Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

It is a dangerous ideological world!

Man, you're not kidding.

What I can say is that the issues are intensely contentious.

Not to me. I'm very happy to talk about them. But you're right that some topics are probably better handled by you sending me a private message on this site. No need to make the anti-Christians or anti-Semites crazy.

On another (unrelated) note: have you read CH Dodd?

I haven't. But I'll look him up. Tell me more, if you want.

[Janoah]

It's Messiah that makes the difference.

In Judaism, of course, there is excitement around the theme of the Messiah, but there is not too much good in this, it is rather a minus than a plus, because this excitement is associated with the idealization of the figure of the Messiah, and the idealization of the material is essentially a form of idolatry.

It is clear that the people who were grieving wanted a good, ideal king who would judge everyone, and with whom they could only be blissful. But this is a fundamentally false illusion, paradise on earth is not foreseen and cannot be, and in heaven, no physical pleasures await.

And if you remove the veil from your eyes and turn to jurisprudence, then according to halakha (religious Jewish laws), the Messiah should be summoned to court for sins, if, for example, he multiplied horses in his stable to the point of indecency, and punished.

In general, it is not in the figure of the Messiah, the essence of the problem for Judaism.
But the aversion to the deification of the material, including aversion to the deification of the material Messiah, is at the genetic level, and thank God.

[Immanuel Can]

Same with Judaism: why would a person be Reformed or Conservative if he believes that being Orthodox or Hassidic is "more proper"? (The one difference, of course, is that "Jewish" is not merely a credal declaration but also a genetic heritage; so there the analogy stops. Christianity is not genetic or cultural, but strictly credal.)

I certainly understand what you are saying. Except that when one is Reform it becomes, nearly entirely or entirely, a credal issue.

Right, true.

In Reform if you were, say, adopted into a Jewish family and raised up as a Jew, they’d consider you a Jew. Only the Orthodox hold to the strictest view: to become a Jew you must convert (or convoit as the case may be).

I understand the rabbis attempt to discourage a goy three times if he/she wants to convert. And I know that there are factions of Judaism that don't regard conversion even as a real option, is that not the case?

And one requirement for those who adopt Orthodoxy and choose to become Jews is that they must renounce their Christian belief. In strict Orthodoxy Christianity is seen as ur-paganism. Meaning, they must renounce the belief that Jesus is Messiah. You cannot hold to the belief that Jesus is Messiah . . . and become a Jew. (I guess it is possible, but highly frowned on, to be an Orthodox Jew and yet believe Jesus is Messiah. You’d be a Christian by definition in that case).

Yes, I know that, too. Even for the Reformed, as one rabbi told me, "That's too far..."

Ironically, one can be a Jewish secularist or even a Jewish occultist, and still be fully Jewish; but according to the authorities, not a Jewish Christian. But normally, we just refer to such as "Messianic Jews," and they sometimes refer to themselves as "Completed Jews." Either way, they're my brothers. End of story.

But shouldn't a person always believe what he takes to be the "most proper" version of his creed?

This would be true if people sat down and thought things through with great care and attention — and a certain frame of mind that would allow them to shift views and view-investments if they saw that one was better or truer than the other.

Yes, of course. I was only speaking of what should be the case, not of what often is.

Some Jews (with no particular commitment) do think that being Orthodox is better — but they just don’t have the decisiveness to live out the consequences of their views.

It's tough to try to live the 613.

Similarly, many are Christian quite literally *by birth* and not by personal commitment (by creed).

I would say there are not. And I say that not because I doubt there are people who want to talk about themselves that way, because I know there are. At one time, the word "Christian" was pretty much taken to be synonymous with "civilized person" or "good Englishman." But I would say there's no account in the Bible that allows for such nonsensical self-identification.

It's true that anyone can become a Christian. But it's not true that anyone is ever one by birth. As Jesus said, "You must be born from above" (sometimes translated, "born again").

These correspond to many Jews who are Jews by birth and are Jewish by a loose sense of identification. Their Judaism just happened to them. Or an identification that is not really credal at all, but based in something else.

Well, this is what I mean about Jewishness being genetic and cultural, not merely credal. But Christianity actually isn't like that. It cannot "just happen" to somebody. As Jesus Himself said, "Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24)

Interestingly, those who do convert (a Reform conversion is possible but not regarded as ‘legal’) must convert to Orthodox Judaism, and these people generally make the decision because they really believe it is ‘right & proper’ to become a Jew.

One of my friends married into it. His wife was genetically and culturally Jewish, and he was Catholic by birth. But he became quite serious about studying the Talmud and joined the local community by converting.

I don't know how one judges a person's sincerity...except by the amount of effort he/she is willing to invest in something.

Very interesting conversation.

[Immanuel Can]

It's Messiah that makes the difference.

