Christianity

[henry quirk]

Is there any reason why you do not use proper quote boxes?

Not really. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

Anyway, I'll do better(...or will I?)

[Immanuel Can]

No, I wouldn't say that was fair.

The deciding factor is not subjective...it's either objectively true or objectively false. The only way a prophecy can "be what people want it to be" is if it's so vague as to describe nothing...like daily horoscopes. If it's at all specific, then a prophecy is simply true or false.

That is not what I meant. What I referred to is that for thousands of years the prophecies to which we refer were suspected, intuited, imagined and perceived as being close, just around the corner, and in every period where there were wars, conflicts, disasters, and other such events, it was imagined that the end of the world was nigh.

Sorry...I misunderstood your point.

Of course, you're right. And the reason we now look back on those prophecies with skepticism is not merely that they disagreed with each other, or even just that some of them came from suspect sources; it's that they did not come true at all.

I did not say that prophecy was what people wanted it to be, but rather that they in fact had no choice but to try to attempt to interpret the prophecies they read about, or which other people talked about, as having direct bearing on their lives, the situations around them.

That might be true of some people...I don't think it's true of all, and certainly there are elements of Biblical prophecy that make such guess-making impossible sometimes.

And as always this sense of foreboding had a 'Christian' function: to induce a sense of instability in them. If they were complacent about *the world* and themselves in that world they would not be able to find the motive to sever their hopes and longings from a mutable platform and turn instead to God and higher metaphysical ideas (or realities).

There's some truth in that. But it's a small difference. Christians were always told that the goods and plaudits of this world are transient and of little ultimate value. So in a sense, we might say that every Christian should always be living with that sense, regardless of whether prophecies of the apocalpyse are far or near.

But the essential factor is the sense that the foundation, the understructure of life in so many areas and senses is unstable. It seems to produce a form of desperation.

I think this is certainly true for secularists, utopians, and progressivists, among others. It must be very frustrating to see one's "heaven-on-earth" slipping from one's grasp, and to fear that each mounting crisis and tragedy bode the possible failure of all one's plans.

Christians see things differently. This world is not our ultimate home, nor are the paltry aspirations and short-winded accents of men our ultimate goals. This world is valuable, a creation of God, the stage on which the drama of human history and salvation is to be played out; and it's held in stewardship, as a gift of God, so it's not to be despised. On the other hand, we recognize as ultimately contingent and transitory, even so. So it is the world that cannot fail to which we aspire. Any particular crisis does not signal the defeat of our hopes. Our hopes are not here.

Obviously, with advent of the Great War and the destruction that followed (so I have read) faith in the continuity of *civilized* life was severely affected. I read not long ago someone who had written that the sense of trust in life itself as a stable platform in Europe changed dramatically as a result of that shock. He said that one would have had to have lived prior to 1914 to have known that sense of faith and comfort that life offered, which as substantially shattered after that terrible war -- and of course those that followed it.

Yes.

Two ideologies in particular took a severe hit after the world wars: firstly, the secular faith of Humanism, and secondly, the pseudo-Christian belief system called "The Social Gospel." Both had shared the Progressivist hope that mere human goodness was bound to prevail, and the human race would just evolve to become better and better as technology, knowledge, medicine, and social welfare improved.

Both hopes were vain, and both were dashed on the rocks of the immeasurable evil of two awful world wars. It became apparent, after that, that evil was going nowhere: that with technology and knowledge, not only good things increased but evil as well. No progress was actually being made, at least if bettering human nature is taken into consideration.

In my view it is clear that the modern era seems to be one of acceleration in all areas, but though it is said that life improves and gets better with every passing advance, it does seem to me that people generally sense that things get that much more insecure, and that it is not really possible to have great faith in these developments.

That's it. That's the point.

It seems that every time the human race progresses in technique it also magnifies the human potential for evil as well. Ancient man might have lived in conditions of life that were "nasty, brutish and short," but at least wicked ancient men were incapable of destroying the global environment itself, or of generating super-viruses, or really fouling the vast oceans, or of immolating the entire planet in a nuclear war.

