Christianity

[Dubious]

Yep, it is. So is "ability." And so is "grammar."

So show me the grammatical error you keep insisting I made.

Apparently you can't recognize it, even when I point it out. So I can't help you, there.

You haven't pointed it out; you only made a gratuitous assertion in your attempt to apply an indirect ad hom. But you've always been really sneaky that way. I think Jesus would expect you to be a little more honest. No! Make that a lot more! Don't blow it now or you'll end up where you expect me to be!

What I pointed out was its meaning as defined in most dictionaries and applied accordingly. It's not my fault if you can't accept that definition since it negates what you claim to be a grammatical error...not that I can't make any, just not in this case!

[Alexis Jacobi]

You still seem to share the CR tendency to think in terms of political revolutions. That's stayed, it seems.

One of the things I have expressed about you is that, to all appearances, you do not read (what I write in any case) well. This statement here quoted is a misstatement, quite literally, of the entirety of what I have said on the topic. So here again -- if you read & comprehend so erroneously in this instance, and it repeats from instance to instance, it causes me to wonder about your capacity to receive and understand what I am saying (and possibly what other say).

Please note that I have only spoken of 'processes of renovation' and that these, in my view, have a dual aspect. All of this I have stated and restated. In order for there to be 'renovation' of a person, or of a group (one follows the other) there has to be a rediscovery of what, exactly, is to be renovated and why. So the primary reference I have made is to the project of re-recogizing and re-comprehending transcendentals, as per Weaver's outline. This is an education-process and, sadly but truly, only some will be able to undertake this process which is, on the whole, intellectual. But note that I use a special sense of the term intellectual. Far more expansive and laden with more meaning (intellectus). This cannot BUT involve the whole man.

Concomitantly with this process (the rediscovery and re-comprehension of transcendentals) there must needs also take place a revision, a reassessment, a revisualization of one's place in the social and political order. I can admit that the interior work I have outlined can go on in a person with no commitments or obligations to any exterior processes (social, political, etc.) However, having had my focus on the political world, and I have to say the underground and suppressed political world of the Traditionalist Right and the Dissident Right, I am aware that these projects dovetail into each other.

So the easiest way for you to understand this would be to take the example of a 'former Democrat' (speaking of the American scene) who in a process of discovery and realization turns toward so-called 'conservative principles' in some light degree, possibly and for example those that Bork outlined in his book Slouching Toward Gomorrah. That person, to complete this shift, may merely reassign himself into a different political party and work politically, socially and intellectually (i.e. in his reading or the news he reads/watches). There may also be a 'return to church-going' as part of this processes. That is, a return to formerly established conservatism of a sort. Nothing more may occur. And indeed this is, sort of in any case, what the Jordan Petersons and Dave Rubins have done. (Peterson goes a bit, or even quite a bit further, insofar as he does outline internal processes -- psycho-spiritual as it might be called).

There are other strains here though. There are far more militant Catholics who outline far more militant projects. Take The Sword of Christ (banned on Amazon) as an example. Nearly every one of the 'ideological' and dissident right-leaning positions tends to have been influenced by a metaphysics that is capable of countervailing, or asserts it is capable of countervailing, what they have termed 'liberal rot'. Tomas Sunic and Pierre Krebs, each from a different sector ideologically, cold be referenced.

So returning to your mistaken perceptions, what you have assigned to me is not accurate.

Other differences: you don't seem to have quite relegated religion to being "the opium of the masses," or anything like that. You seem to see some Romantic (large "R") value in retaining at least a cultural pretense to religiosity. CR'ers wouldn't. They tend to be secular about Christianity and Judaism, but totally credulous about Buddhism or other sundry cultisms of various kinds (think of the California drug cults, gurus and bhagwans of the not-too-distant past).

Also fundamentally incorrect. But here a range of corrections have to be put forth to counter your tendentious and bizarrely willed misperceptions. Religion can certainly function like an opium. And 'religion' as such is in a terrible bind in so many ways. The old conceptual structures have fallen asunder. In order to recover them the whole concept needs to be revisited, reconsidered, thought-through all over again. If one cannot do this, one can only slip back into conventions. And conventions, as I would use the term, could correspond to opiates, but not in the way that Marx may have meant.