In Judaism, of course, there is excitement around the theme of the Messiah, but there is not too much good in this, it is rather a minus than a plus, because this excitement is associated with the idealization of the figure of the Messiah, and the idealization of the material is essentially a form of idolatry.

I talked to the head of the local community center about the dominant views in Judaism. He said that there were two major camps: one regards Messianism as a sort of "Messianic Age," in which Jewish-humanist ambitions to fix the World reach a kind of critical level of success, as things like science and medicine and technology take us into a higher and more ideal state. The other looks for a personal Messiah, but can't decide how the prophecies concerning Him can be worked out. Some think there must be two "messiahs": the one Ben Josef, and the other Ben David...

But the view that Messiah has anything to do with idolatry was not one of the options he mentioned. May I ask, where are you getting it from?

...paradise on earth is not foreseen and cannot be, and in heaven, no physical pleasures await...

Physical pleasures? You make it sound like the Islamic view...paradise as a place of captive "virgins" and soft pillows.

I think the Tanakh's prophecies have more to do with peace, justice, righteousness and plenty, but not much to say about raw "physical pleasures."

But I put to you this question: why does God say to Moses, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"? (Exodus 3:6) Do you think He means that He is the God of the living or of the dead?

But if He is the God of the living, then how is He the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, since all three had long before passed away? And if He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then how is it you say they are not living?

And if they are living, then how is it that you say Judaism does not believe in an afterlife?

[Gary Childress]

In any case, popularity is not the main criterion of truth for me.

So, in other words, the majority are just the stupid or wretched masses who don't know or do anything worthwhile? I suppose that is certainly possible. It seems to be a common theme with much of philosophy and religion.

[Lacewing]

You bring up an intriguing notion and one that interests me: That we become identified with certain ideas, views and values, and these become 'wedded' to our sense of self. .../... If you confront some 'cherished notion' you run up against their defensive self that defends against an attack 'on their very self'.

Yes. That is how it seems to me.

Christian belief, and the *metaphysics* I refer to (I was thinking and writing about these things years ago when I was writing here as Gustav) I take somewhat differently, because these beliefs, these ideas, these views and interpretations have been part of *who we are* and *what we are* and *what we have become* because our culture (if you are European and European descended) has been constructed around these platforms of understanding. So, in this view, we are really Christian people. Everything that we think, all our values, all categories of concern from philosophical to jurisprudential, have been so infused with values and meaning that derived from Christian ideas and philosophy (and so much else), that we cannot, in fact, separate our serves from these categories. I am not just making an assertion here, I think it is fundamentally true. In my own case the more that I look into it the more evidence of it I find.

I can see ways in which what you've said can be true, but are you suggesting that what you speak of is the ultimate truth there is? In which case, your beliefs/experience end at a certain point, and how can we have a discussion beyond that?

...we are living in a time when every aspect of Christian belief is under devastating attack.

I think a lot of people and ideas are, and have been, under attack for various reasons -- all of which seem to be a result of imbalance. I see it as humankind's natural drive to evolve. What do you think the reasons are?

As you can see what interests me more is trying to understand better the nature of the attack (as I am calling it) and to try to see and comprehend how it has come about, why it has come about, and where it leads.

Perhaps it is exactly because people are NOT defined so completely as you said in your first paragraph above. Perhaps there is much more to experience, understand, and be.

Laying my cards on the table: I do not think it leads to a 'good place'. I do not think it leads to freedom. My view is that it leads to bondage-compounded! At the least I think I can express and clarify my views (though this does not mean they will be accepted).

Well, of course you would not think it leads to a good place if you think you already know of the most optimal and true path. The fact that you think it leads to bondage-compounded is very interesting. Not only because that is exactly the opposite of what so many people experience, but it is interesting that you would be inclined to define a path which you do not know/experience as (essentially) a 'dead end'. Again, this suggests that what you speak of is the only valid path/dream... and how could that possibly be true?

I am not trying to change your Christian views. I am telling you that your Christian views do not apply to me to the extent that you seem to think they must. You may continue to insist that they do -- and I guess that is because Christians (typically) need to think that their views are paramount to all else. Otherwise, their views become rather pointless, I suppose. They simply must define everything and everyone through the Christian lens -- and that is one big reason why Christianity might seem to be under attack. It does not truthfully recognize (or fathom) anything beyond itself. Doesn't that essentially limit humankind? Isn't that essentially 'bondage-compounded' as you attributed to non-Christian paths?

The long and the short of it is this: Christianity defines Man.

I disagree. I can agree that Christianity has been a significant element in defining some of humankind, but mainly as part of their development, fears, imagination, logic, limitations, needs, etc. Vast numbers of people think there is more than that to be explored and realized.

But all of this, this definition, takes place within the mind, the imagination of man, within the World that man perceives (some would say 'creates' or 'invents') that is his 'metaphysical dream of the world' (to quote Richard Weaver).

