Why don't Christians worship as Jews do?

[bananabrain]

You do appear very defensive.

not defensive. i just always find it irritating when people attack judaism out of ignorance and then prefer to engage in rhetoric rather than considering the possibility that they might not know as much as they think.

The idea here isn't being a scholar of Judaism but why Christianity and Judaism are not the same.

but to make any informed judgement on that particular subject you would at least have to demonstrate some kind of knowledge of it. you can hardly consider ignorance to be something that helps your credibility here.

The exoteric level cannot see the Beast for what it is because it is the Beast so cannot have impartiality but rather seeks to justify itself. Nothing can change because the Beast lacks the collective consciousness that makes change possible.

the trouble with that is that i am a student of both the exoteric and esoteric jewish traditions and i can tell you with 100% certainty that, according to the way you have so far described the challenge, not only the esoteric, but the exoteric tradition has more than adequate tools to not only raise the problem but to begin to approach it in a systematic, unsentimental and penetrating manner, just as you suggest. this is one of the places where your ignorance of judaism leads you to a massive and, to my mind, embarrassing overpresumption.

the other problem, of course, is that "impartiality" is not a philosophically respectable idea because it requires evaluation which, by its nature, will itself never be impartial.

The Beast cannot leave the cave. However as individuals within the Beast sometimes we feel awakening influences from outside the cave which disturb our cave life. We are still in the cave as we experience these awakening psychological influences. A few begin to pursue them in pursuit of their awakened individuality.

what you are describing here is the need for a teacher, although presumably we would differ on whether individual teachers were themselves in the cave or not. i think nonetheless you are in danger of belabouring the cave until it collapses and would remind you that sometimes extended metaphors do not bear close examination.

It isn't a matter of details but of consciousness.

consciousness being, conveniently, something personal and opinion-based and details, inconveniently, requiring evidence. well, i suppose you would say that, wouldn't you?

The exoteric level lacks any sustained consciousness

another extraordinarily sweeping generalisation with very little substance once you analyse it.

so everything just happens in reaction to external influences and follows nature's cycles.

yes, that must be why innovation and challenge can occur even in the absence of simone weil.

The transcendent level is conscious and the esoteric level contains those making the efforts to "know thyself" in pursuit of conscious awareness.

more hot air. everyone i've ever met who was a serious student of religion or a seeker, whether exoteric, esoteric or both, was making this effort.

Society in the World whether considered Judaism, Christian or anything else is the Beast.

look, society isn't perfect, that's hardly a groundbreaker. we still have to live in it though. however, your attitude and terminology is not exactly conducive to getting people on side. "society is the beast", forsooth. sheesh.

The Beast is the unconscious World within which we continually react. The esoteric part of the religion though within it is hidden and the exoteric level is unconcerned with it.

well, i suppose you must be very very clever, nay unique to have realised it. oh, i forget, you're just a humble student of the omniscient simone weil. what a startlingly clear, original insight....oh, wait a minute, i can't think of a single sensible religious tradition that hasn't figured this one out. you see? this is why it's important to know something about the subject about which you are expressing such comprehensive opinions. it's almost traditional.

Proof of consciousness can only come from attempts at consciousness and then we become aware of how we lack sustained consciousness.

oh, so you've read descartes? berkeley? kant? popper? useful stuff, philosophy.

You know on a holiday the traffic dept. announces the amount of deaths on the road they predict. These deaths will happen.

judaism would say "not necessarily. not if we take responsibility for our actions and their consequences."

though Christianity is for a minority, a person can decide if they wish to be a part of this minority. Christianity doesn't reject the world, the world rejects Christianity.

well, we reject christianity - and i've just explained to you that the tendency by which you characterise the "world" does not apply to any knowledgeable, let alone seriously engaged jewish person.

Words are one thing but what we do is another. It is the nature of human hypocrisy.

indeed it is. it is also a press release from what round my way is known as the "department of the bleeding obvious".

Solitude doesn't require living in the desert. It means acquiring attention, a quality of self awareness, that frees a person from being part of the "collective."

oh, i see what you mean. well, we would argue that living your life with kavvanah, conscious intention or mindfulness, making blessings before you do things, making time for prayer and contemplation, thinking and caring deeply about what you eat, where you go, what you do, how you behave, indeed, setting aside 1/7th of the week as "sacred time" does precisely this. indeed, the Torah teaches us that this has been part of our mission from the beginning:

a people that dwells apart, not reckoned amongst the nations (numbers 31:16)

Granted most people appreciate being a cog in the collective, but there is a minority that seek their individuality.

well, we are also great believers in community. the two need not be mutually exclusive.

