Christianity

[Belinda]

Very good, Alexis Jacobi.I agree with all the above. Do you? Do you see that if you agree with all the above that you quoted you can have a faith that is reasonable and acceptable to post-Enlightenment people, including self-styled atheists?

Of course I recognize that one can choose to align oneself with Christian ethical ideas and admonitions while being, perhaps, incapable or doubtful of all the wildest mystic and magic beliefs of traditional or historical Christian faith. The mystical and the magical drop away as unnecessary and then one is left in an immediate present having to make reasoned choices.

I agree. You seem to see a problem about Christianity, but your latest claim is not problematic. I don't understand what else there is for you to say.

[ThinkOfOne]

Immanuel Can claims Jesus actually said

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6, emphasis mine)

I don't know The Bible very well. However I imagine the above may have been said by Jesus in a context that makes it a reasonable claim. For instance in Palestine at the time of Jesus the latter may have been pretty nearly the only credible representative of the Prophetic tradition. It seems the synagogue was in trouble from Jews who thought the way was via worldly power and keeping in with the Roman regime.

Really it takes a Biblical scholar and historian to estimate which of the sayings of Jesus actually were said by Jesus and were not later insertions.

John 14:6 is only an issue if one interprets it in a straightforward literal manner as do the vast majority of Christians. It's an example of "motivated reasoning". Historical context does not provide the answer as to its intended meaning either. Rather it needs to be interpreted within the context of the immediate context as well as words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of his ministry through his crucifixion as a whole. You seem to accept the straightforward literal interpretation. Why?

[Immanuel Can]

Are you sure it wasn't the Mormons or the Scientologists?

Hmmmm. Are you broaching the topic of time-travel? Isn't that contrary to your notion of linear time?

No, but presumably you are. Because if what you meant by "Christian" when you were advancing your theory of "Christian European Civilization" was "evangelicals," then you must have a time machine.

So clearly, you didn't mean "evangelicals" when you said "Christian." That's not remotely plausible

But where is your definition of whom you DID mean? Are you just evading that again?

[Immanuel Can]

I challenge anyone here to actually make sense of this.

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

Wow. You sure do have a tough time with small words.

Which word has you stumped?

[iambiguous]

I challenge anyone here to actually make sense of this.

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

Even though he is quoting this from the Christian Bible in order to "prove" the existence of the Christian God, what really makes it true is that even if he didn't quote it here, it is still in the Christian Bible. That's what makes it true!!!

Wow. You sure do have a tough time with small words.

Which word has you stumped?

I think we can all agree now that IC is completely irrelevant to this exchange. All he can do is to further embarrass himself.

So, it all comes down to this:

I'll wait patiently for those here who worship other Gods to acknowledge that after reading those words [either here or in the Bible] they are ready to admit that they are switching over to IC's One True Path.

All he needs is one of you to read the words [big and small], renounce your own God and embrace his own private and personal assessment of the one true Christian God.

Henry? Now is your chance. Take up his challenge and humiliate me.

And, of course, save your own soul for all of eternity.

[Immanuel Can]

I think we can all agree now that IC is completely irrelevant to this exchange.

Hilarious.

On a thread about "Christianity," the one person you don't want to hear from is...(drumroll, please)...

The Christian!

[Agent Smith]

Excellent reasoning! Comprehende señor/señorita! Muchas gracias.

Just curious and if I may be so bold as to inquire, which parts of The Good Book do you find plausible and which parts are implausible to you?

That's a HUGE question - the bible is rather large, and I haven't bothered reading it all...and I don't buy_bull - GOD clearly wants us intelligent minds to question the bible.

I consider myself a Christian Pantheist\Panentheist..and I have gnosis of God's existence.

As per:- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

As I have recently stated in another thread, such things as the turning of water to wine classed as "miracle" I have witnessed far more than that since 1997...I simply consider whether the wine was a shiraz\cab sav\merlot..etc.. - no shadow of a doubt of the sub-atomic power this entity has over what we perceive as reality.

