Jesus is pleated and other schizotypal thoughts.

[Apone]

I was trying to get you to tell your point.

I mean, if everything exists in an 'abstract' form, then what compels you to revere/dedicate your life to this particular abstraction as opposed to another... and why dedicate any time at all... and exactly what separates religion from fiction? Not that I'd dismiss all fiction as inherently false, I'm just not sure why you would need to focus on specific ideas if every idea is basically holy.

 

[Kmal]

@Apone Read Paul's works- he gets the idea of christ across better than the gospels, or the other books. try bible.cc and use the NASB translation before the other translations. I'll respond more sometime tomorrow maybe, but christ is an IDEA from what i gather. the anti-christ will try to be concrete, 'real', physical, while the book keeps saying to wait for the true christ, which you will know, regardless of physical or abstract nature. it's the idea of truth, which you discern for your self.

 

[Billy]

I accept you for what you are, there are many others who do as well. I know you like to play, I do too. I seriously doubt you want to come off as an asshole, but if you really have malice towards me, I understand that as well. I wish you well on your journey.

In all seriousness, I have absolutely no malice towards you. I cannot make that clear enough. I like to spar with ideas and stuff and all that, but I honestly have no malice in my heart towards you whatsoever. So please do not let this conversation lead you towards the trend of thinking that I do. Nothing could be further from the truth, at heart I am a humanist and I love all humans for who and what they are.

 

[Billy]

@Apone Read Paul's works- he gets the idea of christ across better than the gospels, or the other books. try bible.cc and use the NASB translation before the other translations. I'll respond more sometime tomorrow maybe, but christ is an IDEA from what i gather. the anti-christ will try to be concrete, 'real', physical, while the book keeps saying to wait for the true christ, which you will know, regardless of physical or abstract nature. it's the idea of truth, which you discern for your self.

Wasnt Paul a misogynist?

 

[alice144]

He reasons that schizotypal thought contributes to all the religions of the world.

Schizophrenic thought is the basis of many religions. I'm convinced that Jesus was simply a psychotic genius. This is because I know psychotic people in real life, and they all say the same things that Jesus said, except, to them, it feels original. Stuff like, 'I was born to heal the world' and 'I have so much love for all of you'. Reminiscent, much?

My friend Ayd not only performed a shamanic ritual to drive the evil spirits away from my bad eye, but also blessed his water bottle in order that I might bathe my poor, afflicted eyelid in its healing waters and suffer from blepharitis no more.

Sorry, that might have been off topic.

one rabbi reasons that if G-d caused ten plagues with his finger in Egypt, then when he used his hand at the Red Sea he must have cause 50 plagues.

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. It's like trying to discern when God created sharks; at best the whole creation myth is simply metaphorical, at worst, complete bullshit. It just doesn't stand up in a rational debate. Classifying this guy into one personality disorder or another seem beyond the point as his argument is entirely trivial.

 

[Kmal]

Wasnt Paul a misogynist?

Maybe. I heard he was violent at one time as well. I like the verse where he says, 'would you rather me come at you with love, or with a rod?' What verse are you referring to for the misogyny? I've seen people quote verse 4 here, but leave out that the husband doesnt have authority over his body, the wife does.

3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

22Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30because we are members of His body. 31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

In regards to the 'idea' of christ, this is a good place to start http://nasb.scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/12.htm and http://nasb.scripturetext.com/philippians/1.htm through 4, it's a short book and has some really telling verses on how Paul saw 'christ.'

Here is the idea of resurrection http://nasb.scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/15.htm
If there is anything you'd like me to clarify (it'd probably help my own understanding to try to explain things) I'd love to.

Here is a good study about Hebrew thought and how their language uses concrete words to describe abstract things: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/12_thought.html

 

[Apone]

@Apone Read Paul's works- he gets the idea of christ across better than the gospels, or the other books. try bible.cc and use the NASB translation before the other translations. I'll respond more sometime tomorrow maybe, but christ is an IDEA from what i gather. the anti-christ will try to be concrete, 'real', physical, while the book keeps saying to wait for the true christ, which you will know, regardless of physical or abstract nature. it's the idea of truth, which you discern for your self.

