Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

There’s another way. That is to recognize that this world is temporal, limited, confined to time and space, and perishing. And though we individuals are perishing even faster, we are not ants. This world was created for a purpose, as the temporary stage on which the drama of man’s relationship with his Creator was to be played out. Man, who has so much against him in the world, has this: will. He has choice. He is not fated, because that choice is not about what anthills to build before death, but rather about the grander stage that is to come: eternity. Important decisions of life, death and meaning are being played out on this temporal stage. But we are not trapped, doomed or fated; and we do not yield our identities to the collective — indeed, we are lost if we do — but rather we face the question of our eternal destiny squarely — not as doomed ants, but as spiritual creatures designed for fellowship with God in eternity.

This tremendous imperative, which indeed it is, is not (in my view) exclusively or uniquely overseen by the Hebrews.

Overseen by? Yes, for a time. But not exclusive of others. The original promise to Abraham concluded with this promise: “in you, all the nations of the world will be blessed.” So while Israel was to be charged as the messenger, the message was of hope for everybody.

The imperative you outline (I agree 100% with it) is the metaphysical property of Logos. The imperative is no part of the world. I do not think it is found in nature. It arises in man (exclusively I think).

Well, the imperative is only as good as the authority from which it comes. If I say to you, “Give me $5,” that imperative has no force, no justification, no rightness in it at all. You may happily — and rightly —ignore it.

But what when the message comes from God?

The Truth in it must transcend the vehicle of that truth.

In all but one case, yes. There is a “vehicle” capable of conveying the entire, transcendent truth…Pilate met Him, and neglected to hear what He had to say.

How one responds to the imperative — there are ranges of choices — is open. A man can respond in many different ways.

Yes. The imperative is not Deterministic. One may choose one’s response.

That is not to say all responses are equal, or that all responses arrive at the same consequences. But all decisions, in that regard, God does honour. This is what I mean when I echo C.S. Lewis, and say, “All who are in Hell choose it.” (full quotation below)

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, the imperative is only as good as the authority from which it comes.

Clearly, and I understand this, you must exclaim that the “authority”, the sole authority, is that defined and perhaps one must say “wielded” by the Hebrews. I do not accept such exclusivity and such claims. And yet I cannot hinder you if that is your sense and your choice.

If there is such an Authority it pervades this world and all worlds. It transcends all specific manifestations.

This is why I teach that we must distinguish what is communicated from the means through which it is communicated. The Story is the means, but what is true in it transcends its expression.

I am assigning you an A- for your neat essay. I am being generous because I know you will go downhill all over again. But you did good there. Bravo!

[Dubious]

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”


Very clever! "Thy will be done!" But when did god ever speak his will except in ancient scripture? He's been thoroughly mute since then. If we want to know the will of god we must tell god what it wills and announce that will to the people. Every nation, as demanded by self-interest, has its own Gott Mit Uns version of that.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, the imperative is only as good as the authority from which it comes.

Clearly, and I understand this, you must exclaim that the “authority”, the sole authority, is that defined and perhaps one must say “wielded” by the Hebrews.

No, actually. Even the Hebrews had no special status, in this regard: they had to obey the very same imperative they were to proclaim to the nations, and in addition, according to rabbinical reckoning, 613 rigorous standards that nobody else had to meet, just so they’d be a proper vehicle of the right message. And lamentably, they rarely managed to fulfill that role very well, and had a bad time of it because of it.

This is what Paul means when he writes, “There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of mankind who does evil, for the Jew first and also for the Gentile; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Gentile.” The Jews get to be first to get the message, and first to pay the most terrible price of abandoning it. Or, as Jesus said, “To whom much is given, of him much will be required.” Jews had the privileges of being the messengers (or, if you like, the blessings of Mt. Gerizim) and also the most serious penalties for failing at their mission (the curses of Mt. Ebal). That’s a constant: the one who gets the highest privileges gets the greatest consequences.

Still want to envy the people who are first?

I do not accept such exclusivity and such claims. And yet I cannot hinder you if that is your sense and your choice.

Well, that’s understandable: if one doesn’t believe in objective truth, one can’t say that anything at all is right or wrong, morally or even epistemologically.

If there is such an Authority it pervades this world and all worlds. It transcends all specific manifestations.

All but one.

[Immanuel Can]

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”
Very clever! "Thy will be done!"

C.S. Lewis was clever. I simply pass on his wisdom in that.

