Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Much false doctrine and many bad ideas are produced by taking a single verse out of context. And that is precisely why I give the reference for any quotation I cite...so it can be checked, and set in the given context.

But let's see how you make John 14:6 different in context than what it plainly says as I quoted it. Please, go ahead...exposit it. Put it back in context, and show what it really means.

If i wanted to know what it says in the Bible, you would be the first person I would ask, but if I wanted an honest interpretation of what it meant, you would be the last.

Funny...I didn't give any "interpretation." I just quoted the verse.

But the context is also open to all, as I included the reference. So there's no need for anybody to take my "interpretation" or anybody else's...they can form their own judgment about what it means.

And I invite that. I welcome it. I would be delighted for all people to form their own opinions about what Jesus meant, and then live by what their best judgment tells them. That's the whole point.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can you just hang back and listen for once?!

Sure. As long as you don't say I said things I never said. If you can suppress that urge, I'm ready to hear you.

What I have come to realize in relation to conversation with you is that you cannot *hear* what I am numerous of us are saying. To hear would mean to genuinely consider and then also to potentially be influenced. But here is the kicker: in one way or another each of us who argues against Christian belief and the Christian construct are carrying on as anti-Christians in the Nietzschean sense.

So, we cannot help your project, we cannot contribute to it, and the odd thing is that though there are some (Lacewing for example) who say that they know decent Christians whom they would not think of thwarting or upsetting or contradicting them (since people tend to *construct* their lives around a religiosity which upholds, sustains and also protects them), we here have a different relationship to the *Christian problem*. Our efforts when we confront a non-intellectual man like you whose belief-system is founded upon phantasy and mythological narrative (similar to children's stories) is inevitably to act 'acidically' in relation to the fantasy-based tenets upon which both Judaism and Christianity are (obviously) based.

So in relation to what you just said here you imply that you could *listen*, but you also have said that you might listen if, as you state, I did not misrepresent you. But here is the thing: you cannot be relied on even to understand yourself. You can't be relied on to understand what you believe and why you believe it. Why? It is as I say: You believe numerous impossible things like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland:

“Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'

I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Thus you are dealing with people who simply cannot believe what you have willed yourself to believe in the face of all opposition.

Now, and with that said, I find you interesting in this sense. But that means that you are turned into an *object of inquiry* though you always wish to direct the conversation, as if you are an authority.

You have in the past made it completely plain though I will not research this, find your quotes, and present them to you, you have made it plain that when Occidental civilization turned against Christian belief or began to undermine its metaphysical assumptions, that what resulted was the Nazi-like State. The Stalinist State, the Communist State, developed because of an atheistic platform which (in your terms) 'excluded god'. These are general Christian suppositions and interpretations that we have all heard, in one form or another, and which we still hear today.

But the problem with this assertion is that, simultaneously, you declare that the only avenue available for our societies, which I gather you consider to be in essentially spiritual disarray, is 'personal salvation'. But no society prior to the Nazi regime or the Stalinist regime was ever comprised of 'saved individuals' as you define salvation. In fact there has not ever been a Christian civilization. And I will say: nor will there ever be one! So what you propose as an ideal circumstance, and the circumstance through which regeneration and renovation (of man internally) could occur will not ever occur. You could I suppose interject here and proclaim "But it could occur" in the sense that such a thing is not outside of the realm of the possible. But you'd be engaging in typical phantasy at that point -- your speciality.

Therefore, when I have spoken of 'Christian culture', the Christianesque, and also of Occidental paideia, in one definite sense I am speaking of a more real thing, a thing that actually exists, than the phantasy thing that you refer to. You will always be able to say, and with a certain amount of truth, that no group of people, no culture or civilization has even been 'truly Christian' -- and you are absolutely right! Now why is this?

I believe I have some part of an answer. It is impossible.

“In truth, there was only one Christian and he died on the cross.”

Now, I propose that thinking men must be honest and try to think this statement through. I have done so, because I have encountered Nietzsche and he certainly had a strong effect on my way of seeing. I would not say that he *polluted* or *contaminated* my way of thinking though. To encounter, to confront, to process Nietzsche is something every man must do. Why? "Because the truth will set you free".

