Why climb'st thou not the Mount Delectable? Which is the source and cause of every joy?

To climb this mountain purposefully, using a trodden path and a map, and not to wander upon its summit as a consequence of proper decisions, is worse than to stay at the bottom.
Wherever there's method, it overtakes and corrupts the goal.

why do you hate discipline?

Just goes to show this board is no better than any other board intellectually. It simply gets less traffic

because the priest used to beat me every time he fucked me

Can you argue the statement made by the man in the middle?

how reddit are you?

as much as she is beautiful

It's a baseless statement. Just because someone says they're good doesn't mean they are.

>haven't read the bible
>talks about protestants
Why are atheist so intellectually bankrupt?

Unless one believes them to be; to that person then they are the embodiment of goodness. Eliminate the word -god- and instead substitute whatever it is that stands in your mind under it with your most morally idealistic self and world/universal view

>if I believe it, it's true to me
Well... Ok

an embodiment is not a truth, it's just a mediator of the truth

If you mean God as the embodiment of truth, that doesn't change the baselessness

As I said, codified method produces the separation of ethics and esthetics, the paroxism of this being that esthetics are a tool to immerse oneself in the corresponding ethical. In plainer terms:

A fedora man convinces himself to believe in God (maybe societal pressure, fashion, or repulsion to past self) and believes in God in the same he believed in the abscence of one. Circuits inside the brain haven't shifted, they just changed labels, the 'way of thinking'* remains the same.

*very crude way of naming this phenomenon. How one processes information may be closer but still reeks of high-level concepts rather than lower-level ones.
Good or God of Good necesseraly exists as Good or Holistic Good necessarily exists, probably even as a hyperprior, so that's just a shortcut that applies universally - even to fedora at the bottom who certainly likes to abuse it.

"God as you describe it certainly exists but informs nothing back to the Being, there's no difference between God and God or God of Good".

Yeah, you believe you exist and it is true. You can believe you exist in a dream and it is true. You can believe all of existence is pointless and it is true. You can believe you are in a coma and it is true.

Pay close attention to your outlook of the world in conjunction with your mental state. You may come to realize a void in your life is merely a void in your mind, and it will certainly be true. Stop acting like there is no subjective and objective, and that reality is a at best a blurred line between the two

Your reading comprehension is terrible

>good or God of good necessarily exists
Oh I laughed heavily, what an unfounded statement

Well as someone that actually KNOWS Jung.

If you go from a statement like "God is the archtype of good" to 'praise Jesus' you never really understood a thing.

Why would you 'praise Jesus' he's not an archtype. An archetype by definition is not a single person or thing but a concept. If you are worshiping a particular God you are not acknowledging the archetype, you are just a garden variety Christian that has learned to pronounce a new strange word.

Another major problem is that Christianity doesn't understand the nature of good, and thus the nature of God. Good is not opposed to evil but in unison with it. One cannot exist without the other. So the Devil and thus Evil is just as important to knowledge and respect as goodness. To not do so creates a spiritual deficiency. This is true not matter HOW you define good and evil.

Oh and "God wills it"/Deus Volt is even more removed. The archetypes exist within an individual. So spiritual evolution is saying "I will it". Pointing to the archetypes outside yourself is something you do when you lack an understanding of your inner universe. So the crusader is basically telling everyone he's proud of his self-ignorance.

A mediator between what two things?

The archetypes are the ultimate end so what are they mediating?

You didn't argue the statement in the middle you argued the idea of the entire picture. I didn't ask about the second from the top nor the top. I asked of the middle statement as it's own self contained idea.

You have exposed your shitposting

>The pinnacle of Christianity is killing people and conquering countries.
Wew lad, way to miss the fucking point entirely

Not an argument

>dude everything has to be dualism lmao even with an omnipotent entity that doesn't necessarily have to follow the laws of logic we see now

Yeah but saying my 'reading comprehension is terrible' with no evidence is one. You get out what you put in. Much like your reality.

You responded to something I didn't even remotely say, nothing in your post had any bearing on what I said as a refutation, and even also agreed with the implications of my post. So, your reading comprehension is incredibly shit

And now to refute Jung
Jung is a double edge sword. He made some things popular in the West but in doing so destroyed there actual meaning by assigning his psychoanalytic gibberish into them.

according to Jung, the figurative emergence of certain contents of the "collective unconscious" is accompanied empirically, as its psychic complement, by a noumenal sensation of eternity and infinitude; this is the way to insidiously ruin all transcendence and all intellection. According to this theory, it is the collective unconscious, or subconscious, which is the origin of "individuated" consciousness, human intelligence having two components, namely the reflections of the subconscious on the one hand and the experience of the external world on the other; but since experience is not in itself intelligence, the latter will necessarily have the subconscious for its substance, so that one ends up trying to define the subconscious on the basis of its own ramification. This is the classical contradiction of all subjectivist and relativist philosophy, and so any serious thinker who KNOWS Jung will wholeheartedly reject his framework and his psychology, even if he uses some of his ideas and finds some of his quotes beneficial.
Overall the garden variety Christian is leaps and bounds above Jung, despite his ability to string gibberish together and create bogus psychological statements that sound legit, much like Freud.

Good, either holistic or just as a totality of atomic instances of good, certainly exists within cognition; even delusions are born of something, it would be a world-logos inconsistency if we had a concept that is both not somehow related to the world or other concepts relating to the world - at least it is mapped to itself, even in most wild solipsistic assumptions. Obviously its is not necessary whole, maybe it's just a group with fuzzy borders, members very different but just subtly related to each other. If it's so, Good or Things that are good do exist, then Good or God of Good (more correctly Good or Things that are good or God of Good or Things that are good, but whatever) exists. It just bears zero information in its form.

