Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

...what happens to mainstream Jews who don't believe in Jesus,

"But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will repay each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life; but to those who are self-serving and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, He will give wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of mankind who does evil, for the Jew first and also for the Gentile, but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. For there is no partiality with God." (Romans 2:5-11)

[Dubious]

...what happens to mainstream Jews who don't believe in Jesus,

"But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will repay each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life; but to those who are self-serving and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, He will give wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of mankind who does evil, for the Jew first and also for the Gentile, but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. For there is no partiality with God." (Romans 2:5-11)

Fair is fair! My compliments to St Paul!

Note: Paul refers to "good deeds" and being righteous NOT as contingent solely on having to believe in Jesus for all these benefits of immortality...which is a separate subject. If there is no partiality with god then everyone from East to West who is honest and just, avoiding evil, deserves recognition.

[Nick_A]

I don't see anything in Jesus that hasn't already been mentioned many times, in one form or another, long before he came on the scene. Everyone is free to choose their own feel-good liquor which at least has that effect going for it. What more need be said.

Can you explain the objective meaning of this biblical passage from Matthew 16? If you cannot then maybe you don't understand Jesus mission and just condemn suicide.

Jesus Predicts His Death
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

Can't explain anything unless I known what you imply by "objective meaning". Objectively, how do we know Jesus said any of it, since it's all 3rd hand stuff written as propaganda long after he died leaving no references except hearsay from those who never knew him.

Objective meaning refers to universal purpose in contrast with subjective purpose or the value a person gives a phenomenon.

.Does life have objective meaning or is its meaning purely an acquired subjective reaction.

Genesis 1 describes creation:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Why is the light an objective good? We know of countless interpretations of the good which make it an annoyance. Plato describes the ineffable God and the source of the forms as the Good. Why. Don't we know of many situations in which the GOOD doesn't seem so good to our subjective interpretations.

The point I am making is that if in reality like Socrates said: "I know Nothing," is it that much of a mind stretch to admit we don't know Christianity as a perennial philosophy but restrict it to man made subjective interpretations humanity is all to eager to fight over..

[Immanuel Can]

Note: Paul refers to "good deeds" and being righteous NOT as contingent solely on having to believe in Jesus for all these benefits of immortality...

Paul does not denigrate good deeds. Nor does any part of the Bible. But they are not the means of salvation, as both Paul and Jesus Himself explicitly teach. See Ephesians 2:8-9.

If there is no partiality with god then everyone from East to West who is honest and just, avoiding evil, deserves recognition.

"Recognition." But "recognition" is not "salvation."

Here's a thing most people don't know about the Bible: the chapter breaks are not in the original manuscripts. They were added later, to facillitate ease of locating particular passages...sort of like numbers on houses allow us to locate addresses. But there never was supposed to be an interruption between the chapters, in actuality. Romans 1 tells us about why man is far from God, and what God's view of that is. Romans 2 adds the problem you asked about: what is the status of being Jewish? And as you can see, it's "same as the Gentiles," so far as deeds good and bad go. But Romans 2 is supposed to be filled out in Romans 3, which is a continuation of the same line of thought, but adding in the question, "Then how are both Jews and Gentiles saved?"

And it explains this way:

"...we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written: (quoting Tanakh)

“There is no righteous person, not even one;
There is no one who understands,
There is no one who seeks out God;
They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good,
There is not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The venom of asps is under their lips”;
“Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
“Their feet are swift to shed blood,
Destruction and misery are in their paths,
And they have not known the way of peace.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

"Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin.

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith" (Romans 3: 9-25)

So Jew and Gentile alike are saved not by their deeds, but by faith in Jesus Christ. One needs the whole train of thought, from Romans 1 onward, to get the flow of the propositions Paul is advancing.

[Age]

The most pathetic gods ever invented are of the OT and the NT. To believe as literal anything so diminutive as this idiotic father & son story requires a brain scan to discover what went wrong!

--->But it is ONLY the MISINTERPRETATIONS that get taught are what is IDIOTIC.

***When one learns and understands FULLY what the word 'God' refers to EXACTLY, and/or what ACTUALLY happens and occurs, which the word 'God' could be labelled to, then there is NOTHING 'idiotic' AT ALL here.

--->Actually what is idiotic is taking any of it literally which can be qualified as the worst kind of interpretation.

So, to you, taking, "in the beginning", literally, is idiotic, correct?