This interests me, of course, because I sense that (certainly in the US, I am uncertain how other people perceive it) the loss of faith in an understructure the world provides leads to a tremendous and mounting psychic insecurity. It seems to me this insecurity and angst lead to an internal condition of susceptibility to *hysteria*.

Well, and fair enough.

If one's whole hope is in this world...one has reasons enough today for fear.

[Immanuel Can]

Not talking to you, DAM. Can't deal with the drama.

What you really can't deal with is knowing there are smarter people than you around.

Hmmm.

Well, you're at least the second brightest person in the present exchange, so you can pride yourself on that, if you're inclined.

[Dontaskme]

Not talking to you, DAM. Can't deal with the drama.

This world is valuable, a creation of God, the stage on which the drama of human history and salvation is to be played out; and it's held in stewardship, as a gift of God, so it's not to be despised.

In other words...

Play the Highway, or go to hell.

Nice one!

[Alexis Jacobi]

If one's whole hope is in this world...

I suppose you will agree that it is not an easy thing to believe in that there is another world that is radically distinct and different from this world?

Do you think it true that there is no evidence we can refer to of such a world-beyond? And it must be taken on faith alone since, unless I am wrong, there is no Earth resident who has been to the world beyond and returned and no descriptions of what it is like . . .

Do you think it possible for Heaven’s residents to communicate with Earth residents? Is there a line of communication?

These are genuine questions. It seems true to me that many do not ask sincere and direct questions about (permit me the term) the mechanics of these metaphysical descriptions.

[Immanuel Can]

Play the Highway, or go to hell.

I have no idea what you mean, DAM.

But again, over-dramatic.

[Immanuel Can]

If one's whole hope is in this world...

I suppose you will agree that it is not an easy thing to believe in that there is another world that is radically distinct and different from this world?

I actually think it's pretty reasonable. I admit it's not what everybody does, but the more one thinks about it, the more sense it makes.

This world is clearly not ultimate. We can tell, because it's entropic, perishing, moribund. It's not forever. But there are a lot of what has been called "intimations of immortality" (to paraphrase Wordsworth). And we might ask ourselves, "How is it that we human beings, if all we are is a contingent product of a passing world, have ever even got this idea of eternity, of permanence, of infinitiy?" For clearly, here, all things end. So how is we have even managed to conceptualize anything outside of that? And do this conceptualizations, so prominent that they are found in every culture everywhere, actualy refer to anything, or are they entirely fictitious and fabricated?

Yet we look out into space, or across the oceans, or down from mountain height, and our minds are inexorably drawn to the eternal. It is as if a voice in nature itself were whispering to us, "There is more."

And what if God Himself told us there were more than this? What if He had commissioned men, or come Himself to make sure we knew that the intimations of immortality in our world and inside ourselves were not mere fantasy?

If you believed all that, then how long would it be impausible or difficult to think of another world radically distinct from ours, at least in permanence? I suggest it's not only not hard to do, it's so irresistible that every culture has done it. They differ on the particulars, to be sure: but on this much they agree...that the intuition that there must be more is deeply felt, and universal.

Do you think it true that there is no evidence we can refer to of such a world-beyond?

Does not the above perhaps speak to that question?

And it must be taken on faith alone since, unless I am wrong, there is no Earth resident who has been to the world beyond and returned and no descriptions of what it is like . . .

Well, the Christian belief is that there indeed has been such a Man.

Do you think it possible for Heaven’s residents to communicate with Earth residents? Is there a line of communication?

Yes. Of course. If I thought otherwise, could I be a Christian?

My whole belief is that God communicates with His Creation, and with mankind in particular. As the Bible puts it, "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world." (Heb. 1:1-2)

Christians believe that God speaks, and loves to speak. God communcates and desires communion with His creatures, fallen though we be. And He has spoken eloquently, fully and decisively, in sending His Son to be the consummate point of relationship with Him, and has offered Him to rescue us, and raised Him from the dead to give testimony to His intentions toward us.

So as Christians, we have the ultimate proof of the goodness of God's intentions toward us, and the ultimate assurance of resurrection and eternal life, in that God Himself has gone before us through that sequence, in the person of His Son -- who now says, "Follow me, and I will bring you through."

