Christianity

[Dontaskme]

Well, it would be silly for you to jump to conclusions about something you'd never read. But I can hope you won't.

Why would I need to read something I never wrote? except to infuse myself in some fictional fantasy world of story.

Personally, I have never actually seen a reader or a writer have you?

[Dontaskme]

If you had read the Bible

But you do not know what ''a reader'' looks like, but then go on to talk about what you do not know, as if you do know. That's a classic pretentious glib response, in other words, a fictional imposition.

All you are talking about, are fictional characters only. Which implies Nothing is real.

And that's the game you do not want to play.

So I'm just pointing this absolute truth out to you, that you label as rubbish. You either need to stop pretending you know when you do not, or just lie your way through life, but why lie, when you can just tell the truth.

.

[Dontaskme]

I read...they say.

Nothing even remotely worth my time here.

You don't like me, you don't like Christians; you don't like the Bible and you don't like God...

Yawn.

''You don't like me'' seems to be your way of saying I love it when you do not like me because I know what the Romans did to jesus, I know how they treated him, so what am I to expect...that's the game you like to play, the part when you can play victim and be bored with that role at the same time. Why don't you just respond to your opposition instead of running away crying you do not want to play.

Loving the drama are we, oh wait!... did you really say you don't like drama... aww!


No one does not like you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

One reason why I read as much as I once did of the bible is because of the language, the poetry of the King James version. It's a masterpiece of style, not unlike Shakespeare in many parts and certainly worth the read. But to regard it as the word of god requires its own unique brand of mental aberration, which any effort to immunize against will only make worse. Faith, especially blind faith, hunkers down responding with absurdities or simply not responding whenever reason or any historical imperative approaches. Yours is the Dorothy Martin, aka, Marian Keech type of entelechy which forcefully disregards all science, history, logic and research to maintain what amounts to gross absurdities if accepted as literal.

Anyone who allows himself to be so infected, attempting to rationalize the irrational, cannot be trusted on anything they say.

Some observations, and I hope that you won't mind and that you will not be offended. Having read quite a few of your posts I cannot but conclude that your overall analysis, and your ideological position and orientation, is unfortunately very shallow. I know that saying such I must back it up, yet this is not easy because, as I see things, the topic is really very complex, and by that I mean our own relationship to the topic. I do not think you have done anywhere near the amount of intellectual work that is genuinely required to have a fair and decent formation even in your, apparent, critical position. What in fact are you attempting?

But to regard it as the word of god requires its own unique brand of mental aberration

When I read such a declarative statement as this, which functions as a truth-declaration and, as I often say, has ideological intentions, I am led to the thought that, in truth, we moderns have lost our capacity to identify what is 'sacred'. Thus the next question is What is sacred? I mean, what does it mean to say that something -- an idea? an object? a person? -- is sacred? That in itself becomes not an easy topic and indeed it has definitely been explored, and just for one example I might mention The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Revelation to the Rational [1923] by Rudolf Otto.

In brief, the intensely intellectual examination that he undertakes places a great deal of what you say into a light of being, and permit me to be direct, silly mouthspurt. You are not saying anything at all. In fact you have no interest at all in the topic! So what I often do, what I resort to when I read the ideas of people who express themselves as you do, is to step back from what is said and ask direct questions about you. But less, far less, about you as a person, but more you in a wider, general sense. Essentially you have no way at all to understand, appreciate, receive and talk about anything that involves the numinous and, as Otto brings it out, mysterium tremendum.

I do not refer to Otto because I wish to put forward, necessarily, his particular doctrines in respect to the topic, but simply to state that there is a very wide, and very interesting, conversation on the topic that has certainly influenced modern theology but which influence has also carried over into many other areas, some of them popular.

Again do not be offended that I place you on the examination-table and attempt to see into you. This is a philosophy forum and we are duty-bound to do this. Analysis is a 'breaking-down' and has acidic effect. But I suggest that something positive can come from this if it is undertaken fairly and without the ire that I notice, for example, in you and others. So I suggest an examination of that anger.

