Creation as Rorschach test

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?

How can God help us?

[…]

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):

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Creation as Rorschach test

  1. Obadiah says:

    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

  2. MM says:

    >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)

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >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.

      • MM says:

        What reveals it?

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          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.

          • MM says:

            >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.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >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.

            • MM says:

              Interesting. If that’s all it takes then I might as well believe in Judaism. Its backed up by the same evidence, no?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              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.

            • MM says:

              >the shroud of Turin

              Might as well use some elephant man chin bones as proof.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              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.

  3. bruce charlton says:

    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).

  4. Aeoli Pera says:

    >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..

    • kensuimo says:

      “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

  5. Obadiah says:

    >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

    • Obadiah says:

      ^(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)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s