These are genuine questions. It seems true to me that many do not ask sincere and direct questions about (permit me the term) the mechanics of these metaphysical descriptions.

I'm believing that they are. And I think they're very intelligent questions, and precisely the right sorts of questions. So I am happy to give you the answers I believe are true, and leave them in your judgment as to what you make of them. I appreciate your frankness and directness, and I think you sincere. And it seems to me, such a person deserves straight answers.

[owl of Minerva]

By Emmanuel Can:

“ Two ideologies in particular took a severe hit after the world wars: firstly, the secular faith of Humanism, and secondly, the pseudo-Christian belief system called "The Social Gospel." Both had shared the Progressivist hope that mere human goodness was bound to prevail, and the human race would just evolve to become better and better as technology, knowledge, medicine, and social welfare improved.

Both hopes were vain, and both were dashed on the rocks of the immeasurable evil of two awful world wars. It became apparent, after that, that evil was going nowhere: that with technology and knowledge, not only good things increased but evil as well. No progress was actually being made, at least if bettering human nature is taken into consideration.”

…………………………………………………………………

It was inevitable that the humanism of the evangelism of Luther and Calvin would deteriorate into secular humanism. It was too extreme and unbalanced. Evangelical Christianity “of or according to the gospel of the Christian religion” would be more accurately described as: of or according to the INTERPRETATION of the Christian religion. They approved of burning at the stake; the execution of their opponents as they fought over their different interpretations. It was human rationalization, not the revelation of prophets; not an intuitive knowing of truth. And their competitive stance in relation to their opponents, and condoning of their executions, was a far cry from Christ’s “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”

As well, to believe that there is no hope; that good and evil will always be equal is defeatism and is in accordance with the Manichaeism view. That some are chosen; an elect who will be saved on the basis of God’s plan or of faith alone without human effort to be better and do better is pernicious and defeatist. There is evil without a doubt, it is a given. To think that humans do not have the will or power to resist it is to doubt in the goodness of God and to give in to fatalism.

A progressive view that no matter how joined the battle is between good and evil, good will prevail if aligned with by a humanity that is all one, none especially chosen, is enlightened and more in accordance with the Christian scripture. It gives optimism and hope rather than defeatism and resignation.

[Lacewing]

I suppose you will agree that it is not an easy thing to believe in that there is another world that is radically distinct and different from this world?

...the more one thinks about it, the more sense it makes.

People can make 'sense' of all kinds of things via self-affirming, self-serving repetition. Thinking about something a lot doesn't equate to clarity or truth.

[Immanuel Can]

It was inevitable that the humanism of the evangelism of Luther and Calvin would deteriorate into secular humanism. It was too extreme and unbalanced.

I actually agree with you. (But then, I am neither Lutheran nor Calvinist.) Both made the terrible mistake of mirroring the sort of clerical hierarchy they had learned from Catholicism; and it was only a matter of time until both went corrupt, therefore.

However, neither Lutherans nor Calvinists nor Catholics can be accurately described as "evangelical." The former two believe that salvation is fated not chosen, and the latter doesn't believe in Biblical salvation at all. So whatever they're "evangelizing," it isn' the Christian "evangel."

...their competitive stance in relation to their opponents, and condoning of their executions, was a far cry from Christ’s “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Absolutely true. And you use the right model from which to criticize them for what they chose to do. Again, I agree.

As well, to believe that there is no hope; that good and evil will always be equal is defeatism and is in accordance with the Manichaeism view.

No, not quite. The Manichees were Gnostics, and like all Gnostics, think salvation consists in the detachment from the material and flesh world. They're not totally defeatist, just more than a little world-hating.

What Humanism had in common with Social Justice (which was really just a religious form of the same creed) was the sanguine belief that human beings are progressing morally, and that a better world is just a matter of giving human nature more free reign and a bit more time: just believe good things, and we'll all turn out good, they thought. "Every day, in every way, we're getting better and better."