So you say that a fair-minded, a sincere, an *authentic* examination of what is sacred, and definitely any faith at all in *it* is aberrant (you say blind faith is bad but what faith is good?) but when I read this, and when I compare it to what I have read in religious philosophy, indicates to me not that the numinous is unreal, necessarily, and as you imply, but that we must examine the question with greater earnestness. And definitely not with what I identify in you as extremely superficial dismissiveness. But with that (strong) statement I am much more inclined to ask the real question: What has happened to us that we no longer recognize what is sacred, what is holy, what is numinous and what, I would say, moves us at a profound level? Isn't that really what is being talked about if *what is sacred* is brought up?

What interests me is the social, intellectual and cultural matrix out of which you speak. We have to turn the lens of examination around in an odd manoeuvre that is somewhat unlikely for us, given our (ridiculously narrow) assertions-of-truth that we make so freely, and in a sense so irresponsibly, about grand matters that require a far more mature approach, preparation and outlook.

Here again we can only speak in preamble . . . to a necessary conversation that cannot take place because -- because why? Here I will make a statement: You are in no sense prepared for that conversation! based on the shallow and really rather vain things you say.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You're conflating American and European with Christian. I see no reason for this, other than the common misperception that having a significant population of Christians baptizes the larger culture and somehow makes the culture itself "Christian." No such thing is ever the case, of course. There are more Christians, at least nominally, today in China than in America or Europe.

We keep running into the same difference of view. I say that your definition of a Christian, even if it is correct, is so idealistic that, as I have said, a Christian culture will never be achieved. I would almost have to take it that you cannot conceive of, and likely could not cite, a genuine Christian community. You have referred to some people though who you regard as genuinely Christian but in an *aspirational* sense.

I look at it different. I can only examine the whole as a way to see into The Ideal. It is certainly true that any culture of society (let's say of Europe or derived from Europe) falls extremely short of the ideal mark, yet nevertheless these cultures are certainly Christian or christianized. I guess my position is that I cannot seek anything more, and perhaps I cannot demand anything more. Our cultures are, roughly then, outcomes of processes of christianization. And now, as you recognize, there is even more falling away.

And here I would mention and put emphasis on some of the local interlocutors who demonstrate and display what that 'falling away' looks like. This is what interests me: that people lose the capability to conceive of the importance and relevance of the religious ideals and, as I see things, get subsumed into a peculiar form of nescience.

Education, rightly done, does not indoctrinate. It informs, enables, empowers and enlightens the faculties, but opens up the mind to personal investigation and personal judgment. That's critical thinking. And that sort of liberal value was what was held up as the goal and ideal in education in the early part of the previous century, until the Left began to colonize public education. Nowadays, much of public education is systematic indoctrination. Critical thinking is downplayed, and conformity to the ideology of "Critical Theory" is emphasized. Independent critical faculties, science, reason and independence are diminished, and collectivism, "Social Justice" and groupthink are up-played. And there is no ideology more abused and rejected in public education today than Christianity.

I think I must disagree as well at a fundamental point: When we are introduced to all the categories of concern, all the topics, all the perspectives, and all the language of our own traditions (and this also happens well before birth, I assume as we are gestated) we are indoctrinated into all those terms and categories. In the sense that they are instilled in us and we become steeped in them.

And this is why I refer to renovation, rediscovery, reanimation of our own paideia as a necessary undertaking. I do not negate the idealism you seek to represent, but according to what I extrapolate from your assertions it will occur in one in a thousand. And yet you yourself have said that that one person can have, and does have, influence on the larger body.

But I do very much agree with you about modern processes of indoctrination. I would say, again and in a different context, that we need to find a way to turn the lens of examination around in an unlikely manoeuvre for for us, given the power and influence of these bizarre modern doctrines and their determining effect. We have to see the degree to which we have been (negatively) indoctrinated by these (I would say sick) doctrines and we have to remake ourseves -- though I know that you will say that we have to allow ourselves to be remade. And this involves developing a relationship with the Divine.