I agree. And the potential of that mind/dream is much greater than most people admit/explore/use.

there is something (in my view) genuinely and especially unique about the Christian revelation and the actual advent of Jesus Christ into time and history. But here is the thing: I could take that idea simply as 'comparative' (comparing one system to another as an intellectual exercise) but that would be, almost, to take it 'sociologically'. But I find that I must take it absolutely seriously, not 'theoretically seriously'. And the closer on gets, as one drills down into the Christian texts and the *meaning* there, is that there, in them, levels of truthfulness are revealed of the sort that require one to live, think and believe in relation to them.

So, I suggest, that the power/intensity you experience through/of that, is not unlike the power/intensity that one can experience on other paths, and based on other truths -- all of which (in my view) are magnificent in what they reveal of our potential and capability! And (also in my view), the path/dream is not the point. What we do with it -- what it makes of us -- is the point. Although Christians (typically) argue that they are better because of their path, they are still arguing for their path... and dismissing all others. Some could say that's a form of idol worship.

The other part, for me in my case, is that I do not think Christianity is for everyone. The system itself, or the metaphysics of the system, is predicated on a kind of 'exclusivity'. The very texts themselves make this completely clear. And this is a very very strange fact about Christianity if one compares it to Hinduism (Vaishnavism for example) or Buddhism. Christianity sets itself 'against the World' and yet Christianity was the core religion and also governing structure of Europe for 1,000 years.

Yes. And this 'separatist', 'exclusivity', 'divisive' approach is a warning for many people (including myself) of a humanly-distorted system and agenda/delusion.

It appears senseless (to me) that a god created all, yet all is not of god -- which Christians (typically) use to rationalize their own judgments of what is and is not of god, and for their own claims of self-rightness. It is too convoluted and self-serving, and essentially puts themselves in the position of speaking for this supposed god.

Putting my cards on the table: It does not make sense to me that any creative force capable of manifesting all of life that we see, and perhaps what we do not see, would be limited to human ideas of what it is, how it works, what it 'intends' or 'wants', and on and on. These are human notions applied to an idea bigger than oneself, that one can feel comfort, inspiration, purpose, righteousness, etc., in claiming to be aligned with, chosen by, speaking for, etc. In my view, that is not only wrong, it is destructive. It is alarming to see that most Christians seem oblivious to (or they excuse) how distorted and over-bearing Christianity is (and has been) because they are incapable of monitoring that which they have come to identify themselves so completely with.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I would say there are not. And I say that not because I doubt there are people who want to talk about themselves that way, because I know there are. At one time, the word "Christian" was pretty much taken to be synonymous with "civilized person" or "good Englishman." But I would say there's no account in the Bible that allows for such nonsensical self-identification.

It's true that anyone can become a Christian. But it's not true that anyone is ever one by birth. As Jesus said, "You must be born from above" (sometimes translated, "born again").

As far as my understanding and research indicates, in the early days (first and second centuries) the ‘taking of the Christian cure’ was of course a serious, and as you say a ‘credal’, affair. It becomes necessary here to define what ‘becoming a Christian’ entailed, but also what it meant and what it implied. The essence of it seemed to have been a desire and a willingness to separate oneself from the pagan corruption and to become regenerated (by spiritual agency) into a new manner of living, a new relationship to life. But there was also a related element and that was ‘education’: what was received through doctrine. (“Let that remain in you which you learned from the very beginning; if what you learned from the very beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father, 1 John 2;24) Certain fundamental and elemental things had to be received, accepted and integrated along with the spiritual grace.

The spiritual element, the grace-element, is expressed I gather with: The Spirit you received from him (in Baptism) remains in you and you really need no teaching from anyone; simply remain in Him, for His spirit teaches you about everything, and is true and is no lie.”

Also as far as I am aware, in the various sects of Christianity, there must take place something like ‘confirmation’. One must confirm and reaffirm the assent of faith, an agreement with what one aligns with. But at this point I would, and logically, nit-pick somewhat with your pure credal affirmation. It seems to me that there are cultures that are Christian and that the ideas and values of Christian belief can be said to *infuse* a culture. The more that I study Christianity the more that this seems clear to me.

So it is quite possible, and indeed seems evident and ‘true’ that such a culture produces Christians. So, if the people around one are being or have been, in one degree or another, regenerated from above, that it is self-evident that this influence can and does operate through something like osmosis. If this is true then the fact of paideia, and Christian paideia, must be considered.

The reason these things interest and concern me is because of my wider interest in cultural matters. I am interested in the movements, mostly in Europe and to a more muddled degree in America (I can’t say much about Canada) that involve Christian renewal. The basic picture seems to be that people and factions within various nations have become dissatisfied with distorted forms of liberalism (my term is hyper-liberalism) and, in reaction (and it really is reaction) they seek forms or involvements through which renovation and renewal might take place — on a personal plane but also on a wider than personal plane.

