Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Guy Duperreault's avatar

Hola, Tereza. Such interesting timing with this interesting topic! Your title and subject reminded me, perversely, of the topic or Tessa Lena's philosophy club round table two weeks ago: 'enchanted missionaries'. And also, a joke I heard at the end of that discussion: What is the difference between a 'mystic' and a 'lunatic'? A: The mystic knows who not to talk to.

This is an interesting subject to dive into and I look forward to your exploration of it. Thank you and Nefahotep!

Expand full comment
Nefahotep's avatar

You hit it out of the park, Tereza.

"To Philip, Christianity could not exist as a separate thing. It’s a verb that activates the noun without modifying it, the “becoming” that doesn’t want to change you—except to be 'more fully' who you are." This almost seems like the linguistic expression of Being "I am" since Being is a verb describing the action of consciousness, there is an important relationship to what follows. Could that be originally meant to describe becoming more into who you are? This is interesting I had not considered this before.

I just love this:

"We are who we have always been" has a hidden meaning: there are no newcomers. This definition gives no superiority to those who were already there. How can you come as a stranger to your own family? How can you be a recent arrival to your own home? Status based on seniority and lineage was critically important in ancient Rome, and for the Biblical Hebrews. Philip sidesteps the whole discussion of hierarchy by making “conversion” an internal process of becoming who you've always been."

He could also be referring to the timeless nature of Being as well.

We have always been here, this moment has always been here. Of course Arbitrary Hierarchy has been an abomination since it was introduced.

Expand full comment
26 more comments...

No posts