As for whether or not he'd tell us so, why would he need to? Any character within the book who, by design of the author, comes to realize that there is an author, should, by both natural reason and also further design of the author, understand that the author has interest in his creation, else he would not have bothered to write the book in the first place.

Reshna, throughout our conversation you have avoided my arguments. If you will not address my points, why do you keep responding to my posts?

That's an interesting idea, but I don't think it holds. Had my earthly father not contacted or spoken to me since my birth, I wouldn't conclude: well, he must be interested in me because of the act of procreation. There were likely other motivations.

Is not the fact that he continues to write the story of my life in his book every day proof positive that I am of interest to him? It holds for me.

That's poetic, but I'm not sure what it means. What does it mean that he "continues to write the story of your life"?

So, in all honesty, IMO you haven't said anything yet. You reject what I say, but offer little in its place. My point is that I feel like I have made guess after guess to discern your point, but haven't found it yet. I'm tempted to ask if someone else would arbitrate and explain each of us to the other, because it doesn't seem to be working.

In most cases you want to use definitions so broad as to be (IMO) meaningless (or you, yourself, tell me a word is meaningless, and then offer nothing else, but leave it at that - it's meaningless). I understand that you have given a definition of "Christian", but so have I, and I doubt we'll come to an agreement.

So you think I am avoiding you. I am not. I could levy the same accusation, as there are statements I made to you that you have not answered. I can't force you to answer anything. It seems common practice in Internet forums that people answer those parts they see as weak and avoid the strong parts of an argument where they don't have a good answer. But I don't know you did that, and I'm not going to accuse you of it. Maybe you just felt certain statements were irrelevant.

What is it that you think I'm avoiding? The thing about how not all Christians could meet John personally while he was alive?

IMO you are trying to drive home an absurd point, hence I saw no point in answering. So let me give you a list of other possibilities:

In all three cases, the answer is yes. You could probably think of more scenarios. I'm not addressing the absurd and extreme cases. What I had in mind when making my statement was someone who heard John speak or read his gospel and letters, and then decided to reject the message John carried. I am saying a Christian would not do that (but again, such rejection levies no judgement as per the discussion I've had with Whoever).

I expect you would object even to that, but I see nothing in the writings of John that would cause a Christian to reject them - they are consistent with the other books of the Bible.

Since you say some Christians do reject it, I ask you to quote me the section that leads them to reject John, and then explain to me why they reject it.

Then you must have a short memory. Should I create a link for you? I did raise an objection, and your reply was: well, that's how you interpret it, but not me. If that is your answer, there isn't much more to talk about. It leads to the disagreement we have over definitions, which I think you said you don't wish to carry any further (though this has all become a bit mushy in trying to carry on 3 conversations at once).

This is semantics to some extent. I understand the importance of your distinction, but you make the distinction, and then go no further. That leads me to try to clarify which leads us into arguments over definition.

It might be more fruitful to answer the spirit of the question, making your qualifications where necessary. If you don't want to answer for whatever reason ... (shrug) OK.

Assumptions are inevitable in a conversation between two people who don't know each other.

The church is not there to make any judgement of who is and is not damned. The Bible makes it clear that judgement is the domain of God.

Given that is the case, there are two poles when someone asks, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" (a question quoted from the New Testament). In the first, you shrug and say: figure it out for yourself. In the second, you explain what God has revealed as an answer to that question - even going to the extent of correcting errors in the understanding of that revelation.

As I see it, your gnostic view takes you toward the first pole, and my Christian view takes me toward the second pole (because of various commands given by Jesus).

Since you do not want to argue the definition of Christianity (at least that is what I think you are saying), I don't see that we should continue to discuss whether gnosticism is consistent with Christianity.

Instead, you seem more interested in a general philosophical case against gnosticism. Since I don't care about the topic apart from Christianity, I've never really tried such a thing, but maybe we could start here:

Once you know yourself, what have you achieved?

Again, calling someone's perspective "absurd" is demeaning. Going back a couple of pages, this same issue came up - that of respect. I have not called your claims absurd or anything like that.

I am confused as to why you continue responding.

Christians might also doubt the authenticity of the text due to the date the text was written - much later than the Synoptic Gospels and later than some of the apocryphal Gospels, too.

There is no monolithic reason as to why someone might reject John. However, I can give examples. As I mention above, there is the matter of Jesus being the "only Son of God" which a Christian might very well reject. One argument in favor of rejecting that particular theological assertion in John might be that in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus calls the people to pray "Our Father" which suggests that we are all the children of God. As we are all the children of God, Jesus cannot be the "only Son" of God.