That's why two world wars were such devastating events for them. They had spent all their energies on downplaying the existence of evil, on denying that it could not be overcome by human progress and social evolution: only to find that the most technologically, artistically, and academically advanced countries in the world were quite capable of producing the worst sorts of destruction and murder, on a never-before-seen scale, and with no remedy in view.

Talk about a disillusionment!

That some are chosen; an elect

That's Calvinism. And I agree it's a fallacy, and, I would also say, a heresy.

There is evil without a doubt, it is a given. To think that humans do not have the will or power to resist it is to doubt in the goodness of God...

No, that's a non-sequitur. That does not follow at all.

What does obviously follow is that "if humans do not have the will or power to resist" then we must doubt the goodness of humans. But God's goodness is quite another question. Only if we artificially couple the wickedness of men with the Determistic Calvinist "god" do we get the conclusion that God has done something wrong. If man is free to choose, he owns responsibility for what he chooses to do.

A progressive view that no matter how joined the battle is between good and evil, good will prevail if aligned with by a humanity

That's just the old Humanism, the one that took such a beating from WW1 and 2 (and has had several good beatings since, of course.) Good does not prevail in humanity, because human beings are not aligned with good themselves, and cannot be trusted to be.

You can see this very easily.

Let's imagine God doesn't exist. Then, we must ask ourselves, who or what explains two world wars, the global economic and enviromental crises, the rise of totalitarianism in many places, genocides, abortion, sexual exploitation and trafficking, slavery...and on and on and on?

For remember: there's now no God to blame. So what do we have to say that caused all these awful things, all of which are manifestly fixtures -- and growing features, too -- of this world? Who did it, if God is dead?

So from either the Humanist perspective or from the pseudo-theology of the Social Justice movement, the same conclusion is reached: human beings did it. There's nobody else to blame. And if they did it once...or twice...or many times...they can, and most probably will, do it again.

Therefore, any return to naive and sanguine hopes about how human beings are going to make themselves better is not only unwarranted but also quite dangerous, as well.

But we just can't seem to stop ourselves...

[owl of Minerva]

By Emanuel Can:

“owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:33 pm
It was inevitable that the humanism of the evangelism of Luther and Calvin would deteriorate into secular humanism.

“ I actually agree with you. (But then, I am neither Lutheran nor Calvinist.) Both made the terrible mistake of mirroring the sort of clerical hierarchy they had learned from Catholicism; and it was only a matter of time until both went corrupt, therefore.
However, neither Lutherans nor Calvinists nor Catholics can be accurately described as "evangelical." The former two believe that salvation is fated not chosen, and the latter doesn't believe in Biblical salvation at all. So whatever they're "evangelizing," it isn' the Christian "evangel."


No, not quite. The Manichees were Gnostics, and like all Gnostics, think salvation consists in the detachment from the material and flesh world. They're not totally defeatist, just more than a little world-hating.

What Humanism had in common with Social Justice (which was really just a religious form of the same creed) was the sanguine belief that human beings are progressing morally, and that a better world is just a matter of giving human nature more free reign and a bit more time: just believe good things, and we'll all turn out good, they thought. "Every day, in every way, we're getting better and better."

That's why two world wars were such devastating events for them. They had spent all their energies on downplaying the existence of evil, on denying that it could not be overcome by human progress and social evolution: only to find that the most technologically, artistically, and academically advanced countries in the world were quite capable of producing the worst sorts of destruction and murder, on a never-before-seen scale, and with no remedy in view.

Talk about a disillusionment!
That some are chosen; an elect
That's Calvinism. And I agree it's a fallacy, and, I would also say, a heresy.
There is evil without a doubt, it is a given. To think that humans do not have the will or power to resist it is to doubt in the goodness of God...
No, that's a non-sequitur. That does not follow at all.

What does obviously follow is that "if humans do not have the will or power to resist" then we must doubt the goodness of humans. But God's goodness is quite another question. Only if we artificially couple the wickedness of men with the Determistic Calvinist "god" do we get the conclusion that God has done something wrong. If man is free to choose, he owns responsibility for what he chooses to do.
A progressive view that no matter how joined the battle is between good and evil, good will prevail if aligned with by a humanity
That's just the old Humanism, the one that took such a beating from WW1 and 2 (and has had several good beatings since, of course.) Good does not prevail in humanity, because human beings are not aligned with good themselves, and cannot be trusted to be.