It is better, if it is not entirely sufficient, if people align with a cultural paideia and a support of those who are capable of ‘regeneration from above’ in a sort of social and cultural solidarity, if they are not capable of taking on the full program and commitment (whatever that is! and the precise definition of what that is is not in any sense completely clear to me).

[Lacewing]

I read and studied the Bible a lot while growing up. I actually find value in the teachings as I interpreted them. It did not make sense to me to take the stories literally -- but rather to recognize that they were influenced by those who experienced or imagined them, and the limited understandings and agendas of the people at that time. I remember large lettering on the wall over the preacher's podium: 'Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever'. That didn't make sense to me. Statements like that seemed to be for convincing ourselves -- even brainwashing ourselves -- by repeating things over and over. Everything to do with life evolves and expands... including our understanding and awareness. To lock ourselves down to ideas of long ago, and to claim to 'know the mind or purpose' of an infinitely capable god, simply makes NO SENSE. It even sounds ridiculously self-serving.

...you make a claim or a suggestion that these stories should not be taken as ‘real’ but as allegories or myths (stories, narratives).

In my experience, everything I experience can be described in many different ways, depending on the context, memory, ideas, needs of the moment, etc. There is no singular interpretation of my own experiences or accounts... not even by me. They can change over time, as more is experienced and discovered, and as more significance/connection is realized. A book of stories or accounts or dreams would naturally have variances of interpretation based on all kinds of things. That is why I do not take stories or memories literally. They are crafted in the moment, for various purposes, and based on various ideas and needs. Do you disagree?

...(if my understanding is correct) the earliest Christian scriptures were written by people who did in fact know Jesus.

Could be.

consider that the early writers wrote, according to they themselves, from a perspective of first-hand knowledge. The experience they had then was so transformative that it molded the lives they lived and all that they did.

Sure. And we can all be inspired and transformed by all kinds of ideas, people, and experiences. There are (and have been) amazing people all over this planet, throughout all time periods.

The other thing that you wrote also interested me: what was written on the podium: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever”. From a Johannine perspective, which is to say from a Greco-Christian perspective from those very early days, what they tried to say, or what they defined as important to believe and understand, was the notion of Eternal Logos. This idea is contrasted with an observation of the manifest world as being ‘mutable’ and transitory (a Platonic idea obviously). The world shifts and changes constantly and there is no ‘solid foundation’ in it except that it constantly shifts and changes. But philosophically, and thus religiously, the idea of immutable, eternal idea (the Word) arises as a counter-postulate. In the Greek sense of things if there was to be any foundation to Ideas there had to exist a base in Logos. And that base or foundation had to be eternal, and was understood to be eternal, and in this sense something that preexisted the entire manifestation of the Universe. In fact (in this mode of conception) the Universe is a creation out of this ‘eternal logos’. It becomes a ‘necessary and unavoidable idea’ as one meditates on existence.

But there does not need to be an eternal foundation as defined by man. Man may find comfort in that, but he does not know -- he is simply claiming it. And in doing so, he might (likely) build his structure rigid and unchanging. I (personally) think it's better (and more truthful) if our interpretations can be fluid and open to new understandings, without a need to claim anything as 'eternal' and unchanging. The idea of a 'foundation' need not be like stone that one might stand upon -- it can be like an ocean that one sails upon. It's another way of thinking, which can have profound impact on all kinds of things.

...to *become a Christian* was to abandon not the world of incarnated being (life on the planet), but to take a definite stand against what they saw as destructive ways of being in the world. So, to be ‘born from above’ is to die to an outmoded way of being and to become born into a new set of possibilities.

So, that's one way of framing it for themselves. Is it not also just as possible to stand now against what we see as destructive ways of being in the world, and to 'die to an outmoded way of being, and 'being born into a new set of possibilities', without it requiring the Christian framework? Why would such not be possible for us in countless forms? Was Christianity the only model/method?

The other thing you wrote that interested me is your statement about “lock[ing] ourselves down to ideas of long ago”. I believe that I understand in some sense what you are getting at, but I am not sure if you realize that what they (early Christians and the Greco-Christians) were trying to define was a set of ideas and values that could be said to be foundational, eternally relevant, ever-enduring, constant and, finally, ‘eternal’ in the sense that they would never change and in this sense could never change.

To me, that is being 'locked down' by the ideas of a certain group/time. Is there really not more potential than that?

What interests me is to experiment with an attempt to subtract these proposed values from the definitions that we have, work with and live with. What I mean is that if we no longer have solid definitions that underpin value itself, then we really and truly have no choice but to define an order of understanding our own being that has no definition, that has no solidity. We then abandon all foundation altogether. Then on what do we predicate *what is true*? (Or what has value).

