Christianity

[Dubious]

Whereas I agree with most of what you wrote, picking Jordan Peterson as clear-headed, responsible, self-aware as an example is more than I can accept. If there aren't considerably better choices among the so-called intellectual elite living or recently deceased, the merits of whatever future we're heading into will be even more debatable. Analysis of what anyone says is always advisable.

But note that you have bolstered your rather unfavorable view of Peterson with an article in The Guardian. Do you think that The Guardian makes a case? I read the article (I believe I had read it awhile back) and I do not find it a very substantial critique. Given The Guardian's audience and orientation would you expect a different tack?

No, it's not just The Guardian; it's the link you provided and others I watched in consequence since there is so much of his on YT. There is also more recent stuff like the following...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... on/618082/

That's not to say there aren't some things where he makes a point, though seldom original; for example his take on political correctness, which term I've long regarded as an oxymoron...or, as I see it, been the ox end and the moron end lies the bandwidth of the politically correct.

Notwithstanding, there are fundamentals I completely disagree with, which to me denotes him as not anywhere near living up to his hyped-up reputation. Being regarded as a great intellectual or guru, especially these days, it doesn't always follow that suchlike distinctions must be upheld by an equal amount of intellect or insight.

It's not unlike the old westerns. Does the hero always win because he's so intelligent and brave, or because his adversaries are so cowardly and stupid! Can't this also be valid to a degree for the modern intellectual celebrity, especially in the internet age? I think Jordan Peterson may already have given that idea some thought.

[Immanuel Can]

What kind of "evangelicals" do you know?

Your position seems to me to be essentially that of Evangelism -- so you!

Apparently not.

I don't share that view at all.

By positing this question you are doing, again, what you often do: skirting the substance of my critique.

I wasn't aware you had a "critique" of me here...if you did, I didn't recognize myself in anything you suggested.

But if you want to be more explicit, I'll respond.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But if you want to be more explicit, I'll respond.

The problem as I see it with your thesis is that you do not seem to be willing to see that God does not ‘speak’ except through men. God occurs in man, God occurs to man, strictly and only on an inner plane. I will say that this statement is absolute, and absolutely true.

So your error — a form of enthusiastic grandiosity typical of Evangelicals? — is to refer to this God as an abstraction. It is similar to the Islamic God Is Great! chant.

It is a seductive, simplistic idea. It leads to an error.

And so too is the manner in which you employ the notion of ‘becoming like a little child’. It cannot be as what many people seem to believe that it is: to give oneself over to childish idiocy where the higher intellect and intelligence does not supervise that child-mind.

In prayer and mediation, yes, obviously, it is easy to see that becoming child-like means surrendering an overblown will. But if anything is needed now it is clear-headed, responsible, self-aware men (and women) more similar to Jordan Peterson.

[Immanuel Can]

But if you want to be more explicit, I'll respond.

The problem as I see it with your thesis is that you do not seem to be willing to see that God does not ‘speak’ except through men.

You'll have to point out to me when I said that.

Then you'll have to explain what other way you believe God "speaks."

We might agree...we'll see.

God occurs in man, God occurs to man, strictly and only on an inner plane. I will say that this statement is absolute, and absolutely true.

Nope, then, we don't agree.

God's existence is a fact, and a fact regardless of man's inner dispositons or "planes." That one does not believe in Him changes that in no way at all. Just as gravity is a fact, whether I know about it or not, and Mars remains a planet, whether I know it's there or not, God is a reality. He's no "abstraction."

So no, absolutely false, I would say.

But at the same time, I'm puzzled by the fact that you accuse me of saying that "God does not 'speak' except through men," and then say that "God occurs only in man." Those would seem, at least at first, to be the same claims.

Projection?

So your error — a form of enthusiastic grandiosity typical of Evangelicals? — is to refer to this God as an abstraction.

We do not say anything of the kind. I have no idea what you mean by "abstraction": because if you're using that word in the conventional sense, then it is obviously false as an attribution of what evangelicals believe.

You've got your story wrong, somehow.

[Alexis Jacobi]

IC wrote: "If the entry point to such knowledge is too high -- say, demanding advanced scholarship, complex mental gymnastics, technical information, vast historical data, and so on -- then all those who lack such knowledge, including children, the handicapped, those of lower intelligence, and so on, would simply have no way they could ever know God. Entering into a relationship with God would then be a matter only possible to the elites, to the highly intelligent, the advanced, the fully mature, and so on. It would be an aristocratic luxury, and we would have to suppose God cared nothing for the simple, the mentally-challenged, or children, at the very least -- and perhaps as well, that He loved the intellectual and despised the lowly."

AJ responded: "The ‘elites’, then, the really qualified, the genuinely and foundationally convinced, even certain, have abandoned the field to the Masses of men and women who cannot — who care not — to think things through."

IC then wrote: "Right. They have. In their arrogance, they have assumed that their marginally greater intelligence than the ordinary man (the median is about IQ 98 in America, right now) makes them inherently better, more noble, more moral, or more worthy of leading then their less intelligent brethren."

But compared to the Ultimate Intelligence, they are farther from "elite" than a human being is from a handful of dirt...they are simply too arrogant to imagine that.

I find I am in categorical disagreement with you in regard to this: "...all those who lack such knowledge, including children, the handicapped, those of lower intelligence, and so on, would simply have no way they could ever know God".

