Christianity

[Dontaskme]

The problem lies in ...the belief an object can know it's an object...which is impossible.

Any claim to ''know'' in the known sense of a concept known is claimed to be the knower, makes no sense if the ''claimer'' cannot be pointed to and seen with the physical eye as being a physical object externally existing apart from the seer.. which is not the case, objects cannot know or see anything...except as conceived in this conception that is inconceivable.

Absolute truth demands no proof, as if the written words themselves are the ''KNOWING'' ..words cannot know anything, except in their conception, meaning, words are known by that which cannot be known as nothing can be known about nothing.

Words are fictional characters, which know nothing of their reality, except in this conception, as a fictional character.

Always be your self, the real fictional character.

The looked upon, aka the words, are inseparable from the writer / reader...aka the looker. In other words the contents of any book are inseparable from the book, and the book is all there is.



.

[Age]

The problem lies in ...the belief an object can know it's an object...which is impossible.

But does ANY one here have this belief?

If yes, then who, EXACTLY?

It is like you make up these stories that there are people with these beliefs, which are that Truly ABSURD I would be very surprised if ANY one even had thoughts like that, let alone actually BELIEVED such a thing.

Any claim to ''know'' in the known sense of a concept known is claimed to be the knower, makes no sense if the ''claimer'' cannot be pointed to and seen with the physical eye

Ah, 'now' you have CHANGED your wording, FINALLY.

as being a physical object externally existing apart from the seer..

As far as I am AWARE absolutely NO one has even suggest such a thing, besides 'you', OF COURSE "dontaskme".

which is not the case, objects cannot know or see anything...except as conceived in this conception that is inconceivable.

So, can 'objects' do what you propose here or can they NOT?

Absolute truth demands no proof,

AGAIN, the REASON WHY 'you' FIGHT/ARGUE here is because 'you' MAKE UP some 'thing', which NO one else, besides 'you', has SAID or CLAIMED, and then 'you', literally, end up FIGHTING/ARGUING against "your" OWN 'self'.

as if the written words themselves are the ''KNOWING'' ..

LOL Absolutely NO one, besides of 'you' OF COURSE, "donataskme", has even 'thought' this, let alone 'mentioned' it.

words cannot know anything,

And, absolutely NO has even talked about that they could. Besides 'you' OF COURSE, "dontaskme".

except in their conception, meaning, words are known by that which cannot be known as nothing can be known about nothing.

If you say so.

Words are fictional characters, which know nothing of their reality, except in this conception, as a fictional character.

Always be your self, the real fictional character.

The looked upon, aka the words, are inseparable from the writer / reader...aka the looker. In other words the contents of any book are inseparable from the book, and the book is all there is.



.

AGAIN, if you say so.

[Dontaskme]

The problem lies in ...the belief an object can know it's an object...which is impossible.

But does ANY one here have this belief?

If yes, then who, EXACTLY?

It is like you make up these stories that there are people with these beliefs, which are that Truly ABSURD I would be very surprised if ANY one even had thoughts like that, let alone actually BELIEVED such a thing.

Any claim to ''know'' in the known sense of a concept known is claimed to be the knower, makes no sense if the ''claimer'' cannot be pointed to and seen with the physical eye

Ah, 'now' you have CHANGED your wording, FINALLY.

as being a physical object externally existing apart from the seer..

As far as I am AWARE absolutely NO one has even suggest such a thing, besides 'you', OF COURSE "dontaskme".

which is not the case, objects cannot know or see anything...except as conceived in this conception that is inconceivable.

So, can 'objects' do what you propose here or can they NOT?

Absolute truth demands no proof,

AGAIN, the REASON WHY 'you' FIGHT/ARGUE here is because 'you' MAKE UP some 'thing', which NO one else, besides 'you', has SAID or CLAIMED, and then 'you', literally, end up FIGHTING/ARGUING against "your" OWN 'self'.

as if the written words themselves are the ''KNOWING'' ..

LOL Absolutely NO one, besides of 'you' OF COURSE, "donataskme", has even 'thought' this, let alone 'mentioned' it.

words cannot know anything,

And, absolutely NO has even talked about that they could. Besides 'you' OF COURSE, "dontaskme".

except in their conception, meaning, words are known by that which cannot be known as nothing can be known about nothing.

If you say so.

Words are fictional characters, which know nothing of their reality, except in this conception, as a fictional character.

Always be your self, the real fictional character.

The looked upon, aka the words, are inseparable from the writer / reader...aka the looker. In other words the contents of any book are inseparable from the book, and the book is all there is.



.

AGAIN, if you say so.