>Posting Facebook comics
*tips cross*
*unsheats Bible*

fuk u demigure

>the crusades were all about killing people to take over other countries

Great, your first clause is just the assertion again, then it's followed by a distinct lack of justification. Do you understand what "baseless" means?

If you don't see the correlation between what I said and you're statement of 'if I believe it, it's true to me' then I'm honestly at a loss of words towards your blockheadedness. I honestly wish I could say I am surprised. I gave you prime examples of beliefs one may hold of their reality that would subjectively be true. You responded with saying I lack reading comprehension. One of us is pseud, and please note my saging

The term God is an objective archetype of a subjective belief, just as is the term reality

The word "good" exists, and what's good for you is good for you, daft contrarian cunt. Are you going to debate this, you stinky off-brand Chinese bionicle of a human? Is it going to depend on what the definition of the word is is?

>it wasn't the initial intention so it's ok

The phrase 'God is the archtype of the good. Therefor God is real' is vague and requires context to know what the fuck it means. Particularly you have to understand what the person writing THINKS 'archtype' means.

Since the middle statement lacks context I had to reach conclusions from the other statements, mostly by looking at the statements that come after it. Which imply what 'archtype' means to the author is some mystical word that authenticates garden variety Christianity.

Maybe that's not what he intended to say but when you intentionally mix in ironic memes it's a form of obscurantism.

If your reading comprehension was better, you'd have noted the "true *to me*". My. Post was simply throwing my hands up in exhaustion because a stance of individual truth means what he believes has no bearing on me and hence it's worthless to discuss

The entire first paragraph of your post is ridiculous and unfounded, unless you take a stance of individual truth (which is not the same as subjective truth). Your first post isn't even necessarily subjective truths either. There's a significant disconnect between what you think you wrote, and the meaning of the sentences you've actually written

Your last paragraph is not very substantive, and your last sentence literally has no bearing at all on what I've said if you were going for a refutation - my post essentially agrees with your last sentence

At least you're willing to admit you're a pseud, that's progress

>the term God is an objective archetype
How do you know?

No you fucking idiot, you must realize that God as an archetype is a subjective truth not an objective one. Stop trying to add context to the idea and instead strip all context from the idea and leave it by itself. It then perhaps stops being even about the Christian god, and takes the term God to its most subjective state. God as understood subjectively is the idea of the purest goodness. As soon as you attempt to add another's objective truths of god you cease seeing the sun but the beam of headlights. Why contextualize your ideas of reality with any experience but your own or those which actualize your self. For the artist, it may authenticate Christianity. But for YOU what does the middle statement mean with no other context but the application to your subjective idea of God

>the figurative emergence of certain contents of the "collective unconscious" is accompanied empirically, as its psychic complement, by a noumenal sensation of eternity and infinitude; this is the way to insidiously ruin all transcendence and all intellection

>by a noumenal sensation of eternity and infinitud

What the fuck are you talking about? Not only is this boarding on meaningless gibberish I can't see how it relates to Jung.

>According to this theory, it is the collective unconscious, or subconscious, which is the origin of "individuated" consciousness

Do you know what individualization means? This sentence makes zero sense. Individualization is the process of EVERY aspect of the conscious and unconscious becoming whole with itself and function without inner strife. Saying it 'comes from within the subconscious' makes about as much sense as saying that a fully assembled scuputre 'comes from the foot' or 'comes from the paint' or (which is what you are implying mentioning the collective unconscious) comes from an art-history book.

You have revealed right here that you do not know a thing about what you are talking about and are mask that using big-boy-talk.

With that in mind I see no reason to read the rest of your terrible post.

>God as understood subjectively is the idea of the purest goodness.

Statements like this are utterly meaningless. Since good and God can mean a great deal of things depending on the context. And the word "purest" in there is even more meaningless

>you must realize that God as an archetype is a subjective truth not an objective one

LOL as if there were an 'objective view of God'

The rest of your statements appear to be even emptier words.

>a stance of individual truth means what he believes has no bearing on me and hence it's worthless to discuss

Unless you take the objective idea of God and view it subjectively. I know what I'm saying; you very clearly don't. I'm not saying the Christan god, I'm not saying Allah. I'm saying God. Remember this whole reply chain began because I asked of the middleman's statement ONLY. subjective truth is synonymous with individual truth you imbecile. Your post would agree with me if it wasn't for the very sarcastic line of text following your greentext.

>the term God is an objective archetype: How do you know?

You're actually retarded and have no grasp of analytics or rhetoric, and are utterly incapable of discussing something even slightly outside of its initial context. I -know- because I said God; not any specific god but God as it's objective definition.

>LOL as if there were an 'objective view of God'

But I'm the unintelligent one saying empty words... yikes.

Ok why don't you tell us the *objective* defination of God and the *objective* method you arrived at it with.

Take all the time you need bro. I'll go make some popcorn. Dis gonna be good!

(The creator of) the universe.

I'll bet you thought you were so smart too

Your first sentence has no bearing at all on the section of text you've greentexted

No, subjective truth isn't synonymous with individual truth. People with the same feelings and opinions can arrive at different individual truths (religion is a good example of you look at people in different areas), despite the same subject feelings.
And saying my post would agree with you betrays, once more, poor reading comprehension since my post was consistently extremely critical of your shitty post.

Please, elaborate on your objective definition of God

Being a creator has no bearing on goodness

You do realize there's plenty of cosmological models in religions that don't even have a universe that IS created? Or one's where the universe creates the Gods, in fact there are even religions where there are more than 1 God!

This is a subjective view of God one that is mainly a Christian and and Islamic perspective.

pic related
>ignoring the parenthesis

You children failed the test. thread dropped

*thread dropped*

Don't let the door hit on you the way out!

only the pure of heart can read text this small and this holy