Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well you can either thank your horse or not, depending on how valuable your school was for you. If school didn't work out, well you can always eat the horse, and if school worked out well, well, let the horse ride you around.
To say "nobody," based on your mere authority as a nobody, implies you have "observational" access for everyone throughout time (you have tested this?), even though, as a passing finite existent, you actually only have a very limited observational capability to base this, your statement of belief on, so that is a very doubtful claim even for this "data forum."
Exposition of Matthew 25:31-46, Part 1: The Sheep.
In us, God is the Idea or Notion. This Notion in its abstraction, lacking content, is the Trinity and consists of the rational unity of Universal/Specific/Individual. All further developments in Theology, Doctrine, and Christian-actualized works are an explication of this Trinity and nothing else. As Notion, however, the Idea must traverse this rationally developing rational form through all its moments developing content, as the Trinity itself is this form, and therefore, the form necessarily “is.” At first, in my Idea, in my consciousness, mind holds the immediateness of the simple term, “God.” This immediateness lacks the mediation for consciousness of the form’s content; therefore, God in the consciousness, where the Idea remains in the immediate, is abstract: the term, “God,” is an empty term. Immediate knowledge operates in ignorance or actively discards most determinations of the Divine. This object is in me because I think it; therefore, God exists in my thoughts and is for thought. As the thinking subject of this object, of this simple universal or Notion, I do not notice any determinations in this immediateness when first having this term in my consciousness. God falls into the subjective form, and I know or believe that He is, but not what He is, as I lack determinations. At first this simple term, “God,” a universal, has within it a unity of all its moments, and all content is latently present in this simple, seemingly empty universal even if I do not know them. Therefore, in itself, the universal is the Notion, even though its moments are not as yet explicit for me. This universal term remains as the ground through all further development of the content, and as a system of thought the term, “God,” is the identity of the system. But at this first moment, the universal and subjective side, perceived as objective, this simple term is held in pure thought. Because all differentiations of God are absent in the immediate, God as this immediate and subjective side has His basis only in my feeling and emotion. For further determinations of God, consciousness is required to move beyond this subjective form into a mediated knowledge, into objectivity.
If I do not begin in pure thought, with this term alone, I have already begun straightaway with determinations already in place; I do not begin with the immediate but with a presupposed essence. These determinations of a presupposition, or a beginning that is not a true beginning, are, then, already established with given content, whatever this content may be and from whatever source. With a presupposition, I can as easily begin with error as with truth.
When I transition from immediacy into mediation, my thinking (along with its acquired information about this term that sits in my consciousness) begins to draw distinctions between this term and my thoughts about it. I have left the immediate and have entered mediation. These thoughts are within my consciousness, and my self-consciousness is aware of and observing these thoughts; that are thoughts for me and are to pass beyond mere observation. My mind is in the process of coming to itself in these thoughts and in these thoughts my mind becomes for itself. I am thought as the unity of my consciousness and self-consciousness and, therefore, I am spirit and universal. Because it is the essential nature of mind to have itself as an object, to know itself, my thinking is my own within my mind even when God is the object of my consciousness. These thoughts are my own and these thoughts are my mind and the Divine of my consciousness is not an Other external to me as He is my thoughts. At this instant, there is no diremption in my spirit. I am not merely observing my thoughts from an external or distinct position. I am as self-consciousness, in-and-for-myself, the actualized thought of consciousness and self-consciousness has been sublimated. Here, we can agree with Bonhoeffer that Idealism creates and produces its own reality. However, because we exist in the Ideal, the question for the one thinking if self-observing, is this: “Is my mind notionally producing a true or false reality?” This all turns on the content within consciousness and, simultaneously, I must be aware of my thoughts as actually observing them, and I must know that God also exists for Himself outside of my thinking. He has His own existence, and it is to be this external Divine Being that is the object behind my mental objectification. I am all of the moments of the mental process and produce God within myself as Notion. My self-consciousness, which includes this Notion in itself, is a manifestation of the external object as object in me and produced by me. This thought and object are mine and I am responsible for it, even though in its logical development this Notion generates itself. I must hold onto this self-generating Notion itself, as this Notion itself is God as Trinity, I must not just know the Divine, but the Divine must know Himself in me. This Notion is only given to me through God’s gracious revelation of Himself: Spirit must witness to spirit (Romans 8:16), and “I forget myself in entering the object; I bury myself in it, while I strive to know, to understand God” (Hegel). The Trinitarian rational form is then permeated by my thought and it is only in thought that this Trinitarian essence within my thought can be reached.
