WOKE and proud of it....

[Alexis Jacobi]

In fact. I think that the idea of a messiah is a very dangerous idea which leads to all sorts of problems.

Would you talk a bit more about this?

For people who believe in a messiah, there is an abdication of responsibility for solving their own problems.

Before the messiah arrives, problems are allowed to get out of hand because the messiah will come and fix everything.

When the messiah arrives, he is taken to be perfect with perfect solutions.

Power is given to him because he won't abuse it and he won't make mistakes.

People follow the messiah blindly for the same reasons. They don't question his actions and they don't question their participation in those actions.

Then when it becomes clear that the messiah is flawed and his actions are flawed, they have a bigger set of problems then what they started with. If he is still around, they can't get rid of him easily.


What is required is the idea that nobody is coming to save you. You need to save yourself. And you need to work collectively together to save yourselves as a society.

Am I correct when I assume that you are not referring to the Christian Messiah but to the concept of messiah when it is applied to someone, any particular person, who promises relief, solution or resolution -- some sort of hoped-for outcome -- when it is likely or probable that they cannot actually deliver on such a messianic promise?

[phyllo]

Am I correct when I assume that you are not referring to the Christian Messiah but to the concept of messiah when it is applied to someone, any particular person, who promises relief, solution or resolution -- some sort of hoped-for outcome -- when it is likely or probable that they cannot actually deliver on such a messianic promise?

The "Christian Messiah" is the same as every messiah concept - somebody is going to save you. Just sit back and eat your cheese doodles.

[Immanuel Can]

Carry on IC. To be truthful I like and agree with much of your reasoning and exposition but there are moments when you simply will not budge.

Well, why would I "budge," when phyllo claims "Messiah," and all you've got is "Cyrus"?

So Trump's a "pagan ruler" with a favourable attitude to Israel. That's possible. That's what Cyrus was.

In any case, it's a really far cry from "Messiah," which was what you were claiming to be proving, and insisting was "evident"...with no evidence.

OK. So if Trump isn't some holy godsend to you,...

Obviously not. He's not "to me" at all, since he isn't in my country.

then why defend him when he makes reckless comments such as he'll be "dictator for a day".

Only because the reaction from his critics is obviously childish and silly, and I'm offended by their estimate of people's intelligence. Who actually does not know that "dictator for a day" is a quip, not a serious statement? I know it. I think you know it. I think that the only reason you're inclined to treat it as serious at all is that you suppose it serves the larger goal of tarring Trump, if you can convince folks to be silly enough to take the remark seriously.

Or why defend him when he says, "grab them by the pussy"

This, I have never done. So I can't imagine what you're thinking. I wouldn't defend such a remark. And I can't imagine why it's even important, for that matter. We live in an age of Pride parades in the streets. We've got bigger problems than a bit of "locker-room talk."

My concern was not with Trump at all, but with the "Messiah" claim phyllo made. Just as I can't be gaslighted about "dictator for a day," I'm not going to be gaslighted (gaslit?) by the allegation that Trump is being regarded as some kind of Messiah. I don't see any warrant for either thing, and I find myself mildly irritated that anybody would think I would be stupid enough to fall for either absurdity. Messiah is Jesus Christ, the Lord. And just as nobody has a right to claim His place, just so, nobody has a right to employ His title illegitimately in order to raise the status of their candidate or lower the opposition. I find that stratagem utterly contemptible on both sides, and naturally, I call it out.

As for your supposition of Trump-support, you need to take your head out of the "American" frame, Gary. I've noticed that Americans think everybody is either a Democrat or a Republican. And they think that's true, even of people who are from other countries. Everybody has to choose one of those two teams, they think: but that's totally absurd. It's not clear that even an American needs to pick one of the two parties; how much less is it evident that non-Americans do -- of that they even could, even if they wanted to?

I'm not American. I don't vote for your parties. I don't like either of them, actually. I just like Americans and America. By contrast, I despise both your parties qua parties. I find there are only a few good men among them...and that there are a few on the Dem side, and a few more on the Republican side, but not nearly enough of them on either side. And I'm pragmatic in the way I think about it: I would rather see America have good policies. You need to close your border, to end foreign wars, to produce a strong economy, not to meddle overseas, not to make your own people poor, miserable and preoccupied with racism, never to go Socialist...because that sort of America is a benefit to the world, and that would benefit me personally, as well. And I think it would make Americans much happier, too.

[Immanuel Can]

The "Christian Messiah" is the same as every messiah concept - somebody is going to save you. Just sit back and eat your cheese doodles.

Well, that shows you don't even remotely understand even the basics of what "Messiah" means, or why it would matter. So "cheese doodles" are about all you're up to, I guess. Have some more.

[Immanuel Can]

Am I correct when I assume that you are not referring to the Christian Messiah but to the concept of messiah when it is applied to someone, any particular person, who promises relief, solution or resolution -- some sort of hoped-for outcome -- when it is likely or probable that they cannot actually deliver on such a messianic promise?

If that's all he meant, I'd agree with him. Calling oneself "messiah" would be unbelievably hubristic and bombastic. It's calling oneself "God." How could any mere person deliver on such a claim?

[phyllo]

The "Christian Messiah" is the same as every messiah concept - somebody is going to save you. Just sit back and eat your cheese doodles.