I don't believe nonsense such things as Genesis 3 - speaking with words to form light etc..indeed the cosmos - straight at the outset, God is insisting we QUEST_ION the entire book.
I believe God is a result of the universe rather than it's creation, but that it formed its intelligence from the chaos of the early universe and then formed a reality that we currently have where we can eat shit and breathe...and be conscious of the fact. Adam & Eve - is a metaphor and the Tree of Life\Know_Ledge are v important considerations when dealing with the Tests under the duress of the "wrath" of God.

I have no doubt that Christ did what he did, the reason...to insist on faith and respect where love is concerned.

God is NOT anti LGBT---> woteva as IT and a sage have made very clear to me.

Hope that answers your question.

Perhaps we, nay, I, have missed the point entirely, oui?

[iambiguous]

I think we can all agree now that IC is completely irrelevant to this exchange. All he can do is to further embarrass himself.

So, it all comes down to this:

I'll wait patiently for those here who worship other Gods to acknowledge that after reading those words [either here or in the Bible] they are ready to admit that they are switching over to IC's One True Path.

All he needs is one of you to read the words [big and small], renounce your own God and embrace his own private and personal assessment of the one true Christian God.

Henry? Now is your chance. Take up his challenge and humiliate me.

And, of course, save your own soul for all of eternity.

Hilarious.

On a thread about "Christianity," the one person you don't want to hear from is...(drumroll, please)...

The Christian!

Cambridge Dictionary
irrelevant [adjective] not related to what is being discussed or considered and therefore not important

Hope that helped.

Come on IC, calling yourself a Christian and wiggling out of responding to this...

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

Even though he is quoting this from the Christian Bible in order to "prove" the existence of the Christian God, what really makes it true is that even if he didn't quote it here, it is still in the Christian Bible. That's what makes it true!!!

...speaks volumes for some here.

You call the Christian Bible the Word of God because you insist that the Word of God can only be found in the Christian Bible.

You are not even capable of grasping just how circular that "logic" is.

So, in my own opinion, rooted existentially in dasein just as yours is, you are either afflicted with a "condition" and you are off the hook or you are the embodiment of the "psychology of objectivism" and need God in order to comfort and console you.

Like a child with his Teddy Bear.

[Agent Smith]

I think we can all agree now that IC is completely irrelevant to this exchange. All he can do is to further embarrass himself.

So, it all comes down to this:



All he needs is one of you to read the words [big and small], renounce your own God and embrace his own private and personal assessment of the one true Christian God.

Henry? Now is your chance. Take up his challenge and humiliate me.

And, of course, save your own soul for all of eternity.

Hilarious.

On a thread about "Christianity," the one person you don't want to hear from is...(drumroll, please)...

The Christian!

Cambridge Dictionary
irrelevant [adjective] not related to what is being discussed or considered and therefore not important

Hope that helped.

Come on IC, calling yourself a Christian and wiggling out of responding to this...

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

Even though he is quoting this from the Christian Bible in order to "prove" the existence of the Christian God, what really makes it true is that even if he didn't quote it here, it is still in the Christian Bible. That's what makes it true!!!

...speaks volumes for some here.

You call the Christian Bible the Word of God because you insist that the Word of God can only be found in the Christian Bible.

You are not even capable of grasping just how circular that "logic" is.

So, in my own opinion, rooted existentially in dasein just as yours is, you are either afflicted with a "condition" and you are off the hook or you are the embodiment of the "psychology of objectivism" and need God in order to comfort and console you.

Like a child with his Teddy Bear.

Behold, o ye savages, The Almighty!

[iambiguous]

Does God Exist?
William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.

The turning point probably came in 1967 with the publication of Alvin Plantinga’s God and Other Minds, which applied the tools of analytic philosophy to questions in the philosophy of religion with an unprecedented rigor and creativity.