You can see this very easily.

Let's imagine God doesn't exist. Then, we must ask ourselves, who or what explains two world wars, the global economic and enviromental crises, the rise of totalitarianism in many places, genocides, abortion, sexual exploitation and trafficking, slavery...and on and on and on?

For remember: there's now no God to blame. So what do we have to say that caused all these awful things, all of which are manifestly fixtures -- and growing features, too -- of this world? Who did it, if God is dead?

So from either the Humanist perspective or from the pseudo-theology of the Social Justice movement, the same conclusion is reached: human beings did it. There's nobody else to blame. And if they did it once...or twice...or many times...they can, and most probably will, do it again.

Therefore, any return to naive and sanguine hopes about how human beings are going to make themselves better is not only unwarranted but also quite dangerous, as well.

But we just can't seem to stop ourselves...”

………………………………………………………………

You are critical of other branches of Christianity so I am curious as to what Evangelical Christian category you belong to. Did it have a founder? Many people, both believers and non-believers, are skeptical of evangelism because they view its ‘faith alone’ philosophy as dubious and its prosperity doctrine as similar to medieval indulgences, and prosperity as a marker of the elect as similar to a cargo cult. They are dubious of Televangelists and their prosperity from large donations. It appears as if religion is used to promote business. In the U.S. conservative Christians support fellow evangelists such as Bush and Trump. They appear naive and are skeptical of science, although Trump made full use of it when he had Covid. There is hypocrisy in believing in virtue while being anything but, and supporting those who are not.

A hierarchy is not necessarily a bad thing when decisions are made by a group with a leader by consensus and not by a single individual. I agree that salvation is not fated but chosen. I am not clear on what “biblical salvation” means.

Gnosticism emphasized personal spiritual knowledge above the orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of traditional religious institutions. That appears to be the view you are espousing. That they disdained the world was not good as it is where salvation is to be worked out.

Humanism is an overemphasis on the human to the exclusion of all else. Native peoples rightly saw their place and duty was between heaven and earth: Spirit and Nature, maintaining balance between both. Everything in nature maintains balance as is increasingly apparent. Not believing in social justice is not a virtue. To believe that human beings do not have the will or power to resist evil is to believe in a fatal flaw in the creation of a just God. Humans did not create good or evil. They just choose which they align themselves with. I do not agree with your mis-intrepration. Your view of humans is quite pessimistic and is one that is not shared by most religious leaders or most religions. That if humanity chooses good, good will not prevail makes it appear that it is the will of an arbitrary dictator God that salvation depends on. That is another Evangelism that most religions are not on board with.

[Immanuel Can]

You are critical of other branches of Christianity so I am curious as to what Evangelical Christian category you belong to. Did it have a founder?

Yes. Jesus Christ.

With seriousness, though, I'm non-denominational. We have no other founder, and take no other name. And we would be ashamed to do so.

Many people, both believers and non-believers, are skeptical of evangelism because they view its ‘faith alone’ philosophy as dubious and its prosperity doctrine as similar to medieval indulgences, and prosperity as a marker of the elect as similar to a cargo cult. They are dubious of Televangelists and their prosperity from large donations. It appears as if religion is used to promote business. In the U.S. conservative Christians support fellow evangelists such as Bush and Trump...

The problem is not "faith alone," which is a Biblical axiom. It's what's called "The Prosperity Gospel," which is actually a materialistic belief system, one that Christ Himself taught us is contrary to His values. And you're right to be skeptical of the hucksters, the salesmen and the liars.

The difficulty for you, looking at things from the outside, is this: how are you to know what a real Christian is, and is not? The closer one gets to the core of truth about that, the more charlatans, fakers, pretenders, salesmen and hucksters there seem to be. That makes things doubly confusing.

