nun-chucks.
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5710
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby promethean75 » Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:59 am

We could of course consult with St. Brochephus and St. Garth Aloe Mule.
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5710
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby Meno_ » Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:16 am

A Shieldmaiden wrote:
MagsJ
wrote:
Jesus never called himself God, or the Son Of God, but he did call himself The Son Of Man,


A Shieldmaiden
wrote:
Are you certain of that?


MagsJ wrote:
Are you?

Feel free to share your thoughts on the matter..


I am interested to read your response to my question first, I may learn something from your emphatic statement that Jesus never called himself God, or the Son of God, but he did call himself The Son of Man.
Perhaps direct me to whatever documentation you have.





Matthew 18:11
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9969
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:06 am

promethean75 wrote:
Alright u guys got me all confused now. If jesus has called god the father, and all men are god's sons, and Jesus is a man, then Jesus is god's son like all other men. Even if Jesus was the son of man, he'd necessarily be a son of god, because men are sons of god. You feel me? I mean do u really need documentation to figure this shit out? A five year old could do it.

Anyway I'm tryna find a religion to join and I gotta tell ya, this Christianity is some pretty wonky stuff. Ya think I should be a shinto or a zen guy? I'm pretty good with nun-chucks.


Romans 1:22

For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts........

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools,
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2113
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby Bob » Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:24 am

iambiguous wrote:Yes, this can be a technique any particular individual can use to soothe their soul. But if their soul is roiled when struggling to connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then...how far can it go here?

Try and see? What is the use of soothing the soul if it isn’t “roiled”?

iambiguous wrote:… when it comes to meaning and purpose as most Christians construe it, what I "envisage" is "fractured and frsagmented". It is instead the overwhelming preponderance of Christians who don't "get" God as you do who divide up the world between in sync with God's will or out of sync with it.

And, given the staggering vastness of "all there is" cosmologically, what might that "bigger picture" be given your own infinitesimally tiny existence here on planet Earth? All the more reason then to invent Gods in order to subsume it in some essential meaning and purpose.

I sometimes get the feeling that you are just being obstruse. You ridicule the phrase “fractured and fragmented” and declare ignorance at what “the bigger picture” could be, even colloquially. You take statements and just blow out their perspectives, which reminds me of children who persist in asking why?

iambiguous wrote:… in a philosophy venue, it is generally not assumed that just because you have found your own comforting and consoling answer pertaining to what you personally construe the "larger whole" to be -- the Christian God -- that need be the end of the discussion.

That may be, but in a venue in which people are sat opposite each other, one knows when to stop. It becomes apparent when there is just no more to say. Just to fill the silence with words is not philosophy.

iambiguous wrote:But, again, how are individual narratives here not profoundly rooted existentially in dasein? And "spiritually" what is the One True Path for resolving conflicts of this sort?

The spiritual way of solving conflicts is to assess whether the person is really interested in resolving an issue. Then one finds out where the conflict actually exists, and asks oneself, have I got an answer, or a suggestion, that could help resolve the issue. If the answer is no, or my answer or suggestion doesn’t satisfy the other person, one ends the conversation, respectfully agreeing to disagree.

iambiguous wrote:Well, some are clear in what they are doing in focusing their compassion on the unborn fetus about to be destroyed, while others are clear in focusing their compassion on the parents, who, in not destroying the fetus, and bringing it into the world, also bring serious problems for them. That's why there are Christians called Catholics who are far more adamant regarding where the true Christian compassion must lie in the eyes/will of God. The same God as yours but understood differently in regard to abortion.