"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams."

hmm. well, we are commanded by G!D to take pleasure in the world, as well as to rejoice. i struggle to understand the distinction here - plus it seems to me entirely arbitrary that what is "hard and rough" must therefore be real. that seems to me to lack something in the robust reasoning department, however much it might appear to novelists and film-makers.

Again, the idea isn't to hide away but learning to become consciously open to reality. It begins with admitting that we are incapable of this.

er, if we're incapable of it, how can we become consciously open to it? that doesn't make sense. we might not be able to "know" G!D exactly, but it doesn't stop us being consciously ready to try; but admitting that one is incapable of it would be counterproductive.

You are making the mistake of equating Judaism and Christianity.

er, i don't think so. you are the one making statements about judaism that are not in accordance with the empirical evidence. yet you continue to claim that the fact that you haven't got any knowledge doesn't hurt your argument at all!

both serve their purposes and both can be and are abused.

well, someone could abuse sex or alcohol, but it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with either. what it means is that the *person* involved have to do some work on themselves, rather than the activity or substance being inherently abusive.

This is why it is meaningless IMO to be concerned with why Christians don't worship as Jews do. There is no reason for doing so

welll, that wasn't what i was objecting to. i was objecting to you making statements about judaism which were incorrect, misleading, ignorant and just plain rude.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Nick_A]

not defensive. i just always find it irritating when people attack judaism out of ignorance and then prefer to engage in rhetoric rather than considering the possibility that they might not know as much as they think.

Believe me I know how some Jews can be guilty of the same with a skill hard to match. My experience with genocide denying Jews and their insult on Beliefnet .com including management during the congressional debate for recognition of the Armenian genocide convinced me forever that people can call themselves Jews, Christians, or whatever, but nasty shallow people transcend all faiths. Live and learn .

the trouble with that is that i am a student of both the exoteric and esoteric jewish traditions and i can tell you with 100% certainty that, according to the way you have so far described the challenge, not only the esoteric, but the exoteric tradition has more than adequate tools to not only raise the problem but to begin to approach it in a systematic, unsentimental and penetrating manner, just as you suggest. this is one of the places where your ignorance of judaism leads you to a massive and, to my mind, embarrassing overpresumption.

Sounds nice but I know Jewish hypocrisy as well as the hypocrisy of Christendom so nothing can change.

the other problem, of course, is that "impartiality" is not a philosophically respectable idea because it requires evaluation which, by its nature, will itself never be impartial.

I am referring to conscious impartiality. It doesn't analyze but just is open to what is there. When we begin to analyze is when the BS begins.

what you are describing here is the need for a teacher, although presumably we would differ on whether individual teachers were themselves in the cave or not. i think nonetheless you are in danger of belabouring the cave until it collapses and would remind you that sometimes extended metaphors do not bear close examination.

Admitting the human condition is not belaboring it. It is what it is.

consciousness being, conveniently, something personal and opinion-based and details, inconveniently, requiring evidence. well, i suppose you would say that, wouldn't you?

You are describing subjective conditioning which by definition is not conscious. it is meaningless here.

another extraordinarily sweeping generalisation with very little substance once you analyze it.

You say this because you've never tried to sustain consciousness.

yes, that must be why innovation and challenge can occur even in the absence of simone weil.

Sez you. Ecclesiates 3 differs.

15 Whatever is has already been,
and what will be has been before;
and God will call the past to account

What is this new innovation the author of Ecclesiastes is unaware of?

more hot air. everyone i've ever met who was a serious student of religion or a seeker, whether exoteric, esoteric or both, was making this effort.

I sincerely doubt you know what it means to "know thyself" and yet you think people make this effort.

well, i suppose you must be very very clever, nay unique to have realised it. oh, i forget, you're just a humble student of the omniscient simone weil. what a startlingly clear, original insight....oh, wait a minute, i can't think of a single sensible religious tradition that hasn't figured this one out. you see? this is why it's important to know something about the subject about which you are expressing such comprehensive opinions. it's almost traditional.

It isn't a matter of figuring it out but rather the exoteric is unconcerned with it.

judaism would say "not necessarily. not if we take responsibility for our actions and their consequences."

If we had wings we could fly. Since we are as we are everything is as it is and regardless of platitudes the estimated people will die over the holiday. You assume choice where it doesn't exist.

well, we reject christianity - and i've just explained to you that the tendency by which you characterise the "world" does not apply to any knowledgeable, let alone seriously engaged jewish person.