My self-consciousness, then, is consciousness actualizing my thinking knowingly making distinctions and adding these results as content to the term, “God,” which grows into complexity, as this infinite “circle” continues through its course of repetitions of content through the rational dialectic of the Notion. This dialectic moves from the simple universal, to more complex determinations, only to return again to its universal, then, to start again. Consciousness becomes the Divine essence in thought, and self-consciousness is the awareness of the object or is the manifestation of that essence as Notion. These determinations of God as Idea continually return to the universal term, “God,” which lies in my consciousness. This self-development of the Notion in me from the Notion itself should be kept firmly in mind.
Two possibilities are present. One possibility is that the Notion is True and the other possibility is that the notion is false; what is important is this: that my thoughts are commensurate with the God who exists in-and-for-Himself. In this exposition of the parable of the sheep and goats, the first part concerns itself with those who are surprised by their salvation, and therefore, who are in possession of the True Notion. The second part concerns the social structure as Word and word. The third part is concerned with those surprised by their damnation, those who are in possession of the false notion. The first group is referred to in Matthew 25:31-40.
But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? Or athirst, and gave thee drink? And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.
Whenever dialectic appears, this takes place in the field of logic. A common view of dialectic sets in a formal logic and is in the form of a spurious dialectic. Movement of the dialectic seemingly moves into the infinite, similar to common views of time. This dialectic is linear rather than, as the old philosophy has it, circular (the true infinite). This circular dialectic sets in logic proper. If I wish to stop the common linear dialectic, I usually apply a subjective “halt” arbitrarily by utilizing some subjective criterion for the halt and, thereby, interfering with the logic. However, in this commonly held view, a halt forced in this way imposes a limit in the infinite progress. This limit always points to a beyond-itself, usually to a “should” or an “ought.” This beyond-itself already surpasses the limit with an indication pointing into the linear spurious infinite beyond the limit. In this spurious dialectic, any subjective arbitrary halt must always be held in place by the use of some means or method: for example, the exercise of power, a marshalling of social forces, a secret police force, censorship, ideology, and other such artificial powers, any of which may be used to prevent a dialectic from continuing.
However, this passage of Scripture begins with the end of a logical dialectical cycle that also begins a new cycle, not with a halt imposed on a continuous linear progression; rather, a cycle of the dialectic is complete. At this separation between the sheep and goats, God creates a new beginning with this judgment. This pattern is reflective of the Genesis account where God began and judged His creation. At the beginning of the first cycle, God is presented as the pure simple universal “God” lacking determinations. Rationally, Genesis begins with the Universal “In the beginning God.” Here in Genesis 1:1 the term, “God,” is an abstract concept, where the latent content is not yet determined because a beginning must be made, and therefore, this Universal is just in pure thought or Being. As the Notion of God transitions throughout the Bible in its three moments of, Old Testament/Christ time/New Testament (Father/Son/Holy Spirit), this Notion begins in this pure thought and arrives at this end of the current time-and-space dialectic laden with content. However, in these passages of Matthew, this beginning contains mediated content filling God with determinations from the first cycle of sacred history. This developed content is God necessarily determined as the “Son of Man.” This Notion has enriched itself with the content of the Son and Holy Spirit, with the Son returning to the Father from whence He came by the negation of the negation (His death and resurrection) and the resultant unity of Father and Son, and then by the giving of the Holy Spirit. The Eschaton (the return of the Son) commences this separation of the sheep and the goats.
