Christianity

[Nick_A]

must a person believe in the Resurrection of Christ to be a Christian? How is it possible? Could you believe in the Resurrection sufficiently to change your life? Easter celebrates the Resurrection. Does it have any meaning for you other than a family day?

1 Corinthians 15

..........12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.................

...........35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.................

The whole chapter is very deep but the question Paul asserts is that without the resurrection "we are of all people most to be pitied. Has Easter become Just a secular holiday

[Dontaskme]

Back to the idea of 'non-conscious'... it's such an absurd idea, because the very idea points to a state that is both is and is/not.

I'm not sure that's a problem. The problem is how we get from things that we know for sure are non-conscious, like, say, hydrogen floating in space, to a state where conscious entities exist, in a universe that Materialism has to insist did not have conscious entities in it at all.

The problem is really with the theory, I think. In any case, if the theory itself is going to prove not to be wrong-headed, that's a step -- or rather, two steps -- it's going to have to find some way to explain. At present, it's not even offering anything on that.

But who is making the theory?

Does the universe NEED to have THEORY to exist? .... I think the answer to that question is No

Can the assumed entity that apparently needs to explain how and why it is conscious of itself.. Can it point to itself as an object known, can it be located in a physical tangible sense? ..it cannot, can it?

...the point I am talking about is the ''knower'' or the ''self''

Who? You? Me? The others here?

Placing question marks upon an assumed '' knower '' is the point I am making.... the 'knower entity' cannot know itself without splitting itself in two.

What does ''non-living'' - ''non-sentience''.. even mean?

Oh, that's easy. I have to assume you don't think that rocks think. And I have to assume you don't think things like hydrogen molecules think. So these are non-sentient things.

Sentience does not require thought.

Sentience is AUTOMATIC ..it's reflexive, no THOUGHT is involved in a reflex jerk movement of the body in response to stimuli.

Sensory receptors become activated by stimuli in the environment by receiving signals. The transmission of any message in the neurons of our body requires it to be in the form of an action potential; the sensation must undergo conversion into electrical signals.

What if there is no one who is conscious of itself.. IC? ...what if consciousness is all there is, one without a second?

What if the rock known as earth is conscious, what if earth is a conscious living organism....human and animal sentience spawed from out of this conscious living organism known as rock... did it not?

1 : a sentient quality or state. 2 : feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought.

[Belinda]

Nobody cares, bubba.

You're not the star of the show, and neither am I.

Anywho: anytime you wanna ask questions and leave off with the poorly-written script, I'm ready.

In fact, Iambiguous is a more complex thinker than you, Henry; you are sometimes simplistic. There are criteria for sound thinking. Your writing is generally good, so it's a shame when occasionally you write something dogmatic.

[henry quirk]

Nobody cares, bubba.

You're not the star of the show, and neither am I.

Anywho: anytime you wanna ask questions and leave off with the poorly-written script, I'm ready.

In fact, Iambiguous is a more complex thinker than you, Henry; you are sometimes simplistic. There are criteria for sound thinking. Your writing is generally good, so it's a shame when occasionally you write something dogmatic.

There's no accountin' for taste, I guess.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So we're back to this: good beliefs are those that have stood tests. So far from anything testing the foundations of my belief being a threat, I want to see any such tests. But Atheists be warned: I've spent time on this. I'm not going to be fooled the first time you pull out the Euthyprho Problem or ask how big a rock God can make. These are rudimentary tests, impressive only to the simple, and satisfying only if one is already pointed at finding facile excuses to disbelieve. They're easily debunked. So I'm looking for better tests, ones I have not seen already.

Some notes about what I have learned and, to some degree, concluded through this conversation

1.) One must ask the question: What am I doing within the zone of religion? What function does it have for me and what use do I make of it? This question has become essential because, when one examines the world-field now, there are numerous competing religions and each tries to assert itself and dominate. Instead of shrinking from this question -- the project of defining oneself, one's community, one's nation -- one has to start from this core issue and define the project one is engaged in.

At one time the Christian religion could be said to have a universal applicability because it was confined to a region (Europe) and was part of a general, Medieval belief-system (Scholasticism). A civilization was built around it and on its basis. This is no longer the case. In fact the most salient issue is the degree to which the belief-system as it was originally formulated no longer really functions. It is in this sense like a fabric that has become shredded. The structure of the fabric can only be held together through an act of the will. And the will that comes forward to defend the *system* can only do so through absurd assertions. As Nietzsche sensibly pointed out the *belief system* (speaking of its existence within the cultural body of Europe) comes to look evermore like a *ghost* or a *fading shadow*. It seems true then that the imago of the former God does indeed rise up again and again in more or less bizarre ways and yet it has little purchase (hold) on people in a true sense. That is, as a primary perceptual commitment.

