Rationalizing the Christian Concept of a Savior

THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF A SAVIOR:

Concerning participatory and spiritual will and moral responsibility, moral responsibility of lesser animals and artificial intelligences, original sin, fallen mankind, karma and judgment, necessity of sacrifice to appease God, son of father, supreme sacrifice of aspect of Trinity, salvation by grace, everlasting life, alpha and omega and trinity

spirit and souls and choices
substance and measurements and senses
meta consciousness of feelings and choices
meta choices in creation, adoption of avatars, and guiding of reconciliations
histories of perception
judgmental dispensation of rewards and punishments
reincarnation
preparing a place among many mansions

ORIGINAL SIN:
SOUL -- Mortals are dispensed with spirits bonded with avatars with capacities to accumulate histories of perceptions
SIN AND KARMA -- Mankind's range of future and moral choices is affected by accumulations of histories of perception
NATURE OF MAN -- Choices made are affected by development of spiritual propensities
JUDGMENT -- Unfolding reconciliations are affected by unfolding judgments of godhead
VECTORING OF CHARACTER -- The soul of an avatar that is preserved is affected by accumulations of judgment concerning its choices and evolution of character
RAISING OF MANKIND ABOVE ANIMALS -- Absorption by body of avatar of higher capacities for moral organization
EVOLUTION OF PERSONS -- Evolution of souls among Artificial Intelligences

SENDING AND SACRIFICE OF SON:
CHOICE OF JESUS AND HOW JESUS BECAME CHRIST -- The trinitarian godhead's temporal interest in humanity stirred a need to imbue an exemplar
 MEDIATION OF GUIDANCE -- God's tendency to favor is affected by capacity to forgive and take interest
HUMANIZING OF MEDIATOR -- God's appreciation of mankind is affected by mediated capacity, through Christ, to identify with mankind

SALVATION BY GRACE:
IDENTITY WITH MEDIATOR -- The sending, sacrificing, resurrection, and continuing judgment of Jesus affects such capacity

BELIEVING ON CHRIST:
EXEMPLAR OF MEDIATOR -- The life, sacrifice and guidance of Jesus and the followers of His message exemplifies for mankind how to accumulate good histories of perception in order to affect future spiritual dispensations for avatars in the hereafter
ALPHA AND OMEGA -- The book of Christ was written in the math of the cosmos before Jesus was sent; the apostles had the example of Jesus before the New Testament was written; Jesus represents the aspect of the Trinity that steps in and out of time to guide, mediate, and share joys and sorrows, and judge the avatars of mortals and mankind

EVERLASTING LIFE:
LEADERSHIP OF MEDIATOR -- The unfolding and evolving hierarchy among souls within the mansion for mankind is affected by applied appreciations of the teachings and empathies of Jesus


*****************

COMMUNICATION: If conversants do not share an idea of what they mean by "God," then little is communicated when one says to the other, "I don't believe in God."

To me, god (or the godhead) is that superior entity from which all that appears to physical measurability and moral immeasurablility is reconciled. In that case, unless you believe there is no conservatory reconciliation of physical and moral accounts, then my definition nearly "proves" itself. Whatever is the basis for making morality or ethics meaningful, that basis is god. Unless you believe morality and ethics are nonsense concepts. To me, if you believe a basis for morality exists, as opposed to being a mere ruse used by crony heathens to rule the foolish, then you believe in God. If you believe in moral oughts, as in people ought not be ruled by nonsensical dogma, then you believe in a metaphysics. You will be asserting an affirmative existent that is intuitively believed, but not scientifically provable -- beyond faith and self-referential evidence.

CIRCULAR REASONING: But if you assume a negative, that by definition whatever you want to call atheism is not a religion, then use your definition as a proof, then you have only assumed what you mean to prove. You have thus not affirmed anything meaningful. This is mere noise making. Reasoning in a circle, hence, A is A. You wil not have posited anything meaningful with regard to concerns that are beyond science, math, and objective appearance.

