The comprehensibility of God

[+Hammerclaw]

19 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Thank you, John. Leave it to you to be a sterling example of inclusivity.  

It was the Nun's evening orison at Saint Mary's Hospital Mom spent months in recovering from back surgery. They were wonderful to her and so grateful if you acknowledged their presence with a simple good morning or evening, Sister.

[XenoFish]

Oh ye men and women of this world. Harken unto my words so that I might heal your deaf ears and blind eyes. Yes I have the knowledge and power to do such thing. For I know, indeed I know, I know.

Five paragraphs later of the same thing.

Truth is. All of this is just a meaning making game. A way to understand life. To in many ways validate our otherwise meaningless and honestly pointless existence. 

Some adhere to faith, science, philosophy, etc. Placing some type of self interested value onto themselves.

Carry on, carry on.

Edited June 22, 2022 by XenoFish

[lightly]

     What is righteousness? What is it based on? 
I reckon man invented gods as explanations (comprehensibility) of all that was unexplainable.?  I believe in  spirit  it puzzles me that some believe in spiritual ity   but not spirit.?     anyway ..Natural forces are powerful..but, only man can perceive them as Violent?  Violence is a strictly human ability.?  The natural world exists by destruction and creation.. and life forms exist by consuming each other..it is man that perceives it as Killing?   A cat sometimes plays with a mouse until it dies, and is eaten.  It isn’t cruelty..it is simply natural behavior.  Only man can be cruel ..or evil?  Only man has intentions?   Animals ,of which we are one, are capable of Love ..it is observable.   But only man seems capable of Hate? Odd isn’t it?  (I believe cruelty, hate, and evil ,any sort of perceived Power over another, are all rooted in Fear)  but ..What I’m trying to get back to is the concept of Righteousness.. it puzzles me. . what is it based on?    The golden rule?  
     Thanks Will, and everyone

Edited June 22, 2022 by lightly

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

     What is righteousness? What is it based on? 
I reckon man invented gods as explanations (comprehensibility) of all that was unexplainable.?  I believe in  spirit  it puzzles me that some believe in spiritual ity   but not spirit.?     anyway ..Natural forces are powerful..but, only man can perceive them as Violent?  Violence is a strictly human ability.?  The natural world exists by destruction and creation.. and life forms exist by consuming each other..it is man that perceives it as Killing?   A cat sometimes plays with a mouse until it dies, and is eaten.  It isn’t cruelty..it is simply natural behavior.  Only man can be cruel ..or evil?  Only man has intentions?   Animals ,of which we are one, are capable of Love ..it is observable.   But only man seems capable of Hate? Odd isn’t it?  (I believe cruelty, hate, and evil ,any sort of perceived Power over another, are all rooted in Fear)  but ..What I’m trying to get back to is the concept of Righteousness.. it puzzles me. . what is it based on?    The golden rule?  
     Thanks Will, and everyone

Lightly, this would be a good thread. Great question to ponder and explore. 

[+Sherapy]

17 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

The whole “Money-lenders in the Temple” debacle for starters which had always been considered sacrilege until the latter centuries BC. 
 

More like the old ways of worshipping had become highly corrupted in the last century or so BC and a new, more tolerant  way of worshiping God had to take its place. It had nothing to do with changing religions. 
 

cormac

Exactly, based on the actual passage it is about fasting. Nada to do with changing religions. 

18 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

How did you come to the conclusion that Jesus was trying to reform Judaism and also conclude at the same time that he wasn't trying to start a new religion?

And as a follow-up, since you're willing to accept what the record supposedly says about him trying to reform the religion of his forefathers and not to establish a new religion on its own, what do you think he was saying when he said this:

"Men do not put new wine into old wine skins, lest the new wine burst the skins so that both the wine and the skins perish. The wise man puts the new wine into fresh wine skins.

Seems to me what he was saying was that the old wine skin of his forefather's religion shouldn't be used again because if it was, it would burst when the new wine of the new religion was put therein.

 

 

In the context of the parable read in its entirety it seems the question and answer is about fasting. 
 

¹⁴ Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often,^[a] but your disciples do not fast?” ¹⁵ And Jesus said to them, “The wedding attendants cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. ¹⁶ No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak, for the patch pulls away from the cloak, and a worse tear is made. ¹⁷ Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are ruined, but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+9%3A14-17&version=NRSVUE

Edited June 22, 2022 by Sherapy

[cormac mac airt]

15 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

 

In the context of the parable read in its entirety it seems the question and answer is about fasting. 
 

