Christianity

[Dontaskme]

There's only one word that will completely shatter the entire concept of God > Pain

________


Anyone who endorses 'pain' is a sadistic deranged masochist.

Thankfully, nature never had the intelligence or brain or mind to know any better. This is logically proven when you observe raw nature, and not just ignore it as though it's not really happening..because it was just too shocking for you to fully comprehend, so you just buried your little fragile mind under a pile of sugar daddy sized sprinkles in the hope that the horror of reality would disappear.

Life is a meatgrinder for all sentient life, if you understand that, and you are ok with that, then just keep slapping one on the...


Whatever gets your juices flowing.

.

[Dontaskme]

This is what your God had planned for this girl.



If you support God..you support suffering.

To risk having your face ripped off by mans best friend...(dog)...is not an intelligent thing to want...that's just basic intelligence.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ethics, regardless if they are the result of Judaic or European ideas, are conditioned so [to] naturally result in hypocrisy due to the fallen human condition. Metanoia is the first step in the change of being so as to become what we ARE.

Because this is a philosophy forum, and not a forum where religious sentiments and notions are sent up without examination or critique, I am within my *rights* let's say (that is I am acting ethically!) in examining somewhat more closely the idea you are presenting.

I do not *reject* the idea or sense standing behind the idea of metanoia, and my hope is that nothing I write will be taken as *attack* or *undermining* of any particular religious modality or, as I have said, any 'conceptual pathway that keeps open the possibility of God'. I am not interested in destroying such pathways and if I am interested in anything it is in revitalizing them. However, and with that said, a recent contribution by Dubious will have to be confronted and dealt with:

Dubious wrote: "We only know "god" as a conceptually valid idea which can arrange itself into all kinds of forms. If you live with a conception long enough, it reifies into a single steadfast image radiating the simulacrum of a real deal. But for such to be objectivized, the existence of an actual god entity must be confirmable in its own right before being adapted as foundation to a plethora of cultural variations. History reveals a void for any such manifestation.

"If god, however, persists as conception only, how does one extract the real deal from all the culturally adapted conceptions of which the Christian god is merely one such incarnation and not even the most sophisticated? The "personality" of any such conceptualized god or gods is shaped by the existential needs of those indigenous to a locality and, not least, by its philosophers speaking as prophets meaning those perceived to be endowed with an extra-mundane authority.

"In effect, any god you choose becomes the real deal. There ain't no other to be harvested!"

So if I choose to accept that connotation here I will then have to ask some questions about metanoia, and here is one good definition:

METANOIA
Literally repentance or penance. The term is regularly used in the Greek New Testament, especially in the Gospels and the preaching of the Apostles. Repentance is shown by faith, baptism, confession of sins, and producing fruits worthy of penance. It means a change of heart from sin to the practice of virtue. As conversion, it is fundamental to the teaching of Christ, was the first thing demanded by Peter on Pentecost, and is considered essential to the pursuit of Christian perfection. (Etym. Greek metanoein, to change one's mind, repent, be converted, from meta- + noein, to perceive, think, akin to Greek noos, nous, mind.)

What I made an effort to suggest is that the Greek and pre-Christian notion of metanoia evinces significant difference to that of the Christian (or New Testament definition). Put another way, one has to agree that there is a God who asks for, or more accurately demands, repentance. But all of this fits within a System, as it were, to which one must subscribe. So then I could take this: "If you live with a conception long enough, it reifies into a single steadfast image radiating the simulacrum of a real deal" as a starting-point to examine, say, the inner dimensions of this repentance.

But 'to change one's mind' or to go through a transformative process of self-analysis and examination, is not the same necessarily as what is expressed in the New Testament. But I do not want it to be construed that I don't understand the idea and I am not saying I disagree with the idea (or the structure of which it is a part). To repent is to feel guilt and shame. However, there are various ways to repent. And I believe I am right in saying that there is a difference between Judaic repentance and NT repentance and traditional Indo-European notions about metanoein.

The idea of metanoein depends on the predicate of *existing in a fallen condition*. So one has to have believed and internalized that idea before this particular metanoia-function can operate.

