Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

...hat which I have named Hebrew idea-imperialism.

I heard you. I just wasn't interested in the idea. It was too wild and far-fetched, as well as being potentially a little antisemitic.

However, and with that said, when 'the common people' who never were very well educated in real categories of intellection are ripped away from the ethical restraining system that functioned (er-hum) tyrannically in them and around them, when this was ripped away these types, these irresponsible types, who never really had structures of inner restrain established in them, were seduced by all sorts of different forces & powers.

There are people who have turned off their brains, it's true. But I don't find that they are uniquely among "the common people." Rather, I find that a lot of "common" people have "common sense" that their self-declared elitist "betters" often happen to lack.

A strong, upstanding Christian ethic functioned, as all sound religious ethical ststems do, as a sort of protection against such conglomerations of interest as is modern capital enterprise.

Sort of. Some Christian values actually make free markets work: contract-keeping, for example, or hard work, or charity, or savings...these things produce capital, which is essential to the running of a viable, progressive economy.

So business (an ideology of marketing, of PR and advertising propaganda) benefits from the undermining of cultural Christianity.

In other ways, this is also true. Pornographers, usurers, slave-owners, and other exploiters always find Christian values a problem, even among the uncommitted masses.

The vulgar, debased average person of today, the end-result of entire causal processes that *create* such an individual, suffers in the present dispensation because he cannot *locate himself* within a genuine personal and also cultural power.

I see just as many people who are like this among the educated, actually. I have not noted that such extraodinary detriments as credit and debt, identity confusion, conspicuous consumption, Mammonism, speculation, and so forth are any less prevalent among the "elite" than they are among the ordinary masses.

That's actually one of the hallmarks of modern-postmodern society: that the elites and the masses all move in lockstep to the same ideological, economic, entertainment, information and political winds. There are few winners in this situation, except among those from any level who choose to stand out and criticize the system.

Now, along comes hyper-pious Immanuel Can with his terrible threat and his terrible promises.

I have no threats. And what "promises" I have are only those God makes.

So your own Evangelical Christianity is a servant, a perverse servant, to far greater political, social, cultural and economic -- indeed global -- enterprises.

A paragraph or so ago, you were singing the opposite song -- that "business benefits from undermining Christianity."

You should at least choose a belief that it coherent with itself.

Now, you talk about 'salvation' but have never made any sufficient case for even what you are talking about.

I have. But you have not been interested.

But salvation, for us today, cannot mean what you believe that it does mean.

It does, actually. You've find that that's always true of truth...it's not culture or time dependent. It just always is exactly what it is.

[Harbal]

The one I suggested? Or the one you did? They're not the same strategy, of course.

Your strategy. I was conceding the point that many have fallen for it.

Either that, or they've realized what was actually the best thing to do.

Listen, if being a Christian makes people happy, and they are not hurting me, good for them.

[Immanuel Can]

Murder someone because they insulted a statue.

Judaism doesn' t have statues, Gary.

Sorry, then murder someone for offending an invisible being.

The Supreme Being and Creator, you mean? Sure. He who gave life has every right to determine when it is given and taken. That is the very difference between murder and capital punishment. The one is an action of selfish passion and malevolence, and the other is a judicial ruling fitting the crime in question.

...in exchange for our calling you superstitious and ignorant you call us blasphemers heathens

Point to the place.

This, you will find, I have never done. It's not my style, at all. My only interest in the definition of "blasphemy" was that AJ was defining it incorrectly. I called nobody that.

I don't regard unbelievers as either heathens nor as blasphemers. I regard them merely as conversation partners who presently hold different views. Where they will end up is yet to be decided. And they will decide it.

[Immanuel Can]

Listen, if being a Christian makes people happy, and they are not hurting me, good for them.

It is, indeed.

[Immanuel Can]

Consider all of the persecution that Christians (and other religious zealots) have unleashed onto non-theists over the ages.

Evidence, please?

> Consider the current swell of insane political Christians...

Show me.

> Consider the way you, yourself,...

I do...very carefully.

You are no more divine, nor do you represent it more so, than anyone else here.

We'll see, I guess.

You are no more persecuted than you are a persecutor.

Evidence, please?

[Immanuel Can]

As far as I'm concerned, if someone says they are Christian, they are Christian.

Christ obviously sees things differently from that.

But how Christ sees it is not my concern, is it?

Well, he's always right. So that is a concern.

But even if you don't suppose He were right about anything else, you would surely be inclined to realize He could not even possibly be wrong about who genuinely is, and is not, a "Christian."

After all, He defined the term.

[Harbal]

Christ obviously sees things differently from that.

But how Christ sees it is not my concern, is it?

Well, he's always right. So that is a concern.

I know what you mean. I think we all know people like that, and nowhere more so than on this very forum.

But even if you don't suppose He were right about anything else, you would surely be inclined to realize He could not even possibly be wrong about who genuinely is, and is not, a "Christian."

After all, He defined the term.

But does he own the copyright on it?

[iambiguous]

Your strategy. I was conceding the point that many have fallen for it.

Either that, or they've realized what was actually the best thing to do.

Listen, if being a Christian makes people happy, and they are not hurting me, good for them.

I agree.

On the other hand, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, why on earth have the Christians among us failed so miserably in demonstrating that in fact their God does reside in Heaven?

Something a bit more substantial than IC going around and around in circles insisting that the Christian God must exist because it says so in the Christian Bible...and that the Christian Bible must be true because it is the word of the Christian God?!!

I mean, come on!!

And then all the other denominations insisting that all the other Gods exist with their own Scriptures.

What's a mere mortal eyeball to eyeball with either oblivion or Hell to do?!!!



So, okay, let's give the God folks here 24 hours to come up with what they are convinced is the most substantive proof that it is their God that reigns on Judgment Day.

That the fate of our very soul -- for all of eternity -- comes down to choosing the right one.

Their God.

[Sculptor]

The thread is about "christianity" not about the contents of the bible.

On the contrary, as with IC, this thread is about whatever you and your objectivist ilk insist Christianity about.

If you are going to be cheeky then check your facts.
I'm no objectivist - far from it.

My comment was simply to point to a divide which exists between various versions of "christianity" as it is practiced, and what is actually written in the bible. IC tend to cherry pick from one to the other at will to best assert his own personal prejudices.
I would also point to a series of divides within the bible itself, and I am not just talking about the differences between the NT and OT, but numerous contradictions within both the OT and the NT.

So you are way off beam. This is a common fault of yours that I have noticed again and again on the other forum. I do not think you read much

[Belinda]

...hat which I have named Hebrew idea-imperialism.

I heard you. I just wasn't interested in the idea. It was too wild and far-fetched, as well as being potentially a little antisemitic.

However, and with that said, when 'the common people' who never were very well educated in real categories of intellection are ripped away from the ethical restraining system that functioned (er-hum) tyrannically in them and around them, when this was ripped away these types, these irresponsible types, who never really had structures of inner restrain established in them, were seduced by all sorts of different forces & powers.

There are people who have turned off their brains, it's true. But I don't find that they are uniquely among "the common people." Rather, I find that a lot of "common" people have "common sense" that their self-declared elitist "betters" often happen to lack.

A strong, upstanding Christian ethic functioned, as all sound religious ethical ststems do, as a sort of protection against such conglomerations of interest as is modern capital enterprise.

Sort of. Some Christian values actually make free markets work: contract-keeping, for example, or hard work, or charity, or savings...these things produce capital, which is essential to the running of a viable, progressive economy.

So business (an ideology of marketing, of PR and advertising propaganda) benefits from the undermining of cultural Christianity.

In other ways, this is also true. Pornographers, usurers, slave-owners, and other exploiters always find Christian values a problem, even among the uncommitted masses.

The vulgar, debased average person of today, the end-result of entire causal processes that *create* such an individual, suffers in the present dispensation because he cannot *locate himself* within a genuine personal and also cultural power.

I see just as many people who are like this among the educated, actually. I have not noted that such extraodinary detriments as credit and debt, identity confusion, conspicuous consumption, Mammonism, speculation, and so forth are any less prevalent among the "elite" than they are among the ordinary masses.

That's actually one of the hallmarks of modern-postmodern society: that the elites and the masses all move in lockstep to the same ideological, economic, entertainment, information and political winds. There are few winners in this situation, except among those from any level who choose to stand out and criticize the system.

Now, along comes hyper-pious Immanuel Can with his terrible threat and his terrible promises.

I have no threats. And what "promises" I have are only those God makes.

So your own Evangelical Christianity is a servant, a perverse servant, to far greater political, social, cultural and economic -- indeed global -- enterprises.

A paragraph or so ago, you were singing the opposite song -- that "business benefits from undermining Christianity."

You should at least choose a belief that it coherent with itself.

Now, you talk about 'salvation' but have never made any sufficient case for even what you are talking about.

I have. But you have not been interested.

But salvation, for us today, cannot mean what you believe that it does mean.

It does, actually. You've find that that's always true of truth...it's not culture or time dependent. It just always is exactly what it is.

It's not "anti-semitic" to dislike Zionist imperialism.

"hard work" you say Manny. But the Protestant ethic of hard work is not exclusive to Evangelicals. Similarly Evangelicals don't have exclusive rights to the mutual basic trust that maintains trade.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...what which I have named Hebrew idea-imperialism.

I heard you. I just wasn't interested in the idea. It was too wild and far-fetched, as well as being potentially a little antisemitic.

It's not "anti-semitic" to dislike Zionist imperialism.

Certainly that is true. But Immanuel, rather carefully, said "It was too wild and far-fetched, as well as being potentially a little antisemitic". I am pretty sure that Immanuel does not devote much time to reading widely on the Internet but those who do find many causes for concern and alarm. What I mean is that there is a great deal of open criticism of Israel and Jews of the diaspora who unquestioningly *support* Israel. There is certainly, among the MAGA crowd, a strong awareness that American neoconservatives have strongly advocated for America to involve itself in Middle Eastern wars -- they say -- at the behest of Israel's interests. Simultaneously there is the view that Donald Trump is 'gaining blessing' by his open advocacy of Israel.

There is also a great deal of open conversation on the topic of Israeli machinations (though they do not use that word!) to gain control and strongly influence American foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel. Finally, there is a great deal of open critique about Jewish influence is a wide range of different areas. The recent dust-up about the rapper Ye voicing his opinions and the monologue by David Chappelle offered as social and cultural commentary point to a critical position that is becoming, what's the word, brazen. Is it antisemitic? Or is it Israeli-critical or Jewish-critical? These are not easy questions to answer.

I recently read a balanced and I thought quite fair critique of Israel's over-involvement in American foreign-policy: Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, by Alison Weir. She is no antisemite but, naturally, with such an outlook she is painted as one. Go figure.

Pretty much across the board Evangelical Christianity takes a non-critical and religious-faith determined view that Israel must be supported at all cost and that to do so will gain god's blessings while opposing Israel will gain god's condemnation.

There is a greater amount of pointed conversation and debate within Israel on these topic than there is anywhere in America. And there are numerous outspoken Israelis who are extremely critical of the state of Israel. Israel is now and will remain a profound problem. The reasons why this is so are complex.

Immanuel has alluded a couple of times to statements I have made as bordering on antisemitism. From my conversations with him I gather that he holds largely to the non-critical 'Christians must support Israel because god demands it' view borne through his faith-position. Standard Christian Zionism and open to examination and critique.

The core of my own view is that the reestablishment of Israel -- completely illegal and deeply problematic -- is an example we can study of the Thracymacus power-problem. It was founded through the strict use of raw power and is forced to justify itself through skilled use of lies & deceptions and the crafting of narratives (Machiavellian skills and strategies). If one will *support Israel* while simultaneously failing to see and address the profound immorality that has been carried on there, and goes on, one is primed to accept any number of different deceptive narratives.

In fact we live within them and are forced to justify them.

[Immanuel Can]

"hard work" you say Manny. But the Protestant ethic of hard work is not exclusive to Evangelicals.

Nobody said it was. But you should read Max Weber's famous, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" before you decide that Protestantism has nothing to do with free markets.

Similarly Evangelicals don't have exclusive rights to the mutual basic trust that maintains trade

You'd be surprised how many things Protestant ethics has to do with advancing an economic order. Again, read Weber.

[Immanuel Can]

From my conversations with him I gather that he holds largely to the non-critical 'Christians must support Israel because god demands it' view borne through his faith-position.

Funny that you never even bother to ask me what I actually think, before plunging into characterizations of what you're sure I do.

It's almost like you're not reacting to me at all...but to a stereotype you carry around in your head.

Check that. Take out the "almost."

[Alexis Jacobi]

From my conversations with him I gather that he holds largely to the non-critical 'Christians must support Israel because god demands it' view borne through his faith-position.

Funny that you never even bother to ask me what I actually think, before plunging into characterizations of what you're sure I do.

It's almost like you're not reacting to me at all...but to a stereotype you carry around in your head.

Check that. Take out the "almost."

Most Evangelicals today are strong Christian Zionists. Other conversations between us (a long while back) made that impression on me. You said “we Non-denominational Protestants have traditionally been the most supportive of Israel”.

Do you see yourself as a Christian Zionist?

[iambiguous]

The thread is about "christianity" not about the contents of the bible.

On the contrary, as with IC, this thread is about whatever you and your objectivist ilk insist Christianity about.

If you are going to be cheeky then check your facts.
I'm no objectivist - far from it.

My comment was simply to point to a divide which exists between various versions of "christianity" as it is practiced, and what is actually written in the bible. IC tend to cherry pick from one to the other at will to best assert his own personal prejudices.
I would also point to a series of divides within the bible itself, and I am not just talking about the differences between the NT and OT, but numerous contradictions within both the OT and the NT.

So you are way off beam. This is a common fault of yours that I have noticed again and again on the other forum. I do not think you read much

Note to others:

Sure, I can only go by my own personal experiences with him.

Perhaps yours are difference. So, by all means, please cite exchanges that you have had with him in which he thoroughly respected your own point of view about God and religion...and regarding conflicting moral and political value judgments. Even when quite different or the opposite of his own.