Discussing Eidotheosophy (Continued From Another Topic)

Discussion of eidotheosophy started in the topic Here is Some Help for Your Friends and Family Struggling to Reconcile Reason and Logic with Faith
found at the wiki: https://eidotheosophy.miraheze.org will be continued here.

1 Like

@jared123456 In the prior topic you said:

A) “If” you want to align your beliefs with reason, logic, and fact-based evidence, as opposed to an arbitrary, unprovable foundation, then you might want to find such a “reasonable” foundation.
Remember what 1 Corinthians 3:10-13 says: “By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.” and how important it is to build upon a solid foundation for one’s faith.
B) Eidotheosophy does not threaten christian faith, it affirms it, unfortunately, it is necessary to dismantle a “rotten” foundation to do so.
C) You haven’t finished reading the wiki post, the deconstruction and reconstruction are later on in the wiki post.

1 Like

This response is great. And yeah, I haven’t finished reading it :sweat_smile: . Though I expected something almost as good as this. And, your …

… is my key point I think. Because, I think the problem I’m trying to communicate is that, systemically, the cultishness / safety-blanket type “spirituality” I’m seeing is in (large(?)) part actually not interested in:

So, while I’m sure there is some audience for such a path, I don’t think the path will be oft chosen given the context I see. I don’t think most fundamentalist will currently be interested. That said, I am open minded to evidence which shows that a larger proportion than expected would be so interested. And that said, I don’t think a large portion is needed for this type of work to have significant impact on the systemic complex, especially since these things change over time and getting started now could pay off big time when environmental conditions do later improve, and also influencing future spiritual leaders is a thing I would say matters.

And of course no matter the scope of interest and even no matter the impact this may yet have on the systemics, the benefit to any individual’s spirituality which this may provide is valuable.

I’m curious about your response to this. What do you think of my perspective, and of my point?

To me I think you’re mistand the meaning of this idea.

To me it is clear the foundation “Jesus Christ” isn’t the belief in god but he the ability to rationalize death.

lol, yeah, perspectives of interpretation are funny things :turtle:

Though I think the OP was leaning into my bible literalist frame

I think my premise was wrong, given the OP point on “if”

I actually really am very interested in this.

The problem with quoting the bible is there are many concepts that predate the bible.

So if you look at the bible and say x,y,z you must understand what books the stole and which they originated. If you don’t get what they added to where you will get lost in the sauce quick. Also there are common works amongst religious works that predate oldest publicly displayed examples / an possibly the oldest examples we (humanity) have. What complicates the matter is many are likely lost to history.



You bring up a lot of valid points. There is no power in the universe, including God, that could force anyone to be interested in any particular thing. In my book, I present myself to believers as a prophet of God, by the “Gift of reason and logic”, to at least present myself as someone who has something to say to believers that they should at least consider what I am saying. Even so, this argument will likely to be minimally persuasive.
Eidotheosophy is conceived for the christians that can understand that reason, logic, and evidence falls under the purview of the biblical command to search for truth in all things, and suffers from the cognitive dissonance that arises from an unreliable and credibily suspect foundation to their faith that contradicts those values.

1 Like

I think you both would find this interesting:

@enduser Eidotheosophy deals with the poor credibility and unreliability of the bible by dismissing the bible as a “good” foundation for christian faith, and builds a new foundation for christian faith using reason, logic, and evidence.

1 Like

It is interesting, I was also getting a feeling back to points about how the safety blanket fundamentalism wants to find a prophetic leader to provide certainty and security. And reading your comment, it does seem more like, some christians may seek and see wisdom in your words as a leader, yet others may avoid and ignore for reasons we’ve discussed. I guess I’m just commenting on the leadership aspect to the issue.

Btw, I should’ve clarified that the video I linked speaks to the economic environmental underpinnings of historical society, including much overlap with christian history. :turtle: Any christian based on reasoning would find this enlightening. Of course, as would any person interested in economics / politics / history / civilization / debt, since the rigor of the work presented is secular, (despite that it covers biblical history).

@jared123456 I do not find this surprising at all. On my academic survey of the material covering the ideas I wanted to explore, despite the fact that most of it comes from christian scholars, I have had to dismiss most of it for consideration, or ignore huge portions of their works, because most of them seem to be unable to rely on just facts, research, and evidence. Very frustrating.

1 Like

About 50,000 years ago seems to be the rise of religion as we know it.

The way I hacked it was you look at the oldest known religion and understand that a priest class does actually go a great job of preserving knowledge. Which is interesting to me in and of its self.