There are people with different concepts sitting next to each other in the pews of any church. The concepts we have of the numinous are massively diverse in literature, without even mentioning the other traditions. Abortion is something that my wife would never do, nor would I ever try to persuade her to, but we are not everybody, nor the measure of things. We haven’t experienced the tragedies of multitudes of people or suffered their experience of life. We haven’t stood in mud and rain, carrying a child that is about to be born, nor had so many mouths to feed, with so little in the pot. We only know, in our circumstances, how we would decide. There would also only be reason for conflict with other Christians if they displayed other major misdemeanours, such as violence of any kind towards people in situations they couldn’t relate to.

iambiguous wrote:Rittenhouse had his frame of mind. Those he shot and killed their own. Again, in reacting to the consequences of that, where does one's political frame of mind end and one's spiritual frame of mind begin? And then some ask themselves "What would Jesus do?".

Okay, what would He do? Is there a Christian consensus here? Or is each individual Christian likely to think what they do based more on how I construe human identity in the is/ought world as the existential embodiment of dasein.

Whaat!? “His frame of mind”? He went out with a clear intent to use his rifle, accepting that people could be killed. The others were protesting against racism. If you can’t distinguish the difference, you have no place discussing anything. Coming on with your stupid “what would Jesus do?” is either blatant ridicule or blatant stupidity. Either way, the subject is closed.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby promethean75 » Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:00 am

"The spiritual way of solving conflicts is to assess whether the person is really interested in resolving an issue. Then one finds out where the conflict actually exists, and asks oneself, have I got an answer, or a suggestion, that could help resolve the issue."

Um excuse me.

the 'spiritual way' of solving conflicts. How would you know you used the wrong spiritual solution, if indeed you did?

Firstly, we're not even sure what a 'spiritual solution' would look like, and secondly, the cause/correlation problem is especially glaring here.

An African witch doctor sticks a pin in a doll and the store owner who cheated him, falls over dead. A Christian prays before bedtime and his favorite team wins the next day. I could go on.

...

Now if you merely mean 'a change of attitude' when you say 'spiritual solution', there'd be no reason to mystify that by calling it 'spiritual'.

Joe is depressed, his career is falling apart and his wife just spent thousands on a pair of fake tits. He needs a solution to this feeling of dread and despair... and yet each item is perfectly addressable without recourse to some obscure notion of 'spiritual solution'.

Joe starts exercising more, makes some changes at work or even considers another career option, and convinces his wife that she's beautiful even without the tits. No spirit stuff here. Just good ol' fashioned workable solutions.
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5710
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:06 am

Bob wrote:Whaat!? “His frame of mind”? He went out with a clear intent to use his rifle, accepting that people could be killed. The others were protesting against racism. If you can’t distinguish the difference, you have no place discussing anything. Coming on with your stupid “what would Jesus do?” is either blatant ridicule or blatant stupidity. Either way, the subject is closed.

Rittenhouse went out to defend his community from Anarchists, Democrat brown-shirt thugs, hell bent on Burning Looting and Murdering.

There were dozens of political killings by these Anti-American, Soros-backed, Marxist scum groups. If Rittenhouse would not have defended himself, then he'd be shot or beaten to death. Why don't you radical Marxist-Leftists call-out the guns that the rioters had? Because that would expose your hypocrisy and lies. And nobody would have bat an eye about Americans dying, like the others victimized during the past couple years.

For you to defend the "victim" domestic terrorists, really demonstrates which side you are on.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby felix dakat » Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:05 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Bob wrote:Whaat!? “His frame of mind”? He went out with a clear intent to use his rifle, accepting that people could be killed. The others were protesting against racism. If you can’t distinguish the difference, you have no place discussing anything. Coming on with your stupid “what would Jesus do?” is either blatant ridicule or blatant stupidity. Either way, the subject is closed.

Rittenhouse went out to defend his community from Anarchists, Democrat brown-shirt thugs, hell bent on Burning Looting and Murdering.

There were dozens of political killings by these Anti-American, Soros-backed, Marxist scum groups. If Rittenhouse would not have defended himself, then he'd be shot or beaten to death. Why don't you radical Marxist-Leftists call-out the guns that the rioters had? Because that would expose your hypocrisy and lies. And nobody would have bat an eye about Americans dying, like the others victimized during the past couple years.

