I previously asserted that the Bible is a Rorschach test. But what does it tell you about a man when he sees creation as something between a big classroom and a personal tutoring session?
[…]
As usual, the analogy (which is also literal) of God as parents, and Men (and other Beings) as children makes matters clearer. A parent may compel a young child to perform certain actions, or prevent other actions – but a parent cannot compel what the child wants, cannot eradicate sin… An ideal, loving parent may teach, but cannot ensure that a specific child will learn.
God created and continues to create this world for our experience and learning; but He cannot compel us to learn from our experience – indeed we may learn the opposite of what was intended.
(That is why this mortal world was built. If learning was not necessary, mortal life would not be necessary.)
[…]
So, when it comes to God helping us in this current absolutely dire global situation of totalitarianism triumphant – where the forces of evil hold nearly all the power, and with the active consent of nearly-all ruling humans and the tacit acquiescence of the masses – what God can do (and does do) is to continue to create opportunities for learning, for each and every one of us.
God is doing this on an individually-tailored basis. God has, in your here-and-now, created a situation from-which you (personally) are intended to learn some-thing of importance for your spiritual development and/or salvation.
…Not the general situation, but your situation; not for people in general but for you exactly.
[…]
What you need to know, and what I need to know, is related to our current circumstance; and that we can know – and we can know this directly (as-it-were mind to mind, without any ‘mediation’ such as language). We can know it by intuition from our true selves (i.e. that which is divine within us, being as were are children of God); and we can know it from the Holy Ghost – which is everywhere a source of guidance and comfort – in prayer/ meditation.
And once some-thing has been learned, then there will be some other thing to be learned.
Life is never ‘sorted-out’; there is no limit to the number of things we can learn – and one leads on to another; which is why the greatest saints were never complacent, and always aware of how much they had not learned.
What we have not learned may be termed our sins, and the process of learning can be termed repentance; which is why even the greatest of saints know themselves to be sinners.
-Bruce Charlton
Personally, I perceive creation as something between an industrial filtration system and a performance art piece. Here’s the IBM Watson analysis of https://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/ (which may not be representative):
Aeoli Pera 
I love these periodic kicks you go on where you turn the heat up on various internet demagogues lol
Creation seems like a classroom, a performance art piece, filtration system, “artisanal”/”constructive” art piece, and probably more things all at once
I expect it can be perceived as analogous to all conceivable types of human invention, since our own creations are pale imitations.
>Creation as Rorschach test
If subjective interpretation of creation can rightly be regarded as a rorschach test for the individual then can the sum of all egos, and of creation-as-such, not be a rorschach test for God?
>A parent may compel a young child to perform certain actions, or prevent other actions – but a parent cannot compel what the child wants, cannot eradicate sin…
Not parent, Bruce: All-mighty creator. And God says explicitly why you were created; only for his glory. Maybe that doesn’t sit well with you (I’m unbelievably neutral* on all this).
>God created and continues to create this world for our experience and learning
Well, this is at least better than then hatred of sensory experience, and the denigration of the apparent world for the ‘real’ one. Though I will note, that last line “continues to create”… is getting you into spicy territory, Bruce :)
Cue Heraclitus, Nietzsche, and the followers of Abraxas;
‘There is no Being, only Becoming.’
Which is true, but the point is anyone who that wants to call you a ‘zodiacist’ would find the motherlode of cummies in Abraxas. (But thats work and not play and so gay and they dont get to invent new words that make them feel smart and creative)
>If subjective interpretation of creation can rightly be regarded as a rorschach test for the individual then can the sum of all egos, and of creation-as-such, not be a rorschach test for God?
If you stopped reading the Bible at Genesis 1 when God declared creation good, then I’d call that a reasonable judgment. However, I’d encourage you to read a bit further since I believe the correct religion is revealed and not based on things we can come up with on a desert island.
What reveals it?
That’s a matter of debate. I take the historical view, some take the “sola scriptura” view, etc.
Sola scriptura is particularly annoying to an autist because when asked to justify it, people refer to justifications within the canon they’ve assumed to be scripture.
