Christianity

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can quoted:

[Jesus answered Nicodemus] “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, so that his deeds will not be exposed. But the one who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds will be revealed as having been performed in God.”

The quoted material does not sound as if it has the same author as the worthier parables, but the advice we get from the parables is obviously badly needed morally, politically, feelingly, and rationally. For non -believers, Jesus of Nazareth may not be unique and supernatural. However he is a sage and prophet who is well worth listening to.

Light is a common metaphor for good. A small light abolishes darkness: one good life abolishes the ubiquity of evil.

[Nick_A]

Dubious

Why do you believe that spirit, which there is, but only in the sense of being alive, namely that which animates, can only be derived from the bible which you incessantly quote as seemingly being its true and valid source? Do you still believe that these silly and trite sayings really convey any truth about what spirit really means to an atheist or theist? For one thing spirit doesn't require a god or any god mandate; if it did, it wouldn't be spirit since that implies choice and not anything resembling coercion as usually commanded by god.

There are far greater versions of spirit than that hosted by the bible which is inimical in its very foundation of what spirit implies or meant to imply. Christianity has hardly been of any service in expounding that entity to its full power...just the opposite.

"Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong."
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

That is why I admire Simone. She has the mind of a scientist to digest what is revealed by the senses, the heart of a mystic capable of feeling the higher truths responsible for the senses, and the dedication to truth that requires her to live her philosophy. One of a kind.

For you to change your mind Dubious, you would have to experience something like Paul did on the road to Damascus. A lot of secularized religious interpretations are fantasy. But why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Can your mind open to conscious contemplation rather than condemnation?

Is there any truth in the following or just French BS? It took place just before entering the hospital to die. The Bible can be read on several levels.

I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon

[Nick_A]

Yes, but since the recognition of the insoluble contradiction implies conscious anguish, then, if one does not have sufficient faith in the Truth, one ignores the contradiction.

Thought hits the insuperable limit but pretends nothing has happened, folds carelessly, as if the limit did not exist.

Lack of faith makes you miss the opportunity.

True, without faith in the potential for something more than enduring internal contradiction, we just slip back into forgetting. The problem seems to be remembering faith with the help of the Spirit leading to freedom.

The desert must be crossed.

I am still Adam, I am still Cain.

I was thrown into the world.
And in the world there is evil, evil is in me, I myself am evil...
Is this the ultimate truth?

It's up to me, and me alone, to say no!

This is perhaps the only freedom granted to me: to affirm that in spite of all the Good is!

But it takes all my faith in the Truth.
To cross the desert.
As evil is only Ariadne's thread for my return home.

I agree Bob. We are dual natured. Our higher parts are attracted to our source while our lower parts are attracted to the earth and all the negative emotions acquired in life. This is the human condition and as you suggest, we must find the means to return home.

[Immanuel Can]

...the worthier parables,

What a hilarious phrase! Seriously, B!

Who is so arrogant as to think he or she is competent to say which of the parables of Jesus Christ are "worthy," and which are "not"? What hubris! What collossal nerve, to correct God Himself as to what utterances are "worthy."

...but the advice we get from the parables is obviously badly needed morally, politically, feelingly, and rationally.

You mean the ones some preening moralist thinks are "worthy" of being "needed morally, politically, (sic) feelingly and rationally?" Not so much the ones that challenge our shallowness, our self-love, our greed and our hypocrisy?

I have to say, this is the old story of secular takes on Christianity. Secular moralists claim to admire Christ as moral model, and to emulate His goodness in themselves...meanwhile, they absolutely hate and contradict every single thing He ever said. It's absolutely amazing...and totally predictable.

A small light abolishes darkness

Yep. But the darkness of those who profess to admire Christ while rejecting His words is a darkness into which no light shines.

[Harbal]

Who is so arrogant as to think he or she is competent to say which of the parables of Jesus Christ are "worthy,"

Certainly not I, IC. I wouldn't dream of calling any of them worthy.

