Free Will

[RCSaunders]

...its days are numbered now that there are more and more of what you call atheists.

Only somebody who didn't travel outside of a small circle and didn't know any of the sociological data on this could imagine this was true. In point of fact, the narrative for which you have such contempt is actually rapidly expanding today, most dramatically in the Developing World and China. It's only smug Westerners who don't know that it's Atheism that is, in fact, contracting.

I know you lump together everyone who has not fallen pray to some superstition as, "atheists," and it's probably true that the number of rational individuals in the world who have not embraced some form of the, "palpably not true," has decreased, because there has never been a time when there was more gullible superstitious nonsense embraced by the vast majority of mankind. The only difference is that in the past those superstitions were predominantly religious, today they are becoming predominantly philosophical and ideological. Same lies in new clothes. It's the explanation for every horrid thing going on in the world today.

[Immanuel Can]

I know you lump together everyone who has not fallen pray to some superstition as, "atheists,"

That's a very silly...and dishonest...thing to say, RC. I thought you were above such misrepresenting.

...in the past those superstitions were predominantly religious, today they are becoming predominantly philosophical and ideological.

I don't disagree with that, at least so far as the West is concerned.

Many who pride themselves as "not religious" today are actually fools for some secular ideology...Progressivism, CRT, Socialism, Globalism, Consumerism...or some other "ism." But I've noticed that being irreligious has not only not helped them be more careful, but has actually opened up an existential vacuum in their souls that makes this far worse than in past.

As one secular sociologist so poignantly put it, "Lost souls make good customers."

[Belinda]

I know you lump together everyone who has not fallen pray to some superstition as, "atheists,"

That's a very silly...and dishonest...thing to say, RC. I thought you were above such misrepresenting.

...in the past those superstitions were predominantly religious, today they are becoming predominantly philosophical and ideological.

I don't disagree with that, at least so far as the West is concerned.

Many who pride themselves as "not religious" today are actually fools for some secular ideology...Progressivism, CRT, Socialism, Globalism, Consumerism...or some other "ism." But I've noticed that being irreligious has not only not helped them be more careful, but has actually opened up an existential vacuum in their souls that makes this far worse than in past.

As one secular sociologist so poignantly put it, "Lost souls make good customers."

But, Immanuel, the version of Xianity that includes conflating history and myth is unable to join battle with modern ideologies which are much more able to seduce ordinary people.
My claim implies that Islam is likewise unable to win a battle against modern ideologies. The Taliban have proved this to be untrue. Islam is unlike Xianity in that Islam is not so much an ideology (i.e. some powerful myth people believe) as a practical way of living.

[Immanuel Can]

...the version of Xianity that includes conflating history and myth...

As I said, to say something is "mythical" is not to say it cannot be "historical" as well. It's not an either-or, but a both-and. Because events like "The Crossing of the Rubicon," " The Maginot Line" or "9-11" have certainly attained mythic scale in our society -- but all three are real historical events, not fictions. In fact, it is only the fact that they really happened that grants them the level of power they have as narrative today.

Likewise, Christianity is both history AND myth: it is history in that it happened, and it is myth in that the fact that it happened has taken it mythical scale and import for people even today.

[Belinda]

...the version of Xianity that includes conflating history and myth...

As I said, to say something is "mythical" is not to say it cannot be "historical" as well. It's not an either-or, but a both-and. Because events like "The Crossing of the Rubicon," " The Maginot Line" or "9-11" have certainly attained mythic scale in our society -- but all three are real historical events, not fictions. In fact, it is only the fact that they really happened that grants them the level of power they have as narrative today.

Likewise, Christianity is both history AND myth: it is history in that it happened, and it is myth in that the fact that it happened has taken it mythical scale and import for people even today.

It is true that myths have historical components and are not entirely fictional. It can be very hard to unearth the historical components from some myths especially when there is little documentary or archaeological evidence. I believe there is a lot of documentary evidence about 9/11 and the Maginot Line. Documentary, archeological, and anthropological evidence is plentiful about Palestine and the cultures of its ethnic peoples at the time of the Roman occupation. What is definitely not certain is the theme of the Christian myth which is that God became man in order to save men.

