A decade ago I read a book for school called “How to Read Literature Like a Professor” and one of the points that stuck with me was the notion of, in a story, it is paramount to pay attention to what happens when people eat together. This is considered a pivotal moment in a character’s story arc. And one of the prime examples? The Last Supper.
I've often felt a bit envious of people who were religious or had a religious mindset. They understand their place in the grander scheme of things. Lacking that foundation or presuppositional understanding, at least in my humble experience, results in a perpetual feeling of being untethered. Shifting short-term goals rising up and falling away without any unifying or grander context. I suspect that's one of the reasons why I'm drawn to Johnathan's content. It's a relief, in a vicarious sense, to listen to someone who's so well grounded and purposeful.
Have you gotten into Jonathan Vervaeke? I was religious once, but I was a member of a more materialist fundamentalist protestant church that had castrated itself from its traditional history. I had resented my religious past. I was psychologically manipulated into all of these beliefs and it angered me for so long that I couldn't justify God's existence if the creator of such a heinous and forsaken reality could have possibly been benevolent. Then I too found Pageau. He transformed my understanding of it all. I fell in love with Christian mysticism, but I cannot bring myself to return. I feel very lucky. Instead of my mind being forced into blind submission, it was strong enough to take the trauma I had experienced and refine itself, blessing me with reason and skepticism. But despite my newfound love, I am prohibited by the framework itself from participating in it. It does not allow for the outsider to engage unless they submit themselves to it wholly. You cannot believe in the truth that humanity can reach the identity of heaven through self transformation unless you believe that Jesus historically and literally died and resurrected. You can't accept that without also accepting all of the liturgical symbolism for interacting with reality or relationships presented in Genesis or the books of law. Most of it is a beautiful religion. It's my culture. But I have to sacrifice too much of my moral and rational integrity to join in its communion, so I find myself drawn here the same as you, finding myself pulled in not by identity, but by something more archetypical being satiated through looking into the window.
@@He.knows.nothing What have you got to lose by participating in Catholicism or Orthodoxy? I see the good that you speak of in Pageau's outlook (I share it), but I'm missing what you are hanging on to in your outlook.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ I see it as maintaining humility. I essentially believe the god of Christianity to exist, certainly not in the personified sense but more of an alignment between truth, love, and consciousness, and I believe that humans have the mental capacity to overcome themselves by aligning their consciousness with those ideas, but what I don't accept are the more procedural notions of how Christians are to participate in the system they have created to comprehend it. The adherence to biblical inerrancy, the necessary acceptance of all historical and supernatural claims, the invalidation of other ideologies... It seems to me to be much more like hubris for a creature so limited in perception to think they have exclusive access to those kinds of truths. I see no absence of the same truth being presented in the dao de jing or Buddhism or Plato's allegory of the cave or Disney's the lion king. I don't see how the truth is contingent upon one story, and even in context to that particular story it seems as though everything Jesus has revealed to Christians can be/has been embodied through other individuals from other cultures who have revelations of their own. I see no reason that one cannot come to god if their value of love propels them into a state of enlightened selflessness
@@He.knows.nothing I think I understand what you mean. I was expecting a list of goods unattainable by a Christian mindset. Instead it seems like you described a religion that embodies a few unfair stereotypes. That may sound rude, but I certainly don't intend any rudeness. I think it would do you some good to read some of the early Church Fathers, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, or even some of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Christ's peace.
I absolutely love this explanation and it is astounding (I don't mean that in a disparagingly way) to me that a person with average and of course above average intelligence can't understand what he is saying, it has to be pride. I pray God removes the scales from the eyes of those who can't see what Jonathan is describing. Those with eyes to see.
Jonathon here is touching on complex metaphysical problems such as, the problem of the one and the many and material constitution. These are indeed very interesting philosophical concepts to discuss… however, neither his worldview or god actually solves any of the problems.
"you can't base all of human civilization on team sports" ancient rome and modern day american football towns :(:( in all honesty, this reminds me of a study that was done wherein people decided to take fortune 500 company employees and divide them into two groups. one group was supposed to make and adhere to a plan that encompassed their entire life, and one group was supposed to make and adhere to a plan that adhered to their work. the team who made a life plan outperformed the work plan team in the context of work (and i would assume otherwise, but something like "life" is hard if not impossible to measure for obvious reasons)
What is the reason of participating in this way in religion and its patterns? Why it describes world as it is? What is the purpose of connecting together? We can just simply pray seperately. Is this social function the reason why religion must be destroyed?