2.) Jesus Christ and the entire idea that *I am the way and the truth and the life* requires and demands a challenge. Put another way this idea cannot, and should not, merely be accepted as a truth. The fact of the matter is that no one has the right to make such a declaration. And when this is put another way one can propose that the idea is an expression of Judaic imperialism. The essence of it is "Our way is the right way, and the only way, and if you do not accept this we will assign you to demonic gods". But all (properly) thinking people, intelligent and thoughtful people, no longer can believe, and remain in personal integrity, that this sort of imperialistic idea-declaration is really true. It cannot be sustained.

So at least among *thinking people*, if not among *the masses*, Jesus Christ must be dethroned. Put another way it is impossible that Jesus Christ would have said such a thing about himself. And what this means is that people ascribe to him this assertion because they have an interest in asserting their own power and they desire to dominate others. Generally, people recognize how these assertions are part of *power trips* and they see through them.

3.) The Christian religion and all of its assertions must be examined through a comparative project with other religious modes. For example those of the Indian subcontinent such as Buddhism, the Vedic conceptions and religions. But also, and primarily, and as it pertains to Europe, with a thorough understanding of the pagan religions not as defined state-religions but as modes of perception and understanding of nature-processes. These still live, and very much so, in all of us. Unfortunately, this is an aspect of the *dethroning* process. And it is unfortunate for a group of reasons. When simple-minded people who receive their religious views through clerical and state authority suddenly are presented with a critical picture, those people are thrown into existential confusion. Religious structures, as are all manner of different perceptual structures, are usually upheld through authoritarian force. Belief-systems are part-and-parcel of a sort of cohesive glue that binds a culture together. Everyone knows this and we are in a so much better position to understand that these *systems* exist and what their functions are.

4.) Christian metaphysics must be critically examined through comparison with other metaphysical systems. Why? Because metaphysics is assertion based on intuition and also *projection*. Intuited and assumed views are *imposed* on the world and the cosmos. I would say that *truths* are discerned (and here I speak personally and for myself) but I would also say that what is imposed is *unreal* because it is a formulation of man's mind. Thus: that which is pictured is not the essence of what is pictured, and cannot contain it, and remains just a picture. And many different pictures have been created and *sent up* as it were. They all have different levels of validity. But the entire question of *what is valid?* in these domains is an open question.

5.) Obviously -- obviously! -- Salvation and Damnation have to be completely and thorough reviewed. These terms actually mean next-to-nothing today. They operate as *shadows* of notions that once really did have real sense and meaning.

6.) The entire idea of Hell and a hell-realm has to be fundamentally examined. Essentially, the idea of Christian Hell is a notion associated with an insane and demonic Yahweh. The notion of Eternal Hell and Eternal Punishment can no longer stand on its two legs ethically and morally. If there is such a God that could eternally damn a created soul, all thinking people see that the god described is not a god of goodness, but a demon. This opens up the necessity, if one is inclined to imagine that there is a continuance of life after the death of the body, to propose a purgatorial process. That is, the contaminated soul must necessarily, and ethically, be purified of the *dross* and released from it. This would have to be an educational process. And it implies (if one wished to go in this direction) of a hierarchy of angelical-like beings that oversee souls.

7.) The necessity and function of a religious belief-system within a given culture must be seen in a new light. So let me say that even if someone (you, me, anyone) no longer could believe in the metaphysics of Christianity, and thus support religion and religious modes, we must necessarily define a role for ourselves in relation to the religious function in our own community and also nation. This involves a conscious plan to understand the function of religion, certainly Christianity, within the cultural context. The religious mode should not be destroyed or eliminated but defined with more precision in respect of the specific people who specifically hold to it. Thus pseudo-universalism of Christianity (the catholicism of Christianity) must be reexamined, redefined, reconfigured and reapplied.

8.) Those with religious inclination must ask, and must be able to answer coherently the question Why am I involved in religion? This is a restatement of No 1 in this list. The way I would go about trying to explain what I mean is, as I have recently discussed, through choosing a national example like France and its present identity-struggles. Identity in this sense (blood & soil is one aspect, and a very real and important aspect of any people's self-definition) must be re-explored.

