[wonderer]

Yes. 🙂

[Pater]

Care to share? 🤓

[wonderer]

Sure. I wasn’t sure if it would be threadjacking.

It will have to be later though.

[jayceeii]

Jesus also missed a chance to give a more explicit command about what it means to love the neighbor as oneself, or to love others in a way reflecting His own love. This is that one should learn to rejoice in the joy of another. This is as opposed to feeling jealousy or trying to diminish their joy, and most especially as opposed to feeling joy over sorrow in another, which is the quintessence of evil. This type of recipe can lead to heaven very quickly. Disturbing wrinkles come up in practice, for instance feeling joy over the joy of another who is rejoicing over others’ sorrow, is not enjoined. So it would have to be pure joys, which is to say joys taken without harm to another, including the future generations.

This is the Creator’s perspective, that all beings should be in joy, which is to say fundamentally and continuously happy. The Creator is joyful, and wishes this for those that He made and whose lives and existence He supports. The Buddha’s proposition is that there are obstacles to this condition in the human mind, that the human can work to remove, meaning the end of sorrow. Jesus said that He came specifically for sinners, neglecting to repeat this proposition (in overt terms; forget not “the kingdom of heaven is within you,” that many have interpreted as a command to meditate). It seems that few long for sat-chit-ananda these days, but those who do find that there is enough guidance.

Yet of more pressing interest still, at least to me, are the undisclosed uses of sat-chit-ananda once it is not only possessed but made spectacular in the reaches of vast epochs. Genuine love for the neighbor has not been seen on the globe before, though Swedenborg began to describe some of its consequences. One of the great perplexities to God is why the people fundamentally do not like each other, why they don’t really enjoy spending time together. If they could but see clearly they’d see the triple miracle of their own existence, and their placement in great bodies on a fantastic planet. Failing to see these they don’t have a keen longing for companionship, particularly with those of noble (and hence lovable) traits. They grit their teeth around others, rising to toleration, not to love.

[Pater]

Thanks jc, this is quite illustrative, both for its attractive appeal, and for its theological transparency.

For example, you say that God is “perplexed”. That would be a different God than the MGB God. God the Father doesn’t experience surprises or perplexities.

Satan offers an attractive program – just follow his example. He said “I will exalt myself, to be like the most high.” That’s what you are saying as well. So I’m being fairly precise when I say that this is a doctrine of demons.

This world is hard. Like really really really hard. That’s because it’s supposed to be really hard. It’s supposed to be hard enough that we learn that we need God’s presence in every part of it in order to maximize our joy. That we can love genuinely, but only after we are experiencing real genuine love and unqualified acceptance from the holy Creator.

God’s acceptance and love for us allows us to accept ourselves, and to love others fully.

He did that intentionally, partially because it maximizes goodness. Partly because it gives us an eternal benchmark of comparative ontology. He is who He is, and we are who we are. Redeemed, made new, fully actualized by the mechanism of His grace.

No one should make Satan’s mistake of supposing his equality with (or superiority over) God. And no one should make the greater mistake of teaching others to do the same.

God’s intent in creating this world is that it would be too hard. That our need for His salvation would be undeniable. And that we would have opportunity to give Him unequalled glory. I testify that God lives, He created this universe, that Jesus is His Son, God incarnate, and that He died on a cross to atone for my sins. That any goodness I might have comes from Him, because in me, in my flesh, dwells no good thing, as the scriptures teach.

Yours is a different gospel, from a different source, doomed to perish.

[jayceeii]

PF: Thanks jc, this is quite illustrative, both for its attractive appeal, and for its theological transparency. For example, you say that God is “perplexed”. That would be a different God than the MGB God. God the Father doesn’t experience surprises or perplexities.

JC: I chose the word “perplexed” intentionally, to avoid a preacherly appearance. God knows very well the source of man’s dislike of his fellow man, but this is something that is difficult for man to learn or to overcome. This “perplexity” can be understood in a sophisticated way, that God is saying, “Hey, they aren’t divine, this isn’t right.” Then the situation God has arranged gradually helps to make it right (or better, but specifically in individual cases). For, if the entities aren’t divine no companionship with God is possible. So it appears to be you who isn’t looking high enough for God, though you accuse me of the same. You think God can have companionship with sinners, and feel satisfied with it.

PF: Satan offers an attractive program – just follow his example. He said “I will exalt myself, to be like the most high.” That’s what you are saying as well. So I’m being fairly precise when I say that this is a doctrine of demons.

