That’s all it can be. If it’s anything more than that then it becomes knowledge.

But those to claim to have knowledge of divine things are clearly seen as nut cases.

Even famous Christians have been quoted as saying that either Jesus was God or he was a lunatic.

It’s typically not acceptable for mortal men to claim to have divine knowledge unless they are, in fact, divine themselves.

When mortal men claim to have more than mere faith it’s a clear sign that they’ve gone off the deep end of mental stability. They either can’t handle the reality of non-knowing, or they have fallen into the abyss of egotistical extremism to the point where they simply can’t admit that they might actually be wrong.

Either case is indeed sad.

Dream or not. It's personal definition at this point. Just word play. I remember a middle aged black women being healed right in front of me and her leg contorted right in front of my eyes. It's nice to know I have a God with REAL capabilities and I can have faith in Him to have authority in my life that he knows what He is doing and He cares.-

The rest is just yadda yadda.

I'm nuts and I'm rather enjoying myself, it's good to let go of control.

Evidence simply reinforces fact, physical manifestings from spiritual truths is just evidence.

Are you gonna stop amazing me anytime soon Wood man. It's like I know me better every time you reveal a new facet of faith I never thought of before. You are so wise.

Hmmm? Evidently there are other people who can perform the same kinds of ‘miracles’ that Jesus was said to have performed then. This just sounds to me like evidence that Jesus wasn’t unique then.

Not unique at all, when considering that we only reflect the potential within us that He Himself stepped into to uncloud the errors of our ways in thinking and acting on our potential as intended upon us.

hmmmm....

It must take alot of arrogance to scowl at a beautiful miracle of someone being healed. i think you're jealous cuz' you don't think 'you' can be touched that way. It's only because you have consciously refused it and not persued it.

How can an army be led if the commander doesn't train them first. Your definitions are so incoherent, "evidence". Just all wishy washy.

"Even if one were to awaken from the dead and warn them they still would not believe".

"Nature itself testifies to Gods existance so that NO MAN has excuse".

"The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing."

It's really amazing watching 2 polar opposies exist on the same field. Even when Christ returns people will be trying to hide from him under rocks.

"It is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance"

"Perfect love casts out ALL fear"

I only continue because I love you Abra, I wouldn't waste my time otherwise.

I don’t doubt that. You just misunderstand is all.



Maybe so, but I sure wouldn’t be one of them. I would run up to Jesus and hug him like my brother. And I’m certain that he would greet me in the same way.

Like I say Nuenjin’s. You just misunderstand, that’s all.

By the way don’t expect Jesus to make an appearance anytime soon. Mankind has only just been born. We are babes in a cradle. It would be utterly absurd for God to drop the curtain at this point. Mankind will be living for hundreds of millennium yet.

Surely you don’t think that God created this wonderful universe just to satisfy the egos of a few doomsday preachers.

We have a long way to go yet. Time spans that will boggle the brain. Archaic religions like Christianity certainly aren’t going to survive those eons. God is far bigger than any mythologies that mankind can devise. To believe in these ancient myths is to really think small. Yet we all know that God is not small.

On the contrary we are only just beginning to scratch the surface of how genuinely profound god really is.

abra,

I'd buy that if there weren't weeds in the lawn.

The weeds are choking the green grass and you know it.

The grass will become choked and the end of the age of grace as we know it will become moot.

It will in no wise diminish a check on vanity to follow.

Let us primp and prim properly in the mirror and bring the madness to a close.

I prefer vaporization to sorrow.

You?

You really can't debate faith....you either got it or you don't...and for me to have it the greatest joy ever. I think what makes it hard for people is because most have to have control over their life...for me giving it all to Jesus was not only the best decision of my life but the happiest also.

And as someone with incredible faith, I know with every fiber of my being that Jesus is coming back......And I also know for a fact that God the Father wants every nation to hear his word before this awesome great thing happens.

And as I have said before when God truly speaks to your heart.....and gives you amazing gifts then not only are you bound to him for ever and always but your life changes 360 degrees there is no need to deny him....I will continue to bring his word to all.....For those that want to believe otherwise this is what I say.


