Christianity

[Belinda]

My darling, my brainless, my — oh whatever you are!

I made no such assertion that 2,500 year-old Prophetic literature is Marxist. I said:

Prophetic (Hebrew) imperatives read like tracts from Teología de Liberación tracts! Amos, Hosea, etc.

The Vatican Critique: In the 1980s, under Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), the Vatican criticized aspects of Liberation Theology, especially its association with Marxist ideology.

However, under Pope Francis (who is from Latin America), there has been a renewed sympathy toward its core concerns, especially care for the poor.

ChatGPT

[Belinda]

My darling, my brainless, my — oh whatever you are!

I made no such assertion that 2,500 year-old Prophetic literature is Marxist. I said:

Prophetic (Hebrew) imperatives read like tracts from Teología de Liberación tracts! Amos, Hosea, etc.

The Vatican Critique: In the 1980s, under Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), the Vatican criticized aspects of Liberation Theology, especially its association with Marxist ideology.

However, under Pope Francis (who is from Latin America), there has been a renewed sympathy toward its core concerns, especially care for the poor.

ChatGPT

I'm sorry that Immanuel Can, a Protestant, aligns himself with such as Ratzinger instead of with the late Pope Francis.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is quite fitting, Belinda, that you would naturally align yourself with Francisco given that you are an atheist, more-or-less inclined to socialism-communism, and that you are fundamentally opposed to the historical activities of the Catholic Church. Oddly, Immanuel as radical Protestant, despises the Church as well.

For Traditional Catholics Francisco is understood to be (literally) a heretic. In fact some see the “See” as being vacant a Pope because his doctrines in many areas are diametrically opposed to traditional Catholic teachings.

Immanuel sincerely believes his version of Christianity (his interpretation) is the truly valid one. Thus, Jesus Himself smiles on every word he posts here. Jesus and Immanuel are “on the same page”. That is how Immanuel grounds his authoritative statements: Biblical truth = The Truths of Jesus.

For True Believers it cannot be otherwise if you think about it. In this, Immanuel offers a nearly perfect picture of a man whose religiosity is grounded in absolute assurance that his view is absolutely correct. That is quite a feat if you think about it.

“Belief” taken widely is fully and completely in a crisis — for those like us who are not established in absolutisms. We are rather un-grounded in this sense, though we do attempt encompassing statements that we wish were grounded in some absolutism.

The interesting part is simply that this is happening. That “interpretation of the world” is utterly up in the air. I guess that was Nietzsche’s prediction, wasn’t it? That the loss of the meta-narrative that could be agreed on would lead to centuries of chaos, dispute, argument, conflict and ideological warring.

I however have solved ALL OF THIS! I ungrounded myself fully and then regrounded in a perfectly coherent Eternal Upsidedown Ur-Grounding that yet gives ME the RIGHT to subsume all arguments with True Rightness. I walk upon the waters of Argumentation itself, immune to gravity and drowning.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Just yesterday, at 2:56 PM in fact, the SYNTHESIS of theology, science, metaphysics, meta-politics, psychology, aesthetics, mythology, spirituality & cosmology — all clicked into perfect eternal unity.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Gaze and see
How loving nature cares
For our poor human race, and learns to value
At a just estimate the strength of Man,
Whom the harsh Nurse,
Even when he fears it least,
With a slight motion does in part destroy,
And may, with one scarce less
Slight that the last, without a moment’s warning,
Wholly annihilate.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

[Immanuel Can]

My darling, my brainless, my — oh whatever you are!

I made no such assertion that 2,500 year-old Prophetic literature is Marxist. I said:

Prophetic (Hebrew) imperatives read like tracts from Teología de Liberación tracts! Amos, Hosea, etc.

The Vatican Critique: In the 1980s, under Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), the Vatican criticized aspects of Liberation Theology, especially its association with Marxist ideology.

However, under Pope Francis (who is from Latin America), there has been a renewed sympathy toward its core concerns, especially care for the poor.

ChatGPT

Francis made no secret of his being a Neo-Marxist. That he ended up in the office he got is therefore not something to be proud of.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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?

First, what is notable in this is that it is an absolute imperative : do or die.

It is (to put it lightly) strongly evident that the man who encounters this imperative is placed in extreme tension. A decision must be made. Everything hangs in the balance. It places the man in a desperate condition: one false move (existentially) and all is lost.

