What if everybody's Jesus?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 03:53 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;112606 wrote:
Beware the Pharisee, kids!! No offense, K, just razzing you. Is the myth dead for you? What's your poison? What myth moves you? Certainly you must like art, fiction, music, something subjective.


Just pointing out that if everyone is Jesus, then no one was Jesus. I love what you call, "subjective". I am just careful not to confuse it with the "objective" and, conversely.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 04:19 am
@dharma bum,
I respect that. But there is historical Jesus and mythl Jesus. Myth Jesus is more important. He spreads like Promise. You down with C.G. Jung? Or the mystical side of Plato?
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 04:28 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;112579 wrote:
If Christ is totality incarnate, he would include the lowest of the low, as well as being the lord of lords. It all depends on how you like your Jesus. I say Jesus is a mask, a magic wand, an incantation, a positronic trigger for individuation. Beam us up, lamb of Gott.


I think of Jesus as a person. An individual. Same way about Buddha. Same way about everybody. Everybody is not Jesus and Jesus is not everybody. No need to sacrifice individuality or personhood. It makes a better story that way.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 04:46 am
@dharma bum,
That's just it. I think the Christ myth is subversively individualistic. Hegel thought so to. Zizek wrote a book about this subversive core. Nietzsche was a disguised example of it. I made a thread "Absolute Subversive Christianity." I realize my view of Christ is idiosyncratic and Blakean. Also Jungian. THe point is that God takes the form of one man, and that this man has certain extra features, makes oracular statements, is publicly executed. How often is a God publicly executed as a criminal? The sublime myth has been associated with its opposite. Modern Applied Christianity is Caiaphas, not Jesus. Visit my thread if the subject interests you. I'd enjoy your feedback, even if you disagree.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 06:41 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;112618 wrote:
That's just it. I think the Christ myth is subversively individualistic. Hegel thought so to. Zizek wrote a book about this subversive core. Nietzsche was a disguised example of it. I made a thread "Absolute Subversive Christianity." I realize my view of Christ is idiosyncratic and Blakean. Also Jungian. THe point is that God takes the form of one man, and that this man has certain extra features, makes oracular statements, is publicly executed. How often is a God publicly executed as a criminal? The sublime myth has been associated with its opposite. Modern Applied Christianity is Caiaphas, not Jesus. Visit my thread if the subject interests you.


Don't forget self-sacrifice. I am basically an anarchist but the idea of a king that lays down his life for me...well that is the only type of king I could come close to swearing fealty to.

Visited the thread. Left a post.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 08:32 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;112613 wrote:
I respect that. But there is historical Jesus and mythl Jesus. Myth Jesus is more important. He spreads like Promise. You down with C.G. Jung? Or the mystical side of Plato?


"When everyone is somebody, no one is anybody" W.S. Gilbert
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 08:06 pm
@kennethamy,
Everybody is a Buddha
but
Not everybody is the Buddha
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 08:49 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;112835 wrote:
Everybody is a Buddha
but
Not everybody is the Buddha


I agree. Christ is a symbol, a carrot that draws the ass forward. Same with Buddha. An archetype is a numinous image, which is to say an emotional image. Emotion = movement.

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 09:52 PM ----------

kennethamy;112645 wrote:
"When everyone is somebody, no one is anybody" W.S. Gilbert



Don't worry K. Some have more courage and faith than others. I don't believe humans are equal. But I do want a culture that gives all humans basic rights (and a few basic privileges..). I'm politically in the center, but I'm cynical and competitive like any conservative.

The myth that "everyone is God" is not a myth for everyone. There will always be those who prefer being the lamb to being the lion. And I'm not saying you are one of them.

You're way off if you think I'm the sentimental type.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 09:14 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;112835 wrote:
Everybody is a Buddha
but
Not everybody is the Buddha


Isn't this analogous to something like this:

Every piece of furniture with legs, a back, and a seat is a chair.
but
Not every piece of furniture with legs, a back, and a seat is the chair I sit on.

Seems as though the "the X" depends on just which X we're speaking about; it depends on context. Every apple is a piece of fruit, but not every piece of fruit is the apple I'm eating.