Again, if you say so... the REASON WHY 'you' FIGHT/ARGUE here is because 'you' MAKE UP some 'thing', which NO one else, besides 'you', has SAID or CLAIMED, and then 'you', literally, end up FIGHTING/ARGUING against "your" OWN 'self'.


Wait for the Echo!!!!!!

[Immanuel Can]

That's because I don't accuse people of ad hominems unless they try to evade the issues by way of personal insult against the speaker -- the very definition of ad hominem...just as you are attempting to do right now.

Face it IC, you're just an ad hom magnet.

Heh.

Immaterial.

That won't make a fallacy not-a-fallacy, nor an irrelevancy relevant.

But you know that -- or if you don't, you certainly should.

[Alexis Jacobi]

We cannot know we are dead, therefore we cannot know we are alive. Nothing is alive because nothing is dead. That statement is written by no one, and read by no one.

I see what you have said here as language-game. If there is some genuine meaning in these assertions, I am not the sort to be able to grasp them. But isn't that part of your meaning? Or part of, shall I say, your strategy? Perhaps what you assert makes some sense, profound sense, to you. But whatever that sense is I can't grasp it.

I guess I am just a failure.

Knowing, as in knowledge is a fictional story that's all. Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality in that it is one without a second.

This cannot be altogether right, but I think I can see how it is somewhat right. There are certainly limits to what can be known, that I can accept. I can also accept that in ultimate senses -- like the *reason for existence* -- we can only stammer in the face of ineffability.

I think I agree that though we are forced to *interpret* (everything about this life) yet our interpretations must always be conditional, imperfect, perhaps provisional.

Nonduality teaches this fundamental and absolute principle.

Yes, I assume there are such schools of thought. Or non-thought. And I have found that they all arise within a matrix -- such for example that of the Indian subcontinent (where I assume the nonduality you refer to had its original abode?) But my question is: What is its function? It certainly has one. And then What is the function of this perspective for you? To bring other people to it?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Look at what you have written, above. You say, "...doing this, it [i.e. Christianity?] became pseudo- or also non- and possibly in some ways anti-Christian." If, by the "it" pronoun, you do, in fact, mean "Christianity," the sentence itself becomes nonsense. How can anything become pseudo-, non-, or anti- what it is?

Actually I was trying to paraphrase what I understand your position to be. And it seems very clear to me that, if I take on your view about some essential nature of Christianity, something absolute, something absolutely defined, I would be forced to then say that if at one point there were *true Christians* (again in your sense) it happened that they became adulterated Christians. And then pseudo-Christians. It follows that they might then become anti-Christians.

It is definitely possibly to become an adulterated version of something, and this of course is I think your entire assertion, the basis of your critique reduced to the simple.

But if you mean, "...doing this, Catholicms became pseudo-/non-/anti- Christian," then I think you're absolutely right. The worst thing, historically, that ever happened to the Christian world is when Romanism attempted to embrace it and then pull it into a place of privilege in the political infrastructure of "Dark Ages" Europe. The pagans fused their own belief system, the pantheon they already recognized, with the names of Christian saints and other figures, and thereby polluted the theology of Christianity with idolatry...a thing deplorable to both Jews and Christians.

To talk with you I have to be aware of your set of definitions. But your definitions are not my definitions. Here you give an example of the force or intensity of your specific *certainties* which you employ as if all should or must agree with you. This assertiveness, this certainizing, is I think a trait that operates strongly in you. I do not have an issue with it, because how else could you then assert what you believe to be true? It is a *feature* of your beilef and, I assume, a characteristic of your desired style of debate, conversation and argumentation.

I see what you are saying, I understand that you have this ultra-solid view, I believe I can understand the logic that you employ to arrive at that viewpoint, in some sense I could say, with qualifications, that I agree with you in aspects, but in regard to a larger picture, I do not agree with you. And I return to identifying you and the position you hold as intensified Protestantism. And as I have said before I see you as a very modern man who then turns back in a process or strategy of revision whereby you subtract legitimacy from everyone who does not accept the precise definitions that you, in the luxury of the present, hold to. Thus you *hop over* the real and actual history of Christianity in Europe and, as it seems, invalidate it. It seems such a strange strategy and I also think one that has 'blind-spots'.

On the other hand what I try to do is to see what Christianity actually is, and here I do mean when the Judean Christians brought these ideas to the Greek world and the Greek world did what all men must: interpreted them. Restated them. Actualized them. You name this syncretism which is a pejorative term, but one that is too stark, at least as I see things. The syncretism that you condemn with your pejorative statement operates and functions in all of Jewish history, given the influence of Egyptian and Babylonian cultural artifacts. Syncertism is, in this sense, part-and-parcel of what we all do and in this sense what needs be done. However, I cannot but agree that it is possible to research and discover (define) something *original* or *essential* and to brush away the accretions. I do not deny that this is possible -- it is. And it seems that this is what you desire to do. More power to you. And I would say that you do this because you have your reasons, that is it is part of a strategy that works for you. On what basis should I oppose you?

