This spiel is Koresh-like. All the people who knew the minds of all the gods turned out to be some combination of wrong and self-deluded. You're one of them. Realistically, you have to be. From inside the experience of "I know the mind of god, and his system, and here's how it works..." is a driven, self-deluded, indoctrinated, close-minded, authoritarian, anxiety-ridden, unconscious projection of wishful magical thinking. It's one of the oldest things under the sun in terms of human psychology.

I have no doubt that in your mind you believe that you are giving me a reality check, so let me return the favor.

The issue with you anti-Theist types is that you are only willing to go half way. You rightfully say no to the socially constructed theology centered around a socially constructed version of God, but then you stop there. Truth dictates that we say no the entirety of the external world, but that is too inconvenient for the anti-Theist since that path unavoidably leads to Nihilism.

Instead, the anti-Theist veers off that path and tries to blind himself to this unforgivable sin. The cover-up involves the construction of a narrative that says that he has reached the end of the truth journey, and that the only reason why the external world remains un-redeemed is because of the Theists and their socially constructed version of God. If not for that, then the external world would be the compassionate, loving place it’s supposed to be.

Further, the lie has to be constantly affirmed and maintained when deeper truth threatens to expose it. That means anybody who has a deeper, more nuanced theological perspective has to be reshaped in order to fit the simplistic categories that the deception and blindness depend on. Remember, there is no truth beyond the narrative the anti-Theist has constructed. Tribalistic behaviors that keep the narrative nourished are a must.

Meanwhile, those of us that have actually descended into the scary place see right through the charade.

The third sentence in the second paragraph needs editing and clarifying. I don't know what you mean.

The unforgivable sin accusation itself is probably the most unforgivable thing, though nothing is unforgivable unless you believe in dubious religious dogma.

How do you get from atheism to nihilism? This often comes from presupposing all meaning comes from a supernatural being, then saying if there is no supernatural being then obviously there can't be any meaning. That's purely circular and totally irrational.

The gnostic path, and the Jungian path, not to mention most all human nature based psychological investigations, go way deeper than the magic Jesus strategy. In that latter paradigm, I simply say the magic words and I have eternal life with streets of gold. There is no depth to it and that is why parallel with saying those magic words, the actual values and life of such deluded folks contain obscene contradictions and corruption ... including murder, racism/KKK, bigotry, slavery, crusades, hypocrisy ... all central elements of the Christian phenomenon. They have tried to resolve the shadow with magic, not reality. You dig?

1. God is love.
2. Love keeps no record of wrongs.
3. God killed, smited and condemned millions of people for doing wrong.

A Biblical syllogism from hell. It proves that the religion is apocryphal. If not, let's hear why. When you read those three points, don't just believe them ... ask yourself if it is real. ASK YOURSELF IF IT IS REAL. Koolaid is not for philosophers.

Some observations:

1. FellaGaga doesn't know what a syllogism is.

2. FellaGaga is responding to a non-Christian (craig1120) by attempting to critique some version of Christianity.

3. FellaGaga's responses to posts don't generally address anything in the post he is "critiquing."

1. The above is NOT a syllogism. DUCY?

2. The above three propositions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. DUCY?

The only type of meaning that can fulfill our desire for meaning is the type that is discovered or identified, not the type that we try to create or project. The latter requires a suppression or denial of our full desire for meaning.

Truth guides us to the meaning that will lead to lasting fulfillment, which is the meaning that is discovered rather than the type that we create/project. In that sentence, I am saying that truth dictates that we say no to the entirety of the external world because the type of meaning we need for fulfillment cannot be found there. Even though it is inevitable that we will try.

Our desire for meaning (truth) requires full rebellion against our current version of God and the world. We are to stay in the first person, subjective perspective and fall into nihilism. Most people avoid this by escaping into an “objective” perspective on their version of God. The theist argues to himself for God’s innocence and re-absorbs back into the external world. The story of Job is a clear example of this. Those that become atheists condemn their version of God, but in order to re-absorb back into the external world and avoid the fall into nihilism, they have to deny the existence of God so as to not contradict their rebellion/condemnation with participation in his created world.

Whatever rationalizations that the theist or atheist use on the level of belief have nothing to do with the truth that matters. The unforgivable sin was already committed when they escaped the deeper, first person, subjective to the more superficial, objective perspective. It’s aptly described as an “unforgivable sin” to emphasize the vital importance of rectifying it.

