Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

" In what way is Jewish national "salvation" the same as Christian "salvation from sin," and the same as Islamic "submission"? Surely it's evident, even at first glance, that the concepts look very, very different, no? So we would need some very precise way of knowing that the glaring differences were actually, at the deepest level, merely superficial. And how would we know that, especially prior to all investigation of the relevant facts?

It seems to me that we must recognize the notion of *sin* as being, at least largely, a Jewish concept. Or to put it more accurately a Jewish focus. All that I can say here is that most of Christian ideas about afterlife and a great deal more are extensions or amplifications of ideas part-and-parcel of Jewish notions.

Yes and no. There is certainly some affinity between ancient Jewish ideas and Christian ones, for sure. However, there is no concept of "national salvation" in Christianity. There are, in fact, no national, cultural or religious barriers that are allowed to rival or to supersede one's primary identity as a Christian.

But it gets really, really different when we get into Islam. Islam's central concept "submission," which is the very meaning of "Islam" itself, is not found in either Judaism or Christianity at all. Nor is the concept of "reversion," or the concept "taqqiya," or "infidels" or "dhimmis" or many of the other routine concepts in Islam.

I could say (and I would be right) that we can find a certain synthesis of what I refer to in Shakespeare. It would actually be quite possible, and even smart, to build a humanism from Shakespeare. It is Harold Bloom's contention that Shakespeare gave us in so many senses our human world. So what informed Shakespeare I'd like to continue. Where will I look for *it*?

You'd have to start with the Bible, I think.

"Regardless of the version used, there are roughly 1,350 total identifiable instances where Shakespeare references or quotes directly from the Bible found throughout his plays (Bragg 142)."

Yes, we could. But we're best to derive our own from the data, rather than taking any presuppositional position on that. Jewish "conversion" is a communal and rabbinical thing, it seems to me. Catholic "conversion" is limited to Church membership: remember their axiom, "ex ecclesiam, nullus salus" ("outside the Church, no salvation")? But Christian "conversion" never is like either: it's individual and credal. And as I pointed out before, Islamists don't even use the term "conversion" but rather the concept "reversion." So we can't assume that all the relevant traditions even HAVE "conversions": even in those limited cases where that word appears, it's evident that the various traditions mean different things by it.

Here I simply don't accept where your asserted ideas tend.

Which thing that I have said above is untrue?

...political conversion, and say Marxian conversion, share many traits in common with religious conversion.

Some "religious" conversions, perhaps, provided whatever "religion" in view is no more than an ideology of some kind.

Not Christian "conversion." For one thing, Marx denies the metaphysical completely. He is logically not even capable, therefore, of appealing to dynamics that produce an actual Christian conversion...not that he ever would.

I think you're quite wrong about that. But I'm in a position to know, of course. I don't know if you are.

Well, perhaps you shouldn't have used that word. I never did. But you could choose a much better one....Why not simply say what is most obvious -- namely, that all religious traditions propose to be ways to the Divine, but that they offer very different accounts of how that goal is to be achieved?

True enough. And it is also true that any given individual will require a different sort of focus.[/quote]
I'm not sure I know what you mean. A "focus"?

...it will always be impossible to dismiss Christianity. Christian concerns encompass literally everything.

I think that's true. I'm not sure it stops people from "dismissing" Christianity.

I'm familiar with this supposition, but I think it's badly wrong. However, I would say that the Roman pagan world was indeed very "human," but not in many good senses of that term.

This is undeniable, and for that reason *the Christian cure* became necessary, and valid. But the same trends (veering away from excesses) also had been defined by 'higher paganism'.

Paganism is never "high." It always turns out to be a lowering of the human being to his worst, most base instincts.

Nietzsche's road leads to the gas chamber and the corpse kiln.

Well! Here we are once again. All conversational roads in their winding eventually lead to a confrontation with Adolf Hitler.

That's because it's the inevitable Jewish case. I don't think there has ever been anything that is more a paradigm case of evil in Jewish thought, and the community is, to this day, still struggling to come to grips with the meaning of evil that massive and hatred that focused.