And because this is a philosophy forum and not a religious faith-confession forum (or a place for religionists to round-up converts!) we can examine the important idea that many people do not feel they have to repent for their existence. That is, they do not desire to see themselves as existing in a 'fallen condition' and they do not believe that they require, therefore, a cure.

So then I turn back to Plato's notion of a 'leaping spark' that once realized, or once experienced, self-nourishes and continues on. This did not appear to me to indicate a guilt-pit and meditation on one's wrongs (that requires some sort of absolution).

And therein lies an important difference. These are, clearly, significant difference in ethical concepts. A change of mind or a change of heart could come about through a positive and constructive will to reorient oneself in relation to a more clearly defined idea. It could even include an awareness of shame. But shame is different from guilt or guilt-complex.

When a person for whatever reason inwardly turns towards the light, they begin to experience awakening to a higher conscious perspective. Ethics is the result of conditioning while awakening, if sufficient, results in conscience or furthering the good sense of universal laws and conscious evolution rather than conditioned mechanical reactions sometimes called morals.

However, and this turns back to those explosive explorations of Nietzsche, the realization of the *light* and what the light is and what it demands differs when one's initial predicates differ. So for the Christian the *light' may instruct him to give up 'the world' and cease to participate actively and creatively in it. But to one steeped, let's say, in a former ethic (Indo-European ethic) the *light* will awaken conscience in a very different way. What is alluded here is clear to those who have read Nietzsche even superficially.

And so here the idea of 'virtue' now stands out. What is 'virtuous' for those early Christians may stand in contrast to that of the Greek (and thus for an Indo-European whose ethical sense is different). It is all part of a system where initial definitions and predicates spin out and necessitate others.

We are dealing with two very different ethical platforms.

The only ones capable of transmission of the mystery, passing the spark, are those who have experienced it. Sadly they are few and far between while experts capable of corrupting it and furthering their egoistic imagination are rather plentiful but regardless make a lot of money.

This is true. But the issue is then "What is the spark" that is referred to? The spark that you define or that you seem to define is not necessarily the same spark as Plato's.

[promethean75]

Well I think you're just being metanoid.

[Nick_A]

Alexis

What I made an effort to suggest is that the Greek and pre-Christian notion of metanoia evinces significant difference to that of the Christian (or New Testament definition). Put another way, one has to agree that there is a God who asks for, or more accurately demands, repentance. But all of this fits within a System, as it were, to which one must subscribe. So then I could take this: "If you live with a conception long enough, it reifies into a single steadfast image radiating the simulacrum of a real deal" as a starting-point to examine, say, the inner dimensions of this repentance.

But 'to change one's mind' or to go through a transformative process of self-analysis and examination, is not the same necessarily as what is expressed in the New Testament. But I do not want it to be construed that I don't understand the idea and I am not saying I disagree with the idea (or the structure of which it is a part). To repent is to feel guilt and shame. However, there are various ways to repent. And I believe I am right in saying that there is a difference between Judaic repentance and NT repentance and traditional Indo-European notions about metanoein.

Christianity doesn’t have a personal God. The personal God is a devolution of the God concept partially responsible for devolving Christianity into Christendom. Read how Paul distinguishes repentance from metanoia:

https://www.spiritual-teaching.org/hind ... art-2.html

For a moment a turning point is reached in which a revolution of the mind is possible. What was previously passive and governed by the senses, governed by the events of life, no longer submits to the outer world, and begins to have an independent existence. And this rousing of the active mind is what Paul speaks of in the following passage, in which the word repent occurs several times in the English translation although in the Greek the word metanoia occurs only once.

Paul writes to the Corinthians as follows: 'For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed unto repentance.' (ii Corinthians vii.8, 9)

In this passage the word metanoia occurs only once - in the phrase 'unto repentance' (eis metanoian), είς μετανοιαν, and the passage merely shows how inadequate is the word repentance. When Paul says, Ί do not repent. . . ' he used a quite different word, μεταμελομαι, which is equivalent to the Latin penitent meaning, which is exactly from what our ordinary word repentance comes. Yet these Greek words of such infinitely different values are translated by exactly the same word in English.