I do agree with this. But I also place emphasis on what any of us can achieve; on our own force of will and decision; and on our own choice to submit to a process. So the willingness of the individual is highly relevant in my own view.

[Immanuel Can]

...a Christian culture will never be achieved.

You never spoke a truer word, Alexis.

There is no such thing as a "Christian culture." The adjective employed there is incompatible with the noun. It's worse that a mere oxymoron -- at least an oxymoron contains a paradox of truth, but this coinage contains no truth at all.

So we agree on this phrase, which I realize you frame here as a mere hypothetical; but I will affirm it as a declaration.

...a genuine Christian community.

This, on the other hand, is not only possible but represented in some form in literally every country in the world. A community is one thing: that that community is bound to some monocultural staus is untrue. The only true and successful multicultural entity is, in fact, the church. By decree of God, the church can have no interest in cultural specificity (or, for that matter, in other sources of division, such as social status, preferred language, age or skin colour).

You have referred to some people though who you regard as genuinely Christian but in an *aspirational* sense.

I do not recall having said any such thing: and if I accidentally implied it in any way, I'm happy to clarify.

There is no "aspiring." One is a Christian, or one is not. It all depends on being born again, born of God, born from above. That's a line that is either crossed or not. It has no shades and grades.

But this is not to say that all Christians are equally mature, informed, advanced, aware, or otherwise far along in the Christian path: some are at the start, and may know only a few basics, and others may be richly informed of advanced theological complexities. Whatever their maturity level, all are equally Christians. Their ontological status is unaffected by their personal epistemological accuity.

...cultures are certainly Christian or christianized.

But these are two very different claims. To say that a culture has been "christianized" is only to say that it has a sufficient influence of real Christians within it to produce an echo or impact at the cultural and policy levels. It is not to say that the culture itself is, in toto, "Christian."

You can see this easily in America. The vileness of American public culture is not far to find: venial bankers scoring on the poor and being rewarded by venial governments, the media pumping lies unrelentingly into the atmosphere, rap queens shaking their booties and declaring their sexual "gifts" as the height of ecstasy -- is any of that even possibly "Christian"? And yet, drive down any American highway and occasionally one will see billboards declaring "Jesus is Lord" or "God loves you," and large churches dotting the landscape.

How to reconcile the two? There are still Christians in America. And their presence still "christianizes" a few aspects of the ethos chemically. But there is no way to describe their culture as "Christian" in itself. The obvious contradictions are far too great.

When we are introduced to all the categories of concern, all the topics, all the perspectives, and all the language of our own traditions (and this also happens well before birth, I assume as we are gestated) we are indoctrinated into all those terms and categories. In the sense that they are instilled in us and we become steeped in them.

We must be careful how we process this word "indoctrinated," then.

For you are correct that to be taught anything is to be invited "into a doctrine" of some kind. Take the scientfic method: nobody discovers it for himself, save Francis Bacon. Instead, each new person who "discovers" it is actually indoctrinated into it by a friendly man in a while lab coat, who informs the neophyte that there is this thing called "the scientific method," and it works for all sorts of wonderful things. The neophyte believes him: and when he tries the method, he discovers it does indeed work, and is happy. But he did not discover it for himself: he was in-doctrinated (in the desirable, benign sense of the word) to science.

But this sort of process is not what is usually implicated when we use the word "indoctrination." Rather, we tend to think of a person being propagandized or taught lies through the exploitation of his youth, naivete or lack of contrary information. And it is true that what we call "education" can do this latter very easily (and often does so in public education particuarly today).

However, let us not mix these to uses of the term. For the "bringing into a doctrine" of a person can be quite benign and beneficial, a product of ethical educative procedures, or it can be a betrayal, a falsifying and a deception, unethical in an educational sense.

I know that you will say that we have to allow ourselves to be remade.

