Christianity

[Lacewing]

my God is a person

Really? How did you come to that conclusion?

Do you think a person is like a god? Why would a god be like a person?

What do you think all the rest of nature is/represents? Decorations for human lives?

[henry quirk]

But we're not talking about a human. We're talking about a supposed god.

Sure, but as I reckon it, my god or the Christian god are persons.


The problem is that people reduce this concept of a god down to the human level. It looks like a human, it talks like a human, it thinks like a human, and it does nonsense things like a human.

As the passage sez God created man in his own image. This doesn't mean that God is like us. Instead it means we're like him: free, reasoning, moral, with creative power.


Why would a god need to die to REDEEM that which that god supposedly created?

As I understand it: God made man as free wills in paradise. Man chose poorly. God offered a second chance -- solely from love -- to man by becomin' a man and literally sacrificin' Himself to wipe the slate clean. It was atonement in man's stead.

As to why He would choose such a method (incarnation as man and self-sacrifice): mebbe it has to do with free will. B was askin' up thread about why God couldn't just make man want to change. In the same way: why couldn't God just redeem man? Cuz, as I say, it appears God prizes free will, and prizes man. He wants us to come to Him of own our volition and to be self-responsible. It's a bold move, I think, on His part, to set the example by incarnatin' as man, to live as a man, to suffer as a man, and then to die as one, all as a single act of repentance.

[henry quirk]

Why would a god be like a person?

Why wouldn't He be? From the evidence: He craves order, He designs; He prizes freedom and values good. In other words: He has interests, proclivities, preferences, and the desire to see them thru. Sounds like a person to me.


What do you think all the rest of nature is/represents? Decorations for human lives?

I imagine Creation has many purposes: it's not all just for man's benefit.

[henry quirk]

As I reckon it: God doesn't require man's belief.

It may be, however, man requires God's.

'Man requires God's'? What do you mean?

God created man. We exist cuz He willed it. God, as I see it, doesn't need us to believe in Him, but our existence depends on His interest in us.

[Lacewing]

As the passage sez God created man in his own image. This doesn't mean that God is like us. Instead it means we're like him: free, reasoning, moral, with creative power.

Doesn't it seem logical that such creative men would write down ideas based on their own beliefs -- and it was from a collection of such writings that the Bible was assembled? And wouldn't man make himself 'star' of the show, as he continually does?

God offered a second chance to man by becomin' a man and literally sacrificin' Himself to wipe the slate clean. It was atonement in man's stead.

Atonement to who? God atoning to God?

How did it wipe the slate clean? Nothing changed. People continued being people. These are just ideas that make no sense. How can they be anything more than the elaborately creative and dramatic ideas created by the small minds of men to try to explain that which is beyond themselves, while imagining that they are somehow an important focus and are somehow fully aware of it?

[henry quirk]

Doesn't it seem logical that such creative men would write down ideas based on their own beliefs -- and it was from a collection of such writings that the Bible was assembled? And wouldn't man make himself 'star' of the show, as he continually does?

Well, that's possible, sure. But, as aside, the Bible is anything but an endorsement of man. If man is its star then it's as victim and villain, not hero.


Atonement to who? God atoning to God?

God atoned for man by bein' a man and doin' whst man couldn't do for himself.


How did it wipe the slate clean? Nothing changed. People continued being people. These are just ideas that make no sense. How can they be anything more than the elaborately creative and dramatic ideas created by the small minds of men to try to explain that which is beyond themselves, while imagining that they are somehow an important focus and are somehow fully aware of it?

What changed was God's relationship to man: man damaged himself, lost his innocence, God figured out a way for man to regain that innocence. And, yeah, it could all be elaborate hokum.

[henry quirk]

As I've put myself into the role of apologist, I have to disclaim: I'm not Christian. My knowledge is limited.

In other words: take my defense of Christianity as the flawed, probably inaccurate, thing it is.

I ain't no expert.

[Lacewing]

Why would a god be like a person?
Why wouldn't He be?

Because persons are very limited.

From the evidence: He craves order, He designs;

There is no evidence that anything like a person is required to do that.

He prizes freedom

Freedom from what?

and values good.

According to what? Human values may have little to do with anything other than humans.

In other words: He has interests, proclivities, preferences, and the desire to see them thru. Sounds like a person to me.