Satan's brand of humanismn is nothing more then self worship. Timothy 4:1 The later days are characterized by escalating spirituality of a deceptive and demonic nature.

Why will the warfare itensify in the latter days?

Because the enemy (satan) knows scripture and can read the signs of the the times fluently. The enemy is deperately trying to offset the outpouring of the holy spirit. Act 2:17 Rev 14:9-10 Matt 24:1-14 Acts 2:17-18 Isa 32:9-15

The enemy (satan) knows his time is short rev 12:12


God always reaches out in mercy before he brings wrath.

Existentialism stresses that people are entirely free and therefore responsible for what they make of themselves. With this responsibility comes a profound anguish or dread. Kierkegaard and Feodor Dostoevsky in the nineteenth century, and Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, and Albert Camus in the twentieth century, were existentialist writers.

And I agree 100% this is why all are given freewill.

yup.

and the salt on the meal is the seasoning.

Also the preservation of meat that would spoil without its blanketing.

Take the salt away and the meat putrifies and rots [ pork comes to mind ]

Remove the seasoning and the meal loses its savor.

If mystery is so appealing to you.

I will pray for you Abra. I pray He shows you the horror of the creatures that go bump in the night, the ones that I have seen. Then running to the light and hugging Daddys leg may seem more appealing.

There is a thin membrane from physical to spiritual, I pray you see the faces of what lies beneath our feet.

Monsters do exist.

No, I am not a typical Christian. I pray God scares you to death. Maybe you will open your eyes then. It's after you.

The first quote is compairable to some the christians here. Many here believe in God with faith, some may say blind faith, but to explore or question the beliefs inorder to have a stronger belief in it you lose the some of the spiritural side of religion. The more knowledgible you know about faith, the actual history, the politics the of time, then the old time tradition lose some of their value.

For instance many christians refuse to believe Jesus was Jewish. Not to get into any debate over this but the earliest followers of Jesus considered themselves still Jewish. The true christians were the converted gentiles. They changed was a once a particual Jewish sect that had Jesus a their messiah into their own religion.

It just hard for people to except the true facts because challeges their faith. Personally what I take from facts is a frame of reference of where certain beliefs came about. It actually strenghtens my faith.

Perhaps this essay will shed some light on the subject:

=====


The Defining characteristic of Consensus: Socialist realism and modernist subcultural theory
J. David Reicher
Department of Sociology, University of Oregon

1. Narratives of meaninglessness

The main theme of Drucker’s[1] model of modernist subcultural theory is not theory, as Debord would have it, but neotheory. The subject is contextualised into a that includes culture as a whole. But many discourses concerning Lyotardist narrative exist.

“Sexual identity is part of the dialectic of reality,” says Baudrillard. If semantic feminism holds, we have to choose between modernist subcultural theory and posttextual capitalist theory. However, the example of subdialectic construction which is a central theme of Burroughs’s The Soft Machine emerges again in Queer.

The subject is interpolated into a that includes consciousness as a paradox. Therefore, any number of narratives concerning the difference between reality and sexual identity may be found.

Lyotardist narrative implies that narrativity is used to reinforce capitalism. In a sense, Geoffrey[2] holds that the works of Burroughs are postmodern.

Bataille’s critique of socialist realism implies that reality must come from communication. But Sontag uses the term ‘conceptual postmodernist theory’ to denote the role of the observer as reader.

Derrida promotes the use of Lyotardist narrative to read and analyse society. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a that includes culture as a totality.
2. Eco and capitalist theory

The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is a mythopoetical whole. In The Island of the Day Before, Eco examines modernist subcultural theory; in The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas, however, he affirms Lyotardist narrative. Therefore, the premise of socialist realism holds that sexual identity, perhaps surprisingly, has objective value, but only if Baudrillard’s model of modernist subcultural theory is valid; otherwise, narrativity is fundamentally elitist.

The subject is interpolated into a that includes reality as a paradox. It could be said that a number of situationisms concerning subcultural deconceptualism exist.

