Christianity

[Belinda]

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.

Not quite.

3. Acceptance that the mythical supernatural Christ and the historical Jesus are the same individual. And the teachings of Jesus provide the key to salvation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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?

Rewritten and expanded...

If Logos is real, and Logos pervades the manifest Universe -- this world, this manifestation, and all manifestations always and forever -- then on some other planet in this manifest Universe, whether in the deep past or the future, a given being will embrace the Logos-Idea through their own matrix, not through the specific history of our own Earth. There, in that realm, it will all come to them through the events, symbols and meanings of their own context, and in this sense the history of the Hebrews will not have correspondence.

Though because they are intelligent beings, and live in a world that must share many features or characteristics of our own, if they were made aware of our Earth-history, the sense in it, the sense they could take out of it, would be intelligible to them, just as theirs would be to us.

Here, I describe a sort of Interplanetary Inter-world perspective, a sort of perspective that comes out of comparative religion. Just as the scenario I describe can be seen as sensible, and likely, at the same time it provides a way to see into and understand religious viewpoints of our own world which are different from that of our own matrix.

Obviously, there is a purpose to what I try to demonstrate here, and it is on one hand to decouple from the specificity of our own history, while simultaneously to recouple with one of the core idea or ideas that are, in my view, part-and-parcel of the *Greek mind*.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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

Excuse my interjection.

It seems to me that if you make this statement, and actually believe it to be true, that your general view is founded and grounded on a rather odd predicate. I cannot understand the purpose or value of the assertion *You do not exist* or *I do not exist*. As if we who are here doing thus-and-such are not really here doing thus-and-such.

If this is your core predicate (Is it?) then what am I to think and conclude about the other ideas you assert with similar certainty and forcefulness?

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

If your sentence is picked-apart a little it has some interesting features. You are making a statement, which I think has truth in it, that there are those who no longer can believe in the way, or about the *truths* which IC holds to.

I am reminded of a scene in the Bergman film Winter Light where the protagonist, a priest who is having a severe crisis of faith, exclaims while looking at the image of Christ on the cross "And what of those who want to believe but cannot?"

(The scene I linked to is not the one I mentioned; there is no YouTube clip that I can find of it).

I am interested by this phrase: "... those who no-longer are able or willing to accept what they inherently know can’t be true."

To be no longer willing to believe is one thing;
To know that something is inherently untrue is another;
And no longer to accept what one knows is untrue is sort of another, I think.

But we have to ask, and to sincerely ask, as if a real answer is there, what in fact we are talking about. And what, in fact, you are talking about. In this sense, it seems to me, you begin from an a priori that something, something you have not clearly spelled out, is not so. And what is that? What is it you inherently know to be false?

What does one inherently know? And what does one inherently know to be false? Who is 'inherently' there to make these assessments? And according to what interpretation-factors?

in·her·ent (ĭn-hîr′ənt, -hĕr′-)
adj.
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.
[Latin inhaerēns, inhaerent-, present participle of inhaerēre, to inhere; see inhere.]
in·her′ent·ly adv.

inhere (ɪnˈhɪə)
vb
to be an inseparable part (of)

You go on to say:

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?

In my own experience, and I admit this is a difficult territory, I came to see that it was not so much that those Mediaeval Truths (to use your term) are untrue, but rather that what is true in them cannot any longer be grasped, and so it is not so much that they are now untrue, and therefore false, but that the sort of mind and the sort of perceiver (or interpreter if you wish) that is needed to understand the inner content, is no longer there. One knocks on the door and *no one is home*.

But I am very interested when people make declarations, with such force, within these known categories of importance, about things that *can't be true*.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

Rewritten and expanded...

...a given being...

Oh. So your suppostion is that Universalism is true? That if there is a "logos," by which you mean a non-personal-God-force, then it's inevitable that all "given beings" will "embrace the idea" of it?

At the moment, it's hard to see why we should suppose that. There seems no obvious reason why "beings" could not choose "not to embrace" it. Observably, we human beings are very capable of denial, delusion and refusal.

You'd have to fill in that explanation. It doesn't seem obvious, as it stands.