It is not that I do not understand what you wish to communicate, it is very clear, but that I am fundamentally in disagreement with what you are asserting. So my view goes like this:

In order to even think about God one has to have received an entire range of ideas that make the notion of God intelligible. If one has no base of ideation, or a limited base, one cannot really engage with the question. Some pages back I referred to Ortega y Gassett who asserted that 'theology' and not 'mystical transport' should be the area to focus in. A person -- a child let's say, or a mental deficient, or someone who is markedly unintelligent -- will be inhibited in gaining a sound theological base. And if that person, or that sort of person, attempts to engage with these larger questions, I propose that their ability to grasp the core issues will be as inhibited as they are.

You make a whole set of assertions about those who have knowledge and you tend to denigrate knowledge when you refer to "advanced scholarship, complex mental gymnastics, technical information, vast historical data, and so on". I believe this is suspect. It leads to 'anti-intellectualism' if the word 'intellectus' and its meaning is introduced. I do introduce it and I have introduced it, numerous times.

You go on to say: "then all those who lack such knowledge, including children, the handicapped, those of lower intelligence, and so on, would simply have no way they could ever know God" and this is a very incorrect statement, in my view. It is 'fundamentally flawed' as an assertion. But it is not that I do not (at least I think so) understand what you are getting at. I think that your view is -- and must be -- that God will notice that there is a child or a mental incompetent out there (or down there) who indicates the desire for 'relationship' and therefore God will beam down Christian grace onto that person. I do not think I would deny that when a person begins to pray and meditate that there is not something spiritual and mystical that happens. But I do say and I will continue to believe, because it seems thoroughly sensible, that no Christian believer should ever adopt the attitude that you seem to adopt in regard to hierarchies of knowledge.

So when you refer to a relationship with God in this way: "But compared to the Ultimate Intelligence, they are farther from "elite" than a human being is from a handful of dirt...they are simply too arrogant to imagine that" you are engaging in what I see as destructive anti-intellectualism (again if intellectus is taken as the core of intelligence).

When you use the term Ultimate Intelligence -- as I plainly said! -- you are referring to an abstraction. However, you doubled-down on your rhetorical use of the term ultimate intelligence by saying that this Ultimate Intelligence (its existence, it being) is exactly the same as the existence, and effect, of gravity.

I know how your mind works when you are dealing with these categories. I have observed you in operation for months now. It has been imperative for me to *grasp* you better because you explain the position of so many typical Protestant Christians. You provide an insight into strengths as well as weaknesses.

So I do understand that when you announce your Evangelical equivalent of Allahu akba! (God is Great!) you wish to refer to the abstraction you *believe in* as an absolutely real thing that anyone can, say, resort to. But what I wish to point out is that when an Evangelical Christian does this he or she does so within a religious and social context. That context could be one of limitation or, let's say, one of expansion. And for there to be 'expansion' in the sense that I am using the term there must be 'knowledge' as well as wide-ranging historical comprehension, a background and adeptness with ideas and philosophy, and really (and obviously) a whole range of knowledge that can be categorized as hierarchical.

Now you go on to say:

"Entering into a relationship with God would then be a matter only possible to the elites, to the highly intelligent, the advanced, the fully mature, and so on. It would be an aristocratic luxury, and we would have to suppose God cared nothing for the simple, the mentally-challenged, or children, at the very least -- and perhaps as well, that He loved the intellectual and despised the lowly."

And this of course is built on your early assertions. But I suggest that here, with this statement, you indicate the *error* I referred to. There are 4 or 5 different strains of error.

In no sense must the recognition of hierarchies of knowledge and understanding in relation to a) an inner relationship to God nor b) a profound comprehension of theological categories make 'knowledge of God' impossible for someone, like a little child or a mental deficient; and that such hierarchies exist does not mean that the work and effort which created a hierarchy is therefore an 'aristocratic luxury'.

Obviously, you are drawing a parallel to the Judaic Elites -- the educated, priestly class -- that opposed Jesus Christ, but I suggest this is a flawed parallel. Those who opposed Jesus -- according to the structure of the story in the Gospels -- did so because they were Satan's agents. I mean, that is the core truth is it not?

But it does not follow that those who have long experience and advanced knowledge and understanding, either through deep inner comprehension and relationship or deep theological grasp (or both) -- are similarly aligned with Satan.

What you seem to do is to vilify knowledge! And that we encounter this issue (that I encounter this error in you) goes back to our early exchanges. And of course there is more to be said about this.

Now, why do you do this? Why do you propose what you propose? That, obviously, is the philosophical question. If we are not here to subject ourselves to examination, what the heck are we were for? But here I will note that you are here to preach. This for you is an apologetic endeavor. But what I say is that the terms of your apologetic endeavor are incomplete. And I also say that you alienate people more than you reach them. Now why is that?

So as a sort of summation I would say that, yes, a child or a mental deficient can indeed 'develop a relationship with God'. However, I would also say 'within a context of intellectual training'. And then that the emphasis must be placed on that intellectual training. And that implies, and it certainly involves, recurring to authority. The definitions of value about a given authority lead to appreciation of hierarchies. And so I would say that 'the child' and the mental deficient that you refer to must necessarily subordinate themselves to 'proper authority' as part of their 'spiritual turning' and their 'spiritual life'.