It is not sorrow or repenting in any ordinary sense that brings about a change of mind. Man may sorrow, but not to the point of metanoia. Yet there is a special kind of suffering that leads to metanoia and it is of this suffering that Paul speaks when he contrasts it with the ordinary suffering of life: 'For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation . . . ; but the sorrow of the world worketh death' (ii Corinthians vii.10). 'Ye sorrowed unto repentance' - it was this right suffering of the Corinthians which brought them to repentance. Dean Stanley, one of the few English commentators who understand the meaning of metanoia, remarks: 'The passage shows how inadequate is our word "repentance". Ye were grieved so as to change your mind or your repentance amounted to a revolution of mind.' And this is exactly what is meant and in a far deeper sense it is what all life means — to bring a man to the point where, instead of saying blindly to himself 'This cannot be true', he undergoes an awakening, a momentary sense of the unreality of what is happening in the world, and the unreality of its connection with himself. This is metanoia: this is the beginning of the transformation of the mind.

It is clear that metanoia and repent have different meanings and depths. Repentance takes place in ones personality while metanoia takes place in the seed of the soul

The idea of metanoein depends on the predicate of *existing in a fallen condition*. So one has to have believed and internalized that idea before this particular metanoia-function can operate.

And because this is a philosophy forum and not a religious faith-confession forum (or a place for religionists to round-up converts!) we can examine the important idea that many people do not feel they have to repent for their existence. That is, they do not desire to see themselves as existing in a 'fallen condition' and they do not believe that they require, therefore, a cure.

Anyone can verify that they exist as part of the fallen human condition by reading what Plato describes as the harmony of the soul. The normal tripartite soul seen top down as head, heart, and body has turned upside down. Where the balanced man is ruled by the mind and is served by the aspirations of the heart and the deeds of the body now has become its opposite. Man on earth is ruled by appetites determining their aspirations and the dualistic mind verify their truths through imagination.

At some point a person has to be willing to verify the reality of the human condition through inner empiricism; being able to consciously observe the mechanics of oneself as we function in life. People prefer to argue philosophy rather than live it. This is normal for the fallen human condition. The corruption of philosophy and religion proves the reality of the fallen human condition. Philosophy and its emphasis on facts and religion with its emphasis on meaning should cooperate in helping Man to become normal. The almost hypnotic effects of technology will prevent it and the Great Beast will retain its dominance.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is not sorrow or repenting in any ordinary sense that brings about a change of mind. Man may sorrow, but not to the point of metanoia. Yet there is a special kind of suffering that leads to metanoia and it is of this suffering that Paul speaks when he contrasts it with the ordinary suffering of life: 'For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation . . . ; but the sorrow of the world worketh death' (ii Corinthians vii.10). 'Ye sorrowed unto repentance' - it was this right suffering of the Corinthians which brought them to repentance. Dean Stanley, one of the few English commentators who understand the meaning of metanoia, remarks: 'The passage shows how inadequate is our word "repentance". Ye were grieved so as to change your mind or your repentance amounted to a revolution of mind.' And this is exactly what is meant and in a far deeper sense it is what all life means — to bring a man to the point where, instead of saying blindly to himself 'This cannot be true', he undergoes an awakening, a momentary sense of the unreality of what is happening in the world, and the unreality of its connection with himself. This is metanoia: this is the beginning of the transformation of the mind.

It is not hard to see that, yes, metanoia has more depth.

At this point, in case it is not obvious, my interest is not in going back through history to determine what St Paul meant, or didn't mean, or what 'repentance' meant for the early Christians (though this is all an important matter and also certainly interesting) but I am interested in bringing these ideas into our immediate present. And I do this and will continue to do this because, if I understand correctly, and I may not, and I may not understand fully, both you and IC focus on repentance (give it whatever ultimate name and inflection you wish) as a condition of *salvation*.

However, I also notice that I do not think either of you agree with each other -- not by a long shot! So here again is evidence that even among people who should have things in common, so to be able to cooperate on some level, you two do not seem to have any substantial shared platform. So what does this mean? It means that discord and fragmentation reign. The breakdown of *agreements* and *understanding*.

Now that as far as I am concerned evokes a need for metanoia!