There are a thousand powerful hyper-liberal ideas that function to dissuade one from developing Identity -- strengthening it, believing in it. These must be a) seen and understood, and b) defeated. The quest to define Identity involves an examination, at a very personal level, of entire realms of perspective that have been made to seem immoral and even evil. The present system has been created through these assertions. The people who, shall I say, work ideologically in these areas have been pushed very far out of the picture. They have been pushed into fringe territories of ideation.

As of today, and right now (it could change) I am now in a place where the closer consideration of the ideas Alexandr Dugin works with seem to make a good deal of sense. That is to say the definition of a 'forth political theory'. And I am also interested in his support of Orthodox Christianity as a 'mystical' mode. That is, as a mode that does not necessarily compete with rationalism and rational stance, but as an ever-present human mode if I can put it like this that must be accommodated. An interesting interview of Dugan by Michael Millerman.

This present list is the *critical* one and in this sense responds to, and comments on, the recent themes in the present conversation. There is another list that would necessarily be far more supportive or -- what is the word? -- affirmative.

[Belinda]

Nobody cares, bubba.

You're not the star of the show, and neither am I.

Anywho: anytime you wanna ask questions and leave off with the poorly-written script, I'm ready.

In fact, Iambiguous is a more complex thinker than you, Henry; you are sometimes simplistic. There are criteria for sound thinking. Your writing is generally good, so it's a shame when occasionally you write something dogmatic.

There's no accountin' for taste, I guess.

There is accounting for taste. Taste is learned from significant others mostly during our more formative years.

[henry quirk]

Water always seeks the lowest level: apparently this applies to some forum participants as well.

Congrats, B: you found the basement...

[Alexis Jacobi]

a) You seem very impressed by the fact that people have different gods. I can't really see why. Maybe you can explain what makes you think that these many contradictory accounts imply something.

b) Jesus Christ says otherwise. He says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life;" and then, in case anybody misses the point: "no one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

c) So if there are many roads, they are not going to the same place "the way" is taking people. Take your pick, and live (and die) with the consequences.

d) That is precisely what one has to decide freely, for oneself. One must decide if the God described in the Bible is true or not. And the same, of course, could be said for any other "gods" people offer one. Or one could simply refuse, and declare Atheism, and never know.

e) Either way, that task is our task here, on Earth: to decide if God has spoken, and if so, how, and what you and I are going to do about it.

a) That many different gods have been pictured, and that they are built from imagined material (intuition, projection, declaration, etc.) indicates a general process that all people engage with. Those who look critically at this determine that it seems to follow that any god-concept is just that -- an intuition, a projection, and a picture.

The fact that there are contradictory accounts definitely points to all sorts of implication. But it really depends on who is *at home* to register what it means, to acknowledge it, and to respond to it substantially and in an up-front manner.

Note: it is generally understood that the evolution of the way that the Hebrew god is shown to evolve indicates that it is not so much God clarifying himself as it is that man clarifies what he believes God to be, or what God should be. And that also points to numerous problems.

b) Put differently one could say that Jesus Christ is said to have said that. And when the implication of that idea is explored the sense of the entire phrase changes. The Johannine gospel is not a series of quotes -- as if a talk by Jesus had been recorded and transcribed -- but an entire interpretive edifice.

c) But what this really means, and what it portends, is an examination not of 'many roads' though it may involve this but in 'road'. The notion of a path in and also through the world. So what Iambiguous, among numerous others, seems to want to point out is that there are many different notions of 'road'. And each of them fit into a *context* (which I believe he calls dasein). You imply, imperialistically, that this particular Judaic road is not just one of many, but the sole and only valid and true one. You possess no decisive nor ultimately conclusive argument, except one based in your choice or preference, that what Jesus is said to have said is true. And as a result you seem not to be able to examine the entire issue of why the assertion is pretty deeply problematic.

d) Not quite. First, the God of the Bible could be 'true' and 'right' in some aspects but not in all. Similarly, one could examine any other religious modality and see the same. And one could say *all of these are imagined approximations* of what God should be or what man imagines God to be. But no one of these assertions therefore makes any view true. I mean, not necessarily. But what you cannot do is to *produce the god* himself and allow that god to speak to all people and make himself plain and clear. That you cannot do this, and that God does not do this, renders both you and God absurd and as phantasy to many many people.

But what you have done is set up an either/or. One is right, good and true; the other not right, not good, and not true. And salvation depends on making the choice you support. Further, you imply necessarily that you have made the right choice and stand in the *right* place.

e) Many of your opponents say 'god has not spoken because there is no god to speak'. So with this assertion all that you assert is rendered irrelevant. Others might say that they can grasp that a creator or originating god of some sort is necessary, but that if that god created this world, then the Christian notion of god does not in any sense correspond to this created world! And this is not at all a bad argument. They say: the god that created this world is a sick and insane sadist since, as it appears, existence and life (biological life) is outrageously opposed in its nature to the 'good god' defined.