For you to defend the "victim" domestic terrorists, really demonstrates which side you are on.


As if we were going to change anyone's opinion about the intent of Rittenhouse by discussing it here. It is as if you fellas want to support Iambiguous's proposition of moral nihilism based on conflicting moral and political judgments. Judgments about a person's "intent" can seldom if ever be conclusively determined. Admitting that whatever we think about the killer's intent is merely our judgment based on limited facts and the inability to get inside the killer's head would improve this discussion. Oh and remind me again what this has to do with the Christ and the Power.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10095
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby Bob » Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:02 am

Years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead was asked by a student what she considered to be the first sign of civilization in a culture. The student expected Mead to talk about fishhooks or clay pots or grinding stones.

But no. Mead said that the first sign of civilization in an ancient culture was a femur (thighbone) that had been broken and then healed. Mead explained that in the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die. You cannot run from danger, get to the river for a drink or hunt for food. You are meat for prowling beasts. No animal survives a broken leg long enough for the bone to heal.

A broken femur that has healed is evidence that someone has taken time to stay with the one who fell, has bound up the wound, has carried the person to safety and has tended the person through recovery. Helping someone else through difficulty is where civilization starts, Mead said.

We are at our best when we serve others.


Seems like the message of Christ too ...
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:09 pm

iambiguous wrote:Yes, this can be a technique any particular individual can use to soothe their soul. But if their soul is roiled when struggling to connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then...how far can it go here?


Bob wrote: Try and see? What is the use of soothing the soul if it isn’t “roiled”?


Actually, I'm more interested in how you connect the dots here using this technique. Given a world bursting at the seams with moral conflagrations and countless religious denominations offering up their own "one true path" to immortality and salvation, why your path? How "for all practical purposes" does any technique you use soothe your soul?

After all, here and now, that's no longer even an option for me.

To wit:

iambiguous wrote:… when it comes to meaning and purpose as most Christians construe it, what I "envisage" is "fractured and fragmented". It is instead the overwhelming preponderance of Christians who don't "get" God as you do who divide up the world between in sync with God's will or out of sync with it.

And, given the staggering vastness of "all there is" cosmologically, what might that "bigger picture" be given your own infinitesimally tiny existence here on planet Earth? All the more reason then to invent Gods in order to subsume it in some essential meaning and purpose.


Bob wrote:I sometimes get the feeling that you are just being obstruse. You ridicule the phrase “fractured and fragmented” and declare ignorance at what “the bigger picture” could be, even colloquially. You take statements and just blow out their perspectives, which reminds me of children who persist in asking why?


And this pertains to the point I raised here...how? Back again to making it all about me?

And what, from the cradle to the grave existentially, could possibly be less "abstruse" than the "human condition"? Birth. School. Work. Death.

Then what?

And discussions like this. A God, the God, your God. And the arguments I note in examining why you came to believe what you do now and not something else. And you avoiding going there by making it all about me or taking the exchange up into the spiritual contraption clouds.

iambiguous wrote:… in a philosophy venue, it is generally not assumed that just because you have found your own comforting and consoling answer pertaining to what you personally construe the "larger whole" to be -- the Christian God -- that need be the end of the discussion.


Bob wrote:That may be, but in a venue in which people are sat opposite each other, one knows when to stop. It becomes apparent when there is just no more to say. Just to fill the silence with words is not philosophy.


Ah, "the silence"!

That will make all those grotesque and ghastly newspaper headlines go away. And now your God has thickened the plot with the "Omicron coronavirus variant". New headlines. And not much either the theologians or the philosophers among us can do to make them go away.

So, sure, if "the silence" technique lessens the roiling turmoil for some here, bully for them.

iambiguous wrote:But, again, how are individual narratives here not profoundly rooted existentially in dasein? And "spiritually" what is the One True Path for resolving conflicts of this sort?