Though because they are intelligent beings, and live in a world that must share many features or characteristics of our own,

Are we speculating on UFO's and aliens now? Or are you just speaking in "possible worlds" terms, meaning without actual reference to reality?

...a sort of perspective that comes out of comparative religion...

Ah. This is a "discipline" I know very, very well.

Comparative Religions does not prove the equivalency of religions. Quite the contrary: it presupposes it. So that perspective is very skewed, ideologically-premised and undemonstrable. But this I can grant it: it does appeal to the dismissive prejudices of modern secularists very well, and that makes it a popular delusion...but a delusion nonetheless...and one that even a little evidence quickly dispatches.

There's a reason that Comparative Religions, as a study, has tended to dwindle since the middle of the last century. Not even the secularists are finding it compelling anymore. So formerly CR departments are being redubbed "Departments of Religion and Culture," or even "World Religions," dropping the "comparative" bit as contentious and no longer tenable. It's an abandoning of the sanguine hopes of Universalism; and it's happening even in the secular academy.

...it provides a way to see into and understand religious viewpoints of our own world which are different from that of our own matrix.

Well, any process of "studying religions" can do that. So that's not much of a credit to CR. But it has that huge liability: that it's already prejudiced in regard to its conclusion. The very name suggest that the only acceptable finding of examing religions is going to turn out to be that they are "comparable." And to cook one's conclusion prior to all investigation is hardly a recipe for objective investigating, is it?

So I think it's actually been good that Religious Studies departments have dropped the "comparative" approach. It was too propagandizing, too prejudicial, and too unscientific to allow for the kind of free and unpredetermined investigating that an intellectually-honest Sociologist would want to do.

Obviously, there is a purpose to what I try to demonstrate here, and it is on one hand to decouple from the specificity of our own history, while simultaneously to recouple with one of the core idea or ideas that are, in my view, part-and-parcel of the *Greek mind*.

I see that. But how is that necessarily better than the "Comparative Religions" approach? It seems to me that deciding before all investigation that all "religions" (and that word itself is suspect, of course) are going to turn out to be somehow beholden to the Greeks is even more ideologically biased than to merely suppose they have to be "comparable."

[Immanuel Can]

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

That's because I don't accuse people of ad hominems unless they try to evade the issues by way of personal insult against the speaker -- the very definition of ad hominem...just as you are attempting to do right now.

If you understand the ad hominem fallacy at all, then you know that the speaker is an utterly irrelevant question to the truth value of a proposition. The Devil can speak truth, and persons of unimpeachable character can be mistaken. A proposition stands or falls solely on its own truth value, not on the character of the speaker, good or bad.

In short, say whatever you wish about me or my character, and you're merely off topic.

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.

Even a modest inspection of that claim will disprove it. There are, if you care to investigate it, and don't care for my company, a host of websites that provide compelling evidence for the rationality of Theism. If you had investigated, you'd already know that. So that's simply a wild claim I have no need to address personally...and know you would not listen to me, if I did.

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.

I cannot congratulate you on that confidence. I'm certain it is going to betray you. I'd prefer to encourage you to be open to rethinking that freedom from doubt.

But we shall see. For if you were to turn out to be right, neither you nor I will ever know it; but I am right, then it is certain that both you and I will know it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh. So your suppostion is that Universalism is true? That if there is a "logos," by which you mean a non-personal-God-force, then it's inevitable that all "given beings" will "embrace the idea" of it?

Well, I think what I mean inheres (he he) in the notion of Logos presented in John, which if I am not mistaken is inherently a Greek reception of the Judaic concept. If the Word was in the beginning, and was through all time, and all possible worlds, the same Word, then yes this points to something universal. But I am uncertain what you mean with a capitalized Universalism.

At the moment, it's hard to see why we should suppose that. There seems no obvious reason why "beings" could not choose "not to embrace" it. Observably, we human beings are very capable of denial, delusion and refusal.

