Woodeye

Paul5204 Re: "the lack of understanding of Christianity :"

Aloha Paul:-)
The lack of understanding of Christianity that you find here, may be because of our individual communicating styles.
For instance; your expression "...one soul living(nefesh chayyah)..." is not written in what I would call common English, and would be more widely understood if it was simply rendered; "...one living creature...":-)

If you take Christianity out of the context of preconceived church doctrine and language, and examine it in the **greater context** of the bible, you may just find that there is other understandings of Christianity, that may even be more fundamental than your own:-)
I would certainly be happy to discuss it with you, in case you have some new evidence that would correct my opinions:-)

xoc

This is a great point, one worthy of much contemplation and meditation I think. It is our power to represent one thing by another symbolically that gives us both language(written and verbal) and religion/mythology, and mathematics and science... all knowledge that could be impersonal(or formal knowledge rather than material knowledge ala Kant). It is also the root of superstition and "magical" activities. All seem to me to be relative forms of communicating through the "Reality-Whole"(entity to entity), and what some methods lack in precision they make up for in power: as that which grips the spirit and the mind, to raise him or lower him. To me the preference for "existentialism" really means the bias for the soul/individual as having an essential value/purpose/importance just as it naturally seems to us. But then again I don't advocate a lot of nonsense that may come with certain of those views, just so far as they may denote fundamental inadequacies of rationalism/science/etc. I am pleased. To be able to explain why such-and-such feels good is not as relevent as it does: the expereience in itself gives worth, our understanding of it is pleasent window dressing. So both the left and right brain are assuaged, both neccessary for the whole person. I see this as giving value to the whole human experience, the rational philosophising through symbols and the "animal life" of eating, drinking, etc. My views on existentialism vs. rationalism however may be somewhat caricaturistic.
Well, I think from the Darwinian stand-point there is no "right" to be top-dog, only power, and this we have achieved with our brains rather than our brawn. I do believe the wisest should rule, although usually it is the strongest charismatically in democracies... this points to how people prefer the need for their "spirits to be stirred" rather than to be well informed. But politics is a business of dealing with people, so this can and must be done on other ways than simply rationalism because emotional communication is more central to people's "core soul" than mere intellectual communication. I do believe that humanity's "good trick" really is beyond value compared to the other elements of the mind, for such conceptual thought has the power to change the world through every mode, technology, science, and everything else, and we can in fact cheat nature in helping ourselves and other animals in ways that no other animals could possibly do. Whether or not we're good custodians, the answer is probably no. The fundamental question related to this is "what is the value of a life?" To the US government, the life of a US citizen is worth 1000s compared to enemy civilians; while this could never make sense in the pure "metaphysical objective sense"(God's eye view) it maybe harder to argue from a moral relativistic position...

For example, the commandments to "survive"; but survive for who? The survival of one species/animal may be directly contrary to another, and the survival of one nation could also be in direct conflict with another's. So we get the question of whose survival is most important, or better for the whole... it is better perhaps to apply it to the whole world than a mere nation, for it is the spiritual betterment of the race to strive for wholeness rather than obsess over a particular survival of your own "tribe" or "self". In Christianity the sacrifice of one is deemed necessary ultimately for the greater "survival" of the species(in a spiritual sense). This is like Spock's dictum: "The needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the Few." It is only a rational view if we value others, and the Whole of mankind, as being more valuable than ourselves in particular, which may require a leap of faith away from the more baser, self-protective instincts. With the survival of the many, diversification is possible, diversification could follow an "artistic/creative principle" to fulfill many possible potentials(in a most general class rather than specific) into being actualised... principles of the World that speak against the chemical/physical laws which should lead to homogeneity(well atoms seek "completion of the shell", to become noble gasses(a uniform series), but through great complexity in their encounters instead become more compounded with other atoms,e tc.- the desires of the individual affect and shape the rest of the world in multifold ways, that would never be expected or desired by us) I guess I'm getting pretty far out of my league here, but is it not a paradox that complexity should arise out of such simple laws, because of apparent "happenstance?" If self-organisation of matter, where is it's self-organisational properties inherited from? We call chance that what we see no direct relationship to, but if one is inferred by an inference of intelligent principles through nature, I still see the need of a Deity of some kind, theistic or pantheistic.