But if we think about it, that's exactly what we should probably expect: namely, that the majority of deceptions are going to be clustered around the truth. That's because deceptions get stronger as they get closer to the truth; and deceptions that are far from the truth, from the facts, from the essence of an answer, are always the least plausible deceptions, right? In fact, the most powerful deception, the one that's hardest for anybody to see through, is always the one that sticks closest to the facts of every point it can -- departing only in the crucial moment, and in the minimal way it can afford.

This makes the situation, especially for the outsider, extremely difficult and requiring of great discernment. So I understand your hesitancy to trust any of it completely.

A hierarchy is not necessarily a bad thing when decisions are made by a group with a leader by consensus and not by a single individual.

That's a democracy, and it's a good form of governance...at least it's better than the alternatives.

But from a Christian perspective, the only "leader" who's legitimate is Christ Himself. If there are any others, they are mere "undershepherds," and have no authority at all the minute they step out from under HIs authority.

I agree that salvation is not fated but chosen. I am not clear on what “biblical salvation” means.

I'll try to put it briefly, and in ordinary language. Biblical salvation is salvation from evil, from sin, from death, from entropy, from suffering, from sadness...in short, from all the things this world is afflicted with. But it's not a human achievement: it's the taking of God's free offer of forgiveness and relationship, through faith, on the basis of the life and promises of Jesus Christ.

Gnosticism emphasized personal spiritual knowledge above the orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of traditional religious institutions. That appears to be the view you are espousing. That they disdained the world was not good as it is where salvation is to be worked out.

No, I'm no Gnostic, and there are many disagreements between Christians and Gnostics that make them essentially very different.

You've pointed out two (well done: most people can't). You've pointed out that real Christianity is a denial of the authority of human religiosity and institutions, and is positive about the value of the physical world, seeing it as a creation of God. Gnosticism stridently disagrees with both, as Gnostics look to a priestly caste called "the enlightened ones" or "the illuminati" to provide them the secret gnosis or "knowledge" of how to escape the chains of physical embodiment.

There are tons more differences -- for example, no Gnostic is going to believe the account of "salvation" I've described. But those two are certainly two of the strong points of departure.

Humanism is an overemphasis on the human to the exclusion of all else.

Yes, I agree: it's an overemphasis. But I doubt Humanists would concede that it "excludes all else."

What they would say can be summed up as that "the Human" is the center of value in the universe, and the determiner of humanity's own state and future. The world, according to Humanism, is not a creation of God, but a product of time and chance, under the influence of evolution. But human beings are the most "progressed" and enlightened beings, and thus are the generator and stopping point of any values. There are no divine values, for the Humanist. It might be summed up as "I am the captain of my fate / I am the master of my soul," to quote W.E. Henley.

Native peoples rightly saw their place and duty was between heaven and earth: Spirit and Nature, maintaining balance between both.

No, I'm sorry...that's "Pocahontas Disney natives."

Real natives are mostly animists and polytheists. For them, there are spirits to be feared in rivers, rocks and trees, and dark forces that only the witch doctor can help the poor native to manage. They're highly, highly superstitious, occultic and driven by fear, for the most part; and if you know the real history of native cultures in places like Africa or North America, you know they're highly tribalistic, xenophobic, and violent in their practices.

Not believing in social justice is not a virtue.

"Social justice" has nothing to do with ancient cultures. It's nothing that's existed before the rise of the Frankfurt School of the Neo-Marxists in the last century. It's a completely different form of superstition.

To believe that human beings do not have the will or power to resist evil is to believe in a fatal flaw in the creation of a just God.

Well, as I said, this is a non-sequitur. If men are evil, the problem is with men. And since, as you and I both believe, men have a choice of whether they will be good or evil, there's no blame to God if men choose evil. It's entirely on them.

God made men good. But he also made men free. And when they rebelled against God, they became capable of all that is not godly.

Humans did not create good or evil.

Evil is not a thing-in-itself: it's a corruption of good. God made things good; but men made them evil.

Your view of humans is quite pessimistic and is one that is not shared by most religious leaders or most religions.

You are quite correct.