But do I believe that you can tell me what is 'absolutely true' about what being a Christian is, or that your judgments about who is and who is not a *true Christian* as opposed to . . . a Catholic heretic (!) . . . no, obviously I think that you cannot. But it does not mean that I would cease to respect your view, even if in my opinion your view is blunt and somewhat bludgeoning.

I think it is necessary, and a sort of good, that Europeans infused (let's say) original Pauline Christianity with their own selves. And I would include there 'pagan views'. For example I read The Homeric Gods by Walter F. Otto and through his presentation came to see how these notions of gods function within the natural and also the psychological world. They are part-and-parcel of some deep aspect of people's being. For that reason, I would say, they are not banished but are driven underground. And yet they are always there. And for *us* -- Europeans, and Indo-Europeans -- it is all of this material, all of this reality, that makes up what Europe is. In all areas.

But you, in this odd luxury you give to yourself, come along and simply wipe it away -- invalidate it, render it diminished. And as I say you seem to do this for your own purposes. As I say it seems to me that *our purposes* have a conscious and a semi- or unconscious aspect. I cannot be sure what your purposes are. I have to divine them as it were by reading between the lines. Thus you require interpretation.

And the Catholic organization has continued to use the same procedure wherever it has gone. Living where you do, you will be very familiar with the panoply of local "saints" and "spiritual beings" used by the South American Catholics, many of which were simply drawn from local lore or pagan beliefs indigenous to South America. This is why you have "saints" in South America that are utterly unknown in Europe (and visa versa, of course.) Catholicm has long embraced the strategy of converting locals by co-opting their belief systems and "baptizing" them as Catholic. So, in South America, you have your God of Death made into "Santa Muerte," and in Quebec, "Ste. Kateri" the aboringinal, and the Virigin, Europeanized in Europe, is in Central America black, and in neither is she Semitic. That's Catholicism for you.

First, the *logic* of the communication between the denizens of heaven and those still on Earth seems to me necessarily logical, that is within the logic of Christian metaphysical view! And in this sense Christianity asserts a total metaphysical system. How can you then, knowing that this is so, and yourself being deeply committed to that metaphysics, evince such a prejudiced denial of a logical necessity as just that: communication between the denizens of Heaven and the mutable Earth-realm?

If you invalidate this idea, then you can easily see why people invalidate the entire structure upon which your own Christianity is founded. For example the notion of God's descent into a human form. Or the revelation by an Angel of Mary's destiny and function within the divine salvation plan. I could cite a dozen, perhaps a hundred, assertions which depend on outrageous predicates (to the ear and to the mind of moderns). How could it then be impossible if saintly personages, now translated to *Heaven*, communicate in all manner of ways back to the Earth-regions?

Yet I cannot disagree with you about how Catholicism, as an imposed cultural strategy, has not adopted some of the tactics and techniques you refer to. Knowing this enables one to actually, and truthfully, understand European Christianity. Ah, you are invested in that distinction! Christianity in your view is distinct from Catholicism. It is an axiom for you. But it is far less of one for me.

As with all things there are *higher manifestations* and there are *lower manifestations*. And in my view people seek out and find their 'level', as it were.

But your critique is skewed as well. There are many many levels to Catholic theology and social doctrine which are of a high category. And I have said as well that the Catholic Mass, the older one, is a very *high* ritual with transformative effect, when understood. These are things I never could have said a few years back because I did not understand them, I had not encountered them. But then I did . . . and my views changed.

Do I feel a need to debate all of this out with you? Not really. You view are, as I suggest, mono-maniacal in that noted Protestant sense! There are a dozen books by incensed Protestants that *expose* all that you include in your Lists of Horror. It is standard stuff. And there are levels to this undertaking as well. Vulgar, lower levels that are somewhat vicious, as well as a higher critical position. And the same can be found when Protestantism is critiqued by Catholicism.

I do not invalidate it. I examine it as part of a whole. And as I I say I am interested in building bridges, not in eliminating them.

They are not at all secretive about this strategy, as you will no doubt know. Their religion is not so much comparative as absorptive of whatever is on hand in the local situation. The word we use for this is "syncretism." And indeed, what the Catholics did in South America, they did long beforehand, first with the paganism of the Romans, and then later, with the legacy of the Greeks.