We don't need to abandon values -- we just need (perhaps) to continually assess the limits of our definitions. It might be good to ask ourselves: why wouldn't we want to do that?

Finally, the other part that interests me is when you say: “and to claim to 'know the mind or purpose' of an infinitely capable god, simply makes NO SENSE” is a curious statement in a few different ways. In the Greek world, in the Platonic world, the school of philosophy of that time was based on attempting some large Definitions that were rationally sound. The only way to do this was, obviously, to cultivate reason. But to propose *reason* means that one is proposing the possibility of sense — that sense can be made. So any idea that we do have, any statement that we do make, is really an attempt to apply the same logical principles! Even when we make the statement “It is not possible to say anything true”.

Aside from the reasoning of past philosophy, can you explain to me how it (bolded above) makes sense? What is it based on other than pure desire and imagination?

In all fairness to the early Christians — though my own bias enters in here — I think that they can be highly commended for the attempts that they made to establish the *foundations* in value that I refer to.

I agree. There is more than their viewpoints and understandings though. Why would the potential or purpose of humankind be defined by any particular place or period in history?

Beyond the basic values -- Christianity has morphed into something rather monstrous. I can understand the desire and value of acknowledging what is 'good'. Likewise, I think it's imperative to acknowledge what is NOT 'good', and what is no longer applicable or sensible. Shouldn't Christians be committed to doing this too? If they cannot, they appear to be too invested for personal gain/ego, to be honest or clear.

[Immanuel Can]

As far as my understanding and research indicates, in the early days (first and second centuries) the ‘taking of the Christian cure’ was of course a serious, and as you say a ‘credal’, affair. It becomes necessary here to define what ‘becoming a Christian’ entailed, but also what it meant and what it implied. The essence of it seemed to have been a desire and a willingness to separate oneself from the pagan corruption and to become regenerated (by spiritual agency) into a new manner of living, a new relationship to life. But there was also a related element and that was ‘education’: what was received through doctrine. (“Let that remain in you which you learned from the very beginning; if what you learned from the very beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father, 1 John 2;24) Certain fundamental and elemental things had to be received, accepted and integrated along with the spiritual grace.

That's sort of right, but not quite.

I think it's easy to assume that somebody from a different philosophy must have all the same kinds of categories as one's own...that, for example, because people are born Jewish it must be the case that people are born Christian. But that's actually not the case.

I remember hearing about the Islamic idea that all babies are born Islamic. That's a strange one, but that's what they believe. So they don't use the word "convert" to refer to Islam: rather, when a person becomes Islamic (whether they were Jew, Christian or Atheist before that) the Islamists use the term "revert," as in "go back to being Islamic." Now, no Jewish person and no Christian has the same view. For Jewish people, babies can be born Jewish, sure: but they sure as heck are not born Islamic, despite what the Islamists would say. And Christians are never ever just "born that." So in order to really understand another's view, we sometimes have to get our heads out of the categories we normally hold in our worldview.

For Jewish folks, religion is a combination thing, as you know. You're born Jewish, yes: but there's more to Yiddishkeit than birth. There is becoming a true "son/daughter of the Law" for example. There are rituals, beliefs, customs, ethnic elements, ethical elements...and so on. And any combination of these things can, in some minds, constitute a person as being Jewish.

Christianity is not like that. It's strictly credal at the start. It begins with an individual believing something -- namely, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Saviour of the World (John 3:16, for example). That is the "door" into Christianity. (John 10:7) Nobody who fails to pass through that door is ever a Christian -- no matter what he/she may claim. But once a person is "in," has become a Christian by faith, that person does indeed have obligations to be a different kind of person and do different kinds of things -- not because these things in any way contribute to salvation, but because gratitude and the new relationship with Hashem (God) demands it of those who truly believe.

After all, there's no point in trying to fool God, is there? If a person says he believes but then continually acts like an unbeliever, his belief is merely a lie...and God is not fooled. (Galatians 6:7 says, "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap.") One cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the Almighty.

So in Christianity, one starts as a sort of spiritual "infant" through belief. One often knows little in the way of doctrine and little about the obligations of living as a Christian just after one has passed through the door. But the point of the Christian life is to grow in knowing, to get better at understanding and living as Hashem requires. So all Christians are a kind of work-in-progress, not a completed thing. But the ongoing work-in-progress is a product of having already been saved; it is not the cause of one's salvation, of one's being a Christian.

The spiritual element, the grace-element, is expressed I gather with: The Spirit you received from him (in Baptism) remains in you and you really need no teaching from anyone; simply remain in Him, for His spirit teaches you about everything, and is true and is no lie.”

Here you see the distinction I'm pointing to.

It's "the Spirit you received..." Already. You received the Spirit of God. (but no, not by ceremonial "baptism": baptism is just a symbol for the reality -- it is not the reality itself). Having already received the Spirit of God, you are through the door and over the line. But once you are in, the same Spirit "teaches you," and makes you grow into your new role as a Christian. And all one has to do in order to experience that growth is to "remain in Him." It will happen because it is a work of God, not of man.