Most relgions (and this makes them starkly different from Christianity) teach that man can save himself. All he has to do is try harder to be good, or follow the next guru, or purge his own soul of its darkness, or invent a technology that can reform his fellow man, or collectivize in sufficient numbers, and he will get himself out of the mess he's in. Christianity says that all such efforts are vain and doomed: and that unless we are saved by God, we will not ever be saved at all.

Is that "pessimistic"? In a sense, yes: it's pessimistic about man's chances of producing his own salvation. But is it pessimistic about his chances of being saved by God? Not at all; for salvation is free to all who will receive it, and salvation is complete when God does it. Very optimistic indeed!

[Lacewing]

The difficulty for you, looking at things from the outside, is this: how are you to know what a real Christian is, and is not?

Ah, the 'outside'. Is that the same as how you're on the 'outside' of being an atheist, but you claim to know all about it?

The closer one gets to the core of truth about that, the more charlatans, fakers, pretenders, salesmen and hucksters there seem to be.

Ah, the 'core' of truth. Or maybe, it's ALL a bunch of varied potential without a core, and people make it all up to suit/serve themselves.

But if we think about it, that's exactly what we should probably expect: namely, that the majority of deceptions are going to be clustered around the truth. That's because deceptions get stronger as they get closer to the truth; and deceptions that are far from the truth, from the facts, from the essence of an answer, are always the least plausible deceptions, right?

The way you come up with this transparent stuff to serve yourself and justify your claims is fascinating.

In fact, the most powerful deception, the one that's hardest for anybody to see through, is always the one that sticks closest to the facts of every point it can

Oh, is that a 'fact'? Or maybe deceptions are just very creative delusions that serve people. And maybe people don't see through deceptions NOT because the deceptions are so close to the truth, but because the people are very gullible and foolish.

The structure you create to support the structure you want to believe in is imaginatively creative, and that can be seen very easily by people you claim are 'on the outside'. Further, the outside is what you define it to be -- just another idea you use to glorify yourself and to prop up the glorified structure you seat yourself on, even as it crumbles in the face of broader truths. Just keep on pretending no matter what -- THAT'S 'the core of it' which is demonstrated continually.

[Immanuel Can]

Is that the same as how you're on the 'outside' of being an atheist, but you claim to know all about it?

Atheist themselves proudly say that Atheism consists of only one claim. And if they're not lying, there's nothing more to know. But I actually know a ton about it: because while they rarely read my literature, I read lots of theirs.

In fact, the most powerful deception, the one that's hardest for anybody to see through, is always the one that sticks closest to the facts of every point it can

Oh, is that a 'fact'?

Absolutely. Try it sometime. If you come home late, and somebody asks you, "Why aren't you here on time?" then don't try to tell them, "I was abducted by a UFO." That's too far from the truth. If you want to deceive them, there will be a whole cluster of things you can say, all of them much closer to the truth: "The car had a flat," "I was prevented by an emergency that came up," "My watch broke," "I thought we said we'd meet later," "The traffic was terrible..." There are always the most functional lies closest to the truth. Wild exaggerations are too detectable.

If you don't know that, you've never had a teenager. You can be sure they all know that principle. They're very adept shifters of blame, and their craft consists in not getting far away from the truth.

[owl of Minerva]

By Emanuel Can:

:
“owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:42 am
You are critical of other branches of Christianity so I am curious as to what Evangelical Christian category you belong to. Did it have a founder?

…………………………………….
“Yes. Jesus Christ.
With seriousness, though, I'm non-denominational. We have no other founder, and take no other name. And we would be ashamed to do so.”
…………………………………….
Many people, both believers and non-believers, are skeptical of evangelism because they view its ‘faith alone’ philosophy as dubious and its prosperity doctrine as similar to medieval indulgences, and prosperity as a marker of the elect as similar to a cargo cult. They are dubious of Televangelists and their prosperity from large donations. It appears as if religion is used to promote business. In the U.S. conservative Christians support fellow evangelists such as Bush and Trump...
……………………………………
“The problem is not "faith alone," which is a Biblical axiom. It's what's called "The Prosperity Gospel," which is actually a materialistic belief system, one that Christ Himself taught us is contrary to His values. And you're right to be skeptical of the hucksters, the salesmen and the liars.

