The Horrors of christianity

Okie:

I have no idea how his being crucified could possibly be a metaphor for divinity conquering inhumanity. There might be some argument for the metaphor lying in how he dealt with it, however, nothing more than an argument.

 

Where love is not?

Who's taste? Your sympathetic and parasympathetic autonomous nervous system is designed to allow you to process sensation, but you must learn to master it. Taste is senseless in respect to making sense of things. Stimulus is required, not, taste as guide. Taste as guide is relevant in the case of hunger or thirst. It is not relevant to the apprehension of reality beyond that.
Seeking pleasing sensations is no more enlightened as far as apprehending nature than the simple reflexes of an amoeba.

As long as you insist on conditional nature you will be bound by it. You will look for compliance instead of comprehension. You will react as though the past, is present.

Cripto nite will kill you super dude. Do we do things , other than love?

Love doesn't discriminate, a misconception on your part.
Judgement discriminates.

Behind what how where? The I am I call myself is the same I am you call yourself, some differences only in perspective. Your flesh is the common currency of the species. Your personality is not.

Perhaps you do not comprehend the meaning, all things?

We simply extend ourselves, regardless any transient desire. Like I said strength only has appeal to the weak.

 

Of course it was how he dealt with it and rose above it (or after it) that's the important part of the metaphor. lol If you prefer, try the Phoenix rising from its ashes, but Jesus's crucifixion (and resurrection) is so much more vivid and memorable. lol The cross was one of the most intimidating weapons of terror in the arsenal of Roman bureaucracy, but Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas are now footnotes in the Jesus story.

 

thedope:

If you like, but I only say you can't show me where love doesn't discriminate.

Whose? Whomsoevers.

LOL No, it is sense itself in making sense.

More misconception on your part. Just as well I value your part? lol Seeking pleasure is the enlightenment of the will to power, which is in all life.

Condition is nothing more than existence. Existence is freedom, and life, its loving expression. Your setting conditions on my insistence is...just like you. ;-D I have a laughing insistence! I picked it up...from life! lol

Your esoterrorism is beneath me. :-D

Of course we do. We come to love. Consciousness arises.

No. Love always discriminates. It can't help but do so. Love loves.

How is it you judge love to be what it is?

lol I do comprehend you mean everything. Does that then mean you have nothing in mind? :-D

No, strength has its own appeal. Moral 'conclusions' such as this you have made are...well, weak. :-D

 

Okie:

So not his crucifixion at all, but his supposed resurrection from the dead is the metaphor.

 

What is good for quackers is good for gander. Show me where love discriminates.

This is sad. Our will is to be. If we are powerful then we know gratitude for being. We do not seek to become yet more powerful. Limited power is a contradiction in terms.

Experiencing freedom, is conditional on mentally articulated parameters.
Existence is a gift requiring no particular conditional expressions.

Meaning you don't understand my meaning?

While we are alive? If love is life and life love and we do something other than love, does that mean such a person or event does not exist, while they are doing something, other than love.

Love is what you are. Judgement discriminates. Love, "loves" only as love, not judgment.

What is the same is the same and what is different is different. The impulse to be is ever present, and this being we would extend/preserve. This being is what I know as love. When we feel life is threatened there is no particular condition of being, that we would seek to preserve other than being alive itself. So I say, love, your impulse to be does not discriminate at it's core. Judgment, an artifact or particular application of being.

No, it means that there is no discrete statistical representative of everything. The whole defines the parts but the part does not define the whole. Everything is something, but something is not every thing.

 

It's both--a package deal. The supposed resurrection has special significance as a victory over the instrument of Roman bureaucracy. The cross is also symbolic of the human condition: nailed between the horizontal and vertical. Jesus overcame that, and provided us the opportunity of doing the same. Now I suppose you'll be asking me the obvious: was the resurrection supposed or factual? I tend to follow Hume's advice on extraordinary claims. Fellow Progressive Christians like John Dominic Crossan and Oklahoma pastor Robin Meyers doubt that Jesus even made it to a tomb, but might have met the more common fate of crucified victims--being eaten by dogs or birds. There are, however, remains of one crucified Jew buried in a tomb with a spike driven through his heel. Whatever. The important point metaphorically is that Pontius Pilate is dust, and Jesus lives as the savior revered by the largest world religion.