Also as far as I am aware, in the various sects of Christianity, there must take place something like ‘confirmation’.

The idea of any ceremonial "confirmation" is completely absent from Biblical text, both in the Tanakh (as I imagine you will know) and in the New Testament (as you may not.) It is entirely an invention of institutionalized religiosity, has zero by way of legitimacy, and has nothing to do with actually being a Christian. But you will find that many people who call themselves Christians would deny that fact. Still, they have no Biblical leg to stand on.

It seems to me that there are cultures that are Christian and that the ideas and values of Christian belief can be said to *infuse* a culture. The more that I study Christianity the more that this seems clear to me.

They can, indeed. Christian morality, for example, has (at least formerly) had a very powerful influence in shaping the West. But it has not been because everybody in the West was always a Christian, but rather because many Christians formerly held positions of significant influence in that culture, and their influence has been felt. And the moral, Christian element in the West has always been admixed with other unfortunate elements, because a merely cultural "Christianity" -- that is, one with out the heart of Christianity but with its outward cultural performance -- is always is susceptible to corruption. So sometimes things like consumerism, or skin colour, or colonialism, or other such non-Christian elements (which have no warrant at all in the Bible) have been stirred into the Western "pot."

But you'll be familiar with this, I'm sure. For Christianity's moral influence is derived from Judaism. And Judaism itself has had a wildly disproportionate influence in shaping the West. (When you think of it, it's really miraculous: how did about .18% of the religious people in the world manage to have the effect Judaism has had? It's out of all proportion...unless you also understand that it is reflecting something very, very powerful.) But Judaism itself has also suffered from becoming syncretized with Western culture, hasn't it?

So it is quite possible, and indeed seems evident and ‘true’ that such a culture produces Christians.

I understand the mistake, but it's still a mistake, I have to say. No, it doesn't. What it produces is what we might call "Christmas Christians": nominal "Christians" who follow a kind of cultural model and practice a kind of pseudo-Christian morality, but who neither believe nor live the reality of the faith at all. They have never passed through "the door," do not actually believe what they say they believe, and have none of the presence of the Spirit of Hashem. They are, as the Bible puts it, like "clouds without rain, blown along by the wind." Or to put it another way, "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed." (Titus 1:16)

...the fact of paideia, and Christian paideia, must be considered.

"Paideia" as you must realize, is the Greek word for child-teaching or child-instruction, literally. It even contains the word "child" ("pais") in it. The word identifies the beginning Christian with being a "child" of God, not a fully-instructed a "adult." Full Christian maturity takes a lifetime.

So again, this wording actually reinforces what I said above, namely, that one commences being a real Christian by being "born again," and becoming a sort of "child in the faith": "paideia" is about what one learns afterward...not about how one becomes a Christian.

As Jesus said to Nicodemus the Pharisee, in John 3: "You must be born again" (or "born from above," perhaps better.) And you see in Nicodemus's response, that he's beginning to grasp the idea: for he asks, "“How can a person be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” (John 3:4) He is understanding that Yeshua is telling him he lacks the starting point. To enter the Kingdom of God, a man must be reborn by the power of God. And when he does, his condition is more like that of a child than of a "teacher of Israel," as Yeshua says to Nicodemus -- who, if we can believe Josephus, was a major rabbi at the time.

The reason these things interest and concern me is because of my wider interest in cultural matters. I am interested in the movements, mostly in Europe and to a more muddled degree in America (I can’t say much about Canada) that involve Christian renewal. The basic picture seems to be that people and factions within various nations have become dissatisfied with distorted forms of liberalism (my term is hyper-liberalism) and, in reaction (and it really is reaction) they seek forms or involvements through which renovation and renewal might take place — on a personal plane but also on a wider than personal plane.

Yes, I think that's true. Lots of people, particularly conservatives, are looking to a kind of return to cultural pseudo-Christianity as a means of addressing our many present social ills. Recognizing that Christian influence has actually been very good for society, historically, they long to return to the days when a stronger Judeo-Christian morality ruled society.

But culturally, these people also want to achieve the benefits of Judeo-Christian morality without having to be either Jewish or Christian. They want Christmas decorations and presents without Christ. Or to put it another way, they want dreidels and hammantaschen, but want no part of Yom Kippur.

And they want to draw on those traditions only selectively -- not having to take the hard parts, like the 613 commandments or the bit about "loving one's enemies" or "blessed are the peacemakers," but rather picking out the bits they like, and leaving the rest. They want to reap the benefits of acting "Christianly" without having to do the uncomfortable business of having also to be born again.

And above all, they don't want to have to go through the Door to get it all.

I guess we'll see how that works out for them, won't we?