The difficulty for you, looking at things from the outside, is this: how are you to know what a real Christian is, and is not? The closer one gets to the core of truth about that, the more charlatans, fakers, pretenders, salesmen and hucksters there seem to be. That makes things doubly confusing.

But if we think about it, that's exactly what we should probably expect: namely, that the majority of deceptions are going to be clustered around the truth. That's because deceptions get stronger as they get closer to the truth; and deceptions that are far from the truth, from the facts, from the essence of an answer, are always the least plausible deceptions, right? In fact, the most powerful deception, the one that's hardest for anybody to see through, is always the one that sticks closest to the facts of every point it can -- departing only in the crucial moment, and in the minimal way it can afford.

This makes the situation, especially for the outsider, extremely difficult and requiring of great discernment. So I understand your hesitancy to trust any of it completely.”
………………………………………………
A hierarchy is not necessarily a bad thing when decisions are made by a group with a leader by consensus and not by a single individual.
………………………………………………..
“That's a democracy, and it's a good form of governance...at least it's better than the alternatives.

But from a Christian perspective, the only "leader" who's legitimate is Christ Himself. If there are any others, they are mere "undershepherds," and have no authority at all the minute they step out from under HIs authority.
………………………………………………….
I agree that salvation is not fated but chosen. I am not clear on what “biblical salvation” means.
…………………………………………………..
“I'll try to put it briefly, and in ordinary language. Biblical salvation is salvation from evil, from sin, from death, from entropy, from suffering, from sadness...in short, from all the things this world is afflicted with. But it's not a human achievement: it's the taking of God's free offer of forgiveness and relationship, through faith, on the basis of the life and promises of Jesus Christ.
Gnosticism emphasized personal spiritual knowledge above the orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of traditional religious institutions. That appears to be the view you are espousing. That they disdained the world was not good as it is where salvation is to be worked out.
No, I'm no Gnostic, and there are many disagreements between Christians and Gnostics that make them essentially very different.

You've pointed out two (well done: most people can't). You've pointed out that real Christianity is a denial of the authority of human religiosity and institutions, and is positive about the value of the physical world, seeing it as a creation of God. Gnosticism stridently disagrees with both, as Gnostics look to a priestly caste called "the enlightened ones" or "the illuminati" to provide them the secret gnosis or "knowledge" of how to escape the chains of physical embodiment.

There are tons more differences -- for example, no Gnostic is going to believe the account of "salvation" I've described. But those two are certainly two of the strong points of departure.”
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

I differ with you on a number of points. I will enumerate them not to convince you of anything, as I am not interested in that; you are entitled to your world view as am I entitled to mine, but to point out where we differ in our world views.

Firstly I am not an outsider I understand the Christian message and feel a kinship with others who likewise understand it. If they are judgmental or critical of other religions whether Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim or of Atheists; who are helping us understand the physical world, I am not on board with that. We may not agreed with the behavior of some, or many of us, but the essential truths of the various creeds are not in question. As for native peoples in primitive societies, they did good with what they had and had wisdom in their attitudes to nature. Of course all humans in a dual system can choose right or wrong and that choice plays out in all times and climes. Choosing good is a form of faith. Having faith without choosing is nihilism.

You choose Christ but has he chosen you? Is He on board with your view of human nature which even though flawed is, as a work of the Creator, at heart pure gold. Life is not a Puritan hell but a joyous adventure, a novel written by a Master Dramatist that has good and evil, and choices, the diverse paths will merge in a higher age when all is understood.

Mankind is no more responsible for good and evil, before choosing, than it is for the dual system it finds itself in: the electrical field; the three nuclear forces: strong, neutral, and weak, and what is engendered accordingly at the physical, psychological and spiritual levels. In this situation “faith alone” is a very dubious doctrine. That is not to say that there is not truth in: “thy faith has made thee whole.” However, people assuming they are at that level, that they have transcended duality; are beyond good and evil, where they can say “all is good.” Is wishful thinking. There is much work to be done and faith alone is not going to accomplish it.