The parable refers to the last judgment. This judgment is presented, as an act of separation, and that is what a judgment is, the act of drawing a distinction. It should be noted that in this separation, it is not the same species that are separated. There is one genus, but the separation is drawn between two distinct species of that one genus. Both groups come to this separation already defined by their species; they do not become one or the other species at this time through their act or through judgment; they are simply what they are. The sheep are those who have their being in Christ and are citizens of the heavenly city. The goats are those who have their being in Adam and are citizens of the earthly city; they have lived together with the sheep in time-and-space (as represented by the parable of the wheat and tares, Matthew 13:24-30). This “being” (either in Christ or in Adam) has already been discussed in previous posts. The final destinations for both groups have already been prepared before the creation of the world, so these destinations have been waiting in anticipation for them (Revelation 20:15).
The first group, the sheep, are referred to in Matthew 25:31-40. The sheep, those on the King’s right hand, are surprised by the value that the King imputes to their works and the reward for them; they have fulfilled the requirements of the Law. As those in Faith, and one is only a sheep in Faith, it would seem that they would not be surprised by this recognition and how this separation works out. One would suspect that they would be aware of what they are doing with their works and who they are in their Faith.
Rationally this is explained in the fullness of the form. The works that the sheep do are the actualization of the Notion of the Faith that is in them, which was given in grace (Ephesians 2:1-9). This Faith can do nothing else but manifest Itself through these sheep in the existent as works of Faith (Philippians 2:12,13). Works and grace can never be separated into absolute in-and-for-themselves opposites as they belong in a unity; otherwise, a seemingly true contradiction of faith versus works that appears to require an either/or judgment to annihilate it hems us in. This contradiction has historically vexed much theology and common Christian perceptions. Those who have this Faith do the works of Faith, and they would require reflection to distinguish their works from themselves; reflection dirempts the form into a judgment; the form is lost to reflection. We, as the observers of those in the text, make this judgment as readers, but observation keeps everything externalized and not personal; it is otherwise for those described in the text (Colossians 3:9-11). This diremption, which will be investigated further, is explicit in the goats. In the sheep, however, the diremption has been sublimated, and the sheep have within them the unity of the Notion of Faith: the sheep that possess this Faith are the content-filled Universal Faith and this Faith is in them as the moment of Certainty. Because this unity is accomplished within the sheep, any diremption has been sublimated, and the sheep merely act unreflectively, as their individuality has been caught up into the unity. The worker in Faith is not an object of his reflection as he has been universalized into the Faith.
For Faith, as Notionally formed (not common belief), I am its Certainty as the existent moment of the form. Faith as an immediate is the universal Notion, and the works of Faith are the manifestation of this Notion. This Notion as Universal and the Certainty that lies within me is of Faith, not of myself. This unity overcomes the diremption of Faith and Certainty, and the resultant Faith is not external to me, but it forms the core of my being. If Faith were external to me as in a diremption, it would be an other for me, and I would be independent of it, and Faith could come and go as I attempted to manipulate it. In other words, in true Faith I act from this unity, and my person in-and-for-itself is no longer immediately available for my reflection as I am spirit. Philosophically, I have become this Universal. If the focus through reflection is on myself, as distinct from this Faith, I am isolated ego and immediately draw a distinction between this Faith and myself and assert my independence in the face of Faith. If Certainty is dirempted from Faith as the universal without a further sublimation of the two, I have an uncertain faith as Faith and Certainty have no genetic genealogy together but are distinct, one-sided entities. The focus will be on my uncertain certainty within my independence of it, or on myself. This dilemma is perhaps expressed as, “Do I have faith or not?” How do I know?” This dialectic between “yes and no” will have no positive conclusion without the Notional unity of Faith itself. For mere belief, I will have to arbitrarily impose a halt to this “yes/no” dialectic within my unbelief, and this arbitrary halt will impose a limit and simultaneously point to the beyond, to the “no,” which will always be available to negate the “yes.” Works accomplished during this dialectic of “yes/no” may confirm either yes or no and I am left without Certainty, which bring the focus onto myself once again. Here, I function outside of Faith, even if this dialectic is termed “faith;” I am actually in opposition to Faith and am deviant in relation to this Universal; therefore, I am in sin. I drop out of the Universal and become isolated ego and am evil (Romans 8:12,13). Therefore, those in Faith, who have the mind of Christ and who are His body, forget themselves as they are in the Spirit Who works in them. In Scripture this is referred to as the law written on the heart rather than on tables of stone. The heart refers to my character, something that is identical with me and cannot be distinct from me.