Psychologically, the pressure is pretty intense.

Now in contrast what of the modern man who faces no imperative at all? He can carry on existence, relatively pain-free (in our culture and civilization anyway) for the duration of his life. Nothing impels him. Except, overall, his desire to avoid pain and distress and to feel pleasure.

But this man — Immanuel’s man — who “gets in relationship” with God, is not a man who is admonished to build in this world, but rather to eventually be translated to a world beyond this one.

It is quite possible however for someone to shift the imperative focus. Or to conceive of the religious imperative as necessitating a different overall response.

So, imperative is what can be examined.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

First, what is notable in this is that it is an absolute imperative : do or die.

It is (to put it lightly) strongly evident that the man who encounters this imperative is placed in extreme tension. A decision must be made. Everything hangs in the balance. It places the man in a desperate condition: one false move (existentially) and all is lost.

Psychologically, the pressure is pretty intense.

Now in contrast what of the modern man who faces no imperative at all? He can carry on existence, relatively pain-free (in our culture and civilization anyway) for the duration of his life. Nothing impels him. Except, overall, his desire to avoid pain and distress and to feel pleasure.

But this man — Immanuel’s man — who “gets in relationship” with God, is not a man who is admonished to build in this world, but rather to eventually be translated to a world beyond this one.

It is quite possible however for someone to shift the imperative focus. Or to conceive of the religious imperative as necessitating a different overall response.

So, imperative is what can be examined.

You’re right about one thing: and Marx understood it. We all face a double choice.

One way to live is to regard this world as ultimate. But this is followed by several other hard realizations. One is that you’re a temporal creature, very small, very moribund, very weak, limited by time and space, having few resources…and yet big aspirations, longings and needs. This produces despair; and this despair produces either fatalism or delusion. One resigns oneself to death, and gives up, or one begins to take on delusions of grandeur and power, and to think that though this world is all there is, yet magically, by pure belief, man can transform himself into the master of his own fate. This, he hopes to do through collectivism: for if he is small, weak, limited and on his way to death, perhaps by combining with other ants in the anthill, perhaps he will achieve collectively the dynamic that will make him conqueror, achiever of a mighty anthill that shall tower above the grass…and thus, though he is, himself, individually fated, by association with others who may yet triumph, he will achieve the closest thing to immortality, to significance, that a dying ant can achieve.

This was Marx’s way.

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.

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. And with Him will go all morality, because the collective is going to dictate what is right and wrong, not God. There will be no objective rights and wrongs, and not even any objective truth. “Science” will come to mean nothing more than “conformity to Marxist dogma,” as will art, culture and education, which all must serve no purpose but the propaganda of the anthill. With God gone, there will be no other project for anybody to join, save the anthill project, and to join on its imaginary terms, in outright defiance of things like facts, logic, the word and truth.

But, we might ask, is that not doomed? If we join the anthill, give up our identities to the collective, surrender our judgments to its terms, and then die, what have we gained? The answer comes back: you have gained the opportunity to preen. And we, your ant-overlords, have gained your obedience, your resources, and your utilization for whatever projects we, your rulers, conceive. You will die, yes; but not until your whole importance has been consumed by our Great Project. You may live on in what we hope to achieve, though “live on” does not mean anything specific. We will forget you almost immediately, if we have not already forgotten you the very moment you joined our collective. But never mind; these are only terms you’ll get. Remember, “God is dead.” You’re ours now.

How could anybody refuse such a deal?

[Dubious]

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 of 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?

This by no means defines a relationship, god or no god. It defaults to the old power ultimatum...Who is not for me is against me, with consequences of course. The Romans crucified him not because Jesus wanted a relationship with other humans, excluding Jews of course, but because he was viewed as a disruptor at a time and place when disruptions were feared and expected. When crucified, one can be absolutely certain he wasn't thinking of his death as sacrifice for any relationship. That idea would have come across as an absurd travesty under the circumstances. It's an invention which came later to provide his death with purpose when initially none could be found. This carried the story forward instead of permanently erasing it from history. In effect, Jesus himself was a backwater non-entity who was indeed resurrected but only through the agency of his followers and those who followed thereafter to become a god...the greatest reconstruction, or is it deformation, of a human ever made, not someone who ruled merely be Divine Right but by one who actually was remodelled as divine.