IMPORTANT AND UNAVOIDABLE CONCERNS THAT ARE BEYOND OBJECTIVE SCIENCE: You might want to go back and cross examine yourself on some of the issues I suggested previously. I think you will find therein a number of issues that are beyond measurable physics, i.e., metaphysical, that cannot be avoided, but that can be approached only in self evidence, direct experience, and intuitive empathy. These often pertain to unavoidable and important concerns for which (religious like) "faith" offers the only path forward.

GOLF: As to golf, yes, it can become a religious appendage. If someone says, "Beat me at golf and I will do such and such," then you will have made a moral obligation, not in itself measurable in physics, depend on how you perform at your chosen religious rite, i.e., golf. https://youtu.be/n3vacnR50AY

CONDITIONING FOR SPIRITUAL BLINDERS: Regarding trained pretense: No, you mistake my intended meaning. Think of the boy who receives little moral instruction but who is constantly and only praised for getting the correct answer to math problems. (Incidentally, when there is only one correct answer to a math problem, the problem is merely a complex way for stating a circular truism.)

But back to the boy. He can be conditioned to become habituated to expect that there is a correct, objective answer to most important issues. (I have a brother who tends to believe that no issue that is without an objective answer can be important.) He will want there to be only one correct answer. And, since he usually gets the correct answer in problems of math, he may tend to believe he should be entrusted to decree what the "correct" answer is. (Example: In "global warming" issues, he will want to say "The science is settled." In other concerns, he will want the masses to be ruled by himself and his network of "moral experts.")

The boy who trains mainly in math and objective science will often presume there is an objective scientific answer where there is only a moral choice, often as a matter of acquired or cooperative taste.

QUOTIENT FACTORS: There are probably various kinds of intelligences. Intelligence Q, Emotional Q, Musical Q, Spiritual Q, Golf Q, War Q, etc. But the kid who is celebrated for his scientific acumen and IQ will often think he has the "objective answer." For a person with high scientific IQ and low spiritual intuitive Q, he may tend to believe he knows or can "prove" (by science, logic, or even definition) that there is no God. But I think he just has an atrophied Spiritual Q. Atrophied by lack of use. That is, one trick conditioning.


***********

Yes, atheists have quite a history of concocting "faulty" political systems. By their fruits shall ye know them.

"Can religious belief tell us ..."
I never said it could tell us. It can, however, help lead us to come together in good faith and good will. It can lead us to value the good faith and good will of the masses, as opposed to pretending to have scientifically elite and superior knowledge to rule them.

"Can theories .. help"
Yes, scientific theories can help with practical tinkering. They can help guide us in this respect: To build such and such, it helps to do so and so. Otherwise, no.

I prefer reasonable freedom for each human being to act according to his good faith and good will, as opposed to being ruled by knowitall priests of "scientific morality."

The trick is how to inspire a culture and design a legal system to promote a representative republic that can accomplish that. Unfortunately, scientific elitist shills for a NWO cronydom are "fundamentally transforming" (destroying) that as we speak.

Btw: The notion that our cosmic bubble popped out of a mathematical no-thing-ness seems to be the current "theory" by "scientific consensus." Seems pretty metaphysically religious-like to me.

Gotta go to the Salt Lick. Ttfn.

***********

Yes, cherry picking definitions is handy for proving A is A. And it may help for exploring that which is subject to empirical investigation. For ultimate axioms or issues of right and wrong, however, they're pretty silly. But people who are blinded by trained pretense tend to fail to see that -- regardless of how many degrees with which they may adorn themselves. For people of insight, this tends to be immediately apprehended. For people of trained self absorption, not so much. I can't fix that degree of self inflicted blindness.


***********

Concering Atheism: I am at a state such that I tend not much to be concerned with ideas of salvation or heaven. My concern for religious philosophy is mainly in respect of its connection with moral philosophy. I am concerned with this: What reasoned system of faith, culture, and laws is needed to inspire and sustain a civilization that accords decent respect for complex expressions of freedom and dignity?

I think atheistic philosophers of morality tend to implicate more notions of higher, meta, spiritual, immateriality than they are consciously aware. But I think they tend to contrive blinders, to hide from those implications. So, they find it very important to their egos to deny religiosity. And they are often so young or uneducated about history that they overlook the horrors of atheistic statism, national socialism, international socialism, communism, and NWO crony fascism. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and so on.

