I see that the two you were speaking of the passage in the Bible, which I think is the hardest of all, or certainly it really worried me. That is the passage about the unpardonable sin: 'whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.' You mentioned it in connection with the idea of the Trinity, but it is has far wider implications for the idea of an unpardonable sin seems so contrary to the whole emphasis on forgiveness in the New Testament. When I have mentioned this idea to a number of people who are Christian's they don't really seem tot have thought that much about it. However, having agonised over it, I was a bit reassured to discover later that Jung and Kierkergaard had both struggled over this.

When I read the passage I lay awake worrying about it and I was troubled for about a year. I was so puzzled about what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was and, somehow, became convinced that I might have committed it. I was 13 at the time and did not confide in my parents but did tell a friend. The RE teacher ended up hearing about my worry and called me in, but he was not completely helpful because he seemed to think that I had done something which I felt ashamed about. However, I did manage to look up the idea in some reference books and it did seem that the whole idea represented the whole rejection of the spirit of Christ's teachings and that the reason why the person could not be forgiven was because the person, having rejected Christ, would not wish for his forgiveness. But I never saw the passage as being one about the essentiality of the Trinity idea, although that is an interesting interpretation. Personally, I would say that the passage you referred to was the initial anxiety I had with the Bible.

Certainly, I won't be trying to put down anyone's personal beliefs, but would just be trying to offer thought for reflection. The thread may just die overnight anyway, as so many are being created everyday. So, I think that I will just log off for the night and hope that any discussion is one from which positive, constructive ideas can emerge. I will look in the morning and do my best to follow through....

Good night, Jack

I don't know why people get nasty with others in such discussions. Perhaps the threat is the whole idea of uncertainty which emerges, and it gets projected onto others who see a bit differently. I prefer to have the conflicts of opposing ideas in my own consciousness, and live with that, rather than trying to just look for one clear scientific or spiritual view. I believe in trying to think as clearly as possible, evaluating ideas. If there was one clear picture for guiding all other thought, surely it would be apparent. Of course, the search for truth is subjective in many ways, but it is easy to get lost or bogged down in this information age, amidst the whole array of competing ideas.

I am certainly not wishing to start a debate that becomes nasty. To some extent, it seems that all debates on this forum are heated and there is a whole undercurrent of thinking surrounding the philosophical underlying religious and spiritual questions. Just now, since I started this one today, I have noticed that someone else has created one about the supernatural.

I am wishing to explore the whole question of belief surrounding the whole experience of the extraordinary. It is an area for the gullible but people who are struggling to make sense of life. There are shelves of books on angels, demons and all kinds of occult or new age ideas. Really, I think that there is some big rift between those who subscribe to materialism and those who look for spiritual systems of thought. This may be more of a divide now than the conflict in religious beliefs and atheism.

I think many people are questioning deeply. As people on the forum probably know by now, I embrace a wide spectrum of thought rather than having one specific one. Perhaps people would prefer it if I had one fixed belief. However, I don't see this as easy, but I do think that if anything we need ways of seeing and thinking which can reconcile a lot of conflicts raised by the findings of science and the whole quest for understanding our lives, especially the realm of the mysterious. But, I am certainly wishing to think beyond delusions.

I am not sure that your three degrees of Christianity are definitive. I don't feel that I fit into them, and probably would consider myself as post Christian. I think that this has some connection with your idea of pre Christian, more than non Christian because it is more a case of feeling unable to follow the original pathway. However, that is not rejection but more of a feeling of wishing to embrace the truth underlying all religions rather than one. I think that this is probably more in line with the theosophical tradition.

I think that I am familiar with the attention to such practices as holy days and prayers, as certainly that was the Catholic background I was brought up in. My father grew up in Ireland and following the catechism was very important. I was taught to kneel down and say prayers every night. Lent and fast days were seen as being of extreme importance.

I think that it is only a minority who hold on to these ideals now. I remember as a child that, when I explained about my own religious background, some other children seemed a bit shocked. I don't adhere to the specific practices but do still hold onto the central principles, such as attention. I think that it is true that emotionality may have replaced attention and, this may mean that psychology has taken over in filling the void left by the meaning which religious beliefs used to provide.

I have found being in groups extremely difficult at times, due to the whole herd factor. I do think that my own social skills are deteriorating in lockdown and wonder how I will cope with groups again. I wonder if I am the only one feeling this way or whether other people are wondering if they will be able to go back to being in groups after becoming used to isolation.