My supposition, such as it is, is that in any world that we can conceive of, in a cosmos and universe created and underpinned by Logos (in the Johannine sense), that there have been, and are, and always will be precisely those descents of God into the manifest world of mutability, which in my view is precisely what is expressed in the Johannine Gospel. The light came into the world and that world did not, or could not, or would not, see it.

If it plays out here, it plays out everywhere, or so it seems to me.

Now, having done some investigation into it (CH Dodd and his The Johannine Epistles was an influence), John shows a point where the Judaic world meets the Greek world. A way of seeing and describing meets another way of receiving, seeing and describing. And this is what I refer to when I refer to Greco-Christianity.

So I assume that a similar scenario would have to be understood as repeating itself -- having occurred in the past, now occurring (somewhere) in the present, and occurring necessarily again in the future. The trinitarian idea must pervade this world and all possible worlds.

And as such it could very well happen that the denizens refuse or resist -- for exactly the same reasons they refuse and resist here.

Are we speculating on UFO's and aliens now? Or are you just speaking in "possible worlds" terms, meaning without actual reference to reality?

No, I am definitely referring to reality. Necessary reality. But the reality I refer to is, at this point, speculative (since there is no evidence of other life forms out there). However, yes, I do assume that there is life and intelligence in other parts of the universe. To refer to UFO's and aliens would be a way of trivializing the idea I am trying to present, which is very sound. The notion of Logos implies the literal originator of the world, and that means all worlds, the universe, indeed the cosmos. Wherever there are intelligent beings, the3 same paradigm must, according to Johannine logic, always play out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Comparative Religions does not prove the equivalency of religions. Quite the contrary: it presupposes it. So that perspective is very skewed, ideologically-premised and undemonstrable. But this I can grant it: it does appeal to the dismissive prejudices of modern secularists very well, and that makes it a popular delusion...but a delusion nonetheless...and one that even a little evidence quickly dispatches.

I simply mentioned comparison of one religion to another, I did not refer necessarily to the specific discipline. I think that I have explained what I wanted to say -- in any case I cannot see how it could be stated more clearly. It is not a whimsical far-fetched notion. It is actually pretty simple and clear and I think coherent. (I am referring to what I have said about Logos in the wide universe).

I would not assert the equivalency of religions. I would assert that they have some, and sometimes many, comparable elements.

I can see how some CR perspectives could be skewed, and ideologically premised, but that does not mean that all comparison, in and of itself, must result in that. Also I think that they (different religions) will be compared -- one will be held up against another and they will be examined. It is inevitable. But I have no statement about what happens in CR departments at the universities.

I see that. But how is that necessarily better than the "Comparative Religions" approach? It seems to me that deciding before all investigation that all "religions" (and that word itself is suspect, of course) are going to turn out to be somehow beholden to the Greeks is even more ideologically biased than to merely suppose they have to be "comparable."

This entire conversation, the entire thread, involves philosophical examination of Christianity. But far more is implied since to defend a Christian perspective as *truth* the entire question What is true and why is it true? must be, and is, broached. And this necessarily involves a comparative approach, however this is taken, however it is carried out.

Those that differ with you adamantly, as many seem to, bring forward other perspectives. This perspectivalism (excuse the neologism) is really one major element of what is going on here.

And I certainly do not say that "all religions [...] are going to turn out to be somehow beholden to the Greeks" but only that Judaic Christianity met the Greek world and the Greek world took it on, assimilated it, defined and also redefined its terms, according to a very Greek way of being.

This is not at all in question really, and you have admitted as much, I think. And what you say is that, doing this, it became psuedo- or also non- and possibly in some ways anti-Christian. I understand your view and your assertion I think pretty well.

[Immanuel Can]

I am uncertain what you mean with a capitalized Universalism.

Universalism is a religious ideology. Just as I would capitalize "Marxism," or "Sufism," I would capitalize "Universalism."

...a cosmos and universe created and underpinned by Logos (in the Johannine sense), that there have been, and are, and always will be precisely those descents of God into the manifest world of mutability, which in my view is precisely what is expressed in the Johannine Gospel. The light came into the world and that world did not, or could not, or would not, see it.