...and finally, could Jesus as god have been so stupid as not to realize that there exist and will exist many millions who were never granted the option to believe or not. Have they too failed a test they weren't even aware of?

[Immanuel Can]

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 of 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?

This by no means defines a relationship, god or no god. It defaults to the old power ultimatum...Who is not for me is against me, with consequences of course. The Romans crucified him not because Jesus wanted a relationship with other humans, meaning Jews of course, but because he was viewed as a disruptor at a time and place when disruptions were feared and expected. When crucified, one can be absolutely certain he wasn't thinking of his death as sacrifice for any relationship. That idea would have come across as an absurd travesty under the circumstances. It's an invention which came later to provide his death with purpose when initially none could be found. This carried the story forward instead of permanently erasing it from history. In effect, Jesus himself was a backwater non-entity who was indeed resurrected but only through the agency of his followers and those who followed thereafter to become a god...the greatest reconstruction, or is it deformation, of a human ever made, not someone who ruled merely be Divine Right but by one who actually was remodelled as divine.

...and finally, could Jesus as god have been so stupid as not to realize that there exist and will exist many millions who were never granted the option to believe or not. Have they too failed a test they weren't even aware of?

Wow. So much so self-evidently wrong, I don’t even know where to start. It’s like you cobbled together every asked-and-answered-a-thousand-times canard that skeptics have generated in the last two hundred years.

All I can tell you is that if you want to be a serious challenge to anything, you could prepare yourself by at least having read the easiest objections to Christianity, so you can know why they didn’t get very far, and then save yourself from showing you don’t know the discourse at all.

But I’ve got some better things to do…like…reinventing the wheel, discovering fire again, drilling a hole in water, or shampooing a cat. So I’ll let it stand.

[Dubious]

Jesus is such a vague figure that he serves well as a moveable icon and Christianity through the ages has variously reflected the contemporary view of who Christ was.

One could say, mathematically, Jesus became a variable to be quantified by whatever societal mindset prevailed at the time. That process started very early. A vessel improvised for the sake of expediency and the demands of power. One time it had nearly limitless force; now it has almost none except for fanatics of which there are still too many. An example of that is the U.S. currently the most laughable, stupid nation on the planet.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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. 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).

Yet as Idea, it must have universal relevance — in our world and in all worlds.

To become fully realized (this is my sense) the core and essential Ideas must be extracted out of it. The Truth in it must transcend the vehicle of that truth.

Thankfully, what you have expressed in your formulation is quintessential Platonism: i.e. a sound, intelligible, and rationally explainable set of assertions.

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

[Dubious]

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 of god one is doomed to hell nevertheless.

This by no means defines a relationship, god or no god. It defaults to the old power ultimatum...Who is not for me is against me, with consequences of course. The Romans crucified him not because Jesus wanted a relationship with other humans, meaning Jews of course, but because he was viewed as a disruptor at a time and place when disruptions were feared and expected. When crucified, one can be absolutely certain he wasn't thinking of his death as sacrifice for any relationship. That idea would have come across as an absurd travesty under the circumstances. It's an invention which came later to provide his death with purpose when initially none could be found. This carried the story forward instead of permanently erasing it from history. In effect, Jesus himself was a backwater non-entity who was indeed resurrected but only through the agency of his followers and those who followed thereafter to become a god...the greatest reconstruction, or is it deformation, of a human ever made, not someone who ruled merely be Divine Right but by one who actually was remodelled as divine.

...and finally, could Jesus as god have been so stupid as not to realize that there exist and will exist many millions who were never granted the option to believe or not. Have they too failed a test they weren't even aware of?

Wow. So much so self-evidently wrong, I don’t even know where to start. It’s like you cobbled together every asked-and-answered-a-thousand-times canard that skeptics have generated in the last two hundred years.

All I can tell you is that if you want to be a serious challenge to anything, you could prepare yourself by at least having read the easiest objections to Christianity, so you can know why they didn’t get very far, and then save yourself from showing you don’t know the discourse at all.

But I’ve got some better things to do…like…reinventing the wheel, discovering fire again, drilling a hole in water, or shampooing a cat.

...you forgot to add, like still believing in a nonsense book called the bible like a stupid little kid who never learned anything and never wanted to. The bible told him everything he ever needed to know including who the first mating pair was!

[Alexis Jacobi]

It will all depend on that cat’s character, Immanuel. Please keep us posted!