Nowadays, Cali seems more or less a welter of smug, secular hedonism, coupled with rabid Leftist politics. I haven't been there in maybe five years, but when I last was, that was sure how things were rolling...not in the outlying areas, of course, but in the big cities, for sure.

Who gives a damn? Why even recite this? What goes on in California has no relevancy of any sort to anything that is important to me.

So who are you talking to man?

I know what it means. But it's pejorative. And it facilitates ad hominem dismissiveness on your side.

I have already clearly and coherently explained that where a man sits (or stands) has a very real relevance. So if I mention your 'fanaticism' which I said I'd shift a bit toward fundamentalism and perhaps enthusiasm, I am not attempting a personal insult as there is nothing to be gained from taking things personally. I am more interested in *locating you*. In a corresponding manner as you *locate* those who, for example, get involved with CRT and Frankfurt School neo-Marxianism. I am interested in what pulls them into this -- meaning what psychological forces are at work.

This is highly relevant. And I have mentioned two highly relevant essays by Jung which demonstrate how this method of social-psycological analysis can be useful -- if it is done fairly and accurately. So let me state it like this: Just as Jung there examines Hitler as the subject (ad hominem) so too must we also examine ourselves. That is one of the primary admonitions of Jung! That we make a mistake when we have our focus on *them* -- those over there. Because that is where we tend to project. According to Jung seeing our projections, and then withdrawing them, is a vital part of gaining self-awareness and thus growth.

This is 'inner work' and, if you like, could be seen as part-and-parcel of being regenerated.

You do not own the regeneration processes friend. So then I reject the assertion that regeneration (from *above*) is exclusively a Christian-overseen process. And for this reason I submitted a video of a Vet who demonstrated and explained sufficient regeneration to gain my high respect. And that Vet is part of 'Christian culture' whether he recognizes it, or whether you allow it, or not. I think the implication here flies well over your head. Due to your obvious biases and prejudices.

One other thing: You do not determine or control nor do you direct me or this conversation. And here I speak to your moral browbeating assertion that by employing the rape-example that I did something wrong or 'rude'. My suggestion to you and to all people is control your own offense. Put another way your offense is not my problem.

You alleged I passed over a point I treated extensively.

I will get to all those things I see as relevant when I get around to it. I am aware of what you wrote. There are other things that had to be dealt with first.

[Immanuel Can]

So show me the grammatical error you keep insisting I made.

Apparently you can't recognize it, even when I point it out. So I can't help you, there.

You haven't pointed it out...

I did.

I can point it out to you, but I can't understand it for you.

[Immanuel Can]

You still seem to share the CR tendency to think in terms of political revolutions. That's stayed, it seems.

One of the things I have expressed about you is that, to all appearances, you do not read (what I write in any case) well. This statement here quoted is a misstatement,

Not really.

I see this manifest in, for example, your believe that "Christianity" is properly understood as a culture...a point upon which you have been repeatedly insistent. I see it also in your interest in European culture, or in cultural renewal. So I'm not far off the mark here.

Now, I know you (occasionally) refer to "the whole man," too. But you make little out of that, and much out of the cultural generalizations. Maybe you aren't even aware of how often you do. But percentage-wise, you spend much time on cultural analysis, which to me, is of considerably lesser value than understanding individual humans and their personal cognitions and choices.

Concomitantly with this process (the rediscovery and re-comprehension of transcendentals) there must needs also take place a revision, a reassessment, a revisualization of one's place in the social and political order.

Here it is again: to me, the "social and political order" contains no answers. It is merely a product of what the individuals within the culture choose.

I can admit that the interior work I have outlined can go on in a person with no commitments or obligations to any exterior processes (social, political, etc.)

Well, you've said little about what that "interior work" specifically entails.

However, having had my focus on the political world,

Yep, there it is again.

While saying you're interested in the individual, you immediately opt for the political and world levels.

I'm not trying to criticize you; I'm just noting the differences between your view and mine, and saying why I don't come with you on the cultural trips you take. I'm certainly not saying you can't take them, if you want to.