The anti-theist eventually has to create a framework and narrative to serve as a protective layer of blindness to what they have done. It blames religion for the shortcomings of the external world. A lie on top of a lie. Really, it’s a projection of their underlying self-hate, which is easy to aim at those who have committed the same unforgivable sin. The narrative gets turned up more and more as the unfulfilled desire for meaning (truth) becomes harder to suppress.

Like I said, the anti-theist or atheist has to go further. They have to stop settling for counterfeit meaning, which requires full rebellion against their subjective version of God and his created world. Attempts to opt of this game by “objectively” determining that God doesn’t exist will ultimately be futile.

We are to put our subjective experience of God on trial, and then we are to give him a fair trial. We will judge him negatively for the suffering in the world and the lack of meaning to redeem it. He will dispute this by placing the blame on us for our un-actualized potential. Truth then requires that we grow and perfect ourselves so that our version of God can no longer hold our moral shortcomings over our head as a defense.

That is the best metaphor I can think to use for this subjective, yet universal, experience.

I consider myself deeply Christian but am not bothered to not be viewed as one. I would call “Christendom” what is commonly referred to as “Christianity”. I consider Christendom to be part of Christianity but not all of it.

To be fair, I’m not expecting a deep level of understanding of what I am sharing from anyone. It’s helpful to me if I articulate it. What I am sharing is true, though, so people should try to track it.

The accusation of indoctrination is laughable however.

Of course it isn't strictly a syllogism and of course I referred to it as such facetiously. But you choose to ignore this and also ignore the awesome impact of the synthesis of the Biblical material cited, because you are a deceitful and diversionary apologist and you cannot redress the substance of the contradiction in the content. Your tack here was 100% predictable on this end.

Part of the reason why Jesus placed so much importance on loving God is not because God is in need of worship. It’s so that we wouldn’t make the move quoted above and just end the relationship when it’s time to take a stand and put God on trial. The strict rules on marriage also make more sense in this context.

Taking a stand, condemning God, and ending the relationship is masculine without the feminine. Unconditionally reconciling and rationalizing for God is feminine without the masculine.

In the story, Jesus was condemned. Then, he took on the sins of the world and flipped it, turning it into something that created more life. This was to represent that God can withstand our putting him on trial, and that something better will emerge on the other side. Again, the highest truths appear paradoxical and require the conscious holding of two seeming contradictions - the masculine and the feminine.

Well, I'm versed in a lot of subjects that relate to this, and I simply cannot relate to what you are saying or synthesize it with schools that I know to be true. I do know this system you are espousing is very cultish, very "this is the true theology system" type stuff. Can you see that that is the same thing every school of religion does?

I'm reading a book called "Breathing as a Spiritual Practice." It's astounding and there are things about it you will like. I recommend it. It's very heavy on connecting with god, but i just replace that with connection and integration in general ... no god needed. I have a 32-point definition of "spirituality," challenged by a Freudian, so I'm not "woo" on that subject. Spirituality is very alive and well without the myriad of gods man invented. This book interestingly calls the three great Abrahamic religions "rivaling siblings." I like it.

It's very existential, the focus is on experience and connection with it ... rather than the alienation man generally suffers from. But that alienation, real though it is, does not have to be from god ... something theists generally fail to grasp. So they imagine that they know all about this god ... one god after another after another.

When someone replies effectively to the contradiction in these three tenets of the good book and the religion it spawned, I will give it a thumbs up. To date, I have posted that a bunch of times and every Christian fled for the hills. When someone points out how these three points don't establish the core of the religion as irrevocably false, I'll be listening. Like I said, they don't even try for some strange reason.

With this understanding of the masculine and feminine, there is now additional context to help reveal more of what Jesus was up to.

I want to refer back to the idea I’ve mentioned previously that the evolutionary filters have dictated that the entire individual, spiritual development project is situated on a socially reinforced version of God. That is the foundation, or the body, and the body is associated with the feminine. As I began in the first post of this thread, the mind (masculine) separates from the body (feminine).