And this is the point where the discussion devolves into a Bible lesson, with apocalyptic notions and comments that can easily become antagonism towards scientific achievement. You're just supposed to have an 'instinct' that will help you to recognize Christ? No wonder so many schizophrenics end up with religious delusions-- it's all defined so esoterically that you/your illness can basically pick and choose good and evil based some irrational, illogical visceral reaction to the so-called 'hidden' nature of things…

 

[Kmal]

And this is the point where the discussion devolves into a Bible lesson, with apocalyptic notions and comments that can easily become antagonism towards scientific achievement. You're just supposed to have an 'instinct' that will help you to recognize Christ? No wonder so many schizophrenics end up with religious delusions-- it's all defined so esoterically that you/your illness can basically pick and choose good and evil based some irrational, illogical visceral reaction to the so-called 'hidden' nature of things…

Discernment is useful for healthy individuals as well. I dont see it like you do, but that doesnt make one of us crazy. It's good to try to understand where someone is coming from though, instead of rejecting it altogether because it's too complicated or they havent explained it well enough. Tell me how you saw it as antagonistic toward scientific achievement

 

[Apone]

Discernment is useful for healthy individuals as well. I dont see it like you do, but that doesnt make one of us crazy. It's good to try to understand where someone is coming from though, instead of rejecting it altogether because it's too complicated or they havent explained it well enough. Tell me how you saw it as antagonistic toward scientific achievement

But if 'you'll know it when you see it' is the only way to 'discern' what is christ and what is anti-christ, you're basically saying that it's up to the individual to 'trust their feelings'. This is one of the most fundamental problems with Christianity, and is also one of the big reasons that so many Christians are so quick to label truly harmless or even beneficial phenomena 'evil'-- it's not because they're being rational or understand these things, it's because 'they'll know it when they see it'-- and apparently, they do see it. Or rather, they believe that they see it, and there's no difference between 'believing' and 'knowing'.

Maybe there's something I'm missing here and there actually is some sort of concrete Christian formula for recognizing good and evil that extends beyond 'you'll know it when you see it', but my guess is that if such a thing did exist that there wouldn't be so many questions, so many denominations, so much disagreement about 'what God wants' or 'holy/unholy' or 'truth/deception (illusion)'… but then again, if there weren't any questions, then I would probably be even more terrified of Christianity than I already am.

Maybe this is connected to American individualism, but to me it seems that if you accept 'you'll know it when you see it' as truth, then anything could be Christ and anything could be the anti-christ… because 'you'll (which I'm assuming means all 'true' Christians) know it when you see it' basically implies that as long as you call yourself a Christian, you will always be right.

And then there's the problems associated with the very idea of 'truth', as if certain pieces of information (church-controlled, church-influenced, or at the very least which must be somehow present in 'the book') can be inherently 'better' than other pieces of information-- again, it's almost the perfect setup for delusional thought.

If you honestly accept that ideas can be equal to concrete phenomena, then there is no rational, logical way to find 'truth'-- because while you've embraced that the idea that something is inherently right, you've also embraced the idea that the same thing is also inherently wrong… a paradox for which your only solution is to 'discern' according to some church-determined/subjectively determined sense of what is right and what is wrong, itself rooted in an endlessly open and intentionally esoteric book.

I call that 'being controlled'-- whether by power-hungry politicians, by peer pressures or by your own precarious 'instincts'…

One of the reasons I've embraced atheism so completely in the past few years is because the idea of truth or higher powers seems to be less about seeing things as they are or 'stripping away' and more about seeing things as something else or 'adding on'. The most logical conclusion I know is that the reality of a thing is that it is, not that it's actually something else, or that I'm even capable of knowing more about a thing that somebody else, or that my interpretation of a thing could ever in any way be more valid than any other interpretation of that thing… and one of the reasons Christianity seems particularly wrong-headed is because it claims that identifying as a card-carrying member seems to put you ahead of everyone else in terms of perceiving what is.