When the law was presented to the Jewish nation on stone carvings, the law appeared to them as something external, or as something in opposition to them, like every other external finite thing. This law and I appear to each other as distinct in-and-for-themselves opposing sides. To be in conformity to this external law as required, I must attempt to bring myself, as an in-and-for-itself being, into a commensurable relationship with this in-and-for-itself external other. This law, appearing as an external object opposed to me, is not my own inner mind and is alien to it, nor is it of my essence because I am independent of all external opposition. Within me is another essence; otherwise, this law would not be external to me, and I would already be one with it and essentially be identical to it. This opposition sets up the dialectic of opposition and I will never successfully conform to it, as it is not me, so I am never “at home in it.” The Law is a threat and in relation to it I am always guilty (Romans 7): this threatens my independence or freedom from the perspective of this dirempted reflection. I know myself as limited and finite in relation to this external Divine law, as I am in opposition to this external law or “thing.” In this opposition I am always being observant of the difference between this external law and myself. As opposing sides, I on one side and the external Law on the other side, I enter into a relationship to this law and am aware of both sides. I am, therefore, always cognizant of myself in this relation, as I am the one in reflection and must maintain myself in this reflection as an observer of the relation. As an observer, I am always external, even as I attempt to maintain both sides in my reflecting. My ego is the focus of my relationship, and this is a very poor subjectivity.
Those who argue that this external law no longer has a claim on them view this law from the subjective side of observation and as an external threat, and as an external threat, that is how it had played out in the Old Testament and in much of modern Christianity that leans toward a one-sided form of grace. However, they may have forgotten that this same law is to be written on the heart as Old Testament prophecy declared (Jeremiah 31:33). This “written on the heart” is an inner placing of the law, or it is taken up into the essence of the sheep; it is to be the core of their being and “[they] forget [themselves] in entering into the object” (Hegel). As unified in the core, the unity is such that this law, filling self-consciousness, is the object of consciousness (Romans 7:20-23 and Psalm 1). The sheep become this law and manifest it in existing as they yield themselves up to it. The Law is no longer external to them, but it has become their inner essence, which will be made manifest through the rational form as necessary. They leave observation and internalize this Law and Faith (James 2:17-26). Any observation from this point forward, such as Theological writing, Christian works, or oration, must be done from this position of the non-observer who is observing for merely a moment of the task. They acquire true freedom and independence at this point, as Law and Faith are no longer limiting external “things” opposing them (John 8:34-51).
I have the time, but send me one, as evidently you have a lot of time, I want to see one of these. Or perhaps, you could just take over with a program instead of "generating" a single line of nothing.
I have the time, but send me one, as evidently you have a lot of time, I want to see one of these. Or perhaps, you could just take over with a program instead of "generating" a single line of nothing.
When someone takes the time to label something BS, but then appears to have no idea why, as there was no critique as to why, one can assume a few thing about this someone. Either this someone knows nothing about the topic, say about logic primarily (since this is a Notional piece, one would expect a critique to be first in the form of logic, not just a label BS, others might want to know why it is BS, a why that exceeds a mere useless opinion from a nameless someone), and a second thing, and this is standard on the forum, is that this someone expects the label BS to be taken on the authority of the someone. Because I can not take a post from someone seriously because there is no critique in logic, nor can I trust the authority of someone with no name, and who seems not to be a recognized authority, well, the post from someone is rather just BS, as it contains nothing, and, therefore, must have been tried to impress oneself with nothing. I have a few questions for someone.