[Immanuel Can]

Who is so arrogant as to think he or she is competent to say which of the parables of Jesus Christ are "worthy,"

Certainly not I, IC. I wouldn't dream of calling any of them worthy.

Careful...careful...not every "joke" actually turns out to be funny.

[Jesus said] "But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matt.12:36-37)

[Harbal]

Careful...careful...not every "joke" actually turns out to be funny.

[Jesus said] "But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matt.12:36-37)

Well it wasn't actually Jesus who I was trying to make laugh.

You know if you made Christianity sound a bit more fun I think you would get a more positive response, IC.

[Immanuel Can]

You know if you made Christianity sound a bit more fun I think you would get a more positive response, IC.

I follow the One whom the world hated, insulted and crucified. A "postive response" is nothing a Christian has any reason to expect...nor any reason to want.

Y'know, it's interesting that we have words for all kinds of allegedly "irrational prejudices," such as "homophobia," "transphobia," and "Islamophobia." But there seems no public appetite at all for finding an equivalent expression like "Christophobia."

An interesting note.

[Nick_A]

You know if you made Christianity sound a bit more fun I think you would get a more positive response, IC.

I follow the One whom the world hated, insulted and crucified. A "postive response" is nothing a Christian has any reason to expect...nor any reason to want.

Y'know, it's interesting that we have words for all kinds of allegedly "irrational prejudices," such as "homophobia," "transphobia," and "Islamophobia." But there seems no public appetite at all for finding an equivalent expression like "Christophobia."

An interesting note.

The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil (John 7:7).

It is true. People argue over morality and who is good. They believe We are all one and everybody loves everybody. It doesn't work that way but who admits their part in collective evil? Jesus pointed out that its works are evil. But this truth cannot be tolerated. It is too disruptive resulting in Christophobia.

[Harbal]

A "postive response" is nothing a Christian has any reason to expect...nor any reason to want.

But surely you don't come here promoting Christianity in order to attract hostility, do you, IC? Why would you want that?

Y'know, it's interesting that we have words for all kinds of allegedly "irrational prejudices," such as "homophobia," "transphobia," and "Islamophobia." But there seems no public appetite at all for finding an equivalent expression like "Christophobia."

I suspect that the "prejudice" you are experiencing here is more to do with your presentation of Christianity, rather than Christianity itself. I know you would say that you can only tell it like it is, but if it really is like you tell it, it doesn't surprise me in the least that no one seems to want it.

[Lacewing]

People argue over morality and who is good.

Like you and I.C. do?

They believe We are all one

Horrors!

and everybody loves everybody.

Who says that?

It doesn't work that way

You made it up.

but who admits their part in collective evil?

Evil isn't for everyone.

Jesus pointed out that its works are evil.

Jesus told me that he thinks you and I.C. are ridiculous.

But this truth cannot be tolerated. It is too disruptive resulting in Christophobia.

You seriously do Jesus a disservice. For fuck sake... enough of your self-righteous crap already.

[Nick_A]

People argue over morality and who is good.

Like you and I.C. do?

They believe We are all one

Horrors!

and everybody loves everybody.

Who says that?

It doesn't work that way

You made it up.

but who admits their part in collective evil?

Evil isn't for everyone.

Jesus pointed out that its works are evil.

Jesus told me that he thinks you and I.C. are ridiculous.

But this truth cannot be tolerated. It is too disruptive resulting in Christophobia.

You seriously do Jesus a disservice. For fuck sake... enough of your self-righteous crap already.

A while back I attempted a thread on Plato's cave called the Futility of Reason. It generated intense hostility for the same reason that the essence of Christianity must be hated as Jesus described. Rather then getting insulted I am drawn to the question of why. I see that certain questions are too disruptive and must be avoided even for those supporting philosophical truths. They must be interpreted into PC acceptable interpretations to keep the peace and support those in power. It is difficult to find the minority open to rise above interpretations to experience the transcendent truth and what the soul desires to feel. Man creates Christendom but are there still those attracted to Christianity and accept the human condition?