Moreover, they conflate forced religion with true religious belief. Encouraging spiritual belief is not the same as threatening to saw off a person's head if he does not properly regurgitate a religious verse. To put modern Christianity in that light is absurd. To compare modern Christianity with Islam is asinine. On the other hand, to compare the statist abuses of atheistic national socialism, international socialism, and communism with the abuses of radical Islam is quite appropriate.

An avowed atheist, to be worthy of engaging in deeper discussion, needs first to have engaged in cross examining himself. He may cross examine himself to consider limits of objectivity and science: Does the past exist? Yes, science can help us tinker, but can science replicate the past, or any world-inclusive event for any new or independent bubble of space-time? Can science prove the limits of potentiality? Can science tell us with particularity what sort of future we should build?

Concerning so-called "objective reality": Can science identify any externally objective building block, particle, field, multiverse field, meta field, or math field? Can science show any "objective particle" that is existent in itself, separate and independent, not necessarily entailed with any conscious perception or historical-spatial accumulation of information? Can science objectively advance any innate appreciation of morality, empathy, or self awareness?

Swine cannot cross examine themselves. Can swine be taught to sing? Until swine show capacity for self examination, few would incline to spend time discussing moral philosophy with them.

I think the only reasonable test for moral philosophy may consist not in scientific pretense, but in a complex of factors, such as:

Not being falsified.
Not being hindering of science.
Not being needlessly derogatory.
Being as complete, coherent, and consistent as reasonably possible.
Helping to soothe or advance decent civilization and human meaningfulness.
Being felt consistent with self evidence, intuition, and innate empathy.

Innate empathy is my terminology in respect of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. I think it is innate to existentiality. That is, above science, because self evident. If an atheist does not have (religious like) faith or belief in some such concept, then on what basis would he pretend to "be as moral minded as any religious believer?"

**********

A truism: For atheism to succeed in a civilization, it must implicate faith that we can cooperate empathetically by finding alternative bases for organizing, facilitating, and inspiring empathetic cooperation. The consequence will be a bewildering accumulation of Marxist like literature, that will devolve to become every bit as nonsensical and fascist as the worst of religions.

BTW, resort to cherry picked definitions is an intellectually bankrupt and dishonest way to debate. What some posters leave out of their definition of religion is this:

- an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion.

For example, many scientists have a religious like hope or belief that methods of science can eventually lead us to prove a theory of everything. Some even believe, religiously, that "ought" can be scientifically derived from "is."

***********

In [our] Father's house are many mansions -- John 14:2):

SUBSTANCE IS NOT INDEPENDENTLY EXISTENT OR IN A STATE OF SUPERIOR SEPARATENESS:

What I think:

What each of us observes are appearances, interpreted through an algorithmically-based avatar. We don't really observe external things. There are no external thing-particles-in-themselves. There are only interpreted sensations of traces of fractals of patterns of spins, reiterating in nothing more "external" than math itself, being interpretatively renormalized to a godhead that feeds to trinitarian based, inter-empathetic, fluxing perspectives of Substance Information-Consciousness.

Measurable space-time-matter-energy (Substance) are all inter-derivative of a dance with histories of perception (Information) among perspectives of an ever-unfolding present (Consciousness).

Reality is the offering that appears in respect of the Godhead that dances in no-thing more than its web of math. God is as real as the very math He employs to define His relationship with each and every perspective. Heaven consists with the astonishing potentiality of that dance. Worlds beyond ours await each perspective, but how we are to be received in them is affected by each history we experience in precedence to them.

Imagine what sort of world you want next. If you want a world of inter-empathetic kindness, follow Christianity. If you want to punish antagonists and be punished by antagonists, follow Mohammadism. If you want more of the same, follow Hinduism-Buddhism. If you want YOLO, follow atheism, but be prepared to be amazed.

If you believe in atheism, and if you condition people to that belief, you will tend to substitute faith in the State in order to inspire them to civilizing cooperation. To say the least, that substitution has not shown, historically, to make for improvement.

***********

The attempted marginalization of Christianity is a big part of the Left's attempt to close the American mind and banish traditional values from the public square.