These assertions have *elements of truth* but my own experience reading old school Catholic material (pre Vatican ll) has provided me with a very very different picture of what Catholicism is. I cannot be influenced by your intensely prejudicial views simply because I have done wide reading.

[Walker]

That's because I don't accuse people of ad hominems unless they try to evade the issues by way of personal insult against the speaker -- the very definition of ad hominem...just as you are attempting to do right now.

Face it IC, you're just an ad hom magnet.

That's because he doesn't return in kind.

Cowards and bullies just luv that kind of target.

[Immanuel Can]

...if I take on your view about some essential nature of Christianity, something absolute, something absolutely defined, I would be forced to then say that if at one point there were *true Christians* (again in your sense) it happened that they became adulterated Christians.

Not quite.

You would be likely to say, "In the Fourth Century, Constantine adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and did so by syncretizing it with Roman paganism. Faithful Christians refused this corruption, but Roman pagans embraced it."

And that is, in fact, what I do say.

Could the Roman pagans then become anti-Christians? Why not? Up to that point, was it not the Roman pagans who were thrusting them into circuses or lining them up to burn them alive as human torches?

It was nobody else.

...your definitions are not my definitions.

Yes, I know. That's why I'm trying explain -- to fix your definitions.

I have said before I see you as a very modern man who then turns back in a process or strategy of revision whereby you subtract legitimacy from everyone who does not accept the precise definitions that you, in the luxury of the present, hold to.

It's much simpler than that.

I'm just a guy who knows something about what a "Christian" really is, since I am one and inhabit that ethos, and have for a long time...and I'm introducing to your consideration some things you will not have heard from those who only ever see Christianity from the outside, and so can't tell a real Christian from a mere mimic or imitation.

...what I try to do is to see what Christianity actually is,

I would wish that so.

But to do so, I'm afraid you're going to have to loosen your hold on conventional historiography, which has largely been ignorant of theological divisions. And deliberately so: secularists are generally contemptuous of theology, and so don't pay it much attention or credit it with any power in shaping history. The consequence, though, is that they have ended up drawing many conclusions that closer inspection exposes as simply false.

One of these is that Catholic means Christian. For while admittedly one may find that there are some Christians living IN the Catholic organization, as Catholics, the organization itself is a corrupt entity, the theology of which is not Christian, and has not been since its inception with Constantine.

You name this syncretism which is a pejorative term, but one that is too stark, at least as I see things.

And yet, you live in South America. You cannot possibly fail to see it, on every side.

Walk into any South American Catholic cathedral or shrine, and you will find in abundance the evidence of syncretism and even occultism that I have pointed out as a feature of the Catholic prostelytization strategy. Do you not know of Santa Muerte, or Kateri, or the black virgins? I find that impossible to believe.

So you must know.

But do I believe that you can tell me what is 'absolutely true' about what being a Christian is, or that your judgments about who is and who is not a *true Christian* as opposed to . . . a Catholic heretic (!) . . . no, obviously I think that you cannot.

And yet, I can.

But not because of any special wisdom in me. The Bible itself will tell you the same thing. For it tells you what a true Christian believes and what one does not.

...Christianity asserts a total metaphysical system. How can you then, knowing that this is so, and yourself being deeply committed to that metaphysics, evince such a prejudiced denial of a logical necessity as just that: communication between the denizens of Heaven and the mutable Earth-realm?

I didn't.

That God speaks to man, I do not deny. And that man can speak to God, I also assert as true; and both, on Biblical authority. But "saints" and false gods are not mediators of any such communication. There is no Biblical warrant for believing they are. So on what basis would you insist on that?

Yet I cannot disagree with you about how Catholicism, as an imposed cultural strategy, has not adopted some of the tactics and techniques you refer to.

That's what I mean. I know you live in Colombia. So you MUST know.

Christianity in your view is distinct from Catholicism. It is an axiom for you.

It's a new idea to you? I'm not surprised.

But it isn't wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

That's because I don't accuse people of ad hominems unless they try to evade the issues by way of personal insult against the speaker -- the very definition of ad hominem...just as you are attempting to do right now.

Face it IC, you're just an ad hom magnet.

That's because he doesn't return in kind.

Cowards and bullies just luv that kind of target.

If they do, it's only because they amuse themselves that way. And they are too easily self-amused.

Me, they touch not at all.

I just find them childish.

[Lacewing]

That's because I don't accuse people of ad hominems unless they try to evade the issues by way of personal insult against the speaker -- the very definition of ad hominem...just as you are attempting to do right now.

Face it IC, you're just an ad hom magnet. That is sure to happen when considering oneself superior to all who haven't accepted or received the word of Jesus that one must believe in him to be saved. If you kept your superiority complex to yourself as most theists are prone to do instead of advertising it on a philosophy forum, the belief contract between you and your god would have remained confidential.