You see you are dealing here with people who, obviously in differing degrees, are concerned about truth (and I should write it as Truth since I am referring to the larger concerns). But Immanuel: we simply cannot go along with you! We cannot follow your will as you have bent yourself in so many ways to make consistent belief possible! That is what most distinguishes you: the willed desire for consistent belief. From the fantastic tales in Genesis, which you take literally (you said so at least once "Of course I believe that"), up through and including every element in the Gospel accounts.

No, "Christian Universalism" is good example of the doctrines I've identified as verifiably pseudo-Christian, but not Christian at all. But "Christian Universalism" ordinarily refers to this: Christian discourse on Universalism, and I'm pretty sure you're trying to use it for something completely different. So you'd best clear that up.

When I refer to Christian Universalism I am referring to something different than what you take me to mean. But here is another interesting fact. Any confrontation with you can best be understood as 'punching the tar baby'. The fist (i.e. the thrust of one's argument) immediately gets mired in your profound confusion and muddledness. Notice that you admonish me to "clear that up" as if you are directing or controlling my conversation here. Typical!

But when I talk about universalism I am not talking about the phantasy-based view that the Earth is going to be 'saved'. I am though talking about a reality of how a universalist ideology is in fact what is *imposed* on the world through the Christian notion that *all knees will bow* and that the Gospel be brought to all corners of the globe. You see you tell me that Christian conversaion is absolutely non-political and when you say such a thing I realize I am dealing not with an intellectually mature adult but with a child who cannot grow up because he has locked himself into fantasy-based views.

This is why, in relation to Brother Iambuguous and Brother Gary I have made references to Homo americanus. What am I referring to? Well again, I am referring to *reality* and the way things actually are, whereas you refer to a phantasy-version of what you imagine is happening and what you hallucinate-project as being even possible.

When I refer to European categories (Occidental paideia) I am referring to 'something that is ours'. I will not shy away from the word 'exclusively'. Similarly, I will not take away from any other people the right to 'be themselves'. To be what they are. To conceive of and also to protect their 'traditions' and their religious modes from the intrusion of some lunatic Christian who says "All knees must bow before Jesus".

It is that Core Idea I have isolated for consideration: Hebrew Idea Imperialism. Don't you get it? I have explained it a dozen times and you profess to be capable of listening -- and yet you cannot listen! You certainly cannot hear.

What you are involved in, and what many here seem to oppose, is a totalizing system that you are fronting as if it is a cure for 'the human problem'.

You do not seem to understand the implications of the System that you are allied with. In fact I have concluded that you both cannot and you will not understand. Because of the focus of your will.

I have said I am here for my own purposes. And my purpose is about getting clear about *what is really going on*. Therefore, the conversation that I engage in is one where what we believe and how we conceive of things is tied to what is going on in our world now and today.

Well, you'll need to understand it, first. It's not any form of "universalism," it's supercultural, it's totally apolitical, and it keys on personal salvation, not mass movements. Those are four basics you have to get down, if you want to understand anything about real Christianity and what it advocates.

Again, you have every right to believe in fantastic, unreal things. If that floats your boat have at it! But I will say the following:

There is not such thing as the super-cultural. There is no such thing as an existential and metaphysical framework that is not also political and social. "Personal salvation" is a subjective category that simply cannot be referred to except subjectively. Millions of people declare that they have 'been saved' and it simply does not mean anything substantial. And it is necessary to think politically and also in nationalistic terms when we think -- realistically -- about our situations in our cultural and civilizational circumstances. And certainly we must think about mass movements since we are all products of them.

The entire base of your *thinking* is whacked-out man!

Now, What am I up to in putting these things on the table? It is just as I say: there are entire realms of thought and ideation that are suppressed in our present, even vilified, that seem to me the things that we actually, and realistically, need to think about!

And that is why I said:

It has occurred to me -- I admit it is a strange thought and a stranger possibility -- that everything that is vehemently and often violently rejected in our ultra-moralizing present -- when the lunatics come crashing down on those necks they shriek are *immoral!* -- that the categories or concerns that they do condemn with such vehemence are likely to have virtues and value and may well require preservation and defense.

But what are the 'racist suppositions'? That also interests me. I looked over the sentence and the designation was to Europe. So you mean to say that if something is strictly or specifically European -- a cultural identity, a European paideia, and indeed a European spirituality or existential ethics -- that it is 'racist' according to you?

[Immanuel Can]

First, since there doesn't seem to be consensus amongst Christians, what exactly do you assert Jesus had in mind with John 14:6?