An interesting double-phrasing: "created and underpinned." The latter implies an impersonal force, the former conscious agency. I think you might have to choose between them: for clearly, both cannot simultanteously be the case.

The Greek concept "logos" is quite a full one. It does not merely imply "word," but an utterance with a personal investment behind it. For example, we use, in English, the expression, "I will keep my word," by which we do not merely mean a word, but an utterance sponsored by an intention, a person, a promise, a communication.

W.E. Vine: "1: λόγος

(Strong's #3056 — Noun Masculine — logos — log'-os )

denotes (I) "the expression of thought," not the mere name of an object...

We have the same in Torah, in Genesis. God "speaks," and the universe is created. But why these verbs? Precisely because they denote the deliberate intention of a Person, not an accidental happening or the compulsion by an unconscious 'force'.

And "light." The purpose of light is the revealing to the eyes of conscious entities. Light makes things apparent. You'll see this theme developed everywhere in the Bible. So the Light is also aimed at communication, at revelation, at interpersonal exchange.

If "logos" and "light" were merely material objects or impersonal forces, you might be right: they might have to, by nature of what they are, be everwhere. But Biblically speaking, they are not impersonal. They are communcative and interpersonal. As such, they can be refused, and are not guaranteed to be universally received, even if universally accessable.

And that is the further instruction of John, too. See this:

"This was the true Light that, coming into the world, enlightens every person. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him. 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 1:9-13)

Here you have the Light, the Word, sent to everyone: but not everyone receives it. And pre-eminently, Messiah's own, the Jews "did not accept Him." But there were others who received the Logos, and those who received Him (notice the personal pronouns throughout, in bold) became "children of God."

If it plays out here, it plays out everywhere, or so it seems to me.

If Logos or if the Light were mere references to universal forces, it would still not be apparent that everyone was compelled to accept them. It would only suggest that they were universally optional or universally accessible or universally experienced -- but not at all that they were universally embraced.

And, of course, John explicitly said the Logos, or the Light, whichever we call Him, was rejected.

The trinitarian idea must pervade this world and all possible worlds.

"Possible worlds" is a speculative thing. It's an heuristic device, not an empirical one. However, that Trinitarianism pervades all real worlds is quite possible; it still does not imply that everyone within those worlds can do nothing other than recognize Trinitarianism. In fact, empirically, we see that even in this world, most people don't. "He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him."

And as such it could very well happen that the denizens refuse or resist -- for exactly the same reasons they refuse and resist here.

My point, precisely.

That everyone can hear the Logos or see the Light does not imply that everyone automatically receives them. For "reception," in this case, is a volitional, not an incidental, thing.

Wherever there are intelligent beings, the same paradigm must, according to Johannine logic, always play out.

"Possible worlds" would trivialize the idea, you say?

Does this mean we're speculating on aliens?

[Immanuel Can]

I can see how some CR perspectives could be skewed, and ideologically premised, but that does not mean that all comparison, in and of itself, must result in that.

No, it doesn't, of course.

But the combination of the adjective "comparative" with the noun "religions" implies it. For it implies that whatever are going to be compared, they are all going to turn out to be "religions," meaning that they have to be of a comparable collective. Their disparities are then most likely to be submerged by a focus on whatever appear to be their "comparabilties."

It is as if the CR person is telling us, in advance of all investigation, "Whatever happens here, it will turn out that the subject of our study will all end up comparable; and their disparities will be less important than their similarities, whatever is discovered. For prior to all investigation, we already know they're all, essentially, the same."

But do we "know" that? Do we "know" it prior to all investigation and any data? Such a declaration, obviously, is highly prejudiced in a particular direction. And it's far from scientific.

I see that. But how is that necessarily better than the "Comparative Religions" approach? It seems to me that deciding before all investigation that all "religions" (and that word itself is suspect, of course) are going to turn out to be somehow beholden to the Greeks is even more ideologically biased than to merely suppose they have to be "comparable."

This entire conversation, the entire thread, involves philosophical examination of Christianity. But far more is implied since to defend a Christian perspective as *truth* the entire question What is true and why is it true? must be, and is, broached.

So far, so good...

