Christianity

[Age]

What is relevant to me is what people do with ideas. Ideas have consequences. It is a simple statement with tremendously relevant levels of implication.

All of this is true... but the implications vary widely (of course!) based on perspective. Your assessments appear to be skewed by your beliefs of what is true and right and should be. What are the consequences and implications of that?

And your assessments "lacewing" appear to be VERY skewed by your beliefs of what is true and right and should be. What are the consequences and implications of that?

[Age]

Is it preferable to live a lie than risk dying?

As is usual with you -- this is my impression -- you do not define what the 'lie' is except in the most general, open-ended terms.

You refer to truth but only in the sense that it might be 'something more'. And this does not mean much unless you concretely refer to what you mean.

Your criticism is so general that it can be applied formulaically to anything at all.

How do you know what the 'divine' is or should be for everyone, such that you know they are disconnected from it?

I suggest that you set to work with the learning project that would enable you to answer the question you ask. However, I gather that this does not interest you. You do not consider reading and study as necessary.

WHY would ANY one consider that reading and/or study would be necessary to just be connected with 'That' what 'you', human beings, refer to as 'Allah', 'God, 'Enlightenment', et cetera?

You ask me to present you with something like a proof, delivered in a paragraph, yet I maintain that you yourself must undertake the project of study yourself.

But here's the deal: you are outside of the intellectual domain. In fact you do not want to be in it! It is my view that you substitute a very needed effort of study with your extremely general 'there is always something more' assertion.

Conversation with you, I conclude, can go no further. You are going round & round in circles.

"lacewing" just lives in its OWN very HAZY, and nebulous cloudy, 'world' of "There MUST be MORE", but NEVER fully realizing that its OWN BELIEF that "There MUST be MORE", is its OWN ultimate and FINAL truth, of which it could go NO FURTHER of.

You will have to be able yourself to define the divine, and you will have to then understand how structured theology expresses what derives from the perception and grasp of what God is.

The word "structured theology" here sounds like this one is 'try to' imply or infer that the "theology" that this one FOLLOWS and PROFESSES to is the ONLY true and right one to LISTEN TO. Which, as ALREADY KNOWN is just of the MOST ABSURD and RIDICULOUS CLAIMS these human beings used to make, back in those OLDEN DAYS.

You will have to know yourself how other systems express what divinity is so you'll have a comparison-point. But you won't do this either. You are not interested, really, in the entire issue!

If you have just been asked to CLARIFY what the word 'divine' (or any other word) means or refers to, to you, and you do NOT CLARIFY, then this is a VERY GREAT GIVE AWAY SIGN that the one, literally, REALLY did NOT know what they were talking about.

Which was even more hilarious to WATCH and OBSERVE considering just how they spoke TO "others".

Your assessments appear to be skewed by your beliefs of what is true and right and should be. What are the consequences and implications of that?

Yet you cannot actually explain why 'my beliefs' or my assertions and suppositions are wrong or 'skewed' as you put it.

Put ANY of 'your BELIEFS', assertions, or suppositions here, for us to LOOK AT and SEE, CLEARLY and I WILL SHOW exactly HOW and WHY they are Wrong, or skewed.

Oh, and this goes for ANY of 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written.

You could not defend anything at all. Because you do not really think these things through (through genuine and continued study).

LOL It is because of the 'study' of the Wrong and MIS INTERPRETATIONS, which you have 'studied' and BELIEVE ARE TRUE, WHY you are so Wrong, and SO 'skewed'.

You have all sort of opinions but they appear to be all personal opinions. And they all center around yourself.

And the EXACT SAME thing could be said about 'you' here "alexis jacobi".

[Age]

Is it preferable to live a lie than risk dying?

As is usual with you -- this is my impression -- you do not define what the 'lie' is except in the most general, open-ended terms.

It's a simple question. Are you not able to answer it? Does it depend on what 'the lie' is? It might be different for everyone.

You refer to truth but only in the sense that it might be 'something more'.

Now you're twisting things.

REALLY?

WHY do you say and CLAIM this here?

Do you NOT go on about how there is MORE to 'truth'?