Bob wrote: The spiritual way of solving conflicts is to assess whether the person is really interested in resolving an issue. Then one finds out where the conflict actually exists, and asks oneself, have I got an answer, or a suggestion, that could help resolve the issue. If the answer is no, or my answer or suggestion doesn’t satisfy the other person, one ends the conversation, respectfully agreeing to disagree.


Whose "spiritual way"? Yours? Others here? And, again, how are these individual assessments not in and of themselves profoundly rooted in dasein? And, sooner or later, these conflicting assessments regarding the resolution of the conflict have to come down to one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another. One set of laws or another.

Again, though, we need a context. Choose a context in which human behaviors often come into conflict over value judgments and reconfigure your suggestions above into an actual...plan?

iambiguous wrote:Well, some are clear in what they are doing in focusing their compassion on the unborn fetus about to be destroyed, while others are clear in focusing their compassion on the parents, who, in not destroying the fetus, and bringing it into the world, also bring serious problems for themselves. That's why there are Christians called Catholics who are far more adamant regarding where the true Christian compassion must lie in the eyes/will of God. The same God as yours but understood differently in regard to abortion.


Bob wrote: There are people with different concepts sitting next to each other in the pews of any church. The concepts we have of the numinous are massively diverse in literature, without even mentioning the other traditions. Abortion is something that my wife would never do, nor would I ever try to persuade her to, but we are not everybody, nor the measure of things. We haven’t experienced the tragedies of multitudes of people or suffered their experience of life. We haven’t stood in mud and rain, carrying a child that is about to be born, nor had so many mouths to feed, with so little in the pot. We only know, in our circumstances, how we would decide. There would also only be reason for conflict with other Christians if they displayed other major misdemeanours, such as violence of any kind towards people in situations they couldn’t relate to.


Exactly my point. You and your wife, given the experiences and circumstances that you have come to embody together, have, existentially, come to think and feel as you do. Others, in embodying very, very different experiences and circumstances have come to think and feel what can be conflicting or even contradictory things.

But there it is: Judgment Day.

So, in regard to abortion, does the God of Moses and Abraham Himself take into consideration my own arguments here? How can He judge Christians who come to opposite beliefs about abortion if those very beliefs are rooted -- problematically -- in the lives that they lived?

Google "abortion and the old testament" -- https://www.google.com/search?q=abortio ... nt=gws-wiz

...and let the debate [among mere mortals] commence.

iambiguous wrote:Rittenhouse had his frame of mind. Those he shot and killed their own. Again, in reacting to the consequences of that, where does one's political frame of mind end and one's spiritual frame of mind begin? And then some ask themselves "What would Jesus do?".

Okay, what would He do? Is there a Christian consensus here? Or is each individual Christian likely to think what they do based more on how I construe human identity in the is/ought world as the existential embodiment of dasein.


Bob wrote: Whaat!? “His frame of mind”? He went out with a clear intent to use his rifle, accepting that people could be killed. The others were protesting against racism. If you can’t distinguish the difference, you have no place discussing anything. Coming on with your stupid “what would Jesus do?” is either blatant ridicule or blatant stupidity. Either way, the subject is closed.


Huffing and puffing, Bob?

I thought you didn't want to go the polemical route?

But, in my opinion, you really need to dig deeper into exploring why you allow yourself to react to me like that. You are clearly intelligent enough to note that the points I make above can be troubling to those who actually do place a bet on a God, the God, my God.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: The Christ and the Power

Postby Bob » Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:41 pm

iambiguous wrote:Huffing and puffing, Bob?

I thought you didn't want to go the polemical route?

But, in my opinion, you really need to dig deeper into exploring why you allow yourself to react to me like that. You are clearly intelligent enough to note that the points I make above can be troubling to those who actually do place a bet on a God, the God, my God.

I know exactly why I react the way I do, and I believe it is your intention that I do so, which is why our conversation is over. All of your bogus interest and phony argumentation is just to tie knots which become ever tighter so that others descend into your pit of self-pity and desperation. It’s over.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users