I do think that the whole question of 'prophetic experiences' is one which raises questions about scientific determinism and it is questionable of how much our freedom is an illusion. My own experiences of premonitions, especially in adolescence, was what made me not accept the materialistic explanations, because, otherwise I think that I might have done so. I am inclined to the view that a picture of reality which may be more adequate would be one which is being perceived in the new physics, which sees life more in terms of vibrations and energies.

I am in favour of looking for the most rational ways of looking at all matters, but it does just seem to me that some of the most conventional explanations for certain experiences are a bit inadequate. I am all in favour of new discoveries to explain what appears to be unexplainable.

It is so hard to explain these things. When under a lot of stress, especially if I have not slept or had eaten very much, I have intense experiences on the borderline of sleep. Sometimes, it is as if I am arising from my body and or of being in my bed and held down by alien entities. Some may say it is the astral dimension and others would say that it is strange dreams or nightmares.

So, do you think it is all about seeing imaginary patterns?

Yes, I am not dismissing of people's beliefs of any kind because experience can be so strange, and our whole attempts to understand them from a logical point of view.

One of my strangest but horrible experiences was of having intrusive thoughts that a friend was going to kill himself. He did have a history of two previous suicide attempts but he had never ever expressed suicidal ideas to me. So, when I kept having the idea that he was going to commit suicide I thought I was the one with a psychological problem. This was while I was at university and I went for a few sessions to a Gestalt counsellor, who gave them to me for free because she was about to go on maternity leave, and the idea was that I could go for further paid counselling with her at some point in the future.During the free sessions, we looked at my fears about my friend as my psychological issue.

After my four free sessions, I felt calmer about my friend, who was smoking a lot of cannabis at the time. I was not smoking it, but felt affected by the cannabis passively. One night, I woke up and heard a voice, and I have only heard voices on 3 occasions in my life, and the voice said that I should throw myself out of the window. I shrugged this off, and went back to sleep. On the following day, the friend who I had been worrying about prior to the counselling threw himself out of the window and killed himself.

I never went back to the counsellor after she would have been due to return from maternity leave. She probably thought that I did not want to pay for counselling or did not need it any longer. The truth was that I just couldn't face telling her what happened. I do sometimes wonder what she would have said.

I would probably accept most experiences of precognition as natural phenomena now, although I haven't had any for some time, so it is hard to explain for sure. However, when I first began experiencing them it was so intense and the experience were of other people's deaths. I did even wonder if I was responsible for the deaths at some point, although I was able to reason that this was unlikely and that I was simply having precognitions. However, it was puzzling and, having been brought up to believe ideas such as the virgin birth of Jesus, I did end up questioning the whole basis of reality.

This whole experience of questioning was began while I was still at school, and I think that if I had not been able to explore different ideas, I would have probably have become unwell mentally. I did even request to see a psychiatrist and, fortunately, he said that he thought that I was trying too hard to compartmentalise my own experiences. Looking back on it, I am so glad that he did not try to see me as unwell. I really don't know how many people have unusual experiences, because perhaps they are fearful of speaking about them. Anyway, I struggled on and the idea which I found most helpful was Jung's idea of the collective unconscious.

Probably the reason why I began thinking about this again recently was because when I referred to this idea on the site, I felt that people seemed to think that the whole idea of the collective unconscious was dubious. So, I began thinking about the whole idea of the unconscious and what does it mean? It does seem that in some ways it refers to that which we cannot explain or understand. Obviously, people are exploring more and more about unknown aspects of life, such as the areas pointed to in the links provided by @Outlander.

However, I definitely believe that some people are more sensitive and able to perceive subtle aspects of reality more than others. This may be about our biochemistry, and I do think that stress affects our neurotransmitters. I think that this comes into play when people become unwell mentally.

However, I think that the nature of delusions is one which is often one in psychiatry, important for diagnosis. However, the way delusions operate in daily life is not questioned that much. Even within philosophy, it seems that people are inclined to think ideas, such as belief in God, or the opposite are delusions, but we can also ask on a deeper level, what is delusion in the ultimate sense?