I think it certainly wise (absolutely necessary in fact) to take heed over political creeds and social movements that could mimic Nazi-like transformations of society and the very very bad things that result from that.

There are a lot like that. Communism's only the most obvious one. "Democratic Socialism" is a sort of stealth-bomber, but with all the same destructive properties. All human attempts to master each other end up in the gulag.

Some quotes from Clockwork Orange

I'm not sure how they help us here.

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

All human attempts to master each other end up in the gulag.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That would be entirely immaterial. If any believed in it, they believed contrary to Torah.

When you refer to Torah do you mean the 5 books of Moses or the entire Jewish bible (Old Testament)? Or do you mean all of Torah which includes thousands of commentaries?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm not sure how they help us here.

More as a note of humor, though Burgess did maintain that you could not 'make' someone good. That was the point of Clockwork Orange I gathered. The irony in Alex's love of Beethoven is that it was Beethoven's music that moved him and could be said to be the only thing that 'changed' him. And they do say that about music.

Merchant of Venice
Lorenzo to Jessica, about music:

"The reason is, your spirits are attentive:
For do but note a wild and wanton herd,
Or race of youthful and unhandled colts,
Fetching mad bounds, bellowing and neighing loud,
Which is the hot condition of their blood;
If they but hear perchance a trumpet sound,
Or any air of music touch their ears,
You shall perceive them make a mutual stand,
Their savage eyes turn'd to a modest gaze
By the sweet power of music: therefore the poet
Did feign that Orpheus drew trees, stones and floods;
Since nought so stockish, hard and full of rage,
But music for the time doth change his nature.
The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils;
The motions of his spirit are dull as night
And his affections dark as Erebus:
Let no such man be trusted. Mark the music."

[Alexis Jacobi]

Which thing that I have said above is untrue?

I don't see things in quite those terms. I don't think you are saying false things, obviously. I might say that you say things that seem partial to me. Your reference point seems to be your own theological determinations. Others say and believe different things.

Your focus is to assert, with definite truth, that the Christian spiritual process must be an assent given. Your reference-point is John 3:14. I do not disagree and in most senses I adamantly agree.

Where I differ is that I say there is such a thing as a Christian culture -- a general Christian culture. Those who participate in it are generally not the sort of thorough Christian you refer to, but are partial Christians. Even semi-Christians. People do the best they can I suppose.

There are, in fact, no national, cultural or religious barriers that are allowed to rival or to supersede one's primary identity as a Christian.

I sort of want to comment on this, but it opens up into a difficult territory. I am reading material that, from a Christian perspective (both Protestant and Catholic) that more attention needs to be paid to national composition, and that it is an error of Christianity, because of its admirable universal spirit, not to have paid more attention to the notion of 'defending borders'. I am not referring to the issues in the States with the Southern border, but to Europe. There is the position and discourse of Renaud Camus and those who respond to his message.

I recognize that you have only said "no national, cultural or religious barriers that are allowed to rival or to supersede one's primary identity as a Christian" but many Christians seem to think it is wrong to defend what is *one's own*. That definition-process is fraught and complex, I admit.

[Age]

A reputable or clear source of information

What makes a source reputable, Age?

What I think about this is of absolutely NO importance here. You are just, ONCE AGAIN, 'trying to' DEFLECT AWAY from the POINT "lacewing" VERY CORRECTLY brought to light about you and in the way you are very deceptive when you can NOT back up and support your claims.

"lacewing' wrote to you; You repeat things all the fucking time if they matter to you. About your life, liberty, blah, blah, blah. But if someone says, "I'm not seeing where you provided a reputable or clear source of information," then you tell them you already gave it and they can go look it up. What kind of wankery avoidance is that? Just tell the sources again. Chances are, the question is slightly different OR your explanation was convoluted the first time. Make some effort, geez.

I then JUST asked the question; Could the reason WHY you do NOT provide 'it' AGAIN be partly because you NEVER provided 'it' the FIRST TIME?

You make the claim that you did provide 'it' and that if I do not believe that 'it' is there, then I could go look for 'it' myself.

I then just informed you that I looked for 'it' but I could NOT find 'it'.

You then asked me, What were you lookin' for?