¹⁴ Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often,^[a] but your disciples do not fast?” ¹⁵ And Jesus said to them, “The wedding attendants cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. ¹⁶ No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak, for the patch pulls away from the cloak, and a worse tear is made. ¹⁷ Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are ruined, but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+9%3A14-17&version=NRSVUE

Outwardly the question was about fasting but inwardly, and because of how the leaders had corrupted Judaism, I believe he was saying that while the Old Guard couldn’t be changed there was another way for a newer mindset that was needed and he would be the center of that. Same religion, different way to see and represent it. 
 

At least the way it’s written, which again cannot with any specificity be shown to have actually originated with him. 
 

cormac

Edited June 22, 2022 by cormac mac airt

[XenoFish]

10 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Outwardly the question was about fasting but inwardly, and because of how the leaders had corrupted Judaism, I believe he was saying that while the Old Guard couldn’t be changed there was another way for a newer mindset that was needed and he would be the center of that. Same religion, different way to see and represent it. 
 

At least the way it’s written, which again cannot with any specificity be shown to have actually originated with him. 
 

cormac

What it looks like to me (I could be wrong) is that Christianity is basically a streamlined version of Judaism. By trying to reduce it to the least moving parts and giving personal spiritual power/authority/connection to the believer.

 

[cormac mac airt]

6 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

What it looks like to me (I could be wrong) is that Christianity is basically a streamlined version of Judaism. By trying to reduce it to the least moving parts and giving personal spiritual power/authority/connection to the believer.

 

That’s another good way of seeing it. 
 

cormac

[+Sherapy]

23 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Outwardly the question was about fasting but inwardly, and because of how the leaders had corrupted Judaism, I believe he was saying that while the Old Guard couldn’t be changed there was another way for a newer mindset that was needed and he would be the center of that. Same religion, different way to see and represent it. 
 

At least the way it’s written, which again cannot with any specificity be shown to have actually originated with him. 
 

cormac

An add too, for me, Will could get a good grasp of Judaism  by watching “Fiddler on the  Roof” too. You are correct new mindsets are born all the time especially in the context of friends and family and the things they believe. Because some religions try to be static doesn’t mean they actually are. 
 

And, really, you make a great point it is speculation because we really don’t strive to worship idolize literary characters as a religious practice, Jesus of the Bible is a fictional character, we strive to glean wisdom if there is any, apply it go from there. My take away is nothing is written in stone. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

What it looks like to me (I could be wrong) is that Christianity is basically a streamlined version of Judaism. By trying to reduce it to the least moving parts and giving personal spiritual power/authority/connection to the believer.

 

This is a great add too.

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

An add too, for me, Will could get a good grasp of Judaism  by watching “Fiddler on the  Roof” too. You are correct new mindsets are born all the time especially in the context of friends and family. Because some religions try to be static doesn’t mean they actually are. 
 

And, really, you make a great point it is speculation because we really don’t aim to worship literary characters, Jesus of the Bible is a fictional character, we can glean wisdom though, apply it go from there. My take away is nothing is written in stone. 

Unless it’s cuneiform. 
 

Sorry, I couldn’t resist. 
 

cormac

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

This is a great add too.

I'll try to elaborate on this later.

[+Sherapy]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Unless it’s cuneiform. 
 

Sorry, I couldn’t resist. 
 

cormac

Ahahahaha good one

[Will Due]

 

I just have one question about the reform of the existing religion.

If Jesus set out to reform or revise or update the religion of his forefathers, why didn't Judaism end up being reformed?

If Christianity in reality, in the regard that we're talking about this, is Judaism reformed, then Judaism wasn't reformed and Christianity became a separate and new religion. Did it not?

The way I see it, this speaks to the fact that Jesus wasn't a reformer. The parable of the cloak and the wine clearly indicate the futility of pasting something new onto something old and that when that is attempted, everything becomes ruined. I think he made it pretty clear that his mission was not to reform the old religion but rather to replace it.

It seems to me that Jesus was definitely trying to instill in the minds and hearts of the people an entirely new way to be religious. To be religious directly and interactive with the creator God who he said many times, dwelt within, meaning there was no more need for religious authority from men, meaning there was no more need for rituals, meaning there were many things about the old ways that were irrelevant. Like how the Jewish priests got all upset because Jesus refused to wash his hands before every meal. By not washing his hands, he rebuked the priests with their unnecessary demands. And many other things that the hierarchy of the leadership of the Jews thought was blasphemy when he didn't follow their unwritten laws. The new religion that Jesus taught, transferred religious authority from the priest to the people as individuals. He taught that every person had the authority to interact with God directly without anyone else intervening.