I have altered my title because I realise that the majority of people who use this site are people who think in a critical way. However, I am interested in the whole deconstruction of ideas about superstition and the magical. I believe that we like to think that our ideas about the whole way reality is are the ones which are forward thinking. However, I think it is worth asking what is a delusion within philosophy and thinking about reality?

Thanks for the links. The aspect referred to in the link which I thought was most interesting was the whole idea of microwave effect and the whole question of this for understanding delusions, such as mind control.

Probably most people using this site are critical thinkers, but I am aware how so many people are extremely superstitious. One thing which I found was that, while I was working in mental health care, most staff were very quick to label people as delusional, but they were sometimes very superstitious themselves. For example, I remember working with a person who was extremely educated, but if I spoke of the ward being quiet, used to tell me not to say that in case I put a jinx on the situation.

So, really I am interested in looking at the whole way in which notions about magic and the paranormal come into play in everyday life. However, I am wanting a critical philosophy discussion, so I may update my title and add to it because it is probably the case that most of the people using this site are critically aware individuals in the first place.

It is interesting that one of your ancestors was an archbishop who was friendly with Madame Blavatsky. I have read some of her writings and also, another writer called Alice Bailey. I did attend a few lectures at The Theosophy Society centre near Baker Street in London.

I am interested to know how you think the discussion between you relative and Blavatsky may have been focused in relation to Christianity. I have often wondered whether the basic understanding of reality of early Christianity may have been more in line with Eastern metaphysics. This does appear to be particularly true of the ideas in the Gnostic gospels, which were excluded. However, I have wondered many times if part of the way ideas about Christianity don't work for many is because they are being viewed through a Western picture of metaphysics.

One aspect which I think is important to consider is the whole way in which Christianity developed as a mainstream religion and may have, at many times, have not really expressed the whole message which Christ taught. I am speaking of the whole ideal of compassion for the downtrodden and poor. In addition, so much of what Christ taught may have been lost in the way the Bible was put together. A lot of the teachings which were established were based on the ideas developed by Paul. Another underlying tension in the development of the Christian tradition was the conflicts over Gnostic thinking, and the role of teachers, especially Origen, in deciding what writings were put into the New Testament, and this is critical for thinking about how the way Christian thought developed.

I think that part of the problem is that many people have not been socialised to see the importance of getting an act together as an individual task. For many, ideas of how one can achieve a fulfilled life is connected to belonging and being immersed in a family or group. It is such a strong idea perpetuate in religion and education. Being a loner is often seen as odd, whereas now many have no choice to follow that path. Personally, I grew up as an only child, so I was always used to my own company but for people who have always been with others at most times, if they are forced to spend so much time in lockdown alone it is likely to be an extreme challenge. I have definitely heard that telephone support lines have been almost bombarded and, I am not surprised.

You speak of behaviour traits as being inherited, and one idea which I came across in biology is that generally it has been maintained that only 2 strands of DNA are active and the rest is junk DNA, but now it is thought that this 'junk' may contain potential for understanding psychological characteristics. I do think that it is mainly speculation by some biologists, but if it shown to be true through evidence it would have profound implications for the biological basis of behavioural characteristics.

I think that many, including Jung, have interpreted the resurrection in this way, although most people who adhere to mainstream Christianity believe firmly that the physical body of Jesus was resurrected. Related to this, is the whole idea of the eucharist as the body of Christ in communion. For some Christians, this is seen as symbolic but I know that in Catholicism it is seen as literal, as the mystery of transubstantiation. In other words, when taking the bread and wine, it is believed that one is really eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ.

It is hard to know to what extent we are determined and how much of a role we have in determining our lives. It seems to me that some people get a better chance than others, because they experience more advantages physically and socially.

What you are saying is interesting. I am wondering how you see the physical and intellectual intertwined? What role does body play, and where does mind and thought come into this, especially the wish to have certain things demonstrated?

I do think that there is a difference between the psychology of the elite and the mass of humanity, in terms of experience and the wish to preserve certain ideas, and to use these ideas politically. However, even that is a blurry continuum, and it is hard to know how this is distinguished, or on what basis. Is it about power, wealth or education?

I am not sure who benefits from certain religious beliefs now. It may be so different from the structure from which those from which the ideas protected in the days of early Christianity. Do those ideas protect those who are in power, or those who are comforted by those beliefs? With such ideas as the virgin birth, I do think that such ideas probably comfort a whole variety of people, probably those who are so caught up in the web of belief and faith, that they would probably not dare to question. Many have not been taught such ideas because they have not been brought up with such beliefs but it is not a clear distinction between the mass acceptance of such ideas and a minority rejecting. We are in a very complicated time of a whole spectrum of thoughts throughout the world.