Actually, there is consensus as to what the words mean, and also as to what they imply in context.

The difficulty is really not in understanding the words. It's in being willing to receive them.

Then you should have no trouble at all with posting EXACTLY what you assert Jesus had in mind with John 14:6 instead of dancing around it. By all means, post YOUR understanding.

Well, let's look, and see what's even POSSIBLE to take from the verse. It reads,

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

In context, Jesus has just been speaking to His followers about His leaving them and going to "My Father's house" (v.2), and Thomas has asked him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going; how do we know the way?”

So I'm going to go out on an interpretive limb here, and say that Jesus is talking about how a person gets to be in His Father's "house," and the "way" to get there. With me, so far?

Now, what possible range of interpretations do we have here? Jesus claims to be THE "way," THE "truth" and THE "life." It has to be the "way" to the Father's "house," and the "truth" has to mean "the truth about the way to God," and "the life" has to mean eternal life. And the claim is a totally exclusive one: namely, that there are no other such "ways," no alternate "truths," and no other "way" to eternal life, "except through Me," He adds.

All the words are small, familiar and easy to understand. The sentence is very clear, and the context is plain.

Is there even a slight difficulty of interpretation there? If there is, I'm having difficulty locating it. But I'm ready to hear what you think is the alternate reading of the passage, with a better use of context to illuminate it.

[Dubious]

"By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." Jesus also said that. (Matt. 12:37)

Why would I give a crap...

Maybe you don't.

You will.

...only if I believed in some morbid fairytale from long ago redundant with contradictions and illogic; not least silly demands from god which are thoroughly ungodlike but fully compatible with human demands.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you just hang back and listen for once?!

Sure. As long as you don't say I said things I never said. If you can suppress that urge, I'm ready to hear you.

What...breakfast.

That's a ton of words to simply say, "No, I'm determined to keep misrepresenting you, and I'm never going to apologize." But, message received, anyway.

You have in the past made it completely plain though I will not research this, find your quotes, and present them to you, you have made it plain that when Occidental civilization turned against Christian belief or began to undermine its metaphysical assumptions, that what resulted was the Nazi-like State. The Stalinist State, the Communist State, developed because of an atheistic platform which (in your terms) 'excluded god'.

No, what I said was that your idea, the idea of "Occidental paidiea" is a racist one, since it appends the term "occidental," which is the opposite of things like "oriental" or "African," as if the "occidentals" have some exclusive "paidiea" that attaches to their "Europeannness." That is an idea which certainly sponsored Hitler, and which you appear to share with him.

And I invited you to explain what you meant, if it was not that. But you keep dodging. So I have to assume that's exactly what you meant, don't I?

These are general Christian suppositions and interpretations that we have all heard, in one form or another, and which we still hear today.

You will always be able to say, and with a certain amount of truth, that no group of people, no culture or civilization has even been 'truly Christian' -- and you are absolutely right!

This is yet another thing I have never said.

I marvel at the desperation. You seem to have a compulsive need to add things I never said, so as to afford yourself a target to criticize. But it's evident that you are simply "straw manning."

Maybe the reason you talk so long is that you are the only person you find yourself able to debunk. You have to be both your own writer and your own critic, or you would lose the point...so you rewite in order to save yourself, it seems, giving yourself an easier "enemy" to defeat.

But you're only defeating your own simulacra. You're not addressing what I actually said.

I believe I have some part of an answer. It is impossible.

...to process Nietzsche is something every man must do. Why? "Because the truth will set you free".

That's not Nietzsche. That's Jesus Christ, in John 8:32.

No, "Christian Universalism" is good example of the doctrines I've identified as verifiably pseudo-Christian, but not Christian at all. But "Christian Universalism" ordinarily refers to this: Christian discourse on Universalism, and I'm pretty sure you're trying to use it for something completely different. So you'd best clear that up.

When I refer to Christian Universalism I am referring to something different than what you take me to mean.[/quote]
Then your use of the term is "stipulative," meaning, "a special definition made up by you, and in need of explication before the average person can understand it." So you'll need to define it.

I am though talking about a reality of how a universalist ideology is in fact what is *imposed* on the world through the Christian notion that *all knees will bow* and that the Gospel be brought to all corners of the globe.