And yet I know some rare Jews that understand the human condition better than I do.

oh, i see what you mean. well, we would argue that living your life with kavvanah, conscious intention or mindfulness, making blessings before you do things, making time for prayer and contemplation, thinking and caring deeply about what you eat, where you go, what you do, how you behave, indeed, setting aside 1/7th of the week as "sacred time" does precisely this. indeed, the Torah teaches us that this has been part of our mission from the beginning:

You don't appreciate the value of objective attention. You are referring to acting this way and that way and caring etc. I'm referring to impartial detached attention: the ultimate affirmation.

well, we are also great believers in community. the two need not be mutually exclusive.

A conscious individual can choose his place in the collective while the reactive automaton is defined by the collective. They are mutually exclusive.

er, if we're incapable of it, how can we become consciously open to it? that doesn't make sense. we might not be able to "know" G!D exactly, but it doesn't stop us being consciously ready to try; but admitting that one is incapable of it would be counterproductive.

A person may all of a sudden hear piano music for the first time and want to play the piano. He learns quickly that he cannot so must begin at the beginning as insulting as it may appear. It is the same with learning to be human. It requires being open and we see we cannot be but are instead controlled by every form of preconditioning.. As insulting as it is we must begin at the beginning.

welll, that wasn't what i was objecting to. i was objecting to you making statements about judaism which were incorrect, misleading, ignorant and just plain rude.

Regardless I still believe Simone is correct as far as the Beast is concerned.

look, society isn't perfect, that's hardly a groundbreaker. we still have to live in it though. however, your attitude and terminology is not exactly conducive to getting people on side. "society is the beast", forsooth. sheesh.

The Beast cannot do anything other than what it does. This is why I believe that the hope for society comes from individuals capable of seeing the Beast for what it is and making the conscious efforts to minimize the harm of adverse natural cycles. The essence of Christianity allows "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." The conscious individual then connects these two levels and spiritually nurtures the earth minimizing the effects of war for example in the natural cycles of war and peace.

 

[bananabrain]

Believe me I know how some Jews can be guilty of the same with a skill hard to match.

so what? i've never claimed there aren't jews who are total fecking feathered eejits. we're people just like everyone else.

My experience with genocide denying Jews and their insult on Beliefnet

well, if you're taking the same tone with them as you are with me and the other people here, that's hardly surprising. on the armenian genocide, however, you have my total sympathy, it is scandalous how some of us have preferred not to upset the turks over this. you are presumably aware that the strategic relationship between israel and turkey is of great importance; i would nonetheless maintain (though it's easy for me to say, probably) that one should tell one's friends when they are wrong. more to the point, anyone who (as i do) supports an independent kurdistan should get used to letting the turks know they can't have it all their own way. that is, nonetheless, not strictly relevant to our current discussion.

people can call themselves Jews, Christians, or whatever, but nasty shallow people transcend all faiths. Live and learn.

i presume that's an instruction to yourself. i already knew it. hypocrites exist everywhere; the key is to point out the hypocrisy, not assume it follows from the religious tradition, which, in our case, certainly mandates the speaking of truth to power.

Sounds nice but I know Jewish hypocrisy as well as the hypocrisy of Christendom so nothing can change.

well, i'm glad you're such a positive, open-minded individual, not at all prone to making sweeping judgements.

I am referring to conscious impartiality. It doesn't analyze but just is open to what is there. When we begin to analyze is when the BS begins.

what nonsense. of what possible use is that? i can be "open" to something, but without analysis, let alone action, it is all just windy, airy-fairy statements with no significance. moreover, i hardly think you can make an argument, as you are currently attempting to do, without at least some analytical elements. and i won't even start with the philosophical clangers you've just dropped in presuming a robust definition of "conscious" or "what is there". well done for ignoring an entire tradition of philosophical enquiry.

Admitting the human condition is not belaboring it. It is what it is.

well, so is my bum, but that doesn't mean i'm incapable of understanding its purpose (although it would seem that you've enhanced its functionality somewhat)

You are describing subjective conditioning which by definition is not conscious. it is meaningless here.

all human interaction is subjective. it is as meaningless to debate objective consciousness as it is to debate the subject of nightlife in the cretaceous; we can hardly expect to ever know anything about it that is not highly speculative.

You say this because you've never tried to sustain consciousness.

are you, like, hiding in my wardrobe or something that you can say such a thing with such assurance?

Sez you. Ecclesiates 3 differs.

hur, hur, hur... firstly, from G!D's point of view, there's no such thing as time or space, as you'd know if you studied the sefer yetzirah. so a tweak here or there changes the entire system, past and future. it's like the quantum weather butterfly. if you watch a lot of star trek you'll hear a lot about something called "temporal mechanics"; well, this is temporal mechanics 101. and because of the principle of conservation of energy, everything created has already been Created, all that ever happens since the Creation is recycling and development, or entropy, depending on your point of view. however, from king solomon's (the traditional author of kohelet) point of view, there may be nothing new under the sun, but this could be an essentialist viewpoint, or it could be his opinion on the gilgul haneshamot (transmigration of souls, a logical concomitant of the conservation of energy) or it could be a tart observation about human nature or the cycles of history, or it could be all of these at once. that's the thing about multi-layered Texts. it's good that you're engaging with some of the detail at least, even if you don't really understand it.

