Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

I wonder that the Christian to a man good ole boys of Waco, who committed the worst lynching in American history, are once saved always saved, and can watch the Jew boys of Auschwitz resurrected to burn in Hell.

It may interest you to consider that in strict Catholic belief there is no guarantee of ‘salvation’. In that system it is possible at any moment to commit acts that jeopardize your eternal future. To attain “a state of grace” is the object but it is not handed over by God, rather it is attained and maintained by ‘right conduct’.

Also, what lynching in Waco are you referring to?

[Immanuel Can]

Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed. Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a silent blue sky. Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever. Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live. Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God Himself. Never.

—Elie Wiesel, from Night.

Theodicize that.

Done by man. His name was Hitler, but he did not do it alone. Other men made it possible, and they were ordinary men, too. Had circumstances been different, they might well have been any men, just as today, men in what they consider “progressive” societies execute the elderly and murder babies in the name of their “freedom.” Explain away that.

If men, god's creation, can commit the most disgusting and heinous crimes imaginable, as they've always done, and god does absolutely nothing, then what good is god, any god?

Let’s pause, and take that thought seriously.

Let me ask you: what do you suppose a good God should do, in view of that? It only makes sense that, if you’re alleging He has failed in His duty somehow, you be able to say exactly what you think it would have been His duty to do, right?

If god exists it becomes complicit by silence presumably procrastinating justice to a later date...that being the highly dubious theory of god's justice of non-intervention.

Here, we already have a piece of your answer, it seems: that a good God would intervene immediately…but to do exactly what? That much you leave uncertain. However, it’s clear that you suppose that a postponement of justice until later would be unacceptable, for some reason. But I’m ready to hear what that reason would be, too.

But all of that is by no means certain being nothing more than a long-held belief. What is certain are the crimes and atrocities committed for the entire time of human history. What is obvious is that the absolute indifference of nature is equal the absolute indifference of god, especially one declared as a loving god.

So the thesis that a good God could postpone justice is unacceptable to you, but the thesis that Nature, which knows nothing at all of justice, would postpone it forever is more acceptable to you? And since Nature is then the only force in play, what has happened to your expectation of justice? How can you criticize the God hypothesis as unjust, when Nature allows no warrant for any meaning to the word “justice”?

So, if god exists, where lies the difference between the two, that being a non-sequitur question since only nature, meaning existence at its most fundamental, has no care for whatever it creates or accountability for any of it.

Explain that away!

Well, we’ll have to be able to make the critique sensible, first. At the moment, it amounts to “the person who believes there’s no justice because there’s only Nature is mad at the God he doesn’t believe exists because he’s not getting any justice.” And that Gordian knot just has to be untied somehow.

See if you can. I’m happy to wait. It will be interesting to see how you’ll get that job done.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I wonder that the Christian to a man good ole boys of Waco, who committed the worst lynching in American history, are once saved always saved, and can watch the Jew boys of Auschwitz resurrected to burn in Hell.

It may interest you to consider that in strict Catholic belief there is no guarantee of ‘salvation’. In that system it is possible at any moment to commit acts that jeopardize your eternal future. To attain “a state of grace” is the object but it is not handed over by God, rather it is attained and maintained by ‘right conduct’.

Also, what lynching in Waco are you referring to?

That's typically Catholic. I've always admired that more nuanced approach.

Ask IC. It's quite one of the vilest historical accounts I've ever read. Of many. Do you really want me to tell you? You'll regret it.

[Oooh, and sorry! I don't know how you popped up so that I replied on automatic pilot. I must have clicked on 'Display the post'! Don't get old.]

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here, we already have a piece of your answer, it seems: that a good God would intervene immediately…but to do exactly what?

You are reasoning on three cylinders. First, God created an absolutely perfect world and dropped A&E into it. They screwed up and their screw up created disease, death, conflict, turmoil, misery and all the rest. What A&E did — literally — caused all creation to become deadly and mutable.

That is Christian theory, m’man.

In the hypothetical, what God must do (to satisfy Dubious, who may also be hypothetical) is to magically restore the world to former perfection. Nature must be refashioned (again magically) so that creatures do not consume creatures: the basic and essential cause of evil.

This whole rehearsal is ridiculous though: Dubious ‘believes in’ no part of the story — that Story.

This inconceivable world is simply there. I suppose no explanation is needed. Or Dubious is done with ultra-silly explanations that really explain nothing.

If I can help you further through the Maze of the modern world, do not hesitate to let me know.

[Immanuel Can]

Here, we already have a piece of your answer, it seems: that a good God would intervene immediately…but to do exactly what?

You are reasoning on three cylinders.

No, I’m asking a question. And not to you, since you don’t seem to grasp what it is. I was curious what Dubious was meaning…you can’t really answer for him, can you?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed. Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a silent blue sky. Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever. Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live. Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God Himself. Never.

—Elie Wiesel, from Night.

Theodicize that.

This excerpt is, I hope you realize, a fictionalized representation. A simple examination of the structure makes it (suggestibly) certain.

There are an endless supply of tales of horror from humanity’s terrible history, and from either the 1st or 2nd wars, and it certainly takes a sensitive and talented artist to create literary visions of that horror so that men can recoil from them (they also fascinate, but that is another psychological zone). But like Jerzy Kosinski’s accounts in The Painted Bird, Wiesel’s Night has some issues the accounts of which are floating around.

However, what IC fails to grasp is that all the tortures that a specific people suffered, in Europe, were outlined as the type of punishment errant Jews were destined to receive through God’s vehicle, the goyim.