You're basing all of this on what matters to a human, and the way a human thinks. Nature is continually creating without these sorts of notions -- rather, in many ways it appears to create simply for the sake of creating and exploring.

What do you think all the rest of nature is/represents? Decorations for human lives?

I imagine Creation has many purposes: it's not all just for man's benefit.

Why wouldn't a god be manifested/reflected through nature, as well? We're not talking about just a few ornaments and supplies that have been created for man's welfare, we're talking about an immense world so diverse and rich, of which humans (in their many forms) are part of as well, and which humans are actually unnecessary for. Even humans vary in their interests, proclivities, preferences, and desires -- so how (and why) could we even limit an idea of a god to the notions of any particular human being?

[Immanuel Can]

If God can change despairing men to hopeful men, and can change bad men to good men, why does He not always do so?

Because many men will not permit it.

Not everybody wants to change. Change starts with admitting you're no what you ought to be. That's painful and humiliating. Then it means accepting one's helplessness to change oneself. That's also hard to take. Then it means asking God to do what you cannot do. That's trusting, and trust is frightening. And finally, it means life will never be the same again. That's also disconcerting.

So lots of people simply would rather be what they are. From God's side, their freedom to choose is inviolable; because without freedom, no relationship is even possible.

So they get what they have chosen, even when they choose badly.

I like your reply and wish it were so. There remains the problem that if God is all powerful than He could make men want to change.

Actually, He cannot. And the reason why is obvious.

Some things are self-contradictory. And God never does the self-contradictory.

So, for example, God makes no square circles or married bachelors. Why? Not because He lacks power to do something, but because those things don't even make sense; they're self-contradictory entities that cannot even exist in a real universe.

But more importantly, something that cannot exist in a real universe, something equally self-contradictory, is the concept "forced free will." You can't "make" somebody love you, or want a relationship with you. You can provide for them so they can, you can invite them to, you can even behave in a way that makes it winsome for them to want a relationship with you -- but you can never simply force them to love you. Love, by its very nature, has to be freely offered and freely received. Otherwise, it's just not love, whatever else it might be.

After all, we do have synonyms for the term "forced relationship," don't we? But none of them, I think, are complimentary. You know what I mean.

So yes, God could reduce men and women to robots. He could compel them to mouth words of love. He could program them to obey at all times. But he could not thereby induce them to freely choose to love Him. That is simply impossible.

But if you have a free choice, then you always have the choice to do, or not do, something. If you have a free choice to love God, you also have a free choice to reject any offer of love and relationship He makes. He does not force anyone; even though they may make a wretched choice. The surpassing value of having some who genuinely, freely love Him is, in God's view, worth the cost of allowing that they may reject Him as well.

And, of course, some will. For some men make bad choices. And short of turning us all into robots and slaves, even God Himself cannot prevent that, but rather, He affirms our right of choice.

[henry quirk]

I'm gonna respond here as a deist, not as a half-ass'd Christian apologist.

Because persons are very limited.

Well, let's look at a definition of person...

An individual of specified character. reason, and conscience.

The limit, then of a person (you, me, God) is his discreteness from others and other things. This is a feature, not a flaw.


There is no evidence that anything like a person is required to do that.

The world, it seems to me, is orderly. This conflicts with what we know to be true: entropy rules. If the universe has no Creator then why is the world complex?


Freedom from what?

Freedom from cause and effect, for one. The world is nuthin' but cause and effect save for man who effortlessly chooses to do this or that in complete defiance of the state of affairs around him or that preceded him. God, it seems, was not content creatin' complexity. He also created complexity that self-motivates, chooses, reasons, has agentive power.


According to what? Human values may have little to do with anything other than humans.

Indeed. Man values, not dogs or cats. Man is moral, not amoeba and virii. It seems God intends man to do more than propagate and die.


You're basing all of this on what matters to a human, and the way a human thinks.

If we are creations, made in the image of the Creator, then our thinkin' is similar to His.


Nature is continually creating without these sorts of notions -- rather, in many ways it appears to create simply for the sake of creating and exploring.

Nature creates nuthin'. It can't. Nature is marvelous but mindless. It chooses nuthin'. Fundamentally, from the perspective of physics, nature is nuthin' more than a heat exchange. And yet we see its beauty: put another way, we're needed for its beauty to be recognized. Outside of God Himself, we're the only ones who can admire the rose.