The fact remains, for fact it is, you are very prone to claim ad homs every time you don't like the reply using that as excuse for its invalidity. In fact, I don't know anyone on the site who complains about having received so many ad homs as you have. Could it be it's just an excuse to deflect an argument or question you feel uncomfortable with? I think that quite possible since there are few who make as many absurd statements as you. Ever think that this constant declaration of ad homs makes you look wimpy?

OMG, another ad hom!!

To repeat! What I do find thoroughly objectionable is when it’s used as a weapon to denounce those who no-longer are able or willing to accept what they inherently know can’t be true.

Even a modest inspection of that claim will disprove it.

If it were so easy to disprove you would be more than happy to have thrown it in my face long ago. So why haven't you?

As for me, the probability of my after-state being equal to precisely the one before it is not one I doubt in the least.

I cannot congratulate you on that confidence. I'm certain it is going to betray you. I'd prefer to encourage you to be open to rethinking that freedom from doubt.
But we shall see. For if you were to turn out to be right, neither you nor I will ever know it; but I am right, then it is certain that both you and I will know it.

The world is understood in terms of probability. What you expect has a probability of near zero based on every kind of scientific and historical analysis, none of which includes faith since that would cause distortion. The hero of Christianity is actually Paul, the one who started the movement; it certainly wasn't Jesus who had no credibility with his own people. If it weren't for Paul, Jesus would have been consigned to the ash-heap of history or at best remembered only as a footnote; the NT wouldn't exist.

But supposing you're right that there will be some kind of Last Judgement event. What certainty is there that Jesus had anything to do with it or anything like a heaven or hell arrangement afterword? Hinduism is far more complex and sophisticated in regard to any after-death destiny; also much older and wiser than Christianity. The ancients of that time and place would not have succumbed to anything so simplistic as needing to believe in Jesus or some other god to be saved. This has the effect of making Jesus a virtual Santa Claus figure...was I good, was I bad...did I believe in him and pray for forgiveness of sins, etc! Even the Jews, his own people, weren't that gullible! It would be interesting to know what goes on in the mind causing it to believe in such an overt absurdity and any normal credence requirement long outcast.

Brilliant post, Dubious. Full of truth and insight that's worthy of genuine consideration and introspection. It is unfortunate that such is lost or ignored by those who prefer nonsense that appears to serve and glorify themselves.

Similar to what you asked in your last sentence: What causes some to cling to (and defend) such self-serving nonsensical ideas, and (I would add) that they do so with such arrogance? It is a fascinating display of the power of imagination and the utter willfulness to reject reason in pursuit of self-comfort. Like a child covering their eyes and saying you can't see me -- imagining that no one else can see what they themselves cannot (or refuse to) see -- as well as relying on stubborn lies despite all evidence to the contrary being on full display.

There is no reason to politely pretend or agree (especially here on a Philosophy forum) that such obviously distorted and dishonest thinking is somehow valid, let alone uniquely profound! Rather, it highlights human limits and failures that are incapable of contributing to humankind's evolvement beyond the distorted ego-self.

[Nick_A]

What is a Christian? Why bother with it? Does it serve a purpose the secular world or the domain of the Prince of darkness keeps hidden? Is the efforts of the Christ somehow essential to awaken man to its conscious possibilities? How can a person begin to answer such questions in a world which openly rejects it?

First of all a Christian is not defined by what a person believes but rather by what they do. There are three steps to becoming a Christian. The first is the wish to be one. The second is to become able to be one. The third occurs after one becomes able to be one.

A Christian is one who follows in the precepts of the Christ. A person may sincerely want to be Christian but learn they cannot be one. Their acquired habits prevent it and reduce them to hypocrisy and the ideas which justify hypocrisy. Such a person is a pre-Christian. There are many secularized Christians and pre-Christians but very few Christians or those who can follow in the precepts of the Christ.

Matthew 11

11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

There seems to be a scale of conscious quality similar to the Great Chain of Being and the Divided line described by Plato. The being of Man can make this passage between the greatest born of women and entering the least in the kingdom. This is metanoia. The efforts of the Christ and the spirit it brings; the Crucifixion and the Resurrection make it possible.

Why Christianity? It answers the personal need for meaning a person experiences at the depth of their being. A person needs meaning and once they experience the futility of materialism and drugs responding to their need for meaning. The hardest part is acquiring the humility necessary to hit bottom so as to experience meaning. The secular experts don't allow it. But for those willing to "be able" to follow in the precepts of the Christ it may provide what a person is looking for.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You would be likely to say, "In the Fourth Century, Constantine adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and did so by syncretizing it with Roman paganism. Faithful Christians refused this corruption, but Roman pagans embraced it."