You're too influenced by Catholicism, evidently. You think that "all knees will bow" refers to some human political project. It doesn't: it means at the Great Judgment. See Isaiah, 45:23, and quoted in Romans 14:11 and Philippians 2:10. Check it out: you'll see I'm right.

When I refer to European categories (Occidental paideia) I am referring to 'something that is ours'.

Who is "us"? Clarify that.

What you are involved in,

Continual ad hominems. And every one, an admission of defeat. That you resort to insults shows how bankrupt your views actually are. Since you cannot argue with the propositions, you have to denigrate the proposer. It's a transparent ruse, and I'm not bothering with any of it, because unlike you, I'm not at all out of sound reasons.

Well, you'll need to understand it, first. It's not any form of "universalism," it's supercultural, it's totally apolitical, and it keys on personal salvation, not mass movements. Those are four basics you have to get down, if you want to understand anything about real Christianity and what it advocates.

There is not such thing as the super-cultural. [/quote]
Yeah, there is. It's called "the universal."

"Personal salvation" is a subjective category

Not in Scripture, it's not. In Scripture, it's presented as an objective reality. You have it, or you do not.

[ThinkOfOne]

Actually, there is consensus as to what the words mean, and also as to what they imply in context.

The difficulty is really not in understanding the words. It's in being willing to receive them.

Then you should have no trouble at all with posting EXACTLY what you assert Jesus had in mind with John 14:6 instead of dancing around it. By all means, post YOUR understanding.

Well, let's look, and see what's even POSSIBLE to take from the verse. It reads,

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

In context, Jesus has just been speaking to His followers about His leaving them and going to "My Father's house" (v.2), and Thomas has asked him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going; how do we know the way?”

So I'm going to go out on an interpretive limb here, and say that Jesus is talking about how a person gets to be in His Father's "house," and the "way" to get there. With me, so far?

Now, what possible range of interpretations do we have here? Jesus claims to be THE "way," THE "truth" and THE "life." It has to be the "way" to the Father's "house," and the "truth" has to mean "the truth about the way to God," and "the life" has to mean eternal life. And the claim is a totally exclusive one: namely, that there are no other such "ways," no alternate "truths," and no other "way" to eternal life, "except through Me," He adds.

All the words are small, familiar and easy to understand. The sentence is very clear, and the context is plain.

Is there even a slight difficulty of interpretation there? If there is, I'm having difficulty locating it. But I'm ready to hear what you think is the alternate reading of the passage, with a better use of context to illuminate it.

Can you speak to your understanding of exactly what "through me" entails? Also what is meant by Jesus IS "the way", Jesus IS "the truth", Jesus IS "the life"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Dubious: There is no "his gospel" since the earliest gospel was written by Mark approximately around the time of the Siege of Jerusalem 40 years later. Jesus didn't write any gospel so there can be no 'his gospel'. None of the gospels, containing huge amounts of contradiction both inter and intra, can know what Jesus actually spoke. The motives of each of the gospel writers - besides often being at odds with each other - cannot unconditionally be presumed to be that of Jesus at such a late date. The gospels are propaganda sheets based first and foremost on the motives of its writer to propagate the faith.

ThinkOfOne: What a ridiculous argument. It's as if you have no understanding of the documentation of history whatsoever. There are any number of historical figures for whom either there are no or few extant copies of what they wrote themselves. Only copies of what others said they wrote - often having been written years later. They are still talked about and considered to be their thoughts and words. This is especially true of figures from ancient history. Where's the sense in you mindlessly parroting a ridiculous argument that holds no water?

Having spent a certain amount of time and energy examining the earliest phase of Christianity, it is clear beyond all doubt that the earliest disciples worked hard to create a liturgical system that 'held together'. Meaning, that was believable; that was integral. It was a belief-system that one entered but also a social family that oversaw the 'conversion' process. It was set up within an ideology of being 'separate from' the world and indeed 'opposed to it'.

It is true that something like original Christian belief can be distilled when one examines the earliest liturgy. Liturgy is thus the 'condensation' of what is established to be believed. It is the stuff of those early religious meetings where Christian prayer & song were carried out. And into that circle the neophyte was brought in order to receive the belief-teaching; to recite the Stories; to encounter the Mystery as it was both sought and revealed. The notion of a Spirit that enters into the midst of assembled Christians is of course a core belief -- and an established practice that continues today.