Frankly? There are obviously far too many barking and bellowing Christian idiot-children running around out there. I do not say this with any sort of excessive rancor but just the right sort of rancor as is needed. We have to begin to make these statements. Put another way: If a given Christian actually believes that *all I need is my faith-relationship* (or faith-declaration about relationship) I think this is a dubious assertion.

God's existence is a fact, and a fact regardless of man's inner dispositons or "planes." That one does not believe in Him changes that in no way at all. Just as gravity is a fact, whether I know about it or not, and Mars remains a planet, whether I know it's there or not, God is a reality. He's no "abstraction."

The definition of God, and the theological categories about God, are all human categories of concern. That is, they are developed by and, perhaps I can say, managed by men. So the issue, for me, is not to assert that God does not exist, because I believe that existence and being can only have come from a (shall we say) supreme divinity. But though I believe that this is so I am nevertheless aware that all the categories about God are exclusively revealed to men and take shape in men. Thus 'planes' (which I take to mean perspectives, orientations, sets of assertions and viewpoints) do indeed enter in.

And to say "God exists just as gravity exists" is a complex, even a knotty assertion! It has to be untied. If existence exists, God exists, but the definitions about God only occur in man's ideational realm. Where else could they occur?

So it is in this sense that I refer to your use of this rhetorical way of speaking as 'referring to an abstraction'. There is all sorts of *trickiness* to your use of these bold assertions that needs to be seen, exposed and considered.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, it's not just The Guardian; it's the link you provided and others I watched in consequence since there is so much of his on YT. There is also more recent stuff like the following...

You posted this article on Jordan Peterson by Helen Lewis.

I wonder if you are aware that some years back the same Helen Lewis video-interviewed Peterson for GQ and -- this is my opinion -- met a worthy opponent who, again my view, powerfully challenged some of Helen Lewis' 'core predicates'?

I watched the whole thing again last night and found it compelling. Have you seen it?

Here is a video of Cathy Newman's now famous interview with Peterson (the famous 'gotcha!')

I did also read The Atlantic article (written more recently). What can be said about it? I guess what one sees, in our polarized contemporary conditions, will determine what one says, right? What real points is she making? In my view not many. Or to put it a bit more trenchantly I think the purpose of her piece is to tear him to shreds.

Is that a fair approach? That would lead, as you suggested previously, to a discussion of Peterson's 'human flaws'. He seems to operate from some flaws -- but I would not say that the larger part of his ideas are flawed. But he is a 'wounded' and flawed man. Yet it is also true that his 'woundedness' is part of his strength or in any case of his appeal. Thus he plays the role of 'the wounded healer' a la Cambbell. And he must be aware of this.

But this is another conversation. And so too is the fact that he turned his entire *show* as it were into a business (as have so many YouTube stars).

But it cannot be denied that Peterson has brought out some vital questions including of course essential existential questions. Is the response he gets 'false'? But that begs the question What would be authentic?

These articles are sort of 'blood-sport' are they not? She writes well, she also writes incisively in a polemical sense (which is to say viciously!). But once one gets *what she is up to* it makes her effort seem merely vicious -- and vengeful.

But what I would ask of you is -- if you wish to devote the time -- to watch the interview and then provide me with an analysis of what was actually discussed. That is, does Peterson make sound points and does he do this through fair and upright argumentation, or does he not? Peterson takes direct aim at a set of *core predicates* upon which Helen Lewis constructs her platform of activism. Peterson takes aim at these and, I think successfully challenges those predicates.

But what then happens -- this comes through in The Atlantic article as a predominant feature -- is she turns what looks like a good deal of rage and anger against him. Is it not merely or largely ad hominem? As I say it looks pretty vicious but it is a style of viciousness that is typical and common today. It is not at all intellectually fair though.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But at the same time, I'm puzzled by the fact that you accuse me of saying that "God does not 'speak' except through men," and then say that "God occurs only in man." Those would seem, at least at first, to be the same claims.

Please allow me to say that I am often surprised by some of your *blind spots*. OK, so I will go through this in a manner that even a child could understand!

I did not say that you say "God does not 'speak' except through men" because that is what I am saying. God speaks through man.

Let me make some statements in the vein of numerous of your interlocutors. They might say:

If God exists, as you say that God exists (as gravity and Mars exist) then why does not God advertise His will by appearing simultaneously to all living beings and saying "To eliminate all doubts I am appearing before you, so you will know I am real".

God is said to have appeared to some men at certain times. And those men have recorded the experience.

Other men have received what can be described as visions of God, or revelations, such as Jeremiah, Hosea, Isaias, etc. I am not sure if these qualify as the sort of visitation that Moses had. So I call it vision.

Some have received visitation of angels, or had messages given to them in dreams (usually by angels).

Then, these men communicate their experience to other men. It comes to other men second-hand as it were. Through one-to-one conversation; through the written document; and through establishing temples and worship-places. Eventually, it spreads and filters out into a general understanding that society shares.

In these enumerated ways I say that God does not 'speak' except through men. Clear?

The only other way for God to appear would be something like if God decided to send a psychic message, like a vision or an angelical apparition, to all men simultaneously and in a way where all doubt and difficulty of belief would be cured. I could speculate about how God could appear but it would tend to ridicule the idea. (For example if He 'interrupted our present programming to bring you an important message from the Creator of all things').