And I feel genuinely inclined, as well as justified, in challenging this idea of salvation and also 'being saved' that is presented to me. So then, I present a different, and a far more topical, sense of what metanoia not only is but what it should be.

So let me isolate this phrase: "Ye were grieved so as to change your mind or your repentance amounted to a revolution of mind" and try to contextualize this sense of 'grief' and the 'repentance' that then results in a 'revolution of mind'. What 'revolution of mind' is this?

I have written about France and its present struggle to recover sovereignty and to re-dominate its own cultural spheres. All of these concerns are concerns that have come up very strongly in our cultures and nations over the last 10 years. The issue hinges on *identity*. And it has been suggested that there is evident in our present a crisis of identity because, simply put, hyper-liberalism seeks to vilify the sort of identity and identitarianism that, for example in France today, is described as fascistic, racist, xenophobic, etc.

For this reason the writings by French Catholics draws my attention (notably in this case: Catholic & Identitarian: From Protest to Reconquest by Julien Langella). What are these people trying to do? To rediscover, to revivify, to reconnect with, to highlight and accentuate, all of the elements that make up French (Catholic) identity.

The following segment interested me because it is so topical. These are very problematic and contested assertions obviously. But they are part of an on-the-ground effort to recover lost territory and also historical territory. So the reason I submit this in this context is to indicate that without a clear and defined this-world plan of action the admonitions to 'become spiritual' and even 'get saved' do not mean much at all.

Metanoia (grief) leading to change of mind leading to revolution of mind. The basic idea has to function on many different levels.

Demographic decrease, cultural vitality at half-mast, individualism
and de-Christianization: France's social body is in bad health. We
cannot assimilate just anybody. Before assimilating foreigners, we still
have to repair the damage of uprooting done to the French by two
centuries of the Republic. Since the identitarian apathy of the French
is the substantive problem, with street scum and militant Islam profiting
from this weakness, our efforts must be first and foremost on
behalf of our own. Before welcoming or trying in vain to assimilate
whomever it might be, we must rebuild ourselves.

To advocate an assimilation policy for the children of immigrants
as a remedy to the ethnic divide is to ignore the need for French
identity. To embrace assimilationism is to prefer the foreigner over
our own. Some on the Right have a Leftist mentality which consists in
preferring a neighbor to one's own brother.

Some might say to us that we can do both: re-root the French and
make the immigrants French. But patriotism is not just love for a history
and culture that can be shared, it is also the love that we carry for
our people as for our own family, a love that is nonnegotiable despite
the faults of our people. In the same way that we love our mother an
father despite their mistakes or or their malice. There are always priorities
in action.

The essay that Dubious posted a few pages back also deals on these core issues of identity and social self-consciousness and power.

[Dubious]

I have written about France and its present struggle to recover sovereignty and to re-dominate its own cultural spheres. All of these concerns are concerns that have come up very strongly in our cultures and nations over the last 10 years. The issue hinges on *identity*. And it has been suggested that there is evident in our present a crisis of identity because, simply put, hyper-liberalism seeks to vilify the sort of identity and identitarianism that, for example in France today, is described as fascistic, racist, xenophobic, etc.

Just a thought re identity being of extreme importance as it denotes in whatever age a people and their native culture. Don't know if you heard of this book, though it speaks mostly on a secular basis of the changes already happening in Europe. I don't think it's wrong to say that the hyper-liberalism you mention amounts to a perverse kind of metanoia - if one can state it that way - which for a number of years has infected Europe, especially France, Germany and the UK which seeks to erode in the most derogatory terms the very identity of what has long been deemed European in spite of all its internecine wars.

https://www.amazon.ca/Strange-Death-Eur ... 135&sr=1-3

There's a generous portion you can read to get the flavor of it. Anyway, you can decide for yourself.

PS. There are also interviews available on YT though I haven't' seen them all.

[Immanuel Can]

Your characterizations of my views are incorrect, Alexis, as you will see if you go back and look at our previous conversation. However, I'm not optimistic any longer you wish to hear about that, so I shall move on.

Can you state in brief what you believe I get wrong? Just so I know what you are talking about. And don’t have to guess.

And all the other 1-4 points you have no comment on?

I do actually "have comment" on them. But what I've said already pretty much covers all of it.