How do you know what the 'divine' is or should be for everyone, such that you know they are disconnected from it?

I suggest that you set to work with the learning project that would enable you to answer the question you ask.

Your response makes no sense. It's another simple question put to you, based on what you said.

AGREED.

I maintain that you yourself must undertake the project of study yourself.

Why do you imagine I have not and that I would have no reason to come to different conclusions than you?

BUT, there is ALWAYS MORE you could 'study' and 'learn', correct?

Or, do you think or BELIEVE that you have somehow 'studied' enough?

It is my view that you substitute a very needed effort of study with your extremely general 'there is always something more' assertion.

Isn't there always more to consider? Is it not valuable to explore that as part of philosophical discussion in response to the absolute and skewed claims that people make? Is it just too difficult to consider beyond one's argument? There doesn't have to be a rigidly skewed argument to replace it -- isn't it enough to question the claims that are being made, and to show how the opposite can be true?

LOOK, "lacewing" it is OBVIOUS that if someone says something you agree with, then that is ENOUGH, and NO 'more' is needed. BUT, if ANY one says ANY thing that you disagree with, then you just place the, "There is MORE", position and BELIEF out here, and/or ask the 'hypothetical question'; "Isn't there always more to consider?"

Once again, once one has arrived at an answer/conclusion that is absolute and/or irrefutable, then there is NO more that is NEEDED to be considered in relation to 'that'.

BUT, if we are talking about the Universe, Itself, then YES, there is ALWAYS 'MORE' that could be considered.

Conversation with you, I conclude, can go no further. You are going round & round in circles.

You're the one who isn't answering simple questions/challenges based on your claims.

Welcome to My 'world'.

You will have to be able yourself to define the divine, and you will have to then understand how structured theology expresses what derives from the perception and grasp of what God is. You will have to know yourself how other systems express what divinity is so you'll have a comparison-point.

Ah, so this is how to do it.

Are you aware of how much you claim what is and should be for everyone? Could that be due to your disconnection with the divine?

VERY GOOD CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

We now await the answers.

Yet you cannot actually explain why 'my beliefs' or my assertions and suppositions are wrong or 'skewed' as you put it.

I've pointed out alternatives to what you say, and I've asked a lot of questions to challenge your claims, and I've provided corrections to your misconceptions. Your rejection or avoidance of all of that does not magically erase them.

I've noticed that people who do not want to accept questions or challenges to their claims often insist that others must present their criticisms and corrections in a certain way. This, I think, shows how 'locked-in' they are to some kind of self-serving/self-glorifying platform they've constructed -- as if to say there is no other valid view or approach. That's ridiculous.

It might be better if absolutely EVERY one considered this, correct?

If you make a claim that makes no sense, you should be able to explain how it makes sense without denying all to the contrary.

But CLAIMS ALWAYS 'make sense', to the CLAIMER. Although they may make absolutely NO sense AT ALL to the reader/hearer.

So, NO one KNOWS that THEIR CLAIMS make 'no sense' UNTIL "others" INFORM them of such. And, REMEMBER to EXPLAIN that those CLAIMS make 'NO sense' to 'you' ALONE and NOT necessarily to ANY one else.

You do not really think these things through

I think you're saying I must not have if I didn't arrive at your conclusions and methodology.

You have all sort of opinions but they appear to be all personal opinions.

You imagine your opinions are not personal and are superior?

And they all center around yourself.

Says the one who models truth and rightness on himself.

[Age]

Lacewing wrote:

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:59 pm
Lacewing wrote:
How do you know what the 'divine' is or should be for everyone, such that you know they are disconnected from it?
I suggest that you set to work with the learning project that would enable you to answer the question you ask.
Your response makes no sense. It's another simple question put to you, based on what you said.

I guess AJ means is you have to choose for yourself what God means for you
and what 'God ' means to you.

That is how I read this also, BUT I also read that "alexis jacobi" was wanting "lacewing" to "find" and "see" God in the EXACT SAME WAY and LIGHT as "alexis jacobi" does.

