← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Metternich
Thread ID: 11578 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2003-12-23
2003-12-23 06:15 | User Profile
What, specifically, is Christian? What distinguishes Christianity from what it is not?
2003-12-23 08:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich]What, specifically, is Christian? What distinguishes Christianity from what it is not?[/QUOTE] a jew question. if you don't know it when you see* it, nobody can tell you. how could they?
2003-12-23 19:48 | User Profile
a jew question. if you don't know it when you see* it, nobody can tell you. how could they?
The point of the question was actually to identify aspects of Christianity that are derived from pre-Christian religions and philosophy as opposed to those that come from the Middle East.
2003-12-23 20:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich]The point of the question was actually to identify aspects of Christianity that are derived from pre-Christian religions and philosophy as opposed to those that come from the Middle East.[/QUOTE]
Conceptual devices like "What would Jesus do?" are definitely derived from pre-Christian philosophies. Adonis and Horus, for two, are spiritual patrons meant to be internalized (upon performing certain rituals) and inform our actions and decisions. The unique achievement of our ancient forefathers was the concept "as above, so below" which in practical terms means to bring God within and match our own impulses with the divine.
These are the religions of praxis, doing good and becoming better.
The Middle Eastern religions, to the contrary, give us pistes, the notion that faith is a sort of key and deeds matter less. Moses personifies pistes: We must take his word that he spoke to a god-in-a-bush. Likewise this Levantine thinking affected Western thinking earlier than is usually supposed: it was Plato, after all, who told his fellow Hellenes to "have faith" in the old patrons (Apollo, Athena, et al.) and not to examine very carefully where they came from and what they really might mean. This started the Western decline.
The odd part here is that Christianity has elements of both Bronze Age religious praxis, which is good, and the later Iron Age Hebraic faith, which is less good.
Anyway, Saint Augustine was right when he noted that Christianity was the oldest religion in the world. In form and effect, it is. Judaic faith came much, much later.
2003-12-24 08:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich]The point of the question was actually to identify aspects of Christianity that are derived from pre-Christian religions and philosophy as opposed to those that come from the Middle East.[/QUOTE]
The point of the reply was to indicate the impossibility of "identifying aspects of Christianity" for any comparative or other critical purpose whatever unless one knows what they are, which is the form the question took. ("What is Christianity?")
2003-12-25 20:58 | User Profile
The point of the reply was to indicate the impossibility of "identifying aspects of Christianity" for any comparative or other critical purpose whatever unless one knows what they are, which is the form the question took. ("What is Christianity?")
Explain to me how it is impossible to identify 'aspects of Christianity' that are derived from pre-Christian religion and philosophy.
2003-12-26 09:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich]Explain to me how it is impossible to identify 'aspects of Christianity' that are derived from pre-Christian religion and philosophy.[/QUOTE]
Christianity is all about Christ.
We believe that Jesus Christ was God.
That's probably the fundamental thing. If you believe that there existed a first century Rabbi who was God Incarnate, then you're a Christian.
If you don't believe that, then you're not a Christian.
IMHO.
Walter
2003-12-27 16:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich]Explain to me how it is impossible to identify 'aspects of Christianity' that are derived from pre-Christian religion and philosophy.[/QUOTE]
Well, of course it wouldn't be impossible for one who knew what they were referring to aspects of. But if that is the question...its like asking a fourth monkey to explain what is going on around them to the three that see, hear, speak no eevil (whatever). Each one may get "a little something", as George Carlin (a jew's jew) says of those who stay home and masturbate instead of vote -- which I agree is one reason for preferring the former: at least you got a little something at end of day -- but what that something is, well...
I keep forgetting to add: "...and if you do know what Christianity is, you won't have the same questions and pre-programmed responses." There is something liberating to the soul about it. Can't say what it is, exactly, except in its own terms, but since the word "soul", so used, is not a term translatable into the active psychology of those lacking access, but, on the contrary will feed their jew/CIA/pagan mind with the false assumption that they already know, anyway, its best not to say anything in response to the comparative stupidity of those who get paid, or who pay themselves, to be as they are.
I hope this helps you understand.
((WAIT! I thought of something that might help! Christians (think: "real") are the one's that aren't the assholes. In general.))
2003-12-27 22:42 | User Profile
((WAIT! I thought of something that might help! Christians (think: "real") are the one's that aren't the assholes. In general.))
Who are the 'real' Christians?
I hope this helps you understand.
I'm not following your sophistry.
2003-12-27 23:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich]What, specifically, is Christian? What distinguishes Christianity from what it is not?[/QUOTE]
Non-racial, universalist, idealist Judaism.
2003-12-28 02:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich]Who are the 'real' Christians?
I'm not following your sophistry.[/QUOTE]
Go back over it. Its in there.
However, there is one distinction I overlooked in the last post in re the short-cut way of identifying Christians (=real) are "not the *ssholes." (Trying to spruce this up.)
Although it occurred to me at the time that the phrase "Christian asshole" was not, in fact, self-contradictory, as it should be if the universal assertion held -- leading to the qualitifacation "in general" -- it did not occur to me, since the observation was, in fact, fresh, that the exceptions to the rule could be classified. And after just reading the names of Robertson, Falwell, Bauer right there in the article, calling on the Name of The Lord to make the IDF strong! Strong, Lord, make 'em strong. Second sight kicked in. You can run both tests together: for "real", and for what you are if you call yourself by the name of a religion that traces itself to Jesus Christ, over there schmoozing with Sharon.
If that doesn't help, I'm afraid I can't do better.