Created In The Image Of God?

[Guest wayfarer2k]

To Janet:

 

You wrote: “And I also feel called to do something about the suffering in this world. It is one of the problems I have had embracing any eastern philosophies. My goal is not to transcend the world, but to be an active force for love in the world.”

 

I couldn’t have said it better! The following is sweeping categorizing but I left fundamentalist Christianity because it was willing to let the present world go to hell in hopes of a heaven someday. Progressive Christianity, in my opinion, is just as willing to let the present world go to hell as long as an elite few reach a state of enlightenment which leads them to declare things such as evil and suffering don’t exist. Due to my own journey, much of which I have not shared publicly here, I have a strong bent towards doing something about suffering. The truth cemented in my heart is to love God and have compassion on his creation. For me, the best way to love God is to have compassion on his creation – fellow human beings and the care/stewardship of this earth. So I seek those who share in this same heartcall.

 

I understand, Janet, that each of our responses to God is very personal and very individual. That is indeed what makes it a “personal relationship.” But, to me, that doesn’t mean that all of our responses to God are right or beneficial for ourselves or the rest of humanity. One of the benefits of being in a community is to have a place where our responses to God are critiqued (not criticized, but evaluated) to see if our responses fall in line with loving God and loving others. The focus here on PC seems to be to allow anyone to say anything they like as “truth” without critique (except for the few fundies, of course). To me, such “openness” isn’t a progressive search for truth, it is simply allowing everyone to have a turn at the microphone with canned applause afterward. Granted, these are ‘my’ perceptions of what I see here. They lead me, not to condemn such openness, but just to realize that it isn’t for me.

 

To Joseph:

 

You wrote: “It seems to me it would be beneficial to just let my posts pass for the time being.”

 

That might be beneficial if you hadn’t posted in the thread on suffering that the whole discussion was moot because suffering, in your view, doesn’t exist. That is belittling to the subject and to those who actually desire to do something about it.

 

I hope you understand that I’m not leaving because of your (or anyone else’s) account. No one here has shown me the door. I am leaving on my own account. The focus of this forum is indeed on Eastern mysticism and that path just is not for me. This doesn’t mean I find nothing of worth in Eastern thought. It just means that I don’t want to join in a movement that attempts to recast Christianity as a New Age religion. For instance, I am interested in the historical Jesus or whom scholars call the pre-Easter Jesus. To me, this is my path. The general bent of this forum is on the mystical Christ, the “Jesus in all of us”. This simply doesn’t work for me. Human history is replete with far too many people who have pushed their own evil agendas in the name of God or Christ. When Jesus becomes completely subjective, then anyone can claim divine authority to do whatever they want. To me, this is not compassionate, this is dangerous.

 

I understand what you mean about “there is no requirement to believe or disbelieve” what anyone says here on this forum. I agree. But there is also no, for lack of better words, mechanism or safeguards to encourage people to know and recognize the truth either. As I said to Janet, someone could claim to channel Adolf Hitler here and that person would be applauded for realizing their “God within” because, according to your view, there is no difference between God and Adolf Hitler.

 

There is indeed something to be learned from interactions here. As I’ve said, I’ve learned a lot, much of it helpful. It is beneficial to see how other people think. But I simply can’t go with the general stream of this forum into the ocean of Eastern mysticism. IMO, that is not the way forward for Christianity. To me, the way forward is to recapture the teachings of the historical Jesus and actually live them out. That’s my bent and my desire.

 

I know that it is the outlook of some parts of progressive Christianity that “all roads lead to Rome”, that “as long as you are sincere, it doesn’t matter what you believe” i.e. to thine own self be true. There is, I think, a small component of truth in that statement. But I also think that it is a delusion to think that all religions and all viewpoints are equally valid and beneficial to mankind and to our world. There are, I believe, serious consequences for us as a human race if we don’t develop compassionate views of God, our religion, and of each other. We do indeed need to move past the “tribal-war-God” images found in the Hebrew scriptures. But I don’t think the answer to this view of God is to move to the view that we are all gods and that we are all correct. Such notions are just too reactionary for me. It is one thing to say that God is everywhere. It is quite another to say that we are all gods. I still believe that there is, not a separation, but a distinction between me and God. And that is where my paradigm is different from what I find here. So it is of my own accord and desires that I depart.

