Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

And the reason? Because we no longer can believe in the metaphysical principles through which the figure of Jesus Christ was classically defined.

I reckon most who pipe up n this thread have no clue what his principles (metaphysical or practical) actually are. They know what they've been told, is all.

He [I assume he means AJ?} doesn't have any such idea himself. He's just spitballing.

He hasn't even a clue what the difference might be between a professing "Christian" and a real one.

He certainly has no idea who Christ is...and apparently, is more interested in his fantasy versions than in reality.

Spitballing:

Spitballing is throwing out ideas for discussion, brainstorming, expressing solutions to a problem in order to see how they are received. Spitballing is not a definitive solution or conclusion, and is often not taken seriously. The word spitball was first used in the 1700s to mean a tool to blacken one’s boots. Later, the word spitball was used to mean a chewed up wad of paper used as a missile by a child. Still later, a spitball was a certain type of baseball pitch that involved applying spit to the ball to make it wobble. Spitballing came into use as early as the 1930s, and perhaps earlier. The exact origin is in dispute, but most people believe in originated in the advertising business. Related words are spitball, spitballs, spitballed.

I address this mostly to Henry:

As we all well know there is only one true and say classically defined Christian here and that is Immanuel Can. Immanuel Can knows the 'real truth'' and therefore he can speak with genuine authority. There is no other classically oriented Christian and there are numerous post-Christians -- except perhaps Nick.

But Nick is, and I think must be seen by Immanuel Can (the sole true Christian here) a bit unorthodox (no pun intended here!) given that he can, and does, incorporate Platonic thought (symbols & ideas) and also Gurdjieffian ideas -- and those ideas have a non-traditional origin and are certainly well on the outside of accepted, doctrinal Christianity. So in this sense Nick's position is also post-Christian but in a sense of being post-Orthodox (Greek Church) Christian.

His central idea is that Christianity -- and I gather the figure of Christ? -- heralds an evolutionary step not just for one person but for humankind. He seems to downplay the notion of a 'personal God' though. I am uncertain to what degree he would define Jesus Christ as a man/god. As God the Father (the sole and only one) incarnated into a human body and for a specific purpose of freeing man from a specific sort of bondage.

What Dubious is is harder to get at. He keeps himself shrouded. All that I have heard him say is that the universe is infinitely huge and that atoms & molecules coalesced somehow into what we are and what we see.

Belinda is also a post-Christian who reinterprets Christ into the only image she can conceive. An activist really. Certainly not a 'divine man' since, I gather, any conventional theological definition she does not hold. She seems to have translated her contextual social and cultural Christianity, seen through English political lenses (post-war) into a sort of social doctrine. She might have the most in common with some exponents of Liberation Theology.

Now a correction: I certainly do know what the "principles (metaphysical or practical) actually are" in relation to Christian belief and understanding. I have a clear grasp of the metaphysical principles upon which the beliefs are grounded and I very definitely have a clear sense of the practical and ethical admonitions.

But what I have said must be included and understood if what I think and believe is to be fairly and accurately represented. It is this: What Christianity is is a 'picture', a scenario, you could even call it a dramatic play, that is enacted within the Gospel narratives. The audience of that drama is the reader. However, when these Gospels were first read it was only by a literary élite. And therefore the meaning in them was translated into terms that could be socially applied. And that is what Christianity is substantially: rules and regulations provided within an elaborated 'picture' (the drama of the Gospels). The Gospels are 'apologetic enactments' into which a reader enters and, depending on his or her character, believes in what is communicated to varying degrees.

If I say this must this mean that I do not, or cannot, regard them as they are presented as being? That is, absolute, sacred, revelations? Presently, I am inclined to believe just that. As I have said numerous times I do not regard the picture as being where the truth is. The truth exists, if it ever existed, and if in fact it does exist, independent of any Story. And narrative. And vehicle through which certain truths are revealed.