Recently, I engaged in an interesting conversation with Malatrope that looks for a way to harmonize the Schrodinger Cat conundrum with a fundamental role for consciousness. He posited some very interesting ideas! This led me to speculate about how some of those ideas may relate to religion. Sure enough, I soon got an invite on Disqus -- an invite, mind you -- to comment on an Atheist blog.

So I did, wondering if there might actually be minds there open to thoughtful consideration. I engaged with three. Was there any give and take, any thought whatosover? Nope! Just a lot of juvenile dead horse beating, plugging of ears, in effect saying lalala, calling me some foul names, and very shortly banning me from the site. This after they had invited me!

I recognize that three is not much of a sample. Still, when it results in the kind of plugged brain coarseness and quick banishment I received, I have to wonder what in the heck is it with some of these nasty Atheist sites? If you go there and wonder why there seem to be so many one-sided positions, it's because they ban and remove all the non-atheists!

Compare and look at what is unfolding with BLM and challenges to freedom of speech on campuses! More and more, I understand why a lot of people are feeling much fatigue with trying to make any sense whatsoever to closed minds on the Left. It is becoming more and more evident that the Left, across every front, intends to do all it can to destroy everything that binds the American republic. The Left will insult, shout you down, and shut you off, but it will not debate -- unless you want to call insults debate.

***********

AS BANNED FROM ATHEIST SITE:

In [our] Father's house are many mansions -- John 14:2):

SUBSTANCE IS NOT INDEPENDENTLY EXISTENT OR IN A STATE OF SUPERIOR SEPARATENESS:

What I think:

What each of us observes are appearances, interpreted through an algorithmically-based avatar. We don't really observe external things. There are no external thing-particles-in-themselves. There are only interpreted sensations of traces of fractals of patterns of spins, reiterating in nothing more "external" than math itself, being interpretatively renormalized to a godhead that feeds to trinitarian based, inter-empathetic, fluxing perspectives of Substance Information-Consciousness.

Measurable space-time-matter-energy (Substance) are all inter-derivative of a dance with histories of perception (Information) among perspectives of an ever-unfolding present (Consciousness).

Reality is the offering that appears in respect of the Godhead that dances in no-thing more than its web of math. God is as real as the very math He employs to define His relationship with each and every perspective. Heaven consists with the astonishing potentiality of that dance. Worlds beyond ours await each perspective, but how we are to be received in them is affected by each history we experience in precedence to them.

Imagine what sort of world you want next. If you want a world of inter-empathetic kindness, follow Christianity. If you want to punish antagonists and be punished by antagonists, follow Mohammadism. If you want more of the same, follow Hinduism-Buddhism. If you want YOLO, follow atheism, but be prepared to be amazed.

If you believe in atheism, and if you condition people to that belief, you will tend to substitute faith in the State in order to inspire them to civilizing cooperation. To say the least, that substitution has not shown, historically, to make for improvement.

A truism: For atheism to succeed in a civilization, it must implicate faith that we can cooperate empathetically by finding alternative bases for organizing, facilitating, and inspiring empathetic cooperation. The consequence will be a bewildering accumulation of Marxist like literature, that will devolve to become every bit as nonsensical and fascist as the worst of religions.

BTW, resort to cherry picked definitions is an intellectually bankrupt and dishonest way to debate. What some posters leave out of their definition of religion is this:

- an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.
See http://www.merriam-webster.com....

For example, many scientists have a religious like hope or belief that methods of science can eventually lead us to prove a theory of everything. Some even believe, religiously, that "ought" can be scientifically derived from "is."

Concering Atheism: I am at a state such that I tend not much to be concerned with ideas of salvation or heaven. My concern for religious philosophy is mainly in respect of its connection with moral philosophy. I am concerned with this: What reasoned system of faith, culture, and laws is needed to inspire and sustain a civilization that accords decent respect for complex expressions of freedom and dignity?

I think atheistic philosophers of morality tend to implicate more notions of higher, meta, spiritual, immateriality than they are consciously aware. But I think they tend to contrive blinders, to hide from those implications. So, they find it very important to their egos to deny religiosity. And they are often so young or uneducated about history that they overlook the horrors of atheistic statism, national socialism, international socialism, communism, and NWO crony fascism. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and so on.

