I’m just going to start this post and hopefully the thread will stay on topic.
I myself (as I suppose I must designate myself as “something” (other than simply human, which to my mind would suffice)),
am what could be called a Humanistic Psycho-physical Individualist, which means I comprehend all the claims of philosophy and religion as both directly and indirectly referring to Human Psychophysical Self-conscious Evolution.
Having said that, I will thus pre-pose what I have come to comprehend, through a lifetime of study, to be the meaning of “the Son of God”.
And then we let the debate (the 'Physisis vs. anti-physical' debate) proceed from there.
Therefore:
What appalls me, at least concerning the majority of people I've run up against, is that they do not even comprehend, let alone apprehend, what the Christian Religion--
(by which I mean its infrastructure, being: the Virgin Contemplation (or Birth) of God; the ego-Death involved in the New Testament’s evolved Humanistic Individualism, by which one sees that one CAN be more than one is, but only if one 'dies' to one's smaller self; and the Resurrection of the Mind and Body as One)--
is that It, The underlying Christian Message, is a Humanism; and that the progression of “the gospel,” as told,, if read philosophically (as, I believe, it was intentionally written to be so read),, is the "Enlightenment" most persons would call Spirituality.
Which 'Spirituality' is not different than what "The Incarnation" definitively signifies: namely, that "the Mind and the Body are One."
M+B=S. {
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Having read this over, "infinitely equa-looped" might better be described as the infinite obliqualoop. That is imagine the infininity sign projecting from the crown of your head to a space above your head. That is, in lieu of Jacob's Ladder a torus of self-revealing knowledge.
I don't think the biblical god is a humanist. he seems to be focus on himself.
The "focus on himself", which is true, is, notice, a focus on the negation of himself; being "he who is taken out of the way"...
There is no mediator between man and God. But Christianity the religion (as opposed to the New Testament scripts) reversed this, but without the explanation thereunto as writ therein (--or else edited out over the millennia).
That is to say, if--as the gospel story goes--Jesus represents our higher self, then our higher self (the ideal) has to die so that 'his' or 'her' lifeblood may flow down upon us, the lower self, and thus bring the two, higher and lower, to a one: being the atonement; or the at-one-meant.
Therefore, when the New Testament states that 'there is no way to the Father except through the Son,' this is true because the Son is negated in the process (that is, the ideal symbol of our higher self is being self-reflexively negated through our Virgin Contemplation of God): hence it is said that he was crucified before the world (as in it, as on a stage) and before the world (as prior to it, meaning purposively; a priorily).
The ideal of our higher Self must die in order that we may ascend unto being our higher Self.
Popularly, literarily this is stated: "The King Must Die"; and more recently, "If you see the Buddha on the roadside, kill him."
I meant to write right after "The ideal of our higher Self must die in order that we may ascend unto being our higher Self,"--
thus the symbol is broken open and becomes understandable. For which it was said, He broke the law like bread to share with all, yet without 'breaking the law'.
One more addition. About the At-one-meant. When The Sword of Longinus pierced the heart of our higher Self both blood and water came forth; meaning, respectively, the will of God (blood; wine) and the will of the people (water).
> Thus Humanist.
I know that "the Church" added and detracted to and from the scriptures through the millennia, but if one reads the New Testament enough times in a row (especially the letters between the Gospels and the book of Revelation) one begins to see the infrastructure of its underlying philosophy, which is for consciously humanistic evolution: both individually (first) as well as socially (resultantly).
And John said 'he looked upon the Son and saw him as a Lamb Slain'. The Ideal as seal broken and understood.
Amenace!
It seems that all new life, of necessity, must grow from scar tissue.