 

Wishing you well and all the best on your journey,

bill

[JosephM]

To Joseph:

 

You wrote: “It seems to me it would be beneficial to just let my posts pass for the time being.”

 

That might be beneficial if you hadn’t posted in the thread on suffering that the whole discussion was moot because suffering, in your view, doesn’t exist. That is belittling to the subject and to those who actually desire to do something about it.

 

I hope you understand that I’m not leaving because of your (or anyone else’s) account. No one here has shown me the door. I am leaving on my own account. The focus of this forum is indeed on Eastern mysticism and that path just is not for me. This doesn’t mean I find nothing of worth in Eastern thought. It just means that I don’t want to join in a movement that attempts to recast Christianity as a New Age religion. For instance, I am interested in the historical Jesus or whom scholars call the pre-Easter Jesus. To me, this is my path. The general bent of this forum is on the mystical Christ, the “Jesus in all of us”. This simply doesn’t work for me. Human history is replete with far too many people who have pushed their own evil agendas in the name of God or Christ. When Jesus becomes completely subjective, then anyone can claim divine authority to do whatever they want. To me, this is not compassionate, this is dangerous.

 

I understand what you mean about “there is no requirement to believe or disbelieve” what anyone says here on this forum. I agree. But there is also no, for lack of better words, mechanism or safeguards to encourage people to know and recognize the truth either. As I said to Janet, someone could claim to channel Adolf Hitler here and that person would be applauded for realizing their “God within” because, according to your view, there is no difference between God and Adolf Hitler.

 

Hi Bill,

 

I am now even more convinced that it will do you well to remain here. You have not yet learned to try to understand things in context. There is no defined path here that you must follow. Progressive Christianity is not another religion with a spokesman. And yes most here believe Christ is in all of us. That is about as Christian as you can get. It is not eastern mysticism. Jesus is recorded as saying that he is in us and we in him and prayed that we would all be one with God even as he was. That can be found in the gospel of John. Perhaps you are drawing conclusions from linguistic words written here and applying them without a full understanding of what the person was speaking of. No one here applauded Adolph Hitler. that is your incorrect conclusion. No one said that suffering wasn't real to humans or doesn't exist for them, that is your incorrect conclusion. A more careful reading might bring you to a different conclusion.

 

True compassion will attempt to try to understand others and categorize them less. If you seek love and compassion, in my view, this is a wonderful place to allow it to be exercised.

 

Love Joseph

[David]

I like to listen to the members of the Unity Church who come to the Jesus Seminar. From what I can see those members share at least some of the “Christ consciousness” thinking that has been associated with Eastern thinking (an association that may have some merit with a lot of explanations). Anyway, the Unity people there are also very interested in the historical Jesus and the Jesus Seminar. Now the members of the Seminar would strongly disagree with Joseph that the Gospel of John reflects Jesus, but instead the Gospel of John reflects the early Church. So the Unity people at the Seminar obviously “get it” that the historical Jesus made no claim to be the Christ and their “Christ consciousness” thinking is more related to the followers of Jesus. They live comfortably with the historical Jesus and “Christ consciousness”.

 

I think it is a fair observation to note that many Progressive views are underrepresented on this message board. In any case, the Unity movement or “Christ consciousness” folks are an important part of, but, nevertheless a small percentage of Progressive Christianity. I would question Joseph’s statement that “most of us” agree with him. I would suggest that “most of us” agree with the Jesus Seminar. Currently I hope that people look to the TCPC website more than this message board if they are trying to understand Progressive Christianity which obviously is a religion/social movement.

 

But in any case, regardless of whoever represents the “most of us”, this should be a discussion among friends. I would suggest that the goal of this and any such discussion on this message board not be based upon the goal of unity, but the goal should be pluralism. I think the Unity people at the Jesus Seminar model that for us.

[davidk]

Wayfarer,

Good comments. Genuine concerns. Spot on observations about this site. You're a man of integrity. Stay or go, let it be known that though we may not exactly see eye to eye, you have been honest and forthcoming. It has been a pleasure for me.

 

God's grace to you, always,

Dk

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"Progressive Christianity, in my opinion, is just as willing to let the present world go to hell as long as an elite few reach a state of enlightenment which leads them to declare things such as evil and suffering don’t exist."

 

"So I seek those who share in this same heartcall."