"God does not 'speak' except through men"

"God occurs only in man"

You might say, as retort, that when God dropped Manna down onto the wandering Hebrews that this event was a mass-communication of God and God's existence. You could also refer to the story of the spreading of the waters of the Red Sea.

But these are still, for all those who hear them, stories that are transmitted by and through men.

See my own view is not one intended to be *anti-Christian* but is rather one that intends to deal responsibly with the real facts of the matter about belief.

I veer away from *story* because stories are essentially unreliable. But I turn back to logos and to the idea-realm as a trustworthy place for solid theological notions.

[Immanuel Can]

I find I am in categorical disagreement with you in regard to this: "...all those who lack such knowledge, including children, the handicapped, those of lower intelligence, and so on, would simply have no way they could ever know God".

It is not that I do not understand what you wish to communicate, it is very clear, but that I am fundamentally in disagreement with what you are asserting.

I understand why. I've run into it before.

You're a reasonably intelligent individual. Reasonably intelligent individuals tend to assume that gives them -- or ought to give them -- some kind of an advantage. It ought to be prized, to be special, to count for something. And they find it very hard to get their heads around the fact that their intellect is in no way impressive to God. He is much smarter than you and I can hope to be.

Maybe that rankles to believe...but it's the truth.

That he should love the lowly, the foolish, the naive, the child, and love them as much as the wit, the intellect, the wise man, is an offence to them. No wonder Christ said that one who regards himself as "rich" would find it harder to get into the Kingdom of God than a camel would find it to go through the eye of a needle.

In both cases, a great humbling and reducing of self is called for. That's not a thing that is palatable to the intellectually talented, or those whose prosperity in this life is a source of confidence to them.

Christ does not view things this way, however. For Him, the wise are but foolish, and even the foolish can become wise.

So my view goes like this:

A person -- a child let's say, or a mental deficient, or someone who is markedly unintelligent -- will be inhibited in gaining a sound theological base. And if that person, or that sort of person, attempts to engage with these larger questions, I propose that their ability to grasp the core issues will be as inhibited as they are.

That's not a problem.

The doorway into salvation is very simple: but the details of living out and understanding the full meaning of spiritual life are many and complex. What one needs to understand in order to come into relationship with God is, initially, very simple; at the same time, you will find that being a Christian, of progressing in the understanding of what one has come into by being saved, is infinitely complex, and complex enough to challenge the greatest intellects in history for over 2,000 years now.

You make a whole set of assertions about those who have knowledge and you tend to denigrate knowledge

Not at all. I myself have some modest achievements in that realm. But what I know is that one's intellectual pride does not lead to a relationship with God. There are many things a smart person can know, and many extremely valuable...but He cannot come in his arrogance to God. That does not work.

I do say and I will continue to believe, because it seems thoroughly sensible, that no Christian believer should ever adopt the attitude that you seem to adopt in regard to hierarchies of knowledge.

You're wrong. I have nothing bad to say about "hierarchies of knowledge." But they do not lead to God. Rather, the approach to God is one of faith, of truth, of simplicity, and of giving up of one's imperious claims to special status based on one's natural intellect.

That is not at all anti-intellectual. It's merely anti-arrogance. As I said, we're all "children" when we do what we should do, and compare our intellect to God's, not to each other's.

When you use the term Ultimate Intelligence -- as I plainly said! -- you are referring to an abstraction.

Nope. I just mean God.

I know how your mind works when you are dealing with these categories.

Apparently not.

Now you go on to say:

"Entering into a relationship with God would then be a matter only possible to the elites, to the highly intelligent, the advanced, the fully mature, and so on. It would be an aristocratic luxury, and we would have to suppose God cared nothing for the simple, the mentally-challenged, or children, at the very least -- and perhaps as well, that He loved the intellectual and despised the lowly."

And this of course is built on your early assertions. But I suggest that here, with this statement, you indicate the *error* I referred to.

No. I was just quoting Scripture.

Your argument on that point is with God, not me. All I did was tell you what He says. I didn't say you had to like it. He does.

Obviously, you are drawing a parallel to the Judaic Elites

I hadn't thought of that specifically, but I grant you the analogy.

-- the educated, priestly class -- that opposed Jesus Christ, but I suggest this is a flawed parallel. Those who opposed Jesus -- according to the structure of the story in the Gospels -- did so because they were Satan's agents. I mean, that is the core truth is it not?

Actually, that's not quite how the Scriptures explain it. In Matthew 23, Jesus Himself indicts them for their pride, their false intellectualism, their hypocrisy, their exploitation of others, their pretensions to a righteousness they just don't have, their legalism, and so on. It's only at the end he indicts them as "snakes" and "vipers," but he never actually mentions Satan there at all. They have plenty of wickedness of their own, all bundled up in the appearance of intellection, special wisdom and personal righteousness.

But it does not follow that those who have long experience and advanced knowledge and understanding, either through deep inner comprehension and relationship or deep theological grasp (or both) -- are similarly aligned with Satan.

No one ever said it did. I certainly didn't.

Paul, Luke, Apollos...all were intellectual men, and theological giants. Jesus Christ Himself had extraordinary intellectual powers, of course. They weren't alligned with Satan. But then, they were the ones who also spoke of simple, child-like faith in God as the doorway to greater wisdom.

Here's Paul, the charter student of the great Jewish intellectual Gamaliel, on that subject:

For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the understanding of those who have understanding, I will confound.”

Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (1 Cor. 1:19-21)

I will note that you are here to preach.

It's funny: if I told you things I didn't believe, I'd be a liar. If I tell you what I do believe, I'm "preaching."

And irony of ironies, this is a thread devoted to the topic "Christianity"?

Which do you prefer I do? Do you want the truth? Or do you want me to be politic, and speak to please?

I would say that, yes, a child or a mental deficient can indeed 'develop a relationship with God'.

Good.

How?

If one needs special knowledge in order to be saved, how can such ever know God?

I would say that 'the child' and the mental deficient that you refer to must necessarily subordinate themselves to 'proper authority' as part of their 'spiritual turning' and their 'spiritual life'.

Ah, here's the answer: you think that God will relate to the intellectual directly, but despises the child and the mentally limited person, and will only relate to them by proxy? How amazing that God disagrees with you...

Frankly? There are obviously far too many barking and bellowing Christian idiot-children running around out there.

There are lots of "idiot children" around. One need not look in any religious circles to find them. One can be an "idiot" many ways. (No reference to present company implied, of course.)

If a given Christian actually believes that *all I need is my faith-relationship* (or faith-declaration about relationship) I think this is a dubious assertion.

Then you doubt the word of Christ: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) That's a faith as simple as a child can manage. And that's the doorway to all that is beyond.

The definition of God, and the theological categories about God, are all human categories of concern.

"The definition of"? All "definitions" are human. So the same is true of gravity and Mars: the "definition of" gravity is entirely human. But that begs the important question entirely. And that question is whether there is a "gravity" or a God there to be "defined."

...I believe that existence and being can only have come from a (shall we say) supreme divinity.

We agree on that, then.

...the definitions about God only occur in man's ideational realm. Where else could they occur?

As I say: all "definitions" are human. But not all realities are.

"Definitions" either refer to things that exist (like gravity), or those that do not (like leprechauns). Again, you're not addressing the question of whether those "definitions" refer to anything real. You're making the old mistake of mixing up epistemology (how human beings know things) with ontology (i.e. with that which actually exists).

[Alexis Jacobi]

You're a reasonably intelligent individual. Reasonably intelligent individuals tend to assume that gives them -- or ought to give them -- some kind of an advantage. It ought to be prized, to be special, to count for something. And they find it very hard to get their heads around the fact that their intellect is in no way impressive to God. He is much smarter than you and I can hope to be.

Maybe that rankles to believe...but it's the truth.

That he should love the lowly, the foolish, the naive, the child, and love them as much as the wit, the intellect, the wise man, is an offence to them. No wonder Christ said that one who regards himself as "rich" would find it harder to get into the Kingdom of God than a camel would find it to go through the eye of a needle.

In both cases, a great humbling and reducing of self is called for. That's not a thing that is palatable to the intellectually talented, or those whose prosperity in this life is a source of confidence to them.

Christ does not view things this way, however. For Him, the wise are but foolish, and even the foolish can become wise.

Yes, of course, I hope that you realize that all of this I have been exposed to, thought about, and thought through. So the way I think this issue through is to consider what I think is a contrast between a Jewish-Judaic concept, which attracts or inspires that sort of person, and what I call the Indo-European person. I relate this consciously to what I have said before about two different types of person and two different types of culture. I do not know how else to express it except to state it as I have. I will try to fill out some part of what I mean in the following:

Intelligence, skill, adeptness, art, clear reasoning, powerful, structured thought, and the sorts of people who achieve these things, in most cases achieve them through hard, concentrated work. I do not, I cannot, and effectively I will not devalue any part of this attainment by believing or having it be suggested (as a tool of argument or as a principle) that people with these skills and qualities should be, or are, diminished in the eyes of God.

But this is, and adamantly so, your position.

Now I do grant that people with power in any domain, by virtue of that power, can and often do get up to mischief. The more power one has, the greater the extent, generally speaking, to do both harm as well as good.

So the issue is not the intelligence, nor the knowledge, nor even the power in se, but rather the moral and ethical temperament of the individual being considered.

I also reject, thoroughly, your ungrounded and ill-founded assertion that 'intelligence' is not impressive to God (though this is a weird way to put it). Impressive is your word. I switch it for 'valued' and 'needed'. And here again I draw a contrast between what I suppose is a Judaic ethic, or a conundrum or a paradox, that I must necessarily oppose with what I am referring to as an Indo-European one.

In Greek myth and story, as an illustration, the god's influence, or perhaps presence, is recognized, valued and appreciated when these traits manifest in men and women. So there is Athena whose clear-headed intelligence shines through in similar mortal women and men. As for example Odysseus. These examples can be multiplied.

What is the relationship between God and awareness / consciousness? What is the relationship between God and unawareness / unconsciousness? Thinking these things through I would be forced to say that consciousness and awareness are divine. Meaning that consciousness and awareness are qualities associated with divinity. (But I do not deny, let's say, *diabolical intelligence* -- intelligence turned toward evil).

If you try to establish that the elevation of the non-intelligent or the non-capable and the non-gifted over those who embody consciousness, skill, awareness and also a range of moral and ethical virtues is 'good', and concomitantly propose that these should be seen by me (and by others) as examples of virtue, you are I think asserting something false. It is a very tricky sort of assertion and it is sophistic at its core.