Well, that shows you don't even remotely understand even the basics of what "Messiah" means, or why it would matter. So "cheese doodles" are about all you're up to, I guess. Have some more.

So you don't actually have an argument to present to someone who thinks the concept of a messiah is problematic.

[Immanuel Can]

The "Christian Messiah" is the same as every messiah concept - somebody is going to save you. Just sit back and eat your cheese doodles.

Well, that shows you don't even remotely understand even the basics of what "Messiah" means, or why it would matter. So "cheese doodles" are about all you're up to, I guess. Have some more.

So you don't actually have an argument to present to someone who thinks the concept of a messiah is problematic.

I have an argument. But you don't seem to grasp even the basic meaning of the term. So what I don't have is a starting point with you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Am I correct when I assume that you are not referring to the Christian Messiah but to the concept of messiah when it is applied to someone, any particular person, who promises relief, solution or resolution -- some sort of hoped-for outcome -- when it is likely or probable that they cannot actually deliver on such a messianic promise?

The "Christian Messiah" is the same as every messiah concept - somebody is going to save you. Just sit back and eat your cheese doodles.

A couple of comments:

One: what you have asserted, if Catholic doctrine is to be the measure, is not just partly but thoroughly incorrect.

Two: it is likely that Protestant doctrines — classical Evangelism in our country in any case — assert that you are “saved” in a given moment and that your saved status is permanent and irrevocable.

So, it seems you are referring to the latter doctrine and not the former.

Simply put, Catholic doctrine explains at every juncture that your state of salvation is conditional to the moral and ethical life you live. You — the individual — are responsible for maintaining yourself in a “state of Grace”. No one can do this for you. Neither man, saint, or angel.

Put another way: You can step into Grace, and Grace is definitely given, but similarly you can step out of Grace through your choices and actions.

However please note: I am referring to Catholic doctrine prior to Vatican ll. As delineated in the Baltimore Catechism.

I am uncertain the degree to which post-Vatican ll doctrine has been “softened”.

[phyllo]

One: what you have asserted, if Catholic doctrine is to be the measure, is not just partly but thoroughly incorrect.

Two: it is likely that Protestant doctrines — classical Evangelism in our country in any case — assert that you are “saved” in a given moment and that your saved status is permanent and irrevocable.

So, it seems you are referring to the latter doctrine and not the former.

Simply put, Catholic doctrine states at every juncture that your state of salvation is conditional to the moral and ethical life you live. You — the individual — are responsible for maintaining yourself in a “state of Grace”. No one can do this for you. Neither man, saint, or angel.

However please note: I am referring to Catholic doctrine prior to Vatican ll. As delineated in the Baltimore Catechism.

I am uncertain the degree to which post-Vatican ll doctrine has been “softened”.

In these forums, we are almost exclusively talking with and about evangelical Christians. So yeah, the "faith alone" crowd. They consider Catholic doctrine to be false.

But leaving that aside for the moment, I think saying that Jesus is the only way to God is an error. And that's part of Catholic doctrine. That's part of the messiah concept.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But leaving that aside for the moment, I think saying that Jesus is the only way to God is an error. And that's part of Catholic doctrine. That's part of the messiah concept.

Even this — if actual Catholic doctrine is the reference — is not exactly right. Catholic theology states that a great deal (everything?) depends on intention. One could be born in a pagan culture but evince sufficient proper and good intentions such that, at that fated moment of judgment, what one is, what one has been, is recognized (by the supreme judging authority).

I will not negate that, for Catholics, there can be zero association with any other religious modality. You can give no ground. But that does not mean that you do not tolerate.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In these forums, we are almost exclusively talking with and about evangelical Christians. So yeah, the "faith alone" crowd. They consider Catholic doctrine to be false.

Indeed. And their deeply erroneous views are so prevalent, and so deeply destructive, that one must fear the terrifying tortures that await them when they are finally called to task.

[phyllo]

But leaving that aside for the moment, I think saying that Jesus is the only way to God is an error. And that's part of Catholic doctrine. That's part of the messiah concept.

Even this — if actual Catholic doctrine is the reference — is not exactly right. Catholic theology states that a great deal (everything?) depends on intention. One could be born in a pagan culture but evince sufficient proper and good intentions such that, at that fated moment of judgment, what one is, what one has been, is recognized (by the supreme judging authority).

I will not negate that, for Catholics, there can be zero association with any other religious modality. You can give no ground. But that does not mean that you do not tolerate.

Yes, I'm aware of the attempts by the Church to get around some of these difficulties that arose.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, I'm aware of the attempts by the Church to get around some of these difficulties that arose.

Reminds me of the parable of the proselytizer and the Indian.

We're here to save you! We've brought the good news! If you follow Jesus, your soul will be saved.

Saved from what?

Eternal damnation.

Oh. So if I don't follow Jesus, I would be eternally damned. What if I had never heard of Jesus at all? Would I still be damned?

Well... no.

Then why did you tell me?

[Immanuel Can]

Well... no.

The correct response would have been, "You're responsible for what you do know, not what you don't; but everybody already knows enough." (Romans 1:20)

[Flannel Jesus]

Well... no.

The correct response would have been, "You're responsible for what you do know, not what you don't; but everybody already knows enough." (Romans 1:20)

That's not as entertaining.