For example, let us say, "lacewing" wanders off and does some study and comes to the conclusion that what God means for "lacewing" and what 'God' means to "lacewing" is the God, which is also known as Allah, and the koran the muslim meaning is FAR MORE correct. Then what I think you will find is just "alexis jacobi" will just say the SAME THING, which was; "I suggest that you set to work with the learning project that would enable you to answer the question you ask." AND, they will keep SAYING THIS until "lacewing" came back with the EXACT SAME views of God as "alexis jacobi" has, or "lacewing" came back saying; "I am a christian". And only then I think you will find that "alexis jacobi" will be 'satisfied'.

[Nick_A]

Age

If yes, then what would be 'real christianity'?

LOOK, when, and IF, 'you', human beings, EVER get around to discussing and coming to AN AGREEMENT on; 'What is 'chiristianity' EXACTLY?', then 'you' WILL get somewhere. Until then, you will remain STUCK, exactly, where you are now.

Christianity is the attempt with the help of the Spirit, to consciously evolve into a higher quality of being: REBIRTH. Without rebirth all that results are man made interpretations of what cannot be understood and what you see is what you get.

A person begins after experiencing that "I Know Nothing." But in these days when education or what we know is so highly valued, who has the humility to admit they know nothing?

Real Christianity begins with the experience as Paul describes that we are a slave to Gods laws as well as a slave to sin. We are dual natured. That is the human condition. Christianity provides the means to suffer with conscious purpose in the cause of freedom from slavery and the evolution of human being: the purpose of the Crucifixion

[Age]

But faithful followers of the Christian moral code don't necessarily depend on Cartesian dualism, supernaturalism, or materialism.

I would choose to team up with and cooperate with those sorts.

This here is a VERY TYPICAL RESPONSE from adult human beings, in that day and age. They REALLY did only SEEK OUT, JOIN IN WITH, and/or only FOLLOW 'those' "sorts of people" with the same thinking (or what they would obviously incorrectly call 'like-minded' people).

They, literally, would NOT listen to "those sorts" of DIFFERENT thinking, and would REALLY ONLY listen to "those sorts" with the SAME thinking. No matter how Truly ABSURD this appears to us, this is REALLY how they did think and behave, back then.

If people understand the code, they’d likely understand how it came about — where it came from.

But, if what 'the code' IS, EXACTLY, was NOT expressed and shared, then "those sorts" who were NOT informed of said such 'code' would then be ACCUSED of being "those" people who do NOT understand 'the code', and who would NOT understand how 'the code' came about, NOR where 'the code' came from.

Which here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of just how the 'devil' (which we KNOW is just the thoughts, thinking, and people within these bodies) would be DECEPTIVE and DECEIVING.

If they could not make the metaphysical leap, still they’d likely respect those who can and do.

ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE here of the 'devil' AT WORK. The absolute EGOCENTRICITY of these adult human beings, and their CONDESCENDING MANNER was rampant, especially among those who classed "themselves" as "christians".

Even the use of the 'metaphysical' word, like shown here, was to make out the "some of us" were far more superior to what "others' were.

LOL If this one here REALLY thinks that 'it' has made some sort of 'leap', intellectually-wise', that "others" could NOT, then the SUPERIORITY COMPLEX here is SHOWING FULLY.

WHO do you think or BELIEVE, "alexis jacobi", has made ANY such so-called "metaphysical leap"?

And, a 'leap' from 'what' to 'what', EXACTLY?

Also, what does the word 'metaphysical' even mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

I would be very surprised if the ones known as "christians" even understand the 'code', "themselves". In fact if one was to ask for CLARITY about, 'What actually is the "christian moral code?" one might get as many different responses as there are ones known as "christians".

And, this is without yet even delving into 'How this 'moral code' came about?' Nor 'Where this 'moral code' came from?'

However with that said — and I suppose you are speaking about yourself (?) — I do not think merely teaching a code is altogether sufficient.

You think this BECAUSE you could NOT teach ANY thing about this so-called 'moral code', and this is BECAUSE you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA "yourself" of what 'it' IS, EXACTLY.

You received the code from a practitioner culture.

I don’t think it could be transferred for more than one or two generations merely intellectually. But could those who can no longer believe, genuinely, somehow discover belief again? Could a post-Christian culture?