Why wouldn't a god be manifested/reflected through nature, as well?

He is. He created it. Its forms and complexities and beauties are of His design.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do you think that most pretenders in Christianity are actually and typically trying to pull something over on other people? Or might they BELIEVE (or want to believe) what they're identified with? And maybe they've just got it 'wrong'?

I find that there is more to be gained through engaging with the questions you ask than to merely try to cobble together crafty and well-reasoned apologetics as to why someone should embrace Christianity.

My position is odd because, I gather, you do not define yourself as Christian and argue against it. So if I am trying to define or clarify Christian belief I should technically disagree with you or oppose your efforts. But again, I think there is more to be gained through the arguments brought out against Christianity than there is in trying to -- permit me to say -- sew together a somewhat ragged cloth. And I gather that you perceive that the cloth is ragged. It does not hold together. There are too many flaws in it and with each *patch* it gets more laden and sort of heavy but it does not get more clarified or free from contradiction and controversy.

I think that the problem is that we live in a time of tremendous conflict and ideological uncertainty. I am uncertain if this is really seen clearly by people at large. The more that we understand the nature of the time, and the nature of this uncertainty, the better position we will have in confronting, and also possibly answering, the question you pose.

It is not that Christians or religious people are "trying to pull something over on other people" but more closer the truth that everyone is trying to pull something over on everyone else because we have lost the ground under our feet through which agreements, about fundamental questions and issues, could occur. So, we fundamentally disagree. Our views of things do not coincide. Yet some are even though this is true evermore adamant in trying to convince. I think this describes the outcome of the collapse of metaphysics. It is a peculiar and a strange problem. I mean this of course in regard to all the larger questions. Politics, society, government, right and wrong, good and bad. (We only have to consider the tremendous upset on the American scene to get a sense of the really profound disagreement).

There was a time however when it was possible -- certainly more possible -- to agree. And though we exist now in a state where there are so many obvious disagreements, at the same time the conversation we are having, the conversations that are possible, are based on the predicate that agreement should be possible. That is, that they can be attained through reasoned discourse.

What I notice about *believers* is that often their belief is somewhat forced. It is something like a survival strategy, a way to get through the confusion of uncertainty. Yet the authentic position is actually that of uncertainty. I say that not because I would wish to undermine anyone's faith -- in a way that is like pulling the plug out from what sustains them -- but because in truth so many elements of religious faith are up in the air. So in a sense the authentic position is doubt, uncertainty, and wavering. *Belief* can take the shape of a refuge, a way to get out of the storm. (I am certainly not saying that is all it is, as if to say there is no authentic belief-posture. But it is never immediately communicable to any other).

Religious fundamentalism is often a conscious choice to resolve doubt. To attain to something *certain* and *definite*. It is non-authentic, I would say, when it is forced -- when one forces it upon oneself because one cannot bear uncertainty. It can have a neurotic element therefore.

The fact of the matter is that we exist in a world that is deeply, strangely and unfathomably weird. Merely to meditate on *existence* (how it is possible that things exist and that we are here) definitely leads one to profound existential questions. How can they be resolved? It is not clear.

The old religious pictures are . . . just old religious pictures. The picture no longer seems to have convincing power. I suppose this means that a new picture will have to be achieved. But it is in a larval state.

This should not be taken as if I am trying to pull down the edifice of Christianity, or the religious position generally, but rather that the only way forward for Christian belief is in confronting the fact that, in many senses, it has hit a wall. There are simply people who do not know how to *believe* and there is no one who can explain it sell enough.

Belief in what and for what purpose?

[Immanuel Can]

I think there is more to be gained through the arguments brought out against Christianity than there is in trying to -- permit me to say -- sew together a somewhat ragged cloth.

Hmmm...

"Raggedness" is what one gets when there are a lot of pretenders, fakes and hangers-on. But it does not speak to the integrity of the core...the theology in question, or the values and practices of those who actually take it seriously. It does speak to the confusion that inevitably results when mankind is simply encouraged to make up religious terms for themselves, and to call them whatever they wish.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Raggedness" is what one gets when there are a lot of pretenders, fakes and hangers-on. But it does not speak to the integrity of the core...the theology in question, or the values and practices of those who actually take it seriously. It does speak to the confusion that inevitably results when mankind is simply encouraged to make up religious terms for themselves, and to call them whatever they wish.