I would say that it was the whole struggle with life on a daily basis. Even now, I even struggle sometimes with even replying to the comments. Life seems to be so difficult, with so many complex questions and conflicts. It may be that others don't struggle with angst as I do, and even though I do enjoy philosophy, the starting point is pain and conflict.

I do believe that philosophy is the absolute adventure, beyond material and all other gains. We may stand back in trepidation, clinging on to what we have, for better or worse, but it brings us to the abyss of all possibilities. It can be seen as the cliff edge in front of us, looking out into the precipice below.

I do hold onto what's inside, and I do keep in touch with friends, even though I have not been able to meet up with people for a year. I do wonder how some people are coping. I have experience of working in mental health care before the pandemic started, and I do wonder how some of the people who were the service users are coping.

I think that this is a critical time for many, but perhaps it was an inevitable consequence of the way society was heading. I probably can cope with time alone more than many others can. It is a challenge for myself, and I cannot even begin to imagine how much of a challenge this can be for some who are not used to being alone at all. So, we might be speaking about the whole therapy of knowing oneself, as isolated individuals and perhaps that is the quest we must face. It is the time of knowing oneself as an individual being, in the full existential sense.

.

I think that social conditions are also important. Personally, I live with about 10 to 12 people in one house, in London, so that all the rules of social distancing are absurd. There are so many people living in the house in which I am renting, and I don't even know all of their names. I do think that social and sociological questions are an underlying factor. I also think that we are living in such a way that we are almost considered as mere numbers and it is so difficult to find any cohesive sense of personal identity as we become part of the mass. Perhaps, my biggest sense of identity is having a voice on this site because in the world at large, I feel that I count for absolutely nothing.

To some extent we are stuck with our bodies and their changing nature. We can clothe them and modify them to some extent. They can enable us to achieve a certain amount of identity and style.Personally, I am rather attracted to punk, but in the original shabby sense of fashion rather than designer punk. But I do believe in a way, our bodies give us so much limitation in expressing who we are and how we would like to be perceived, sexually and artistically.

I think that you are pointing to an important question in asking what it means to be human. The whole question of conformism, mysticism and the whole question of truth emerge in this context.

I do think that our problems probably stem from our parents. Certainly, when I have been in therapy I have felt that I was dealing with a whole spectrum of problems in my own parents' thinking and philosophy. I have worked on these issues, but as it is, most of our parents still remain oblivious, and perhaps the views and thinking of our parents and past generations impact on our lives so much. I am not saying that we are in the position of supreme truth, but we are left to try to pick up the pieces, in deconstructing pictures of reality and demystifying ethical and social values.

One aspect which I think is worth you considering is how this connects to your whole philosophy of egoism. The needs of those in power over others is probably different from those of the individual. It is hard to know the awareness of the individuals, even the elite. How much was conscious? Perhaps we are going beyond the mythical at this point. But, sometimes the intention or motivations may need to be disentangled from mythic understanding of reality.

I do not have any problems with the idea of Jesus being born through a sexual act. What I wonder about is why is this so significant for people? If Jesus's message is the main aspect of Christianity, I do not see why it has to be based on belief in magic. Of course, there is so much more to this, such as miracles and the resurrection. These are much more complex than the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus, but it does seem that for some people they all come together in a whole perspective on reality.

I just read the article you referred to in the Metro, but it is more complex than this. Obviously, how we speak about preference matters. Language about stereotypes, women, men and bodies can be obnoxious, especially in popular culture.

It may be the case that to say that one prefers black women can be construed as racist, depending on the way it is said or in the context.But, of course, there was a whole history of white people, mostly, objecting to mixed marriage, which was problematic, especially for two people in love. I do believe that we need to be mindful of language, but of course we are only responsible for what we say individually, and to try to outlaw certain expression could almost be seen as going back to the the idea of the moral right, except from a different angle.

I was going to respond to your previous thread but as this is your more revised thinking I am doing it here. Also, I can also say that I was brought to to believe in the virgin birth as a concrete fact. I don't believe it now, but I am aware that if was to say that to some people they would be deeply offended or angry as if I was committing blasphemy. I would be perceived as extremely sinful.