Rigor and creativity that comes how close to connecting the dots existentially between God, religion and analytic philosophy and responding substantively to this question:

"How ought one to live morally in a world teeming with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?"

"Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin concur on the claim that there is a kind of natural knowledge of God and anything on which Calvin and Aquinas are in accord is something to which we had better pay careful attention.” Alvin Plantinga

Same thing. I'll pay careful attention to anything these two concur regarding given a particular context in which the question above is explored existentially.

In Plantinga’s train has followed a host of Christian philosophers, writing in professional journals and participating in professional conferences and publishing with the finest academic presses. The face of Anglo-American philosophy has been transformed as a result.

Same thing. Transformed with respect to what particular set of circumstances in which conflicting goods have prevailed down through the centuries.

Atheism, although perhaps still the dominant viewpoint in Western universities, is a philosophy in retreat.

Like it doesn't ebb and flow over the decades. Always coming back around to the state of the world at any particular time. The more dire things become the more likely atheism is to wane. After all, ultimately, what is more conforting and consoling than God when the going does get dire.

In a recent article, University of Western Michigan philosopher Quentin Smith laments what he calls “the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s.” Complaining of naturalists’ passivity in the face of the wave of “intelligent and talented theists entering academia today,” Smith concludes, “God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.”

For me, of course, the more intelligent and talented the better. That way, I can at least feel that I am being challenged. But, again, to the extent this revolves by and large around academic or theological concerns, is the extent to which it often completely avoids my question above. Here, unfortunately, in my view, we have all too many posters in the mold of IC.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Very good, Alexis Jacobi.I agree with all the above. Do you? Do you see that if you agree with all the above that you quoted you can have a faith that is reasonable and acceptable to post-Enlightenment people, including self-styled atheists?

Of course I recognize that one can choose to align oneself with Christian ethical ideas and admonitions while being, perhaps, incapable or doubtful of all the wildest mystic and magic beliefs of traditional or historical Christian faith. The mystical and the magical drop away as unnecessary and then one is left in an immediate present having to make reasoned choices.

I agree. You seem to see a problem about Christianity, but your latest claim is not problematic. I don't understand what else there is for you to say.

I'd put it this way: I have been forced to see a very significant problem about *Christian belief* (and about belief and belief-systems generally) as a result of my association and interactions with Immanuel Can. I regret that this seems like a personal issue -- it certainly is not. Immanuel Can demonstrates to me what can happen, and possibly what will inevitably happen, when a relatively strong mind capable of reasoned analysis gets *possessed* by religious fanaticism. Frankly, I am unsure even how to define this fanaticism. I regard it (as I have said) as a *disease of the mind*. But what really is its origin? Or what really is its function? These are questions that require more study and commentary.

Presently, I am interested in a contemporary notions: hasbara (הַסְבָּרָה). The word means explanation or explaining on the surface but really it indicates explaining and molding through what we call *spin*. It is a Machiavellian term I'd suppose and essentially indicates 'deceit' and 'deceitfulness' as a public-relations strategy.

If it is not completely clear I see American Evangelical Christianity as having become, perhaps having allowed itself to become, a tool of geo-political machinations. And since (as I regularly say) my interest is in the present and in contemporary events, the relevance of the topic of Christianity only has importance to the degree that we talk about our own reality. If I must explain some part of my present emphasis developed as a result of something Immanuel Can said to me a few years back. I will paraphrase: "We non-denominational Christians do more for Israel than most others" (something to this effect). I regard Israel and Israeli power as having deeply penetrated into the very halls of US power. This is not debatable from my perspective. Thus the idea of hasbara takes on tremendous significance.

What interests me -- let's say as a philosophical and cultural issue, and there is a personal element also -- is how the Christian religious perspective (hope, belief, prophecy) which is based on Biblical tropes, is manifested or allowed to become iterated and replicated by the believer. The Machiavellian way to see this would be to say that elites know the truth about the raw use of power which excludes *morality* and *ethics* in the larger pursuit of power-objectives. While simultaneously the *believer* is convinced through hasbara-arguments (spin) that what he is asked to advocate and support is, somehow, part of *God's plan*.

