Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 6:20 pm
1) I think it's obvious that you and I, at least at present, see a couple of things differently. I'll list them, so we can note them and go on.
One is whether or not there is a substantive definition -- one with more than a single criterion -- of what a "Christians" is.
2) And because of that, we see another thing differently: you believe that Europe could be called a "Christian culture," whereas I believe there has never been such a thing, and certainly not in Medieval or Modern Europe.
3) A third thing has to do with the historical events of the Bible. You regard them as myth making, and I regard them as actual.
And if there is a fourth thing, it might also have to do with how much we can trust the Bible to tell us things...even things that strictly pertain to the definition of "Christian" or the reliability of the historical record...and particularly to Christ, salvation and Judgment.
4) Those seem the main things, to me. If there are other differences you wish to note, feel invited to add them. Or, if I have misunderstood your position on one of them, feel free to modify.
5) Having established that, then, what's the next point of discussion? Where would you like to go with the conversation?
1) I think there is, in a general sense, a quite solid definition of what a Christian is. I recognize different variations however. So though I recognize that both Catholics and Protestants are Christian, I am aware of their different belief-perspectives.
Now, this bifurcates or trifurcates in different directions:
a) What I myself believe, that is as an individual person;
b) What *the surrounding culture* believes and does not believe;
c) What those people who come forward here on this thread to argue against your Christian perspective believe and do not believe.
d) Where all *religious beliefs* of this and similar sort stand in relation to Modernity and to what I call 'the New Metaphysics'.
2) I fully accept, and have accepted from the beginning, that you recognize that only those who extremely strictly follow certain strict rules and guidelines can, according to you, call themselves *Christian*. I fully grasp that you define a special and a separate class of people, I assume quite small, who have operated in history, whom you define as *real Christians*. I also fully grasp that you have an argument by which you therefore do not designate the larger, surrounding and general culture as genuinely Christian.
I see it (that is, 'being a Christian") as operating on a continuum. There are some, within any and every cultural grouping, who take their belief-commitments to further points. And there are others, still within the general milieu, who have very little commitment. It is a question of scale or commitment-level.
I also operate from the following assertion (predicate): since what I have described is true (there are levels of commitment) it also stands to reason that 'it will always be like this'. There has not arisen to date an 'absolutely pure Christian culture' such as you try to define. And it is my assumption that such a culture will never arise. So when I describe a 'Christian culture' I describe it generally. I have in this connection told you that I follow Christopher Dawson's about what 'Christian culture' is. His definition of it is largely like mine or rather mine is largely as he explains it. I refer you therefore
to his many historical works on the topic. Within the larger historical (European) picture I accept his definitions and I therefore exclude yours while I still understand their logic.
Now, if I were to talk about Medieval Europe my conversation (not necessarily Dawson's) my conversation will necessarily become more complex. It will also become unacceptable to you (I think). Because as I have clearly stated I see that the Northern tribes, the Northern European peoples, and the Indo-European peoples modify Christianity as they receive it. Here, I will get extremely problematic for you. I will verge into heretical territory. And you will tell me as a result of what I believe that I will *go to Hell*.
Because what I believe is that Christianity contains within it what I have termed
Judaic imperialism. What does such a challenging statement portend? A great deal. And a large part of it is connected to and speaks about the general will to *throw off the yoke of Christianity*.
So then: Christianity can be examined through a very critical lens where it is seen as being a sort of modified Judaism. It structures itself through absolutist arguments where a) it defines the need for a 'divine creator' at the beginning, but then assumes b) that the definitions that it offers of that God support the Christian definition of God as 'absolutely and inarguably true'. And I do not think that is the case.
And I have explained some aspects of my view: Nietzsche is a 'culmination' of Indo-European 'throwing off the Judaic imperialism'. That is, in the idea-realm. This must be understood if successive European history is to be understood.
And this brings us to *the present*. The conversation about *the present* is wide indeed. It is difficult, thorny, complex and riddled with conflict and disagreement.
I take a rebellious position in regard to you because I see you as, basically, a Jew. Your primary emulation is of the Jews. And there is certainly a great deal to emulate there and this I do not contest. But the real issue has to do with political and social power in our present. And this dovetails into world-level issues.
You are beyond question a Christian Zionist, and Christian Zionism is a bizarre manoeuvre whereby some Christian elites give themselves over to the Jewish Zionist project. This is a very
very touchy area. I put up a video where Netanyahu celebrates the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem and notes its tremendous historical meaning. So, the collusion as it were between Christian Zionist operatives and Israeli and Jewish Zionism particularly, point in the direction of geo-political (and other) levels of machination.
And all of this, and much more, dovetail into social and cultural and other issues that pertain to the struggles that are going on all around us.
What I say is: All of this needs to be put on the table for examination.
3) Beyond any doubt. The Bible is, largely, at least structurally, a book of myths. It all starts in Genesis. There is no way for you and I to talk about any of this, given your commitments! I reject it all. It is not real history but
mythological history. Put this does not diminish the power of mythological history. Mythical history is more powerful in fact than 'real history'.
4) When all of the stuff that has been accreted to Judeo-Christianity is, let's say, stripped away (if this is possible), it is hard indeed to discern who in fact this personage Jesus Christ the Son of God actually is. Is he an Agent of all that I have outlined (Judaic imperialism) or is he an opponent of the entire structure? So 'what Jesus means' is thrown up in the air. This is terribly problematic becuase when God is given a human form and personality it is no longer about *abstract principles* and metaphysical definitions.
A man has to answer
within specificity.
Thus it should be seen that what I am suggesting is that Jesus Christ, and Christianity, are in the possession of people who as I constantly say wield it for their own purposes. Be it Pat Robertson, George Bush, Benny Hinn, any modern evangelical or Catholic figure, and also many historical figures. And this opens up into all sorts of problematic areas. Areas that have to be examined and thought about.
The *system of belief* is there predicated, that is true, but how it is all handled has to be examined.
5) It is not so much where I want to go in the conversation. It is much more where the larger conversation has gone and goes without me as its agent or apologist. Therefore what I say, and I have said it often, is that Christianity the religion of Europe needs to be seen in a far wider perspective. It is not then so much the religion of personal salvation, though it might involve that, but much more. It has to do with the identity of a people.
So this is where it expands, necessarily, into issues of identity. And so as far as I am concerned -- and my concern and interst might not be yours or any other's here -- we have to include all the social and political issues that are being debated.
Note that by doing this I am proposing, and I agree with, initiating a shift within Christian ideation away from other-worldliness and back to this-worldliness (and this is completely unacceptable to you and to many Christians who define it, and control it, in your terms).