Indeed I do. But I only echo what Jesus Christ says about that: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)

I do agree with this. But I also place emphasis on what any of us can achieve; on our own force of will and decision; and on our own choice to submit to a process. So the willingness of the individual is highly relevant in my own view.

Oh, I absolutely agree that the willingness of the individual is essential.

However, were there no Divine dynamic waiting to be visited upon him following his willingness, then even a willing person would not be saved. For the birth that brings people into relationship with God comes, ultimately, "from above," as Jesus said. It is not at all a product of human will...as the Scriptures say again, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God." (John 1:12)

[Alexis Jacobi]

I said: "You have referred to some people though who you regard as genuinely Christian but in an *aspirational* sense."

I do not recall having said any such thing: and if I accidentally implied it in any way, I'm happy to clarify.

This is what I referred to:

Well, a caveat: Christianity is aspirational. That means that nobody does it perfectly. We are, after all, according to Christian theology, in a fallen world that cannot be redeemed until the actual presence of Messiah. If it could be perfected before that, then what need have we of Messiah?

[Alexis Jacobi]

This, on the other hand, is not only possible but represented in some form in literally every country in the world. A community is one thing: that that community is bound to some monocultural staus is untrue. The only true and successful multicultural entity is, in fact, the church. By decree of God, the church can have no interest in cultural specificity (or, for that matter, in other sources of division, such as social status, preferred language, age or skin colour).

Well, my opinion, which derives from material I have read and am reading, is that 'the sources of division', as you define them, must be reexamined and reconsidered. Because I have been interested in contemporary religious/cultural issues I read Catholic and Identitarian (Julien Langella) where he presents a sound argument in favor of recognizing and strengthening hierarchical divisions. His concerns are related to French social and cultural life and with the term identitarian he places them in specific areas of cultural concern (which have contentious elements naturally).

Catholic and Identitarian seeks to answer these questions from a traditionalist Catholic perspective. Arguing that Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, far from being an enemy to identitarianism, actually forms the necessary underpinning for true European identitarianism, this book demonstrates that the teachings and traditions of the Church have always respected ethnic and national borders and protected the integrity of authentic human roots. At once a vindication of the Church against the misinterpretations and misrepresentations of left and right alike, and a stirring call to defend our European heritage from the forces that would destroy it, Catholic and Identitarian reminds us of the basic truth that "to fight is to love."

It is not surprising, to me in any case, that we continue to run up against differences of view that determine our different opinions. So while I agree that the doctrines of Christianity, when they are defined, can be presented to anyone, and to diverse peoples, each people will and indeed must make of these things the very cultural and social structures that they live in. And when this is done, over time, out of that arises what I refer to as *a Christian culture*. These specific creations are not necessarily commensurate among them, nor should they be expected to be so. I guess I would say they can be allies to one another, but should not be interchanged necessarily.

The definition that you hold to, which I regard as ultra-idealistic and therefore, in a sense, as unreal and impracticable, I believe I understand, but I differ with.

Another notable difference between your perspective and mine is this other thing we have been discussing: that I define a Greco-Christian religious tradition that developed out of, and in this sense was built upon, the original Judaic Christian root or source. It took a few centuries but the Greek world, and the Greek mind, and I do refer here to an Indo-European person, received the ideas, or received the spirit if you wish, and constructed a rather different edifice with them. That edifice, on one hand, is Catholicism, which I have gathered you necessarily reject as false or badly founded, but on the other hand is literally the foundation in a significant sense of the cultures of Europe. This is not Judaism, nor Judeo-Christianity (an unfortunate term in my view) but a unique and different creation.

It is as if each people can be seen as a sort of 'lens' through which certain Ideas are seen. And as they are seen, and as they are interpreted, each people within their context builds with them the world they live in.

So I guess I have to accept that what interests me is in defining, and redefining, a specifically European Christianity, and a specifically European-Christian paideia. And really this is not at all hard to do -- it has already been done. It has already been established. It is a question of better seeing it; understanding its value; accentuating it.