I don't agree with your definition of "Christian" -- it's just so broad as to be utterly useless. There never was a "Christian civilization," either...and certainly never in Medieval Europe. I'm not the kind of exegete you think I am. I don't buy the "mythologizing" strategy, and I know it's totally passe in the field of religious studies, even among the Atheist set. And so on.

But since I've made all these points before, and not had them recognized, I don't know what's to be gained by repeating them. We don't agree on them: that much is pretty clear. My point is not to irritate you, and we both know where we stand.

I asked you what source you thought we should turn to, in order to define "Christianity." You declined to answer: but I know why. There IS no other plausible source of decisive information on that but the Bible -- and we both know it. And the same goes for salvation: if you want to know what Christian salvation is, you have to go to the Bible to find out. Where else?

So again I ask, what now? We've agreed to disagree on all these points: is there a further discussion to be had, even if we are not reconciled on these things? If there is, I'm wiliing to have it. But you'll have to tell me what it would be; I can't imagine. It seems to me if we disagree on the nature of Christianity, the identity of Christ, the terms of salvation, the impending Judgment and the authority of the Bible, we are pretty much talking a very different "Christianity."

[attofishpi]

Leonard Cohen (a Jew, among other things) on Jesus Christ:-

Cohen showed an interest in Jesus as a universal figure, saying, "I'm very fond of Jesus Christ. He may be the most beautiful guy who walked the face of this earth. Any guy who says 'Blessed are the poor. Blessed are the meek' has got to be a figure of unparalleled generosity and insight and madness ... A man who declared himself to stand among the thieves, the prostitutes and the homeless. His position cannot be comprehended. It is an inhuman generosity. A generosity that would overthrow the world if it was embraced because nothing would weather that compassion. I'm not trying to alter the Jewish view of Jesus Christ. But to me, in spite of what I know about the history of legal Christianity, the figure of the man has touched me."

I just came across this on WIKI, very well put I think..

[Alexis Jacobi]

I asked you what source you thought we should turn to, in order to define "Christianity." You declined to answer: but I know why. There IS no other plausible source of decisive information on that but the Bible -- and we both know it. And the same goes for salvation: if you want to know what Christian salvation is, you have to go to the Bible to find out. Where else?

"I'll take Define Christianity for $500.00"

Allow me to start here because this question interests me. To define Christianity -- and this is what I have been involved in for many years now -- one has to go back to the original sources. So -- the Church Fathers, The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, that sort of thing. But what I realized had a great deal of usefulness was to examine the hymns of the very early Church. And in that vein I came across The Hymns of the Breviary and Missal (Benziger Brothers, 1922) where these very ancient hymns are collected. In essential form, but let's say not in discursive form and in poetic form, all the essences of Christian belief and also hope (and imagination) are expressed. I would also recommend a book such as Liturgical Prayer: Its History & Spirit by Fernand Cabrol. I have the exact editions as I link to here. And to go one step further I can very highly recommend getting the the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (1908).

The dictionary has been for me extremely fascinating because it examines in depth objects and through objects the concepts that stand behind them and animate their sense. Just examine the topics and you will see what I mean. If you (if we) wish to understand what Christianity is we have to examine it in the context of what it was. And what it was was absolutely encompassing. The people who lived in this *world* were not examining a *notion* from outside of it -- as we all do -- but these notions were a real and functioning part of their perceptual stance and being. One must understand this to understand, and appreciate (and respect) early Christianity.

In my 'study' of the topic these books have proved very useful but there are many others.

However, to understand the *context* of Christian belief, which is to say the perceptual stance of former times (very very different from our present perceptual stance) I have many times recommended The Seventeenth Century Background by Basil Willey. He explores the beginning of the very consequential shift from 'the former metaphysics' into the encroaching and supplanting 'modern metaphysics'. In my own case I dovetailed my reading of Willey with my Shakespeare studies because Shakespeare is exemplary of a man who lives amphibiously in a time that spans these two *metaphysics*.

I would also recommend (if I were, say, designing a course of study) The Great Chain of Being by Arthur Lovejoy.