If I understand Dubious correctly I gather that he does not place much stock in these mystical transports and in the surrender of the intellect to enthusiastic ecstasies. We need to present what such mystical transports involve, and then we can better understand a) what original Christians actually did, and 2) what we may, or may not, be opposed to.

So I have two examples.

One, Benny Hinn who is enacting mystical transport carried out in a mass Christian reunion. All the elements of 'original Christianity' are there. The invocational space. The mass event which demands and provokes a break-down of the individual's resistance so that individual can be absorbed into a larger spiritual experience.

The second is one from Negro spiritualism. What does this show? A form of spiritual primitivism is the term I would use. Though I like the song and appreciate the artistry, what I do not like that much is that what she does begins to result in spirit-possession. The women begin to shake & jiggle as the enthusiasm washes over them.

This must be considered when one thinks about modern (American) Evangelical forms. This is what is done in Pentecostal church meetings. And Pentecostalism is literally sweeping the world. It is as powerful, influential and expansive as is Islam.

Now, in respect to Hinn our own Immanuel can has said that this man, and men like him, are those 'wolves in sheep's clothing' Jesus warned about. But as I say: every element of original liturgical Christianity is there and not one is absent. When I was interested in understanding Evangelical Christianity better I attended some sessions in a strip-mall church in Denver and say how they conducted the ceremony. Same model. Same result. People desired to be *possessed*. They desired to 'get out of themselves' and have an otherwordly experience that transformed their life.

So what essential difference is Immanuel Can -- with his English rationalist sensibilities -- proposing? Non-enthusiastic Christian religious conversion?

See what I say is that one can extract out of Christianity an entire set of ethical precepts which do not require 1) any belief in the outrageous mythologies on which it was founded, and 2) reject completely 'enthusiastic transport' and all it entails.

[Harbal]

If i wanted to know what it says in the Bible, you would be the first person I would ask, but if I wanted an honest interpretation of what it meant, you would be the last.

Funny...I didn't give any "interpretation." I just quoted the verse.

I wasn't interested in the latest verse you quoted, I was making a general comment.

I would be delighted for all people to form their own opinions about what Jesus meant,

I'm not too bothered about what Jesus meant, I'm just worried about those who are bothered having their heads filled with thr wrong kind of nonsense.

[ThinkOfOne]

Dubious: There is no "his gospel" since the earliest gospel was written by Mark approximately around the time of the Siege of Jerusalem 40 years later. Jesus didn't write any gospel so there can be no 'his gospel'. None of the gospels, containing huge amounts of contradiction both inter and intra, can know what Jesus actually spoke. The motives of each of the gospel writers - besides often being at odds with each other - cannot unconditionally be presumed to be that of Jesus at such a late date. The gospels are propaganda sheets based first and foremost on the motives of its writer to propagate the faith.

ThinkOfOne: What a ridiculous argument. It's as if you have no understanding of the documentation of history whatsoever. There are any number of historical figures for whom either there are no or few extant copies of what they wrote themselves. Only copies of what others said they wrote - often having been written years later. They are still talked about and considered to be their thoughts and words. This is especially true of figures from ancient history. Where's the sense in you mindlessly parroting a ridiculous argument that holds no water?

Having spent a certain amount of time and energy examining the earliest phase of Christianity, it is clear beyond all doubt that the earliest disciples worked hard to create a liturgical system that 'held together'. Meaning, that was believable; that was integral. It was a belief-system that one entered but also a social family that oversaw the 'conversion' process. It was set up within an ideology of being 'separate from' the world and indeed 'opposed to it'.

It is true that something like original Christian belief can be distilled when one examines the earliest liturgy. Liturgy is thus the 'condensation' of what is established to be believed. It is the stuff of those early religious meetings where Christian prayer & song were carried out. And into that circle the neophyte was brought in order to receive the belief-teaching; to recite the Stories; to encounter the Mystery as it was both sought and revealed. The notion of a Spirit that enters into the midst of assembled Christians is of course a core belief -- and an established practice that continues today.

If I understand Dubious correctly I gather that he does not place much stock in these mystical transports and in the surrender of the intellect to enthusiastic ecstasies. We need to present what such mystical transports involve, and then we can better understand a) what original Christians actually did, and 2) what we may, or may not, be opposed to.

So I have two examples.

One, Benny Hinn who is enacting mystical transport carried out in a mass Christian reunion. All the elements of 'original Christianity' are there. The invocational space. The mass event which demands and provokes a break-down of the individual's resistance so that individual can be absorbed into a larger spiritual experience.

