Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

I am not sure how accurate this analysis of IC really is, so I'll simply say, "Maybe so; maybe not".

Alexis is feeling angry with me, because I shot his dog.

I told him that speaking of "Christianity," while having no definition of what "Christianity" is, was futile. So he doesn't like me now.

But I can live with that. And it doesn't change any facts.

I propose that here, with this, you have a sheer lie.

Good. That's what I want to hear.

So what's your definition of "Christian"? Since you have one, according to you, you should be able to give it now.

I say what Jesus has said.

Which is...what? Let's see if what you say, He also said.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Which is...what? Let's see if what you say, He also said.

When you address me please say 'Your Eloquence' or "Most Illustrious Sir". Please, basic respect!

[Immanuel Can]

Which is...what? Let's see if what you say, He also said.

When you address me please say 'Your Eloquence' or "Most Illustrious Sir". Please, basic respect!

Gladly, Your Eminence.

But my questions, dear sir...I notice you do not answer. Others may notice, as well. So in fear for your reputation, and lest your greatness come into question, perhaps you should be more instantly forthcoming.

What is Your Eminence's definition of "Christian"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not sincere enough. Did you think I’d not notice your falseness?

Read my recent posts and there you will better understand where I position myself.

When you indicate you have read and comprehended then more tid-bits may be tossed toward you.

Or if you piss me off I may feed you to the lions.

Fatten yourself up in the meantime. Por si acaso …

[henry quirk]

The Emperor is nekkid.
and his willie is small

[Immanuel Can]

Not sincere enough. Did you think I’d not notice your falseness?

What I noticed is that you don't answer.

You have no definition of "Christian." I'm not the only one to see that. You're just the last one to admit it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Be.that.as.it.may!

[Immanuel Can]

The Emperor is nekkid.

Yep.

It's funny...for a guy who loves to talk, and talk, and talk, and talk...when you ask him anything specific, he has nothing to offer at all. I don't think he's stupid, but I think he's totally evasive, for some reason. He must know he's blowing smoke right now...but for some reason, he's still determined never to answer a simple question about his terms.

[Alexis Jacobi]

::: yawn :::

[promethean75]

Btw on the sunny side of the street wuz my gramma and grampa's favorite song and I used to see em dance to it. Oh how my gramma adored my grampa when they danced. That's how I learned how to treat a lady, ya know... my grampa.

That's the hottest female trumpeter I've ever seen tho. Not my gramma... she didn't play the trumpet. I mean in the video above. May even be the only female trumpeter I've ever seen.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's the hottest female trumpeter I've ever seen tho. Not my gramma... she didn't play the trumpet. I mean in the video above. May even be the only female trumpeter I've ever seen.

That is what I thought!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel, Henry, do you two keep to the sunny side of the street?

[Walker]

For all intents and purposes you may consider me an ignorant heathen at your disposal for honest feedback concerning proper Christian understanding of the bible.

Walker, I was going to offer you a place in my line for discipleship, but if after prayer and fasting *the spirit* moves you to tuck up under Immanuel's wing . . .I will accept it as the hand of Providence.

He is a harsh master however.

When it comes to interpreting the bible in terms of Christian doctrine you mention prayer and fasting, but you forgot the most important aspect of your offer to interpret significance with the assumptions that ground the offer, and that important aspect is a study of you.

When folks approach Christianity like louts and thugs, which is not to say that's your approach because you're an unknown element ... when folks don't scrape the mud off their boots and take off their hats in the presence of Christianity, and I've noticed such goings-on do occur from time-to-time on the PN exchange, then as a result, stepping into the form of formality and respect for Christianity, as meager as my knowledge of the content might be, is without doubt the choiceless route for balance and appropriateness, and although the reasons why are merely academic, for working purposes we can call it contrariness. I tend to shun the herd mentality, and come to think of it, my inclinations stray to the gist and not the weeds, thus the practice of cozy chat with run-on, dialogue-like sentences.