But this doesn't seem that enlightening. So, perhaps I have misunderstood you.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 12:03 am
@dharma bum,
If we think of the hero with a thousand faces, many of us are one of the faces of the hero, but none of us are the "hero prime." A Jungian archetype cannot be experienced directly but must be inferred from many myths.

Jim the Buddhist is the husk of the kernel "the Buddha" and "the Buddha" is the husk of an archetype (Self/God Archetype) But Jim and the Buddha are in some ways on the same level. It depends on whether we take "the Buddha" for the myth or as a way to suggest the archetype behind the myth....

Self (Jung) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lose it or use it.
 
dan b
 
Reply Mon 28 Dec, 2009 11:28 pm
@Reconstructo,
If you study the bible you'll have seen that God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son. Gen.22;2 But then God stopped him short and counted it to him for righteousness.
Then about 2400 years later, after having us read and re-read all about Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his only son, God sacrificed his only son Jesus christ on the cross. Only he didn't hold back. If you think that it wasn't God's son, well poor God. He did that and just because you don't yet understand you slander him with negitive and half carring words. Praise the lord that he will probably forgive you as he said "forgive them father for they know not what they do." Then Jesus died. dan b
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:12 pm
@dharma bum,
Everyone is Jesus.....logically speaking. But Jesus is not supernatural, but only transcendental.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:57 pm
@dan b,
dan b;115216 wrote:
If you study the bible you'll have seen that God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son. Gen.22;2 But then God stopped him short and counted it to him for righteousness.
Then about 2400 years later, after having us read and re-read all about Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his only son, God sacrificed his only son Jesus christ on the cross. Only he didn't hold back. If you think that it wasn't God's son, well poor God. He did that and just because you don't yet understand you slander him with negitive and half carring words. Praise the lord that he will probably forgive you as he said "forgive them father for they know not what they do." Then Jesus died. dan b


There is absolutely NO reason why Jesus needed to die. Not for me, and not for anyone. I am not guilty of anything. You can call yourself guilty if you want to, but that only applies to you, not to me. Christianity is a game of guilt and sell. They guilt you into believing you are apart of some horrible crime then sell you the solution to keep you going around in circles of guilt and feeling the need to buy your way to heaven. It's nothing more than control and enslavement. So you can believe Jesus is necessary, but I don't care. Toss me into the pit if you want but it is all just make believe mental abuse.
 
melonkali
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 06:55 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;134911 wrote:
There is absolutely NO reason why Jesus needed to die. Not for me, and not for anyone. I am not guilty of anything. You can call yourself guilty if you want to, but that only applies to you, not to me. Christianity is a game of guilt and sell. They guilt you into believing you are apart of some horrible crime then sell you the solution to keep you going around in circles of guilt and feeling the need to buy your way to heaven. It's nothing more than control and enslavement. So you can believe Jesus is necessary, but I don't care. Toss me into the pit if you want but it is all just make believe mental abuse.


Once again referencing Peter's disciple Clement of Rome, in I Clement (representing, probably, the understanding of that very early church), Clement said that sacrifice was not the reason Jesus died; Clement referred listeners to Old Testament passages and Jesus's teachings that God does not desire blood sacrifices -- God in Heaven does not eat goats.

Per Clement, Christ was incarnated to give mankind an example we could understand, have a relationship with, and emulate. (Apparently men weren't doing too well at understanding what the "sun god" expected of us.) This role model had to include persecution, death and resurrection in order to effect change. I get the idea that "no resurrection" would have been a deal-breaker to the early church.

rebecca
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:05 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;134911 wrote:
There is absolutely NO reason why Jesus needed to die. Not for me, and not for anyone. I am not guilty of anything. You can call yourself guilty if you want to, but that only applies to you, not to me. Christianity is a game of guilt and sell. They guilt you into believing you are apart of some horrible crime then sell you the solution to keep you going around in circles of guilt and feeling the need to buy your way to heaven. It's nothing more than control and enslavement. So you can believe Jesus is necessary, but I don't care. Toss me into the pit if you want but it is all just make believe mental abuse.