I sincerely doubt you know what it means to "know thyself" and yet you think people make this effort.

hur, hur, hur, well, thank you for your feedback, i always enjoy being lectured on my personal faults by people who have no idea what i'm like.

It isn't a matter of figuring it out but rather the exoteric is unconcerned with it.

perhaps you didn't understand what i said earlier:

not only the esoteric, but the exoteric tradition has more than adequate tools to not only raise the problem but to begin to approach it in a systematic, unsentimental and penetrating manner, just as you suggest. this is one of the places where your ignorance of judaism leads you to a massive and, to my mind, embarrassing overpresumption.

did i not say it in clear enough english?

Since we are as we are everything is as it is and regardless of platitudes the estimated people will die over the holiday. You assume choice where it doesn't exist.

it's not a platitude. it is abundantly clear that at some level in this example there is always going to be human choice operating, whether it is to answer one's mobile phone while driving, or pull out without looking, or not take your car to the garage just yet. all of these things are affected by human choice, in fact i challenge you to present me with a moral situation where human choice is not a factor.

And yet I know some rare Jews that understand the human condition better than I do.

yet another big assumption, that there is "the" human condition. why just the one? well done for finding people that understand it better than you, even though they're jewish, i know how much of a barrier that must be.

You don't appreciate the value of objective attention. You are referring to acting this way and that way and caring etc. I'm referring to impartial detached attention: the ultimate affirmation.

fine, so suppose i manage to attain this "impartial detached attention", then what? sit around eating kebabs? the jewish question would always be "and then what?" how does this make life better? how does it improve the world? how does it do the Divine Will? i don't appreciate the value of objective attention because it would be like appreciating the value of, i don't know, turning myself invisible - what on earth is the point of all this 'vanity and striving after wind'?

A conscious individual can choose his place in the collective while the reactive automaton is defined by the collective. They are mutually exclusive.

they're not mutually exclusive. a truly conscious individual will also admit that they will always be shaped in some ways by the collective regardless of their consciousness. it's like that law of physics, i forget which, which says that the act of observing changes the observed as well as the observer. we can never be 100% conscious in that sense, we wouldn't be able to operate our own brains - can you do all the maths required to get your hand to catch a ball? i can't even find my car keys sometimes.

A person may all of a sudden hear piano music for the first time and want to play the piano. He learns quickly that he cannot so must begin at the beginning as insulting as it may appear.

by the same logic, a person may wish to critique judaism but he first has to learn something about it, otherwise he's just whacking randomly at the keyboard and calling it scales. or free jazz, possibly.

The Beast cannot do anything other than what it does.

judaism believes that there is always a way to improve ourselves.

This is why I believe that the hope for society comes from individuals capable of seeing the Beast for what it is and making the conscious efforts to minimize the harm of adverse natural cycles.

adverse natural cycles are by definition self-correcting, if they're natural. for example, we can prolong human life to a certain point, but eventually the system just breaks down under the weight of its own entropy.

The essence of Christianity allows "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." The conscious individual then connects these two levels and spiritually nurtures the earth minimizing the effects of war for example in the natural cycles of war and peace.

judaism does the same thing.

Regardless I still believe Simone is correct as far as the Beast is concerned.

regardless of the evidence to the contrary, you mean. when the facts change, i change my opinion. what do you do? you know the problem here, nick? for all your posturing and cut-and-paste tracts, you are not a clear thinker. in fact, on reflection, your opinions come across as smug, arrogant, self-congratulating, sententious and in the final analysis quite ignorant. now, for all i know you may not be. but whatever it is you hope to achieve, i am certain you are not achieving it with your current attitude.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Nick_A]

You have no conception of how negative you are. Yet you believe I'm sure that something good can come out of so much negativity. Everything is my fault. You must be the reincarnation of an ex wife.

well, i'm glad you're such a positive, open-minded individual, not at all prone to making sweeping judgements.

Ecclesiastes 3 is a sweeping judgment. you either agree or disagree. I agree so I believe everything repeats as it must for any reactive animal:

1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak, 8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

what nonsense. of what possible use is that? i can be "open" to something, but without analysis, let alone action, it is all just windy, airy-fairy statements with no significance. moreover, i hardly think you can make an argument, as you are currently attempting to do, without at least some analytical elements. and i won't even start with the philosophical clangers you've just dropped in presuming a robust definition of "conscious" or "what is there". well done for ignoring an entire tradition of philosophical enquiry.