The second is one from Negro spiritualism. What does this show? A form of spiritual primitivism is the term I would use. Though I like the song and appreciate the artistry, what I do not like that much is that what she does begins to result in spirit-possession. The women begin to shake & jiggle as the enthusiasm washes over them.

This must be considered when one thinks about modern (American) Evangelical forms. This is what is done in Pentecostal church meetings. And Pentecostalism is literally sweeping the world. It is as powerful, influential and expansive as is Islam.

Now, in respect to Hinn our own Immanuel can has said that this man, and men like him, are those 'wolves in sheep's clothing' Jesus warned about. But as I say: every element of original liturgical Christianity is there and not one is absent. When I was interested in understanding Evangelical Christianity better I attended some sessions in a strip-mall church in Denver and say how they conducted the ceremony. Same model. Same result. People desired to be *possessed*. They desired to 'get out of themselves' and have an otherwordly experience that transformed their life.

So what essential difference is Immanuel Can -- with his English rationalist sensibilities -- proposing? Non-enthusiastic Christian religious conversion?

See what I say is that one can extract out of Christianity an entire set of ethical precepts which do not require 1) any belief in the outrageous mythologies on which it was founded, and 2) reject completely 'enthusiastic transport' and all it entails.

Sorry, but it's unclear how what you've written applies to what you quoted from me. Can you speak to that?

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

Can you speak to your understanding of what "through me" entails? Also what is meant by Jesus IS "the way", Jesus IS "the truth", Jesus IS "the life"?

Yes. Here is the rest of the context, as Jesus Himself exposits it:

"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”

Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own, but the Father, as He remains in Me, does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in My name, this I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14:7-14)

Here, Jesus clearly makes several claims. One is that He is identified with "the Father." By "through me," it is also apparent, that he is speaking of "the one who believes in Me." So the "way" to "the Father" is by "believing" in the Son, Jesus Christ, who is the exclusive "way" to God.

As for "the truth," that one seems obvious, does it not? He's speaking about the total truth, but particularly about the truth about "the Father" and "the way" to Him. That also helps us to understand "the life," though we can use the greater context to give that more evidence, too: "the life" refers to "the Father's house," a place Christ Himself will "prepare for you," as He says in the prior context, which means eternal life.

So, now, you have a fuller context. And you know what Christians understand by it, and why they understand it that way. Is there really an alternate reading available from the context of that verse? If there is, I'm interested to know what it would be. And I'd sincerely like to hear it explained, because it's not at all obvious to me what other way one would go with that reading.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's a ton of words to simply say, "No, I'm determined to keep misrepresenting you, and I'm never going to apologize." But, message received, anyway.

No sir. You certainly believe a dozen impossible things before breakfast! You have spent months defending those impossible things. So certainly I will not retract any statement I make here. What makes you uncomfortable is when these are presented back to you in honest form. When faced with them, you squirm.

The foundations of Christian Fundamentalism involve believing 'impossible things'. It is therefore an accurate portrayal.

No, what I said was that your idea, the idea of "Occidental paidiea" is a racist one, since it appends the term "occidental," which is the opposite of things like "oriental" or "African," as if the "occidentals" have some exclusive "paidiea" that attaches to their "Europeannness." That is an idea which certainly sponsored Hitler, and which you appear to share with him.

That is like saying that the idea of (and I use this example from time to time) that a Japanese cultural paideia is 'racist' because it pertains to their traditions; their history; their metaphysical views; their interpretation of what has meaning & value. You are free to make such a claim and to see in that way. I reject that sort of view. I grant to those people the right to define their world according to their terms.

What is Occidental is, in fact, distinct and different from what is Oriental and African. This is not a controversial statement. The real issue is being able and even interested in defining European paideia. It can be done however.

And I invited you to explain what you meant, if it was not that. But you keep dodging. So I have to assume that's exactly what you meant, don't I?

No, I do not see myself as dodging.

Explain what? What is Occidental paideia? See Werner Jaeger's Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture.

[Belinda]

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

Can you speak to your understanding of what "through me" entails? Also what is meant by Jesus IS "the way", Jesus IS "the truth", Jesus IS "the life"?