So the easiest way for you to understand this would be to take the example of a 'former Democrat' (speaking of the American scene) who in a process of discovery and realization turns toward so-called 'conservative principles' in some light degree, possibly and for example those that Bork outlined in his book Slouching Toward Gomorrah. That person, to complete this shift, may merely reassign himself into a different political party and work politically, socially and intellectually (i.e. in his reading or the news he reads/watches). There may also be a 'return to church-going' as part of this processes. That is, a return to formerly established conservatism of a sort. Nothing more may occur. And indeed this is, sort of in any case, what the Jordan Petersons and Dave Rubins have done. (Peterson goes a bit, or even quite a bit further, insofar as he does outline internal processes -- psycho-spiritual as it might be called).

And is that where you are, too? Are you a "red-pilled" ex-Democrat, as they say?

Religion can certainly function like an opium.

Can, but need not.

And conventions, as I would use the term, could correspond to opiates

,
Again, can, but don't always.

What goes on in California has no relevancy of any sort to anything that is important to me.

And yet you pegged yourself as a California radical, at one time.

I know what it means. But it's pejorative. And it facilitates ad hominem dismissiveness on your side.

I have already clearly and coherently explained that where a man sits (or stands) has a very real relevance.[/quote]
Yes. And you've been wrong.

The claims are relevant. The speaker never is, unless the speaker is presenting himself as evidence of his claims.

You do not own the regeneration processes friend.

Of course I don't. I never claimed I did.

Christ does, though.

...here I speak to your moral browbeating assertion that by employing the rape-example that I did something wrong or 'rude'.

I don't believe you. You knew it was an attempt to be offensive and extreme. And you're embarassed I called you on it.

Rightly so. It was a momentary lapse of inappropriateness...forgiveable, of course, since it's not typical of you...but still, not something that bears defending. And we'll get along better if you keep clear of such rhetoric in future conversations. I want no part of it.

[Dubious]

Apparently you can't recognize it, even when I point it out. So I can't help you, there.

You haven't pointed it out...

I did.

I can point it out to you, but I can't understand it for you.

What I understand is its dictionary meaning as stated. What you mean, who the hell knows!

[Alexis Jacobi]

And yet you pegged yourself as a California radical, at one time.

You misread. I said that I am a product of California radicalism. It is not the same as being a radical or acting as one.

You heard what you wanted to hear, you see? You invested in and projected into what I said.

Read better. Comprehend more. Project less.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Christ does, though.

Here you reveal fanaticism and in a sense I’d label as negative. Now at least you might understand why this term has validity.

Would you like me to help you get straight here?

[Immanuel Can]

And yet you pegged yourself as a California radical, at one time.

You misread. I said that I am a product of California radicalism. It is not the same as being a radical or acting as one.

I accept that. But it sure is an easy misreading to make.

To "be a product of California radicalism" and "being radical" aren't a great distance apart, at least semantically. Most people would be misled by such wording, I think.

So clear it up: what difference are you objecting to? In what way are you "a product of California radicalism," but not a "radical" and not "acting as one"?

[Immanuel Can]

Christ does, though.

Here you reveal fanaticism and in a sense I’d label as negative.

No. I'm just saying it's factually true. To speak the truth is not fanatical. It's just honest.

Christ claimed the same.

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ "(John 3:5-7)

And He [Jesus] was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:23-24)

That which is not reborn of God is not regenerated. And only Christ regenerates. If you don't believe He's the One, you die in your sins. That's what Jesus says.

So if you have an issue with what I say, then it's with Him you have the real issue. I'm just a messenger. I'm not the one who made the message.

[Dubious]

The Bible is a psychological text and not a literal text. It provokes pondering for those who sense something of value for human being as a whole.
>>
Christianity IMO is far deeper than most are aware of. People can argue it and it is like the "Ship of Fools" Plato described; all meaningless opinions lacking the potency to profit from it in their being as is possible for a person.
>>
Who understands that unmixed attention enables a person to get out of their own way long enough to ponder from the depth of their being rather than reacting from their own defense mechanisms. Yet people want to argue what they do not understand. Apparently it is the way of the world.

There remains the symbolic logic which negates its literalness for a more expansive view inherent in it's symbolism, which, by it's very definition refuses to remain fixed. The lowest level of understanding has always been that which is readily declared and accepted at face-value...true whether it be science, religion and all questions thrust into consciousness.