Yet I will say that the gifts that, let's say, are *given* to people (skill, bravery, fortitude, intelligence, creativity, dedication and so many others) must be put to proper and good use. That must be established and it is a given in my argument. And I also feel that Christian ethics, such as the ethics that I have studied, are very good ones and very worthy ones, I assert that those who have these skills I mention, in combination with a good & proper moral and ethical platform, should be and must be valued more highly than those who do not have those skills, or did not or could not dedicate themselves to gaining them.

And it is on that basis that 'proper hierarchy' should be and must be established.

No part of this, necessarily, diminishes the intrinsic value of an undeveloped person (a child), or a disadvantaged person, or some sort of idiot or mental retard. But I cannot see any good reason, necessarily, why an undeveloped person (a child), the disadvantaged person or the mental retard must be put on the same or a higher plane simply for that reason. And in my view there is no clear line between underdevelopment or defectiveness and virtue. As if the underdeveloped and disadvantaged is in a superior moral position.

Life has shown me too often that handling power and social responsibility is never easy. And I have often seen that those who do not have it, and are not used to handling it, when they do (suddenly) get it, show themselves just as inclined to abuse power as anyone else and, frankly, more so.

So again this all turns back to the nobility of the individual.

Here in the culture where I now live, though the paradigm will function everywhere, the larger percentage of the population is disadvantaged, speaking generally. And I have certainly noticed that advantaged individuals, and groups and families, when they gain some education (for example in law) suddenly realize that they have a power over others they did not previously have. So it opens up a ways and a means to manipulate, abuse and to cheat people who do not have enough knowledge, or power, to defend themselves.

In this sense what you are getting at, or getting at in some way, is very intelligible to me and to anyone who has two eyes in their head.

But none of this really pertains to what I originally said. My assertion is that what we need today are clear-headed, intelligent, capable and competent persons who have the skill and the clarity to see into the issues of the day and to help others to similar see into them so that they can make the best decisions. The example I used was Jordan Peterson. The argument is sound.

The entirety of your *argument* in the paragraph quoted is flawed through and through. And in my view you reveal yourself to be wedded to categories of sophistry which you bolster with Biblical mis-interpretations.

[Immanuel Can]

So the way I think this issue through is to consider what I think is a contrast between a Jewish-Judaic concept, which attracts or inspires that sort of person, and what I call the Indo-European person. I relate this consciously to what I have said before about two different types of person and two different types of culture. I do not know how else to express it except to state it as I have. I will try to fill out some part of what I mean in the following: Intelligence, skill, adeptness, art, clear reasoning, powerful, structured thought, and the sorts of people who achieve these things, in most cases achieve them through hard, concentrated work.

So far, I see nothing remarkable.

I do not, I cannot, and effectively I will not devalue any part of this attainment by believing or having it be suggested (as a tool of argument or as a principle) that people with these skills and qualities should be, or are, diminished in the eyes of God.

They aren't. They aren't privileged either, though, so far as the question of salvation is concerned. They certainly have advantages in other ways; and with them, they bear greater responsibility.

After all, whom do you think God will judge by a higher standard: the limited person who did everything she could with what she had, or the arrogant intellectual who did not realize his potential?

But this is, and adamantly so, your position.

Adamantly not. It's not my view at all.

Now I do grant that people with power in any domain, by virtue of that power, can and often do get up to mischief. The more power one has, the greater the extent, generally speaking, to do both harm as well as good.

Right. And with those things, greater judgment falls on those who had more assets. They ought to be more generous, more kind, more merciful andso on than people who lack their natural gifts.

So the issue is not the intelligence, nor the knowledge, nor even the power in se, but rather the moral and ethical temperament of the individual being considered.

Agreed.

I also reject, thoroughly, your ungrounded and ill-founded assertion that 'intelligence' is not impressive to God

You have the right to be wrong.

In Greek myth and story, as an illustration, the god's influence, or perhaps presence, is recognized, valued and appreciated when these traits manifest in men and women. So there is Athena whose clear-headed intelligence shines through in similar mortal women and men. As for example Odysseus. These examples can be multiplied.

What do the dispositions of fake gods have to do with anything?

What is the relationship between God and awareness / consciousness? What is the relationship between God and unawareness / unconsciousness? Thinking these things through I would be forced to say that consciousness and awareness are divine.

Like all our abilities, they ultimately come from God. That does not make them "divine" in themselves. They're human capacities.

Yet I will say that the gifts that, let's say, are *given* to people (skill, bravery, fortitude, intelligence, creativity, dedication and so many others) must be put to proper and good use.

That's my point. But we are only responsible for what God has given us -- not for what He has not.

No part of this, necessarily, diminishes the intrinsic value of an undeveloped person (a child), or a disadvantaged person, or some sort of idiot or mental retard. But I cannot see any good reason, necessarily, why an undeveloped person (a child), the disadvantaged person or the mental retard must be put on the same or a higher plane

Who said "higher"?

I said the opposite. I said that the arrogant, the intellectual, the rich, the proud and the gifted need to realize they have nothing that has not been given to them, and to make use of their blessings with gratitude.

Life has shown me too often that handling power and social responsibility is never easy. And I have often seen that those who do not have it, and are not used to handling it, when they do (suddenly) get it, show themselves just as inclined to abuse power as anyone else and, frankly, more so.

This is a good point, and one with which I agree. But it seems that intelligence is no guarantee of morality. There have been many clever, wicked people.