But when did god ever speak his will except in ancient scripture?

Many times, says the Book of Hebrews, in the first two verses.

[Dubious]

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”
Very clever! "Thy will be done!"

C.S. Lewis was clever. I simply pass on his wisdom in that.

But when did god ever speak his will except in ancient scripture?

Many times, says the Book of Hebrews, in the first two verses.

...and no other time since then? Does god exist only in the bible and nowhere else? It seems impossible to define god or its will except through the bible which is a purely Jewish text. That's where humans gave it a home a very long time ago and since then NOTHING except as maintained by belief which amounts to nothing more than what it believes in.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”
Very clever! "Thy will be done!"

C.S. Lewis was clever. I simply pass on his wisdom in that.

But when did god ever speak his will except in ancient scripture?

Many times, says the Book of Hebrews, in the first two verses.

...and no other time since then? Does god exist only in the bible and nowhere else? It seems impossible to define god or its will except through the bible which is a purely Jewish text. That's where humans gave it a home a very long time ago and since then NOTHING except as maintained by belief which amounts to nothing more than what it believes in.

Luke was Greek. The editors were Greek and Latin speakers. Christianity is transcendent and regressive of Judaism. I.e. both marginally better and much worse.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”

Very clever! "Thy will be done!" But when did god ever speak his will except in ancient scripture? He's been thoroughly mute since then. If we want to know the will of god we must tell god what it wills and announce that will to the people. Every nation, as demanded by self-interest, has its own Gott Mit Uns version of that.

Lewis was a damnationist. Didn't believe in a competent God. Barth did.

[Immanuel Can]

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”

Very clever! "Thy will be done!" But when did god ever speak his will except in ancient scripture? He's been thoroughly mute since then. If we want to know the will of god we must tell god what it wills and announce that will to the people. Every nation, as demanded by self-interest, has its own Gott Mit Uns version of that.

Lewis was a damnationist. Didn't believe in a competent God. Barth did.

Lewis believed in a God that is not just a sort of senile cosmic grandfather; a real God of both mercy and justice, who both saves the seeking and deals with the wickedness of mankind. Anything less is…maybe what some people would prefer, especially those who have never suffered being wronged, or those who have no compassion and don’t care about justice would choose…but not God.

[Gary Childress]

You don’t know Marx, if you think he was around “doing good.” He actually was one of the most bitter, spiteful characters in history, and an occultist, to boot.

Saying that religion is is the opium of the people doesn't sound particularly occultist to me compared

I didn’t say it did. I said that Marx was an occultist, and that there’s plenty of good evidence he was. Go and read his poetry (you’ll find it online), and you’ll know I’m telling you the truth. Or read Paul Kangor’s recent book on the subject, and you’ll find more than enough specific evidence to satisfy you. But brace yourself: the man was a walking horror show, and what he did and wrote is not easy to read.

For example, one of your forever favorite quotes....

Jesus: “Love your enemies, and do good to those who spitefully use you.”
But if one attempts to do just that, without having believed in Jesus as the son god one is doomed to hell nevertheless.

So God has provided a way for you to get into relationship with Him, and paid the ultimate price to purchase it, and you want nothing to do with Him?

And what did you think every place without the Father of All Good Gifts was going to be like? Yet it is the place you are choosing, and rushing toward with open arms and a scornful face, and then employing objective moral standards (which only can exist if there’s a God) in hopes of criticizing Him?

Hmmm….. My advice: think hard about what you’re doing, and what the chances are it will land you somewhere good.

Shouldn't we first establish whether or not what the Bible says is factual? I mean, some say stepping on a crack in the sidewalk is bad luck. Shouldn't we all refrain from stepping on cracks, you know, just in case it's true. I mean, can anyone prove it isn't?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

His [hermetic] twist on it is that it is factual. Lying is fundamental to his truth. All conspiracy theorists and nearly all believers have to knowingly lie to themselves and [venomously] deny it. It is one of the comforts of madness. You are broken, yet you cannot, will not lie. That's noble.

[Dubious]

Christianity is transcendent and regressive of Judaism. I.e. both marginally better and much worse.

Whatever! They both contain material to produce great Hollywood epics. Even Ben Hur, which I read recently - whose plot contains major differences from the movie, as usual - though not contained in the NT, still derives from it. The bible has some great stories in it which get constantly recycled as imagined episodes within the main story. I think of the bible, especially the OT, as an ongoing saga of development not unlike the kind of epic depicted in James Michener's, The Source. However, even the more educated, secular Jews of today no-longer accept its literal, theist interpretation but still perform most of the rituals to maintain Jewish identity. For that, belief is less required compared to tradition as a process maintaining that distinctiveness.

