The links whenever present are meant to further clarify if the terminology or metaphor is unclear, and the linked content should be directly about what is meant by a piece of terminology, relates to §1. anyways §17 is called "dog language and the death of Jesus Christ" which I had hoped to include here, but there are unfortunately only so many hours in the day
The most incredible "leap forward" I've had in my faith was realizing that Eve's decision to eat the apple was 100% rational; it made total and complete sense, and it still does, and the entire point of the fall was that eating the apple is always-and-ever a perfectly rational choice to make.
I've told a few people that thought, in Bible studies and stuff, and they're always horrified by that; they're forbidden by their minds from positing that that was a choice that made any sort of sense at the time Eve made it. They say this because they want, with all their hearts, to say that if they were in Eve's shoes, that they'd know better. If they were in WWII, they'd save the Jews; if they were in the Garden, they wouldn't eat the apple, etc, etc, same thing. Puritan necessitarianism and its consequences has been a disaster for Christendom.
Every single decision point in life is a fork in the road, and both paths are rational. They both "add up." The choice to sin is rational; the choice to not-sin is rational. Abortion is murder; abortion is merely killing a parasite. Marriage is between a man and a woman; marriage can be between any number of partners regardless of biological sex. Your sex is something ontologically innate to you; sex is just a social construct and can be modified at will. All of these reflect the split reality in which we live. It doesn't matter which split you pick -- given enough time, the logical-rational kinks inherent to the split you inhabit will work themselves out. Thereby, you will either damn yourself or find yourself saved.
Choose, anon: will you live in Perelandra? or on Venus?
(Quick theological aside: I think I believe that you are saved by God choosing to rescuing you from your own free will. You are then able to choose to be saved. You cannot be saved unless God first chooses you -- thinking you can save yourself is Pelagianism, and this is heresy. Once God executes on his choice to choose you, you are able to choose him. I think this is the Lutheran understanding of salvation -- autistic German higher criticism didn't set into Lutheranism until centuries after Luther's death, and he would not be happy with it at all.)
1. to the degree its ultra protestantism it's that organised protestantism is a step away from primordial tradition and towards materialism. the church of the woke is somehow aligned with the churchlike rituals of the medical events of the last years, why is this? I say the church of the woke is not "a" religion, it is specifically an anti-religion, or rather it is THE anti-religion. it is the dialectical anti-thesis to spirituality, or, materialism ad absurdum. it is not just a "new religion" it is a specific and direct response to historical religion, specifically christianity. an complete inversion of it
2. i dont know, I dont have any authority to speak on initiation
The links whenever present are meant to further clarify if the terminology or metaphor is unclear, and the linked content should be directly about what is meant by a piece of terminology, relates to §1. anyways §17 is called "dog language and the death of Jesus Christ" which I had hoped to include here, but there are unfortunately only so many hours in the day
Thank you for this series
The most incredible "leap forward" I've had in my faith was realizing that Eve's decision to eat the apple was 100% rational; it made total and complete sense, and it still does, and the entire point of the fall was that eating the apple is always-and-ever a perfectly rational choice to make.
I've told a few people that thought, in Bible studies and stuff, and they're always horrified by that; they're forbidden by their minds from positing that that was a choice that made any sort of sense at the time Eve made it. They say this because they want, with all their hearts, to say that if they were in Eve's shoes, that they'd know better. If they were in WWII, they'd save the Jews; if they were in the Garden, they wouldn't eat the apple, etc, etc, same thing. Puritan necessitarianism and its consequences has been a disaster for Christendom.
Every single decision point in life is a fork in the road, and both paths are rational. They both "add up." The choice to sin is rational; the choice to not-sin is rational. Abortion is murder; abortion is merely killing a parasite. Marriage is between a man and a woman; marriage can be between any number of partners regardless of biological sex. Your sex is something ontologically innate to you; sex is just a social construct and can be modified at will. All of these reflect the split reality in which we live. It doesn't matter which split you pick -- given enough time, the logical-rational kinks inherent to the split you inhabit will work themselves out. Thereby, you will either damn yourself or find yourself saved.
Choose, anon: will you live in Perelandra? or on Venus?
(Quick theological aside: I think I believe that you are saved by God choosing to rescuing you from your own free will. You are then able to choose to be saved. You cannot be saved unless God first chooses you -- thinking you can save yourself is Pelagianism, and this is heresy. Once God executes on his choice to choose you, you are able to choose him. I think this is the Lutheran understanding of salvation -- autistic German higher criticism didn't set into Lutheranism until centuries after Luther's death, and he would not be happy with it at all.)
"Life is lived forwards but understood backwards", rationality is not a guiding principle but can only ever be an afterthought
To live according to rationality is to try to live backwards
A question:
1. What about the "church of woke", and accusation of this as ultra-Protestantism? If so, what would be the ultra-Orthodox or ultra-Confucian equivalent (per reductio ad absurdum)? https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/07/universalism-postwar-progressivism-as/
2. Is the "woosh" (or a "yeet") an equivalent of the Modified Valsalva Maneuver, one where true communication requires sensing, or better yet, "trauma" or "initiation"? https://goddisk.substack.com/p/the-car-crash-a-modern-initiation
1. to the degree its ultra protestantism it's that organised protestantism is a step away from primordial tradition and towards materialism. the church of the woke is somehow aligned with the churchlike rituals of the medical events of the last years, why is this? I say the church of the woke is not "a" religion, it is specifically an anti-religion, or rather it is THE anti-religion. it is the dialectical anti-thesis to spirituality, or, materialism ad absurdum. it is not just a "new religion" it is a specific and direct response to historical religion, specifically christianity. an complete inversion of it
2. i dont know, I dont have any authority to speak on initiation
Number 16 in le Atheist speak: https://desystemize.substack.com/p/desystemize-1
(Sorry, but the religious and logical sides should at lesat agree on the problem of perception and literacy)