I do not think that this means either that I am forced to differ with your view of what metanoia is, except insofar as this may be a crucial element for you.

In Christian theology, metanoia is commonly understood as "a transformative change of heart; especially: a spiritual conversion." The term suggests repudiation, change of mind, repentance, and atonement; but "conversion" and "reformation" may best approximate its connotation.

I am pretty sure that you see God, or Spirit, as a sort of singular totality that does, I would gather, one specific thing in a person, as if the person refers back to the Original Programmer and the Original Program to be restructured in specific and moreover the same way. (Whether you would in fact say this I cannot be sure but this is what I take away from some of what you suggest). But since I take Logos to be something that I guess is more abstract, or less as a personality and more as a principle, it is easier for me to accept regional differences in how one works with the core doctrines, and with the metaphysical structures of ideas.

Where my assertions become contradicted, at least logically, is if Jesus Christ is seen as the Core Program, like some sort of Cosmic Server, and everyone that comes into association with Him receives from Him the same programming instructions. If Jesus Christ is seen as a person, with human desires, with specific perspectives, with likes and dislikes, and like us with bias and prejudice and preference, I think that the idea of Logos is weakened, and too personalized. To put it in this way I realize makes it all seem a bit absurd but to do so is not without a defensible purpose.

So then I go on from this to define a certain dis-association from a specifically Jewish and a specifically Judean matrix. And the way I talk about this is again in reference to Logos. If Logos is real, and pervades the manifest Universe, on some other planet in the manifest Universe, whether in the deep past or the future, will embrace the Logos-Idea through their own matrix.

This does not mean to dis-appreciate Hebrew writing, or Hebrew ideas -- indeed they are foundational and they cannot be separated away -- but the question of *ownership*, if i can put it like this, is non-specific.

[Immanuel Can]

I said: "You have referred to some people though who you regard as genuinely Christian but in an *aspirational* sense."

I do not recall having said any such thing: and if I accidentally implied it in any way, I'm happy to clarify.

This is what I referred to:

Well, a caveat: Christianity is aspirational. That means that nobody does it perfectly. We are, after all, according to Christian theology, in a fallen world that cannot be redeemed until the actual presence of Messiah. If it could be perfected before that, then what need have we of Messiah?

Ah, yes...I see what I meant. I didn't mean that one "aspires" to be a Christian. I mean that being a Christian, once one is one, is a business of aspiring to the best in the moral realm, rather than some sort of smug claim to having arrived, morally speaking.

"Aspirational" in regard to moral condition; not "aspirational" as to ontology.

Fair enough: it was indeed my misspeaking.

[Immanuel Can]

I read Catholic and Identitarian (Julien Langella) where he presents a sound argument in favor of recognizing and strengthening hierarchical divisions.

I see where the key difficulty in our communication of these ideas remains.

You see the word "Catholic," and read "Christian."

I do not. In fact, as I would point out, the Bible does not. And it does not do so, not merely because to equate First-Century Christianity with Fourth-Century Romanist syncretism would be anachronistic, but because the terms specifically spelled out in Scripture by which one is saved, born again, becomes a Christian, participates in metanoia, etc. are NOT that, and are decidedly oppositional to accepted Catholic theology.

However, you are not wrong to say that is is the Catholic thing that has dominated European history. I do not contest that. However, I think it's badly misleading to call it "Christian." It is most decidedly not -- and a proper distinction is not only the only basis of fairness to Christians, but offers the only possibility for accurate historical analysis. For most of the features of Catholicism (it's political ambitions, its coercive nature, its particular doctrines) that produced an impact on the West are NOT shared by Christians.

But there the matter must rest. I cannot insist you recognize the difference, especially since theologically-contemptuous secular historians have shared so frequently in the error I see you as making. It's hard to argue for a separation between "Christian" and "Catholic" when so many historians have not invested the time to recognize it.