In contradistinction, and this is important to state clearly, Immanuel Can believes absolutely and literally in the drama as it is presented through the Gospel stories. And he goes even further: He believes not only in those dramas but also in the truthfulness and accuracy of other parts of the Bible stories, specifically the Genesis story. These are not stories or allegories, but descriptions of 'real events' in real time and as parts of Earth history.

I reckon most who pipe up in this thread have no clue what his principles (metaphysical or practical) actually are. They know what they've been told, is all.

If this is so then what you-plural must necessarily do is to listen to others who do know what those principles -- metaphysical and practical -- actually are. If when you or they 'pipe up' about those principles, or in relation to them, everything that you-plural say will be, can only be, guesses at best and distortions at worst.

Please understand that I am just trying to clarify what is really going on.

[henry quirk]

And the reason? Because we no longer can believe in the metaphysical principles through which the figure of Jesus Christ was classically defined.

I reckon most who pipe up n this thread have no clue what his principles (metaphysical or practical) actually are. They know what they've been told, is all.

He doesn't have any such idea himself. He's just spitballing.

He hasn't even a clue what the difference might be between a professing "Christian" and a real one.

He certainly has no idea who Christ is...and apparently, is more interested in his fantasy versions than in reality.

Talkin' about Alexis, yeah? I'll say this: he seems far more concerned with christ-culture than with Christ, and that seems ass-backward to me. How can any of us talk about degraded cultures, lack of agreement, and an iconic Jesus if we never actually talk about what the man actually said and did?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What I notice is: we have the Gospels. Seems if you wanna know the man (what he was about, what he did) read them. Further, I notice many folks get hung up on his divinity and never get past it. I notice the Jefferson Bible was razor-cut and glue-pasted together leavin' out all extra-natural mysteriousness. I notice how pretty much everyone here dances hard to avoid actually gettn' into what it is to be Christian (not as acceptance of the para-natural, but as a way to live in the here & now).

This view of yours is extremely superficial. Please do not take this in any sense as some sort of cutting remark, it is not. You are not aware of the critical movement that examined the Gospels in depth and, in many ways, undermined the 'historical Jesus'. And you do not seem at all aware of trends in theology. What you recommend is sort of folksy advice. It does not in any sense go far enough, and it does not in any sense get to the heart of the problem of a collapse of faith. And it does not in any sense speak to what has occurred in the culture over the last 100-150 years.

But what is the original and true metaphysical picture that Jesus Christ embodied?
er, the Gospels mebbe?

What are you talking about when you yourself do not believe in any part of the picture that is revealed in the Gospels? But you are giving advice about how Christianity is to be understood? On what basis?[/quote]

AJ: It seems to me that the core of the dispute that we are -- like it or not -- engaged in is to be found in this: We do not agree, and none of can agree, about what the real truth of this matter is.

HQ: The truth of the guy is written down: consult that, then accept or reject it. We don't have to agree with each other. Do we, as single ones, agree with him, that's the question.

That might be true for very simple people, and certainly for people who may only have or have had the Gospels to read. Yet I can assure you that the issue is a great deal more complex than what you present.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Talkin' about Alexis, yeah? I'll say this: he seems far more concerned with christ-culture than with Christ, and that seems ass-backward to me. How can any of us talk about degraded cultures, lack of agreement, and an iconic Jesus if we never actually talk about what the man actually said and did?

You can make any sort of statement that you wish to make. You can assert anything you wish to. But keep it in mind that what you are asserting is not necessarily true.

Since what Jesus Christ said and did is important to you -- why is this not the principal focus of your writing? So far I do not think I have ever read anything you've written within that order. Why is that?

But you are right I am largely concerned about culture, and specifically what is happening today on the ground.

Please show me how to be concerned about Christ as a god-man.

[henry quirk]

I address this mostly to Henry:

As we all well know there is only one true and say classically defined Christian here and that is Immanuel Can.