And that is, in fact, what I do say.

Could the Roman pagans then become anti-Christians? Why not? Up to that point, was it not the Roman pagans who were thrusting them into circuses or lining them up to burn them alive as human torches?

Sure. If I were repeating what is the core of your position, yes, I would say that.

I am sure that all sorts of things could be said about Constantine, what happened, how the religion merged with state and empire -- a zillion things -- and in a large sense it would all be irrelevant. Because what happened, happened, and what happens in history, even strange and seemingly negative things, are part of the way events unfold, and serve providential processes.

The 'syncretism' that you decry -- the way that pagans took on the religion of Christianity -- is part of a process. Your ancestors also went through it, and it is likely that they were for numerous generations Anglicans, and thus *imperfect* Christians, but Christians according to their lights.

What is the function of your position here and now in these conversations? Is it that you want to convince people that Christianity is a valid and necessary religion and path? Or is it to define why those you assert are semi-Christian, and even perhaps non-Christian, are not (enough) Christian, or perhaps not at all Christian? What are you trying to achieve? It is not clear to me.

When you mention "faithful Christians refused this corruption" in the fourth century -- what persons and what groups are you referring to? Can you name specific persons or groups or do you mean to say that you suppose that *true Christians* remained true Christians while, around them, the perverse Pagan-Christian syncretism developed? I do not have enough information about this era to be able to name them myself.

Yes, I know. That's why I'm trying explain -- to fix your definitions.

But my objectives are different from yours. I am actually interested and supportive of the syncretism between those of the Judaic Christian school (for want of a better description) and the Indo-European peoples that were influenced by it. I do not necessarily *have a problem* with the way that Europeans modified and built their religion, their culture, their art, their philosophy. In any case I take it as it was, not as something that I simply dismiss or revise.

The reason -- I already explained this -- is because I am interested in processes of reanimation and renovation of just what I describe. For you that is false-Christianity (I gather). And I also assume that it has no -- how to put this? -- salvific potency? or will not result in the salvation you define.

I do not yet understand what *salvation* means to you. And I also think -- given this is a philosophy forum -- that we would have to define what salvation is, so that if you assert it as an objecive it can be clearly understood what you are talking about.

I would also ask that we arrive at a definition of what Satan is, and what the demoniac is. Mustn't these definitions be established? Because if you define a 'saved Christian' and the saved Christian is opposed to the unsaved pseudo- or semi-Christian (the syncretized Catholic and other heretics -- and these might also be apostatics (excuse the neologism) according to you [Apostasy: rom ἀφίστημι (aphístēmi, “I withdraw, revolt”), these are matters of consequence.

This means that multitudes of people who believed they were Christian did not receive the benefit of real Christian conversion that you define. Not a happy turn of events.

I tend to a position that is far more understanding, perhaps forgiving is the word. Intentionality and merit, in the face of an Intelligence Divinity and in relation to the same, must be rewarded fairly.

[Alexis Jacobi]

First of all a Christian is not defined by what a person believes but rather by what they do. There are three steps to becoming a Christian. The first is the wish to be one. The second is to become able to be one. The third occurs after one becomes able to be one.

It seems that we would need to focus a bit more on what really a Christian is. Myself, it is intuitely obvious to me that a Christian is one who comes under the influence of the Divine. That is to say God, the good, processes of advance and ascent (and I do think one of the beter descriptions of what this means is described in the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita On the Divine and the Demonic Natures).

It is unquestionable that conduct must follow inner conversion. And if conduct does not respond, shall I say, to inner change and restructuring then in my view one's salvation-position can be undermined.

But this certainly differs, if I understand correctly, from the definition IC holds to.

It seems fair to me to say that this is why he spends all his time speaking about *the proper foundation of belief*. But not necessarily the proper foundation for Christian living.

[And I hope that it is understood that if I mention IC in the context of responding to your post it is simply to keep the conversation moving briskly, and interestingly, forward.]

[Immanuel Can]

I am sure that all sorts of things could be said about Constantine, what happened, how the religion merged with state and empire -- a zillion things -- What is the function of your position here and now in these conversations?

In a way, you're now asking the question, "Why bother with history?"

If how Catholicism began is not relevant to the form it assumed, the things it did, and the impact it had in Europe, then the answer is, "No reason." But if history, if the origin of things, is useful in helping us understand why Catholicism became what it did, and did in Europe what it did, then the answer is, "To understand."