Blurb: "This is arguably the seminal work in historical and philosophical analysis of the twentieth century. Originally delivered for the William James lecture series at Harvard University in 1932-33, it remains the cornerstone of the history of ideas. Lovejoy sees philosophy's history as one of confusion of ideas, a prime example of which is the idea of a "great chain of being"--a universe linked in theology, science and values by pre-determined stages in all phases of life.

"Lovejoy's view is one of dualities in nature and society, with both error and truth as part of the natural order of things. The past reminds us that the ruling modes of thought of our own age, which we may view as clear, coherent and firmly grounded, are unlikely to be seen with such certainty by posterity. The Great Chain of Being is an excursion into the past, with a clear mission--to discourage the assumption that all is known, or that what is known is not subject to modifi cation at a later time.

"Lovejoy reaffirms the "intrinsic worth of diversity," as a caution against certitude. By this he does not mean toleration of indiff erence, or relativity for its own sake, but an appreciation of mental and physical process of human beings. As Peter Stanlis notes in his introduction: "Faith in the great chain of being was fi nally largely extinguished by the combined infl uences of Romantic idealism, Darwin's theory of evolution, and Einstein's theory of relativity." Few books remain as alive to prospects for the future by reconsidering follies of the past as does Lovejoy's stunning work."

[Alexis Jacobi]

And the same goes for salvation: if you want to know what Christian salvation is, you have to go to the Bible to find out. Where else?

First, you actually have, if I may put forth my own opinion, a really twisted and also an incomplete definition of 'salvation'. You wield your admonition about salvation in the most vulgar manner, like a club. So I have to start with making a statement like this which intends to be a bit explosive in order to clear the ground for a realistic and productive conversation. I honestly do not mean to offend you. But this is a philosophy forum and not your personal preaching pulpit. All ideas have to be and (one hopes) will be examined in depth. I think you have a shallow definition of 'salvation'.

So where I stand in relation to this question is to start from a personal statement: I am unclear what salvation is in the sense of what it is supposed to be (that is as expressed in the Bible by the early Apostles) and if I see it as anything, that is if I consider it to be *real* I must consider it in the context of the belief-system of those early Christians. There is a certain amount of complexity there because it involves mysticism. (In the sense that the Gospel of John expresses *mystical notions* which it does)(and indeed a submerged Hermetic current runs through John as well as the Epistles).

Salvation has many different levels of meaning when you consider the *conversion-process*. On one side it has a 'spiritual origin' as something given, supernaturally and through Grace, through a magical infusion (that is to say the core Christian gift or 'caritas'). But alongside that it has a wide range of social connotation and *function* (as I often say).

So I write from the perspective of one who is *open* as far as I can to *Christian meaning* and I also say, repeatedly and directly, that Christian meaning should not and indeed cannot be dismissed, thrown out, disregarded. It all has to be examined all over again.

So, while you preach your Christianity to the peasants of Central America (this is sort of a low blow I admit) who have so little brain-power and preparation to be capable of resisting your shallowesque admonitions, I say that the issue is very much more complex and pertains not to a Mesoamerican peasant who is barely literate but profoundly to us. (I lived in Panama and I observed the missions of many different Protestant sects and how they take advantage of disadvantaged populations to preach and, as you can see, I tend to have a certain contempt for the opportunism, but I will not say it is without social advantage).

You say that the Christian conversion is so simple that a child can achieve it, and I say that this is a totally ridiculous idea, because our situation, culturally, socially, nationally and civilizationaly, is vastly more complex and we have a great deal more to deal with than those to whom you directly your missionizing efforts. So my interest is exploring all of this. That is, to look at it very directly

Your missionazing here is a pathetic joke (and again excuse my directness). You drive people away from the sort of comprehension that is needed. You are an obstacle and you obstruct. However, I do note that you have told me that if I do not see things as you see things that when I (::: snif snif :::) abandon the mortal frame that I will be directed not to the realm of the savèd but to the realm of the eternally damned. And you say this to EVERYONE. Your whole shtick is based in that.

And that is fine as far as it goes. But what I feel is infinitely more relevant is to contextualize the problem of religious belief, and the relevance of Christian belief and action, within the context of what is happening now. And what is happening now demands understanding, at a depth level, of what is actually going on now. And in relation to *all that* it seems that then one could begin to pose the question What does salvation mean?