Jesus spoke often that what he was intending the people to learn was liberating, was something that would set them free. Set them free from the bondage of the old ways.

All of this, of course put him in direct opposition to the leadership of the religion of the Jews. And that created a very dangerous situation which resulted in him being taken out for in effect, calling them out for their spiritual hypocrisy. The priest knew what they were doing. That they were taking advantage of the people.

So no, Jesus wasn't about reforming the old religion. What he wanted to do was to establish something new. And that something new was revolutionary in almost every way to the extent that now people could relate and interact with God as their Father and themselves as his child and be free to learn from him directly without burden how to live the way he intended men and women to live. In my opinion what he was doing wasn't to replace one thing with another one religion with another religion but in effect to create a new definition of what religion really is in the first place.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Will Due

[cormac mac airt]

13 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I just have one question about the reform of the existing religion.

If Jesus set out to reform or revise or update the religion of his forefathers, why didn't Judaism end up being reformed?

If Christianity in reality, in the regard that we're talking about this, is Judaism reformed, then Judaism wasn't reformed and Christianity became a separate and new religion. Did it not?

The way I see it, this speaks to the fact that Jesus wasn't a reformer. The parable of the cloak and the wine clearly indicate the futility of pasting something new onto something old and that when that is attempted, everything becomes ruined. I think you made it pretty clear that his mission was not to reform the old religion but rather to replace it.

It seems to me that Jesus was definitely trying to instill in them minds and hearts of the people an entirely new way to be religious. To be religious directly and interactive with the creator God who he said many times, dwelt within, meaning there was no more need for religious authority from men, meaning there was no more need for rituals, meaning there were many things about the old ways that were irrelevant. Like how the Jewish priests got all upset because Jesus refused to wash his hands before every meal. And many other things that the hierarchy of the leadership of the Jews thought was blasphemy when he didn't follow their unwritten laws. The new religion that Jesus taught transferred religious authority from the priest to the people as individuals. He taught that every person had the authority to interact with God directly without anyone else intervening.

Jesus spoke often that what he was intending to teach the people was liberating, was something that would set them free. Set them free from the bondage of the old ways.

All of this, of course put him in direct opposition to the leadership of the religion of the Jews. And that created a very dangerous situation which resulted in him being taken out for in effect, calling them out for their spiritual hypocrisy. 

So no, Jesus wasn't about reforming the old religion. What he wanted to do was to establish something new. And that something was revolutionary to the extent that now people could relate and interact with God as their Father and themselves as his child and be free to learn from him directly without burden how to live the way he intended men and women to live.

 

 

Because the Jews in general refused to accept there was anything wrong with the way they were doing things and the Jewish leaders specifically refused to give up their powers to what they considered an upstart following that threatened same. 
 

I never said Christianity was Judaism reformed, I said Jesus was ATTEMPTING to Reform Judaism, there’s a distinction. Ultimately his reform failed as his followers pushed his teachings to the extreme, so much so that it caused a schism within Judaism effectively creating the new religion, Christianity. 
 

cormac

[Will Due]

11 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Because the Jews in general refused to accept there was anything wrong with the way they were doing things and the Jewish leaders specifically refused to give up their powers to what they considered an upstart following that threatened same. 
 

I never said Christianity was Judaism reformed, I said Jesus was ATTEMPTING to Reform Judaism, there’s a distinction. Ultimately his reform failed as his followers pushed his teachings to the extreme, so much so that it caused a schism within Judaism effectively creating the new religion, Christianity. 
 

cormac

 

Well maybe now Christianity is the religion that needs to be reformed. But the same problem still exists. The problem of putting the new wine (of the unrealized heart and soul of his teachings) into the old wine skins (of the schism that Christianity undesirably became as an offshoot of Judaism).

 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Will Due

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Well maybe now Christianity is the religion that needs to be reformed. But the same problem still exists. The problem of putting new wine of the unrealized heart and soul of his teachings into the old wine skins of the schism that Christianity undesirably became as an offshoot of Judaism.