It is possible and I believe a very good thing to retain that myth and interpret it symbolically not literally. You understand that Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ are the same historical person, whereas I and others like me can understand the symbolic value of the Christian myth and separately can understand the historical value of what we know about Jesus of Nazareth his life and work.

[Immanuel Can]

What is definitely not certain is the theme of the Christian myth which is that God became man in order to save men.

The Resurrection is pretty much proof positive.

[Belinda]

What is definitely not certain is the theme of the Christian myth which is that God became man in order to save men.

The Resurrection is pretty much proof positive.

There you go! You think it was a historical event that a dead man came back to life.

[Immanuel Can]

There you go! You think it was a historical event that a dead man came back to life.

Congratulations: you've now finally discovered that I'm a Christian. How long did that take you?

[Belinda]

There you go! You think it was a historical event that a dead man came back to life.

Congratulations: you've now finally discovered that I'm a Christian. How long did that take you?

I have been told that the main definition of a Christian is set by traditional Xian authorities as the Resurrection event.

[Immanuel Can]

There you go! You think it was a historical event that a dead man came back to life.

Congratulations: you've now finally discovered that I'm a Christian. How long did that take you?

I have been told that the main definition of a Christian is set by traditional Xian authorities as the Resurrection event.

The factual event of the Resurrection is actually established by both Christ and Paul as the basis of Christianity. And yes, I believe it's a real, historical event, as I already said.

But since that's the very definition of what a real Christian believes, what's your point? Somehow, you're missing me here.

[Belinda]

Congratulations: you've now finally discovered that I'm a Christian. How long did that take you?

I have been told that the main definition of a Christian is set by traditional Xian authorities as the Resurrection event.

The factual event of the Resurrection is actually established by both Christ and Paul as the basis of Christianity. And yes, I believe it's a real, historical event, as I already said.

But since that's the very definition of what a real Christian believes, what's your point? Somehow, you're missing me here.

That is because you have not paid attention to my claim

the main definition of a Christian is set by traditional Xian authorities as the Resurrection event.

by which I stated by whose means a "real Christian" is defined. Less traditional Xians than yourself do not define Biblical literalists like yourself as real Christians.

[Immanuel Can]

Less traditional Xians than yourself do not define Biblical literalists like yourself as real Christians.

"Tradition" is pointless. It's a human accretion added to real Christianity. These alleged "less traditional" types may have their own tradition, or they may make up a new one: it's pointless too. All "tradition" is a waste of time in deciding this question, because "traditions" have nothing to do with Christ.

It is Christ who alone defines what it is to be a "Christian." And that's really definitional. Who can say what it means to be a real "Christian" but Christ? What other frame of reference would one appeal to?

To the extent that any "less traditional" person recognizes that, he is right; to the extent he fails to, he is wrong. It's actually very simple.

[Belinda]

Less traditional Xians than yourself do not define Biblical literalists like yourself as real Christians.

"Tradition" is pointless. It's a human accretion added to real Christianity. These alleged "less traditional" types may have their own tradition, or they may make up a new one: it's pointless too. All "tradition" is a waste of time in deciding this question, because "traditions" have nothing to do with Christ.

It is Christ who alone defines what it is to be a "Christian." And that's really definitional. Who can say what it means to be a real "Christian" but Christ? What other frame of reference would one appeal to?

To the extent that any "less traditional" person recognizes that, he is right; to the extent he fails to, he is wrong. It's actually very simple.

Christianity has undergone changes since it was a Jewish sect.

[Immanuel Can]

Less traditional Xians than yourself do not define Biblical literalists like yourself as real Christians.

"Tradition" is pointless. It's a human accretion added to real Christianity. These alleged "less traditional" types may have their own tradition, or they may make up a new one: it's pointless too. All "tradition" is a waste of time in deciding this question, because "traditions" have nothing to do with Christ.

It is Christ who alone defines what it is to be a "Christian." And that's really definitional. Who can say what it means to be a real "Christian" but Christ? What other frame of reference would one appeal to?

To the extent that any "less traditional" person recognizes that, he is right; to the extent he fails to, he is wrong. It's actually very simple.

Christianity has undergone changes since it was a Jewish sect.

Like?

[RCSaunders]

Who can say what it means to be a real "Christian" but Christ? What other frame of reference would one appeal to?

Christ never used the word, "Christian," according to your Bible.