I think you are right, absolutely, about this b.s. christianity that abuses its own myths.....

But there is an esoteric meaning to the Christ myth which is not the least bit superstitious but symbolic of the fundamental structure of the human mind....

Hegel saw this, and based his philosophy on it.. He was an atheist, and also, in a twisted sense, a Christian. It's all in my avatar.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:13 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134994 wrote:
I think you are right, absolutely, about this b.s. christianity that abuses its own myths.....

But there is an esoteric meaning to the Christ myth which is not the least bit superstitious but symbolic of the fundamental structure of the human mind....

Hegel saw this, and based his philosophy on it.. He was an atheist, and also, in a twisted sense, a Christian. It's all in my avatar.


Well I think you are wanting to find something because you are looking for a pattern. Just like a person laying back on the ground during a partially cloudy day sees all sorts of shapes and objects within the clouds. If you look hard enough you can turn a triangle into any possible three combination of things.

For the triangle you are proposing to even work, first you would have to sell me on the idea that a god or gods exist. So far there is nothing that I find satisfying to say that any such thing exists. So there goes one point of your triangle right there. If you collapse that point then all the other points pretty much lose their meaning as well.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:37 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;135002 wrote:
Well I think you are wanting to find something because you are looking for a pattern. Just like a person laying back on the ground during a partially cloudy day sees all sorts of shapes and objects within the clouds. If you look hard enough you can turn a triangle into any possible three combination of things.

For the triangle you are proposing to even work, first you would have to sell me on the idea that a god or gods exist. So far there is nothing that I find satisfying to say that any such thing exists. So there goes one point of your triangle right there. If you collapse that point then all the other points pretty much lose their meaning as well.


I understand your doubts. The triangle is just a symbol.. Let me ask you this..

Do you think that man's consciousness is structured? You probably do, for you are probably like me, a scientific type. In fact, I would be impressed if you are as hard core an atheist as I was, and really still am. Yes, I'm a total atheist in the usual sense of the word, more than I was a week ago.

Hegel discovered the foundation of logic and language. It's that simple. And it's structure is well represented by a cross or a triangle. Why? It's really quite simple. Man's mind, as Kant saw, structures its perception. It does this in two basic ways. Ideal geometry is an example of the first. We can't help but think of space in a particular way. In fact, we can't not think of space. The best we can do is think of empty space.

Kant knew this much.. But I don't think Kant knew the other transcendental, but perhaps I just haven't got that far. In any case, Hegel did know the other transcendental. And this transcendental is digital. We can't help but think of things as unities, or wholes. Even to think of pieces is to think of wholes. We can zoom in or out, but it's always unities.

All Hegel realized was that all religion was a misunderstanding of the human mind. The real is rational, because man is compulsively or transcendentally rational. By rational, I mean numerical,to speak loosely. (I'll complete this if you are interested, as it is tough). And this rationality is also at the core of language, or words. Like I said, we can only think in unities. Period.

But when we try to apply our digital thought to our transcendental geometry, we find that it doesn't work. That there is an infinity of numbers between any two numbers you choose. We can see in continuity, but we can only think in objects. Man is the collision of these two ways of experience reality, and nothing else. Except that this collision makes language possible, which allows us to culturally evolve.

Hegel is as scientific as the law of gravity. He's a thorough guy. He's just hard to understand. But he's the guy who found the foundation of logic & language itself.

In his view, we must accept our mortality in order to see the structure of our being. He also sees what Jung saw, that there is a sort of spiritual itch in us. And this is the source of human progress in every sense of the word. This itch is pure negativity, which cannot be conceived, but only represented imperfectly within our language. And wisdom is nothing but recognizing all of this.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:45 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134882 wrote:
Everyone is Jesus.....logically speaking. But Jesus is not supernatural, but only transcendental.