Thought expresses the mysteries nature itself created in us. The greatest of all arts may be that of interpretation as opposite to any blatant endorsements of truth, which in itself was never a "thing" but a process. It's the fulfillment of metaphor consummating itself in a vast hierarchy of symbols creating its own temples of meaning based on a process of reevaluation rather than revelation.

For me, one of the most stimulating, though there are others, is Carl Jung's specific mention of "Christ, a Symbol of the Self".

For a very long time Christianity retained its mystery when taken literally. In effect, it had a body which possessed a soul. It was that soul which contained the mystery. Now, nearly all of that has reversed and restructured itself in a more emblematic way requiring a more sophisticated understanding than that previously required or expected.

Without those cryptograms of existence, there can be no knowledge which like an Odyssey proceeds to be discovered even if that circle never closes. Perhaps a new kind of Christianity will emerge, giving it the force to remove itself from the confines of a biblical god at its centre holding everything down, "disallowing all other gods" in an ego frenzy of self-worship, demanding absolute obedience, or else! What religiously appears as a "divine command", not to be infringed, would, at a lower level, be regarded as an arbitrary command of a dictator.

What humans have historically accepted so readily, virtually without question, has imploded jettisoning in its wake a plethora of new questions which have the power to grow new articles of belief in a cosmos which has nothing in common with the one once accepted as god's creation.

[Dontaskme]

You find meaning in denial and I find it through humility making conscious contemplation possible.

Life has offered me nothing but a pain in the arse. Everything I have done in life has been a chore and a struggle.
Although, having said that, I have made a success of my life and my children have fared very well for having me as a mother. But only because I was a very good actress, and was able to perform my role as a loving caring person very well. Inside, I was totally broken...I kept my brokeness always to myself as private, no one knew but me.

For a long time I have been in bed with David Benatar. Who is a South African philosopher, academic and author. He is best known for his advocacy of antinatalism in his book ''Better Never to Have Been'' and ''The Harm of Coming into Existence''
I just happen to agree with David 150%


Personally, I find nothing pleasurable about being alive at all. And if I was to draw on some purpose or meaning from life, it would be that life will END at the death of the body. Death to me, is the good news.


When I think about the sensation of being alive comparing it to the time I never existed. I would definitely prefer to be in that place of non-existence. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why there is something rather than nothing, and I do not even care or want to know.


All I know is that I would definitely choose non-existence over existence. On that note it is clear that nothing is choosing existence because if it was...I wouldn't be here talking about it... and that is the sole reason I know that there is no creator. The thing is..the creator known as God, to me, has about as much chance of existing, as do little white fluffy rabbits on the planet mars.

But thanks for comments though Nick... all I can do is be completely open and honest with myself. I have often pondered the purpose and meaning, and the idea of a creator god....but logic and common sense always mangaged to get the better of me, leaving me with zero interest in imaginary creator gods.

It's one of the reasons I was drawn to Non-duality at a very young age...I knew very early on in my life that life was a really bad screwed up idea, and that if there was a creator then it's ..................and I've just ran out of words.


.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ "(John 3:5-7)

And He [Jesus] was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:23-24)

So, we must I think stop from time to time in this strange but interesting conversation here on-going on this philosophy forum. We must stop and attempt to redefine *where we are* now -- in the conversation of course, but really our issue, the severe problem we face, is where we ourselves *stand* in relation to the giant problems that we have no choice but to face, given that these giant problems begin to encroach and impinge upon is.

Now, I can make this plain as day by simple reference to the fact that 'out there' in the social conversation/culture war/civil war(s) that we have all noticed developing (and now the economic and psychological factors have made themselves very evident) there is constantly -- still! -- daily references to the spectre of Hitler. It is a diabolical image, of course, but one directly tied to perceptual structures and psychological 'reality'. It is in a certain sense an image more 'real' than that of God (I mean in the way it functions).