No matter what, it would have to be encountered, and lived, authentically.

[Age]

I guess AJ means is you have to choose for yourself what God means for you and what 'God ' means to you.

Somewhat. How could that not be so? But reading and grasping how and why it was relevant to our progenitors is also an important line.

What does the 'it' word here, refer to, EXACTLY?

Who or what does the 'our' word here, refer to, EXACTLY?

From what line of teaching and/or religion do you presume would be the BEST one to read and grasp how and why 'it' is relevant to "our" progenitors is also an important line?

[Immanuel Can]

So then, how does any of that metaphorization take us even one step toward what Catholicism has done? How does that justify syncretism with Rome, or the Inquisition, or the Reichskonkordat, or the Rat Lines, or the Deification of Mary, or Indulgences, or the promotion of salvation by works, or saints and prayers for the dead, or rosary beads, or the Papacy...or any of that? In other words, how does making metaphor of the life of Christ help justify anything at all that Catholicism has done? Help me out here, if you think there's a miracle in the New Testament the metaphorical meaning of which will explain.

Catholicism has *done* all sorts of things, and many of them do not appear on your List of Horrors.

Quite so. And that does not help the case, of course.

I fully grasp your anti-Catholic stance and I do not ask you to modify it.

It's not "anti-Catholic." It's pro-Christian.

I simply have no desire to see what I believe tarnished with the deeds of those who do not believe it, so I insist on the two being recognized for what they have actually both believed and done. And the cause of truth is cause enough to want it that way.

Oddly, all who ascend to heaven, if I have it right, becomes Sons (and Daughter? of God.

Not according to John 1. According to John 1, it's "To as many as received Him [i.e. Christ, the Word] He gave the right to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe on His Name." In other words, a person becomes a child of God upon faith...immediately.

The role of Mary in the manifestation of Jesus,

Is spelled out decisively in the Annunciation and in Mary's own words. According to Mary, she was not infallible, and she too needed a Saviour (Luke 1:47). Not only that but in the Incarnation, Mary herself was utterly eclipsed by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). So the Bible does not support Mariolatry, but rather refutes it. She was nothing special in herself. She was just "blessed among women." (Luke 1:42) Ordinary women.

I am pretty sure that you are moving in the direction of associating Catholicism with Nazism

Do you know what the Reichskonkordat was? Look it up. Then look up "Vatican Rat Lines." Then tell me there's no connection there.

What the Papacy did to the Jews was made theologically possible by the Supersessionist theology of the RC's. If God has rejected the Jews, if they are accursed, if the RC's have replaced them in Divine favour, then it becomes possible for a person who believes that to do anything to them. And they did.

Note that the cult of the Saints also has a definite *logic* within the system.

Not within the Biblical "system." In the Bible, a "saint" (which means "set apart/sanctified one") refers to anyone who is a child of God, whether alive or dead. And there is but one Mediator between God and Man, Jesus Christ Himself. (1 Tim. 2:5) All the nonsense about prayers to dead people, or about somebody being such a naturally good person that they merit "sainthood"? Complete, contrabiblical nonsense; a pure invention.

What do you have to say about the Christian notion of a 'guardian angel'?

Angeology is an interesting subject. But the term and concept most people understand by the words "guardian angel" is not a Biblical one either.

May I also say that you have not to my knowledge made a definite statement about any of the more outrageous Christian beliefs.

You haven't asked before now.

And really, I have to wonder at the relevance at the moment. Would the ascent of Elijah make any difference to you, at this moment? The Parting of the Red Sea? (Well, maybe; because without that, there'd be no Israel.) But do you want to ask if Christ did the miracles attributed to Him (you mentioned the Feeding of the 5,000 earlier)? I say the burden of proof is on those who insist He didn't...because the eyewitness testimony and the testimony of subsequent history strongly implies He did.

And I believe He did. There's no way to call His teaching and conduct "moral," and then accuse Him of being a charlatan on miracles. So if a person rejects His miracles, he also rejects the Man Himself. The miracles are integrated with His teaching and life.