 

Crucifixion is not necessarily to the death. Men gave witness that jesus was seen after the crucifixion, alive. To believe someone dead and then to have them appear as living is an assault on our conception of reality. Or, the person of jesus is represented in this account by more than one person. For instance, the body taken down and prepared by a civil person, not quite dead jesus, spirited off for recovery while miscellaneous cadaver chills out in the tomb,to be again spirited off. There are any number of mundane scenarios that could produce the perceptions of these men and women. Remember, influencing the fulfilling of prophesy, was a collaborative affair, in every respect.
No matter how the facts(?), appear, perceptions can be substantially off the mark.

 

thedope:

Everywhere you find it. Or don't you find it?

lol It would only be sad if the will to power was our final expression. Our will is not to being, already being, but to more.

This is why existence is condition itself. It is freedom before we can know it as such being all we ever know.

lol I understand you to mean I am fallible. How could your meaning that I am fail to be beneath me? :-D

lol When else would consciousness arise? In death? That we come to love does not preclude our doing so as loving! :-D

Love is what we are and do. To judge otherwise I can only imagine to be the fear of the judgement called love.

Philosophy 101 :-D Philosophy 102: Similitude can only be found in differentiation.
Do you know what Philosophy 103 is? lol

I like this, but love still discriminates in essence. By your 'words' you would have love apart from our application! lol This is where, being conjugatively comprehensive, I have to say: "I know what you mean."

No, the part does define the whole, even if only in part. You have not grasped inherency! Since I can't be certain about who has, I wouldn't worry. :-D I don't know how else to indicate it but by referring to motion. Perhaps I am getting lazy?

Okie:

Package deal?! LOL Is that what I've heard called the "ransom sacrifice"? So Jesus needed to be killed to be your saviour? Am I reading you right?!

 

Thanks thedope, I knew you might bring this up, which is why I wrote resurrection from the dead.

 

No. I was just commenting that the power of the metaphor depended on triumph over an instrument of human domination. Personally, I'm much more concerned with what Jesus did and said while alive than with His death. My faith in Jesus as a savior doesn't depend on death or resurrection at all. Just His example and teachings. Still, it's an inspiring metaphor.

 

Glad to hear it Oke! :-D

Even though I knew already your heart is in the right place.

 

I invite it without deciding what it must be. Then everywhere it appears to me in attendance.

More what?

So freedom is a static thing apart from perception?

I asked you a straight question and you gave me a cryptic answer whose meaning escapes me. I asked what do we do other than love, if love is life and life love.

Again, when are we not loving in life?

When is love not what we are, or what we do?
So in other words to judge otherwise is to fear the godlike perceptions of Dejavu? To judge love is to misconstrue it as absent or less in some way by degree. Love knows no judgment bearing all things, believing all things, hoping all things. But, none in particular.

Form is defined by negative space but it's content/import/meaning is perceived from within.
I never took a philosophy course, am I doing it wrong?

Love is never absent but the perception of it can be made to seem obscure, and judgement is such a deceiver of appearances, as we must judge in order to justify an unwillingness to forgive or withhold affection or sacrifice common cause. As you perceive life a condition you can take or leave or you perceive life demands you satisfy condition? I can't tell, you are ambiguous with your circular definitions, love is life, life is love, love is life's condition and life is loves condition. You did not drop by to see what condition your condition was in. You will strive to survive no matter what condition you may encounter.

But regardless. To have a future different from the past we must make a different choice in the present. To insist on conditions requires conditioned response.

 

thedope:

Yet you have decided love is not discriminating! A man of discrimination no less. :-D
Since you think love does not discriminate, and I think it does, are we at least in agreement that it does not incriminate?! lol

More being. Our will is not to existence, existing as we do, but to more.

In no way. Behold the evolution of the eye! Or listen: We do not realize we have always existed until we understand that we came to exist. Our will is only to go on doing so. How? By coming to love! :-D

Nothing cryptic in my answer that we come to love. I don't hold life to love just as you don't, but rather invite it.

I don't know. It could be you're asking the wrong person. All I know is that we come to love. :-D

thedope! You know love isn't judged except as love, don't you? Kind of like your redundant saying - "God is not mocked" but... more loving. :-D

All, all, all, but...none?! LOL The non sequitur is no-ones specialty. I'll help you out, because not only is your heart in the right place ( your body ), I believe your head can... er... almost keep up ;-D
Love is the judgement that bears, believes, hopes, in all its particulars, ie. it begets.

To be straight, form is self-defining. There is no perfect vacuum. If you've never taken a course in philosophy, you're probably doing it right. I guess you'll never know until you do. :-D

We did not ask to be born. We love, not indiscriminately, but with love, or as you would say, "in attendance".

 

There was a massacre in a school today. It was not love. Not loves being or doing. thedope might say it was 'the call for love'. Who honestly knows what to say about such things? We only know to rush to the aid of those who are left without...