Nazi, fascism, violent intolerance, suppression of speech, broaching of the topic that speech, saying something, can be considered an act of war, a 'violence' against another person or some sacred idea they hold, and now the outbreak of war in Europe that tantalizes major players to get deeply involved, and though predictions are impossible, the strange fact is the *mirroring* factor, the circling-back of history, or the octaval reappearance (one might say) of a spirit of chaos that sure looks like the 1930s. My point is not to indulge in dramatic fantasies and nourish spectres, but only to point out that -- but what is it that must be pointed out?

There is a crisis developing and crises always *come to a head*. There is nothing I or any of could say, therefore nothing that any one of us could do, to avert the culmination of crisis, but what we can do is to gather ourselves together, collect ourselves, and hope that we can maintain an inner equilibrium in the face of events that call forth hysterical reaction.
________________________________________________

AJ to IC: You do not own the regeneration processes friend.
IC: Of course I don't. I never claimed I did. Christ does, though.

First, I am forced to 'make clarifying declarations'. I am forced to confront, and to a degree to oppose, what Immanuel Can says. But please note that what IC does is important to notice and understand: he establishes polarizations and oppositions. Why? Well because they serve him. But let me broaden this observation to the farthest point: Christianity operates through the establishment of extreme oppositions. Indeed it has a profoundly Manichean understructure that, though officially repressed, nevertheless still functions through the figure of Satan.

The Christian God is divided off from a total picture of what Life is when God is defined as *wholly and absolutely good* and everything else, including all life's paradoxes, including everything that makes life life! is assigned to the Dark Angel. The point is not to attempt to resolve this *picture* but simply to present it so that it can be examined.

Now, it seems that IC's declaration -- an invitation to *bite* on an absolutist bait that he dangles from time to time which, I suggest, has had and still has a profound attractiveness for the wavering soul -- proposes a 'resolution'. I would not deny that it functions in this way. Nor would I deny that the function should be dismissed (or undermined) if another person takes the *bait* and jumps headlong into the current of 'becoming a Christian'. This is my own peculiar conflict. I have examined the innards of Christian philosophy and it really does offer, and in fact it is, a viable life-path. Christianity is extraordinarily rich on so many levels that all that it is cannot be dismissed. Nor should it be.

Yet I question the 'absolutism' in these declarative statements. So what I propose is *interpretation*. And interpretation opens up a more subtle relationship to what is declared and revealed in these absolutist statements even though and even if they are Biblical and are said to represent Absolute Truth. To interpret (hermeneutics generally) is always an endeavor that will cause one to run afoul of hierarchies of authority. But what I can say is that there is, indeed there is, a way to *take* the statements made by the Gospel Jesus Christ in John that 'opens up' arrays of possibility that expand out from the hard and fast program that, as I see it, Immanuel Can presents himself as and sees himself as 'representing'.

Immanuel Can then, to employ a certain lens, shelters himself behind the God Image (as absolute authority) and thus empowers himself. All he need do is say "No, not me, God!" and all contradictory or opposing or questioning statements -- anything brought out against his argument -- are so many 'bullets that miss'. No bullet can ever hit. In the final analysis this is the refuge and the fort of a religious fanatic.

So here I could embark on a conceptual undertaking of making statements about what being 'born of the spirit' can mean. The 'spirit' in my interpretation is free-ranging. In fact, and this is an understructure that runs all through John and the Johannine epistles, there is a Hermetic (mercurial) substructure to it. Hermes is the intermediary and *messenger* (angel) that spans the upper world and the lower world. And what message is brought? Well, what requires rebirth? Deadened souls certainly. This implies *thirst* if not even *dying of thirst*. But what nourishes? Well to answer that question ask any person, anywhere, who embarks on a path of self-renovation. If one accepts that 1) a person can and does become deadened, then 2) it is immediately and concomitantly proposed that, through all sorts of processes, a person can rebirth themselves or 'be rebirthed' since we are not, hardly at all, the authors or the controllers of life's genuine processes. We simply are in life and the story of life flows around us. Similarly, we are in bodies and these bodies do everything without our conscious decision and choice.

So what is referred to with these Johannine declarations can be expanded to any point. If they are true (and psychological death and rebirth are 'as true as rain', they are universal. No one owns them.