But Nick is, and I think must be seen by Immanuel Can (the sole true Christian here) a bit unorthodox (no pun intended here!)

What Dubious is is harder to get at.

Belinda is also a post-Christian who reinterprets Christ into the only image she can conceive.

See, none of these assessments interest me. As I say: how can any of us talk about degraded cultures, lack of agreement, and an iconic Jesus if we never actually talk about what the man actually said and did?

I very definitely have a clear sense of the practical and ethical admonitions.

Very good! Since it's a very long thread, and you're a very long writer, mebbe you couid direct me to posts where you've examined practical Christian ethics.

If this is so then what you must necessarily do is to listen to others who do know what those principles -- metaphysical and practical -- actually are. If when you or they 'pipe up' about those principles, or in relation to them, everything that you say will be, can only be, guesses at best and distortions at worst.

Or I could just read the Gospels myself and make up my own damn mind.

[Immanuel Can]

I reckon most who pipe up n this thread have no clue what his principles (metaphysical or practical) actually are. They know what they've been told, is all.

He doesn't have any such idea himself. He's just spitballing.

He hasn't even a clue what the difference might be between a professing "Christian" and a real one.

He certainly has no idea who Christ is...and apparently, is more interested in his fantasy versions than in reality.

Talkin' about Alexis, yeah?

Definitely.

I'll say this: he seems far more concerned with christ-culture than with Christ, and that seems ass-backward to me. How can any of us talk about degraded cultures, lack of agreement, and an iconic Jesus if we never actually talk about what the man actually said and did?

We might add, "How can he make claims about a concept ("Christianity") for which he knows of no criteria and denies there is any definition?"

That's spitballing, if we're kind to it. It's confusion and absurdity, if we're not.

[Belinda]

Cleaning out my drafts folder I found this...

-----


Ideals, and ideal figures, aren't meant to evolve. They aren't meant to change to suit a shifting, and shifty, culture or the whims of individuals.

No, ideals, and ideal figures, are meant to be aspired to: culture -- and individuals -- ought to change to embody them.

What should Christ be? A marxist? A tranny? A repub or dem? Hermaphroditic, racially-neutral,
-----

...apparently I had a notion for a post, but -- for whatever reason -- I didn't finish.

A Christ is a spiritual and/or political leader who sacrifices himself for the benefit of others. Jesus of Nazareth is a Christ in this sense. Recent Christs in the current reportage are Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira.

Christ means annointed one. (Originating from Greek) - in Hebrew, as far as I am aware it meant Messiah. It does not mean one who 'sacrifices' himself for the benefit of others.

I agree, except there is more to these interlinked ideas.
Many centuries ago there was a sort of regime where the top man was priest-king, AN ANOINTED ONE. the two functions resided in one man.

A messiah who arises to save his tribe would be priest-king among a people whose religion is not separated from any other sphere of life such as tribal loyalty during defence or aggression, and such as how the people obtain their food from the environment, and how the people arrange kinship and other relationship matters. The priest-king is a very important individual to oversee all that. So the priest-king must be the fittest and strongest male among the people of the tribe.To this end the priest-king is not only deposed when his replacement is needed but he gladly sacrifices his life to please the gods and thus benefit the tribe. Evidence of the threefold death ceremony has been recovered by archaeologists.
I am not claiming Palestine at the time of Jesus was that sort of regime, but folk memory endures and the myth of the anointed priest-king endures. Moreover Jesus of Nazareth was in direct line of descent from priest-king David.

The above anthropology was the what the later symbolism of the Christian Messiah was based on, the later meaning being that Jesus the Messiah is a priest-king of minds and souls but not a political priest-king who rules over practical matters.

[henry quirk]

You can make any sort of statement that you wish to make. You can assert anything you wish to. But keep it in mind that what you are asserting is not necessarily true.

Indeed. You oughta mebbe keep that mind as well.