 

"One of the benefits of being in a community is to have a place where our responses to God are critiqued (not criticized, but evaluated) to see if our responses fall in line with loving God and loving others. The focus here on PC seems to be to allow anyone to say anything they like as “truth” without critique (except for the few fundies, of course). To me, such “openness” isn’t a progressive search for truth, it is simply allowing everyone to have a turn at the microphone with canned applause afterward. Granted, these are ‘my’ perceptions of what I see here. They lead me, not to condemn such openness, but just to realize that it isn’t for me."

 

Bill,

I really appreciate your response, and I share much of your frustration and definitely the same heartcall. I think I don't fully understand what someone is saying when they say "evil and suffering don't exist." I just can't wrap my brain around that. However, it is very meaningful to others on the forum. Maybe they are on a different journey and that message speaks to them. I can see how it is possible that message could do some good and be a loving message for some. For example, some people (myself included at times) take on a victim mentality, spending their energy that could be better used elsewhere.

 

I have a small comunity of friends where I can get my thoughts about God critiqued. One of my friends is more into the eastern mysticism, one is an evangelical, and another is on the more traditional side of Methodism. It is difficult for us to develop that kind of relationship over the internet, because you can't see my facial expressions or hear inflections in my voice, so some things may not come off the way they were intended. I read this forum with interest, but it will not replace the community I have with my friends.

 

Each of us has a limit in our faith where we don't want others to cross the line. When I have had gut-level responses to something another has said, it is generally useful for me to understand why.

 

Janet

[David]

In defense of Jen, She never said she was Jesus. She only professes to channel / communicate his words. There is no requirement to believe or disbelieve her. It seems to me that there is something to be learned from all interactions here.

 

Love Joseph

 

This is like saying that Pat Robertson does not say he is God, he only tells us word for word what God is saying. Just because we have a right to disagree with Pat does not mean that we should embrace this kind of epistemology. Just because we may agree more with Jen’s Jesus does not make it a different epistemology. It seems the same to me. I would suggest that revelation always start with the phrase “I heard”, not “God/Jesus said”. Both assume a relationship between the human and the Divine. It is very dangerous however to think that the difference is not very important.

[JosephM]

This is like saying that Pat Robertson does not say he is God, he only tells us word for word what God is saying. Just because we have a right to disagree with Pat does not mean that we should embrace this kind of epistemology. Just because we may agree more with Jen’s Jesus does not make it a different epistemology. It seems the same to me. I would suggest that revelation always start with the phrase “I heard”, not “God/Jesus said”. Both assume a relationship between the human and the Divine. It is very dangerous however to think that the difference is not very important.

 

David,

 

It seems to me, no one is saying to embrace any so called epistomology of this kind. Perhaps you mistake an embrace of Jen for an embrace of the perported or perceived source of her words which to me seems to have no bearing on that which she writes, unless of course one wants it to.

 

Truth can come through anyone without exception whether we agree or not in the theory or the practice. It is not a case of agreeing with one more than the other. In my view, Pat Robertson is also welcome here and embraced as a fellow human being on a path. Whether or not one chooses to dialog with him is of course, their own personal decision. After all, this is the debate and dialog section for those who may have widely differing views.

 

Perhaps people do not fit into the image we may have made of a progressive Christian, nevertheless, point 4 is not exclusive of those who may not be like the perceived us. Therefor I find no others here either dangerous in their wording or a real threat to progressive Christianity in general and speaking for myself they are accepted as they are at this point in time with no requirement to change their thinking.

 

love in Christ,

Joseph

[Guest wayfarer2k]

To Joseph:

 

You are correct to point out to me how important context is. I couldn't agree more. But it is especially difficult to get context on a forum where, for every 10 words that are posted, there are 100 words of context that are behind those public 10. It takes getting to know that person, something that is difficult, time-consuming, but often worth it.

 

I really don't have a problem with the concept of "Christ in all of us" or "God in us" or the divine spark or whatever label you want to use for it. Holding to panentheism rather than supernatural theism, I find "God in us" to reflect my own understanding of our human nature and our relationship to God.