 

[Kmal]

@Apone i never said anything was 'right' or wrong, i was just telling you how i see it as they wanted it to be seen. this is purely recreational. i'm looking at it as if we were studying a poem in literature class.

 

[Apone]

@Apone i never said anything was 'right' or wrong, i was just telling you how i see it as they wanted it to be seen. this is purely recreational. i'm looking at it as if we were studying a poem in literature class.

Sorry if I sound aggressive here-- I don't mean to, and I'm not attacking you personally. I'm criticizing the idea of 'knowing' in the context of religious belief… mostly because you brought it up, and asked me how I thought that Christianity was antagonistic towards scientific achievement. So yeah, my explanation was that the idea of 'knowing it when you see it' inevitably results in the demonization of various phenomena including, but not limited to, scientific achievement.

I'll admit that not all Christians are extreme or so quick to judge, however… but when I meet those people, I often wonder exactly why they're Christians in the first place.

 

[Kmal]

Sorry if I sound aggressive here-- I don't mean to, and I'm not attacking you personally. I'm criticizing the idea of 'knowing' in the context of religious belief… mostly because you brought it up, and asked me how I thought that Christianity was antagonistic towards scientific achievement. So yeah, my explanation was that the idea of 'knowing it when you see it' inevitably results in the demonization of various phenomena including, but not limited to, scientific achievement.

I'll admit that not all Christians are extreme or so quick to judge, however… but when I meet those people, I often wonder exactly why they're Christians in the first place.

I'm not seeing the connection between discernment and discrediting science, so you'll have to bear with my slowness. Science needs discernment as far as I'm concerned. You cant say a result from an experiment is anything other than what it is modeled by in your head- saying something is something can cause misunderstandings, and rightfully so. Who are you to tell me what something is?

 

[Saru Inc]

^I guess there's no telling exactly what 'pure' or 'primitive' Christianity was, but I can't imagine that it would be anything that wouldn't completely fall apart when you tried to apply it to modern society.

The 'dilution' of Christianity isn't due to some sort of global conspiracy by our evil overlords, it's part of its quest to remain relevant-- which means adapting to coincide with all of the scientific discoveries that threaten its 'truth'. It's a valid strategy, and probably far less objectionable than the 'let's just not trust anything that the stupid scientists say' strategy…

Name one thing that most Christians disagree with modern scientist about, except for Evolution?

Just one thing. And no, I do not mean religious extremists.

Also I saw the movie Prometheus last night so that also debunked Darwinism.

Now, to ensure you I'm not trolling, and I do want an answer out of you -- I, and every Christian I personally know, trust and know science... In fact, my brother, and a friend both Christian, both want to be scientists. The ONLY thing I personally (can't say about anyone else) disagree with is Darwinism, because, well, many reasons. I absolutely believe in evolution in an evolutionary sense, as well as micro evolution. Its simply macro evolution that I have an issue with, as well as the Evolutionary scientists depiction of how the first cells/amino acids/etc were formed. I'm like this: is it so hard to believe there is a super natural being who created us, if you can believe that we were a one in a trillion trillionth chance?

 

[Apone]

I'm not seeing the connection between discernment and discrediting science, so you'll have to bear with my slowness. Science needs discernment as far as I'm concerned.

I was talking about how belief-based 'knowing' (how you will know who/what/that Christ is, according to what you said) may and actually has lead to a fear of science-- look at the Amish/Mennonite communities/Christian scientists/Intelligent Design advocates, etc. Discernment is important there's no doubt-- I'm mostly taking issue with the method.