But I think you are imputing to me some sinister motive, perhaps. For you write,

Is it that you want to convince people that Christianity is a valid and necessary religion and path?

Well, yes, of course; but that is the work of Jesus Christ, not me.

Or is it to define why those you assert are semi-Christian, and even perhaps non-Christian, are not (enough) Christian, or perhaps not at all Christian? What are you trying to achieve? It is not clear to me.

You said, at the beginning, that you regarded Europe as having a "Christian" past. I'm simply probing that idea, asking whether or not we're justified in calling it "Christian."

Now, we've talked of the two possible standards for judging that: one is what you have called the "Protestant" standard (though we both know that Protestantism qua Protestantism does not begin before the Reformation), in which what the Bible declares is Christian; the other is the Catholic standard, in which whatever the popes and councils declare is called "Christian." And we are asking how we account for the fact that there are two very different standards here.

But there's a third view, neither Catholic nor Protestant. That is the view of many secular historians, who, ignoring the entire controversy, conflate both of the previous into a single idea they call "Christendom."

We're asking if that's wise or right.

Can you name specific persons or groups or do you mean to say that you suppose that *true Christians* remained true Christians while, around them, the perverse Pagan-Christian syncretism developed?

Certainly.

Firstly, there are the early Christians themselves, those living prior to Constantine, to Romanism, and to the syncretistic compromise. Secondly, there are innumerable objector sects. One that comes readily to mind is Peter Waldo, and his followers, the Waldenses. Then there were the Albigenses, or for that matter, the Augustinians, or the Helvetians, or Wycliffe, or Hus...there were quite a large number, actually.

And when Luther broke from the Catholic Church, it was over this very issue. Before the Inquisition, he famously intoned, "Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me."

Here again you see the Catholic hierarchy's persistent problem: people kept reading the Word of God for themselves, and consequently kept breaking away from the authority of the popes and councils. This was not a new problem, but it was one they could suppress prior to the arrival of Gutenberg's printing press and the broader public literacy that it occasioned. After that, the Catholic Church could no longer keep people from knowing about the vast departures between Romanism and Christianity...and the Reformation was on.

Yes, I know. That's why I'm trying explain -- to fix your definitions.

But my objectives are different from yours. I am actually interested and supportive of the syncretism between those of the Judaic Christian school (for want of a better description) and the Indo-European peoples that were influenced by it. I do not necessarily *have a problem* with the way that Europeans modified and built their religion, their culture, their art, their philosophy. In any case I take it as it was, not as something that I simply dismiss or revise.

I have no problem with that project.

I'm only suggesting that you realize what a "Christian" actually is, and make your usage fit accurately. I think accurate use of terms is in everyone's interest, don't you?

The reason -- I already explained this -- is because I am interested in processes of reanimation and renovation of just what I describe. For you that is false-Christianity (I gather). And I also assume that it has no -- how to put this? -- salvific potency? or will not result in the salvation you define.

And yet I do not define salvation. The Bible does.

If anyone's account departs from that, then their conflict is with God, not with me. I have no power or right to make of Christianity anything Christ Himself has not made of it.

I do not yet understand what *salvation* means to you. And I also think -- given this is a philosophy forum -- that we would have to define what salvation is, so that if you assert it as an objecive it can be clearly understood what you are talking about.

I have no objection.

I will put a technical definition, one with many more nuances, in the link at the end. But for the moment, let me be simple, and use common language. To be saved is to be delivered from God's judgment against sin. This is done when a person recognizes his true condition as a rebel against God, and as someone guilty of wrongs that deserve redress from a righteous God. He also realizes that, due to his fallen nature, he is incapable of earning God's favour through merely doing good deeds or being better in the future. He admits the rightness of God in being against what he is and what he has done, and recognizes his desert of judgment.

Despairing thus of his own resources, he turns to God (metanoia), and appeals to be forgiven and changed (also metanoia), on the basis that Jesus Christ has died for the sins of all, (John 3:16) and he recognizes God's rightness in accepting that sacrifice in the place of the judgment that rightly would otherwise fall upon him. (2 Cor. 5:21) The repentant person gives himself thus to God, to be God's thereafter. And this is how a man is saved from sin.

That's the basic mechanics of salvation. But much more can be said about that theme theologically. So far I have not even mentioned things about Torah or Israel, for example, nor any other related issues. So if you want more detail, you can find it here: https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/salvation/

I would also ask that we arrive at a definition of what Satan is, and what the demoniac is.

Let's start with salvation. We have enough to chew on there, first. I suspect you'll have further comments, and I don't want to rush past them. These other issues, we can address as they arise.

This means that multitudes of people who believed they were Christian did not receive the benefit of real Christian conversion that you define. Not a happy turn of events.