 

But it is quite another thing to go from "God in us" to "we are god." This, to me, is one of the mistakes of the early Christian church, going from acknowledging that God was "in Jesus" to "Jesus is God." To believe, in theistic terms, that the all-knowing, all-seeing, everywhere-present Divine was in Jesus of Nazareth and helped him discover and teach truth is one thing, something very believable. To believe that Jesus was (and is) this same Divine makes Jesus unbelievable. God cannot die. Jesus died. This is just one small example where the paradigm that "Jesus is God" leads to logical inconsistencies. God is all-seeing. Jesus was not. God is all-knowing. Jesus was not. God is everywhere-present. Jesus was not. Nevertheless, his followers recognized the Divine in him. And it seems that after his death, they struggled with how to interpret the Divine in Jesus. Some were content with "God was in Christ". Others "promoted" him and said, "Christ is God." Out of that struggle, the doctrine of the Trinity was eventually born, a doctrine that even Trinitarians admit makes no sense...and, therefore, is a difficult (if not impossible) doctrine for any thinking follower of Jesus to hold to.

 

Now, where I am really wanting to go with this response is not to discuss the nature of Jesus or Christ, but to point to the fact that, due to 2000 years of Christianity where the "Jesus is God" theology has won out over "God was in Jesus", the word/person of Jesus carries ALOT of context in our culture. Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God himself. Liberals tend, generally, to see him as a teacher whose teachings are divine. Regardless, in our society, the words of Jesus carry alot of God-context, alot of authority. Right or wrong, when someone claims to speak for Jesus (and many do), they are usurping, in our culture, the authority of God himself. In the words similar to those of EF Hutton, "When God speaks, people listen", or they should.

 

My point of view is that when Jen posts as Jesus (and she does because "Jesus" is logged into this forum as Jen), she is usurping all of the God-context and authority that Christianity has given to the person of Jesus Christ. In popular Christianity, you had better listen to Jesus...or else. The Jesus of popular Christianity is someone who commands, if not worship, then at least an audience and often obedience. After all, Jesus, as found in the scriptures, said that what others thought of him ("Lord, Lord") was less important than whether they obeyed his teachings.

 

So what to do when someone claims to speak for Jesus? My first response is, as David says, why can't they simply just speak for themselves? After all, if Christ is in us, isn't that enough "authority" (if that if what we desire) to ask that our words be heard? For someone to speak as Jesus, IMO, implies that if they speak as themselves, they doubt they would be heard? So if we are truly "progressive", why not encourage them to speak as who they are?

 

This, to me, goes to the issue of honesty. You know me well enough (from my posts and private emails) to know that I try, to the best of my ability and the nature of online communications, to be honest about who I am, my struggles, my questions, even my few, small "enlightenments". But I post as ME, not as a Divine figure.

 

This is getting long, so I'll conclude. Either Jen is channeling the REAL Jesus (who lived 2000 years ago) or she is self-deceived and either willingly or unwillingly trying to deceive others. I can't speak to her motives. By the nature of what she writes, as Jesus, she is expressing her relationship to the Divine. But by posting AS JESUS, she is willingly saying that those words carry the same import and authority as those of the historical Jesus 2000 years ago. Do they? I suppose that is up to each of us to discern and decide? If we want ANOTHER revelation of Jesus, we don't have to look very far to find one. The Mormons have one. The Book of Urantia is one. And most of the time, these other "Jesuses" downplay or even contradict the historical Jesus.

 

Should Progressive Christianity lose the historical Jesus? Some would say yes. Some would say that Jesus of Nazareth was solely the product of his own time and theology and that what matters is "Christ in us" (as the apostle Paul claimed) that gives each of us the authority to revise or even negate what the historical Jesus taught us. Maybe this is part and parcel of this new "Progressive Christianity", to see the historical Jesus as deluded or in error on his revelation to us of what God is like and how we should treat each other. But I, for one, am not ready to give up the historical Jesus to history and claim the role of "Jesus" so that I can have an audience and/or following. To me, there is truth in Jesus' words, not because he was God, but simply because his teachings seem to reflect our best concepts of God and how we should treat each other.

 

Sorry this is so long. But I have to question why someone on this forum would claim to speak for Jesus and why others would support that claim. Speaking for Jesus is a heavy responsibility in our culture. If Jen wants the freedom to speak for him, is she willing to take the responsibility for those who start to follow her Jesus?

 

In the spirit of this thread, were we created in the image of God...or were we created as gods? It is an important question and VERY MUCH reflects how we treat each other.