I would rewrite e) and would state it all differently. Yes, we are duty-bound to examine and think about all propositions, including those pictures presented by religious myth and cosmological assertion. But what we ultimately have to decide may not be encompassed by what a given religion says is the encompassment. And the fact is that there is tremendous fluidity and *open horizons* as to what is asserted about life and its meaning.

And we also generally know that if God speaks, or is said to speak, he does not speak as with a universal planetary loudspeaker. You declare that he speaks through prophetic revelation. But that is (in the eyes of many) simply a way of saying that men have spoken about what they imagine God to be or to say.

[Immanuel Can]

Back to the idea of 'non-conscious'... it's such an absurd idea, because the very idea points to a state that is both is and is/not.

I'm not sure that's a problem. The problem is how we get from things that we know for sure are non-conscious, like, say, hydrogen floating in space, to a state where conscious entities exist, in a universe that Materialism has to insist did not have conscious entities in it at all.

The problem is really with the theory, I think. In any case, if the theory itself is going to prove not to be wrong-headed, that's a step -- or rather, two steps -- it's going to have to find some way to explain. At present, it's not even offering anything on that.

But who is making the theory?

Whoever is interested in making Evolutionism rational.

Does the universe NEED to have THEORY to exist?

Of course not. Such theories attempt to describe how something happened; they don't make anything happen.

...the 'knower entity' cannot know itself without splitting itself in two.

Who is the "knower"?

What does ''non-living'' - ''non-sentience''.. even mean?

Oh, that's easy. I have to assume you don't think that rocks think. And I have to assume you don't think things like hydrogen molecules think. So these are non-sentient things.

Sentience does not require thought.

Yes, actually, it does. Sentience IS thought. No thought, no sentience.

Sentience is AUTOMATIC

Oh. You mean, "Thinking just happens." But if doesn't happen in non-sentient things. And how non-thinking things became sentient...well, that's one of the problems with the Progressivist Evolutionary narrative.

[Immanuel Can]

At one time the Christian religion could be said to have a universal applicability because it was confined to a region (Europe) and was part of a general, Medieval belief-system (Scholasticism).

That's incorrect on at least two points: one is that no large group of people such as you describe has ever been generally "Christian." But you disagree with that, I know. The second problem is the word "applicable," which could mean no more than "believed as a general delusion." In your usage, the sentence, "At one time, the flat earth theory was applicable to the entire world," would be true.

2.) Jesus Christ and the entire idea that *I am the way and the truth and the life* requires and demands a challenge.[/quote]
It comes with one: believe it yourself, and be saved; refuse it, and be alienated from God.

It also comes with another challenge. After you've rejected the claim, you have to explain why the Man who was, and is pretty much universally recognized as, the greatest moral teacher who ever lived said it was true, when you must insist He was lying.

So at least among *thinking people*, if not among *the masses*, Jesus Christ must be dethroned.

See how that works out for you, I guess. I don't like your odds.

3.) The Christian religion and all of its assertions must be examined through a comparative project with other religious modes.

Yes, that may be true.

An honest comparison will include the question of what is the truth and what is false. Otherwise, you're just listing any superficial likenesses you can find.

4.) Christian metaphysics must be critically examined through comparison with other metaphysical systems.

Same process.

5.) Obviously -- obviously! -- Salvation and Damnation have to be completely and thorough reviewed.

Yes, and now. As Paul wrote, "Behold, now is “a favorable time,” behold, now is “a day of salvation”. It won't always be. So yes, an urgent review, with a view to one's own disposition, must be undertaken. For "the Day of The Lord," as Peter says,"will come." And as Christ said, it will come "like a thief in the night," while everybody is not expecting it.

Therefore, review quickly. And make a choice.

6.) The entire idea of Hell and a hell-realm has to be fundamentally examined.

Only enough to understand that alienating oneself from the Source of all good, health, relationship, happiness and light for all eternity is likely to turn out badly. That's enough.

7.) The necessity and function of a religious belief-system within a given culture must be seen in a new light.

No, that's irrelevant. The choice is personal, not by group.

8.) Those with religious inclination must ask, and must be able to answer coherently the question Why am I involved in religion?

No. You just have to ask, "Do I want to believe the truth, or do I want to stay with my own delusions?"

You're overcomplicating. The choice is actually stark and simple: on whose side do you want to be?