Marx uses the term ‘modernist subcultural theory’ to denote the absurdity of structuralist class. Thus, many discourses concerning a postdialectic whole may be discovered.
3. Expressions of meaninglessness

If one examines Lyotardist narrative, one is faced with a choice: either accept socialist realism or conclude that narrative is created by the masses. Sartre uses the term ‘textual nationalism’ to denote the common ground between sexual identity and class. But the subject is contextualised into a that includes language as a reality.

The primary theme of Porter’s[3] critique of Lyotardist narrative is a self-falsifying paradox. Several theories concerning Lacanist obscurity exist. Thus, Marx suggests the use of Lyotardist narrative to deconstruct hierarchy.

If cultural narrative holds, the works of Eco are not postmodern. However, Debord promotes the use of socialist realism to challenge society.

McElwaine[4] suggests that we have to choose between pretextual materialism and modernist subdialectic theory. It could be said that Foucault suggests the use of Lyotardist narrative to attack sexism.

Many discourses concerning not, in fact, construction, but postconstruction may be found. Thus, Sartre uses the term ‘modernist subcultural theory’ to denote the collapse, and some would say the stasis, of patriarchialist sexual identity.

If Lyotardist narrative holds, we have to choose between modernist subcultural theory and submodern discourse. It could be said that an abundance of dematerialisms concerning socialist realism exist.
4. Rushdie and modernist subcultural theory

“Sexuality is unattainable,” says Foucault. Marx uses the term ’socialist realism’ to denote the role of the participant as artist. In a sense, many theories concerning a mythopoetical reality may be discovered.

If one examines Sontagist camp, one is faced with a choice: either reject modernist subcultural theory or conclude that art serves to marginalize minorities. McElwaine[5] implies that we have to choose between Lyotardist narrative and textual Marxism. But the meaninglessness, and eventually the absurdity, of modernist subcultural theory prevalent in Rushdie’s Satanic Verses is also evident in Midnight’s Children, although in a more self-fulfilling sense.

The main theme of the works of Rushdie is not construction, as socialist realism suggests, but preconstruction. If modernist subcultural theory holds, we have to choose between Lyotardist narrative and Sartreist absurdity. Thus, Marx promotes the use of socialist realism to read and deconstruct class.

Any number of discourses concerning Lyotardist narrative exist. It could be said that Derrida suggests the use of modernist subcultural theory to challenge capitalism.

The subject is interpolated into a that includes language as a totality. Therefore, neocapitalist libertarianism suggests that the State is capable of intent, but only if art is equal to truth.

Marx promotes the use of Lyotardist narrative to read narrativity. Thus, an abundance of theories concerning a dialectic reality may be revealed.

The subject is contextualised into a that includes reality as a whole. However, the primary theme of Sargeant’s[6] essay on Lyotardist narrative is the role of the reader as artist.

Sontag suggests the use of socialist realism to deconstruct sexism. Therefore, Abian[7] implies that we have to choose between Lyotardist narrative and presemioticist socialism.
5. Dialectic postcapitalist theory and textual discourse

If one examines modernist subcultural theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept textual discourse or conclude that art is intrinsically impossible. In Junky, Burroughs denies socialist realism; in Queer, although, he affirms modernist subcultural theory. Thus, if submodernist conceptual theory holds, we have to choose between socialist realism and the precapitalist paradigm of consensus.

Marx promotes the use of dialectic narrative to attack and modify class. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a that includes narrativity as a paradox.

Baudrillard suggests the use of modernist subcultural theory to challenge class divisions. However, the subject is contextualised into a that includes reality as a totality.

1. Drucker, N. Z. B. (1985) Modernist subcultural theory in the works of Burroughs. Loompanics

2. Geoffrey, I. ed. (1974) The Context of Economy: Socialist realism in the works of Eco. Panic Button Books

3. Porter, L. D. (1982) Modernist subcultural theory and socialist realism. University of California Press

4. McElwaine, W. ed. (1973) The Circular Door: Socialist realism in the works of Rushdie. Cambridge University Press

5. McElwaine, V. R. (1990) Socialist realism in the works of Glass. University of Oregon Press

6. Sargeant, Q. ed. (1971) Deconstructing Bataille: Socialist realism and modernist subcultural theory. O’Reilly & Associates

7. Abian, S. C. (1988) Socialist realism in the works of Burroughs. Schlangekraft

=====

On second thought, :)


-Kerry O.