Disobedience is very very costly (if one accepts the prophetic narrative as being “real”).

It is a very very complex narrative within Jewish perception.

Even strict Orthodox Rabbis regularly point out that Jewish suffering comes about when Jews apostatize through integration.

Why do you patronize? And why do I break my rule, iron-clad but for you? And when I do, I regret it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, I’m asking a question. And not to you, since you don’t seem to grasp what it is. I was curious what Dubious was meaning…you can’t really answer for him, can you?

Answer for him? Of course not. But I have actually read what he has written whereas you most certainly have not. Therefore, I send up my interpretation of where he stands.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why do you patronize? And why do I break my rule, iron-clad but for you? And when I do, I regret it.

You misinterpret. But it is a bad use of time to try to explain. If you were to ask me, I would answer “Never feel regret”. I.e. don’t set it up that way.

I am aware that this conversation has all sorts of different ramifications and connections to many different questions and problems. I am also aware that most who do participate here have an extremely shallow relationship to the main topic and less connection and interest in the issues that ramify from it. But I am here, and I get it.

I ask you: What are you doing here? (I suspect you are uncertain or perhaps you are figuring it out as you go?

3. To treat in a condescending manner, often in showing interest or kindness that is insincere

The fact is (if you accept this definition) neither assertion is correct.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

It is an observation and a comment totally useless to you, and it will be completely disregarded, but it is definitely germane to this thread and to this philosophy forum. It is this:

I have concluded that you, Immanuel Can, are in truth a “false Christian”. You are a fake. And yet I do not doubt that you are a genuine Protestant Evangelical whose views largely concord with mainstream theological, and practical Evangelical concerns.

But if we take (that “we” is hypothetical of course) the spirit of Christianity, and the Sacred Spirit or Holy Spirit, as being ‘real’, then the entire Christian focus shifts. And what it shifts to, and what it proposes, I have determined is beyond your ken.

I think that in many senses you are a “ghost” of a dead aspect of the Christian spirit.

Here, naturally, you will retort as is typical of you: “Not interested”. (You have a slew of things you say when you refuse to engage).

It does not matter though. As I say “I am here for my own purposes”.

The topic is really “dead Christianity” and “dead Christendom”. But this is entirely outside of even your conceptual grasp. And more so your practical grasp.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[Oooh, and sorry! I don't know how you popped up so that I replied on automatic pilot. I must have clicked on 'Display the post'! Don't get old.]

Let me get this straight: You come to a discussion forum and feel quite free to blather forth your thoughts, but when you encounter responses that upset you, you put that person on ignore? On top of that you want or need for it to be known that you have put someone on ignore?

It’s a bit weird, Martin!

[Immanuel Can]

I have concluded that you, Immanuel Can, are in truth a “false Christian”.

Well, we’ll both find out, one day, whether or not that’s the case. In any case, the instrument has yet to be invented that is sufficiently sensitive to measure the degree to which I care what you think about that.

[Gary Childress]

I have concluded that you, Immanuel Can, are in truth a “false Christian”.

Well, we’ll both find out, one day, whether or not that’s the case.

Either that, or we all may just die and never ever "find out" anything again after that. Is that a possibility also?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have concluded that you, Immanuel Can, are in truth a “false Christian”.

Well, we’ll both find out, one day, whether or not that’s the case. In any case, the instrument has yet to be invented that is sufficiently sensitive to measure the degree to which I care what you think about that.

Nice one! At the very least that retort, though juvenile, had a certain originality.

What you are saying though is revealing.

“I am a true Christian. I know what the real and absolute essence of life and being are. And I have the back-up of God himself that supports my ideas, my understanding, my actions, my statements and my theology.”

Connected to this is a statement about mortality. Soon, all of us will be dead. And you, Immanuel Can, will be pulled up to “heaven” while those who either reject the entire Story as preposterous or who understand “spiritual engagement” differently, will be thrown into eternal fire.

You see, Immanuel? You are the operator of a dead theological model. You work within “ghostly theaters”. Your entire apologetics reduces to threats of damnation. But you do not grasp that you are, as a type of ghost, in the hell-realm you describe.

You present yourself as the knower and the revealer, yet curiously you become the subject of theological and spiritual scrutiny.

You are a ghost that seeks help.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In my view, it is incumbent upon us — to the degree that anyone writing on this thread has any interest at all in the implications of dead or moribund belief-systems that both refuse to die while simultaneously demanding to be alive — to make the connections between what goes on here (the long conversation) and what is happening in our accelerating world, and naturally to what is happening within our own selves.

“… from a past that has not been dealt with, from a mourning process that has not reached its term, from the unburied dead.”

There are all sorts of implications in the notion of a God who died among people who live, like ghosts, in a haunted landscape.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And I am left to point it all out!

Alexis Jacobi!

The ultra-religionist has become an angry, possessive, mean-spirited ghost who haunts this forum and whose theology and apologetics is a rehearsal of resentment.

This religionist implies his aim is “Christian conversion” but he achieves exactly the opposite in an unconsciously determined manner repeated for a decade.

I think this is quite curious.

When “the Spirit” is driven out of lived life and life-of-value, it abandons the dead structure … and leaves it as a haunted ground to the semi-dead, the not quite living.

It goes hither, thither & yon and percolates in other ways and in other places.

The Death of God has been an extensive, on-going process over the course of centuries.

But even at the level of metaphor God cannot die! So “God” goes underground. God must necessarily become an opponent of the dead theologian who has become an Angry Ghost.