[Immanuel Can]

a) You seem very impressed by the fact that people have different gods. I can't really see why. Maybe you can explain what makes you think that these many contradictory accounts imply something.

b) Jesus Christ says otherwise. He says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life;" and then, in case anybody misses the point: "no one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

c) So if there are many roads, they are not going to the same place "the way" is taking people. Take your pick, and live (and die) with the consequences.

d) That is precisely what one has to decide freely, for oneself. One must decide if the God described in the Bible is true or not. And the same, of course, could be said for any other "gods" people offer one. Or one could simply refuse, and declare Atheism, and never know.

e) Either way, that task is our task here, on Earth: to decide if God has spoken, and if so, how, and what you and I are going to do about it.

a) That many different gods have been pictured, and that they are built from imagined material (intuition, projection, declaration, etc.) indicates a general process that all people engage with.

That human beings prefer lies to the truth? Yes, they do. The Bible says they do. And empirically, it's obvious they do. It takes courage to face the truth...and human nature is not generally courageous.

b) Put differently one could say that Jesus Christ is said to have said that.

You could say that. But then, your choice is made. You don't believe His words.

You imply, imperialistically, that this particular Judaic road is not just one of many, but the sole and only valid and true one. You possess no decisive nor ultimately conclusive argument,

Jesus Christ Himself is that "argument." You believe Him, or you do not. After that, the "argument" is only with God.

But what you have done is set up an either/or. One is right, good and true; the other not right, not good, and not true.

That's true of all things that are facts. If you jump off the roof, either you will die or gravity will be proved false. If you drink arsenic, either it will poison you or it will not. If you try to fly to Timbuktu, either you will get there or you will not.

All such things that have to do with factual truth are either-or.

e) Many of your opponents say 'god has not spoken because there is no god to speak'.

And?

So with this assertion all that you assert is rendered irrelevant.

Not at all. It's just another either-or. Either they're telling the truth, or I am. Law of Non-Contradiction.

And we also generally know that if God speaks, or is said to speak, he does not speak as with a universal planetary loudspeaker.

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son..."(Heb. 1:1-2)

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's incorrect on at least two points: one is that no large group of people such as you describe has ever been generally "Christian." But you disagree with that, I know. The second problem is the word "applicable," which could mean no more than "believed as a general delusion." In your usage, the sentence, "At one time, the flat earth theory was applicable to the entire world," would be true.

Your assertion is really quite absurd when examined. You are saying that all those who defined themselves as Christian, according to Immanuel Can, were not and are not in fact Christians. And what you are also saying is that you define who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. Thus Europe in its 1,000 year Christian historical period was not, in fact, Christian.

When I said "At one time the Christian religion could be said to have a universal applicability" what I meant was something different. What I meant is that the world was really & honestly seen through the Christian metaphysical picture: literally the heavenly world circling around us as the starry firmament. Literally an infernal region below our feet where, literally, hellish punishments were carried out. To understand Christianity, one must understand this *picture*. And during those times this picture was universally not just 'believed' but rather literally conceived as such.

Now, today, no one can see 'the world' in these terms. And the way we see the world is through an entirely different set of perceptual terms. And what we see is for us absolute truth: literal perceptual and qualifiable realty. Try to see it differently, It is hardly possible. The point? About perceptual systems.

In a significant sense the entire world conceived by Christians, and the view of Christians which arose out of their world-description, has simply been pulled out from under our feet.

It is in this sense that the specter of Christianity and the shadow of belief . . . remains. It haunts like a ghost. But it cannot be *absolutely and really real* possibly never again.

Now, I did not do this, and you did not do this, and there is no one to blame for it. But it is (very much) something that happened. And it is one of the numerous reasons why Christian belief stands on oddly shaky and spindly legs. (I am merely noting and emphasising that it is so).

AJ said: :2.) Jesus Christ and the entire idea that *I am the way and the truth and the life* requires and demands a challenge.

IC replies: "It comes with one: believe it yourself, and be saved; refuse it, and be alienated from God.

Except I did not say, and I do not say, that 'salvation' is not real or may not in fact be real. What I said is the entire topic has to be revisited and thought through. However, and simply to be honest with you, I can say that most all that you say on the topic I have determined is likely not true. And the reason is because I think that you are subscribed to an authoritarian relationship to God (that is, your god-concept).

Yet I do not deny the concept of god. I challenge, I guess this is the way to put it, specific hermeneutical spin.

It also comes with another challenge. After you've rejected the claim, you have to explain why the Man who was, and is pretty much universally recognized as, the greatest moral teacher who ever lived said it was true, when you must insist He was lying.