And this necessarily involves a comparative approach, however this is taken, however it is carried out.

I don't see that this follows.

"Comparison" is only one of many tools of investigation. An obvious alternative is "contrast." But another would be to examine a thing with regard to its own truth claims, and without regard to "comparison" with any other presumed equivalent. Indeed, this latter seems more often to me characteristic of science than the "comparative" approach, which in empirical matters is actually rarely resorted to.

Those that differ with you adamantly, as many seem to, bring forward other perspectives.

Indeed they do. But does this argue for "Perspectivalism"?

No. All it means is that some views may be wrong, some may be right, and some may be partially right. There is no logical implication that all "perspectives" must be equal.

And I certainly do not say that "all religions [...] are going to turn out to be somehow beholden to the Greeks" but only that Judaic Christianity met the Greek world and the Greek world took it on, assimilated it, defined and also redefined its terms, according to a very Greek way of being.

Again, that Catholicism did, I do not even contest. But to generalize that to all of Christianity is to make it manifestly untrue.

This is not at all in question really, and you have admitted as much, I think. And what you say is that, doing this, it became psuedo- or also non- and possibly in some ways anti-Christian.

No, I have admitted it of Catholicism. Never of Christianity.

Look at what you have written, above. You say, "...doing this, it [i.e. Christianity?] became pseudo- or also non- and possibly in some ways anti-Christian." If, by the "it" pronoun, you do, in fact, mean "Christianity," the sentence itself becomes nonsense. How can anything become pseudo-, non-, or anti- what it is?

But if you mean, "...doing this, Catholicms became pseudo-/non-/anti- Christian," then I think you're absolutely right. The worst thing, historically, that ever happened to the Christian world is when Romanism attempted to embrace it and then pull it into a place of privilege in the political infrastructure of "Dark Ages" Europe. The pagans fused their own belief system, the pantheon they already recognized, with the names of Christian saints and other figures, and thereby polluted the theology of Christianity with idolatry...a thing deplorable to both Jews and Christians.

And the Catholic organization has continued to use the same procedure wherever it has gone. Living where you do, you will be very familiar with the panoply of local "saints" and "spiritual beings" used by the South American Catholics, many of which were simply drawn from local lore or pagan beliefs indigenous to South America. This is why you have "saints" in South America that are utterly unknown in Europe (and visa versa, of course.) Catholicm has long embraced the strategy of converting locals by co-opting their belief systems and "baptizing" them as Catholic. So, in South America, you have your God of Death made into "Santa Muerte," and in Quebec, "Ste. Kateri" the aboringinal, and the Virigin, Europeanized in Europe, is in Central America black, and in neither is she Semitic. That's Catholicism for you.

They are not at all secretive about this strategy, as you will no doubt know. Their religion is not so much comparative as absorptive of whatever is on hand in the local situation. The word we use for this is "syncretism." And indeed, what the Catholics did in South America, they did long beforehand, first with the paganism of the Romans, and then later, with the legacy of the Greeks.

But Christianity has not done so. And this is one of the chief hallmarks of difference between the theology of Catholics and that of Christians. I am simply at pains here to help you to discern the key practical distinctions that so many secular historians have neglected so badly.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Universalism is a religious ideology.

I had enough of a sense of what Universalism is.

When I said I was not sure why you brought in the term it was to indicate, somewhat obliquely, that I was not attempting to define a Universalism, nor refer to Universalist concepts, but rather to explain why the ideas and notions that pervade Johannine Christianity (and by that designation I mean a way of referring to certain strains of Christian theological ideas) must necessarily play out, and be applicable, and extend to, all the manifest Universe. I do not know what to call that impetus. Yet in this world that impetus exists.

I certainly realize that the Christian world, and the Greek world, likely did not have much to say about the seemingly infinite size of our Universe, nor have I encountered speculative material in any Greek or other source where *other worlds*, other planets, other intelligent forms of life, were thought to exist, but I do this because it very nicely, and I think relevantly, helps to elucidate some important points. So, yes, I admit that I do believe it very probably that other forms of intelligent, biological life exist. Put another way I find it hard to conceive that such don't exist. But as of yet we seem not to have any proof. This is not to speculate about aliens, space-ships, UFO's and other such things. It is to develop an idea that has to do, I think profoundly, with Christian logic. And that is to say that if other worlds exist, and if there are intelligent beings in them, the conditions of life are likely similar to our own (life within a biological body and within natural and ecological systems such as that of our own Earth.)