And of course, by definition of being a Christian, I believe also literally in the Resurrection: and after that, any other miracle looks tiny. Find a more "outrageous" miracle than offering oneself to death to atone for the sins of the world, then taking your own life up again and rising to God's right hand. If you can do that, there's nothing else you can't do.

[Age]

How do you know what the 'divine' is or should be for everyone, such that you know they are disconnected from it?

I suggest that you set to work with the learning project that would enable you to answer the question you ask.

Your response makes no sense. It's another simple question put to you, based on what you said.

I guess AJ means is you have to choose for yourself what God means for you and what 'God ' means to you.

Yes... but I was pointing out that his idea of people being "disconnected" is based on his own idea of the divine. So how true is that?

I think you will find that "alexis jacobi's" idea of people being 'disconnected' is just due to the fact that people are NOT following or abiding by the 'moral code' that "alexis jacobi's" BELIEVES it follows and abides by, and which "alexis jacobi" also BELIEVES is the ONLY true, right, and correct one for EVERY one to follow and abide by. And, if and when people do not, then "alexis jacobi" BELIEVES that those ones' are 'disconnected' from God, the Divine.

[Age]

"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." –Rumi

Might Christianity be 'fool's gold'?

No, The many varieties of man made Christendom are fools gold. Christianity is unknown in the secular world. It's gold must remain hidden

Something in the depth of the inner man senses a the deep truth of Christianity.

Are you trying to apply this as a Universe truth about the 'inner man' of everyone? That would be false.

Yes I believe all men have a seed of the soul which can mature into a soul. Simone understood as do all sensitive to esoteric Christianity. The quality of being differs amongst humanity. Some are sensitive to the calling for conscious evolution while most prefer fighting over cave superiority. The purpose of Christianity is the potential for rebirth while the purpose for Christendom is adaptation for cave life

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html

Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation
Profession of Faith

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.

Yet something within the shallowness of the egoistic personality

Such as what you demonstrate with your false pronouncements?

Anyone capable of going beyond blind belief or blind denial is presented with the problem "how to begin."

What beginning do you suggest, and what do you imagine we will see beyond this blindness you refer to?

What is square one for the seeker of truth

Do you imagine you know?

Awakening to the reality beyond what the senses make us aware of requires being born of the spirit. That is the problem. Until a person experiences it, it is all nonsense

Before my experiences I could support duality with the best of them. Then my experiences were so intense it became obvious how being third force blind kept me in the dark. I had to get rid of all that and start over with experiencing the structure of our universe and man's conscious evolutionary potential within it.

essential to experience what the soul needs to experience "meaning"

How do you know there's a soul and that it needs something? Perhaps there is one creative force that is simply exploring potential.

and who has the need and the courage to face it?

Are you imagining the way you have faced the story you believe in?

It seems that you are compelled to imagine your story as an epic battle that involves everyone. Perhaps this reflects quite clearly (thank you) the drive of Christianity. The greatest story ever told: an epic battle over a man's 'soul'.

I faced it once but can I remember it? Plato describes our problem with "Meno's Paradox"

The argument known as “Meno’s Paradox” can be reformulated as follows:

If you know what you’re looking for, inquiry is unnecessary.

If you don’t know what you’re looking for, inquiry is impossible.
Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.

An implicit premise:
Either you know what you’re looking for or you don’t know what you’re looking for.

Plato resolves the paradox through remembrance or anamnesis which is a quality of intellect above discursive thought. The truth the heart hungers for doesn't come through dualistic science but rather is remembered as eternal truths existing above what our senses re normally aware of.

What I found is while one is just being Truly Honest, while seriously Wanting to change for the better, then they become Truly OPEN, which allows them, completely unintentionally, to UNCOVER those so-called "mysteries" in Life that one has been LOOKING FOR, but was NOT REALLY consciously aware of this.

Seeking answers, will NOT necessarily lead you to them. BUT, just seriously wanting to changing "one's" 'self' and do all you can to do this, then those Truly meaningful answers, which have been sought for for millennia just com-to-light, almost instantaneously. As ALREADY PROVED True.

