Outstanding Ebert, and you hit the nail on the head to focus on the particular irony where Atheists have no issue emulating Christ while Christians do precisely because they think Christ was God. That right there frames a lot of the trouble, which I think also has implications for other outstanding points you both made regarding the Big Other. We require a Big Other that we need to die, and then we need for form communities around that Death of the Big Other (as perhaps shown as possible in “networks” today like Cadell noted). But if we believe in a Big Other, it’s hard for us to be one, but if we don’t it’s easy to play that role, but in neither frame is there a step into a “death of the Big Other.” That’s where Christian Atheism can step in, to help us think the need to be Big Others for the next generation who at the same time act as Big Others to be overcome as Big Others. If we cannot make this step, our cultural logic might lead us into problematic places. I also loved the idea that “mysteries of liberal democracy are a mystery to liberal democracy”—that was such a great play off Hegel’s thoughts on Egyptians. Very well done to you both!
At first it seemed like a crock...but as advertised, it makes perfect sense. Christian Atheism. All by virtue of killing Buddha on the Road. Of tearing down the notion of the Big Other. Of returning Yeshua bin Miriam--he who was kicked upstairs into God-ness by the last two Synoptic Gospels and John--back down to his Markian origin story of merely-just-an-amazing-as-all-fuck-Jewish-mystical-dude.
I actually saw and interacted with Jesus. Twice. Two separate occasions. When he manifested in my office (Acupuncture) during treatments for two Presbyterian Ministers I was treating. One of whom was a gay man, and the other a woman; with congregations in the SF Bay Area. He looked like a swarthy Middle Easterner, with very curly below shoulder-length brown or black hair, and earth-toned coarsely woven robes. Dark brown or black eyes.
He'd materialized, not for me but for the patients, who were exhausting themselves tending flocks in his name. He was holding the head of the patients (both times) in his lap, with one hand behind their head/neck, the other on their heart. Each time, by this point the patient was babbling like a baby, lost in their JC experience. The first time I just watched. But the second time, he looked across at me, and asked, "How can I help you?" with total sincerity and humility. He did so with like 100% focus; yet I could see he also simultaneously had 100% focus on the patient. Which made me think of Hindu Yogis who supposedly have the power to physically manifest dozens of independent versions of themselves at the same time in different places.
A very approachable, very awesome Jewish (trans-Jewish?) dude; and potentially a first rate teacher/friend/lover/brother. As religions go, Christianity is pretty top-notch, if it means having a personal relationship with him (Him).
Re the "Christ's martyrdom is contingent on our sins" bit, i should clarify i mean that christ dying for our sins necessitates the presence of our sins, such that if we were to attempt to negate our sins by acting like Christ, we would be denying Christ the premise of his martyrdom.
A bit off topic but related to the gist of your site altogether has anyone ever heard of Richard Grossinger? http://richardgrossinger.com
He is seldom (if ever) mentioned in any of the usual substack sites or in any other philosophical/religious/spiritual forums.
He was the founder of North Atlantic Books which along with Inner Traditions/ Bear & Co are my favorite publishers.
To my mind his best book(s) are the Dark Pool of Light Trilogy - The Convergence of Physical, Philosophical, Psychological, Psychospiritual, and Psychic Views
Vol 1 The Neuroscience, Evolution and Ontology of Consciousness'
Vol 2 Consciousness in Psychospiritual and Psychic Ranges
Vol 3 The Crisis and Future of Consciousness
He is the most culturally literate writer that I have ever come across. His work goes far beyond anything even suggested by Iain McGilchrist (worthy as he is)
Check out this very sobering interview with Andrew Harvey
But why say, the trinity is a unique contribution to metaphysics, and then completely redefine for yourself? Why take a tradition that is thousands of years old and think that it simply needs to be adapted to our modern sensibilities? Why not find the Christian tradition with the most depth and substance, which happens to be the oldest(Orthodoxy), and engage with it on its own terms, instead of engaging with the worst and shallowest version of it, which happens to be the newest(Protestantism)?
Who are you saying is doing that here? Both of us? I think I contextualized some of this in the article, probably more so in the audio version, but for me this concept is most powerful when understanding western culture particularly the secular/christian divide. Asking us to focus on orthodox Christianity instead is a little like asking me to focus on a mutton chop when what we're talking about is McDonald's.
Maybe he is more but this is the forum for the conversation! I don’t think your analogy is apt. If you’re talking about McDonald’s, I’m asking you to focus on where the beef comes from.
The Atheist Christian immediately brought me back to Edward Sharpe “Wake up the sun” , “my religious is love—God approves this message”.