And if such exist -- if races of intelligent beings have developed culture and civilization, and if there is 'spiritual need' of the sort that we understand to exist in our world -- then I do speculate that there will likely come to exist a similar dynamic. The Creator of *all this*, having love for His created beings, and ultimate concern for their well-being, will similarly arrange for similar sorts of Revelation as happened with the Hebrews, and there will develop, similarly, a religious tradition that ushers in a similar salvific figure. I did not imply that this would be merely an impersonal force, and there is no reason to assume that it would not be similarly *personal*. That is, coming through men with unique personalities just like the Hebrew prophets.

Again I simply restate the phrase: In the beginning was the Word. And just as you say the Word is the creative act. It brought about all that we see and know, and all that we cannot see and do not know, and because all of this is *its own*, it is in this sense the Owner of it. And if, as they say, there are billions & billions & billions of galaxies, it stands to reason that there are many many other 'peoples' if I can put it like this. Being created by God, being subject (I would assume?) to a Fall, and beings existing in that sort of 'spiritual and existential darkness' which would be the other side of the term 'light' that you just defined.

Light would then have to *come into their world*. Not by my own speculative choice, but because it seems logical, or necessary, that it be so. But there is a similar likelihood that, as here, it would not be received with open arms, and for similar, comparable reasons. And similar struggles between as is illustrated in: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against a spiritual wickedness in high places."

Because that is what the idea of Logos, as it is expressed in that Gospel, and in ancient thought (early Christian thought) seems to me, and quite soundly, and very logically, to imply. It is not that I am here defining Universalist principles, it is that the very foundation of Christian ideas seem to speak to universal notions.

I do fully grasp that the Johannine Logos became the man Jesus Christ, and I do fully understand that He was rejected. And I also fully understand that this rejection set up, essentially, the entire second half of the story (to put it colloquially) which has yet to be fulfilled.

What I imply, consciously, intentionally, is that it is possible, and is it also likely? that in some other world -- the world I assume, with some reason, must exist -- is it possible and is it probably that the same process as is going on on Earth played out there? No, this is not to speculate about aliens floating mysteriously around in cigar-shapes space-vessels, it is to think about the manifest univserse, the created world in the larger sense, and ask (logical) questions about how, or if, these metaphysical notions apply to worlds beyond our own world.

Why speculate? Because it opens up the Ultimate Question of what, in fact, we are really talking about when we think about salvation, about a Messiah-figure, and this bears directly on the on-going conversation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I said: And this necessarily involves a comparative approach, however this is taken, however it is carried out.

You replied: I don't see that this follows.

My impression -- correct me if you see it differently -- is that it is your choice, your desire, your need, your predilection, not to see things in the terms that, in varying degrees and for various reasons, others do.

So if I say "And this necessarily involves a comparative approach" I am, I thought obviously, speaking to my own interests and methods. It is not that I wanted to do this, it is that it fell to me.

And I think that similarly to most of the other people who chime in here. We are deeply involved in both comparison, as well as redefinition, rejection, a sense of something insufficient, something restraining, but also something (potentially) wrong.

I can of course outline the general critique of Christianity if you wish!

I do not know how to define, ultimately, the rejection of the Christian story (how else to describe it?)

But I am certain that this entire conversation weaves in and out of these questions.

[Immanuel Can]

So, yes, I admit that I do believe it very probably that other forms of intelligent, biological life exist. Put another way I find it hard to conceive that such don't exist. But as of yet we seem not to have any proof. This is not to speculate about aliens, space-ships, UFO's and other such things. It is to develop an idea that has to do, I think profoundly, with Christian logic. And that is to say that if other worlds exist, and if there are intelligent beings in them, the conditions of life are likely similar to our own (life within a biological body and within natural and ecological systems such as that of our own Earth.)