And doing that involves examining these questions in depth. It involves examining, in depth. the metaphysical shift and the perceptual shifts that make simplistic Christian belief (through the olden simplistic terms of faith) very hard.

So I think that 'salvation' has to be examined in a social context. For this reason I recommend and have myself read contemporary books by religious writers who concern themselves with topical political and social issues of our Modernity. And then we need to examine contemporary movements, even those that seem asinine such as the *enthusiasm* of American religious activists (such as that which seems to animate a significant set of those who feel aligned with Trump and also Q-Anon which is an expression, bizarre as it is, of religious sentiments).

I would say that the same is true of Europe but they don't seem to dive down into the same levels of mindlessness. And on that topic I would say that the cultural conversation in France today is sophisticated because the French are generally better educated). So the background of Right-tending French thought by those with religious concerns is, for example, the ideas of George Bernanos and Charles Maurra and similar sorts, but the masses in America are excluded from depth-thought of this level).

[Alexis Jacobi]

So again I ask, what now? We've agreed to disagree on all these points: is there a further discussion to be had, even if we are not reconciled on these things? If there is, I'm wiliing to have it. But you'll have to tell me what it would be; I can't imagine. It seems to me if we disagree on the nature of Christianity, the identity of Christ, the terms of salvation, the impending Judgment and the authority of the Bible, we are pretty much talking a very different "Christianity."

The conversation is only limited by your own limitations and these are not small.

However what I have said is still true, I think: It is much better and far more productive if we simply take advantage of the opportunity to see, clearly, why it is we (that is all of us here) do not and cannot agree. By clarifying positions within a respectful discourse and interchange. Even those who have a 'religious orientation' (say for example Nick and in a different way myself) we cannot agree! And if we cannot agree how could we ever cooperate? In what social and cultural project of, say, renovation and renewed focus would we be able to participate?

It seems to me if we disagree on the nature of Christianity, the identity of Christ, the terms of salvation, the impending Judgment and the authority of the Bible, we are pretty much talking a very different "Christianity."

What I suggest is seeing, and talking about, the fact that people cannot see things through that lens -- your lens of specific concretization (your catechism let's say).

They have a lens, that is definitely true, but it sees these things differently. So I agree that in our present there is little agreement about what Christianity is, and should be, and how it should act and on what it should base itself. And I say the same about 'salvation'. In many ways, and in ways that can be articulated, it has become a meaningless notion. Impending Judgment? That is another idea that simply does not have meaning for many. You would have to define and redefine what, exactly, this portends. With you it hinges on a post-death event, that much I get.

So what Christianity means and what function it has, or does not have -- all this is open for view and discussion.

[henry quirk]

.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Behind each image, each sentiment, there is clearly an idea, but I suggest that the sense of what is meant is meaning received at a different level. The more this level is understood, the better is Christianity understood and certainly the elements of Christian belief.

Aurora Coelum Purpurat

The morn had spread her crimson rays,
When rang the skies with shouts of praise;
Earth joined the joyful hymn to swell,
That brought despair to vanquished hell.

He comes victorious from the grave,
The Lord omnipotent to save,
And brings with Him the light of day
The Saints who long imprisoned lay.

Vain is the cavern's three-fold ward --
The stone, the seal, the armed gaurd;
O death, no more thy arm we fear,
The Vitor's tomb is now thy bier.

Let hymns of joy to grief succeed,
We know that Christ is risen indeed;
We hear His white-robed Angels voice,
And in our risen Lord rejoice.

With Christ we died, with Christ we rose,
When at the font His name we chose;
O, let not sin our robes defile,
And turn to grief the Paschal smile.

To God the Father let us sing,
To God the Son, our risen King,
And equally let us adore
The Spirit, God forevermore.

[RCSaunders]

... if we cannot agree how could we ever cooperate? ...

It must be a Christian or religious thing. Almost no one agrees with me on most fundamental principles, but I and they have no problem cooperating with each other on endless things we do voluntarily, because it is in each individuals own interest to do so.

I suspect if you have a problem cooperating with others who happen to not hold the same views you do, it is you that has the problem, a kind of prejudice perhaps.