False teaching is not a light thing. It sends people to a lost eternity. And nothing could possibly be more serious than that.

But God knows the hearts of men. He knows who sincerely seeks Him, and who does not. And he has promised that all those who seek, find. Jesus said, "For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened." (Matt. 7:8), and Paul says, "The Lord knows those who are His." (2 Tim. 2:19). So whether they were in the world, a pagan land, or the Catholic empire, the Lord has always been able to find and save those who sincerely sought Him. He does not lose anyone who seeks Him.

We leave that in His capable hands. He is, after all, quite capable. And we do better to pay attention to ourselves, and to hearing the word He has sent to us, and responding.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In a way, you're now asking the question, "Why bother with history?"

Yet that is not at all what I say nor would I ever say such a thing. So what am I to think of your paraphrase?

But I think you are imputing to me some sinister motive, perhaps.

I do not think this is right, because to be sinister requires a specific intentionality. My impression, based as always on what I read on a forum, is that you operate with very strong biases. Since I discern that your applied biases seem to me unfair and also prejudiced (they fit into the general Protestant critique of Catholicism, and these dogs have been fighting for many centuries) I could only say that you appear to me mistaken. However, I am judicious and fair-minded enough to always try to see the best. You have your opinions because you genuinely believe they are good opinions to have, and the right opinions.

How could I then define your intentions as sinister? (Rather, leave that to Lacewing et al )

Well, yes, of course; but that is the work of Jesus Christ, not me.

I see what you are saying, and I believe I understand why you say it, but I simply do not think it proper that you employ Jesus Christ as a sort of marionette. Or that you become the marionette and take the voice of Jesus Christ.

So I begin from not merely the sense, or the belief, that many Catholics of high calibre are indeed genuine Christians, yet also, as all men will and must, apply their understandings, limited or replete, to an application within the limits of the possible; but that they too have some part in the *spirit* of God, or receive inspiration in a manner corresponding to the prophets of old, or even to the Apostles, and as well to the myriad who in one way or another, directly or indirectly, came under the influence of this Spirit (and I mean this as a 'real thing' not simply as metaphor).

You are entirely free to say "What I say is what Jesus Christ says" and therefore assert that your interpretive opinions are correct -- as I say "more power to you" if that serves your purposes.

I think you will have to talk more about what you understand to be 'the work of Jesus Christ'. In any case, whatever this might be (and it is a very broad topic) different people, in different temporal modality, will respond to that work, or joint it, in varying ways.

You said, at the beginning, that you regarded Europe as having a "Christian" past. I'm simply probing that idea, asking whether or not we're justified in calling it "Christian."

The question, the questions, are not devoid of good sense. But you do not call *it* Christian. So this is understood. I paraphrase your view to that of 'semi-Christian' or 'pseudo-Christian'. Or not sufficiently Christian, or Christians having missed the mark.

Yet I think it reasonable to say that just about everyone, except perhaps Mr Rogers, falls short of the mark.

Here again you see the Catholic hierarchy's persistent problem: people kept reading the Word of God for themselves, and consequently kept breaking away from the authority of the popes and councils. This was not a new problem, but it was one they could suppress prior to the arrival of Gutenberg's printing press and the broader public literacy that it occasioned. After that, the Catholic Church could no longer keep people from knowing about the vast departures between Romanism and Christianity...and the Reformation was on.

All of this I understand.

I'm only suggesting that you realize what a "Christian" actually is, and make your usage fit accurately. I think accurate use of terms is in everyone's interest, don't you?

I can only suggest that by reference to the Waldenses, or the Albigenses, you have only made reference to some people who had strong differences with certain aspects within Catholicism that they disagreed with. It is likely that there were other reasons for their opposition as well, as most movements have other reasons which sometimes remain occulted. Be that as it may I do not think that you have done a great deal, that I have seen, to define in concrete terms what a Christian is and does.

And yet I do not define salvation. The Bible does.

To be saved is to be delivered from God's judgment against sin. This is done when a person recognizes his true condition as a rebel against God, and as someone guilty of wrongs that deserve redress from a righteous God. He also realizes that, due to his fallen nature, he is incapable of earning God's favour through merely doing good deeds or being better in the future. He admits the rightness of God in being against what he is and what he has done, and recognizes his desert of judgment.

I would like to point out that in all my reading, over some years now, in classically Catholic sources (which as I say I greatly respect and admire, though I was not raised Catholic and indeed cannot definitely call myself one) the precise and exact group of requirements that you list, are constantly talked about constantly and unrelentingly. In every discourse, in every quote, in the Breviary and in the Missal. There is effectively no other sense that I have got except this essential message.