Oh nice catch
Outstanding Ebert, and you hit the nail on the head to focus on the particular irony where Atheists have no issue emulating Christ while Christians do precisely because they think Christ was God. That right there frames a lot of the trouble, which I think also has implications for other outstanding points you both made regarding the Big Other. We require a Big Other that we need to die, and then we need for form communities around that Death of the Big Other (as perhaps shown as possible in “networks” today like Cadell noted). But if we believe in a Big Other, it’s hard for us to be one, but if we don’t it’s easy to play that role, but in neither frame is there a step into a “death of the Big Other.” That’s where Christian Atheism can step in, to help us think the need to be Big Others for the next generation who at the same time act as Big Others to be overcome as Big Others. If we cannot make this step, our cultural logic might lead us into problematic places. I also loved the idea that “mysteries of liberal democracy are a mystery to liberal democracy”—that was such a great play off Hegel’s thoughts on Egyptians. Very well done to you both!
At first it seemed like a crock...but as advertised, it makes perfect sense. Christian Atheism. All by virtue of killing Buddha on the Road. Of tearing down the notion of the Big Other. Of returning Yeshua bin Miriam--he who was kicked upstairs into God-ness by the last two Synoptic Gospels and John--back down to his Markian origin story of merely-just-an-amazing-as-all-fuck-Jewish-mystical-dude.
I actually saw and interacted with Jesus. Twice. Two separate occasions. When he manifested in my office (Acupuncture) during treatments for two Presbyterian Ministers I was treating. One of whom was a gay man, and the other a woman; with congregations in the SF Bay Area. He looked like a swarthy Middle Easterner, with very curly below shoulder-length brown or black hair, and earth-toned coarsely woven robes. Dark brown or black eyes.
He'd materialized, not for me but for the patients, who were exhausting themselves tending flocks in his name. He was holding the head of the patients (both times) in his lap, with one hand behind their head/neck, the other on their heart. Each time, by this point the patient was babbling like a baby, lost in their JC experience. The first time I just watched. But the second time, he looked across at me, and asked, "How can I help you?" with total sincerity and humility. He did so with like 100% focus; yet I could see he also simultaneously had 100% focus on the patient. Which made me think of Hindu Yogis who supposedly have the power to physically manifest dozens of independent versions of themselves at the same time in different places.
A very approachable, very awesome Jewish (trans-Jewish?) dude; and potentially a first rate teacher/friend/lover/brother. As religions go, Christianity is pretty top-notch, if it means having a personal relationship with him (Him).
I love you
Re the "Christ's martyrdom is contingent on our sins" bit, i should clarify i mean that christ dying for our sins necessitates the presence of our sins, such that if we were to attempt to negate our sins by acting like Christ, we would be denying Christ the premise of his martyrdom.
A bit off topic but related to the gist of your site altogether has anyone ever heard of Richard Grossinger? http://richardgrossinger.com
He is seldom (if ever) mentioned in any of the usual substack sites or in any other philosophical/religious/spiritual forums.
He was the founder of North Atlantic Books which along with Inner Traditions/ Bear & Co are my favorite publishers.
To my mind his best book(s) are the Dark Pool of Light Trilogy - The Convergence of Physical, Philosophical, Psychological, Psychospiritual, and Psychic Views
Vol 1 The Neuroscience, Evolution and Ontology of Consciousness'
Vol 2 Consciousness in Psychospiritual and Psychic Ranges
Vol 3 The Crisis and Future of Consciousness
He is the most culturally literate writer that I have ever come across. His work goes far beyond anything even suggested by Iain McGilchrist (worthy as he is)
Check out this very sobering interview with Andrew Harvey
http://richardgrossinger.com/2010/08/richard-grossinger-in-conversation-with-andrew-harvey
But why say, the trinity is a unique contribution to metaphysics, and then completely redefine for yourself? Why take a tradition that is thousands of years old and think that it simply needs to be adapted to our modern sensibilities? Why not find the Christian tradition with the most depth and substance, which happens to be the oldest(Orthodoxy), and engage with it on its own terms, instead of engaging with the worst and shallowest version of it, which happens to be the newest(Protestantism)?
Who are you saying is doing that here? Both of us? I think I contextualized some of this in the article, probably more so in the audio version, but for me this concept is most powerful when understanding western culture particularly the secular/christian divide. Asking us to focus on orthodox Christianity instead is a little like asking me to focus on a mutton chop when what we're talking about is McDonald's.
Maybe he is more but this is the forum for the conversation! I don’t think your analogy is apt. If you’re talking about McDonald’s, I’m asking you to focus on where the beef comes from.