If yes, then ALL of the "religious" community AND ALL of the "scientific" community EQUALLY took those three words so LITERAL that, even up to the days when this was being written, just about EVERY adult human being, ACTUALLY BELIEVES that "there was a beginning". So, are ALL of these ones being IDIOTIC?

And, that they took these words SO LITERAL they came up with, to me, Truly IDIOTIC and RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTIONS that either some God created Everything OR some big bang created Everything. Which is BEYOND IDIOTIC, ABSURD, and RIDICULOUS.

***When one understands that god is an entity made to serve a human purpose then you're right, there is nothing idiotic about it.

So, to you, what EXACTLY was that, supposed, human purpose?

[Age]

American ""CHRISTIAN"" Evangelism may as well have been brought to the world by SATAN himself!!

Personally, I am disgusted by these preachers.

But just as some words are spoken by God, Itself, some words are also spoken by "satan", itself.

Just learning how to DISTINGUISH between the TWO is all that is NEEDED here.

[Age]

He continues:

No doubt their adhesion to the new standards [introduced through Christian education] was very imperfect in practice, but the same thing was probably true of their old standards, for there is always a considerable gap between the moral standards of a society and the moral practice of individuals, and the higher the standards, the wider the gap; so that we should naturally expect the contrast between moral principles and social behavior to be much wider in the case of Christianity than in a pagan society. Nevertheless, this does not mean that moral and spiritual values are socially negligible. They influence culture in all sorts of ways — through institutions and symbols and literature and art, as well as through personal behavior. Take for example the case of the transformation of the barbarian king or war leader by the sacramental rite of consecration as practiced throughout Europe in the Middle Ages. This obviously did not convert the ordinary feudal monarch into a St. Louis or a King Alfred, but it did establish an ideal norm by which rulers were judged and which moralized the institution itself. And the same is true of the institution of knighthood, and still more true of essentially Christian institutions, like priesthood and episcopacy and monasticism. A Christian civilization is certainly not a perfect civilization, but it is a civilization that accepts the Christian way of life as normal and frames its institutions as the organs of a Christian order. Such a civilization actually existed for a thousand years more or less. It was a living and growing organism — a great tree of culture which bore rich fruit in its season. As I say, it was by no means a perfect civilization. In its origins, it was a civilization of converted barbarians and it retained certain barbaric elements which reasserted themselves again and again in the course of its history.

FOLLOWING "others" like 'little sheep' is a SURE SIGN that that one is NOT able to 'think for them self', as some say.

These ones typically end up being religious like "christians".

[Age]

One thing for sure, Christianity cannot be discussed on a secular dominated forum. It is meaningless almost by definition. It would be like everyone here discussing the topic of women. The frightening thing is that discussing women would probably make more sense.

At least what 'women' are EXACTLY would be AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED by FAR MORE people. Although, 'you', human beings, would STILL NOT ALL AGREE, in the days when this was being written.

[attofishpi]

American ""CHRISTIAN"" Evangelism may as well have been brought to the world by SATAN himself!!

Personally, I am disgusted by these preachers.

But just as some words are spoken by God, Itself, some words are also spoken by "satan", itself.

Just learning how to DISTINGUISH between the TWO is all that is NEEDED here.

Like discerning wot U R...a fucking idiot.

[Age]

So here is an interesting thought I had this morning which I will share here. I notice that IC, Nick, Belinda, Appofish, Henry and myself (and some others I may not have remembered), though we all have notably different perspectives, and differ on different points, seem to speak as 'conservatives' in the original sense of the word: conserving or strengthening the foundation or perhaps the world is the structures upon which our cultures and civilization was constructed.

But what do you ASSUME or BELIEVE 'your' cultures and civilizations were constructed on EXACTLY?

What is the ACTUAL 'foundation', which ALL of 'your' cultures and civilizations built upon?

There is OBVIOUSLY NO use conserving NOR strengthening 'the foundation' if you can NOT even name what 'the foundation' IS, EXACTLY.

But some others, for example Promethean and Dubious (though I only mention you-two because I do not very well understand what you are up to) and I might include Noble Willy (Uwot) -- and please correct me if I have it wrong -- associate themselves with another *school* as it were. The joke about 'sharp incisors' and the allegorical references to barbarians invading the Capital is of course a joke that is not a joke at all. Allegories have deep meaning.

I realize that in my case this sense -- of undermining destructiveness, of blind *tearing down*, of impetuous youthful energy & intensity of focus yet lacking a sense of what, precisely, will replace that which is shredded -- this sense of something not altogether creative let loose on the land was stimulated and then cemented when I read Robert Bork's Slouching Toward Gomorrah.