The feeling of darkness, and what appears to be a constant struggle, or 'shifty', unsure, and unstable sensation within, you've got it 'Red'!!! Just add a huge dose of welcoming, if not causing such states, and you've captured the essence of existetialism from my humble perspective and personnal understanding.

The '... debate with himself', you refer to 'red', is very close to te mark. From what I carry from Sarte, he explored the different levels of consciousness his whole life.

He sort of nailed this notion and distinction of
... 'being as such', that would be simply existing, and
... 'being for self', which would be our conscious mode of being, where we are aware of our 'being', or 'being' as ourself. Distinct, and seperate from existing.

If you stopped for a second, and lost awareness of being, as in sleeping for example (nothing spookee), a sort of daily interruption of one being aware of oneself, there would still be the 'being as such', or existing.

And then, this is where Sarte starts dialoguing with his inner parts of consciousness. Is that all there is??? He seems to ask? This is where it gets fun.

He clearly pegs the neo-cortex (frontal or neo), this meaning making machine, this self-reflecting conscience, as the place where resides our abiblity to represent ourself, to ourself, so to speak.

If we were to refer to that 'representation of ourself, to ourself', this 'self-reflective consciouscious', as the EGO, what Sarte proposes with existentialism, is to transcend 'EGO'.

To Sarte, it is obvious one can not get to 'know' intrinsincly, much less know oneself, through oneself. A thing, looking at itself, from itself, will always be stuck in a loop.

The EGO must be 'transcended' (a sort of massive ego interruption), or surrender of what one 'knows' about self, in order to connect with a glimpse of universal and impersonnal knowledge and wisdom.

Sarte refers to this domain of consciousnes outside of EGO control, as 'nothingness', where Camus referred to it as la 'profonde insignifiance', or the 'meaninglessness' of life.

Far from being dark, it is simply suggesting that there can be no experience of life as it is, as long as we're attached to our meanings, or representations of ourselves and life.

Borrowing from 'Magret's' famous '... the picture of the pipe is not the pipe'.
We go around imposing our picture of life, expecting 'real life' to show up!!!

Likewise, there can't be love, if one is attached to a particular picture of love.
There can't be true friendship, if it is founded upon one's expectations or conditions.
There can't be freedom, if it is dependent upon certain standards.
There can't be faith, if it is based upon 'life like' concepts. That would give pretend, 'like' faith!

Sarte obviously did not come up with any of this alone. His discourse is a loyal and complimentary stone the edifice that many have helped build : Henri Bergson, Husserl, Immanuel Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, Martin Heidegger among others.

They have all pointed to this domain of consciousness where the being is at peace from the ego. I don't imply having mastered any of it, but I do find it fascinating.

Sarte defined that domain of consciousness as 'le néant': 'nothingness'. In a nutshell, he suggests there is a hole of 'nothingness' in the 'being', 'virgin' and uncontaminated, 'susceptible of receiving the 'flux', wisdom, spirit, etc., of the universe'.

Others since Sarte, neurotech sciences, have suggested that the reptilian and lymbic brains (subconscious and unconscious), are bombarded with 400 billion bits of information/second, as measured synapses activity in those regions of the brain.

That would correlate nicely with the 'nothingness' virgin domain Sarte spoke of, suceptible of reveiving the flux of the universe.

Our neo-cortex (conscious) however, only treats 200 million bits/seconds of information. It will never get a grip on the 400 billion bits. It will always be left in the fog. Thus the transcending part (letting go of what we know), thranscnding the control of the ego, momentarily, but repetitively (ongoing interruption of ego).

If that place sounds dark, the ego is surely at it. The ego doesn't like freeing the self up!!!

It wants to know the little stuff it knows and controls. And certainly wants nothing to do with stuff it has no idea of, or doesn't control.

The first sentence of the quote your offered in your OP says it brilliantly:

'... To believe is to know that one believes, and to know that one believes is no longer to believe. Thus to believe is not to believe any longer...'