This approach to understanding is consistent with an earlier principle that mentioned, perhaps in this thread, perhaps in Roy's thread. Maybe it was somewhere else. However, the principle is, there are lots of teachers but not many students.

We can bring it closer to earth.

There are lots of smart-ass punks who we can call ghosts, but not many real real people. Shirley, you know of the powerful metaphor that caps Ixtlan.

[Harry Baird]

Hey there AJ,

A combined response to two of your posts:

Christianity is, and this is more close to the truth, a wide assortment of ideas and admonitions and perspectives that come from a wide range of peoples, cultures, and if you will metaphysical perspectives. *Christianity* is really a conglomeration of ideas and perspectives.

It is not because I say this that I make it so, it is in fact that Christianity is a 'confusion of ideas' because there was a 'confusion of peoples' in those early centuries when the religion was, shall I say, accreted together.

I see it differently but very simply:

The first question is, did the man Jesus of Nazareth live approximately 2,000 years ago, or is his existence a myth? I think the mythicist case fails, and I understand that so do you, so we agree that he is a real historical person.

This historical person's words, deeds, and life in general had a powerful impact on those who witnessed it, such that they named a religion after him based on his words, deeds, and life. Thus, true Christianity is determined by those words, deeds, and life.

Apologists argue that the "confusion" of which you speak was simply due to the promulgation of false testimonies, but that the true testimony was sensibly selected and compiled into the Bible as the New Testament. You might disagree that the true testimony has reached us, but my point is that there is a truth of the matter: THE true Christianity as determined by the words, deeds, and life of Jesus Christ, whatever those actually were.

Christianity is much more -- much much more -- than the body of teachings of the figure Jesus Christ.

Sure, there have been treatises, commentaries, debates, books, theological arguments, theodicies, etc, etc - and, to the extent that all of that is compatible with the body of teachings of Christ, it's probably fine to consider it a part of Christianity - but my point remains, that the essence of Christianity is determined by the body of teachings (etc) of Christ. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise for the religion bearing his very name!

Now, what happens is that so much of this (what I have referred to here generally and glossingly) completely turns many people off. And rightly so. And thus they push away what disgusts them. Also rightly so. Similarly, I am in a process of pushing away what disgusts me while very carefully working hard to preserve my 'conceptual links' to the Christian form. And I write about the way that I carry this out. Basically, I carry it out by attempting to isolate metaphysical principles that stand behind the Christian form. This should all be pretty obvious.

I wonder though how much will remain once you have dismissed both that which disgusts you and that which you find unbelievable. Maybe a metaphysical principle or two? This would bear very little resemblance to Christianity as we know it though. I guess there'd still be mass, hymns, rituals, symbols, and sacraments - but, as far as I know, you don't participate much in this aspect of Christianity anyway.

What I do is not un-creative and it is not destructive.

Sure, extracting metaphysical principles from, and working through and reframing your relationship with, a (the?) major world religion is a creative process.

That your particular process is not destructive seems debatable, but maybe it's a matter of semantics. What I mean is that the rejection and dismissal of the Story which is the core of Christianity could be seen as a type of destructiveness - at least, to those who do believe in it. Maybe it would even be threatening to them.

And as you know Harry I am very concerned for those *acids* that eat away things that have tremendous value.

Yes, I know, and that seems perfectly reasonable to me. However, you seem to be doing quite a bit of eating away at Christianity yourself!

[Walker]

Satan offered Jesus the ability to save the world.

This is why I come to the experts. I'm not even going to check the verse, whatever it may be.

I always thought that Satan offered to make Jesus the king of the world. I missed saving the world, because he would be king of the world. I was not attentive enough to catch it, and as I recall, I recently read the verse.

In my current state of ignorance, savouring the mystery of the actual kjv language that I don't recall word for word, I figure that saving the world is an interpretation put upon the verse, and that's going to stand until a correction appears and ends the mystery.

If I'm wrong, I'll voluntarily surrender to the appropriate authorities and endeavour to persevere as a sincere student of the interpretations, of the divinely inspired word.