Since what Jesus Christ said and did is important to you -- why is this not the principal focus of your writing? So far I do not think I have ever read anything you've written within that order. Why is that?

Oh, I've made some attempts (bringin' up the Christian Anarchists, for example; askin' folks about the Jefferson Bible). Unlike some, however, I haven't the time to write essays no one will respond to. If I dangle a line and get no bites, I stop. Also, I'm an outsider, not a Christian. My interests lie at the intersection of Christian morality and natural rghts.

But you are right I am largely concerned about culture, and specifically what is happening today on the ground.

Please show me how to be concerned about Christ as a god-man.

Well, I thought I was clear: seems to me Christianity is the ethic presented in the Gospel. That the ethic may or may not be part of a path to salvation neither validates or invalidates the ethic.

I'm interested, therefore, in the man, not the divinity. Moreover, as the culture is what each of us does, I'm interested in the one, not the many.

As I told the fractured guy elsewhere: fundamentally it doesn't matter if morality is gifted to us by God or if morality is just a brute fact in a rudderless universe. It's more, morality is, than just consensus or a survival trait or a mechanism for control of large numbers across long stretches of time. There is a moral dimension to each of us and certain universals among us. I call these natural rights and I see connections to what that fella said and did as portrayed in the Gospels.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ wrote: I address this mostly to Henry: As we all well know there is only one true and say classically defined Christian here and that is Immanuel Can. But Nick is, and I think must be seen by Immanuel Can (the sole true Christian here) a bit unorthodox (no pun intended here!) What Dubious is is harder to get at. Belinda is also a post-Christian who reinterprets Christ into the only image she can conceive.

See, none of these assessments interest me. As I say: how can any of us talk about degraded cultures, lack of agreement, and an iconic Jesus if we never actually talk about what the man actually said and did?

Here is what I have to say to you: You are unaware that just a short time ago it would not have been possible not to have a rather intimate knowledge of the Gospels, the Christian teaching, Christian poetry, and not to have been more or less surrounded by practicing Christians.

It is possible that you do not understand (and might not care even slightly!) that what I have done is to familiarize myself with all of this material. I have as well a significant library (3,500 titles) which I carefully collected over about 10 years. So though I can say, and truthfully, that I understand my own condition as that of a post-Christian (I am not dishonest about this), I can say that I know very well what Christian belief is, or rather was, before it largely collapsed.

I am (as I say) very interested in what people did and what they are now doing in a post-Christian culture because, obviously, this pertains far more to you and to me and to all those participating here! And this explains why it seems important -- to me if not to you -- to try to locate where each of us stands.

Now, I am very aware that all those who write on this thread, with the exception of IC and also perhaps Nick, have long ago left their 'Christian context'. Take Lacewing as an example. She was raised in it, but abandoned it. Attofishpi too, according to what he has revealed. And some have more generations between them and the last parent (grandparent, great-grandparent).

You say "none of these assessments interest me. As I say: how can any of us talk about degraded cultures, lack of agreement, and an iconic Jesus if we never actually talk about what the man actually said and did?"

You wouldn't have to pose this question if you yourself has a substantial grounding in Christianity! You are extremely on the outside, or so it seems to me.

And you seem very much on the outside of contemporary socio-political conversations that are going on around us now. That is, how the Right and the so-called Far-Right ground their reactionary attitudes. Or how the Left and the so-called Far Left orient themselves within post-Christian categories.

Why must you insist that the only area that interests you is the one that I or others must share interest in?

It is quite different for me. I am interested in what has happened to post-Christian people. And if I had to be completely honest I find large segments of the Gospels pretty boring. Once you get the core Gospel message, which is as I say a Dramatic Theater that you participate in through an imagined enactment, there is simply not a great deal there to hang much on.

Paul seems to have 'invented' Christianity pretty substantially, but it is of course all 'interpretation'.