But going back to the whole question of research on early Christianity, it is so difficult to find the most reliable thinking as so much has been written. For some Christians, the Gospels are taken as the main source. I see that as problematic, because of the factors within the Church contribution to that. Also, there are so many people from the last century and this one coming up with certain ideas which may not based on that much evidence. Personally, I try to look at texts and their sources, and even the background of the author. When information is on the internet, I am not sure that can be done so well. I have read a fair amount but don't have access to various books I have read because libraries are not open and, I had books which I don't have any longer because I have moved a few times.

Saying that, I have read on the topic of early Christianity mainly in connection with research on Carl Jung, who was extremely interested in Gnostic ideas. I was familiar with the name of Valentinus you referred to. I was also familiar with the idea of Sophia, representing wisdom.One particular aspect arising within Christianity is the whole way in which the writer known as 'Paul' seems to have played a key role in the development of Christianity. In Paul's writings there was a whole emphasis on the idea of striving for perfection. This is important in connection with Gnostic beliefs, because the Gnostics were world rejecting. They had negative beliefs about the body and sexuality.

The idea of the virgin birth probably needs to be seen in connection with a worldview which sees sexuality and the body in a negative way. Apart from that, when you look at symbolism in the Bible, it does seem that so much of this may be derived from other traditions, especially Egyptian ideas.

I think that seeing who one is sexually attracted to in terms as being race and as possible racism would be taking political correctness to the ridiculous.We have seen centuries of people being criticised for whether they are attracted to the opposite sex or their own. If people began criticising on the basis of attraction in such a way and making it political it would be like a form of thought policing, because taken to the extreme it could create a new taboo of unacceptably.

Do you think that the reason why people have such an extended adolescence is because they never reach adulthood? Also, we could ask what does adulthood mean, and is about being independent responsibility?

My understanding is that there is so much uncertainty about the person known as Jesus because the Gospels were written a long time after Jesus's death. There is also so much lack of clarity about the authors themselves.

In addition, we have to consider the whole process of what was selected to be put into the Bible and what was excluded. There was so much tension surrounding the Gnostics and, we now know of the Gnostic gospels after they were discovered. One figure who I believe was of central importance was Origen. I haven't read that much about him, but I did come across the idea that even though he was part of the mainstream Church, he may have had some affiliation with Gnostic thinking.

I think that could explain why I have poor self esteem in groups. I am only about 5 ft. When I was 18 people used to often think I was about 12 or 13. I am also very poorly coordinated and atrocious at sport, although I am not interested in sports, even watching them. Perhaps that is why I became so interested in philosophy, art and literature. It is interesting to think about how the way we look affects the paths we follow in life.

Of course, we do have choices about how we present ourselves, especially clothes, and one book which I have read is Erving Goffman's, ' The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,' and that looks at the whole social management of personal identity. I also read quite a lot on the sociology of deviance, which looks at the way the way the construction of deviant identities are created. Howard Becker's book, 'Outsiders' looks at the whole process of labelling and how people are viewed as deviant, and thereby, become deviants.

I do believe that our whole experience of the body affects the whole question of whether we are happy or not. The way we are perceived, as well as our health affects our quality of life, and I think that they are probably bound up together, as evident in depression. But, of course, it is complex because in some cases it goes in the opposite direction and people can go into manic flight, including feelings of elation, when facing negative experiences. This just shows how complicated mind and body are.

Thanks for clarifying Levinas's idea of face to face. It sounds interesting, the whole relationship with vulnerability, and the enemy.

The whole experience of having a particular body in daily life is one which is interesting, especially your own reflection of the experience of being a black, large and athletic. It is so different from my own as I am rather short, white and not the slightest bit athletic. People push their way past me in queues and I often have to ask people to reach items for me on the top shelves in shops. I do think that the whole experience of our size does affect our identity.

When I was working, I was aware of the way in which race affects interaction. Most of the staff I have was working with in mental health care care were black. I am also aware of the way that you are not religious and I can imagine that must affect you because I had the experience of many black Christians preaching their Christian beliefs to me, rather forcefully sometimes. Of course, I am sure that there are many black people who are not religious at all, but I am sure that you meet a lot of extremely religious individuals from your own culture.

I like the idea of 'bodies entwined ecologically', because it does seem grounding.