[David]

David,

 

It seems to me, no one is saying to embrace any so called epistomology of this kind. Perhaps you mistake an embrace of Jen for an embrace of the perported or perceived source of her words which to me seems to have no bearing on that which she writes, unless of course one wants it to.

 

“I” am saying that to take Pat Robertson at face value is to embrace the epistemology of revelation via direct dictation. Are you saying that to take Pat Robertson at face value is to embrace something different? Are you saying that epistemology is not important?

 

My responses to Jen surely show that I embrace Jen. She is a wise person and her insights are powerful. The “source” of the words is exactly the point. Why do you invalidate that point by stating that I somehow do not embrace Jen? Certainly “I want to” make this point. Certainly you are free to say that the alleged source of words is not important. I just think that view is dangerous and dangerous not because “I want to” see it that way.

[JosephM]

To Joseph:

 

(snip)

 

Sorry this is so long. But I have to question why someone on this forum would claim to speak for Jesus and why others would support that claim. Speaking for Jesus is a heavy responsibility in our culture. If Jen wants the freedom to speak for him, is she willing to take the responsibility for those who start to follow her Jesus?

 

In the spirit of this thread, were we created in the image of God...or were we created as gods? It is an important question and VERY MUCH reflects how we treat each other.

 

Bill,

 

Very well written and articulate post so I took the liberty to snip most of it out in my reply since it was rather long. There is no disagreement in me in what you have said in your post. I don't know whose line that is that we as humans are God. It is surely not mine. An image is not the real thing so i have no problem with your words.

 

Now for the Jen issue..... it seems to me enough to work out my own inner conflicts and not to take on a role of deciding whether Jen should or shouldn't make a claim or speak in a certain way. To me that seems to be her business. Whether she takes responsibility or not is of no business to me. Not because I don't care about others but because that is not my purpose here on earth that has been given me. You seem to be moved to a significant degree by her manner of speaking. I am of the opinion that when you are no longer moved by words that don't sit right with you then a barrier to truth will be lifted from you. That is only my perception and you may agree or disagree or do with it what you will.

 

Regardless, I consider you a friend and if there is ever anything I can do for you, I would be most happy to be of service.

 

Love Joseph

[JosephM]

“I” am saying that to take Pat Robertson at face value is to embrace the epistemology of revelation via direct dictation. Are you saying that to take Pat Robertson at face value is to embrace something different? Are you saying that epistemology is not important?

 

My responses to Jen surely show that I embrace Jen. She is a wise person and her insights are powerful. The “source” of the words is exactly the point. Why do you invalidate that point by stating that I somehow do not embrace Jen? Certainly “I want to” make this point. Certainly you are free to say that the alleged source of words is not important. I just think that view is dangerous and dangerous not because “I want to” see it that way.

 

 

David,

 

I guess you could say that what I am saying is, it really isn't necessary for me to take Pat Robinson at face value. I am not an epistemologist nor is his theory of knowledge, his critical study of its validity, his methods, or scope of any interest to me. So yes, to me, epistemology is not important. To me Life is more than words, theories and methods at arriving at knowledge. No offence meant if it is important to you. This is only my view in response to your question.

 

Thanks for clarifying your embrace of Jen. That was my error in perception. Perhaps you will define dangerous in context to your statement so that I may better understand your concern

 

Love Joseph

[David]

Thank you for your clarification. I am thankful that we agree that “support for Jen” is not the issue. However, if “the issue” that I have raised is not important to you then I hesitate to bother you with it. I suspect others see the danger that you do not.

 

I agree with you that Truth can come in many forms. Epistemology is about how you know the truth in any form. You will find a discussion of progressive epistemology elsewhere but basically I would argue that progressive epistemology is based upon an “internal” knowing process. So you may read Jen’s Jesus and know the truth therein, but you may recognize that the knowing comes from that “internal” process and is not a result of the claim that it comes from the historical Jesus.

 

The danger is that many people of many faiths would argue that the most important Truths can not be known as I would argue. Those Truths can only be “given” to us by a supernatural external being (Jen’s Jesus). Some of those people will take what is “given” by that supposed supernatural external being and strap explosives to their bodies and blow up other people. Others take on a supposed Divine identity and expect others to respond to them as some kind of god. This all is dangerous. I would argue that the power behind that danger is not with the supposed Truths that are being claimed. The power comes from the epistemology that states the way one knows the most important truths is an “external” thing and not an “internal” thing. You see where the responsibility is for these people? This is overly simplified but it many ways it is a simple point.