I have a few comments . . .

One thing I noticed about your position -- that is as a Non-Denominal Christian -- is that you avail to yourself a position from which you skip over, or leap over, everything that Christianity actually is and certainly what it has been, and hold to the sense that you now have the proper and correct definition. So it seems to me that you -- a modern man, an extremely modern man -- from your position in modernity now take hold of what you take the message of Christianity to be and, at least I have gotten this impression, define the other Christianities as improperly-founded.

The 'theology in question' was defined over the course of Christian history and not defined in the modern era. So it seems to me that you avail yourself of a sort of theological luxury to be able to declare now what Christianity actually is. But everything about Christianity, indeed all of its metaphysics, is entirely ancient, and as I say all these definitions pertain to another era, literally to another metaphysical system.

Christianity is, in the sense I described, a sort of cloth with not a few odd seams and tears. It also has lots of patches and, as I say, they attach to the fabric and make it heavy and encumbered.

For my own part I cannot say that I object to or attempt to defeat or delegitimize the 'core theology' except that it is not clearly plain what that theology is or what it should be or must be. But this leads to a larger problem. It is one that I struggle to find a way to talk about. I'll give it a shot.

The notion of Christianity is founded on and grounded in the person of Jesus Christ -- a specific personality. And all specific personalities such as yours and mine are perspectival personalities. It is as if when we visualize the now risen, now ascended personality of Jesus Christ, who is also described very abstractly as logos that existed before creation manifested, we must imagine a Person who decides and judges all specific events.

[Does He like the new iPhone? What does He think of women who wear pants? Does He have an opinion on the Ahmaud Arbery case? What does He have to say about China? Does He love or hate Trump?]



So the ones that say "We possess the true, original and proper Christianity" also must control, or dole out, the proper opinions about all the specific things that concern us. It must lead to a sort of false universalism.

Yet the actual fact of the matter is that there are specific Christianities, and though it becomes absurd to say it, various Christs. So there is the actual religion of Christianity, which was developed in historical contexts and can be understood through examination of those contexts (and not without grasping those contexts), which appears to be Catholicism, and through this Christianity, or around it, Europe was constructed.

But then along comes the Protestant revision, or rebellion depending on one's outlook, and thus there arose a competing Christianity, or more truthfully a whole tribe of them. And here redefinition began. It is on-going.

So who is the one who can come along, now, and adjudicate the 'true theology'?

This is where I sense you enter the scene. With the unique luxury I refer to. You skip over, or seem to skip over, the actual origins of Christianity, and you seem as well to skip over the 1,000 years of Mediaeval Christianity where, for Europe at least, it was defined.

As you well know the developing (third millennium) Christianity is non-European. And it will not be able to define itself through European categories. It will become, and be, something else altogether. Though it will be grounded in the Bible and in modernity.

My point is perhaps different from what you imagine it to be. I do not think Christianity is now just one thing. I do not think it is every going to be resolved into one thing. There is commonality between the different divisions, that is true, but not necessarily agreement.

Therefore, one must choose a 'Christianity' and one must choose a doctrinal selection, or an interpretation, because it accords with one's sense of right. That is how I try to approach the issue of theology. I read theological arguments and if they make sense I resolve to try to model my behavior, or modify my behavior, to accord.

But I have to accept that other people are doing something similar. Therefore the God that they believe they stand in relation to -- which we conceive of as singular, particular, exclusive and 'one' -- can only be understood through the multiplicity of different people, in different regions, with different needs and indeed intentions.

to make up religious terms for themselves, and to call them whatever they wish

In many different ways there is no way around having to do just this. But I would not use the term 'make up' but rather 'interpret'. That is why I used the term hermeneutics.

[Lacewing]

"Raggedness" is what one gets when there are a lot of pretenders, fakes and hangers-on. But it does not speak to the integrity of the core...

Actually, as is continually pointed out to you by many posters, Mr. Can, the tendency you have to distort discussions does not speak to integrity. Such tactics wouldn't be used (nor helpful) to speak genuinely about truth. This is why it's worth asking whether some believers are intent on deceiving others or themselves, perhaps even desperately so, such that the deception becomes transparent even if the unique reasons/agendas for it may vary.