JC: I find the atheists refreshing as they reject ideas of demons along with ideas of God, and wonder if anyone who accepts both demons and God has a good idea of God. In all the religious traditions there had to be both demons and God, although it would be not only illogical for God to make Himself a powerful opponent, but impossible as well. For the moment power appears it wipes out evil, which is a form of weakness or corruption. It is only those who can’t get evil ideas out of their head, who think it could get out of hand.

This idea would potentially enable the atheists could they see it instead of remaining within the confines of theistic notions of God. To apply it they wouldn’t even have to believe in God, they could instead just note the theistic ideas of God are not rising to conceptual reality of what a Creator-God would be. They’d be saying, “Hey, you try to think of God and you always haul the devil in too; why can’t you conceive the former could be true and the latter false? Why can’t you think of only goodness in high places?”

PF: This world is hard.

JC: It is humans who make it hard, largely through competition which denies the essentials of life to some. Animal life is not hard, they just shop anywhere they go. The bodies of intelligence ought to have allowed humans to design a society that is easier.

PF: Like really really really hard.

JC: Now I’m back to talking about the secret and unsuspected uses of sat-chit-ananda, which means being-consciousness-bliss. Such ones may actually be able to enjoy life.

PF: That’s because it’s supposed to be really hard.

JC: You’re starting to sound like Eknath Easwaran, who said “Don’t just give until it hurts, give when it hurts,” grimacing as he said it so his listeners would understand how difficult their presence was making his existence. Or like Gandhi, who said without evidence that God is a harsh taskmaster. Does any have the power to work and enjoy it?

PF: It’s supposed to be hard enough that we learn that we need God’s presence in every part of it in order to maximize our joy.

JC: Now you’re citing some kind of direct connection to God, which of course atheists reject and you can’t prove. Do you think you can reach God and bypass the neighbor?

PF: That we can love genuinely, but only after we are experiencing real genuine love and unqualified acceptance from the holy Creator.

JC: Only the Hutterites are exemplifying what I would call practical love for the neighbor, having followed the Bible’s instruction to make themselves separate. Are you suggesting they have more genuine love and unqualified acceptance from the holy Creator, than the other churches, that allows them to support one another in real ways?

PF: God’s acceptance and love for us allows us to accept ourselves, and to love others fully.

JC: Again, as only the Hutterites are exhibiting a full practical love for the neighbor, you seem to be suggesting they have more of God’s acceptance and love. Or maybe Jacob Hutter knew what he was doing, setting some up in a way that God would find pleasing.

PF: He did that intentionally, partially because it maximizes goodness. Partly because it gives us an eternal benchmark of comparative ontology. He is who He is, and we are who we are. Redeemed, made new, fully actualized by the mechanism of His grace.

JC: You speak of superhumans of whom I have never seen evidence. Clearly Christian doctrine convinces you man is glorious enough, and you think God need look no further.

PF: No one should make Satan’s mistake of supposing his equality with (or superiority over) God. And no one should make the greater mistake of teaching others to do the same.

JC: If you have read Swedenborg as you claim, then you know he is the farthest thing from “angel worship” as mentioned by Paul, nor are his ideas idle as these outline behaviors suitable for Heaven though unseen on Earth. Swedenborg always traces everything back to the Lord. Again and again he says angels have nothing but what is from the Lord. So your remark is drawn from a straw man you are creating about me. Also, your philosophy allows no difference between humans and angels that could be relevant to human behavior now, even though they would need it did they go to Heaven.

PF: God’s intent in creating this world is that it would be too hard. That our need for His salvation would be undeniable. And that we would have opportunity to give Him unequalled glory. I testify that God lives, He created this universe, that Jesus is His Son, God incarnate, and that He died on a cross to atone for my sins. That any goodness I might have comes from Him, because in me, in my flesh, dwells no good thing, as the scriptures teach.

JC: I’ve seen the formula, but it is too simplistic to succeed in a real creation. The troubles of man are deeper than this, the distance from him to the Creator far greater.

PF: Yours is a different gospel, from a different source, doomed to perish.

JC: God’s whole creation with respect to Earth appears about to fail, in the modern era.

[Pater]

jc: “So your remark is drawn from a straw man you are creating about me.”

Yeah that’s what’s a little weird about this – you put your apostasy front and center. No need for a strawman at all. I’ve genuinely searched for any true statements – few and far between. Even innocuous statements have some sort of little twist to them.