Moreover, they conflate forced religion with true religious belief. Encouraging spiritual belief is not the same as threatening to saw off a person's head if he does not properly regurgitate a religious verse. To put modern Christianity in that light is absurd. To compare modern Christianity with Islam is asinine. On the other hand, to compare the statist abuses of atheistic national socialism, international socialism, and communism with the abuses of radical Islam is quite appropriate.

An avowed atheist, to be worthy of engaging in deeper discussion, needs first to have engaged in cross examining himself. He may cross examine himself to consider limits of objectivity and science: Does the past exist? Yes, science can help us tinker, but can science replicate the past, or any world-inclusive event for any new or independent bubble of space-time? Can science prove the limits of potentiality? Can science tell us with particularity what sort of future we should build?

Concerning so-called "objective reality": Can science identify any externally objective building block, particle, field, multiverse field, meta field, or math field? Can science show any "objective particle" that is existent in itself, separate and independent, not necessarily entailed with any conscious perception or historical-spatial accumulation of information? Can science objectively advance any innate appreciation of morality, empathy, or self awareness?

Swine cannot cross examine themselves. Can swine be taught to sing? Until swine show capacity for self examination, few would incline to spend time discussing moral philosophy with them.

I think the only reasonable test for moral philosophy may consist not in scientific pretense, but in a complex of factors, such as:

Not being falsified.
Not being hindering of science.
Not being needlessly derogatory.
Being as complete, coherent, and consistent as reasonably possible.
Helping to soothe or advance decent civilization and human meaningfulness.
Being felt consistent with self evidence, intuition, and innate empathy.

*****************

Innate empathy is my terminology in respect of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. I think it is innate to existentiality. That is, above science, because self evident. If an atheist does not have (religious like) faith or belief in some such concept, then on what basis would he pretend to "be as moral minded as any religious believer?"




*****************

Yes, cherry picking definitions is handy for proving A is A. And it may help for exploring that which is subject to empirical investigation. For ultimate axioms or issues of right and wrong, however, they're pretty silly. But people who are blinded by trained pretense tend to fail to see that -- regardless of how many degrees with which they may adorn themselves. For people of insight, this tends to be immediately apprehended. For people of trained self absorption, not so much. I can't fix that degree of self inflicted blindness.

*****************

Yes, atheists have quite a history of concocting "faulty" political systems. By their fruits shall ye know them.

Your next step is a non-sequitur. IOW, it is not logical. Sorry about that.

"Can religious belief tell us ..."
I never said it could tell us. It can, however, help lead us to come together in good faith and good will. It can lead us to value the good faith and good will of the masses, as opposed to pretending to have scientifically elite and superior knowledge to rule them.

"Can theories .. help"
Yes, scientific theories can help with practical tinkering. They can help guide us in this respect: To build such and such, it helps to do so and so. Otherwise, no.

I prefer reasonable freedom for each human being to act according to his good faith and good will, as opposed to being ruled by knowitall priests of "scientific morality."

The trick is how to inspire a culture and design a legal system to promote a representative republic that can accomplish that. Unfortunately, scientific elitist shills for a NWO cronydom are "fundamentally transforming" (destroying) that as we speak.

Btw: The notion that our cosmic bubble popped out of a mathematical no-thing-ness seems to be the current "theory" by "scientific consensus." Seems pretty metaphysically religious-like to me.

*****************

COMMUNICATION: If conversants do not share an idea of what they mean by "God," then little is communicated when one says to the other, "I don't believe in God."

To me, god (or the godhead) is that superior entity from which all that appears to physical measurability and moral immeasurablility is reconciled. In that case, unless you believe there is no conservatory reconciliation of physical and moral accounts, then my definition nearly "proves" itself. Whatever is the basis for making morality or ethics meaningful, that basis is god. Unless you believe morality and ethics are nonsense concepts. To me, if you believe a basis for morality exists, as opposed to being a mere ruse used by crony heathens to rule the foolish, then you believe in God. If you believe in moral oughts, as in people ought not be ruled by nonsensical dogma, then you believe in a metaphysics. You will be asserting an affirmative existent that is intuitively believed, but not scientifically provable -- beyond faith and self-referential evidence.