 

Who does honestly know what to say about such things?
Is what you have said dishonest?

We can honestly say that the perception of massacres causes concern. You might say that it is the massacre that causes concern, but the fact is there are massacres that occur without our particular knowledge that they have occurred, and those, we have no immediate concern for, although upon hearing of it, we may yet once again reflect on our concerns.

Further our concerns are not for a fact of life or death. Our lives are vital and ever transient in every moment, but we are not attentive in the same way for that ever teetering balance. Our concerns are for the interpretation of the fact of violent and seemingly senseless death.

Every body dies. Is there sense in any death? Does violence make death a violation? Can we accurately proclaim a life, cut short? How long will your life be and would you agree at any point that it was enough? Violence in nature is a contributor to the cycle of life, no less than apparently more gentle nurture.

My friend you find life to be love and love to be life, sometimes. It is for those times that you do not find it that way, that I speak, that we all may have life more abundantly. You say you have taken to a life of laughter but you find no laughter in your reflections on massacre. Those reflections rob you of the perception of love. You say, It was not love. Not loves being or doing. It will be for you ever as you insist it is as long as you are able to crave.

Some words on compassion.
Compassion means to suffer with. Some say love is compassionate
but those who say so, perceive suffering as being a just or unjust reward.
Misery loves company.
To them suffering has a reason to be and that reason is often the guilty party. Suffering is not a noble steed and compassion not the conveyance of reduced suffering, but the multiplication of allies for it's continuance.

Empathy brings us to mutual appreciation. The denial of love in any corner can only be a judgement against it's application as love is perceived by the heart and mind that are in accord with it's perception. That is those who have not required conditions be displayed before they invite love to the scene.

We do not need a judgment against the perception of love in order to feed the hungry, or clothe the naked, or shelter the exposed. That is any more than you suggest we need god for those things. If love is it's condition, it calls for no other condition to be, knowing only itself.

 

I asked if we honestly know what to say. I honestly said what I said.

Seemingly senseless? What sense do you make of their deaths other than the fact of them? Next you'll be telling me it was gods will! Our, or should I say my? concerns are not for the interpretation or perception of what occurred, but for those that are in pain.

Not every body dies. And no, there is no sense in death. No, violence doesn't make death a violation ( what sort of question is that?! ) But yes, you can "accurately" proclaim a life cut short if the life in question was murdered. My life is long enough for me to live, but not so long that another may take it.

It is true, which is why I do not insist they are 'one' but only share condition.

If my life lay only in reflection, I would be consumed by tragedy. My laughter is not lessened by the fact I do not always laugh. My life has always been ready to laugh.

Do you say it was love? Then it was a massacre of love. The balm for wounded hearts has never been their obliteration.

Do you think I could ever hold compassion over love?! Do you think we fall prey to pity where we clearly feel our desires met? There is no guilty party where suffering is concerned thedope. The reasons for suffering are a suffering also. Compassion spells danger to free hearts, but are you frightened by its folly? Sufferers, at bottom, do not wish to merely 'alleviate' their condition by sharing it, let alone lead others into it for that reason, but to help oneanother climb out of it altogether.

Come, my not finding love in a massacre is what it is. Having, taking heart, I require no-ones heart for my own to reach towards them.

No, we don't. There is something though that I would point out, that is striking to some. The denial of love can be funny, since its resolution is loves comeback. The denial of life though, that doesn't admit a punchline.

 

I see.

What do you know about pain? That it passes? Your concerns are your concerns and while conceivably meant for others, they remain your own.
Sometimes you may find you are the only one concerned or feel that you are the only sufficiently concerned about an issue, even though that issue may be the welfare of another.

There is no standard of behavior that reality insists on.

What can we honestly say? Well honesty is consistency between our apprehension of the world and our reactions to it. When what we say and what we do, are in accordance.

To say that love has it's condition and it's condition is life, and life's condition is love, and then have your witness be an event of life is absent love, speaks only to the fact that you place conditions on the appearance of love and further makes the circular definition that you claim, false in your own estimation of life. A platitude.

I don't make any sense of death other than our concerns are transient. Nor do I make sense of longevity as some kind of accomplishment of the truest nature. Life emerges diversely and due to it's primary intent, each impulse is vying in every moment, for it's life in the sun. It wants it's own. It wants it's own in superabundance and it wants it now. It is not true that we want, just enough to get by, just enough to stay even.