I can understand the actual (heaven) and the potential (earth). But the potential doesn't lead to God. It comes from God. The biblical pattern isn't one of evolution, but fulfillment. Like a seed.
This is a digression, but I've never been to a suburb that was devoid of churches. Most of the time, the church is named the same as the suburb... and is the predominant infrastructure of the community (because there are no civic or commerce centers to speak of). This example doesn't land for me. Perhaps this is a regional example he is drawing on that is just not in my experience. 🤔
It's interesting that you say that heaven is actuality and the earth is potentiality. It seems to me to be the opposite, no? I mean, is it not the body that allows the soul to actualize itself, wheres a soul without a body remains purely potential?
The thing about opposites is, since one is always defined by the other, their character tends to flip. To see how heaven can be actuality consider the stability and rationality of the heavenly bodies - they are (to our eyes) perfect circles and totally stable - any movement is perfectly defined like clockwork. On earth on the otherhand you dont naturally find perfect forms like circles and movement is constant and chaotic. Hence, in heaven you find the perfect principles and on earth the potential to manifast them.
@@superroydude i agree, but you can frame it from the other side. On earth you have the world as it is, and in heaven you have the world as it could be.
@@Simon_Alexnder Sure that's why all cultures looked to the heavens to divine the future. Opposites always interpenetrate each other - think yin and yang.
@@superroydude I agree with you here. The issue is that they way a culture chooses to look at this dichotomy is really important. The question of wether that which comes from above is 'potential' or 'actuality' is core to how the religion will function symbolically.
@@Simon_Alexnder I disagree. Only religion recognises that heaven and earth are both, in a fractal manner, actuality and potentiality. That these categories are finite and ultimitely under God.
A decade ago I read a book for school called “How to Read Literature Like a Professor” and one of the points that stuck with me was the notion of, in a story, it is paramount to pay attention to what happens when people eat together. This is considered a pivotal moment in a character’s story arc. And one of the prime examples? The Last Supper.
I've often felt a bit envious of people who were religious or had a religious mindset. They understand their place in the grander scheme of things. Lacking that foundation or presuppositional understanding, at least in my humble experience, results in a perpetual feeling of being untethered. Shifting short-term goals rising up and falling away without any unifying or grander context. I suspect that's one of the reasons why I'm drawn to Johnathan's content. It's a relief, in a vicarious sense, to listen to someone who's so well grounded and purposeful.
Have you gotten into Jonathan Vervaeke?
I was religious once, but I was a member of a more materialist fundamentalist protestant church that had castrated itself from its traditional history. I had resented my religious past. I was psychologically manipulated into all of these beliefs and it angered me for so long that I couldn't justify God's existence if the creator of such a heinous and forsaken reality could have possibly been benevolent.
Then I too found Pageau. He transformed my understanding of it all. I fell in love with Christian mysticism, but I cannot bring myself to return. I feel very lucky. Instead of my mind being forced into blind submission, it was strong enough to take the trauma I had experienced and refine itself, blessing me with reason and skepticism. But despite my newfound love, I am prohibited by the framework itself from participating in it. It does not allow for the outsider to engage unless they submit themselves to it wholly.
You cannot believe in the truth that humanity can reach the identity of heaven through self transformation unless you believe that Jesus historically and literally died and resurrected. You can't accept that without also accepting all of the liturgical symbolism for interacting with reality or relationships presented in Genesis or the books of law.
Most of it is a beautiful religion. It's my culture. But I have to sacrifice too much of my moral and rational integrity to join in its communion, so I find myself drawn here the same as you, finding myself pulled in not by identity, but by something more archetypical being satiated through looking into the window.
Seek and you will find. I was like you, and one day, it happened. Don't give up!
@@He.knows.nothing What have you got to lose by participating in Catholicism or Orthodoxy? I see the good that you speak of in Pageau's outlook (I share it), but I'm missing what you are hanging on to in your outlook.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ I see it as maintaining humility.
I essentially believe the god of Christianity to exist, certainly not in the personified sense but more of an alignment between truth, love, and consciousness, and I believe that humans have the mental capacity to overcome themselves by aligning their consciousness with those ideas, but what I don't accept are the more procedural notions of how Christians are to participate in the system they have created to comprehend it.