[Immanuel Can]

"Raggedness" is what one gets when there are a lot of pretenders, fakes and hangers-on. But it does not speak to the integrity of the core...the theology in question, or the values and practices of those who actually take it seriously. It does speak to the confusion that inevitably results when mankind is simply encouraged to make up religious terms for themselves, and to call them whatever they wish.

I have a few comments . . .

One thing I noticed about your position -- that is as a Non-Denominal Christian -- is that you avail to yourself a position from which you skip over, or leap over, everything that Christianity actually is

What "is" Christianity? That's the real question.

Is it what you always assumed it was, or is it what the Carpenter of Galilee said and taught?

It can only be one or the other, because "everthing" that is associated with the institutional church, as you will know from history, is not that.

...it seems to me that you avail yourself of a sort of theological luxury to be able to declare now what Christianity actually is.

Not at all. I will not even take a stand on some definition I have made up. Rather, I advocate for the right of Jesus Christ to define what it is.

And as I said before, if what I think ever departs from what He said, then it is certainly I who am wrong.

The notion of Christianity is founded on and grounded in the person of Jesus Christ -- a specific personality. And all specific personalities such as yours and mine are perspectival personalities.

I would only add one word: "all specific earthly perspectives, such as yours and mine, are perspectival." But please continue.

It is as if when we visualize the now risen, now ascended personality of Jesus Christ, who is also described very abstractly as logos that existed before creation manifested, we must imagine a Person who decides and judges all specific events.

Why would we have to "imagine" a Person who actually lived? And if we merely "imagine" Him, and it turns out that's different from what He Himself is, what value does that have?

Human "imagination" is the problem. We've got to stop merely "imagining," and ask God to help us to know Him -- both as He actually is, and as the Scriptures reveal Him to be.

My "imagination" needs the discipline of the Word and the teaching of God's Spirit...or it will surely never be more than mere "imagining."

So the ones that say "We possess the true, original and proper Christianity" also must control,

No; they must bow to the Word of God and His self-revelation, and surely they have no special warrant to "control" anything. One key element of Christianity is surely this: Christ, not I, is the Source of truth and rightness. My "control," or that of self-appointed ecclesiastical authorities, means nothing. It's not legitimate.

Yet the actual fact of the matter is that there are specific Christianities, and though it becomes absurd to say it, various Christs.

It is absurd to say it. There is but one Christ, surely. And the diversity of "imagined" Christs does not count a single stroke against that. It just means that people "imagine" strange things sometime.

It's like I was saying earlier. If somebody asked me if I knew Alexis Jacobi, and I said "Yes," but then described you as a huge Yorkshireman with a beard like a rhodedendron bush, or, on the other hand, as a ten-year-old Chinese trans acrobat, what would the logical assumption be? That there were many "Alexis Jacobis"?

Or merely that I didn't know you at all?

So there is the actual religion of Christianity,...which appears to be Catholicism...

I was surprised, when I first went to university, that people actually thought that. From a Christian perspective, I had long known it to be absolutely untrue. While I'd met private Catholics who were also Christians, I knew even then that most were not, and the clergy were definitely not. All one had to do is look at historic Catholic theology, and there was no doubt anymore.

But I also understand now why people made that mistake. It's because Catholicism is simply the largest institutional body to claim that Name. As such, they were easy for historians to find. They left tons of documents (and burned most of the documents of the people who disagreed with them, and some of the actual people as well, of course). They left huge architecture, various public institutions, an imprint in secular philosophy, much art, and a whole lot of other stuff, as well. And so they became quite simply the easiest group of people claiming the name "Christian" for the secular historian to locate and study. So it was easiest to take Catholics at their word, and say, "Well, since that's the biggest thing around, it must be real Christianity."

Unfortunately, it's not. Size does not make truth. Ease of study does not indicate rightness. And to study the Bible and compare it with Catholic theology, well, one becomes totally certain that whatever the Catholic Church is, even today, it's not what's in the Bible. It's something else.

And Catholicism knows it. That's why the Papacy subscribes to the Doctrine of Progressive Revelation, meaning that they think the Pope and councils have authority not only to interpret Scripture, but to change it as they wish. They mock Protestants for having a "static revelation," and claim that theirs is "dynamic" or "growing," and that that makes it better.