I would not say that I reject the claim. I would say that I see the claim in a certain context. And I believe a critical relationship to the assertion is better and also more mature.

Further, I am uncertain to whom the title of "the greatest moral teacher who ever lived" should be assigned. But Christianity taken on the whole, and within the entire Old World philosophical and ethical context, cannot be dismissed. I could say, and I often have said, that the Judaic context (my word for 'entire manifestation') has produced some of the most refined ethical admonitions that I am aware of. And it is also possible, from my vantage, that Jesus Christ was a culmination of that or deeply representative of it. But that would not change my view that the declaration that Christians make about *the one and only way* is incorrectly based.

In this sense it is Logos that is referred to. Not to a specific source.

And I certainly could not insist that he was lying since, as it happens, everything he said was heard by others, and then recorded, and everything about him was woven into specific narratives. But note that what you say to me is that I am calling God a liar. You not only say it, you really & truly mean it.

You might think that by stating it like I do that I am opposed to those moral truths but this is not so. It is simply wise and sensible to understand how these events became stories and how these became concretized into what we understand to be the Christian religion.

And further what you do is to demonstrate how you make this assertion of truth your truth: a truth you wield and enforce. You aslo demonstrate why the statement of specific truth was framed as it was! "Either you believe what I recite to you is true or I will declare you damned!" This is one aspect of the function. And most see this pretty clearly. As I say (this is my opinion of course) I see it largely as an indication of Judaic imperialism. The way that (certainly theological) ideas can be and are wielded by a self-asserting authority for ulterior purposes.

See how that works out for you, I guess. I don't like your odds.

Let me put it this way. If Jesus Christ is real, and if God is real, then God is witness to everything I am saying. And God is witness to me in all my aspects. If I say that Jesus Christ must be dethroned, I mean it in specific senses which I can explain fairly and reasonably. And I also will assume that before Jesus and before God that what I am saying both makes sense and has truth in it.

But in no sense do I mean that we should not be ethical beings who deeply think about all these things. Nor cease to be involved with the really important questions. Yet this is how you construe it. And what I am saying is that it is your misconstruing that must be seen and also challenged. And this is very different from saying a set of values must be devalued.

An honest comparison will include the question of what is the truth and what is false. Otherwise, you're just listing any superficial likenesses you can find.

We can start with the very very basic things: No garden of Eden, no ark. See there are entire edifices of *asserted things* and things that were said, by powerful authorities, that had to be believed. So the issue here is how Authority wields power. And what I suggest in your case is that you see how you also use theological assertion as a tool of power. The issue I outline is quite different from the one you imagine I am concerned about.

Now if we go down a list of truth-declarations as they pertain to Christian belief as it actually was conceived, a great deal gets punctured and deflated. So yes indeed! Just as you say "An honest comparison will include the question of what is the truth and what is false". By all means.

What you do here principally is to shuffle this important question out of sight. The fact is: you do not want to really look at it.

Yes, and now. As Paul wrote, "Behold, now is “a favorable time,” behold, now is “a day of salvation”. It won't always be. So yes, an urgent review, with a view to one's own disposition, must be undertaken. For "the Day of The Lord," as Peter says,"will come." And as Christ said, it will come "like a thief in the night," while everybody is not expecting it.

Here you are, I guess, speaking (admonishing) the frivolous multitudes, but you are not speaking with me. Simply because I am certain enough of my own involvement with moral and ethical questions and even with *the idea of salvation*. So what you do here is what many Christians do all the time: insulting my relationship to the important questions.

And you also want to bolster your personal stance with a dreadful admonition. That is, you either see what I insist you must see, or I will see you as damned. This is the ever-present background to any conversation with you.

Now would I ever recommend being lax or careless in regard to the most important questions? Have I ever said such a thing? I do not think so.

Therefore, review quickly. And make a choice.

Only enough to understand that alienating oneself from the Source of all good, health, relationship, happiness and light for all eternity is likely to turn out badly. That's enough.

No, that's irrelevant. The choice is personal, not by group.

The real question, the essential question, is just what is in fact and in truth "the Source of all good, health, relationship, happiness and light" both here in the earthly condition and as well in any hereafter. Do you notice how you begin to argue against some *dedicated atheist* of the sort that always confronts you? But you are not talking to me.

I definitely would never recommend, and certainly do not recommend, separating oneself from all that is good. Yet the larger question -- it is a series of questions -- still remains. There are many different ways and means to actualize this in one's life. And there are many very good examples of people who have done this and who do it.

