My Ideas Regarding Religion

[Lutiferre]

There are critical first thing differences to consider. One you might have already picked up on, Grey, is that the Christian will provide a background preface, then direct you either to literature; or, draw you a map to their church. the Heathen, on the other hand, will direct you to a walk with your Self: a good, long, and hard introspection.

Literature is only a tool, just like discussion is, for reaching enlightenment. It comes down, for me, to the persons that have written it and the wisdom they have passed on in literary form.

If I could have a talk with them in person, I would have preferred that.

And I think knowing others views and getting new perspectives is sometimes the biggest revelation of self you could get. Because it enables you to come closer to your own views, and to the truth.

But, with that said, it must be emphasized that Heathenry wants nothing of 'the poor of spirit', we do not want those yearning to be free or saved - we want already free men who yearn to chisel themselves out of the amorphous block of granite that is an already hard and hard-seeking nature. We have no answers for you that are not already in your heart, and in your mind and blood.

The same is the case for Christianity. We believe everything Christianity tries to do is simply a redirection to the true logoi in each individual, back to the Logos who contains and is the root of all individual logoi, who find their arch and unifying principle in Christ. This an old patristic notion from St. Maximus, by the way. Christianity is simply a guide, which is why Christ is called the Way.

What we can do is guide you, nudge you this way or that depending on which or what dillemma you currently face with respect to your introspective process and progress.

The same is the case for (true) Christianity.

But the spiritual life, I should say, is not purely introspective. That would be limiting it too much. There is both the inner and the outer to deal with, and both are necessary to be put into some kind of harmony the way we possibly can, in how we relate to the outer world and our life in the inner world as well.

Not one of us who is real will attempt in any way to give you the 'Truth'; what we will do is assist you in uncovering truth to the extent that your spirit allows.

No Christian knows the Truth with capital T either; that is a transcendental wholly beyond us. We only know that of the truth which is necessary to uncovering truth to the extent that the spirit allows it. Only God is and has the full Truth; it is not a meaningful human aspiration to gain it.

[SuuT]

While every thread that deals with the subject matter provides an opportunity to state your case and/or defend Christianity on some or another level, Lutiferre, you have no evolved sense of when to pick your battles.

If Grey has questions, he'll ask. Please don't piss all over him just yet.

[Lutiferre]

While every thread that deals with the subject matter provides an opportunity to state your case and/or defend Christianity on some or another level, Lutiferre, you have no evolved sense of when to pick your battles.

I didn't see it as a defense or a battle, but an opportunity to say something I thought relevant to Greys debate initative.

If Grey has questions, he'll ask. Please don't piss all over him just yet.

I did not intend to piss over him or anyone else. If I did so, then I apologize. But the way I see it, you were the one pissing over your misrepresentation of Christianity.

I don't piss on heathens, muslims, buddhist or hindus when I talked about my Christian views.

[Lutiferre]

I'm just getting around to reading Mere Christianity this morning. All I can say so far is that it seems like he gives humanity too much credit in the section on moral law.

Maybe at first it seems like he does. But what is central to his point is only really the moral compass and sense in the individual human person, which is a reflection and appreciation of the core fact of the general natural law, the ethical realities attached to human consciousness, even if that appreciation is not always all-encompassing. The seed and potential for a fuller appreciation still lies dormant; how much it is actualized depends on how stimulative a culture and environment the individual is exposed to. But the core fact remains unchanged.

[Anthropos]

A few remarks jotted down in a haste:

Of course one can be nationalist/preservationist/whatever and a Christian. Sure, I realise that many 'arguments' can be constructed against it, but they are straw men and badly informed about traditional Christianity.

Christianity is what I call a true tradition and a great tradition, meaning that it has within itself everything you might want to ask for. When Christianity was introduced to Europe, the pre-Christian traditions were already degenerated and in a poor state, and Christianity made a civilisational upheaval possible at that point, one that other traditions did not manage to bring about. Some people buy that account with the exception that they think Christianity was only used as a tool by various political interests of that time. Well, let's look at what other, still existing traditions say. Islam, not admitting that Jesus is the Son of God, nor admitting the Holy Trinity, does nevertheless tell us about the same Jesus with divine or godlike qualities. Many hindus do recognise Jesus as an avatar, and some gurus even claim to be his disciples from a straight line. Modern rationalistic inquiry disregards all such connections based quite often on nothing but a general scepticism against the religious.

One last point: Christianity has brought to us the knowledge we have of the pre-Christian traditions of Europe. Their wisdom is incorporated in Christianity, and as traditions, those pre-Christian traditions ceased to have a positive existence of their own. To say that if Christianity had not taken over, we would have more knowledge of pre-Christian traditions is to say something utterly nonsensical, in my opinion. We don't know at all what would have happened, in that case: any knowledge of European traditions could have been lost as a result of Mongol invasions or whatever, and also, what's with the "if" of that argument anyway, when we know how things turned out.