I understand.

I'm still unconvinced it's an argument that can be made. The word you use is the problem: "speculate." A speculative or strictly hypothetical premise can only ever warrant a speculative conclusion. It cannot demand of us a firm one.

What would be the case, IF there were aliens? I don't know, because that's apparently not the world we live in: or if we do, we have no way (as you say "no proof") of knowing whether or not that is the kind of universe in which we live. So I can see no conclusion possible from that, either for or against anything I might want to think.

And if such exist -- if races of intelligent beings have developed culture and civilization, and if there is 'spiritual need' of the sort that we understand to exist in our world -- then I do speculate that there will likely come to exist a similar dynamic. The Creator of *all this*, having love for His created beings, and ultimate concern for their well-being, will similarly arrange for similar sorts of Revelation as happened with the Hebrews, and there will develop, similarly, a religious tradition that ushers in a similar salvific figure. I did not imply that this would be merely an impersonal force, and there is no reason to assume that it would not be similarly *personal*. That is, coming through men with unique personalities just like the Hebrew prophets.

All that is possible. But only speculative. I can't see any way it "pays off" in the real world.

It seems to me that the question of aliens on other worlds is almost certain to remain forever speculative. The nearest plausibly inhabitable planet is 4.2 light years from earth. We have nothing that moves anything close to fast enough: the fastest known object in the universe moves along at a pokey 330,000 mph (535,000 kmh), only 0.05% of the speed of light. Even if Proxima Centauri turns out to have some kind of life on it, and even if that life turns out to be somewhat complex, and even if some of it turns out to be animal, and even if some of it is vaguely "human," good luck on bridging the distance to even the nearest option -- or them getting to us.

All this speculation thus seems to me to be pretty idle. I really have to ask the point.

...just as you say the Word is the creative act.

This, I most certainly never said.

"The Word" is a person. It is both the utterance and the Personal guarantee of the Person Himself. This is all quite Biblically obvious. For example, in John, one cannot "not receive" a creative act. One cannot "reject" light. One can only perceive both, and refuse the communication behind them, denying the integrity of the Person issuing them. That much, one can do.

I do fully grasp that the Johannine Logos became the man Jesus Christ,

"Became"?

John does not say, "Christ became the Word." He says, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Jesus Christ was already the Word.

... and I do fully understand that He was rejected. And I also fully understand that this rejection set up, essentially, the entire second half of the story (to put it colloquially) which has yet to be fulfilled.

That is true.

Why speculate? Because it opens up the Ultimate Question of what, in fact, we are really talking about when we think about salvation, about a Messiah-figure, and this bears directly on the on-going conversation.

I get the charm of purely speculative questions: they entertain. They allow mind-bending fantasies that can, like science fiction, be fun if not necessaritly accurate. But beyond that, I really don't see how the speculation helps. As I say, we have clear revelation instead. And speculative hypotheses only ever tend to speculative conclusions, not known ones.

But maybe I'm missing something that talk of aliens and alternate worlds can do for us. What it is, I cannot imagine, but I'm prepared to consider it if you can explain.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Logos: the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ.

In this sense the Word is the creative act of the Creation. True, you did not say it in this way. I take it as the general and accepted meaning and as much else besides.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm still unconvinced it's an argument that can be made. The word you use is the problem: "speculate." A speculative or strictly hypothetical premise can only ever warrant a speculative conclusion. It cannot demand of us a firm one.

I use the word because I have no evidence to which I can refer other than probability and, in a sense, logic. I say 'speculate' because it is the best word under the circumstances.

I do also state that I think it must be, and must necessarily be, more than a mere speculation. It is highly probable and therefore highly likely.

However, if you said "I do not see it as such" I would not be able to cobble together a convincing argument, except to repeat what I just said here.

If you will indulge me the 'speculation' and assume that what I speculate on is likely, or in any case possible, then you could freely examine the point I made, which does depend on just that. But if you don't wish to, or see now good reason to do so, all speculation stops there, and the points I make cannot be examined (under that scenario).