You do not own the answer to the age-old question. So what I take at least some issue with is that you assume this role to yourself.

One must review, certainly, but I am uncertain if this is best done *quickly* or is better carried out slowly, thoughtfully and carefully.

One definitely must try to discover and construct oneself and all one does within "the Source of all good, health, relationship, happiness and light". And the purpose of these conversations is to define what that is and what it is not.

I also feel that it is not only nor even exclusively a merely or solely a 'personal choice'. I think that declaration can be explored fruitfully. It may have much more to do with groups than exclusively with the solitary individual. But it is at this point that spiritual and religious questions dovetail with social and topical questions (and all the questions that are right in our faces today!)

No. You just have to ask, "Do I want to believe the truth, or do I want to stay with my own delusions?"

It is always the same with you! You assume that all other people, who do not think see and say just as you do, are deluded.

I do not see it like that -- at all.

[Immanuel Can]

You are saying that all those who defined themselves as Christian, according to Immanuel Can, were not and are not in fact Christians.

Not only do I say it, but any credible scholar of religion will tell you exactly the same: the "self-identification" criterion is the weakest criterion one can use for defining any "religion." It inevitably ends up including people who have only one or two or even none of the salient features of the belief system.

So that's just how it is. The self-definition criterion is nearly useless, even for secular analytical purposes.

..the world was really & honestly seen through the Christian metaphysical picture...

Nominally.

Nominal "belief" means pratically nothing. Anybody who knows religious studies knows that, too. What you're actually describing is a superstititous quasi-Catholic orthodoxy that was imposed by force for a long period of time, on people groups whose actual beliefs were often highly unorthodox, and more favoured folk-religion than the required belief of their Catholicism.

AJ said: :2.) Jesus Christ and the entire idea that *I am the way and the truth and the life* requires and demands a challenge.

IC replies: "It comes with one: believe it yourself, and be saved; refuse it, and be alienated from God.

Except I did not say, and I do not say, that 'salvation' is not real or may not in fact be real.[/quote]
But you should. It's going to be your own, after all.

I am uncertain to whom the title of "the greatest moral teacher who ever lived" should be assigned.

You won't find a better candidate. That much, I can promise you.

You might think that by stating it like I do that I am opposed to those moral truths but this is not so. It is simply wise and sensible to understand how these events became stories and how these became concretized into what we understand to be the Christian religion.

I don't think that. What I do think is that you're using a kind of detached and arid set of sociological overgeneralizations as a way of keeping the topic of your own salvation distant from reaching you.

It's a bad strategy...a fatal one. These are not merely academic questions. They require a personal commitment.

An honest comparison will include the question of what is the truth and what is false. Otherwise, you're just listing any superficial likenesses you can find.

We can start with the very very basic things: No garden of Eden, no ark. [/quote]
Wonderful dogmatism, that.

What you do here principally is to shuffle this important question out of sight. The fact is: you do not want to really look at it.

Funny: that's exactly what you've just been doing.

The question of the sociological history of Europe could not be less important. The disposition of one's own soul, well, nothing could ever be more important than that. As Jesus said, "What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul?"

Yes, and now. As Paul wrote, "Behold, now is “a favorable time,” behold, now is “a day of salvation”. It won't always be. So yes, an urgent review, with a view to one's own disposition, must be undertaken. For "the Day of The Lord," as Peter says,"will come." And as Christ said, it will come "like a thief in the night," while everybody is not expecting it.

Here you are, I guess, speaking (admonishing) the frivolous multitudes, but you are not speaking with me.

I am speaking to you.

But I am telling you what God is saying to you, not what I am.

Do you notice how you begin to argue against some *dedicated atheist* of the sort that always confronts you? But you are not talking to me.

I am talking to you. It's only you who have charge of your own soul. But are you hearing?

I'm saying, Alexis, that in treating matters of salvation as academic, you're keeping yourself aridly distant from the challenge that Christ puts to you. And that's a dangerous thing to do. These are not matters for detached study; these are things that you hear and life, or refuse and die by.

[Nick_A]

AJ said: :2.) Jesus Christ and the entire idea that *I am the way and the truth and the life* requires and demands a challenge.

Who can challenge it if only a small minority understand it? AJ, consider Jesus' remark from the perspective of the Great Chain of Being. The being of Christ(middle C on the piano) as the mediator is between the being of Man (low C) and the being of our source. (high C)

A person living in Florida has to go through NY to get to Canada. I AM is the human potential for the being of Man living as a plurality in the tripartite soul. Jesus as I Am is the vertical path to the truth of our Source

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ said: "2.) Jesus Christ and the entire idea that *I am the way and the truth and the life* requires and demands a challenge."