We will always disagree here. Other then in exceptional circumstances, a person can only receive the help of grace by striving to become open. A secularist does not believe it to be necessary to improve the human condition. A Christian knows it is essential. Secularism is dominant so the beast doesn't change.

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace. " Simone Weil

Once again I stick with Simone.

all human interaction is subjective. it is as meaningless to debate objective consciousness as it is to debate the subject of nightlife in the cretaceous; we can hardly expect to ever know anything about it that is not highly speculative.

It is always naive to debate what we haven't experienced. Two eight years old can have an intellectual debate as to the nature of an orgasm but later in their life, there is nothing any longer to debate.

hur, hur, hur, well, thank you for your feedback, i always enjoy being lectured on my personal faults by people who have no idea what i'm like.

It isn't a lecture but a sincere doubt.

not only the esoteric, but the exoteric tradition has more than adequate tools to not only raise the problem but to begin to approach it in a systematic, unsentimental and penetrating manner, just as you suggest. this is one of the places where your ignorance of judaism leads you to a massive and, to my mind, embarrassing overpresumption.

This is what the hypocrites do. They are uninterested in the esoteric realities and prefer to BS about some theories they are incapable of actualizing.

it's not a platitude. it is abundantly clear that at some level in this example there is always going to be human choice operating, whether it is to answer one's mobile phone while driving, or pull out without looking, or not take your car to the garage just yet. all of these things are affected by human choice, in fact i challenge you to present me with a moral situation where human choice is not a factor.


Choice changes. An alcoholic has the choice not to drink. He chooses this in the afternoon but in the evening he chooses to drink. What happened to the choice of the afternoon? Life is a continuum and choice has to be seen within this context. The choices you've made in your life have reached the stage where you are debating with me now. It was the result of your choices that began many years ago.

fine, so suppose i manage to attain this "impartial detached attention", then what? sit around eating kebabs? the jewish question would always be "and then what?" how does this make life better? how does it improve the world? how does it do the Divine Will? i don't appreciate the value of objective attention because it would be like appreciating the value of, i don't know, turning myself invisible - what on earth is the point of all this 'vanity and striving after wind'?


The practice of conscious attention develops consciousness. As we are we are creatures of reaction so everything repeats regardless of platitudes. It is only consciousness that offers the hope of change and you deny it.

by the same logic, a person may wish to critique judaism but he first has to learn something about it, otherwise he's just whacking randomly at the keyboard and calling it scales. or free jazz, possibly.

This why we ended up with secular Judaism and Christendom and what Simone describes as facets of the Great Beast.

judaism believes that there is always a way to improve ourselves.

But secular Judaism restricts the concept to societal life. It is concerned with what we DO but cannot contend with our hypocrisy. Christianity in contrast is concerned with what we ARE..

judaism does the same thing.

Theoretically yes but secular Judaism dominated by egotism makes the mistake of believing it is already connected.

regardless of the evidence to the contrary, you mean. when the facts change, i change my opinion. what do you do? you know the problem here, nick? for all your posturing and cut-and-paste tracts, you are not a clear thinker. in fact, on reflection, your opinions come across as smug, arrogant, self-congratulating, sententious and in the final analysis quite ignorant. now, for all i know you may not be. but whatever it is you hope to achieve, i am certain you are not achieving it with your current attitude.

As I said, you are a very negative person and Simone IMO is still correct in her observations.

 

[bananabrain]

You have no conception of how negative you are.

i am *reacting* to what i perceive to be intemperate, ill-informed and pig-headedly irrelevant criticisms of some kind of vague hypocrisy that you characterise as "secularism", whether it be "secular judaism" or some other phrase to which you attach meanings that are wholly at odds with how jewish people think. in the words of terry eagleton's famous critique of richard dawkins it is like hearing someone holding forth upon the field of evolutionary biology based upon their dislike of the "standard book of british birds". you started it. you seem unable to back up your criticism with specifics and you seem unable to address my refutation of your critiques with anything but rhetoric and personal attacks. if you experience that as "negative", then perhaps something may have actually got through your thick skin of complacent superiority.

Everything is my fault. You must be the reincarnation of an ex wife.

it seems to me that one of the things this ex-wife probably said quite often was "you're not listening, are you? that isn't what i think at all."

Ecclesiastes 3 is a sweeping judgment. you either agree or disagree.