>I take the historical view
I assume this is what it sounds like.
There are historical accounts for loads of religions
Why do they prove Christianity and not Zoroastrianism?
I’ll gladly keep going, but to cut to the chase:
I’m fine with people consciously choosing to believe something with irrational faith, but I don’t like when people do not recognize it as such, or they try to tell me something unprovable is provable.
>There are historical accounts for loads of religions
Why do they prove Christianity and not Zoroastrianism?
If you refuse to read one of the thousands of books on the subject, then I’ll summarize by saying Christianity is the only religion anyone bothers to apply the historical standard to. Regardless of whether a particular piece of evidence is legit, e.g. the shroud of Turin, there simply is no Zoroastrian equivalent.
Interesting. If that’s all it takes then I might as well believe in Judaism. Its backed up by the same evidence, no?
If you take Judaism to mean the Old Testament and not the Talmud, knock yourself out. But that’s not what people usually mean by Judaism.
>the shroud of Turin
Might as well use some elephant man chin bones as proof.
I can’t tell if you’re missing the point or just pretending to miss it to be nastier.
>ie, this comment was good shit, and you give it a sentence? Insulting
If I insulted you 1/10 of the way you insult me this would be a very different relationship.
As you know, I regard our primary imperative – here and now – to be metaphysics; we must discover and examine our primary assumptions about reality. The above analysis seems to be based on an assuption that individual psychology is the primary explanation of ‘everything’ – including God, creation and the purpose/ meaning of mortal life. This seems very obviously incoherent – for all the reasons relating to ‘relativism’ (Cretan Liar paradox etc).
>As you know, I regard our primary imperative – here and now – to be metaphysics; we must discover and examine our primary assumptions about reality.
While I believe the criticisms that brought you to this conclusion were excellent (e.g. modern people are de facto psychopaths), I believe the conclusion itself represents an abnegation of duty to demonstrate irrational, unnatural levels of Christian lovingkindness. A natural abnegation–it’s natural to self-insulate in an increasingly cold world, bereft of healthy human relationships–but an understandable failure of moral courage is still a failure.
>The above analysis seems to be based on an assuption that individual psychology is the primary explanation of ‘everything’ – including God, creation and the purpose/ meaning of mortal life.
Isolating the subjective element of perception is the purpose of a Rorschach test. I’m not a relativist..
“A natural abnegation–it’s natural to self-insulate in an increasingly cold world, bereft of healthy human relationships–but an understandable failure of moral courage is still a failure.”
Why aren’t nonmelons hellbent on societal scale conceptions of necessary action blueprints!? It doesn’t make seeeeeeeeeeense
“Isolating the subjective element of perception is the purpose of a Rorschach test.”
Imagine creating the entire cosmos just as powertalk. #flexfriday
>But what does it tell you about a man when he sees creation as something between a big classroom and a personal tutoring session?
^quote brought this to mind:
“Don’t be so sure. The Anglo-Saxon elite, unlike the majority of their mouthbreathing charges, don’t operate under delusions about politics… they understand and appreciate that Jews are a unique and insular population that harbors political aspirations. However, there is a certain subtle hubris that is characteristic of Anglo-Prots that only those of us within that tradition can really apprehend.
Our leadership caste really does believe that they have a historical mission to immanentize the
eschaton in the form of a terrestrial utopia… and they think that Jewish politicking (however
aggressive or caustic) is just a crude and atavistic character trait of the lower orders that can be
remedied overtime. They also think themselves indispensible, and believe that they will never be
forced to surrender the reigns of power, despite the fact that their dominance is becoming utterly
vestigial relative to other factions.
I think Anglo-Saxons cannot imagine a world without their tutelage and guidance… I believe it
rather unthinkable to them that the Others would ever willfully and wantonly aim to deprive them
of their sovereign authority. It would be like a badly behaved yet precocious child murdering his
father.”
Click to access thomas777.pdf
^(not to say Charlton’s teaching isn’t awesome and I don’t read it every day when I can–but that aspect of WASP psychology that Thomas is talking about is interesting and worth discussion)