However, I would also argue that a Christian can be a Christian and reject the entire Bible. I'm not singling out John - I'm saying that Christians do not have to accept any particular scripture in order to be a Christian; a Christian must simply rely primarily on teachings attributed to Jesus in order to be a Christian.

Now, you can argue all day long that these reasons for rejecting John are suspect, but that would miss the point. I'm not saying that it is right to reject John, I'm only saying that Christians can reject John. And there is a difference.

You seem to assume the worst in what I say. May I remind you of the time I tried to agree with you, and you argued with me about it. I think my use of the word was justified, and I did not mean it as the attack you take it to be (I tried to say as much in my preface). So, let me respond in more detail to explain my meaning.

You had a worthy point about those who lived prior to the Gospel of John, and I gave you my answer. You found my answer unsatisfactory, and so I clarified. But to continue to press the point would be absurd. It would become a pharisaic discussion of ridiculous detail regarding how much effort I think one must expend in searching out John's writings to be certified as a Christian.

I would prefer, instead, to talk about those who spoke with John or read his work and decided to reject him.

I could ask the same of you. You imply that if my mind is not to be changed, then I should no longer reply. Is it possible your mind would be changed? Is it possible someone else's mind would be changed? As long as that possibility exists, I will continue to respond. There are many other reasons as well, which have nothing to do with changing people's minds. I want to be sure I have been clear. If not, I will respond to clarify, because a muddled argument is of no value to anyone. Finally, the possibility that some may find our discussion interesting(*) is reason enough to continue, whether we ever settle anything at all.

(*) Maybe "entertaining" would be a better word than "interesting". I find it humorous that a question about Paul has become a debate over John.

I understand your point, and the distinction you are trying to make. Yet on what basis can we ever discuss such a distinction except the reasons for rejecting John (or any other book of the Bible you might select)? If one has no reasons for rejecting a particular scripture, that would be ... unreasonable.

Yes, please remind me. I can only remember you accusing it of heresy.

I said that I'm not looking for faith but for truth. If you think that the difference between these things is a matter of semantics then I can understand why gnosticsm seems such an odd idea to you.

I understand the importance of your distinction, but you make the distinction, and then go no further.

Which spirit would you have preferred me to answer in?

Perhaps in Christian terms a simple answer would be the Kingdom of Heaven, immortal life and salvation. Regrettably, I can't speak from experience. The idea would be that the knowledge we seek is already ours and that our search for it must be, as Plato concluded, a process of remembering. The universe would be a unity but not quite the unity proposed by monotheism. It would be Hegel's spiritual unity. As a fragment of that unity we would have direct and unmediated access to a knowledge of reality. This unmediated access would be gnosis or what Aristotle calls 'knowledge by identity.' Gnosis would differ from knowledge in that the latter depends on a duality of knower and known, someone who knows and what it is they know, where gnosis would be an identity of knower and known. It would be knowledge available to us simply by virtue of being who we are, something like the feeling of pain or the joy of happiness.

When you call someone's perspective "absurd", there isn't much left for assumption. It's negative and demeaning.

I'm not engaging in a debate over John.

Maybe you do not understand as well as you think. My argument is simple - a Christian can reject John's Gospel, or any other piece of scripture, and still be a Christian.

One can be unreasonable and still be a Christian.

I tried to explain my use of the word, but you do not understand. I can do nothing then, about the fact that you feel you insulted.

That is not an argument. It is a statement.

I'll give you that (within the context that you aren't arguing whether their rejection is right or wrong), but again it is just a statement.

The reason I would accept that is because they may have the faith of the mustard seed that Jesus mentions in Luke 13:18-19 (and other places) - that is not my place to judge. And, I would still feel compelled to discuss with them their reasons for rejecting any particular scripture.

All you have to do is look up the definition of the word to understand why your use was demeaning, even if your intent was otherwise.

That would be absurd.

The reason I would accept that is because they may have the faith of the mustard seed that Jesus mentions in Luke 13:18-19 (and other places) - that is not my place to judge. And, I would still feel compelled to discuss with them their reasons for rejecting any particular scripture.

Thanks for your thoughts, L.W.

Hmm. it seems I need an emoticon thingy after all.

I asked if, as a self-described "aspiring Christian", you restrict yourself to the teachings of Christianity, or if you include other material. And I ask whether you aspire to faith, truth, or something else.

Maybe, because of your comment about experience, you aren't prepared to answer, but I wonder then, what Christian teaching leads you to believe the "Kingdon of Heaven" is already ours, and we need only remember it.

It would be knowledge available to us simply by virtue of being who we are,

it is possible to hold a view different from yours and still be a Christian.