Who can challenge it if only a small minority understand it? AJ, consider Jesus' remark from the perspective of the Great Chain of Being. The being of Christ (middle C on the piano) as the mediator is between the being of Man (low C) and the being of our source. (high C)

First, the idea of a Great Chain of Being is or was an idea, a view of things, that was not only a view that was adopted in our own Occident, but was an idea, a way of understanding Reality, shared by other peoples -- notably for example the seers of the Indian subcontinent. The structure of view of The Great Chain of Being is a view-structure proper to the Medieval Era generally. And what has replaced it? The modern view. I may or may not find that agreeable and it may or may not be to my liking but this is one of the essential facts about Modernity: the way things are seen and described is very very different.

Once, one mode of view was ascendent, and now, today, it is no longer ascendent. It exists as a 'shadow' and as a diminishing dusk. I do not mean to say that what was represented at an essential level is different or has changed -- the reference would be to perennial truth -- but rather to the 'picture' that is held in the mind and appears *completely and undeniably real* and *the way things really area*.

When I say "Jesus Christ and the entire idea that 'I am the way and the truth and the life' requires and demands a challenge" I am not referring, necessarily, to the core of the idea itself. If I were to say anything about it I would say that it is a necessary idea pertinent to and accessible through Logos. If there is truth in the idea, and I certainly believe there is, it is because the idea is intelligible to us because Logos allows it to be intelligible. And as I have tried to express to IC (the idea was soundly shot down and absolutely so) if the notion, if the essence of the idea is intelligible to us and to those who can receive the idea here in our world, then the idea is universally applicable and intelligible in all worlds. Not just now in our present, but always and in all times. The idea in this sense resounds through all worlds and all possible worlds.

What I am speaking about is the claim that one people, or some people, can lay claim to the 'entranceway' and to the claim that the idea that is presented can be or is owned by one specific people and that the idea can be controlled and administered by one people who wield a religious modality. Which is to say that they say "We control the entrance-point" or, put another way, that we control an avenue to understanding God or of being favored by God or approved of by God.

So what I believe I am saying is that I reject the absolutist idea of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The on-ramp to divinity is not a concession that one can lay claim to nor buy. And I view IC's general attitude as related to the idea that I must, necessarily, reject.

I reject that idea, I reject it as a possibility, and I reject it as a fact. And I describe its origin as Judaic imperialism. I would also go somewhat further and say that to arrogate to oneself a sort of control or ownership of the access-point or the access-route to what the word God is said to mean (a link with ultimate reality and with truth) is supremely arrogant.

If there is anything that is true, and necessarily so, and if one believes really & truly in the real existence, not merely the shadow existence, of God, it is God that determines who enters the sphere of God. (I really do not know what terms of discourse to use here so I use those that are simply close to hand -- more or less common and generally understood by all).

If as you say, and this may well be the case, that 'few can understand it' then that means I am either included in that possibility or excluded from it. Who will ultimately decide? I do not believe that any man will decide this. It is, very literally, a matter between myself and whatever we mean when we use the term 'God' which, to be truthful, is a term that almost should not be used. And I refer to some of the allusions that you yourself make: Whatever God is is utterly beyond our comprehension.

A person living in Florida has to go through NY to get to Canada. I AM is the human potential for the being of Man living as a plurality in the tripartite soul. Jesus as I Am is the vertical path to the truth of our Source.

Here you are using language as a language to communicate a formula. Or the formula that you desire to express -- there is some essential thing you want and need to communicate -- is expressed through a language-formulation. But if you refer to *something that is done* (I take this to be communion at whatever level and with whatever level of success) I say that it is no one of us who can mediate it. No one of us has the right to arrogate the assignment of justification or failing to be justified (to use a Christian term).

You are referring with your example to something that is done by an incarnated being who is, as we might agree, locked into or constrained by the material, embodied condition. The 'vertical source' is a description of a possibility which, I gather, you refer to as eminently real and eminently important. I share the notion of relevance and importance.

But I strongly disagree that one people, or one description of a path, has the right to dominate or control, in the idea realm, the on-ramp or the conceptual pathway to what you are referring to with the language symbols you employ in your phrasing.

So I think that fundamentally I am speaking about something different. Certainly to what IC talks about and note that my post was directed, with a specific focus, to him and to what he represents.

And I also prefaced what I said with "Some notes about what I have learned and, to some degree, concluded through this conversation".