To which I then informed you,A reputable or clear source of information FROM YOU, in this forum.

So, what I think makes a source reputable is of absolutely NO concern NOR importance AT ALL here. You asking for this is just ANOTHER WAY of you 'trying to' DEFLECT AWAY from the GREAT POINT made by "lacewing". That is; if you are informed people are NOT seeing what you claim you have provided, then you just tell them to go look for it "themselves". Which, by the way, you have now PROVEN absolutely True.

Also, NOTICED and NOTED is your frequent attempts of only including 'that' what you want seen, and NOT including EVERY thing. Doing this is ANOTHER WAY of you ATTEMPTING to DEFLECT AWAY from what me and "others" are SHOWING and POINTING OUT in regards to your INCONSISTENCIES and INCORRECT or ILLOGICAL writings.

[Age]

By Immanuel Can:

“ Now, you can argue that reincarnation is real. You can argue that person X or Y has supported your view. You can argue that the Bible is wrong in what it says about the afterlife. But the one thing you can't say is that the Bible teaches reincarnation, or that any real Christian can believe in it.”

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Response by owl of Minerva:

I could quote many examples that reincarnation was believed in by the Jews,

That would be entirely immaterial. If any believed in it, they believed contrary to Torah.

LOL This one STILL continues to write as though "torah" was somehow irrefutably True, Right, and Correct.

That the concept of reincarnation was known to the Jews is evidenced in several New Testament passages, as when the “priests and Levites” ask John the Baptist, “Art thou Elijah?” and when Jesus’ disciples tell him, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist: Some Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.”

That wasn't reincarnation they had in mind: it was prophecy. In particular, it was Malachi 4:5 -- https://www.bibleref.com/Malachi/4/Malachi-4-5.html

The Hebrews use a figure of speech called "metonymy." When they said things like, "Moses gave us..." they meant, "The Law of Moses told us..." Or when they said, "David will reign..." they often meant "Somebody in David's lineage will reign..." The word "Israel" itself was the name of an individual man, long before it became the label for a nation. What they meant by such metonymies was "I am following Moses," or "The sons of David are the kingly line," or "I am a true son of Israel (Jacob)."

So when they speak of "Elijah" returning, they're speaking of a later prophet describe by the prophet Malachi that was prophesied to appear just before the coming of Messiah, acting in the role and attitude of an Elijah. They aren't thinking that Elijah Himself is going to be reincarnated...far less that everybody was always being reincarnated. Those ideas never occurred to them at all.

How come "immanuel can" claims to KNOW what people MEANT many years BEFORE "immanuel can" existed but "immanuel can" does NOT even KNOW what people MEAN when "immanuel can" has discussions with them?

Also it requires believing in hell for all eternity and that a merciful God would allow that.

That's a different topic, though a very interesting one. However, whether or not we like the idea of Hell will not count for or against reincarnation. A belief doesn't become right just because somebody likes it better than an alternative.

I suggest you remember this "yourself" "immanuel can" each time you BELIEVE and call God a "he" just because you like it better than the alternative.

[Age]

" In what way is Jewish national "salvation" the same as Christian "salvation from sin," and the same as Islamic "submission"? Surely it's evident, even at first glance, that the concepts look very, very different, no? So we would need some very precise way of knowing that the glaring differences were actually, at the deepest level, merely superficial. And how would we know that, especially prior to all investigation of the relevant facts?

It seems to me that we must recognize the notion of *sin* as being, at least largely, a Jewish concept. Or to put it more accurately a Jewish focus. All that I can say here is that most of Christian ideas about afterlife and a great deal more are extensions or amplifications of ideas part-and-parcel of Jewish notions.

Yes and no. There is certainly some affinity between ancient Jewish ideas and Christian ones, for sure. However, there is no concept of "national salvation" in Christianity. There are, in fact, no national, cultural or religious barriers that are allowed to rival or to supersede one's primary identity as a Christian.

But it gets really, really different when we get into Islam. Islam's central concept "submission," which is the very meaning of "Islam" itself, is not found in either Judaism or Christianity at all.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, this one speaks as though it KNOWS what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth IS.