So, and here I push further on the allegory, if the barbarians do not possess our language -- meaning that certain notions and ideas and principles have become unintelligible to them -- what are *we* to do? Learn to speak jackdaw?

So I think what is helpful is to notice this division -- but what is it exactly? On what does this division stand? Is it fundamentally as in ICs case a question of whether or not one is *saved* (having been relinquished from the 'consequences of sin'), or is what is being referred to, as in Nick's case, as something uniquely inner, uniquely personal? Then there is Belinda who understands what in fact 'informed her' but has a far less defined sense of what *it* is.

So some of us have a definite platform of general, but not specific agreement, and what I suggest is that we see this in a larger context and one separate from this immediate conversation. We have sufficient ground for *cooperation* even where there are, potentially, 'unbridgable gaps'.

All ALL of 'you' have to do is just find out what 'that' is, which is IN AGREEMENT with ALL of 'you'.

How much SIMPLER and EASIER could this get?

'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, were REALLY just SO LOST and CONFUSED.

And this is part of my general thrust: we are either going to find a way to work together or we are going to be dissolved eventually.

Just REMAIN OPEN while being Honest AND Peaceful, and 'you' ARE working together. Do ANY thing differently, and then 'you' WILL dissolve.

And here I will suggest what seems obvious to me: the forces that oppose the very principles upon which culture and civilization have been constructed can be described as *blind*, that is true, but also as ruthless. If they have their way, where will their destructive efforts end? (And here the reference is to something supra-human : chaos).

I have left out Lacewing. I wonder where she stands? (if the dichotomy I have proposed is 'real' or is my own artificial contrivance).

This is just OFF TOPIC and DISTRACTION.

[Age]

Also note: I think Age has established a new record: a string of 14 posts! What, what I ask, am I missing?!?

You have been here for about three months and you are noting 'records' already.

[Age]

American ""CHRISTIAN"" Evangelism may as well have been brought to the world by SATAN himself!!

Personally, I am disgusted by these preachers.

But just as some words are spoken by God, Itself, some words are also spoken by "satan", itself.

Just learning how to DISTINGUISH between the TWO is all that is NEEDED here.

Like discerning wot U R...a fucking idiot.

Okay, but what did you discern this from, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Also note: I think Age has established a new record: a string of 14 posts! What, what I ask, am I missing?!?

Ya he's on one of those:-

WHILE(nobody pays attention to me) {
post again
}

Here is ANOTHER one who thinks or BELIEVES I want ANY of 'you', posters, paying me ANY attention AT ALL.

I am NOT writing for ANY of 'you'. When will this be UNDERSTOOD FULLY?

[Age]

So: the barbarians aren't our problem (once we set ourselves to it, they're fertilizer) . . .

Come now, you do not take yourself seriously.

: no, we are our problem

There are times when I have thought that the larger movements in the world today -- struggles between nations, struggle with technological control and the mechanisms now being installed -- may render all the concerns we have here as absurdly irrelevant. And if that is the case then all of this conversing is simply to pass the time or for sport.

To refer to 'barbarians' in Kafka's allegorical terms is only an illustration. It is true, in a way, but it is also a funny way to refer to something sort-of true. Are those who take the strongest stances here, on this thread, genuinely barbarian? I do not think so. And is the division I describe, which seems to me stark at times, is it really real?

Why is it that a common ground cannot be found? Why is it that the divisions increase to such a pitch that some sort of breakdown seems imminent?

Because 'you', adult human beings, LOOK, SEE, and SPEAK from ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS instead of from Honesty, OPENNESS, nor Peace.

I recognize that many explosions are being set up to occur today (there are a few books out now predicting a heightened possibility of open civil conflict in the US) and again it may all be inevitable.

But at least, in this conversation (a series of conversations really) it seems possible to define the common ground. Starting with those who, as you say, do not share the same outlook but a similar one.

Well UNTIL ANY one of 'you' just asks, 'How are we going to define 'the common ground', it will, literally, be IMPOSSIBLE to define 'the common ground', OBVIOUSLY.

[Age]

Come now, you do not take yourself seriously.

oh, I do

we conservatives have overlap, but only that

once the barbarians are -- temporarily -- negated, we'll turn on each other, lickity-split

Lucky for 'you' then, 'you' have created these IMAGINED "barbarians".