It’s too late for a reform as there are far too many denominations of Christianity worldwide. Regardless of what Jesus, the man, attempted to do Paul and others two generations after his death pushed his alleged ideas to such an extreme that much like a snowball going downhill it gained so much momentum they were no longer able to fully control it. Hence the screwed up mess we have today. 
 

cormac

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

It’s too late for a reform as there are far too many denominations of Christianity worldwide. Regardless of what Jesus, the man, attempted to do Paul and others two generations after his death pushed his alleged ideas to such an extreme that much like a snowball going downhill it gained so much momentum they were no longer able to fully control it. Hence the screwed up mess we have today. 
 

cormac

 

I think the problem that Christianity has is that Paul didn't stick to only the ideas of Jesus, but instead allowed his own ideas to creep in as well as many other ideas that weren't original with Jesus.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

I think the problem that Christianity has is that Paul didn't stick to only the ideas of Jesus, but instead allowed his own ideas to creep in as well as many other ideas that weren't original with Jesus.

I don’t disagree. The problem is though that he effectively crapped all over Jesus’ intentions to make this division-cum-religion what HE (Paul) wanted it to be. Sadly it looks like it worked. And Christians, and you BTW, have largely accepted it hook, line and sinker. Sorry to have to tell you that but it’s true nonetheless.
 

cormac

[XenoFish]

@Sherapy

It's just that the more I look at Christianity the less is looks external and more inward. From praying in private (secret) or internalized prayers. Too a moral foundation that is more about doing good than anything else. With it amount to no one actually knowing you were a Christian due to all of the privacy in its practice. That's how I took it when I was a Christian and I never understood the church and its supposed authority. That all felt as if it was for show. 

Just my take. Probably wrong.

[jmccr8]

5 hours ago, lightly said:

to is the concept of Righteousness.. it puzzles me. . what is it based on?

Hi Lightly

I think it is based on how egos exist in social settings to the advantage of the whole.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

@Sherapy

It's just that the more I look at Christianity the less is looks external and more inward. From praying in private (secret) or internalized prayers. Too a moral foundation that is more about doing good than anything else. With it amount to no one actually knowing you were a Christian due to all of the privacy in its practice. That's how I took it when I was a Christian and I never understood the church and its supposed authority. That all felt as if it was for show. 

Just my take. Probably wrong.

I like your takeaway; in my day to day life I know some cool Christian’s who even meditate and use their belief as a way to blend a lot of influences. I find your experience valuable thank you for sharing. 

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Lightly

I think it is based on how egos exist in social settings to the advantage of the whole.

I love this, keeping up with the Jones’s all about the talk bs (belief system), not the walk. Not in every expression, but definitely one approach. 

[XenoFish]

7 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I like your takeaway; in my day to day life I know some cool Christian’s who even meditate and use their belief as a way to blend a lot of influences. I find your experience valuable thank you for sharing. 

It's that whole "light unto the world" part that caught my mind. I feel like there is living by faith and using faith as a front. Even the idea of prayer is different for me. I know many like to ask why can't god regrow an arm. I don't think that is important. From my personal perspective I feel that falls on us. This is our world. We are the force for good. In my mind it is not a bad thing to pray for another, it is when you do for them that matter. Praying for a sick friend and also asking them if you can help. Faith in actions. The only prayers and even spell that worked for me were always asking for help. For strength, for guidence, for wisdom, etc. Very few of the external stuff happened. 

Confession time: During the early days of my crisis which lead me to depression, etc (you know the story). I asked for help. I took a vow and fulfilled that vow. Through that whole phase of my life I got everything I needed. My needs were met to the best degree. On one hand I can call this luck or I can assign higher meaning to it all. This also created a crisis of faith. In many ways I feel that my prayers had been answered due to my willingness to act. 

Even now I have an inner struggle with this.

[+Sherapy]

11 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

It's that whole "light unto the world" part that caught my mind. I feel like there is living by faith and using faith as a front. Even the idea of prayer is different for me. I know many like to ask why can't god regrow an arm. I don't think that is important. From my personal perspective I feel that falls on us. This is our world. We are the force for good. In my mind it is not a bad thing to pray for another, it is when you do for them that matter. Praying for a sick friend and also asking them if you can help. Faith in actions. The only prayers and even spell that worked for me were always asking for help. For strength, for guidence, for wisdom, etc. Very few of the external stuff happened. 

Confession time: During the early days of my crisis which lead me to depression, etc (you know the story). I asked for help. I took a vow and fulfilled that vow. Through that whole phase of my life I got everything I needed. My needs were met to the best degree. On one hand I can call this luck or I can assign higher meaning to it all. This also created a crisis of faith. In many ways I feel that my prayers had been answered due to my willingness to act. 

Even now I have an inner struggle with this.

Great story, thank you for sharing. I like your take, you even include your love of magic. Very cool.