Arguing that Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, far from being an enemy to identitarianism, actually forms the necessary underpinning for true European identitarianism,

Maybe. But this is only done by conflating "Christian" with "Catholic," which, I insist, is badly misleading. However, taken as a claim about the latter rather than the former, I would say it's obviously true.

...while I agree that the doctrines of Christianity, when they are defined, can be presented to anyone, and to diverse peoples, each people will and indeed must make of these things the very cultural and social structures that they live in. And when this is done, over time, out of that arises what I refer to as *a Christian culture*.

This will still be a false term, however.

It makes no more sense to speak of "a Christian rock" or "a Christian tree" as to speak of "a Christian culture." The words don't even go together.

The definition that you hold to, which I regard as ultra-idealistic

I must say, I think you shouldn't.

The fact that it has been actualized so often and so trans-culturally should disabuse you of that impression. There are too many real Christians in the world for you to imagine that's so.

That edifice, on one hand, is Catholicism, which I have gathered you necessarily reject as false or badly founded, but on the other hand is literally the foundation in a significant sense of the cultures of Europe.

This, I suggest, is quite true: Catholicism had a massive formative effect on Europe. (Christianity did too, but vastly different effects.) And if we stick to the Catholic case, then your comments about "Indo-European" cultural specificity and so forth become much more accurate and reasonable.

But as you say,

This is not Judaism, nor Judeo-Christianity (an unfortunate term in my view) but a unique and different creation.

I agree totally. Catholicism is neither Judaism nor Judeo-Christianity. It is, in fact, a syncretism of pagan Romanism with pseudo-Christian elements, shaped in its latter stages by the Greek ideas of Plato, Aristotle and others, especially through Aquinas.

So I guess I have to accept that what interests me is in defining, and redefining, a specifically European Christianity,

Say "Catholicism." For that is all you are actually talking about there.

I do not think that this means either that I am forced to differ with your view of what metanoia is, except insofar as this may be a crucial element for you.

Well, I'm only saying what the Biblical view is.

In Christian theology, metanoia is commonly understood as "a transformative change of heart; especially: a spiritual conversion." The term suggests repudiation, change of mind, repentance, and atonement; but "conversion" and "reformation" may best approximate its connotation.

That's a good definition, so far as it goes. It does not go far enough.

One way in which it fails is that it does not adequately specify that metanoia, Biblically considered, is far more than the very ordinary human experience of "changing one's own mind," or "repudiating a view," or something like that. It is a being-changed of one's mind, but the actual, dynamic renewal by the Spirit of God -- and as such, is not at all analogous to ordinary human cognitive changes, nor is it simply accessible to ordinary men.

...the Original Programmer...

Ugh.

I hate the "Computer Programmer" metaphor. It badly mutilates the concept. However, it does serve a grain of truth, in that the metanoia of which I speak is produced "outside of the human program." However, unlike computer programs, it is not simply inflicted upon a dumb terminal. It is consensual, and is consequent upon the human response to the Divine initiative. In all, it is a thoroughly interpersonal, not mechanical, kind of transformation.

If Jesus Christ is seen as a person, with human desires, with specific perspectives, with likes and dislikes, and like us with bias and prejudice and preference, I think that the idea of Logos is weakened, and too personalized.

Well, it would be -- if you make of Jesus Christ somebody with "prejudices," "bias," and views that are mere "perspectives," then yes, that would be diminishing. This is not, however, the way the Bible depicts Christ.

Let us reverse the case. Do you regard "being a person" as a good thing or a bad thing, for human beings? If somebody said to you, "Tom is very much a person," would you take them to be complimenting or insulting Tom? Is the fact that human beings have personhood as their feature anything that offers an advance over, say, rocks, trees and animals, or do you regard personhood as merely a neutral fact?

If personhood is a desirable quality, one that not only lifts human beings above the animals but also makes one human being more authentic and desirable than another, then why would you think that an impersonal God would be better than the Personal God? Why would you ever think that a "god" that had no standing on morals, no plans and intentions, no purposes in Creation, was incapable of attitudes or of love, and so forth, was better than a God that had all these qualities?