Yes. Here is the rest of the context, as Jesus Himself exposits it:

"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”

Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own, but the Father, as He remains in Me, does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in My name, this I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14:7-14)

Here, Jesus clearly makes several claims. One is that He is identified with "the Father." By "through me," it is also apparent, that he is speaking of "the one who believes in Me." So the "way" to "the Father" is by "believing" in the Son, Jesus Christ, who is the exclusive "way" to God.

As for "the truth," that one seems obvious, does it not? He's speaking about the total truth, but particularly about the truth about "the Father" and "the way" to Him. That also helps us to understand "the life," though we can use the greater context to give that more evidence, too: "the life" refers to "the Father's house," a place Christ Himself will "prepare for you," as He says in the prior context, which means eternal life.

So, now, you have a fuller context. And you know what Christians understand by it, and why they understand it that way. Is there really an alternate reading available from the context of that verse? If there is, I'm interested to know what it would be. And I'd sincerely like to hear it explained, because it's not at all obvious to me what other way one would go with that reading.

The writer is speaking of Jesus , not as a historical individual , but in the characterisation of a spiritual Christ. Immanuel continually fails to diiferentiate between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith.

[Immanuel Can]

That's a ton of words to simply say, "No, I'm determined to keep misrepresenting you, and I'm never going to apologize." But, message received, anyway.

No sir..certainly I will not retract any statement I make here.

I know. You're determined to misrepresent. Anybody can see it.

No, what I said was that your idea, the idea of "Occidental paidiea" is a racist one, since it appends the term "occidental," which is the opposite of things like "oriental" or "African," as if the "occidentals" have some exclusive "paidiea" that attaches to their "Europeannness." That is an idea which certainly sponsored Hitler, and which you appear to share with him.

What is Occidental is, in fact, distinct and different from what is Oriental and African. This is not a controversial statement.

Actually, it is. The whole term "Oriental" has become contentious and offensive. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... e-chinese/.

The real issue is being able and even interested in defining European paideia. It can be done however.

Great. Tell us exactly what (you think) it is.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you speak to your understanding of what "through me" entails? Also what is meant by Jesus IS "the way", Jesus IS "the truth", Jesus IS "the life"?

Yes. Here is the rest of the context, as Jesus Himself exposits it:

"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”

Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own, but the Father, as He remains in Me, does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in My name, this I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14:7-14)

Here, Jesus clearly makes several claims. One is that He is identified with "the Father." By "through me," it is also apparent, that he is speaking of "the one who believes in Me." So the "way" to "the Father" is by "believing" in the Son, Jesus Christ, who is the exclusive "way" to God.

As for "the truth," that one seems obvious, does it not? He's speaking about the total truth, but particularly about the truth about "the Father" and "the way" to Him. That also helps us to understand "the life," though we can use the greater context to give that more evidence, too: "the life" refers to "the Father's house," a place Christ Himself will "prepare for you," as He says in the prior context, which means eternal life.

So, now, you have a fuller context. And you know what Christians understand by it, and why they understand it that way. Is there really an alternate reading available from the context of that verse? If there is, I'm interested to know what it would be. And I'd sincerely like to hear it explained, because it's not at all obvious to me what other way one would go with that reading.

The writer is speaking of Jesus... [emphasis IC's]

No, it's a quotation FROM Jesus Himself. It's not "the writer speaking" of anything. You can doubt the writer's veracity if you want, but you can't allege he's speaking OF Jesus, as if externally. The context won't allow that reading.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, now, you have a fuller context. And you know what Christians understand by it, and why they understand it that way. Is there really an alternate reading available from the context of that verse? If there is, I'm interested to know what it would be. And I'd sincerely like to hear it explained, because it's not at all obvious to me what other way one would go with that reading.

You are absolutely right: there is no 'alternative reading' possible. But when examined with a critical eye, and a critical intellectual perspective, it can be seen, and in my view should be seen, as expressing essential Hebrew Idea Imperialism. The imposition of one sole concept or view which is presented in a totalizing system.

Certainly Christians take it in that way! And the idea is really far more extensive when its application is understood. It morphs from a mere personal suggestion into something that operates universally.

And this is how you operate it. But you have so little self-consciousness that you cannot understand your own religious chauvinism.

The other possible reading is to see it as a limited cultural exchange pertinent to a moment in time. If one takes that view then one can approach all other metaphysical and spiritual declarations (made by Hindus, by Taoists, by anyone) with a more open perspective.