It is a far more interesting story what the following generations did who received Christianity (in the very early days). Because it is these people who constructed Christian culture and our civilization. The topic of Christianity extends very very far beyond the Gospels.

how can any of us talk about degraded cultures, lack of agreement, and an iconic Jesus

As far as I am aware I am the only one who has written about 'degraded culture' and 'lack of agreement'. And I personally have a difficult time relating to or even locating the 'personality of Jesus' and, no, Jesus is not very 'iconic' for me (personally).

[Nick_A]

A J

As we all well know there is only one true and say classically defined Christian here and that is Immanuel Can. Immanuel Can knows the 'real truth'' and therefore he can speak with genuine authority. There is no other classically oriented Christian and there are numerous post-Christians -- except perhaps Nick.

But Nick is, and I think must be seen by Immanuel Can (the sole true Christian here) a bit unorthodox (no pun intended here!) given that he can, and does, incorporate Platonic thought (symbols & ideas) and also Gurdjieffian ideas -- and those ideas have a non-traditional origin and are certainly well on the outside of accepted, doctrinal Christianity. So in this sense Nick's position is also post-Christian but in a sense of being post-Orthodox (Greek Church) Christian.

His central idea is that Christianity -- and I gather the figure of Christ? -- heralds an evolutionary step not just for one person but for humankind. He seems to downplay the notion of a 'personal God' though. I am uncertain to what degree he would define Jesus Christ as a man/god. As God the Father (the sole and only one) incarnated into a human body and for a specific purpose of freeing man from a specific sort of bondage.

You seem to appreciate or are drawn to these ideas. Of course the world as a whole rejects them.

I don’t know if you have studied vibrations and how their relativity in matter creates our universe. The image of God refers to pitch in the eight toned musical scale. High C is for example is God; middle C is the level of the Christ within the Father, while low C refers to evolved man within God and the Christ. Low C or man has the same triune nature of God but at a lower pitch and greater density in matter.

If in Christian metaphysics the core idea is that *the Earth* and 'earthly things' need to be resisted then the sacrifice of such 'lower pleasures' makes sense because higher attainments and higher pleasures can then be realized.

This I believe is a misconception. The earth should not be resisted. Know all the laws responsible for our universe. The problem is imagination or what has happened to our lower parts.

Plato explains this in the chariot analogy. The white horse and its attractions to its source functions as it should. The dark or mortal horse on the left has become corrupted due to the human condition and is now governed by imagination. The Christian IMO doesn’t reject the earth but must reject the power of imagination creating attachments to the unreal. It is only possible for man through the power of the Holy Spirit. Without it, the energies of man only serve the earth.

Is society as a whole a living organism serving the earth as the Great Beast? Are all its reactions due to natural and cosmic influences? If it is, its evolution must be limited to the earth as any other beast.

Christianity, as I know it, offers freedom for individuals by the struggle with imagination for the sake of experiencing the reality our tripartite soul is capable of. Can the tripartite soul turn with the whole of itself towards the light? Can the Christian experience metanoia by turning towards the light with the help of the Spirit?

Freedom from imagination in the cause of experiencing human meaning or freedom from the darkness of Plato’s cave. It is all the same.

I recently watched this nature special. One segment showed the newly hatched sea turtles on land race to the sea. The overwhelming majority are eaten by birds yet a very few survive and grow to adults living for eighty years.

How many of these newborn tripartite souls survive imagination and become evolved Man as opposed to those eaten by life? Do such individuals exist?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You seem to appreciate or are drawn to these ideas. Of course the world as a whole rejects them.

Yes that is certainly true. I do not see an alternative. Yet what you are drawn to is a define mysticism. It is 'not for everyone' to quote ironically from Hesse's Steppenwolf.

Christianity, as I know it, offers freedom for individuals by the struggle with imagination for the sake of experiencing the reality our tripartite soul is capable of. Can the tripartite soul turn with the whole of itself towards the light? Can the Christian experience metanoia by turning towards the light with the help of the Spirit?