Kierkegaard wrote: (quoted in Protestant Thought in the 19th Century by Claude Welch p.294)
"Christendom has done away with Christianity, without being quite aware of it. The consequence is that, if anything is to be done, one must try again to introduce Christianity into Christendom."

A good thought but it is too disruptive to be allowed and must be shot down.

Jesus told me that he thinks you and I.C. are ridiculous.

You are listening to and believing in Jesus Schwartz. What does he know?

[Lacewing]

A while back I attempted a thread on Plato's cave called the Futility of Reason. It generated intense hostility for the same reason that the essence of Christianity must be hated as Jesus described. Rather then getting insulted I am drawn to the question of why. I see that certain questions are too disruptive and must be avoided even for those supporting philosophical truths. They must be interpreted into PC acceptable interpretations to keep the peace and support those in power. It is difficult to find the minority open to rise above interpretations to experience the transcendent truth and what the soul desires to feel. Man creates Christendom but are there still those attracted to Christianity and accept the human condition?

It is your presentation of Christianity that repels people. I have many Christian and non-Christian friends who demonstrate a 'Christ-like' spirit, which you do not. I'm not interested in your obsessions with evil and beasts and darkness and your own crucifixion. You are getting in the way of the kind of values that I (and others) learned about on our own Christian paths. The fact that I've chosen another path now does not mean I've forgotten or don't understand Christian values. Your representation is darkly self-serving, and frankly, you and I.C. parade around like creepy servants of something far different than divine light and love.

[Immanuel Can]

A "postive response" is nothing a Christian has any reason to expect...nor any reason to want.

But surely you don't come here promoting Christianity in order to attract hostility, do you, IC? Why would you want that?

"Attract"? No, of course not.

But "expect"? Sure.

"Want"? No, but not "surprised by."

Y'know, it's interesting that we have words for all kinds of allegedly "irrational prejudices," such as "homophobia," "transphobia," and "Islamophobia." But there seems no public appetite at all for finding an equivalent expression like "Christophobia."

I suspect that the "prejudice" you are experiencing here is more to do with your presentation of Christianity, rather than Christianity itself.

Perhaps...but I don't think so.

I've been here a long while. I've sometimes talked in a vague and general way about "religion," or "the transcendent," or "morality" here, and people don't at all get their hackles up. They seem largely undisturbed by my in regard to many, many things. But the things people find most offensive, I have discovered, are the direct quotations from Jesus Christ or from something else Biblical. And for those, I can, of course, claim no authorship at all.

So maybe it's me...maybe. But maybe it's not. I'll take my chances.

Anyway, that hardly accounts for the public refusal to entertain the possibility they're uncaringly prejudicial against Christians, or to coin a "-phobia" meme to combat such animus. Because I'm not the only one around, and I'm not the only one who catches flak.

I'm just the only one who doesn't mind, maybe.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I suspect that the "prejudice" you are experiencing here is more to do with your presentation of Christianity, rather than Christianity itself. I know you would say that you can only tell it like it is, but if it really is like you tell it, it doesn't surprise me in the least that no one seems to want it.

Perhaps...but I don't think so.

I've been here a long while. I've sometimes talked in a vague and general way about "religion," or "the transcendent," or "morality" here, and people don't at all get their hackles up. They seem largely undisturbed by my in regard to many, many things. But the things people find most offensive, I have discovered, are the direct quotations from Jesus Christ or from something else Biblical. And for those, I can, of course, claim no authorship at all.

So maybe it's me...maybe. But maybe it's not. I'll take my chances.

Anyway, that hardly accounts for the public refusal to entertain the possibility they're uncaringly prejudicial against Christians, or to coin a "-phobia" meme to combat such animus. Because I'm not the only one around, and I'm not the only one who catches flak.

I'm just the only one who doesn't mind, maybe.

This is an interesting question. It would need to be explored carefully. But unfortunately there is no one available for that careful analysis. I mean, of course, on this forum. (Sorry, that is a type of grandstanding statement! )

Immanuel definitely has been here a *long time* as he rightly says. But he has done nothing but disservice to Christianity in the strict sense of 'moral doctrine', and he has done nothing to explain why it has come about the Christianity, especially in the Occident, is in such a bad state and why it is that it is being rejected -- for some very good reasons and also for some very bad reasons.