Next the realization of a bardot, sometimes trance drug associated / educed state is a commonality amongst all tribal shamanic traditions. The work of Joseph Campbell explains this nicely. Then you will see these same techniques in the ancient priest classes.

In short gods gift is very similar to many coming of age ceremonies in tribal life. The key to the idea is death or in other words a gift from god. The gift is the perceptions of death (many coming age ceremonies revolved around making the young men think he will die) this is done to steel the man against this fear.

This sounds like betrayal but what the wisdom of elders knows is without this this boy’s growth will be stunted by the fear of death. This has evolutionary backstopping in the bravery of warriors, and many other places.

This rebirth allows the man to be represented to the tribe and at its core this is the thing as it were. The key to this entire processes is a formal crossing through (Campbell refers to this as the threshold) once the cross happens your ego as a man is allowed to grow. If you listen to the dialogue of Fight Club they heavily borrow from these themes.

Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and God the Father, are manifestations of the same thing. God the Father is the core (or nucleus). Jesus and Holy Spirit are the proton and neutron. Excuse my poor comparison here. Science was something I avoided like the plague. God are examples of his nature and character that people could see, feel and touch (Jesus) or experience internally and is domiciled, as it were, in a person’s heart (and brain or mind). This concept is difficult to wrap one’s mind around because our minds are incapable of fully grasping. Of course, you logicians and reasonable new renaissance people will reject what I am saying out of hand because, in the end, you are as close minded as you claim fundamental Christians are.

I hope what I posted isn’t “off topic”.

@ironduke Your not off topic, eidotheosophy is a fairly comprehensive concept. I am definitely not dismissing your experience out of hand. In fact, I am creating an entire science, whole cloth, because I do, in fact, personally know the Holy Spirit. Additionally, as a person grounded in reason, logic, and facts, I am well aware that the current foundation of Christian faith, the Bible, is not a reliable and credible witness.
If this dichotomy persists, where the believer must reject objective reality to retain their faith, and the nonbeliever can never accept the things of God, because the witness to those things is a witness that has no credibility, the believer and the nonbeliever can never resolve their differences.
For the believer, the consequences become even more dire, because without an objectively reliable basis for their faith, the believer can only rely upon religious authorities to interpret their faith to determine what ethics and principles Christians should hold.
If a Christian doesn’t think this is a problem, they should be reminded of all the atrocities throughout Christian history that Christians have committed.

It is interesting, in that, it kind of seems as off topic as some of @enduser 's comments, in that, the connecting thread from the topic to your comment is not clarified. If you could clarify the connection, then that would help me understand not only what your point actually is, but also how it relates to the topic discussion. Like, I don’t know what prompted your interjecting, since you don’t clarify.

Your reply helps a bit to clarify for me what @ironduke 's point might be, and how it might follow from the topic.

But I would also explore some of your reply. You make points about belief, and of being believers. My christianity feels more rooted in experience rather than faith, though faith certainly emerges. I feel like such experience is able to be shared, and enables a bridge to understanding and being understood by others. How does that relate to your points, do you think?

I think it seems to shift the ground of your reply, slightly. [Edit] to clarify:

When my emergent faith contradicts something, it is an opportunity to explore the reality more fully, to learn and grow. I suspect a christianity based on faith rather than experience would have the issue you outline, while my way does not necessarily have the issue.

The discussion into eidotheosophy started in the other topic, but I moved it to its own topic, so as to not draw away from the other post’s topic.
Sharing one’s experience has always been a valid way for people to come together, but my point is, that for modern Christians, that is not enough anymore. Remember that believers are called to testify to the things of God to all peoples and nations. To share the truth of God’s things.
When the framing of objective reality for a significant portion of the world is rooted in certain concepts and ideas, then to be able to share the things of God to them requires one to be able to speak to them in the language of that framing, with logic, reason, and facts-based evidence, one loses the ability to communicate to them in a way they can accept. Furthermore, the role of faith in this framing is, for the most part, either outright rejected, or simply not considered.
The dichotomy is this: the nonbeliever that approaches objective reality through reason, logic, and facts-based evidence cannot accept the things of God, because the scientific social construct does not allow or incorporate such things. The believer must choose which construct supersedes the other, the framing of the idea of objective reality, or their beliefs. The worst outcome is when the believer fully rejects objective reality because it contradicts their beliefs.
It is important to remember, that no one has to ever engage or use the language of the scientific social construct, that is, to use reason, logic, or facts-based evidence. However, any believer wishing to engage with nonbelievers whose objective reality is framed such a way, might as well smash their head against a concrete wall, a much more constructive use of their time if they really think that is a good idea.