Every voice, every impulse vying for ascendancy all at once. This is so even within an individual as one impulse is replaced by another and each so divergent in tone as to make an individual unrecognizable to himself if he could see himself display these divergent tones from a distance removed. These competing impulses that we call our lust for life, do not know each other and do not reflect one upon the other. They simply replace each other as they find opening in the attention of the mind.

You cannot heal a sick thought. It has a life and wants to carry on as it is. But you can choose a different thought and carry on as you will.

Which body does not die? Which person on this earth do know that lives forever?

I don't think so. The mind is lithe and extremely active.

Ready to laugh? Potential is only relevant now, in reflection.

I don't say of love other than it is without condition but abides all conditions.
My appreciation of life is not diminished. I have had relatives and friends die of violent hands and my appreciation for life does not diminish. I have even come to consistent terms regarding my own pain.

What is good, is not also bad. This is an abominable levitican cloth, a fabric of life woven from unlike materials that makes intent, meaning, and motion impossible to fathom to any predictable depth.

No. I don't think any one's suffering is special or particularly perverse.

Except by your accounts that the absence of love is responsible?

A confusion about what is.

No Dejavu, nor do I support illusion for the sake of forestalling disillusionment.

? Bottom feeders? The special sufferers you mean. Those with a superlative capacity to suffer.

What we wish for and what will be done, are not necessarily the same thing.
What is done almost unanimously is to affix the cause of this particular suffering to insufficient humanity. And this result insures that the future will be like the past. Christ, suffering serves no purpose other than to convince you, you don't want it. It is a more effective methodology that I appeal for.

What is funny to me is that you think life can be denied while life yields only to more life.
What do you think the difference is between death by murder or death by falling tree, other than circumstance?

 

I don't presume to think I can feel for another. Offering a hand, not their laying on.

No. how could I place conditions on an appearance of love I failed to find? If you know better, will you lead me to see? Where is the love in the massacre?

Your knowing our concerns are transient has not made sense of death.

My thinking that a massacre isn't love is not sick. I say this as I don't want you to be sickened by your thought that it is. Love is not blind, it discriminates regardless of those who imagine knowledge is not always perceived. I can't help that you believe in disembodiment. I alone can't change your mind.

Ask anyone whose body isn't dying. The human body has not died. Could it? Stupid question. Of course it could. Is the hardship of dying made easier by the erroneous notion that everyone has to? Do you want my compassion that you feel you have to die?

You actually think a life could lie alone in reflection? Your head is further from you than I thought! lol

Who said it wasn't? But not in reflection. You say you are funny, but you are graver than I. You do not reflect my whole laughter. No-ones can 'reflect' anyone elses, at least not so sufficiently as to have it their very own. lol Spontaneity is of the moment.

You think the abidance you ascribe is not conditional upon what it is?! It takes the physical to create the physical. It does not take it away.

So to make up for your ghastly garment you'd make the bad also good? Why not go beyond your good and bad altogether?

That was not my account. Do you have identification issues? I failed to find love in the massacre. You're really not helping me find it.

No, all suffering at bottom seeks its end, not its alleviation as a shared burden.

The first time I've seen you turn from your "christ-teaching"! lol But is it really a new methodology you appeal for?! Are we to believe after all that your insistence on consistency is an obsession?! :-D

The solicitousness with which you tell me of your funniness is definitely funny!
Life yields only to more life, it doesn't yield to death. This is why it can be harmed, denied, killed, squashed, etc etc. Take your shit off safety for a change?

The murderer, you dope.

 

Is a hand and a concern the same thing? You must place conditions of the appearance of love or you would not fail to find it. Love is not in the act of life. Love is in the appreciation of life and I don't mean appreciation in the sense of a blind eye, but in the sense of a sound eye. Life is all kinds of phenomena. That our concerns are transient means we care more of less. Obviously a murderer cares more for his own issues than those of someone else, and sees them not at all the same. Life yields only to more life.

Your mind is a kingdom you alone rule. Judgment discriminates, life does not.
I didn't say your thinking was sick, I said you cannot heal a sick thought.

I didn't say every body has to die, I said that every body does. It is conceivable that bodies die because our concerns, are transient.

Potential is appreciated only in this moment as reflection. I didn't say life lies alone in reflection.

Bad mood?

I am not your measure silly, life reflects your attitude faithfully. The storms in the atmosphere reflecting the storms in our consciousness and vice versa.

So life does not cut short life.

It is your ghastly garment dear as life reflects what you would find there.
Love does not rely on good or bad conditions to be what it is.

All being is sponsored by love. Love cannot be taught, only shared and only goes where it is allowed or invited to be. There, is the wrong place to look for love as love is what you are. The truth of that is appreciated when love is not withheld.

Back for the rest.