So it seems to me highly relevant, and also genuinely interesting, to examine the argument-structure of Immanuel Can who is, I might say, a chemically-pure Evangelical Christian Zionist. I include the Zionist aspect because it is thoroughly central to Evangelical Christian discourse (though Immanuel states that he has no relationship to it).

How far can we go, how far do we go, in self-deception about real power issues? I see this as a very deep problem. At the same time, or in any case this is part of my interest and consideration, Evangelical Christianity has a strong focus on that which has always been central to Christian conversion which was known as *taking the Christian cure*. The neophyte starts as a compromised victim of his own concupiscence which operates on many different levels. He comes into the Christian circle and submits himself to God's healing power. "To get right with God" is a phrase often used. Could it be said that I have an argument against that? No, in fact I recognize it as valid. But I am unable to un-see that American Evangelical Christianity has -- how can I put it fairly? -- been infiltrated by hidden interests.

And of course this is a complex and a fraught topic for a host of reasons.

Here is a clear statement from the Evangelical perspective:

One of the first promises in the Bible is given to Abram, whom God appointed to be a blessing to the whole earth. Not only did God tell this patriarch that he would receive a good land and have many children, but He also promised Abram, “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse” (Gen. 12:1–3). That’s an incredible promise, isn’t it? God will favor those who favor Abram and set Himself against those who oppose Abram.

Like me, you probably want God’s blessing and favor on your life. This verse gives us the secret to obtaining that blessing. We just need to bless Abram. Abram, later renamed Abraham, died some four thousand years ago. So, one might think that it is no longer possible to bless him. That is not the case. The promise to Abraham was passed down through his son Isaac to his grandson Jacob (Gen. 27:1–29). Jacob, of course, was renamed Israel, his sons being the founding fathers of the tribes of Israel. So, the promise of Abraham passed on to Israel as well (Num. 24:1–9).

So, God is going to bless those who bless Abraham, which means He is going to bless those who bless Israel. And this promise was never withdrawn. It must come to pass, which means it is still in force today. But does the Israel of God exist today?

Now if you were to ask me *Why are you interested in these things? What possible relevance does this have to your own life?" it would require lots more explanation.

I do not have a very favorable opinion of a significant aspect of Judaism either because I see Judaism, like Evangelical Christianity, as having been compromised. It is a complex topic but Israel has in a significant way replaced an abstract 'god' and the Holocaust has also replaced or supplanted the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth on the cross for most Jews.

In contemporary society now and today -- and here I refer to more suppressed areas and channels -- the Jewish Question is being talked about. I know about this because I resolved to study it. A large part of the present geo-political struggles, and certainly the American national struggle, has a sort of invisible backdrop of power and power-games -- and this has to do with Israeli machination (I do not know how to mention this except in a terse way). The entire topic is off-limits of course in all conventional media. And this is why I refer to hasbara.

I do recognize that these are issues that no one without a Jewish or Israeli connection has interest in (hence no or little interest here and, also, no conversation on contemporary issues) but since you invited me to share my thoughts, well, there you have it.

Here is an ironic video that was published in Ha'aretz:

Hasbara

I regard Rabbi Manis Friedman as a master of hasbara but at the same time he reveals the true underpinning to the Israel issue (which is also expressed by a general Straussian Machiavellian analysis). I doubt that many people here are much interested in these things but I admit that they fascinate me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think we can all agree now that IC is completely irrelevant to this exchange.

Hilarious.

On a thread about "Christianity," the one person you don't want to hear from is...(drumroll, please)...

The Christian!

You are irrelevant because you are incapable of engaging intellectually. Your only means of engagement is as a religious fanatic. You have no capacity for self-analysis. You cannot *see yourself*. In this sense you are irrelevant.