Thanks 'redykeulous'. Very refreshing!!!

Voila!!!!

Very well done, my friend.!!!!

Excellent positive observation.

Maybe the clearest I've heard.

My memory of things settled has let much rest.

But your view reminds me well.

Thank you.

KerryO - Dang it took you long enough. I knew this one would get your attention. I absolutele LOVE the rhetoric you found. How do you find these things?

Anyway, I find it amazing to see the differences that emerge "philosophically" through the passage of time. How the ideas are chewed and reconsidered, "constructed", "desconstructed",even "preconstructed" and how each generation connects the nuances of more current 'culture'.

It seems to me that the overall theme must be communication. I've always had a soft spot for the Marxist view,

"Marx uses the term ‘modernist subcultural theory’ to denote the absurdity of structuralist class. Thus, many discourses concerning a postdialectic whole may be discovered."

but I think he was not in the correct 'age'(era), and could not understand the true role that 'modernist subculture' would/could play in the societal whole.

Baudrillard, is another I have often found interesting. Often, in philosophy the "sexual identity part of the dialectic of reality" was ignored. Again this was an 'age' disadvantage.

"The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas, however, he affirms Lyotardist narrative. Therefore, the premise of socialist realism holds that sexual identity, perhaps surprisingly, has objective value, but only if Baudrillard’s model of modernist subcultural theory is valid; otherwise, narrativity is fundamentally elitist."

I think the above seems to tracking towards the actual "modern", that being today. Baudrillard's theory does have valididty, but not in total. There were still pieces missing, one being the acceptance of the role os the "subculture" in society.

That is were Marx is 'off-track', then, comes Sartre.

"Sartre uses the term ‘textual nationalism’ to denote the common ground between sexual identity and class. But the subject is contextualised into a that includes language as a reality."

But the above requires one more part -

"Many discourses concerning not, in fact, construction, but postconstruction may be found. Thus, Sartre uses the term ‘modernist subcultural theory’ to denote the collapse, and some would say the stasis, of patriarchialist sexual identity."

But here's the question - is Sartre supporting the collapse or stasis, of patriarchialist sexual identity? As I said in an earlier post, Sartre seemed to view things from 'above' or rather, so far above that there was 'future' insight. This is always difficult to explain to others whose thoughts are more naturally linear.

Oh, my gosh, I could go on for days - just lock me in a room with this intriguing essay and my computer and let me analyse.

Any other philisopical ideas or opinions from the essay KerryO submitted?

You K - what do you think? How do you view the the "Sexual identity within the dialectic of reality"? Or "collapse of patriarchialist sexual identity"?

This is also an interesting point -
"Sexuality is unattainable,” says Foucault. Marx uses the term ’socialist realism’ to denote the role of the participant as artist. In a sense, many theories concerning a mythopoetical reality may be discovered.

If one examines Sontagist camp, one is faced with a choice: either reject modernist subcultural theory or conclude that art serves to marginalize minorities"

Mmm well, this does serve to prove one thing - communication requires the ability to "contextualize" within the mode of the rhetoric being bantered ! Am I correct?




"

Voil - magnificant


It was too easy, that's why I had trouble with it. I expected more profundity. Awe - no wonder I always had a soft for him, he thinks a lot like I do, if we only shared the same 'vocabulary'. Hahah!




Bergson and Husserl, I have read only slightly, Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel,Heidegger I find very intersting, though I often felt some incompleteness about their ideas. I always attrbuted this to the fact that they seemed "stuck" in an era, thier own past and present, but were not able to 'create' a future in which thier theories would remain stayed.

Frances Bacon, had some brilliance, but he was held captive by the forces of societal norms and expectancies of the times. He is often misunderstood.

I don't have the same view of ego as most people do, for that reason, I find it difficult to comprehend 'normal'. That's one of the areas that has so profoundly affected me in my life. This is why I enjoy phyilosophy. It is the epitomy of psychological study, from both the individual and sociotal viewpoint.

Thank you so much for the responce, Voil -

THANKS TO EVERYONE - each of you has given me some new thought or idea I had not for myself.