If God has made personhood our best quality, then where do you think He "got the idea" from? Is it not obvious that any personhood we have must be, at best, but the pale and distant echo of the true Personhood possessed by the Creator Himself?

If Logos is real, and pervades the manifest Universe, on some other planet in the manifest Universe, whether in the deep past or the future, will embrace the Logos-Idea through their own matrix.

I think maybe a noun is missing from this sentence. I can't quite decode it. There doesn't seem to be a subject for the verb "will embrace" or noun-referent for the pronoun "their."

Can you reword that thought for me?

[Dubious]

After thousands of posts,...

I literally cannot be bothered with you any longer. I have more important things to do...like bathing my cat.

The existential quandaries of the modern psyche are very different from what they used to be. Beliefs that once supported it for over a thousand years no-longer suffices. A new kind of metanoia is required which in turn needs time to create since it can never be a purely conscious creation but one which must be rooted.

Having said that, what I find, as do others, intensely objectionable about you are not your beliefs per se, but your unceasing attempt to make yourself superior to everyone who doesn’t subscribe to a biblical mandate of morality - its so-called god prescriptions - being instead compelled to ponder existence with a question mark since a millennial belief system no-longer functions as it once did. There is also the constant perversion of what others have written, especially if it’s factual, historical, etc., in which case it either gets mutilated, ignored or responded to with totally misleading statements. You’ve done that through thousands of posts of which you’ve been constantly reminded. While on this site, I don’t expect that to ever stop.

In spite of being rabid, your theism amounts to nothing more than a surface theism, a take-up of Pascal’s wager. Nothing deep, mystical or profound here; no searching for truth values beyond those historically accepted. Yours is just a form of opportunism. If god is dead, it’s because what's killed is an outworn fiction once believed in, having long cradled the psyche in ways we can no-longer experience. The one item which may still yield some comfort especially in Catholicism as opposed to Protestantism are its still surviving traditions of ritual, symbols and art which I think of as the ghosts of past beliefs. I wonder how many still go to church without any belief in transubstantiation or acceptance that Jesus was the son of god except metaphorically.

The best way to articulate and summarize the obscene discrepancy in your views is your extreme assertion that whoever accepts the bible's injunctions of morality is intrinsically superior to an atheist who may believe in the same code; what makes him inferior is he has no reason to adhere, not having received or heard the mandate from on high, but merely supervised by his own conscience. In effect, no sacred attributes can be appended to someone who thinks for himself and therefore remains inferior in spite of the moral context being essentially equal. For you, it's not the result, but the conditions which create it which solely determines its validity.

Frankly, it's hard to think of anything more demented, whether atheist or theist! I always thought it was, at least philosophically, the other way around; the person ordered to do a good deed is inferior to him who does it spontaneously as directed by conscience. Since god supposedly gave us erring mortals an instrument of judgement, it should be used in the manner designed but that, by your logic, would make me inferior to someone such as thou who has received his marching orders from the foremost CEO imagination ever invented!

[Immanuel Can]

The existential ...

Yes, I know you want to make this about me. It's easy for you that way: everything ad hominem, never having to deal with the facts or the truth.

I am not your judge. What I think about you, or you think about me, is of no particular moment. We are not even our own judges. But you do have a Judge, as do we all...and it is with Him, not me, that you must deal. For we stand and fall before Him.

Consider what you have written concerning Him here. Consider what it will be like to answer for that. And get yourself out of a situation you've written yourself into. For I bear you no malice, and would wish to see you better destined. So I am reminding you of what your conscience is surely telling you already, and what is in your best interests.

Kinder than that, nobody can be.

[Jori]

The three main types of Christianity are Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Greek Orthodox Church. They share the following three beliefs:
1. In the Beginning, humans fell from God's grace.
2. Jesus of Nazareth is the The Messiah foretold in the Hebrew Bible.
3. Acceptance of Jesus Christ and his teachings provides the key to salvation.