[Alexis Jacobi]

There are at least 7-8 different areas or topic that you have written about. I will call these *your concerns*:

1.) Self-defensiveness and ‘definition of self’.

2.) The issue, and the term, ‘ultimate’ or ‘absolute truth’.

3.) The issue of what we are calling ‘attack’. Which is to say confrontation, or undermining, of ideas or activities that are opposed for various reasons, not the least being ideological.

4.) The issue or question of what we manifest; what we build, create, bring into being which will result from the ideas we entertain and the values we value.

5.) Our ‘anthropology’: how we in the Occident have defined Man. The reference is of course to cultural ideas and attitudes, but also limitations applied (and enforced). Your assertion involves the observation that different cultures, in different places and times, arrive at different definitions.

6.) What can arise, and what does arise, from our *metaphysical dream of the world*.

7.) The issue, the question, or the problem, of ‘other paths’, other possibilities.

8.) The function, negative and positive, of ‘separation’ and ‘exclusivity’ (limitation within certain parameters.)

These will have to be responded to one-by-one. There is a great deal to say on each. For the time being I will focus on these following paragraphs:

Well, of course you would not think it leads to a good place if you think you already know of the most optimal and true path. The fact that you think it leads to bondage-compounded is very interesting. Not only because that is exactly the opposite of what so many people experience, but it is interesting that you would be inclined to define a path which you do not know/experience as (essentially) a 'dead end'. Again, this suggests that what you speak of is the only valid path/dream... and how could that possibly be true?

I am not trying to change your Christian views. I am telling you that your Christian views do not apply to me to the extent that you seem to think they must. You may continue to insist that they do -- and I guess that is because Christians (typically) need to think that their views are paramount to all else. Otherwise, their views become rather pointless, I suppose. They simply must define everything and everyone through the Christian lens -- and that is one big reason why Christianity might seem to be under attack. It does not truthfully recognize (or fathom) anything beyond itself. Doesn't that essentially limit humankind? Isn't that essentially 'bondage-compounded' as you attributed to non-Christian paths?

I don’t think that I could say, with any sense of absolute definiteness, what is the most optimal and true path — I cannot speak for the whole world obviously — what I think that I can attempt to speak about is Occidental Culture. The long and the short of it is that there is such a thing as Occidental Paideia. It is accurate to define 4 areas or cultural zones so to outline a definition of Occidental Paideia: Judea, Greece, Rome and Alexandria (Alexandria being a place where the different traditions melded).

There is also one additional element and that is those tribes and peoples that composed uncivilized Europe prior to those civilization-building processes (which have to be defined, accurately, as conquests and *impositions*. In this sense they are the *material*. The idea, the fact, of ‘conquest’ and ‘imposition’ runs through everything I think and write. We are ‘outcomes’ of this sort of process: Europe was invaded, conquered, subdued and then educated by a *superior* (more powerful) defining culture: Rome and Rome’s imposition.

I do not say this to celebrate it, or revel in it necessarily, I say it because it is literally and realistically what happened. Now, I assume that you are European or European-derived, and I assume that most who write on this forum are the same. When we refer to *philosophy* we are referring, rather strictly but not completely strictly, to Occidental categories of thought. So, what we are, are outcomes of all the various elements of our histories, and our histories are specific. They are not *everything* and *all things*, our cultural and civilizational history is a finite and define set of particular things.

And that is what I refer to as our paideia. Now, if you said *but the world is far larger and encompasses far more* I could do nothing but agree. But is that what your concern is? The ‘larger world’? (I would not say this is invalid if it were the case).

When refer to ‘bondage-compounded’ I have specific things in mind. I consider personal (or spiritual if you wish), political, social and ideological bondage to be real things. We certainly agree that a totalitarian dictatorship (Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Chinese Communism) are clear examples of social, spiritual, political and ideological bondage, so we’d not have to work out those agreements: we share that understanding.

So in this sense, at least, you and I can likely agree that *bondage* and *bondage-compounded* are not paranoid fantasies.

I am telling you that your Christian views do not apply to me to the extent that you seem to think they must.

I am uncertain if you have fully grasped how I use the large definition *Christian*. For this reason I would define what I mean by that term more as Occidental Paideia. The essential building blocks that make up *our traditions*, our Occidental categories. I would suggest, though I am chary of defining you against your own self-declared definitions of who and what you are, that you are, as we all likely are, an ‘outcome’ and a product of Occidental Paideia.

[Lacewing]

There are at least 7-8 different areas or topic that you have written about. I will call these *your concerns*:

1.) Self-defensiveness and ‘definition of self’.

2.) The issue, and the term, ‘ultimate’ or ‘absolute truth’.

3.) The issue of what we are calling ‘attack’. Which is to say confrontation, or undermining, of ideas or activities that are opposed for various reasons, not the least being ideological.