[Age]

That's certainly true. But the mere fact that some "culture" was "practicing" the code does nothing to assure us that the "code" itself was in any way "right."

At this point I would mention what results from my study of the period when the Judean Christian practice met the Greek world.

What I have noticed a lot in this forum is the word 'study', on most occasions, really is just a substitute for 'confirmation biases'.

I understand that you attempt to define a *true* and *authentic* Christianity and to describe it as distinct from the Christianity that developed. They were different and they are different. Christianity, a religious ethic that in truth could only be practiced by a certain sort of radical person, was assimilated into the (Greek) cultural context.

And, we come back to a "certain sort of person". As though these "certain sort of people" somehow knew better or were somehow better.

And they did that by finding, or noting, a similarity in ethical commands. The 'command' was more proper to the original Christians. And deviation from the command resulted in 'sin'.

All I can say here;

LOL
LOL
LOL

The Greeks rationalized and intellectualized it. So it is true that Christendom (what I call Christian culture) is distinct in a precise sense from a radical Christian lifestyle. But in my view this does not invalidate it.

Your, laughable, "precise sense" is just YOUR OWN INDIVIDUAL view of 'things'. Just like EVERY one else's is here. NONE being necessarily more true than "another's" is.

However, to refer to Belinda's culture as a practitioner's culture fits with my more lenient sense of what Christianity is or has become (and will always become when it is assimilated into any culture).

What IS "christianity" or what has "christianity" become, from your OWN sense?

Until you INDULGE us in THIS, everything you are going on about here exists within some very HAZY, BLURRED, and FOGGY CLOUD.

Oh, and by the way, when we REMOVE your sense of "christianity" and ALL the OTHER DIFFERENT senses of "christianity" from human 'culture', then human beings could start moving far more quickly and far more progressively forward to living in that 'way of life' which ALL want and Truly desire, that is; everlasting peace for EVERY one for evermore.

But all these DIFFERENT senses of "christianity" has been HOLDING US ALL back for far to long now.

And she is a product of that Christian culture.

WHY, because "she" said some 'thing', which you agree with?

[Age]

Christianity, a religious ethic that in truth could only be practiced by a certain sort of radical person, was assimilated into the (Greek) cultural context.

That would be true of Catholicism, of course. Catholicism proudly owns those roots through people like Aquinas. However, Christianity itself, the belief system instituted by Christ, did not do the same.

LOL "the belief system instituted by Christ". You say this like there was NO belief-system BEFORE "christ" came into Existence".

Or, are you referring to some PARTICULAR 'belief system'? And, if you are, then will you DESCRIBE what that belief system IS, EXACTLY, instead of just talking about one as those it ACTUALLY exists?

If no, then WHY NOT?

It rejected many of the Gnostic, Roman and Aristotelian aspects that became so deeply entrenched in Catholicism, and went its own way. Consequently, it never became the sort of overt engine of political and social control that the Catholic organization became; its effects were present, to be sure; but they were more subtle and chemical, unyoked as they were with the political, economic and military activities of Europe.

Catholicism's activities have been largely political. Christianty's have been primarily moral and soteriological. The distinction is quite profound.

Yes the DISTINCTION is QUITE PROFOUND.

Unfortunately though you are NOT YET CONVERSED nor INDOCTRINATED enough in the ACTUAL PROFOUND DISTINCTION itself. And so those of "your sort" are best to refrain from pretending that you know what is actually taking place and going on here.

If "your sort" understood the code, and the distinction, then you would likely understand how it came about — where it came from.

The 'command' was more proper to the original Christians. And deviation from the command resulted in 'sin'.

No, mere "deviation from command" is what's called Legalism, not Christianity. The Pharisees had "commands," and were quite militant about them. They too were Legalists. But you'll note that they never got along with Christ.

Here's what I'm thinking, Alexis. I think you're trying very hard to get all those people who have ever used the term "Christian" to describe themselves under the same umbrella. In contrast, I'm trying to show you the distinction between real Christianity and mere nominalism, in whatever form it may manifest.

LOL "real christianity", as opposed to 'what', EXACTLY?

Also, LOL "original christians", as opposed to 'what', EXACTLY?