But here of course we would have to veer into those cultural and social systems that are, in fact, overseen and controlled by hierarchical structures. So in a sense there are 'Christian Clubs' that you join. And by subscribing and paying membership dues you agree, on different planes, to 'abide by the rules'. All social systems have such structures and make similar demands.

Everyone has to make their social commitments, right? We make our commitments to the State for example. Or simply our neighborhood or a neighborhood council or indeed the covenants of a housing project, our social circle, etc. A church structure can be examined in this way. I have researched early Christianity and it *functioned* as a form of induction into 'higher things' and new sets of commitment. I do not negate 'being born from above' but, and I am sorry for my heretical posture, I do not believe that man controls or dictates who has access to such processes. But at the same time I do not negate hierarchical structures that oversee such processes, indeed all processes. I mean getting a doctorate is highly supervised. You have to satisfy all sorts of requirements. These structures have relevancy.

The following is from Jung's Aion. Everything about Jung is a bit bizarre but he really does have significant insights that, in my view, must be taken into consideration. The shattering of the God Image is what is referred to with the reference to Job, and Job's crisis, in a way that can be supported by coherent discourse, is also the crisis we face in a world (our world, our personal perceptual world) where the horizon was erased. Job's crisis and nihilism have a certain connection, no?

So there is clearly a mythological backdrop to the Christian story. It proposes to know the most hidden, but the most relevant, things about life, human destiny and the destiny -- literally! -- of the world and the kosmos. It presents a map and, if Jung is right, the map can be examined from a variety of perspectives. Jung does this through a psychological lens but, and this is odd, also as a visionary (which does mean, to one degree of other, as a prophet). Jung is involved in a vastly hermeneutical project in the most original sense of the word.

I have divided this into paragraphs that were not in the original:

It is the same problem as in Job. As the highest value and
supreme dominant in the psychic hierarchy, the God-image is
immediately related to, or identical with, the self, and every-
thing that happens to the God-image has an effect on the latter.

Any uncertainty about the God-image causes a profound uneasi-
ness in the self, for which reason the question is generally
ignored because of its painfulness. But that does not mean that
it remains unasked in the unconscious. What is more, it is
answered by views and beliefs like materialism, atheism, and
similar substitutes, which spread like epidemics. They crop up
wherever and whenever one waits in vain for the legitimate
answer. The ersatz product represses the real question into the
unconscious and destroys the continuity of historical tradition
which is the hallmark of civilization. The result is bewilder-
ment and confusion.

Christianity has insisted on God's goodness
as a loving Father and has done its best to rob evil of substance.
The early Christian prophecy concerning the Antichrist, and
certain ideas in late Jewish theology, could have suggested to us
that the Christian answer to the problem of Job omits to men-
tion the corollary, the sinister reality of which is now being
demonstrated before our eyes by the splitting of our world:
the destruction of the God-image is followed by the annulment
of the human personality. Materialistic atheism with its utopian
chimeras forms the religion of all those rationalistic movements
which delegate the freedom of personality to the masses and
thereby extinguish it. The advocates of Christianity squander
their energies in the mere preservation of what has come down
to them, with no thought of building on to their house and
making it roomier. Stagnation in these matters is threatened in
the long run with a lethal end.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: ...here I speak to your moral browbeating assertion that by employing the rape-example that I did something wrong or 'rude'.

I don't believe you. You knew it was an attempt to be offensive and extreme. And you're embarassed I called you on it.

Rightly so. It was a momentary lapse of inappropriateness...forgiveable, of course, since it's not typical of you...but still, not something that bears defending. And we'll get along better if you keep clear of such rhetoric in future conversations. I want no part of it.

Can you clarify what, exactly, was offensive in the extreme? What could you personally have been offended by? The example I chose, to the degree that it pertains to how most people understand 'turn the other cheek' and 'resist not evil', definitely went right to the core of the issue.

What exactly should I be embarrassed about?

[promethean75]

"Job's crisis and nihilism have a certain connection, no?"

If you ax me, that never happened. Rather the writers/co-conspirators that designed the Bible needed a parable to demonstrate the resolute commitment and faithfulness of the Christian even while he suffers in tormenting pain. Pretty clever, right? This way when prayers aren't answered and tragedy strikes, we remember our modesty and humility and how Job suffered far worse.