Also: I don't know what anything is, I only know that it is-- there's a difference… talking about what something implies that you've 'identified' it, typically assigning it properties based on whatever method you use to understand your reality.Stating that something is simply means that you acknowledge its presence, but stops short of suggesting that you can or do truly understand it, which also leaves a modest degree of doubt to whether or not it even truly exists.

Science is very much like this in that it acknowledges that even the most widely accepted conclusions are theories-- it chooses to remain vulnerable to criticism/doubt because anything else would be a corruption. In many cases, the what is always officially theory (even if people do tend to go overboard and treat certain conclusions as quasi-religious 'truths') and the 'that' is the effect/conclusion… there's always room left for doubt as to 'what' a thing is, even when results are achieved. Religiousness/faith on the other hand, seems preoccupied with the 'what'… even with an absolute lack of results/proof.

You cant say a result from an experiment is anything other than what it is modeled by in your head- saying something is something can cause misunderstandings, and rightfully so. Who are you to tell me what something is?*

All communication can result in misunderstandings. In fact, there are multiple misunderstandings happening in this thread alone. But saying that something is only implies that it is present... it doesn't mean that I'm assigning it any identity beyond the name that I use to acknowledge it, and for the sake of clarity in communication it should be universally accepted that a thing is not its name, and that the name is only a representation used for the purposes of conducting a discussion. 'It is' means nothing more than 'this may or may not have properties that render it not what it appears to be, and may cause it to appear to exist when in fact it does not', or 'I'm not going to jump to any conclusions, but I think that this exists'. I'm really not sure how this is in any way a corruption of the (possible) identities of things because it's basically just the expression of your own humility and lack of understanding, which of course includes the possibility that you could be right.

And are you discrediting science here?

 

[Kmal]

And are you discrediting science here?

You're jumping to conclusions. I'm just saying the fool sees not the same tree a wise man sees. Look at the Bible as pure literature, or like a math equation, no need to think religion replaces science or law. Real faith will help science out, as faith is relentless. Dont tell me you dont see any merit in honor, faith, love, and steadfastness? These are good qualities and to discredit them simply because a religion told you is silly. Take it for what it is, use what you can, and forget the rest- or remain ignorant of the decadent nut inside the hard shell.

 

[muir]

^I guess there's no telling exactly what 'pure' or 'primitive' Christianity was, but I can't imagine that it would be anything that wouldn't completely fall apart when you tried to apply it to modern society.

The 'dilution' of Christianity isn't due to some sort of global conspiracy by our evil overlords, it's part of its quest to remain relevant-- which means adapting to coincide with all of the scientific discoveries that threaten its 'truth'. It's a valid strategy, and probably far less objectionable than the 'let's just not trust anything that the stupid scientists say' strategy…

I haven't talked about a 'dilution' of christianity i have talked about an expansion of christianity

I also have not adopted a 'lets not trust anything the stupid scientists say' strategy either

I'd really appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth

I'm not against science but i do think that it is a double edged sword

Christians see christ as the current. I see christ (real or otherwise) as simply part of a current

The current i am talking about is the belief in the validity of the unconscious mind.

In the west we have 'capitalism' and as a result there are concentrations of capital. These concentrations of capital are also concentrations of power due to the nature of capitalism

These concentrations of capital although often competing are all united on certain points. For example they all support capitalism and they all support inequality (a necessity if they are to hold onto their concentrations of power) which enables them to find common cause against the people when the people threaten that dynamic

The super rich use the same educational establishments, they do business with each other, they inter marry with each other, they go to the same clubs (secret or otherwise) and they form political parties to protect their interests; through these methods and many others they maintain inequality in society which then results in a host of social ills

What i'm saying is that despite some competition in business the elite are united on certain things and work together to protect the current status quo

These people seem to be extremely threatened by the idea of people looking within for answers. The reason for this is perhaps because if you do look within for answers then the answers you find might not be the ones the elites want you to have

The elites tell us that their system oif neoliberalism is the 'end of history'. They call it the 'washington consensus' and they say to us 'don't worry about how to organise things we have it under control.'