Jesus was the most supernatural person to ever walk the earth, he healed the blind, cured the lepers,walked on water, raised Lazarus from the dead, spoke words of wisdom like no other, he was dead but rose from the death in the resurrection, no more influential and remarkable person ever walked the earth, he is the true GODMAN
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 09:26 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;135047 wrote:
Jesus was the most supernatural person to ever walk the earth, he healed the blind, cured the lepers,walked on water, raised Lazarus from the dead, spoke words of wisdom like no other, he was dead but rose from the death in the resurrection, no more influential and remarkable person ever walked the earth, he is the true GODMAN


With respect, Alan, I think that Jesus is the perfect myth, the truth about the inside of man. We are the godmen, and Jesus is just our reflection, who exists to help us see this. Man and God are one, not separate, and this is why they strung up Jesus (in the myth), because they didn't want to hear it.

We are God, and the burden is on us. We can't shove it off to Heaven, which is only a metaphor for the beauty of this truth.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 09:33 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;135035 wrote:
I understand your doubts. The triangle is just a symbol.. Let me ask you this..

Do you think that man's consciousness is structured? You probably do, for you are probably like me, a scientific type. In fact, I would be impressed if you are as hard core an atheist as I was, and really still am. Yes, I'm a total atheist in the usual sense of the word, more than I was a week ago.

Hegel discovered the foundation of logic and language. It's that simple. And it's structure is well represented by a cross or a triangle. Why? It's really quite simple. Man's mind, as Kant saw, structures its perception. It does this in two basic ways. Ideal geometry is an example of the first. We can't help but think of space in a particular way. In fact, we can't not think of space. The best we can do is think of empty space.

Kant knew this much.. But I don't think Kant knew the other transcendental, but perhaps I just haven't got that far. In any case, Hegel did know the other transcendental. And this transcendental is digital. We can't help but think of things as unities, or wholes. Even to think of pieces is to think of wholes. We can zoom in or out, but it's always unities.

All Hegel realized was that all religion was a misunderstanding of the human mind. The real is rational, because man is compulsively or transcendentally rational. By rational, I mean numerical,to speak loosely. (I'll complete this if you are interested, as it is tough). And this rationality is also at the core of language, or words. Like I said, we can only think in unities. Period.

But when we try to apply our digital thought to our transcendental geometry, we find that it doesn't work. That there is an infinity of numbers between any two numbers you choose. We can see in continuity, but we can only think in objects. Man is the collision of these two ways of experience reality, and nothing else. Except that this collision makes language possible, which allows us to culturally evolve.

Hegel is as scientific as the law of gravity. He's a thorough guy. He's just hard to understand. But he's the guy who found the foundation of logic & language itself.

In his view, we must accept our mortality in order to see the structure of our being. He also sees what Jung saw, that there is a sort of spiritual itch in us. And this is the source of human progress in every sense of the word. This itch is pure negativity, which cannot be conceived, but only represented imperfectly within our language. And wisdom is nothing but recognizing all of this.


Well how about diving right into neuroscience? Some experiments were conducted on the brain. I want to mention the split hemisphere tests specifically. The left side of the brain controls speech, where the right side has no speech ability at all. However the right side controls a majority of activity and knows why it does what it is doing, but the left side can not process why the right side is doing what it is doing. However the right side can read simple words and symbols. What they did was, they took several patients who had their hemispheres of their brain severed and ran some simple logical experiments. What they would do is coordinate very simple questions focused directly to each hemisphere. What happened was remarkable. The right hemisphere was asked, do you believe in god and the answer was no, but then asked the same question to the left hemisphere and the answer was yes.

What they determined is that the left side of the brain is constantly trying to make sense of reality, by splitting the data into categories and further deducing it to make sense of what is going on. A bunch of guess work basically. Where as the right side of the brain doesn't bother to struggle to comprehend the experiences at all, it just lets the data be what it is. What this means is, the self is only an illusion, and the thoughts of the self are only important to the left side of the brain. This is also found to be the only location that the idea of god arises. The left side is trying to interpret reality and so it makes a bunch of guesses to try and make sense of the data streaming in.

If anyone is the closest, it would be Kant. I don't think reality is pure reason but I know it is not some mysterious disembodied mind. There is no need for there to be an outside source. In my opinion people invent these ideas to try and make themselves feel better about reality.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 11/27/2022 at 09:47:43