You are extremely relevant insofar as your show what happens when we allow -- if we allow -- such things to happen with us. Personally, I see you (in one aspect) as a victim. An idea-structure involving emotionalized belief has you in its grip. It determines you.

Are you really a Christian? That is not an easy question to answer because we then have to try to discover the *real Jesus*. But to get to that personage we have to subject ourselves to a process of deprogramming. But then the entire idea of a god-man dropped down into our world is almost preposterous. That is, how could such a thing even be considered as possible today?

So when we look back on it and try to "believe" it the difficulty shows itself: what exactly are we believing in?

Now, I know that you can quote Scripture passages that you believe answer that question. But I think for many the entire topic has become impossible.

We make efforts to explain (I make efforts to explain) and all of it goes over your head!

The only *head* you have is one primed for religious fanaticism and you reveal yourself as deeply irrational as a result.

Trippy, eh?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I do not have a very favorable opinion of a significant aspect of Judaism either because I see Judaism, like Evangelical Christianity, as having been compromised. It is a complex topic but Israel has in a significant way replaced an abstract 'god' and the Holocaust has also replaced or supplanted the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth on the cross for most Jews.

I meant to say that in a strange transference Jews identify with the sacrifice of Christ and supplant Jesus of Nazareth. I admit it is a nutty, convoluted theme.

[Immanuel Can]

You are irrelevant because you are incapable of engaging intellectually.

You mean, because I don't believe your theory...certainly not because I haven't "engaged" you "intellectually." I asked you to define your key term: a very basic intellectual task, that so far, you haven't been able to do, apparently.

Are you really a Christian?

Well, since at present you seem to have no definition for that term, how can you even know? How can anyone even reassure you? You don't seem to know what one is.

We make efforts to explain (I make efforts to explain) and all of it goes over your head!

Your estimation of how "high" you're holding your head is might not be quite right. Nothing you've said is even difficult, actually. It's just been vague, which is quite different from being sophisticated...in fact, it's often the opposite.

[ThinkOfOne]

Immanuel Can demonstrates to me what can happen, and possibly what will inevitably happen, when a relatively strong mind capable of reasoned analysis gets *possessed* by religious fanaticism. Frankly, I am unsure even how to define this fanaticism. I regard it (as I have said) as a *disease of the mind*. But what really is its origin? Or what really is its function? These are questions that require more study and commentary.

Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired
-- Jonathan Swift.

Though a man may have good critical thinking skills and be capable of reason, this does not extend to beliefs/opinions that have not been acquired via reason. Facts don't matter. Reason doesn't matter. Truth doesn't matter.

Christianity has "faith" as its foundation as it is based upon the gospel taught by Paul:
Hebrews 11
1Now faith is the certainty of things hoped for, a proof of things not seen.

Fact don't matter. Reason doesn't matter. Truth doesn't matter. This is especially true of evangelical Christians. They are taught that if their beliefs do not align with the "herd", it is due to lack of "faith". They must "pray on it". Receiving the "Holy Spirit" is at stake. Being "right with God" is at stake. "Eternal life" is at stake. Their place with the "herd" is at stake. So they acquire the ability to accept beliefs that accord with "true faith" whatever they may be. This mindset bleeds over to other beliefs as well. It makes them prone to demagoguery, conspiracy theories, etc. Though many try to apply "reason" after the fact, they are nothing more than a never ending stream of rationalizations that don't hold up under scrutiny; they don't hold up under the light of truth. They believe that darkness is light. Interestingly Jesus warned against this:

Luke 11
34Your eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is clear, your whole body also is full of light; but when it is bad, your body also is full of darkness. 35So watch out that the light in you is not darkness. 36Therefore if your whole body is full of light, without any dark part, it will be wholly illuminated, as when the lamp illuminates you with its light.”

Matthew 6
22“The eye is the lamp of the body; so then, if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. So if the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!