4.) The issue or question of what we manifest; what we build, create, bring into being which will result from the ideas we entertain and the values we value.

5.) Our ‘anthropology’: how we in the Occident have defined Man. The reference is of course to cultural ideas and attitudes, but also limitations applied (and enforced). Your assertion involves the observation that different cultures, in different places and times, arrive at different definitions.

6.) What can arise, and what does arise, from our *metaphysical dream of the world*.

7.) The issue, the question, or the problem, of ‘other paths’, other possibilities.

8.) The function, negative and positive, of ‘separation’ and ‘exclusivity’ (limitation within certain parameters.)

Alexis, I appreciate the thoughtful effort you are putting into our discussion. All of this above, that you have 'identified' can be further condensed down (from my perspective) to the issue of people claiming that the ideas they identify with are the only or the highest truth that applies to everyone else, which is used to separate others from that if they don't agree, and is used to dismiss broader capability/potential that flows through all. That's really the gist of what I care about challenging.

I would really prefer that you respond to my comments directly from my post, in context of our discussion, rather than documenting a lot of your viewpoint for me to read, which is just not the way I think. I would be happy to engage in back-and-forth discussion. I don't think I have to look at the world from a certain angle in order to validly express what I see in the things that we say here. Thanks.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sure. And we can all be inspired and transformed by all kinds of ideas, people, and experiences. There are (and have been) amazing people all over this planet, throughout all time periods.

I want to make one specific comment to this because it is an idea that you work with often. I would say that it is a *core* idea that runs through your entire perspective.

You refer to something general and non-specific as a sort of counter-proposition to what is specific and definite, and also limited and, it must be said, limiting.

So when I read what you write I can say, yes, I certain grasp what you are saying. And in a sense you are right indeed. It is possible to entertain, think about, experience, come under the influence of, live in, live out of, a nearly infinite number of different possibilities. You could (I could, we could) leave our own culture and take up residence in a completely unfamiliar place, with completely different traditions, and yes, we could ‘be inspired and transformed’ by them.

Yet what you propose operates in this discussion, in a sense, like an abstraction. It is true except that in reality, and in general, no person or people live in relation to an infinite array of possibilities. They usually live within the limits and parameters of specific views.

It may be that what separates our points-of-view is that, in my case, I have decided on a particular area of focus. That is why I refer all the time to *Occidental Paideia*. The issue then becomes one of valuation, no? The assigning of values but also the assigning, or the recognition, of hierarchies. If I say to you that one thing (some one thing) is better or superior to another I assume you will question the assertion. It might be a suspicious assertion given your orientation.

So if push came to shove (as the popular saying goes) I would not say that one tradition is ‘superior’ or ‘better’ than another, but rather that I can only work with the one that has (as I say) made me me. I guess I would say that I prefer to focus within that one. But it is also true that I do not have those other abstract options (because they are abstractions).

[Immanuel Can]

In any case, popularity is not the main criterion of truth for me.

So, in other words, the majority are just the stupid or wretched masses who don't know or do anything worthwhile? I suppose that is certainly possible. It seems to be a common theme with much of philosophy and religion.

I don't think that's the implication, Gary. One only has to realize that the majority is sometimes right but sometimes wrong.

I doubt you or I would be confident that the majority of Nazis or the majority of witch doctors were ever right, no matter how many they were. But even when the majority of democratic citizens decide something, they're not always right, are they?

[Lacewing]

I want to make one specific comment to this because it is an idea that you work with often. I would say that it is a *core* idea that runs through your entire perspective.

You refer to something general and non-specific as a sort of counter-proposition to what is specific and definite, and also limited and, it must be said, limiting.

...

I'm just reading this interesting response of yours. I look forward to responding later... as I'm on my way out the door right now. Until then...

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis, I appreciate the thoughtful effort you are putting into our discussion. All of this above, that you have 'identified' can be further condensed down (from my perspective) to the issue of people claiming that the ideas they identify with are the only or the highest truth that applies to everyone else, which is used to separate others from that if they don't agree, and is used to dismiss broader capability/potential that flows through all. That's really the gist of what I care about challenging.

In regard to this — if I understand you correctly — I believe that I anticipated in the post right above yours. My impression, as I say there, is that you are referring to abstractions.

I understand that a major area of your concern is just as you say: It is “the issue of people claiming that the ideas they identify with are the only or the highest truth that applies to everyone else”. If what you are saying is that you do not like to be imposed on I accept that without reservation as a valid position.

I would really prefer that you respond to my comments directly from my post, in context of our discussion, rather than documenting a lot of your viewpoint for me to read, which is just not the way I think. I would be happy to engage in back-and-forth discussion. I don't think I have to look at the world from a certain angle in order to express what I see in the things that we say here. Thanks.

I think you mean that you would prefer that I not paraphrase or attempt to extract the *topics* of your concern and, as I did, to list them?