!!!! could you understand it any less? ecclesiastes 3 is about developing a sense of the complexity of the universe and our impotence in regard to the "big picture" of the Divine Will, whilst at the same time preserving our need to be context-sensitive.

We will always disagree here. Other then in exceptional circumstances, a person can only receive the help of grace by striving to become open.

we will disagree here because WE DO NOT AGREE ON THE NECESSITY FOR GRACE. it is not a jewish concept, as we do not consider the human condition to require "salvation". this is a pretty basic disagreement and it does *not* mean that there is no necessity improvethe human condition nonetheless.

A secularist does not believe it to be necessary to improve the human condition. A Christian knows it is essential. Secularism is dominant so the beast doesn't change.

this is a false dichotomy based on a chauvinistic worldview.

It is always naive to debate what we haven't experienced.

yet you insist on continuing to debate the shortcomings of judaism without requiring yourself to know anything about it. honestly, this isn't rocket science, here.

This is what the hypocrites do. They are uninterested in the esoteric realities and prefer to BS about some theories they are incapable of actualizing.

what part of my also being a student of the esoteric tradition and its concomitant reality did you not bother to notice? *our* esoteric *and* exoteric traditions both utilise integrated methods of study and practice *specifically* to actualise this reality. noooo, to you this is simply "BS", "platitudes" and "hypocrisy"? so nobody but you and simone are in touch with "reality"? have you *any* idea how absolutely arrogant that is?

The choices you've made in your life have reached the stage where you are debating with me now. It was the result of your choices that began many years ago.

er, how is this point, on which we are in agreement, not a support of *my* argument?

The practice of conscious attention develops consciousness.

but the only one who gets to agree what conscious attention actually is is you?

This why we ended up with secular Judaism and Christendom and what Simone describes as facets of the Great Beast.

well, i suppose if we conveniently ignore the actual history.

But secular Judaism restricts the concept to societal life. It is concerned with what we DO but cannot contend with our hypocrisy. Christianity in contrast is concerned with what we ARE.

no it doesn't, ignoramus. judaism has plenty to say about this. you just aren't aware of it.

Theoretically yes but secular Judaism dominated by egotism makes the mistake of believing it is already connected.

and you, knowing nothing about this so-called "secular judaism", can somehow know that it isn't? what self-serving, complacent ullage.

As I said, you are a very negative person and Simone IMO is still correct in her observations.

yes, far be it from me to interfere with your fondly-held preconceptions by the deployment of mere evidence if it contradicts the oh-so-encyclopaedic and all-encompassing views of the omniscient simone.

perhaps we ought to draw a line under this discussion. i'm getting rather bored.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Nick_A]

The thread asks why Christians don't worship as Jews do and the answer is because they are completely different.

I have nothing against either Jews or Judaism as a whole but I've witnessed attitudes of certain Jews that are a turn off.. I like Rabbi David Wolpe and his Manifesto for the Future makes a great deal of sense. He is also in favor of recognition of the Armenian Genocide

JTSFuture Blog A Manifesto for the Future

But the bottom line is that Judaism isn't my calling and Christianity is not yours. This is OK. There is nothing worth being so negative about. I see them as complimentary so all this negativity serves no purpose.

 

[bananabrain]

The thread asks why Christians don't worship as Jews do and the answer is because they are completely different.

not completely, but you don't seem to appreciate how.

I have nothing against either Jews or Judaism as a whole

except "secular" or "exoteric" judaism, apparently, which is part of this "beast" of yours. forgive me if i don't exactly see your point here.

I've witnessed attitudes of certain Jews that are a turn off.

so have i. i think any jew who denies the armenian genocide is an idiot, the more so for short-term political gain.

But the bottom line is that Judaism isn't my calling and Christianity is not yours.

which is why i don't feel it is for me to make ill-informed blanket criticisms about christianity and why i would feel it appropriate for you to either substantiate your statements about judaism or retract them, not that i expect you to do so, as you would apparently prefer to basically stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la, i'm going to blindly continue to parrot simone weil instead rather than confront the possibility she might be wrong about something".

There is nothing worth being so negative about. I see them as complimentary [sic] so all this negativity serves no purpose.

it is not "negative" to drive a cart and horses through the flaws in someone's argument. i won't let outright falsehoods about my religion go unchallenged. there are legitimate, informed criticisms, many of which i agree with and are made here; and then there are the fashionable opinions of intellectual poseurs.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Nick_A]

except "secular" or "exoteric" judaism, apparently, which is part of this "beast" of yours. forgive me if i don't exactly see your point here.