Furthermore, what is OBVIOUSLY CLEAR is the NEITHER of these two even KNOW what the word 'sin' refers to, EXACTLY.

And I have a sense that you have a conclusion toward which you want to work...namely, that European "Christianity" is a sort of Greek syncretism. And my pointing out the history of the Catholic organization as distinct from everything Christ Himself taught and His followers have followed, is a fly in that ointment.

I'm not quite saying that you're merely assuming a conclusion, then bending all the data to fit it; but it also seems to me you are continually trying to reconcile the irreconcilable for some purpose. And that purpose seems to have something to do with a thesis involving both the Greeks and pre-modern European culture. Fair enough?

Here we have a GREAT EXAMPLE of how two adult human beings, who BOTH BELIEVED that, "I am the REAL christian", fighting and arguing over what is essentially NOTHING AT ALL. Which was a Truly VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE, back in the days when this was being written.

..my more lenient sense of what Christianity is or has become

In a phrase like that, I find both of the impulses I listed above represented. Firstly, you collapse "Christian" into (essentially) Catholic again, and then again you refer to that as "lenient" rather than "loose" or "imprecise." I would go one step further and call such a collapsing "confused," because it again tries to reconcile the irreconcilable.

If 'it' is supposedly 'irreconcilable', then WHY even BOTHER talking about 'it'? (whatever 'it' may be).

Then you conclude that Belinda is a "product of that Christian culture." Again, the assumption returns that "Christian" is a culture and all it takes for a person to be "a product of it" is that they live in Europe somewhere.

I am NOT SURE how this one ARRIVED here, but they have.

Anyway, what is a "christian", AGAIN?

The funniest thing here is these people CLAIM to be "christians" but when questioned and challenged on 'What is a 'christian', EXACTLY?' Absolutely NOTHING of ANY substance AT ALL is provided.

You'll forgive me, perhaps, if I wonder what the value of our previous discussions has been: for at the start, you were committed both to the confusing of the institution of Catholicism with "Christian" and the relegating of it to a mere cultural phenomenon.

Have we made any progress at all, I might wonder, thinking as a Christian.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The ABSURDITY of this discussion, and the words CLEARLY USED and WRITTEN, speak for themselves.

Or is your desire for that thesis so strong that no amount of countervailing evidence is sufficient to trouble it? That would be a concern for any sociological or historical hypothesis, of course.

People end up DISAGREEING and FIGHTING even when it comes to talking about what they ACTUALLY thought or BELIEVED they are.

"christian' is NOT even a 'thing' that one COULD BE, let alone IS. Yet, as CLEARLY SEEN here ONCE AGAIN, human beings in the days when this was written would ACTUALLY FIGHT over and DISAGREE about this very 'thing'.

[promethean75]

Jesus thinks you're a jerk

[Age]

You'll forgive me, perhaps, if I wonder what the value of our previous discussions has been: for at the start, you were committed both to the confusing of the institution of Catholicism with "Christian" and the relegating of it to a mere cultural phenomenon.

Have we made any progress at all, I might wonder, thinking as a Christian. Or is your desire for that thesis so strong that no amount of countervailing evidence is sufficient to trouble it? That would be a concern for any sociological or historical hypothesis, of course.

My views have not changed really. I take what you offer -- your particular Protestant view -- as hyper-idealistic. It is in this sense irreal. I mean no offense! You mention a few people, Kierkegaard among them, who you define as 'truly Christian'. But no actual Christian group that I could visit with and learn about.

You present your *ideal Christian* as a contrast to the Christianity that is!

LOL Two so-called "christians" battling it out over what the 'real' "christianity" is.

I work with the idea, the fact really, that European Christianity is, in fact, Catholicism. That is about 1,000 years. But I am not hindered with the same issue as you are. I now see with greater clarity the degree to which the Early Christians and the religion they brought was assimilated into the Greek and thus the European world. Catholicism assimilated into itself many many different strains of practice but also understanding and ideal. And this is how it should be.

I would not say 'mere cultural phenomenon', that is your interpretive term. I would simply say what I have been saying: that the original impetus of the first Christians was transferred to and assimilated by the Greeks. I could even describe this as Providential. And in fact I see it like this.

