Defining the Christian Life

I find your acid-induced hallucinations to be more amusing.

Just like one of Rehnquist's Fourth Reich questers lynching enforcement from the 1970's. 1980's & 1990's with fabricated misnomers & immaculate drug conceptions in that "man is God" Christian Life interpretation of one nation under God tautology of "serve the Pope or die" still cross conditioned way beyond therapy.
 
Given that the 'God' concept has grown difficult to adjust to in terms of what we know of the universe, the Christian life amounts to 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'. Sounds okay to me.
 
Given that the 'God' concept has grown difficult to adjust to in terms of what we know of the universe, the Christian life amounts to 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'. Sounds okay to me.

That was the intended Christian life, my Welsh friend.
Here in the States, Evangelical Christians are among the least likely to embrace this concept.
 
That was the intended Christian life, my Welsh friend.
Here in the States, Evangelical Christians are among the least likely to embrace this concept.

Living the authentic Christian life is difficult to achieve and requires enormous commitment. That is why the preeminent 19th century religious philosopher Soren Kierkegaard maintained that most self-identified Christians were just a mob going through the motions.
 
Just like one of Rehnquist's Fourth Reich questers lynching enforcement from the 1970's. 1980's & 1990's with fabricated misnomers & immaculate drug conceptions in that "man is God" Christian Life interpretation of one nation under God tautology of "serve the Pope or die" still cross conditioned way beyond therapy.

Too much of the Brown Acid?
 
Given that the 'God' concept has grown difficult to adjust to in terms of what we know of the universe, the Christian life amounts to 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'. Sounds okay to me.

Non sequitur. Now, if you said "literal Biblical interpretation", I agree 100%. There is whatever force is behind the Universe (call it a force, God, X, whatever) and there's mankind's interpretations of the Universe.

Example; Do facts change? Never. Facts are facts. OTOH, mankind's perception of the Universe, such a Ptolemy vs. Copernicus, does change....and quite often.
 
Given that the 'God' concept has grown difficult to adjust to in terms of what we know of the universe, the Christian life amounts to 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'. Sounds okay to me.

The third most important person in Christianity after Jesus and Paul, Saint Augustine, explicitly maintained that biblical interpretation should always be re-interpreted to conform to the latest accepted scholarly knowledge of the natural world -- and biblical literalism and inerrancy was never a tenet of Christianity until the Luther and Calvin made it a tenet of Protestantism
 
Non sequitur. Now, if you said "literal Biblical interpretation", I agree 100%. There is whatever force is behind the Universe (call it a force, God, X, whatever) and there's mankind's interpretations of the Universe.

Example; Do facts change? Never. Facts are facts. OTOH, mankind's perception of the Universe, such a Ptolemy vs. Copernicus, does change....and quite often.
I like ”to name god is not God.”
 
I like ”to name god is not God.”

Agreed. It's always been odd to me when a Bible-Thumper says I have to believe in a specific God while thumping his Bible. By doing so he (rarely she) is limiting God.

QoHCJir.jpg
 
I like ”to name god is not God.”

"Of course, one cannot declare that only my faith is correct and all other faiths are not. Of course God is endlessly multi-dimensional so every religion that exists on earth represents some face, some side of God."

-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
 
"Of course, one cannot declare that only my faith is correct and all other faiths are not. Of course God is endlessly multi-dimensional so every religion that exists on earth represents some face, some side of God."

-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Solzhenitsyn is very eloquent. The "diamond facet" theory applies: As mortals, we are limited in our capacity as humans to see the entirety of a diamond all at once. We can only look at it one facet at a time. Such is the nature of the force behind the Universe.

Happy May Day to all pagans and commies, past and present, and an early May the Fourth be with You!

logo_starwarsday-600x294.png
 
Solzhenitsyn is very eloquent. The "diamond facet" theory applies: As mortals, we are limited in our capacity as humans to see the entirety of a diamond all at once. We can only look at it one facet at a time. Such is the nature of the force behind the Universe.

Happy May Day to all pagans and commies, past and present, and an early May the Fourth be with You!

logo_starwarsday-600x294.png

Same to you, Chap!
 
Agreed. It's always been odd to me when a Bible-Thumper says I have to believe in a specific God while thumping his Bible. By doing so he (rarely she) is limiting God.

QoHCJir.jpg

A good post.
As far as I can tell, all religions, and many philosophical traditions share two main tenets:

1) Human existence has meaning.
2) There exists an eternal, transcendent truth.

I believe even the agnostics and atheists associated with Transcendentalism, Existentialism, Confucianism share these tenets.

The only intellectual traditions which probably lie outside this line of human tradition are nihilism, logical positivism, strict empiricism, largely because they consider questions about a transcendent truth to be irrelevant, perhaps even foolish.
 
A good post.
As far as I can tell, all religions, and many philosophical traditions share two main tenets:

1) Human existence has meaning.
2) There exists an eternal, transcendent truth.

I believe even the agnostics and atheists associated with Transcendentalism, Existentialism, Confucianism share these tenets.

The only intellectual traditions which probably lie outside this line of human tradition are nihilism, logical positivism, strict empiricism, largely because they consider questions about a transcendent truth to be irrelevant, perhaps even foolish.

No philosophical tradition believes in transcendent truth.
 
The tennis people and golf people at my club barely interact, socially.

In some cases, though, a wife will be in the first group and a husband in the second.
The inverse is far less frequent.
I'm not sure why.
 
A good post.
As far as I can tell, all religions, and many philosophical traditions share two main tenets:

1) Human existence has meaning.
2) There exists an eternal, transcendent truth.

I believe even the agnostics and atheists associated with Transcendentalism, Existentialism, Confucianism share these tenets.

The only intellectual traditions which probably lie outside this line of human tradition are nihilism, logical positivism, strict empiricism, largely because they consider questions about a transcendent truth to be irrelevant, perhaps even foolish.

Agreed on the two basic tenets. IIRC, there are very few who actually believe "when you're dead, you're dead", something on the order of <4%
 
No philosophical tradition believes in transcendent truth.
The underlying tenet of Plato is a transcendental truth.

Platonism, neoplatonism, Transcendentalism, Stoicism, Confucianism, Daoism to name a few. Immanuel Kant and Soren Kierkegaard certainly considered a higher truth or a divine reality within reach of the human experience.
 
Transcendent (adjective) - Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.

Example: ‘the search for a transcendent level of knowledge’
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/transcendent

^ Many philosophical and intellectual traditions and philosophers subscribe to this.

On the flipside, the logical positivists and the empiricists are the intellectual traditions which assert all human knowlege and experience is limited to sensory perception.
 
Back
Top