Which Religion is the biggest physical threat?

[Thorngrub]

ritalinpants said:

upinkzeppelin2 said:

among all of us, a totally sane and balanced person (in complete harmony with life/death/universe) would stand out like a sore thumb.


Yeah, we might even crucify Him.

witty.

but misleading.

the entire corpus of christian belief, theology and world-outlook is more than the work of one man. you would have to include the gospel authors, St. Paul, Augustine, the early Church Fathers, theologians, even greek platonists and mystics.

How dare you ascribe the entire culture to one man. it's unsound. He was an impassioned jewish evangelical who was born and died. and perhaps (very probably) said and preached words and deeds dissimilar to orthodox Christian tenets, as they are now held.

dude, take a chill pill why don't ya? Speaking of "misleading", Melaun just made a funny, give him a break. It's called "a joke", a "one liner", and it is intended to elicit but a chuckle from those who read it. A chuckle: no more. How dare you accuse Melaun of ascribing the entire culture to one man ? It's unsound. Witty, maybe. But misleading.

[Rit]

are you trying to test the Lord's patience? i'll hurl a thunderbolt at u!

[Rit]

anyway, i was doing as i always do on this religion board in particular. i try to remind the Literalists that frequent the board of ways that they might be taking the Scriptures in ways and means unintended by univeral humanity.

whether they reply or not is not up to me.

[Thorngrub]

Well now that I eased the tension he should reply ;D

[Rit]

i doubt it. i'm probably seen as a spawn of the Antichrist.

[upinkzeppelin2]

Eeeeevil. Like the fruuuiiiits of the deveeel.

[Rit]

"The notion of God's body is a both a concept, something we can grasp but not imagine, and a metaphor, something we can imagine by releasing what we grasp and letting it fall into endless metaphorical change."
-Gordon Teskey

[Thorngrub]

That's nice, now try this on for size:

"The notion of God's soul is both a concrete reality, something we cannot grasp but only imagine, and an internalized speculation, something we cannot openly perceive without the aid of powerful hallucinogens."
- Thorn Grub

[Rit]

if it's a concrete reality, why is it we can't grasp it, but only imagine it?

if it's only an internalized speculation, then what's the point of dreaming about God? there is none.

[Rit]

i prefer Teskey's definition, which at least has metaphorical consistency

[Thorngrub]

ritalinpants said:

if it's a concrete reality, why is it we can't grasp it, but only imagine it?

if it's only an internalized speculation, then what's the point of dreaming about God? there is none.

I will deal with your questions twofold:

1/ My quote was totally snarky, hence shouldn't be taken seriously.

however . . . because hidden w/in the snarkiness are shades of lingering "truthiness", I will endeavor to answer your questions anyhow:

2/

ritalinpants said:

if it's a concrete reality, why is it we can't grasp it, but only imagine it?

Answer: Because it is a concrete reality from another realm entirely outside ours. i.e, from outside our singularity... (hence requiring our imaginations to perceive...)

ritalinpants said:

if it's only an internalized speculation, then what's the point of dreaming about God? there is none.

Answer: The 'internalized' speculations - our thought processes heralded by our perceptions -- are about that which is imbedded within our genetic code. Being rather "secretly" implanted therein, it has been established that entheogens open our minds up to perceiving the dormant Godhood within (and without) us.


-----------------------------


"The notion of God's soul is both a concrete reality, something we cannot grasp but only imagine, and an internalized speculation, something we cannot openly perceive without the aid of powerful hallucinogens."
- Thorn Grub

[Thorngrub]

ritalinpants said:

i prefer Teskey's definition, which at least has metaphorical consistency

Although mine was a snarky response, because I actually 'flipped' an even number of variables in Teskey's quote (the same way you would "balance a chemical equation"), then the consistency has been retained. (Had I flipped an odd number of variables - the consistency would not have been retained.) So my quote was just an "inversion" to fathom Teskey's wisdom from another side, or angle, so to speak.

[Rit]

snarkiness makes the world go round. so i don't mind it.

as to your cheeky replies,

1.) can we ever know of a Concreteness outside of our reality? how do you know that you know this?

2.) Aristotle considered that there were 3 types of knowledge: Mathematical, Physical, and Metaphsyical (or theological). You seem to have combined two of them in some unholy matrimony of deviant grace and have come up with a neurobiological-theological speculation as to the nature of the Godhead. Ontological boundaries have been crossed and squeezed for a glimpse at the Holy Idea. I would say that this is not possible because the three general categories really do describe entirely different processes....
...HOWEVER, letting my guard down for the time being and permitting this to stand, i would only ask how these entheogens operate.. do they combine to make God visible, or do they create God invisible in this reality?

[Rit]

thorny said:

ritalinpants said:

i prefer Teskey's definition, which at least has metaphorical consistency

Although mine was a snarky response, because I actually 'flipped' an even number of variables in Teskey's quote (the same way you would "balance a chemical equation"), then the consistency has been retained. (Had I flipped an odd number of variables - the consistency would not have been retained.) So my quote was just an "inversion" to fathom Teskey's wisdom from another side, or angle, so to speak.

not all direct inversions are consistent. like a mirror image perverting notions of right and left, most inversions are quite unholy.

[Thorngrub]

Nothing is unholy (and only nothing).

~

ritalinpants said:

snarkiness makes the world go round. so i don't mind it.

as to your cheeky replies,

1.) can we ever know of a Concreteness outside of our reality? how do you know that you know this?

Yes, we can know of a Concreteness outside of our reality, but this knowledge can only be tempered by faith.

ritalinpants said:

...HOWEVER, letting my guard down for the time being and permitting this to stand, i would only ask how these entheogens operate.. do they combine to make God visible, or do they create God invisible in this reality?

The wikipedia entry defines an entheogen as "that which causes God (or godly inspiration) to be within a person".

I find that definition wholly lacking in subtlety and grace. Cleaving more toward accuracy, I would modify this definition as follows:

"That which allows God (or godly inspiration) to be discerned within a person" ,

i.e, an entheogen is a chemical configuration found in nature as well as having been synthesized in a laboratory, which, when ingested, allows a person's perceptions to sharpen infinitesimally to the point they are able to "see the forest for the trees", that is, to visualize and comprehend the true nature of their existance and relationship with reality.

So to answer your question "do they combine to make God visible, or do they create God invisible in this reality?",

My own guess (which is as good as yours) is the former, that they combine (with our own neurotransmitters and brain processes) to make God "visible" to our perception.