The fact is that I do not think I am inventing a thesis but rather that I am simply describing the situation realistically.

Where I can agree with you, and I do agree with you, is in working in the area of clarification, or highlighting, of what Christianity originally was, in contrast with how it developed and what it became. I do not have an issue with your thrust in this area. One could do this however within the Catholic tradition. Now why would I chose to do this rather than to abandon Catholicism altogether? (It is a bit absurd because I am not really a Catholic).

You are NOT REALLY a "christian" at all EITHER. But you STILL choose to do what you are here.

I have not concealed nor would I that I am more interested in what the Indo-Europeans (the various European groupings) did with their version of Christianity than I am, necessarily, with the original version. The reason is, as I say, that the Europeans 'built a world'. They constructed civilization.

So, to you, before so-called "europeans", (which by the way is ANOTHER WORD that 'you', human beings, could NOT define and agree upon), but anyway to you BEFORE these so-called "europeans" came along there was NO 'civilization' AT ALL.

Which is just FURTHER EVIDENCE and PROOF of just how CLOSED the adult human beings WAS, in the days when this was being written.

Then you conclude that Belinda is a "product of that Christian culture." Again, the assumption returns that "Christian" is a culture and all it takes for a person to be "a product of it" is that they live in Europe somewhere.

I recognize and respect gradations.

So what?

Most people recognize, and so-call "respect", evolution also. But, this ALSO, has absolutely NOTHING to do with what was POINTED OUT and SHOWN here.

Gradations of commitment are part-and-parcel of the human world. I simply accept this as so.

WHY do you ASSUME that "belinda" has some sort of 'gradation of commitment' to your OWN INDIVIDUAL version of "christian culture"?

Also, you would OBVIOUSLY ONLY accept 'graduation of commitment' to your OWN PERSONAL view of "christianity", which, by the way, you could NOT even inform us of what that is EXACTLY.

[Age]

No, mere "deviation from command" is what's called Legalism, not Christianity.

I meant something different.

For the Early Christians there was no *Christian philosophy*. In fact the religion was so new, so untried, so speculative in a sense, that it could not ever have become a part of the culture it came to unless the culture assimilated and adapted it.

You do NOT even KNOW what that 'new religion' even was, nor like, to even be able to KNOW what was going on between 'it' and ANY 'culture' that you also had NO idea about AT ALL.

So this was necessary. If I say that Jews and early Christians lived *under the command of God*, I would contrast this with the Greek method, or application, of having to define and prove why any particular *command* was believable, necessary and actionable. Catholic and Christian theology are presented in this way.

This is the difference I wanted to point to. When God gave commands to the Hebrews he did not offer options.

Here we have ANOTHER 'one' who thinks or BELIEVES God, Itself, is a "he".

Are you ABLE to EXPLAIN HOW God, Itself, could even be a "he"?

If yes, then WILL you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

It was not to be rationalized. It could not be objected to on ethical or moral grounds nor any intellectual ground. Commands had to be obeyed or the consequences would be dealt with.

LOL "Dealt with" by who or what EXACTLY?

And, HOW EXACTLY did this God 'thing' make commands?

When a command was disobeyed, starting from that fateful apple, sin resulted. Sin is a result of disobedience. I don't think there can be any doubt about this.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of when one thinks that their VERY OWN INTERPRETATION is the One and ONLY true, right, and correct one.

What does 'sin' even mean or refer to, to you?

'sin', itself, is NOT necessarily the result of disobedience AT ALL. And, in fact, 'sin', defined in a way that works PERFECTLY with EVERY thing else, is the VERY EXACT OPPOSITE of 'disobedience'. So, there is PLENTY of doubt about your very OWN version and interpretation.

In the Greco-Christian tradition, at least in its philosophical branch, it all had to be worked out to accord with rational ideas. And when it was applied to culture at large it had to assimilate itself in jurisprudence and in government. There could have been no possibility of this being done outside of the developed Greco-Roman system.

Is this absolutely AND irrefutably True? Or, is this just your OWN version and account of 'things' here?