But there are many people around the world who do not agree with that 'consensus' and who see neoliberalism as the cause of many of the worlds problems

When those people have attempted to challenege the way things are currently organised they have always been met with violence......but surely it is a human beings heritage as a being on this earth to have a say in how their community is organised?

So going back to the bible.....the backdrop for the story of jesus was the occupation of that part of the world by the Romans. The romans...like any elite intent on controlling people under them, were very threatened by anyone who questioned how they were organising things.

Despite this there were some people who had introspected, reflected, contemplated, mediatated and questioned and had come to the conclusion that they did not like living under the yoke of the Romans. Maybe they were unhappy about physical, tangible things like tax or laws or maybe they had abstract ideas about freedom, or equality or autonomy or maybe it was combinations of factors....but the bottom line is that they were not happy being controlled

There is also the incident in the bible where Jesus turns over the tables of the money changers in the temple because these people were stopping people from using any money except the special temple coins that they were issuing and because they were controlling the supply of the coins they could also dictate the value of them (much like the federal reserve bank and the european central banks today).....

.....'that will be 3 chickens for one half shekle'

.....'but it was only one chicken last year'

......'yes but its 3 this year'

.......'but the romans have raised their taxes this year to pay for their wars in europe so i can't afford 3 chickens'

......'then you won't be able to honour god and he will be displeased with you this harvest'

......'ok here is my last 3 chickens....but at least i brought a bowl with me because now i'm going to have to beg for my lunch.....i couldn't have a loan could i from that huge crate full of chickesn you have in the back there could i?'

......'ok but that will cost you two chickens interest' ......yada yada yada

Along comes an individual who isn't blindly complying but has actually stopped to question whether the current system for organising things is actually the best one or not

So it is all about personal freedom and it is all about elites and this is still all very poignant today as we watch the bankers rob the real economy blind with the help of the corrupt politicians leaving many people jobless, homeless, hopeless or buried in debt

Are some scientists used as part of todays high priesthood by the elites to help control the people.....of course!

 

[GracieRuth]

Did you ask this person what they meant by it? It could have had a meaning to it. There is always some new book describing Jesus in a new and bizzarre way.

Nope. I have been hospitalized many times due to my bipolar disorder, and so I have had the opportunity to get to know a lot of people with various thought disorders. I recognize it when I come across it, and I know better than to waste my time trying to reason with the person. You have to let comments like this just slide.

 

[GracieRuth]

Kmal:

Just letting you know I'm thinking about your comments.

 

[GracieRuth]

Hey muir:

We've had our run-ins before, and I know that neither of us means anything personal by them. It's always nice to know I have a friend in the forum who may disagree with a lot of what I say, but who still wishes me the very best.

I'm not going to reply in a lot of detail, as I think nothing would be accomplished. Your series of posts tend to illustrate the very point I am trying to make. You are obviously sane, but at the same time, your arguments are not quite rational -- you mix good points with bad points.

Essentially, you are basically making a sound argument that Sapolsky has patrons such as the Rockefellers. I don't have photographic memory, but I know he has received awards and grants from a great many sources -- that's what scientists do. It is perfectly normal for various foundations, non-profits, and various patrons to finance research they consider important.

But you don't stop there. You carry it to a paranoid extreme. I can't follow you there.

I'm not sure what possible link you were making between Sapolsky and the Nazis -- Sapolsky is a Jew, raised orthodox. Although he is now an atheist, I seriously doubt he has a pleasant opinion of Nazis.

 

[GracieRuth]

In order to justify drugging people to calm them down modern psychiatry (funded by the elite and supported in educational establishments set up by the elite) has created a categorisation system called the DSM

My friend, THIS I must reply directly to. Mental illness is real, and it's living hell. If you've never dealt with psychosis personally, thank G-d above. For those of us, myself included, who HAVE dealt with psychosis, we thank G-d for the meds, because however imperfect they may be, they are on occasion our only relief from the screaming.