Also LOL do "christians" really NOT 'submit' to God's ways or wishes?

If they do not, then this could imply "christians" think "themselves" to be better than God, Itself.

[Age]

Which thing that I have said above is untrue?

I don't see things in quite those terms. I don't think you are saying false things, obviously. I might say that you say things that seem partial to me. Your reference point seems to be your own theological determinations. Others say and believe different things.

Your focus is to assert, with definite truth, that the Christian spiritual process must be an assent given. Your reference-point is John 3:14. I do not disagree and in most senses I adamantly agree.

Where I differ is that I say there is such a thing as a Christian culture -- a general Christian culture. Those who participate in it are generally not the sort of thorough Christian you refer to, but are partial Christians. Even semi-Christians. People do the best they can I suppose.

There are, in fact, no national, cultural or religious barriers that are allowed to rival or to supersede one's primary identity as a Christian.

I sort of want to comment on this, but it opens up into a difficult territory. I am reading material that, from a Christian perspective (both Protestant and Catholic) that more attention needs to be paid to national composition, and that it is an error of Christianity, because of its admirable universal spirit, not to have paid more attention to the notion of 'defending borders'. I am not referring to the issues in the States with the Southern border, but to Europe. There is the position and discourse of Renaud Camus and those who respond to his message.

I recognize that you have only said "no national, cultural or religious barriers that are allowed to rival or to supersede one's primary identity as a Christian" but many Christians seem to think it is wrong to defend what is *one's own*. That definition-process is fraught and complex, I admit.

A so-called "christ-ian", by definition, would just be, for lack of a better word, just a 'follower' of 'christ', right?

Or, is this not right?

[Immanuel Can]

That would be entirely immaterial. If any believed in it, they believed contrary to Torah.

When you refer to Torah do you mean the 5 books of Moses or the entire Jewish bible (Old Testament)? Or do you mean all of Torah which includes thousands of commentaries?

No commentaries, and no Talmud. I was just thinking of the big five, though I regard the Tanakh as equal.

[Immanuel Can]

Which thing that I have said above is untrue?

I don't see things in quite those terms. I don't think you are saying false things, obviously. I might say that you say things that seem partial to me. Your reference point seems to be your own theological determinations. Others say and believe different things.

I don't think they do, actually. I mean, they don't believe anything different from what I said they believed. I think you'll find they're each quite happy to own it. They still think they're right and I'm wrong, of course, but that's a different question.

I was only asking if you thought I had misrepresented them in some way. I don't believe I have.

Where I differ is that I say there is such a thing as a Christian culture -

-
Yes, that's right: I see that we disagree on that. But there are no "partial Christians" and no "semi-Christians." There some lines that are just lines, plain and simple.

As they say, "You can't be a little bit dead or a little bit pregnant." You also can't be "a little bit saved," or "a little bit reborn."

...it is an error of Christianity, because of its admirable universal spirit, not to have paid more attention to the notion of 'defending borders'.

Where do you think this is manifest?

...many Christians seem to think it is wrong to defend what is *one's own*.

That depends a great deal on what is meant by "defend" and what is meant by "one's own." There are some things a Christian ought to defend to the death, and others he/she should not defend at all. So you'll have to be more specific.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Or, is this not right?

You talking to me? You talking to me?! I’m the only one here …

You talking to me?

[Age]

Which thing that I have said above is untrue?

I don't see things in quite those terms. I don't think you are saying false things, obviously. I might say that you say things that seem partial to me. Your reference point seems to be your own theological determinations. Others say and believe different things.

I don't think they do, actually. I mean, they don't believe anything different from what I said they believed. I think you'll find they're each quite happy to own it. They still think they're right and I'm wrong, of course, but that's a different question.

I was only asking if you thought I had misrepresented them in some way. I don't believe I have.

Where I differ is that I say there is such a thing as a Christian culture -

-
Yes, that's right: I see that we disagree on that. But there are no "partial Christians" and no "semi-Christians."

And, there are NO two human beings who class "themselves" as "christians" who think the same. So, in Truth there is NO actual "christian culture" in Reality. There are, however, just some human beings who like to consider and call "themselves" "christians", but who, unfortunately, do NOT act at all like "christ" would.

