The annoying people and the power of philosophy.

Here is a podcast that annoys me:

Youtube: The Five O's - Understanding God's nature - Jesus Way Podcast Clip:

https://youtu.be/roQTBYXM9Os?si=lpcGezKGK3S31m3k 

I was talking up Aaron Abke after having discovered his work recently. It seems pretty inspiring to get to the real messages of Jesus.

But, he is pushing a message that is satanic, and "unforgiveable". I have messaged him about it so he knows, and has chosen to ignore that.

Aaron Abke believes in forgiveness without contrition. 

My path, philosophy:

It brings me to me developing path of understanding. One of the things that has become obvious to me for a long time is how unproductive 'dogma' is. Dogma is 'rules laid down and expecting to be followed without question'. 

This is one of the central problems with channeling. To go to the actual pages of some channeling, it will tend to outline to begin with that it's guidance is subject to the law of free will. Which, to some degree equalises for channelings main problem. Which is that you can't question channeling. The reason you can't question it is because the channel is no longer infront of you to answer your question. So if it were to say: 'The sky is green', and you wanted to ask 'well then why does it look blue?' The channel is no longer there to answer that. 

So if you are talking to people that are into channeling. They will excerpt some part of the reading to show their point and expect it to be followed without question. Thereby using the channels words in a way that is not conducive to free will.

Example: A: The Sky is blue, since that is what I an everyone I know says when they look at it. 

B: The sky is green

A: No it is blue

B: *Excerpt of channeling saying the sky is green*.

This is where philosophy shines. For me, a lot of the things I personally believe. The 'faith I keep'. I don't mention to anyone. These are the things I can't justify like the results I get when I do communion. Like the Nazarenes that followed the death of Jesus being a deeply exclusive religion. 

But, what is worth discussing with others are things that can be argued, that there is evidence for in the real world and it can be argued these things do provide benefit. If you say 'forgiveness without contrition is the way' or 'forgiveness without contrition is satanic in nature'. You have to basically justify that perspective. I can and I have. 

Are there any psychological studies that talk about this? In abuse communities, stating that forgiveness without contrition is needed is considered a form of abuse. And I believe that to be the case.

I once asked someone pushing this viewpoint if they would tell someone that had been raped as a child to forgive their abuser. This person said that they would. That they would forgive the abuser (i.e. the abuser that had done nothing to them) and hope the person raped as a child would be inspired by that. 

I hope karma comes back on them for that sort of statement! 

Conclusion:

This all agrees with my understanding of Christianity and Jesus' teachings. Dogma, things that people say that they expect to be followed without question. Even if they are, theoretically, following the Law of Free will. Is arrogant. That's what it is. "I will deliver my enlightened wisdom onto you and I don't have to justify myself."

Philosophy though is not that. Baked into philosophy, ideally, is the idea that ideas can be challenged and changed if another viewpoint can be proven. THAT is humility. That is respect for God, for if God is in all things, almost anyone might be doing Gods will. Not just the one on the podium.  

This is the pathway that my thoughts... "path" is taking recently. It fits.