 

Now when someone like you (obviously a very intelligent/wise person) comes along and says that Pat Robertson or Jen are not claiming to be Divine but only giving us word for word dictation from that Divine it certainly sounds like you are supporting the same epistemology that blows people up (remember my argument is that the power is with the epistemology, not the “truths” being discussed). You may not intend that consequence and think therefore that you see no danger. If this is what you think then I argue that you are wrong.

 

I’m not clear how your statement that Jen is not claiming to be Divine but only providing Divine dictation is related to your statement to Bill that it is not your business to comment on Jen’s Jesus. If you meant the latter it would have been good to say that. I would have ignored you then. But since you seemed to support (probably without intention) the dangerous epistemology I did not want to let that pass. Hope this helps you understand my input.

[JosephM]

Thank you for your clarification. I am thankful that we agree that “support for Jen” is not the issue. However, if “the issue” that I have raised is not important to you then I hesitate to bother you with it. I suspect others see the danger that you do not.

 

Perhaps.

 

I agree with you that Truth can come in many forms. Epistemology is about how you know the truth in any form. You will find a discussion of progressive epistemology elsewhere but basically I would argue that progressive epistemology is based upon an “internal” knowing process. So you may read Jen’s Jesus and know the truth therein, but you may recognize that the knowing comes from that “internal” process and is not a result of the claim that it comes from the historical Jesus.

 

Yes, the knowing comes from "internal" yet it seems to me that it is not a process.

 

 

The danger is that many people of many faiths would argue that the most important Truths can not be known as I would argue. Those Truths can only be “given” to us by a supernatural external being (Jen’s Jesus). Some of those people will take what is “given” by that supposed supernatural external being and strap explosives to their bodies and blow up other people. Others take on a supposed Divine identity and expect others to respond to them as some kind of god. This all is dangerous. I would argue that the power behind that danger is not with the supposed Truths that are being claimed. The power comes from the epistemology that states the way one knows the most important truths is an “external” thing and not an “internal” thing. You see where the responsibility is for these people? This is overly simplified but it many ways it is a simple point.

Perhaps I see a harmony that others may not. My physical life is always in the hand of the creator and real danger is not a factor to my Life. (perhaps only to my life situation) It seems to me the power does not come from the epistemology but rather a conditioned willingness of the victim creature to accept truth that way. Perhaps it always requires both a perpetrator and a willing victim. It seems to me, my words cannot be a danger to you unless you agree to allow them to be so. Personally I do not see Jen or Pat Robertson's words as dangerous nor their claimed source as a threat.

 

 

Now when someone like you (obviously a very intelligent/wise person) comes along and says that Pat Robertson or Jen are not claiming to be Divine but only giving us word for word dictation from that Divine it certainly sounds like you are supporting the same epistemology that blows people up (remember my argument is that the power is with the epistemology, not the “truths” being discussed). You may not intend that consequence and think therefore that you see no danger. If this is what you think then I argue that you are wrong.

 

Your first error in perception is in assuming I am very intelligent. lol. Secondly, I am not supporting any epistemology as you may suppose. Nor am I attacking it. I do not know where Jen's words come from, I only know where she claims they come from. Where they come from to me is irrelevant. To me, one does not learn from others these things. Linguistics enables us to describe things that others may not be yet capable of articulating yet that articulating is, as you may already know, not the source of knowledge. It seems to me that those who accept as truth written or spoken words without subjective experience for themselves are a danger to themselves. In my view, words have only the power we give to them.

 

I’m not clear how your statement that Jen is not claiming to be Divine but only providing Divine dictation is related to your statement to Bill that it is not your business to comment on Jen’s Jesus. If you meant the latter it would have been good to say that. I would have ignored you then. But since you seemed to support (probably without intention) the dangerous epistemology I did not want to let that pass. Hope this helps you understand my input.

 

I never said she was providing Divine dictation . I said she didn't say she was Jesus, She said she was providing communications from him. I was only correcting his statement. I don't even know if she considers Jesus Divine as you have used. As I said, I have no interest in her epistemology. Perhaps i just have a different way to look at it. Also perhaps it would have been best for me to just let Bill's statement alone which at the time i perceived as an unwarranted attack on Jen and, by implication of his entire context, on this site, which is represented by no single person or the few individuals named. Yes, I think I now understand your input and concern.

