Herr Junky on Christianity

The Christian faith is enormous, with many off shoots which mainstream parts do not think of as a part of it.

My use of Christian sources cover the following parts of it

The bible
The early church fathers
The mystics
Thomas Aquinas representing the non-mystic middle ages
The Reformation with a favoritism towards Calvin which blossomed into what is called Reformed, including the Puritans, and systematic theologians.
The Quakers, headed by one George Fox, who grew out of the Puritan heritage, and can be seen as a mystic, it is intriguing to see how some major strands had a origin in the Reformed tradition, for example the revivalist Charles Finney, who wanted to see stuff happen, and saw the old Presbyterian way to be dead.
The Charismatics ie: pentecostals, who are usually the kinds you see on tv, those who assure great things for those who donate to their ministries.

Background and contextual resources begin with Judaism, source of the Old Testament, with the Zohar and Talmud, scholarly works on biblical things, which from a mainstream Christian perspective is a dethroning of all supernaturalness. And finally to round it all off -- EVERYTHING else.

There isn't anything i'm interested in that doesn't contextualize or be contextualized by Christianity.

A great informer for me early on was Nietzsche. He had a lot to say about it, and it impressed me so much then in the mid 90's, and to this day, he speaks uniquely. Nietzsche imo is the greatest critic of faith the world has ever produced.

That is just my opinion, other atheists just don't have any poetic value, their more technical. Only critics who also have strong social critques also are of value, so in that sense i admire Christopher Hitchens, but Richard Dawkins is someone i put on a level of a piece of chalk in a world where no chalkboards exist.

There is no easy or definite way to put these things into words for me, which is why i ceaselessly try and ceaselessly read, to get at a better understanding.

This should belie the fact that i put more stock in faith types of things over rational fact driven things, in a faith dynamic, there is mystery, and wonder, but i also know how the scientific way stresses wonder also, but for me i find science to be largely a dead end, for one thing it requires you to touch and see things for yourself, to make tests, get your hands dirty. Whereas i do not operate in such a way, but this is how:

By constructing a thorough registry (of resources) that was lived through in stages, i then devote in leisure the rest of the time i have with them, how things effect, and where and how they function, on different planes, intersecting with eachother, a whole as the inside of advanced machinery, all working, or operating in unity.

Not for any specific thing, but as a sketch of ... sketches innumerable ... of the blinding light a child, and those who have retained their childlike wonder can appreciate simply.

By erring gravely by doing really stupid things, by wasting time, and a whole host of other wrongs, i thus am married to complexity, of heeding an ALL, which with practice and a growing remembering database, to be as like unto a symphony of the simple and undying, ageless realities.