There some lines that are just lines, plain and simple.

As they say, "You can't be a little bit dead or a little bit pregnant." You also can't be "a little bit saved," or "a little bit reborn."

HOWEVER, one can call "them self" a "christian" but actually mis/behave in the EXACT OPPOSITE way. Just like the one known as "immanuel can" does.

...it is an error of Christianity, because of its admirable universal spirit, not to have paid more attention to the notion of 'defending borders'.

Where do you think this is manifest?

...many Christians seem to think it is wrong to defend what is *one's own*.

That depends a great deal on what is meant by "defend" and what is meant by "one's own."

What is even meant by "christian", by the one known as "immanuel can".

There are some things a Christian ought to defend to the death, and others he/she should not defend at all. So you'll have to be more specific.

If you want to be more specific, how about starting by defining what the word 'christian' means or refers, from your perspective, AND THEN you could move on to the rest.

[Belinda]

By Alexis Jacobi:

“If you can bear to read the following — it is very interesting at the least — I think it sheds some light on the question of ‘conversion’. It is from a book by AD Nock by that name: Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (1933). Nock here opens discussing the conversion of Lucius which took place in the eleventh book of The Golden Ass (or The Metamorphosis) by Apuleius (written in the 2nd century).

The hero of The Metamorphosis was transformed, through his dabbling in magic (in combo with sexual improprieties) into a donkey . . . And he is saved, as it were, by the goddess Isis.”
……………………………………………………………………………

By owl of Minerva:

The goddess Isis is in no way Dionysian. She separates earth from sky and good from evil, and can conquer fate itself. The hero of The Metamorphosis lost his balance between his animal instinctive nature and his human nature and suffered the consequences. He became all animal. The goddess Isis saved him by restoring him to his human nature; thus restoring balance. She represents the balance between the Dionysian; moon and earth, and Apollo; sun and sky; between animal instinct and human reason.

The goddess culture served its age well before the god culture took over. The god culture was a better fit for the descending and the ascending arcs of The Dark Ages. Probably why Christ emphasized divine father rather than divine mother, although both are in the nature of divinity.

As far as conversion goes it likely means turning to truth and ordering life so it corresponds to reality rather than taking the egoistic route of avoidance. Salvation, taking the long view could mean, from a perspective of many lives, escaping the earthly Precession of the Equinoxes of our galaxy, whose duration differs from East to West. The West perceiving all ages as having the same duration; the East perceiving the ages as having different durations.

The goddess Isis is Apollonian compared with the forces of Dionysus that made a donkey of the man in the story. However, as you say, she represents the balance between the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Thank you for making that point clear.

One is afraid that men can't be converted from their animal nature which are leading us to self destruct. In an earlier post I replied to Alexis Jacobi that we do want and require leading politicians at all times in their professional lives to be Apollonians.

Businesses must be Apollonian , and there is some ground for hope that businesses, especially energy producers, will convert to long term instead of short term profits. Let us hope they are not too late!

For most people who are not particularly powerful to change society, we need to be motivated by Dionysus in the form of immediate and personally felt affection for some aspect of the natural environment, not to mention our grandchildren, then as a result we can convert to changing our ways before the Four Horsemen finally make us all die.

[owl of Minerva]

By Belinda:

“ For most people who are not particularly powerful to change society, we need to be motivated by Dionysus in the form of immediate and personally felt affection for some aspect of the natural environment, not to mention our grandchildren, then as a result we can convert to changing our ways before the Four Horsemen finally make us all die.”

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

I agree. What Isis stands for, balance between opposites, between Dionysus and Apollo, is what is needed. Humans find it hard to hold two concepts in balance and negotiate a path between them, and cultures follow suit. This was expressed in past ages in which one choice or the other was more dominant, as expressed at the human level and in cultures, although both options were perceived as universal principles. Necessity may also have played a role in prior ages. We appear to be trying to address the imbalance now, and may eventually be better able to act from a place, personally and culturally, where both are in play as exemplified by the goddess Isis, and live in balance between earth and sky.