CIRCULAR REASONING: But if you assume a negative, that by definition whatever you want to call atheism is not a religion, then use your definition as a proof, then you have only assumed what you mean to prove. You have thus not affirmed anything meaningful. This is mere noise making. Reasoning in a circle, hence, A is A. You wil not have posited anything meaningful with regard to concerns that are beyond science, math, and objective appearance.

IMPORTANT AND UNAVOIDABLE CONCERNS THAT ARE BEYOND OBJECTIVE SCIENCE: You might want to go back and cross examine yourself on some of the issues I suggested previously. I think you will find therein a number of issues that are beyond measurable physics, i.e., metaphysical, that cannot be avoided, but that can be approached only in self evidence, direct experience, and intuitive empathy. These often pertain to unavoidable and important concerns for which (religious like) "faith" offers the only path forward.

GOLF: As to golf, yes, it can become a religious appendage. If someone says, "Beat me at golf and I will do such and such," then you will have made a moral obligation, not in itself measurable in physics, depend on how you perform at your chosen religious rite, i.e., golf.

CONDITIONING FOR SPIRITUAL BLINDERS: Regarding trained pretense: No, you mistake my intended meaning. Think of the boy who receives little moral instruction but who is constantly and only praised for getting the correct answer to math problems. (Incidentally, when there is only one correct answer to a math problem, the problem is merely a complex way for stating a circular truism.)

But back to the boy. He can be conditioned to become habituated to expect that there is a correct, objective answer to most important issues. (I have a brother who tends to believe that no issue that is without an objective answer can be important.) He will want there to be only one correct answer. And, since he usually gets the correct answer in problems of math, he may tend to believe he should be entrusted to decree what the "correct" answer is. (Example: In "global warming" issues, he will want to say "The science is settled." In other concerns, he will want the masses to be ruled by himself and his network of "moral experts.")

The boy who trains mainly in math and objective science will often presume there is an objective scientific answer where there is only a moral choice, often as a matter of acquired or cooperative taste.

QUOTIENT FACTORS: There are probably various kinds of intelligences. Intelligence Q, Emotional Q, Musical Q, Spiritual Q, Golf Q, War Q, etc. But the kid who is celebrated for his scientific acumen and IQ will often think he has the "objective answer." For a person with high scientific IQ and low spiritual intuitive Q, he may tend to believe he knows or can "prove" (by science, logic, or even definition) that there is no God. But I think he just has an atrophied Spiritual Q. Atrophied by lack of use. That is, one trick conditioning.

*****************

When a-faith is not based on knowledge, is it not a faith? May a person be an a-theist with regard to Allah, while being a theist with regard to a higher reconciler of consciousness? Does it not depend on what a person is trying to take the affirmative of? Can a person altogether avoid taking the affirmative of everything that is based not on knowledge or physical evidence but instead on innate intuition or faith? Are you a-believing in the consciousness of responders?

Can any person who is not dead take a position of a-faith in every orientation concerning every metaphysical concern? Is to say you presently lack belief a way of saying you may later acquire belief? Or do you foreclose that? If you foreclose it, do you do so on knowledge or just on lack of present knowledge? If just based on lack of present knowledge, then on what do you foreclose future knowledge, if not faith?

I think I understand the idea of a-theists, sort of like I understand pink unicorns. It's just that I cannot know their minds to confirm they really exist. And I am not sure they even know their own minds.

Regarding militant atheists: I take that less as a term for describing fervor of non-belief than I do as a term for describing destructive behavior driven by animus. The people I call militant atheists would be the ones who seek to drive the expression of values that are based in spiritual faith from every nexus with the public square. And what they seek to replace those vauues with are, guess what, values based in secular faith in gov. They would replace faith in a reconciler with faith in elitist dictated gov. Not good, to my faith.

I think they are related. But I understand that you cannot see it. Each of us has to learn to think however is most suitable to himself. I suspect, if you are serious in your quest, you will come back to them. Good luck with that.

Your topic appears to be: "How can we beat a dead horse and pretend to be thinking, while holding our ears and going lalala?" Enjoy your rubber room.

*****************