1. My guess is the God Jesus believes in the Bible is the Stoicism god. That is an everybody's God, believers and non-believers of any faith or no faith.
Just like Jesus mentioned 'raining is for all guys (usage), not merely for a few ("selected").'
2. Any kind of sidetrack should be avoided/minimised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
I checked wikipedia on Stoicism to bring my understanding up to speed on this view.
I agree Stoicism plays a formulative role in the development of christian doctrine.
It appears Stoicism and the evolving faith compromised philosophy called "christianity" diverge most apparently at the idea of God.
The Stoics see God as the universe as we generally see, as well as the motives, intelligence, reason and energy that move it. As such, Stoicism is somewhat described as pantheism, and how to handle oneself from that point of view.
As we all know, either through faith or reason, the most popular evolved christianity has decided to reject the notion of divinely imbued pantheism, even though it pronounces a world of seas, trees and bees to be made (inexplicably) by the God, preferring to believe it was made from nothing, such as a "void", rather than of the very being of the God.
Rather, it reserves the very being of the God to one man, and one man only, who is said to be both man and God 100%, as if he was made of something, while everything else was made of nothing. Yet, it calls everything that was made from nothing "good", which in my lexicon means "God". Thus, the popular evolved christianity is attempting to be God, while denying they are trying. I see this as cognitive dissonance. The idea that one man can be God implies strongly that any/every man can be God. To deny it, christians are fond of using the term "like Christ", meaning, like God. But when it comes to defining what "like" means, we find out that christians intend to maintain a difference. Again, cognitive dissonance while attempting to merge two very opposites states of being (like and unlike).
Based on my understanding of the probable philosophy of Jesus, neither of these represent perfectly the reasoned view of Jesus, who would have been familiar with Stoic principles going all the way back to Plato and Plato's "Cave" analogy.
I have often used the term
reverse pantheism to describe my view, as well as his. I believe i coined this term myself.
Reverse pantheism means that whatever is motivating matter (the material world of seas, trees and bees) is mis-representing the true Self. Indeed, the material world is a kind of "self", taken as a whole. Yes, it has a common cause and "reason" (logos), as the Stoics would say. The modern term is "intelligent design".
But what i'm saying is that
the design is neither representative, nor benign, nor well reasoned.
By "reverse", i mean that the self represented by the material universe of seas, tree and bees is exactly opposite of the actual, true universe, which i call
reality. Not only opposite, but also upside down, backwards, and inside out. Thus, one world represents everything that the original world (reality) is not. As such, it is an utter
mockery of all that is really "good", which i call reality, but also call the
true Self.
Yes, it is a "self", but i say, and i believe Jesus meant, that "self" is better described as the proverbial "prodigal son".
This would tend to explain why the temporary nature of this world appears to be a well established legacy of Jesus' teachings.
The popular evolved christianity has taken a more Stoic view, insisting that a world of matter is permanent, and, if it is destroyed for any reason, it will be restored, because the basic principle is still "good".
Not so, in my way of thinking, nor do i believe Jesus accepted it at "good" either.
Rather, i believe Jesus described it as "hell", as do i.
Further, i would describe the reverse pantheistic manifestation as the "anti Christ", not as one man-like entity as the popular evolved christianity sirens, but as the whole total of everything that was made from the "void" of nothing.
If this is the case, then the objectives of Jesus will be markedly different from those of the average
social justice warrior.
It appears the Stoics aimed at
social justice, but without the emotions of a warrior.
In either case, i believe the objectives are mis-lead by holding the incorrect premise.
The energy put into social justice might well be better expended on what i'll describe as
escape.
The difference is that social justice warriors intend to stay and make the pantheistic self a better place for each individual "self" within it. Perhaps that is also the objective of Stoicism. It requires alot of attention to the problems generated by what i see as a faulty premise.
I don't believe that was Jesus objective.
I believe his objective was to escape the domain of the false self, and return to the domain of the true Self.
Going in that direction, he was seen/described as the "God" who made the world. He did not exactly deny this. Rather, i see this as a
confession, and/or admission in taking responsibility for the making of everything that came from the "void" of nothingness.
A confession of responsibility does not make the things that were made legitimate. It does not make them "good". Conversely, christianity, as it has become popular, uses this confession to legitimize the pantheistic self so that it can become "good" ("God" in my lexicon).
By confessing his sins (making a world --another God -- from a "void" of nothingness), Jesus figured out how to forgive himself for the deed. In forgiving himself, he did return his state of mind to one of complete innocence ("sinlessness"), for which he became famous.
Christians, on the other hand, do not follow this example, and instead, deny any responsibility for the making of another world -- another God -- from a "void" of nothingness. And, by refusing to confess their sins, they have not figured out how to return their minds to a state of complete innocence. And for this reason, they continue to describe themselves as "sinners".
Above and beyond the pantheistic world of seas, tree and bees, there is a "good" which can be called anything at all, having no name at all. This, i believe, is the "Father" of which Jesus speaks, to which he considered himself
equal. Being equal to the "Father", Jesus found himself with the "power" to transcend the lesser "god of this world" and
escape its effects.
I think this is an important distinction because while anyone see themselves as equal to the god of this world (a material world of seas, trees and bees), one will never be able to transcend it's effects.
The key to self-forgiveness is to see the material world as coming from the "void" of nothingness, meaning, it was nothing then, and it is nothing now.
What is nothing? If one can figure this out, one can forgive oneself, and return to what is actually something:
reality, good, Self.