The adherence to biblical inerrancy, the necessary acceptance of all historical and supernatural claims, the invalidation of other ideologies... It seems to me to be much more like hubris for a creature so limited in perception to think they have exclusive access to those kinds of truths.
I see no absence of the same truth being presented in the dao de jing or Buddhism or Plato's allegory of the cave or Disney's the lion king. I don't see how the truth is contingent upon one story, and even in context to that particular story it seems as though everything Jesus has revealed to Christians can be/has been embodied through other individuals from other cultures who have revelations of their own. I see no reason that one cannot come to god if their value of love propels them into a state of enlightened selflessness
@@He.knows.nothing I think I understand what you mean. I was expecting a list of goods unattainable by a Christian mindset. Instead it seems like you described a religion that embodies a few unfair stereotypes. That may sound rude, but I certainly don't intend any rudeness. I think it would do you some good to read some of the early Church Fathers, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, or even some of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Christ's peace.
“The final cause will legislate what can participate”. What beautiful poetry.
I absolutely love this explanation and it is astounding (I don't mean that in a disparagingly way) to me that a person with average and of course above average intelligence can't understand what he is saying, it has to be pride. I pray God removes the scales from the eyes of those who can't see what Jonathan is describing. Those with eyes to see.
MIND BLOWN!
A very beautiful exposition, thank-you gentlemen ❤
Jonathon here is touching on complex metaphysical problems such as, the problem of the one and the many and material constitution.
These are indeed very interesting philosophical concepts to discuss… however, neither his worldview or god actually solves any of the problems.
There is manner potentiality bound to identity, chair cant be made out of water
at 8:40 it clicks for him.
"you can't base all of human civilization on team sports"
ancient rome and modern day american football towns :(:(
in all honesty, this reminds me of a study that was done wherein people decided to take fortune 500 company employees and divide them into two groups. one group was supposed to make and adhere to a plan that encompassed their entire life, and one group was supposed to make and adhere to a plan that adhered to their work.
the team who made a life plan outperformed the work plan team in the context of work (and i would assume otherwise, but something like "life" is hard if not impossible to measure for obvious reasons)
What is the reason of participating in this way in religion and its patterns?
Why it describes world as it is? What is the purpose of connecting together? We can just simply pray seperately.
Is this social function the reason why religion must be destroyed?
I can understand the actual (heaven) and the potential (earth). But the potential doesn't lead to God. It comes from God. The biblical pattern isn't one of evolution, but fulfillment. Like a seed.
And the flower points to its Maker.
Emergence vs emanation... who knows which is primordial?
@@youssefsammouh501 Neither; enter non-duality.
Descriptions
This is a digression, but I've never been to a suburb that was devoid of churches. Most of the time, the church is named the same as the suburb... and is the predominant infrastructure of the community (because there are no civic or commerce centers to speak of). This example doesn't land for me.
Perhaps this is a regional example he is drawing on that is just not in my experience. 🤔
How does a dog see a chair?
What is it like to be a bat?
How does a gay man see a hole in the wall?
@@yossariandunbar2829 One I've thought about for 30 years...
In whichever way it uses it
@@06rtm this is the correct answer
It's interesting that you say that heaven is actuality and the earth is potentiality. It seems to me to be the opposite, no?
I mean, is it not the body that allows the soul to actualize itself, wheres a soul without a body remains purely potential?
The thing about opposites is, since one is always defined by the other, their character tends to flip. To see how heaven can be actuality consider the stability and rationality of the heavenly bodies - they are (to our eyes) perfect circles and totally stable - any movement is perfectly defined like clockwork. On earth on the otherhand you dont naturally find perfect forms like circles and movement is constant and chaotic. Hence, in heaven you find the perfect principles and on earth the potential to manifast them.
@@superroydude i agree, but you can frame it from the other side. On earth you have the world as it is, and in heaven you have the world as it could be.
@@Simon_Alexnder
Sure that's why all cultures looked to the heavens to divine the future. Opposites always interpenetrate each other - think yin and yang.
@@superroydude I agree with you here. The issue is that they way a culture chooses to look at this dichotomy is really important. The question of wether that which comes from above is 'potential' or 'actuality' is core to how the religion will function symbolically.
@@Simon_Alexnder
I disagree. Only religion recognises that heaven and earth are both, in a fractal manner, actuality and potentiality. That these categories are finite and ultimitely under God.