 

Love Joseph

[David]

As I said, I have no interest in her epistemology. Perhaps i just have a different way to look at it. Also perhaps it would have been best for me to just let Bill's statement alone which at the time i perceived as an unwarranted attack on Jen and, by implication of his entire context, on this site, which is represented by no single person or the few individuals named. Yes, I think I now understand your input and concern.

 

But those are just words and “words cannot be a danger to you unless you agree to allow them to be so”. For some reason you reacted to a perceived “unwarranted attack” in this instance, but refuse to recognize the “unwarranted attack” by a dangerous epistemology that I have attempted to show you. Is there some difference in the words here that I am missing?

 

You state that “the power does not come from the epistemology but rather a conditioned willingness of the victim creature to accept truth that way. Perhaps it always requires both a perpetrator and a willing victim.”

 

First of all, you have just provided a good definition of how epistemology works by noting “a conditioned willingness…to accept truth that way”. That is epistemology at work. I agree with you that the power comes from “a conditioned willingness to accept truth that way”. The power comes from epistemology.

 

You say “perhaps it always requires both a perpetrator and a willing victim”. The victims of the process that I am talking about include innocent bystanders in these “holy wars” even if you could blame the “willing victim” of the epistemology/thinking that fuels those wars. In any case I think it is better to talk about the dangers of the epistemology process itself. The “perpetrators” are victims also. How many are “willing” is highly questionable if you mean they actually can see viable alternatives.

 

If I understand you correctly then I see no danger to your “Life” either because you seemed to have separated your “Life” from your “life situation”. To the extent that they are separated in your mind it would appear to make your “Life” somewhat irrelevant to your “life situation”. It would seem that any attempt by me to talk about “life situations” with you would be fruitless. The danger that I am talking about is within those “life situations”.

[JosephM]

But those are just words and “words cannot be a danger to you unless you agree to allow them to be so”. For some reason you reacted to a perceived “unwarranted attack” in this instance, but refuse to recognize the “unwarranted attack” by a dangerous epistemology that I have attempted to show you. Is there some difference in the words here that I am missing?

 

Greetings David,

 

That is correct. Words are not a danger unless one allows them to be so. His word attack was no danger to me. Bill is no danger to me. I merely suggested that perhaps if I looked back it would have been wiser to not respond. Perhaps it was a conditioned perception error on my part and not an attack on his part at all. Perhaps the error was mine. He might have been looking to justify in his own mind a valid reason to leave this forum for whatever reason. I really do not know. That is why I said "at the time I perceived it as" which means I do not know.

 

You state that “the power does not come from the epistemology but rather a conditioned willingness of the victim creature to accept truth that way. Perhaps it always requires both a perpetrator and a willing victim.”

 

First of all, you have just provided a good definition of how epistemology works by noting “a conditioned willingness…to accept truth that way”. That is epistemology at work. I agree with you that the power comes from “a conditioned willingness to accept truth that way”. The power comes from epistemology.

If the definition of epistemology is a conditioned willingness by the creature to accept truth that way then yes. But I am of the persuasion that that power does not come from theory or philosophy but rather an antithesis.

 

You say “perhaps it always requires both a perpetrator and a willing victim”. The victims of the process that I am talking about include innocent bystanders in these “holy wars” even if you could blame the “willing victim” of the epistemology/thinking that fuels those wars. In any case I think it is better to talk about the dangers of the epistemology process itself. The “perpetrators” are victims also. How many are “willing” is highly questionable if you mean they actually can see viable alternatives.

 

In my understanding, there is no blame, there is no such thing as an innocent victim and yes, in essence, victim and perpetrator are one and the same.

 

 

If I understand you correctly then I see no danger to your “Life” either because you seemed to have separated your “Life” from your “life situation”. To the extent that they are separated in your mind it would appear to make your “Life” somewhat irrelevant to your “life situation”. It would seem that any attempt by me to talk about “life situations” with you would be fruitless. The danger that I am talking about is within those “life situations”.

 

Yes, one can view things from both sides and the one indeed becomes irrelevant to the other. A harmony is seen and the things that do appear are seen in a different light so that even epistemology becomes irrelevant. Whether our talking about "life situations" would be fruitless or not to you depends on you and your motives for doing so.

 

Love Joseph