Drive-By Sermon: If You Are Saved...Christ Is Your "Brain"

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

It is widely and almost universally believed that the brain creates and maintains consciousness. While the author does not believe this it is a worthy metaphor to the role Jesus Christ plays in the consciousness of a saved person.

A saved person, i.e. a person that will not be sentenced to Hell in the Final Judgment, is saved because of the person’s relationship to Jesus Christ, as Christ “vouches for” the person to God. This “vouching” is done, as indicated by several verses in the New Testament, particularly in the metaphysical writings of the apostle Paul, by a saved person’s consciousness in terms of its content, being an “identical twin” of the content in the mind of Jesus Christ as Christ died upon the Cross, and an “identical twin” of the content of Jesus’ mind during the three days His body lied in state in Joseph’s tomb prior to His resurrection.

That is, a saved person’s consciousness is not a creation of one’s brain, and does not derive its content from objects and forces in the external world, but from the previous content in the mind of Jesus Christ.

Biblical evidence:

“I have been crucified with Christ; I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.”
-Galatians 2:20

This verse is the most obvious proof of the existence of what I call: CHRISTPSYCHIC CONSCIOUSNESS, or the state or condition of one’s consciousness not being ding an sich or a thing-unto-itself, but a form of Christ’s consciousness in the form of one’s consciousness within one. When one sins, there is no Christpsychism as in the previous definition, but a return of one’s non-Christ consciousness while one sins or is in a state of non-sinful ennui. But in one’s sin if one “belongs to Christ” one nevertheless bears “the likeness of His (Jesus’) death” in terms of nevertheless being a doppelganger or replica of a being Christ dreamt He was while dying on the Cross and committing the same “sin” Christ “committed” in the form of this dream-person while dying on the Cross.

Thus to be saved, i.e. exempt from Hell, one must have Christ within you in the sense of your consciousness being a replica of the content of Jesus’ consciousness while upon the Cross or in the three days prior to His resurrection, as well as the Spirit of Christ literally being within one’s consciousness through the “re-writing” of one’s consciousness via Christpsychic Consciousness, wherein one’s non-Christ consciousness temporarily ceases to exist while one is in a temporary state of truly-God-pleasing righteousness.

As another verse states:

“When Christ…who is your life…appears, you will also appear with Him in glory.”
-Colossians 3:4

It’s right there in black and white, ladies and gentlemen:

“When Christ…who is your life…”

Again:

“…who is your life….”

That is, Christ is your distal object in your process of perception, not objects and events in the external world that may not exist, given reality adheres to George Berkeley’s Idealism as opposed to Materialism.

That is why, if you are saved, everything you do is done through Christ, as your consciousness derives from the content in His (whether bearing the likeness of the Lord’s death on the Cross, or in His triumph over His death carried within His mind in Joseph’s Tomb) and as such, there is a resurrection from your bearing the likeness of His death.

Jay Brewer
Austin, Texas

2

"I have been crucified with Christ; I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.”

That’s no good, though. A man has to be crucified with Prom to experience enlightenment. That J guy was just another woke protestor that the Romans got sick of listening to. There were hundreds of guys like him back then. They were a dime a dozen.

This is almost tragic that you would spend so much time and write so much stuff about an irrelevant.

1 Like
3

It’s about in whom one places one’s faith. I think I’ll go with Jesus.

PG

1 Like
4

The only person you need faith in is sitting at your computer desk at this moment. Everything and everyone else in the universe means nada.

1 Like
5

That’s your opinion and belief. I must respectfully disagree.

6

Then the one you just pointed out doesn’t, either… or you’re wrong.

7

I place nothing, nothing, above the judgment of my own mind. I think this is the ‘secret of life’.

8

You’ve never been wrong before?

I just found out (I think again, because I’m pretty sure I somewhat recently learned it and then forgot it) that Diane Fossey was the lady behind Gorillas in the Miist, not Jane Goodall. I like to stay humble.

Lean not on your own understanding. Lean on the actual ground understanding everything or you’re just gonna be hovering over an abyss.

(Not that I equate the understanding and the judgment.)

9

Of Course, I’ve been wrong about things. But reason is self-correcting. What does it really mean to lean not on your own understanding? What makes someone else’s judgment any better than yours? Wouldn’t that be a total second-handness? Wouldn’t that mean accepting ideas without understanding, processing, or reasoning?

10

If you know you have been wrong before and that you don’t know everything, but you trust that there is someone who must know everything… or else there wouldn’t be anything… because stuff has not always existed as it is existing (except in whole)… stuff is passing/changing (co-eternally)…

…then even if you’re in Bizzaro World (as you understand it), at least One is constant and clear and “infirsts/outlasts” it.

Straight up deep dive.

11

I don’t believe there is someone who knows everything. And as I have made mistakes, I’ve learned from them and I don’t make them anymore. I know why I made the mistakes, what errors in reasoning I was making, and so I’m able to spot them in other people’s reasoning. My base of knowledge that is validated has grown enormously over the years and strengthened to the point that I would have to reject everything I know to be true if I were to believe in omniscience. The choice is to think for oneself or subordinate one’s mind and become a complete second hander. I am constitutionally incapable of doing that. And I’m not afraid of the responsibility.

12

Also, Ichthus77, I’ve done what very, very few people have done. I’ve started at the beginning of knowledge, where it’s impossible for me to be wrong, and I’ve integrated my knowledge into a non-contradictory whole. I started when I was in my mid-20s and checked every premise I had. What I discovered was a mess of contradictory premises. I ruthlessly cut them out, no matter how dear they were to me. In terms of the fundamental principles, I’ve done an exhaustive integration so that new knowledge is easily integrated, and falsehoods are easily weeded out. Have you done the same? I can trace every single premise I have back to first principles. Can you?

13

You spelled that wrong.

14

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, lol.

15

The very first principle is that existence only demonstrates itself in the form of subjective experience. Anything other than consciousness or subjective experience is therefore imaginary, i.e. subjective experience using itself to imagine something other than itself.

16

If things only exist in the mind as subjective experience, then where does the mind exist? And subjective experience of what?

1 Like
17

If things only exist in the mind as subjective experience, then where does the mind exist?

The mind itself is composed of subjective experience and thus is a construct of subjective experience.

And subjective experience of what?

Everything that is experienced, including the self.

18

Are you familiar with the problem of pure self-reference?

19

Are you familiar with the problem of pure self-reference?

No.

20

You should familiarize yourself with it because what you are describing is a purely self-referential scenario. If consciousness is the experience of its own objectless experience, that’s the problem of pure self-reference.