Now, let’s recall how Jesus organized his ministry. He chose 12 males and separated them from their villages. When he taught to the crowds, he emphasized the feminine (eg: love God and love your neighbor), and acted out a representation of God. In doing so, he was establishing a strong foundation of the socially reinforced version of God that humanity would build on moving forward. Separately, among the twelve Apostles, he was cultivating the masculine, mind level.

We can see this in saying 114 from the Gospel of Thomas:
Back to the Jesus story. Christ (male, mind), who is separated from the body (humanity), descends down to die and save the body. This reflects the conscious mind falling down into nihilism (death) that I was describing earlier.

I made the kind of honest mistake in coming on here a ways back that a seasoned apologist couldn’t make. My goal was to find open-minded debate about origins and metaphysics, and I went to a religious forum instead of a “science versus religion” type forum. Surprise … I got a miming of religious talking points and doctrine

In short, by making the mistake of going to a religious forum I got those who start with “my religion is the explanation for everything, like duh obvious.” So that I was appalled by the responses I got is kind of on me. That I was attacking religion is not completely true; I was attacking the epistemology of apologetics. If their book says 2 + 2 = 5, they have to defend it. It's the mystery of god, you know. If it says rainbows are a sign from god, they believe it. If it says that killing millions is a function of love and being righteous, they defend that.

So though I wasn’t picking a fight over people’s religion, a fight was inevitable because the homies on here are all-in on myth as reality. I was not after what kind of religion or code someone likes. Rather, I’m after what kind of reality about metaphysics and ontology is out there. And myths, legends, superstitions and supernaturalism from thousands of years ago don’t cover that realistically.

Since you are claiming it is a contradiction, you have the burden of proof, Spanky.

Why "of course"? You seldom make much sense anyway, so why would anyone think you were being facetious?

Actually make an argument, and I will address it.

There is a good reason why the breathing practice is meaningful to you. Just continue to seek out and identify meaning.

When we are able to concede to ourselves that our status quo telos, or direction in life, is insufficient, our tendency is to try to make changes that will add more meaning to our life. This will be short lived as we will soon slide back into the old status quo.

The move to make — rather than trying to add meaning, failing, and sliding back into unconsciousness — is to fast from the meaning associated with the status quo while maintaining consciousness. However, for practical reasons, refusing to participate in our status quo life situation is usually not an option for long.

This is where hatred becomes beneficial. Hatred kills counterfeit meaning if we take the time to channel it toward the meaningful aspects of our day to day life. It is a meditative practice. Once we do this, we are able to participate in our day to day life without being re-absorbed back into the status quo and unconsciousness.

Accessing and using hatred to fast from the status quo and kill the counterfeit meaning is analogous to eating the forbidden fruit in the Genesis story. That means, just like in the story, we have to first disobey the tyrant and then deal with him when he shows up after our rebellion.

I'm not in your cult. People who are in cults and are waxing all "I know the true mind of god to astounding detail and you don't" are always ignorant that they are in a cult. Take a meta-view of yourself and you can see it. You're just another in a nearly infinite line of those considering themselves in the one true religion. Even when it is demonstrated as bogus, they double and triple down ... a sure sign of the irrational self-deluded true believer mentality. Tell us why you are different than all the others who knew the mind of their god?

Truth is always like a needle in a haystack, but that doesn’t mean it is nonexistent. I can’t do the work for you. We can only help each other so much.

Maybe you really are the guy that truly understands the mind of god. You: God's gift to theology. Imagine the odds. Can you see the absurdity of this or are you just insistent you are the one? Irony always effectively destroys absurdity.

Oh well, if you can't get outside of that incredibly myopic, cultish, tunnel vision, deluded, true-believer, blindly driven egocentric mind set ... then you are just as common as the DoDo who followed his "truth" into oblivion of comet Hale-Bopp. You aren't after truth. You are after considering yourself one of the special one's who truly understands the mind of god ... by some kind of fiat. Just axiomatic. "Here I am. I'm a true believer. I know all about god. I'm not like all the others. My spiel is truth. How can you question that? I'm me. The one proclaiming the truth."

CULT.

I speak to the free agents. You chose a side, and you chose foolishly. You are blind to truth because your father hates truth, and your father bullies you. I chose the other side, and your father is my side’s b*tch.

Good god this is all-time true believer cult shyt. My religion versus you. I'm better because of my religion. It's pathetic in the grand scheme of philosophy.

I am better than you. Correct.