[Dubious]

Yes, I know you want to make this about me. It's easy for you that way: everything ad hominem, never having to deal with the facts or the truth.

I can’t recall the number of times you incessantly accused others of ad hominem attacks when they vehemently rejected your derogatory theistic views – because it is in fact demented - that the atheist is inferior because he no-longer subscribes to a two-thousand year outworn belief, meaning anyone who thinks existentially as opposed to only theistically. So, don’t be such a cry baby! I haven’t written a single thing in my post which can’t be substantiated in all of yours for anyone who desires to examine such.

Consider what you have written concerning Him here. Consider what it will be like to answer for that. And get yourself out of a situation you've written yourself into. For I bear you no malice, and would wish to see you better destined. So I am reminding you of what your conscience is surely telling you already, and what is in your best interests.

Kinder than that, nobody can be.

Indeed! I thank you for your well-meaning advice. But I’m very certain that the rules of physics and the second law of thermodynamics trumps anything the bible has to say whose evidence for veracity would not stand up in any court today. But the purpose of faith has never been to endorse or provide certainty. It has its own reason for thinking as it does which I have no right, will or reason to negate...unless it becomes inimical.

To repeat! What I do find thoroughly objectionable is when it’s used as a weapon to denounce those who no-longer are able or willing to accept what they inherently know can’t be true. We have far surpassed in knowledge the medieval times when such beliefs were literal psychic certainties and faith wasn’t even a precondition! Any renouncement of such long-held certainties has shown to resolve itself into a type of existential purview replete with many question marks. For any thinking species, it's unavoidable that eventually ALL beliefs get challenged. If not true, then what's left of the human in human nature?

As for me, the probability of my after-state being equal to precisely the one before it is not one I doubt in the least. It’s how the universe works...and the puny humans who are screwing-up the planet should be the exception in this grand scheme of things!!

[Dontaskme]

Yes, I know you want to make this about me.

Only you are making this about you. By assuming there is a ''me'' that exists.. that's your irrational assumption you are making.

I am not your judge.

No one has ever seen a judge. If you have, then see if you can actually point to a judge. If you are as clever as you think you are, you will know that you cannot point to a judge, in fact the whole idea, is just an empty concept appearing as a narrative that actually exists for real, it's an illusion.

What I think about you, or you think about me, is of no particular moment. We are not even our own judges. But you do have a Judge, as do we all...and it is with Him, not me, that you must deal. For we stand and fall before Him.

Again. . ''HIM'' is just another concept within your mind which has never been seen. Concepts arise as a complete mystery, any irrational claim to know this mystery, and what will always remain a mystery is self-delusional. Try to point to a ''Him'' and you'll see that what you see will be what you call the judge...do you see how ridiculous that claim is? ...Nah, nothing to see here, is there IC ..lets ignore the elephant in the living room.

For I bear you no malice, and would wish to see you better destined. So I am reminding you of what your conscience is surely telling you already, and what is in your best interests.

Kinder than that, nobody can be.

That's a disgusting thing to say...to wish someone a better destiny as if you already know there is a better destinty for ''others'' ..that's like you saying I know you are on the wrong track here, so beware...
Wow, how noble of you to suggest what is better for others.

You don't even realise how ridiculous that play of words is within your own self claimed mind...that you then project at others...that's the work of a gaslighting, sociopathic narcissistical tyrant. Even though that too is a projection, it's an assumed role you are playing. Everyone of us who claims to know anything at all, and then forces someone else to accept that knowledge else be judged is the same tyrant.

Life is a fictional story, not real...known by no one...this is just common knowledge...if you disagree, then show us the knower that you believe to exist, the one you call HIM...

Truth is, you can't do that can you ...because you choose to ignore anything that does not fit with your own narrative...and that's why you are being called out for your BS...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with you...it's what you project onto the you that's BS..because the YOU has absolutely no knowledge of it's conception, except what it projects as a belief, aka a fictional story.

Hard truths IC..hard truths.

.