And I did do some brief review of the religious traditions that you claim to draw from. Seems like you’re harvesting from a variety of weed patches, with liberal input from your own imaginations, and calling the result “the truth”.

My opinion is that there is no reason to believe anything that you’re promoting.

[jayceeii]

JC1: “So your remark is drawn from a straw man you are creating about me.”

JC2: The straw man is that you characterized me or my situation as saying equal to God or better than God, or teaching others the same. From the books you claim to have read I refuted this. None of that is going on, or will go on. It’s clear everything is from the Lord.

PF: Yeah that’s what’s a little weird about this – you put your apostasy front and center.

JC2: Apostasy to you, but normal information to me. The churches aren’t condemning me. No one gives me the slightest attention. I find it strange you are concerned about this.

PF: No need for a strawman at all.

JC2: The point of a straw man is the person is mischaracterized, but there can also be issues of misunderstanding. It’s possible the ideas might never be comprehended at all.

PF: I’ve genuinely searched for any true statements – few and far between.

JC2: Yet you do not quote the Buddha, Jesus, or Swedenborg against me. You have no answer that the Christian formula is simplistic, or Jesus never said you’d go to Heaven.

PF: Even innocuous statements have some sort of little twist to them.

JC2: Oh, you see some twists, perhaps some double meanings? But there may also be double twists, triple meanings. Language can be like that; you don’t see who is behind it.

PF: And I did do some brief review of the religious traditions that you claim to draw from. Seems like you’re harvesting from a variety of weed patches, with liberal input from your own imaginations, and calling the result “the truth”.

JC2: I’m glad you were able to look over there a little bit. But there isn’t really enough, you know, to harvest. Swedenborg is a starting point, but not the Buddha. Swedenborg boldly said he brought the Second Coming. There’s something about angels, so critical.

PF: My opinion is that there is no reason to believe anything that you’re promoting.

JC2: Remember the old forum?

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php

I looked back and I joined in 2017. So that means for over five years you and I have been sparring, and I still don’t have friend one, companion one, to show for it. So what worries you? I’m like a little mustard seed in the dirt, writing for decades in a seemingly blind hope. You seem anxious that I’d have an influence; it can’t be that your faith is shaken. I wish for universal joy, yours too. You have found your answers, that’s very good for you.

[wonderer]

<div>
</div>

JC2: “So that means for over five years you and I have been sparring, and I still don’t have friend one, companion one, to show for it. So what worries you?”

Just curious…

Should that be taken as a loaded question, or as a sincere attempt at improving your understanding of a fellow human being’s perspective?

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  wonderer.

[jayceeii]

Paterfamilia and I have never seen eye to eye, though I’ve had good moments with Lancia and a few others here. But I’d reiterate what I have said before, the forum has never been a place of agreement. Though logic should theoretically allow congruence of minds, each comes from in essence a hardened position. The Christians have never converted a single atheist, and there isn’t even a stable “gang of Christians” in complete agreement, as there remain minor disputes even over the discussion of a universal Christianity as we had a while back. I found myself agreeing with the analysis of ccmnxc:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6058714.msg1275805856#msg1275805856

3. It seems to be the nature of these discussions that fairly little progress is ever made. Not only do people seldom manifest a change of mind, but you can have long, drawn-out discussions which don't ever get fully resolved, and then in the next thread, it's right back to square one again. Such a process lends itself to everyone feeling like the other side is entrenched and lacking in open-mindedness.

Nonetheless the forum remains a fascinating place for me, as I find the minds here sharp and the discussion generally civil (though sometimes moderated). As for the current disagreement, Pater is not engaging my specific points, instead falling back into vague generality, which tends to lean towards straw man and mud-slinging. That’s one reason I go sentence by sentence, so the individual knows I am always addressing his exact words.

[wonderer]

JC2: “That’s one reason I go sentence by sentence, so the individual knows I am always addressing his exact words.”

In that case, maybe you could give another try to addressing my question? I don’t see how that was a response to what I asked.

[jayceeii]

I don’t know what you want from me. In my opinion he and the rest of humanity should be following Ramakrishna’s advice to “Go Forward.” I’m sure Paterfamilia will reassure you in no uncertain terms that by no means could I help him in this project or even turn his mind that direction. In fact even if I agreed to emphasize my certainty by suffering on his behalf, he will tell you the truth this would have no influence on his eternal prospects. There isn’t anything I could do to remove this burden from him, if it is in fact his chore.