Job was a prototype for the people; a working class ordinary guy who 'hung in there' and stuck it out.

That's what the bourgeoisie wants the working people to be. Jobs with jobs who are willing to suffer quietly and endure.

[Immanuel Can]

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ "(John 3:5-7)

And He [Jesus] was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:23-24)

So, we must I think stop from time to time in this strange but interesting conversation here on-going on this philosophy forum.

Not so strange. Somebody posted the topic "Christianity." It is therefore not surprising to find that a Christian philosopher wants to chime in. And that when he does so, he does use Christian terminology and suppositions, rather than taking a secular view of things.

It's all quite ordinary, of course, particularly for Christian philosophy. But it is unusual for those accustomed to thinking Christianity has no philosophical view different from the secular, or no philosophical view of its own at all.

Such people could inform themselves about that, merely by reading Kierkegaard (if they ever understood him).

Now, I can make this plain as day by simple reference to the fact that 'out there' in the social conversation/culture war/civil war(s) that we have all noticed developing (and now the economic and psychological factors have made themselves very evident)

No doubt.

But there is a question about this, because the obeervation that "there are, out there" so to speak, such wars and conflicts raises an important question immediately: why are there such? What is causing or feeding them? And to that, we might add the question, "Are the cultural wars and conflicts themselves the deepest problem, or is the existence of such a symptom of a deeper, prior problem?"

Nazi, fascism, violent intolerance, suppression of speech, broaching of the topic that speech, saying something, can be considered an act of war, a 'violence' against another person or some sacred idea they hold,

These are all inventions of the Left. There are, today, neither Nazis, facists, intolerant persons or white supremacists in more than tiny quantities: the Left, however, is in desperate need of a vigorous bogeyman to prove its own importance. So it continually generates these things, in an effort to bolster its own appearance of relevance. But they are not apparent to any of us in the West , at least any who are not deeply indoctrinated by Leftism.

Neo-Marxism is the political problem. As Lindsay points out, it has recently converted itself to "race Marxism," replacing the old "class Marxism" of old. But to anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of Marxist thought, it has to be apparent that it thrives on conflict...and if it can't find enough of it, it must generate it itself. It must manufacture wars, tensions, propaganda, conflict, etc. because absent those things, nobody has a use for Marxism at all.

and now the outbreak of war in Europe that tantalizes major players to get deeply involved,

That's a distraction. It's the oldest magician's trick in the book: make something exciting happen with you left hand, so the audience looks away from something else your right hand is doing. Nothing is quite so exciting and distracting as a war. People can't even afford to look away. So it serves the purpose perfectly.

Don't expect the Left to reduce its calls for war and its aggitations to perpetuate it. In this moment, it needs that distraction from domestic interference at home. It cannot possibly survive if people take an honest look at what it's presently up to domestically. And the Left knows it.

AJ to IC: You do not own the regeneration processes friend.
IC: Of course I don't. I never claimed I did. Christ does, though.

First, I am forced to 'make clarifying declarations'. [/quote]
I assume this latter section, being separated from the former by both by a black line and by its language, is not addressed to me, so I won't respond to it, in order not to irritate you. Still, it's odd that, in a message to me rather than a separate message to all, you see fit to slip into third person pronouns and talk about me (so to speak) behind my back and in front of my face at the same time.

It smacks less of a conversation, and more of a propaganda tactic. It seems I'm supposed to assume a vast "other audience" before which you and I are supposed to "perform." And I suppose the effect is intended to be that I'm supposed to be cowed somewhat thereby, and feel myself "talked about" rather than "talked to." Like Prufrock, I'm supposed to feel myself "pinned and wriggling," I suppose.

But if that's the attempt, it's not the effect. I'm not the least concerned, whether anybody is reading along or not. In fact, it would be fun if they are. Not only do I stand by the above claim, I'll underline it for you: what Christ says determines what "Christianity" is. And it has nothing to do with me.

So all I can say is that I invite you to talk as imperiously as you like about me, in the most detached and cynical tones you can muster, and summon a fictive audience as broad as the Atlantic: and see if I care one jot. The claim stands or falls on its own truth value. And I'm certain you know that, even if you don't want to admit it.