But on this point both Protestants and Catholics agree: where the Catholic Church went, doctrinally, was not conformity to Torah or the New Testament. It was innovation, and innovation by bishops, popes and prelates.

So no, the Catholics were not, and are not, the Christians. The Catholic Church itself (and you will know this if you know the history) did not even exist until after Constantine established it post 312, even though there were many Christians before that. Catholicism began as a compromise with paganism in Rome (hence the word "Roman,") and continuted as a domineering political system aiming at world control (hence the word "Catholic" which means "universal").

But then along comes the Protestant revision,

Well, that's the first most history books mention. But there were plenty of others before. The problem was that the Catholics wiped most of them out. They had names like "Cathars," "Waldenses," "Bogomils," and so on. And the Catholics wiped them out so thoroughly that in some cases, all we have left of them is whatever the Catholics themselves decided to write about them in order to justify killing them off -- not the most reliable record, of course.

But we know about a few...like the Waldenses, for example. And they were most certainly a kind of Protestant-before-Protestantism, a set of movements aiming at returning to a simple, more humble and Biblical Christianity.

And then, of course, there were other groups the Catholics worked to wipe out, too...not least the Jews and the Huguenots...but I don't think there's any reason we would mistake their actions for "Christian," do you?

So who is the one who can come along, now, and adjudicate the 'true theology'?

Jesus Christ.

You skip over, or seem to skip over, the actual origins of Christianity,

I think I've addressed that somewhat above.

...and you seem as well to skip over the 1,000 years of Mediaeval Christianity where, for Europe at least, it was defined.

I don't skip it at all: I see it for what it is. It's secular history, written based on the assumption that "Catholic" means "Christian": and you're quite right that Europe was heavily shaped by that error. It's an error nonetheless.

But I would understand why, if your interest were in reviving Europe, you might look to Catholicism as some sort of well of values that you could tap for ideas. That makes a certain amount of sense, since both Europe and Catholicism developed together.

However, I think that idea is a bid doomed, if you don't mind me saying so.

As you well know the developing (third millennium) Christianity is non-European.

It is. But then, Christianity was never "European" legitimately in the first place. It's a Jewish religion, really, and after that, it has only secondary reference to any other culture. Its impact has been global, to be sure; and there's a legitimacy to any culture adopting Christian practices, because Christianity is not inherently culture bound.

Messiah is for everyone. For the Jews first, but then for the Gentiles. "He came to those who were His own (the Jews), and those who were his own did not recieve Him; but to as many as did receive Him (both Jews and Gentiles) He gave the right to become sons of God, even to those who believe on His Name." (John 1)

It will become, and be, something else altogether. Though it will be grounded in the Bible and in modernity.

Does that really make any sense to think?

I mean, "modernity" is a single phase of Western history, fairly recent, and already claimed to have faded into other things, like Postmodernity. So what sense does it make to say that the eternal Word of God is fated to be, or ought to be interpreted through Modernity? It makes as much sense as to say it's to be interpreted through Medievalism or Communism or Consumerism...which is to say, no sense at all.

If it's God's word, what would make us imagine it would be so transient?

My point is perhaps different from what you imagine it to be.

Perhaps. But my imaginings are unimportant. The truth matters, and the truth is in Christ.

Therefore, one must choose a 'Christianity'

If "one" chooses it, you can be sure it's not "Christianity."

But I have to accept that other people are doing something similar. Therefore the God that they believe they stand in relation to -- which we conceive of as singular, particular, exclusive and 'one' -- can only be understood through the multiplicity of different people, in different regions, with different needs and indeed intentions.

All that really argues for, I must say, is that people are confused. The multiplicity of opinions has nothing to do with whether or not there is a truth.

to make up religious terms for themselves, and to call them whatever they wish

In many different ways there is no way around having to do just this. But I would not use the term 'make up' but rather 'interpret'. That is why I used the term hermeneutics.

Well, "hermeneutics" as it was originally conceived, was a theological word, a Christian word, with a definite referent. It meant "interpretation of Scripture." It did not mean "interpretation according to anything anyone wants to think."

It's only since "the linguistic turn" in Postmodern philosophy that "hermeneutics" has even meant something a secular person could be said to be trying to do.

We must not mistake a Postmodern metaphor for the substance of the thing itself, I think.