So again this all turns back to the nobility of the individual.

Here in the culture where I now live, though the paradigm will function everywhere, the larger percentage of the population is disadvantaged, speaking generally. And I have certainly noticed that advantaged individuals, and groups and families, when they gain some education (for example in law) suddenly realize that they have a power over others they did not previously have. So it opens up a ways and a means to manipulate, abuse and to cheat people who do not have enough knowledge, or power, to defend themselves.

That can happen, because it's human nature. It has nothing to do with rich or poor, smart or stupid, really; it's a universal human fallibility.

But I have met some of these same people, living in diminished circumstances, perhaps with no education, in some slum or barrio. And I have seen such be some of the hardest-working, most honest, and yes, most generous people you can imagine. Some of them would put us both to shame, no doubt.

My assertion is that what we need today are clear-headed, intelligent, capable and competent persons who have the skill and the clarity to see into the issues of the day and to help others to similar see into them so that they can make the best decisions. The example I used was Jordan Peterson. The argument is sound.

if that's all you had said, we wouldn't have any disagreement at all.

But what I have pointed out is that even if you have the brain of a Jordan Peterson, that does not buy one any distinction with God. Salvation is not a function of one's sophistication or intelligence; it's a function of being born again, into the family of God. And that, any honest seeker can have.

Meanwhile, He is the Giver of whatever potentialities any man has; and none of them take Him by surprise, or are impressive compared to Him. So if we imagine we will stun God with our brilliance, and render Him grateful to us for our talents, then we are arrogant buffoons who know nothing. We do not realize how small we are, and how reliant we are for ever breath on God's grace.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If one needs special knowledge in order to be saved, how can such ever know God?

AJ said: "I would say that 'the child' and the mental deficient that you refer to must necessarily subordinate themselves to 'proper authority' as part of their 'spiritual turning' and their 'spiritual life'.

IC wrote: "Ah, here's the answer: you think that God will relate to the intellectual directly, but despises the child and the mentally limited person, and will only relate to them by proxy? How amazing that God disagrees with you...

Well this goes to the heart of my developing understanding. I say developing because that's exactly what is going on. There is much that I have not thought-through and now is the opportunity. So I will tell you what I think.

You define 'salvation' as something that happens in an instant. Essentially your definition depends on mystical perception. The person does something, realizes something, says something, makes some declaration to God and is -- shazzam! -- saved. I am not closed to considering what this means in the life of a person and in the life of people. For example Plato refers to a 'leaping spark' that once ignited self-sustains itself.

I am not closed, either, to the essential idea behind Grace.

But I do not *believe in* the evangelical notion and self-assertion about 'salvation'. The internal turning, the receptivity, the moral realization, and the desire to live in some other way and even to *know God* and to see oneself, or to become, discipled by God (or Spirit) is not unintelligible to me either. But I simply do not believe that any person can self-assert their final relationship to God or their standing in the face of divinity.

You can quote one, ten or a hundred different passages from the NT that you assert contradicts my view. I do not think it will change my viewpoint.

I would say, and I guess I am saying, that if there is such a thing as 'salvation' that it needs to be better seen and understood. Your definition? "To be freed from the consequences of sin". That must be part of it but it cannot be all of it.

So to answer this question: "If one needs special knowledge in order to be saved, how can such ever know God?" I can only answer if I must make a statement about you or about me. "How do any of us know God?' And 'how can any of us be saved?'

By setting ourselves to the task. By deep consideration about what 'salvation' should or must (or really) means. By continued application. By continual work. But also through association with one's community. In fact there are a hundred different things that must necessarily be stated and on which emphasis must be placed.

Personally, I am pretty profoundly suspicious of those -- it is a Protestant conceit in the main, isn't it? -- that salvation occurs in one sole moment and, according to the definition, cannot be lost. I simply do not buy it.

So I would say that the child must be raised to understand that all things in life involve continual struggle and that no outcome is guaranteed. That child would do well to keep his or her eyes open and to gain awareness about what is needed and required. Its this 'special knowledge'? No, it is more common sense.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: In Greek myth and story, as an illustration, the god's influence, or perhaps presence, is recognized, valued and appreciated when these traits manifest in men and women. So there is Athena whose clear-headed intelligence shines through in similar mortal women and men. As for example Odysseus. These examples can be multiplied.

IC: What do the dispositions of fake gods have to do with anything?

Well, I do not regard the attributes of the Greek gods, as conceptions about truths, facts or tendencies that operate in this plane of existence, seen and discoverable in life and in people, as being fake as you say. Quite the opposite. So what I am referring to has more to do with conception and also relationship.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But what I have pointed out is that even if you have the brain of a Jordan Peterson, that does not buy one any distinction with God. Salvation is not a function of one's sophistication or intelligence; it's a function of being born again, into the family of God. And that, any honest seeker can have.

Meanwhile, He is the Giver of whatever potentialities any man has; and none of them take Him by surprise, or are impressive compared to Him. So if we imagine we will stun God with our brilliance, and render Him grateful to us for our talents, then we are arrogant buffoons who know nothing. We do not realize how small we are, and how reliant we are for ever breath on God's grace.

I question, and also possibly reject, some part of what you are saying here. Why? Again because of a different relational concept. In your view, obviously, man is a worm before God. You say such things or allude to such things time and again. It is an idea bound up in absolute superiority in contrast to absolute inferiority.