Acknowledging the world for what it is doesn't mean to fight it but rather to witness it. The world is not exclusively secular Judaism but all mechanical expressions of secular religions and politics.

which is why i don't feel it is for me to make ill-informed blanket criticisms about christianity and why i would feel it appropriate for you to either substantiate your statements about judaism or retract them, not that i expect you to do so, as you would apparently prefer to basically stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la, i'm going to blindly continue to parrot simone weil instead rather than confront the possibility she might be wrong about something".

I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy normal for the exoteric level of secularism rather than criticizing Judaism in particular. If Simone is wrong than all interested in Plato and esoteric Christianity are wrong as well. I believe in the depth of esoteric Christianity that appreciates man for the potential of being more than a creature of the earth..

Esoteric Christianity

 

[bananabrain]

Acknowledging the world for what it is doesn't mean to fight it but rather to witness it.

that's only appropriate if you are "witnessing" what actually exists. otherwise, it is simply faulty analysis and, as we already know, "rubbish in, rubbish out".

I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy normal for the exoteric level of secularism rather than criticizing Judaism in particular. If Simone is wrong than all interested in Plato and esoteric Christianity are wrong as well.

you are fond of making sweeping generalisations, aren't you? hypotheses are only as good as their disproofs. if these theories and positions can be shown to be incorrect, they must be modified or withdrawn. and i have just shown you, with examples, how your idea of the "beast" and your dualistic view of "secular" religion doesn't match the reality of judaism because you have no appreciation of its philosophical content, both exoteric and esoteric. actually, i don't see why this would necessarily disprove plato *or* esoteric christianity. all it would disprove would be your understanding of the application of plato in such an all-pervasive sense, particularly to create these jarring and procrustean dichotomies.

I believe in the depth of esoteric Christianity that appreciates man for the potential of being more than a creature of the earth..

firstly, not only esoteric christianity appreciates this and, secondly, your view of it appears to be less about potential than dependence on "grace".

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Nick_A]

that's only appropriate if you are "witnessing" what actually exists. otherwise, it is simply faulty analysis and, as we already know, "rubbish in, rubbish out".

Yes, this is life in Plato's cave. Everything consists of partial truths with no larger context.

you are fond of making sweeping generalizations, aren't you? hypotheses are only as good as their disproofs. if these theories and positions can be shown to be incorrect, they must be modified or withdrawn. and i have just shown you, with examples, how your idea of the "beast" and your dualistic view of "secular" religion doesn't match the reality of judaism because you have no appreciation of its philosophical content, both exoteric and esoteric. actually, i don't see why this would necessarily disprove plato *or* esoteric christianity. all it would disprove would be your understanding of the application of plato in such an all-pervasive sense, particularly to create these jarring and procrustean dichotomies.

There is the level of the beast and like any beasts it reacts to matters of the earth. There is the transcendent that witnesses the level of earth from a conscious level above it. This is basic. It is the same kind of generalization as saying that two plus three equals five.


Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Caesar's world is the beast and God's world is the transcendent reality. Fallen Man is part of the beast with the possibility of entering the transcendent reality but it requires knowing how to serve both. The beast cannot do this from earthly influences alone regardless of platitudes to the contrary.

firstly, not only esoteric Christianity appreciates this and, secondly, your view of it appears to be less about potential than dependence on "grace".

Our potential has become so corrupt that we need the help of grace, whatever one wants to call it, to acquire a conscious human perspective.

 

[bananabrain]

nick,

i think we've exhausted this particular line of discussion. you're now repeating fixed positions and assertions that i've already made it clear we disagree on. i disagree with your axioms, your spiritual taxonomy, your operational definitions, your perspective and your textual interpretations. to me, your philosophical model is incoherent, your attitude to evidence defies logic and your reasoning is circular, as c0de and thomas (from islamic and catholic viewpoints respectively) have also pointed out, so it's not just me. i think it's best if we just agree to disagree now. i admire your tenacity at any rate - you appear far more of a thinker than our good friend mee, for a start!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Nick_A]

nick,

i think we've exhausted this particular line of discussion. you're now repeating fixed positions and assertions that i've already made it clear we disagree on. i disagree with your axioms, your spiritual taxonomy, your operational definitions, your perspective and your textual interpretations. to me, your philosophical model is incoherent, your attitude to evidence defies logic and your reasoning is circular, as c0de and thomas (from islamic and catholic viewpoints respectively) have also pointed out, so it's not just me. i think it's best if we just agree to disagree now. i admire your tenacity at any rate - you appear far more of a thinker than our good friend mee, for a start!

b'shalom


bananabrain

This reaction is to be expected. The secular mindset cannot appreciate the transcendent mindset so will always react with such disdain. Fortunately, there is a minority that have smelled the coffee from which I and others can learn from.