I am curious to know if you find it possible to carry this out within a Greek Orthodox context?

[Nick_A]

You seem to appreciate or are drawn to these ideas. Of course the world as a whole rejects them.

Yes that is certainly true. I do not see an alternative. Yet what you are drawn to is a define mysticism. It is 'not for everyone' to quote ironically from Hesse's Steppenwolf.

Christianity, as I know it, offers freedom for individuals by the struggle with imagination for the sake of experiencing the reality our tripartite soul is capable of. Can the tripartite soul turn with the whole of itself towards the light? Can the Christian experience metanoia by turning towards the light with the help of the Spirit?

I am curious to know if you find it possible to carry this out within a Greek Orthodox context?

I don't see why not. This is from a typical sermon:

https://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/or ... repentance

How words are translated from one language to another can be fortuitous or disastrous. One example comes from the translation of the Greek word metanoia into Latin.

Metanoia is a beautiful word without a one-word English equivalent. The Latin Fathers translated it using the Latin word meaning penance or repentance. But that does not do justice to metanoia at all. Metanoia means something much more significant. There is a hidden depth to it that the Latin Fathers missed. One biblical scholar called it a "linguistic and theological tragedy."(A.T. Robertson). Even Tertullian criticized it early on.

Metanoia means "a change of mind" to a greater or higher consciousness, a transformative change of heart as Webster’s dictionary defines it. St. Paul calls it "putting on the mind of Christ," the consciousness of God. Illumination or enlightenment comes closer than penance............

Unless a person experiences metanoia they will confuse it with the repentance of our personality. But metanoia is far deeper and the experience can change a person. That is why it is foolish IMO to argue over it with those who only believe in the senses.. From the song Amazing Grace: " was blind but now I see". The atheists demand proof of the senses. How does one prove sight to a blind man?

[attofishpi]

Immanuel Can (the sole true Christian here)

Are you being facetious?

I am (as I say) very interested in what people did and what they are now doing in a post-Christian culture because, obviously, this pertains far more to you and to me and to all those participating here! And this explains why it seems important -- to me if not to you -- to try to locate where each of us stands.

Now, I am very aware that all those who write on this thread, with the exception of IC and also perhaps Nick, have long ago left their 'Christian context'. Take Lacewing as an example. She was raised in it, but abandoned it. Attofishpi too, according to what he has revealed.

Lacewing is not a Christian, I am.
Re me, if you are referring to abandoning "Christian culture", I'd have to say I don't even know what that term means, so please provide a précis on what "Christian culture" is, and then I'll confirm if indeed I have abandoned that.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can (the sole true Christian here)

Are you being facetious?

He wants to distract from the problem I put to him.

I pointed out that he has no criteria or definition for "Christian." So he wants to go ad hominem, and imply that I'm offering myself as some sort of ideal or prototype Christian. Of course, he knows, and anyone else who checks knows, I've never said any such thing. Rather, I've pointed out that the criteria for "Christian" must be derived from Christ Himself, and what He says.

It's dishonest, it's low, and it's cheap. But it serves his turn by getting the eyes off the problems with his own definition.

So don't worry about it: I never said any such thing.

[attofishpi]

Immanuel Can (the sole true Christian here)

Are you being facetious?

He wants to distract from the problem I put to him.

I pointed out that he has no criteria or definition for "Christian." So he wants to go ad hominem, and imply that I'm offering myself as some sort of ideal or prototype Christian. Of course, he knows, and anyone else who checks knows, I've never said any such thing. Rather, I've pointed out that the criteria for "Christian" must be derived from Christ Himself, and what He says.

It's dishonest, it's low, and it's cheap. But it serves his turn by getting the eyes off the problems with his own definition.

So don't worry about it: I never said any such thing.

Fair enough.

I haven't being paying a huge amount of attention to this thread.

Is Alexis an upset Jew still wondering when the Messiah is "popping down" (as in Je_wish)?