1. What is the New Age?
2. Does the New Age dabble in logic, is it a rational movement?
3. How does the form of logic that I am using then, translate into the New Age?
4. The logical form that I am using, is it not the standard form?
5. If it is the standard form, am I using it correctly? If not, how am I misusing it?
6. How then, does the standard logical form, that I am using not conform to the whole series of posts?
7. What is logic, by the way?
It is a fact, in the form of logic, that if one does not have determinations one is in abstraction, and of course, the more abstract something is, the more one can merely crawl away with one's tail between one's legs and as one leaves label something BS, but offer no determinations or proof (logic) for one's BS label (anyone can say BS, but few know why). Answering these question will give your nothing post some content and pull you somewhat away from abstraction.
Many of us recognbize drivel when we see it. Freak has fun with that sort of thing and I only looked back into this line of drivel to see how he was handling it. When someone uses lame excuses not to engage in conversation and discuss rather than lecture as was the case in post 16 we can afford to ignore it.... and do.
When someone takes the time to label something BS, but then appears to have no idea why, as there was no critique as to why, one can assume a few thing about this someone. Either this someone knows nothing about the topic, say about logic primarily (since this is a Notional piece, one would expect a critique to be first in the form of logic, not just a label BS, others might want to know why it is BS, a why that exceeds a mere useless opinion from a nameless someone), and a second thing, and this is standard on the forum, is that this someone expects the label BS to be taken on the authority of the someone. Because I can not take a post from someone seriously because there is no critique in logic, nor can I trust the authority of someone with no name, and who seems not to be a recognized authority, well, the post from someone is rather just BS, as it contains nothing, and, therefore, must have been tried to impress oneself with nothing. I have a few questions for someone.
1. What is the New Age?
2. Does the New Age dabble in logic, is it a rational movement?
3. How does the form of logic that I am using then, translate into the New Age?
4. The logical form that I am using, is it not the standard form?
5. If it is the standard form, am I using it correctly? If not, how am I misusing it?
6. How then, does the standard logical form, that I am using not conform to the whole series of posts?
7. What is logic, by the way?
It is a fact, in the form of logic, that if one does not have determinations one is in abstraction, and of course, the more abstract something is, the more one can merely crawl away with one's tail between one's legs and as one leaves label something BS, but offer no determinations or proof (logic) for one's BS label (anyone can say BS, but few know why). Answering these question will give your nothing post some content and pull you somewhat away from abstraction.
I found your work intriguing.
Thank you..
God Bless you.
Jf one ignores it, then one shouldn't be seen, to ignore is to avoid. And especially avoid my questions to establish a little content and pull a critique out of subjectivity (admittedly subjectivity is easy, one just says what one's opinion is, and then one need not know a whole lot, it is always harder to work up a content laden critique, as one needs to know some things about what one is critiquing).
Again, one can use all kinds of reasons to avoid, but the question is, "why is something drivel?" There must be a reason, and if there is no reason given, if a deconstruction is not done, then the reason is traced back to subjectivity. Or the reason lays in the one making the accusation, not in the text, and that just shows that the issue is not in the text at all, but sets in mere opinion.
Have your doctor or accountant act this way, handle your affairs with whims and opinions.
Jf one ignores it, then one shouldn't be seen, to ignore is to avoid. And especially avoid my questions to establish a little content and pull a critique out of subjectivity (admittedly subjectivity is easy, one just says what one's opinion is, and then one need not know a whole lot, it is always harder to work up a content laden critique, as one needs to know some things about what one is critiquing).
Again, one can use all kinds of reasons to avoid, but the question is, "why is something drivel?" There must be a reason, and if there is no reason given, if a deconstruction is not done, then the reason is traced back to subjectivity. Or the reason lays in the one making the accusation, not in the text, and that just shows that the issue is not in the text at all, but sets in mere opinion.
Have your doctor or accountant act this way, handle your affairs with whims and opinions.
The reason was given, you refused to address it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