 

[bananabrain]

and some people can't appreciate that other people don't find their insight in the least bit "transcendent", but instead rather arrogant, patronising and ignorant.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Nick_A]

and some people can't appreciate that other people don't find their insight in the least bit "transcendent", but instead rather arrogant, patronising and ignorant.

b'shalom

bananabrain

From Plato's cave analogy:

[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

So the question becomes what can the people do that feel the truth of the transcendent in spite of societies attempts to kill it within us for the sake of the young that are not strong enough to stand up to these influences and easily killed inside?

Out of ignorance, enforced secular education is a highly effective form of spirit killing and kids are forced to enter educational institutions unknowingly serving as mediums to create dead people as described in the Bible.

Matthew 8:

22But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

So, any of the young that are inwardly drawn to the psychological perspective of the transcendent will be seen as "arrogant, patronising and ignorant." Of course at that age only a very few can stand up to it. Do they have to? Can education exist without the spirit killing effects of dominating atheism, secular Judaism and Fundamentalist Christendom amongst other such delights and actually serve to help in the development of living people rather than more of the walking dead? I believe so but that is another topic.

 

[Dream]

So the question becomes what can the people do that feel the truth of the transcendent in spite of societies attempts to kill it within us for the sake of the young that are not strong enough to stand up to these influences and easily killed inside?

The trancendant can kill the inside just as well as the secular, so there is not advantage unless it can keep itself alive. Let the transcendent transcend for itself or not. Don't prop it up, and don't glue it back together. "...if he be a god, let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his altar." (Jdg 6:31)

 

[seattlegal]

The trancendant can kill the inside just as well as the secular, so there is not advantage unless it can keep itself alive. Let the transcendent transcend for itself or not. Don't prop it up, and don't glue it back together. "...if he be a god, let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his altar." (Jdg 6:31)

I'd give you some positive rep on this one, Dream, but alas, I'm done repped out.

Proverbs 16:18-19
18 Pride goes before destruction,
And a haughty spirit before a fall.
19 Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly,
Than to divide the spoil with the proud.​

 

[Nick_A]

The trancendant can kill the inside just as well as the secular, so there is not advantage unless it can keep itself alive. Let the transcendent transcend for itself or not. Don't prop it up, and don't glue it back together. "...if he be a god, let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his altar." (Jdg 6:31)

The transcendent cannot kill inside because it is the nature of human being itself. What kills are fixations on interpretations which is why any reputable teacher can only give when the student is ready to avoid them doing damage to themselves.

Secular concerns are not by definition bad. They are necessary for a healthy society. The harm comes when they begin to deny the importance of the conscious connection with the higher influences necessary for the creation of human individuality that consciously establishes this connection. Then instead of society serving Man as it should, Man becomes a slave to society and nothing more than a mechanical part of the "Great Beast."

The older I get, the more I see how essential it is to work with others to keep the ideas alive that further the growth of true human individuality even at the expense of the nastiest growls of the Great Beast.

 

[Dream]

I don't understand the higher influences you've mentioned. If they exist then why do you say it is "essential to work with others to keep the ideas alive?" Whatever causes those ideas to appear should cause them to happen again, shouldn't it?

Only a biological change can remove human potential to hate including our potential for genocide, and our need for individuality is nearly indistinguishable from our need for space. Death is all over the history books. Massive death (effectively improved infrastructure) stimulates civil progress, creativity and individuality. I don't see any ideology strong enough to change this.

 

[Dream]

Thanks Seattlegal, for the 'Rep' and the riddle.​

 

[Nick_A]

I don't understand the higher influences you've mentioned. If they exist then why do you say it is "essential to work with others to keep the ideas alive?" Whatever causes those ideas to appear should cause them to happen again, shouldn't it?

Only a biological change can remove human potential to hate including our potential for genocide, and our need for individuality is nearly indistinguishable from our need for space. Death is all over the history books. Massive death (effectively improved infrastructure) stimulates civil progress, creativity and individuality. I don't see any ideology strong enough to change this.

This is a complex question. Is a biological or psychological change required? I appreciated how Simone Weil dealt with it in "The Need For Roots." She describes a human being as being like a plant. The roots feed on the earth and in this case society on the earth. The spiritual nature feeds on grace in the same way a plant feeds on the light of the sun. A balanced healthy human being then needs both the nourishment from good soil or a healthy society (metaxu) and the nourishment of grace and higher conscious influences like evolved humanity to acquire a human perspective for Man on earth that transcends our normal fallen reliance on power and force.

These are difficult ideas for anyone unfamiliar with such thought. Wiki does a good job on this in the section on Uprootedness if you're interested:

Simone Weil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia