Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[FlashDangerpants]

Why do you say that I am not a Christian? How do you define that?

Do you even think you are a Christian? I don't need a definition unless there is a controversy to resolve by it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Same goes for your little spunk-sock Wizzy, who claims to be a Catholic one minute and a pagan the next.

Both positions are quite possible really. I mean both in one as it were.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why do you say that I am not a Christian? How do you define that?

Do you even think you are a Christian? I don't need a definition unless there is a controversy to resolve by it.

Would thinking I’m one make me one?

What is a Christian? You brought it up. I think you must have a definition, no?

[FlashDangerpants]

Not a difficult question. Are you a Christian?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not a difficult question. Are you a Christian?

Why do you think a personal declaration of faith is important here in this thread? Why it important to you?

And what do you mean by the term?

You’ve read much that I write — is that your impression of me?

[FlashDangerpants]

Not a difficult question. Are you a Christian?

Why do you think a personal declaration of faith is important here in this thread? Why it important to you?

I explained the relevance in my first mention of the subject. To refresh.... So one thing that people are likely to find suspicious about you is that you are obviously not a Christian, so all your blather about reviving Christianity just for the traditions is blatantly manipulative. Same goes for your little spunk-sock Wizzy, who claims to be a Catholic one minute and a pagan the next.

But I am not the gatekeeper of Christianity. If you identify as a Christian even though you don't meet standard criteria such as accepting Jesus as your personal saviour, or even believing in God, I will allow it, indeed I must. It can be one of those things, like gender, where if you know yourself to belong to one category or another it is not the place of third parties to overrule such personal internal understandings. I expect mister Can will concur.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It just occurred to me that maybe I am one of those who can’t be threaded through the eye of the needle.

For the sake of this thread I propose that you allow me to simply be the author of the thread but certainly one vitally interested in the broached topic.

… if you know yourself to belong to one category or another it is not the place of third parties to overrule such personal internal understandings.

Whew! Saved by the bell! A Liberty Bell at that.

I regret that you may perceive me as evasive (?) But I have written so much about what I think that I tell you to look there.

[FlashDangerpants]

I regret that you may perceive me as evasive (?)

What in the absolute fuck is the purpose of that fucknig question mark?
Evasive is what you are, and what you do, and the very core of your being.

[Gary Childress]

Why do you say that I am not a Christian? How do you define that?

Do you even think you are a Christian? I don't need a definition unless there is a controversy to resolve by it.

Would thinking I’m one make me one?

What is a Christian? You brought it up. I think you must have a definition, no?

Apparently a Christian is someone who professes Jesus Christ to be his or her savior. So whether or not you are a Christian, would probably hinge on whether or not you do so.

[Iwannaplato]

When wasn't it "sick"?

I had the same reaction. All this Golden Age BS.

Having read numerous titles of Dawson he in no sense is a nostalgic for Golden Ages.

I think he would say though that some recent and notable manifestations of sickness have been of greater consequence.

And he would say that, in his view, the severance that has taken shape in Europe is having and will continue to have deleterious consequences.

Hence his interest in what is capable of restoration.

So, you responded to one tiny portion of my original response to you in the first post. Then you respond to my comment to Harbal, but not response to the main part of what I wrote. This is also familiar.

And to the point. If someone says that now is sick, yes, it is possible they think the past was sick. But if there are calls for restoration and the sickness now is not compared to previous sicknesses, it implies the past was better. Before the 'severance' perhaps. If you don't think things are sicker now, you could just say that. There are lots of implication that you and he see things as better before in some general way. If that's not the case, you can just let us know. If it is the case then this digression into what he doesn't believe or might not (since the implications continue) is unnecessary.

[Harbal]

The entire forum really, from one end to the other, is suspiciousness embodied.

"If one man calls you a donkey, pay him no mind. If ten men call you a donkey, get yourself a saddle."

[Harbal]

Why do you say that I am not a Christian? How do you define that?

Do you even think you are a Christian? I don't need a definition unless there is a controversy to resolve by it.

Would thinking I’m one make me one?

What is a Christian? You brought it up. I think you must have a definition, no?

But it's not about you, is it? You are the psychiatrist, and the rest of us are the patient. It's your job to ask the questions, and do the analysing, not ours, right?

[Iwannaplato]

Not a difficult question. Are you a Christian?

His first thread in the forums was
Christian apology by a non-Christian
Of course that was 2013. Perhaps he's converted or reverted or committed.
But at that time he seemed clear he was not a Christian.
And thank you for also finding him nebulous or unclear or whatever one would call it.
It's like actually saying certain things, rather than sort of implying and wandering around saying those things, would be gauche or something.
He said my reaction was paranoid and suspicious.
Actually, I just can't understand why it takes so long for him to say things.
It's so coquettish.

[Iwannaplato]

Is this metaphorical to the writer?

You said much in your post — these things are all part of the conversation — but to this question my answer is: Dawson is an historian of Christian Europe. I know of no work of his where he talks intimately of the innards of Christian belief.

If he speaks of a •spirit• or of destructive spirits I assume that he means it in some real sense. And so let’s take as an example Jung’s essay on the •possession• of the German nation by Wotan. The essay is on line and I recommend it highly.

Obviously, for Jung, psychic events are as real — more real in effect — than other, perhaps merely material, factors. And this is demonstrated, if not proven, by •what happened in Germany•.

Is that all metaphor? How can I — or you — answer that?

Well, you used the quote. How do you take it? It doesn't matter what the original author meant particularly. You decided that this was important in some way. It represented some message you wanted to convey. It does seem to matter to the message if it is literal or metaphorical. Which would be better for what you are trying to get across and why?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What in the absolute fuck is the purpose of that fucknig question mark? Evasive is what you are, and what you do, and the very core of your being.

You misperceive, and you project. You are here, Flash, to bait and try to cause trouble. And I sidestep you. It’s that simple, really.

I have an alternative for you: Don’t bother about me, just think about the topic and share your thoughts. And weave in some choice insults! They are always appreciated.