But I do not wish to be, and I do not wish to feel myself as, or act as, a total inferior to God. I would prefer to be, and to define myself as, a partner with what I understand God's *work* to be. And I do better to envision God as seeing things along the same lines.

If one acts like Jordan Peterson acts -- and he is just one example that we can name and though a good one not, perhaps, the best one -- one indeed demonstrates the *partnership* I emulate. Peterson says he 'acts like God exists' even though he does not openly let on as to what he believes internally (though he did begin as a sort-of atheist). I regard his attitude as sufficient. It is respectable and also worthy.

He also has a very sophisticated understanding and appreciation of Christianity in our culture as well as one of the Bible and its influence. So he defends *essential truths* that others don't and perhaps can't. Yet he is not quite a *believer* as you define yourself.

So I must reject what you say, arrogantly since you think you can speak for God (and you will toss out some Bible quotes to support your assertion as per normal!) and I will say that most certainly Jordan Peterson must have gained respect in *God's eyes* (if you will permit the vulgar usage). And any one of us who acts similarly, within our capabilities and situations, must be understood as gaining such respect.

If not then you define an absurd God. You give him all sorts of human attributes -- anger, concern, patience -- yet you deny *Him* the capacity to have respect.

And I would also say that what Peterson (and people like him) do is tied to, perhaps integral to, what I understand salvation to be. And if not then again the God you define is absurd.

At some other point, obviously, I will have to work through your *born again* trope.

All in good time, all in good time! (said in the creaky voice of the Wicked Witch of the West).

[Immanuel Can]

You define 'salvation' as something that happens in an instant.

I don't. The Bible does.

Essentially your definition depends on mystical perception.

No. It just depends on the Word of God speaking the truth.

I am not closed, either, to the essential idea behind Grace.

What do you understand by that word, "grace"?

But I simply do not believe that any person can self-assert their final relationship to God or their standing in the face of divinity.

No, of course they can't "self-assert" it. They're not the ones doing it, so how could they say for sure?

But what God says...that's a different matter. If God says you're saved, you're saved...because He's the One who saves.

"Jesus" or Yeshua, means precisely that: it means, in Hebrew, "God saves." No man saves himself.

You can quote one, ten or a hundred different passages from the NT that you assert contradicts my view. I do not think it will change my viewpoint.

That's your prerogative.

My duty as a Christian begins and ends with telling you the truth. I'm under no instruction to force you to believe. Such a thing cannot even be done.

I would say, and I guess I am saying, that if there is such a thing as 'salvation' that it needs to be better seen and understood. Your definition? "To be freed from the consequences of sin". That must be part of it but it cannot be all of it.

Well, "salvation" by definition, is "from sin." But as you point out, that's just a bare part of it. To be saved is also to be "saved to" something...and Someone.

So to answer this question: "If one needs special knowledge in order to be saved, how can such ever know God?" I can only answer if I must make a statement about you or about me. "How do any of us know God?' And 'how can any of us be saved?'

By faith in the Son of God.

By setting ourselves to the task.

Ephesians 2:8-9. "For by grace you are saved, through faith; and that, not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast."

By deep consideration about what 'salvation' should or must (or really) means.

That's a good idea...but it saves nobody.

By continued application.

Of?

By continual work.

Ephesians and various other passages, like Titus 3:5, roundly deny that.

But also through association with one's community.

Not at all. As John Locke understood, and said, everybody stands before God alone. There are no "communities" at the Judgment.

Personally, I am pretty profoundly suspicious of those -- it is a Protestant conceit in the main, isn't it? -- that salvation occurs in one sole moment and, according to the definition, cannot be lost. I simply do not buy it.

Let's explore that: why not? What makes that seem "suspicious" to you?

[Immanuel Can]

In your view, obviously, man is a worm before God.

I have no idea where you are getting this. It's in absolutely nothing I said.

But I do not wish to be, and I do not wish to feel myself as, or act as, a total inferior to God.

Then you don't know what you are...or what we all are.

What's so hard to understand about the idea that you are a contingent being, created by God, rather than the equal of the Supreme Being?

If one acts like Jordan Peterson acts -- and he is just one example that we can name and though a good one not, perhaps, the best one -- one indeed demonstrates the *partnership* I emulate. Peterson says he 'acts like God exists' even though he does not openly let on as to what he believes internally (though he did begin as a sort-of atheist). I regard his attitude as sufficient. It is respectable and also worthy.

I like Dr. Peterson. I admire his honesty and his personal integrity. But the best of us is still not up to God. And I'm quite sure, from what I've heard Dr. Peterson himself say, that he knows he's not up to God either.

...he is not quite a *believer* as you define yourself.

We're in conversation about that. We shall see where he lands.

...you think you can speak for God

Not at all. I let the Bible speak for Him.

If not then you define an absurd God. You give him all sorts of human attributes -- anger, concern, patience -- yet you deny *Him* the capacity to have respect.

Respect?

You'll have to explain to me what God owes "respect." I'll be interested to see your view on that.

At some other point, obviously, I will have to work through your *born again* trope.

I'm fine with that. But it's not mine. It's in John 3, among other places. You can read it there for yourself. "Unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God," Jesus said.

All in good time, all in good time! (said in the creaky voice of the Wicked Witch of the West).

Anytime.