The key to understanding Immanuel is to see him as a Evangelical Christian Narcissist. (By narcissism I mean someone unusually or *pathologically* self-absorbed). His American brand of Evangelical Christianity can be critiqued as a stand-alone entity (it really has perverse elements), but the combination of this strange form of narcissism with an Evangelical soon-you'll-be-in-Hell posture makes him quite noxious. But this has been a feature of Christianity for the longest time.

Yet his presentation is all his own doing. He earns exactly the contempt he often, more often than not, receives. And there is his reward. The contempt he receives, and the glorious satisfaction of telling those who disagree with him, and who also those who disagree (or do not understand) some tenets of Christian doctrine, that they will suffer eternal torment in Hell, is a glorious temporal reward.

He glances up to Father in Heaven and bows piously. Surely God Himself supports Immanuel in his evangelical work?! But the rest of us? We are *goats*.

Opposition is proof that he is doing what the Lord Jesus would do and of course Jesus of Nazareth got hung on a cross. Immanuel gets hung on his cross many times in a given week! He has been *killed* (in reasoned argument) many times but he always resurrects! It is not the logtic of the premises that matter or don't matter, it is the solidity of his declared position. It.simply.must.be.right!

So maybe it's me...maybe. But maybe it's not. I'll take my chances.

This is what I have been exploring. As I have said *I am here for my own purposes* whether anything I say is understood or not. It is a crucial question to get to the bottom of Immanuel's rhetorical question. Is it me? Or Is it them? This can be broken down rather simply:

• "Do I get opposition because, psychologically or psycho-spiritually or psycho-narcisso-spiritually I derive benefit from it?"

• Or "Are there aspects within the moral teachings of Judaism and Christianity which have become unacceptable to a rebellious culture?"

You know, you must know, that the essence of this question hinges on one basic issue. Is the God defined in Judaism and in Christianity *the one true God*? For those who simply cannot conceive of God, who are atheists, or perhaps agnostics, the entire question has been disposed with. And I for one can certainly understand why! It is easy as pie to see and not at all hard to face. All religions are filled with many perverse elements. There comes a moment when, for simplicity's sake, they require being thrown out the window. Because a thoughtful man can lead a decent, even a magnanimous and a heroic life without the need to resort to *belief*.

This is clear as day.

But here we move into the core territory and the territory that should really be of concern to us. It has to do with religion used as a coercive and manipulative tool. That is, to use metaphysical notions (such as the threat of endless suffering in hell) to psychologically dominate the evangelized subject. This is what Immanuel does in essence. This is what comprises his preaching. There is nothing more to it.

That is why (in my own case, raised on the fringes of Judaism and very interested in religion generally, and certainly in cultural affairs) I have resorted to the term Hebrew Idea Imperialism. It is all there in the Bible. It is the foundation on which the religion is built. And Christianity extends from that base. And it also employs the same sort of metaphysical coercion.

Ecce Immanuel.

But a person, a soul, a living entity, one of us, a being who exists in this plane, someone aware, someone thoughtful, should not be coerced through the use of these psycho-manipulative techniques to *believe*.

So the reason people resist Idea-Imperialism becomes the topic of conversation.

Yet the metaphysical questions still remain. As do the moral questions which are accentuated. They are not subsumed by Christianity. Nor by Judaism. Nor by the Bible. Those questions must necessarily exist *in this world and in all possible worlds*. The questions are transcendent to religious politics!

It is impossible that Immanuel Can could go in this direction to put it in prepositional terms. He cannot, and he will not, be moved from the binding to Hebrew Idea Imperialism. It is a strange *spirit* that inhabits the three Abrahamic religions, isn't it? It is absolutely possessive. If you disbelieve . . . God will chop your head off though the hands that will do that glory-filled work are all of fanatical men.

This erroneous concept, this twisted and twisting picture must be transcended.