[MikeNovack]

Marx hated this way.

It messed up his way. And so he unequivocally condemned it. "The critique of religion," he said, "is the first of all critiques.” And again, “religion is the opium of the masses.” If men know of eternity, they will immolate their individuality, become ants, and join the ant project. So God must go, and go first.

Might I point out, that Marx was trapped by Christian background, to think of Christianity to be synonymous with "religion". If he knew of other religions that were centered around this life, this world, etc. would he have said the same thing? All religions represent answers to fundamental questions about the human condition. But not necessarily the same question and so of course, different answers.

In other words, I would reply to Marx, you might be right that Christianity is the opiate of the people since its focus is otherworldly. But you have barely begun to make the case that RELIGION is the opiate of the people (any and all religions).

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour

Still, in his private writings, Darwin offered telling criticisms of the moral teachings of Christianity. In his Autobiography he repeats the objections to the Divine Command Theory raised earlier. Why, he asks, should one accept the Bible as divinely- inspired, rather than other holy books, such as the Koran, the Analects of Confucius or the teachings of the Buddha?

Exactly my point.

Suppose hypothetically you went around the globe and everywhere you went you found that everyone worshiped the same God. Now, that might not be enough to demonstrate His actual existence, but, in my view, it would be far more intriguing than going around the globe [as it is today] and noting all of the many, many, many different [and often conflicting] Gods and religious paths.

Still, no Gods have ever actually been proven to exist. Or none that I am aware of. And, basically, this is what allows all the various denominations to insist that a God, the God is their own God. After all, it’s not like anyone can demonstrate otherwise, right?

And if one does decide that the Bible is superior, how can it be understood?

Again, however, for all practical purposes, it can be understood in any number of ways. Christianity alone has hundreds and hundreds of denominations around the globe:

https://www.livescience.com/christianit ... tions.html

Then the part where capitalism precipitates the Protestant Reformation and Christianity accommodates itself to the bottom line. Prosperity gospel, for example. The emphasis shifts from an “other world” to “this world”. From the social to the individual. The more successful you are the more that indicate God’s own…blessing?

Are the stories of miracles to be taken literally or only figuratively? He critiques specific doctrines of Christianity, especially the doctrine of Hell:

“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

The hell if it’s damnable?! After all, if you run Darwin’s conjectures by any number of Christians today only those who deserve punishment are damned they will insist. It’s God’s will. End of discussion.

So, is Darwin, along with his “father, brother and almost all his best friends” now writhing in agony. In Hell?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, that’s understandable: if one doesn’t believe in objective truth, one can’t say that anything at all is right or wrong, morally or even epistemologically.

I can indeed make statements about things that sure seem to be objectively true. And I can certainly hope or wish that there are definitive, objective truths in this and all worlds. I can also see that there would be a tremendous advantage if such “objective truths” as pertain to human affairs universally were universally recognized as being objectively true. I can also make statements and declare that objective truths (in the human realm) exist and must be recognized as such …

… but the sad fact is that within the Earth-frame itself those “truths” that you state exist, do not in fact exist. Why? Because everything that you declare as being true (in respect to human conduct which is really what you are on about) derive from metaphysical principles. I.e. as defined moral imperatives that are not really “of the Earth” (nature) but are supernatural impositions insubstantially present.

People have to (let’s say) enter into the sphere of knowing where those absolute, universally true things are intellectually recognized as such. It is a intellectual world similar to pure mathematics. Certainly it is true “up there”, but it does not translate “down here” at all perfectly.

It is, however, useful and necessary to work with approximations of absolute truths. But one must be circumspect about one’s own certainties.

Certainty can be a trap and even a mental (and spiritual) disease.

I can indeed, nevertheless, make statements about what I feel is — or should be! — objectively true (again in the human realm). But I might not achieve agreement from those around me.

You have what at least appears to be an advantage. You can say “Ah ha! If you cannot agree that absolute truth exists, then you undermine any statement you make that purports to be truthful! I believe in absolute truth and therefore I can make definitive statements about what is true.”

But it is simply put just your assertion. Posturing I think. And it all depends on the supernatural Authority that you propose has set up these absolutisms.