Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[François]

ChristianityLife is about being rad to one another

Okay, I suspect the brevity of this reaction makes you appear more glib than you intended, but either way that reasoning is genuinely a pet peeve of mine for two reasons.

-I would never say Christianity has a monopoly on altruism, and the original sentence implied no such thing.
-I'm fairly certain you and most of us here have an at least occasionally altruist personal ethical structure of some sort, whether based on religion or spirituality or neither or something else entirely. That said, not everyone does. In fact there are plenty of human beings who would wholeheartedly disagree with you (in secret if not to your face), and we're not even looking at the entire Terran biosphere here. You don't need to look far to see folk who base their everyday actions around the principle that kindness is for suckers.

I can say I'm altruist because I'm Christian, and that's a small portion of the truth. You can say you're altruist because you have a strong set of personal morals that you have developed through a lifetime of self-examination, or perhaps chosen to appropriate from certain peers, and I'm sure that is true as well, and admirable to boot. But if someone tells me they're altruist because selflessness is a default core element of the biological (or human) experience, I think I'm allowed a bit of a laugh. If your life is about being rad to others, then it is specifically because you have chosen to walk that luminous path. Or rather, one of the many paths that lead there.

[Royal☭]

Actually my point is if you throw out all the parts of the Bible you don't like because you disagree with, but follow all the parts you find to be about being good, is Christianity really necessary?

[Pacobird]

Adding:

It was sort of a later reflection of mine on Catholicism in particular: it's great that organized churches like the Catholics and the Mormons can change and improve themselves in the interest of making the world a little bit better and they deserve some credit for actually sometimes succeeding in doing this, but religion purports to be the Word of God and the Word of God ought to actually be About Something and not simply a reflection of ever-changing social and cultural mores. BUT WHATEVER

My girlfriend was raised Mormon and this is precisely the reason she left the church: sooner or later, she had to ask the question of why it wouldn't allow black people in until the 1970's, and there are really only two possible answers to that question: either (1) bullshit or (2) an acknowledgement of 150 years of institutionalized racism.

(Apparently the priests she asked the question tended to go with #1, while the ones her brother asked went with #2.  Neither one of them is religious anymore.)

The biggest problem I've always with this sort of thing is that it makes God fallible, and a fallible God isn't worth worshipping.  It's not some kind of a new reaction to political correctness, either; what is the story of Noah and the Flood if not a story about God deciding he was wrong and changing his mind?

EDIT: Constantine is pretty much on here, Frank.  Dogma's important to religion, because without it it's called "philosophy".

[R^2]

You have to come up with your own concept of how the universe works and how you fit into it and when you do, absolutely fucking nobody wants to hear it or help refine it;

So it turns out my idea of how the universe works is pretty far on the cynical side of the ol' Belief-o-Meter. I WONDER WHY.

[Thad]

The biggest problem I've always with this sort of thing is that it makes God fallible

Or acknowledges that the church doesn't actually have a direct line to Him.

(The claptrap they gave my girlfriend was some nonsense about "Well, God wanted integration but man wasn't ready to accept it yet", which -- well, actually, that's a perfectly reasonable long-view look at the history of racism in America, but it's not exactly flattering to the church.

Her brother says the elders gave him a much more honest "Well, we HAD to let in the darkies, but don't worry, we won't give them any power.")

and a fallible God isn't worth worshipping.

I think the ancient Greeks would disagree, but then again, there's probably a reason their religion is now considered a quaint fairy tale.

It's not some kind of a new reaction to political correctness, either; what is the story of Noah and the Flood if not a story about God deciding he was wrong and changing his mind?

I'd tend to use the tonal shift from Old to New Testament as a bigger example (and love R Stevens's reference to the OT God as the "pre-Crisis version"), but yeah, the ending of the Flood story works too.

My grandma once read a children's book version of Noah's Ark to me, and, after the bit about how the rainbow is God's promise that he'll never destroy the Earth with a flood again, casually added, "Next time, He's going to do it with fire."

Even at a young age I was pretty immediately struck by the obvious inconsistency in God magnanimously announcing that he would never annihilate all life on Earth again (with a flood).  If God is killing me and everyone and everything I have ever known or cared about, my concern about whether it comes in the form of flood, fire, or Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man is secondary at best.

[Pacobird]

I think the ancient Greeks would disagree, but then again, there's probably a reason their religion is now considered a quaint fairy tale.

also not sure they staked their worldview on zeus looking out for their best interests

[Thad]

That would be the reason, yes.

[Royal☭]

I've often wondered if modern views of the Greek gods is influenced by modern views of worship.

[François]

Actually my point is if you throw out all the parts of the Bible you don't like because you disagree with, but follow all the parts you find to be about being good, is Christianity really necessary?

For me, not really. I was raised Catholic, and had an extended cold-turkey atheism phase in my teens, after which I did some soul-searching and realized that my personal ethics aligned with what I determined to be, in my eyes, the core tenets of Christianity. And then I figured it felt nice to have Someone to thank for the night sky.

On top of that, I feel a bond of particular kinship with Muslims and Jews in general, I respect the spirituality of (most) other religions, and I understand the atheist reasoning because I walked in the same shoes for many years. The only downside to my faith is that wretched fundamentalists refer to themselves as Christians as well, but I feel there is too much good in that term to entirely surrender it to the wolves.

And you know what? Yeah, I'll admit it. Every once in a while I do feel like being mean or petty in spite of my usual ethics, but I don't, because I'm Christian, goddamit.

EDIT: Constantine is pretty much on here, Frank.  Dogma's important to religion, because without it it's called "philosophy".

I don't see a problem with that nomenclature. I don't mind examining the Christian philosophy at my own discretion and following it as I please.

[Pacobird]

But then the law of parsimony kicks in.  Was Kant a saint?  Kierkegaard a prophet?  I know you understand this, but it bears repeating.

Since we're right around Christmas, here's a relevant example:  is A Christmas Carol a Christian work?

[François]

My first instinct is to hazard ridiculous gut-feeling answers, but before I put my toe any deeper in there I kind of want to understand how any of these questions matter one way or another. I do want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just talking semantics here, but I have to admit I'm not seeing the concrete purpose of these labels from where I'm sitting right now. Like, are you asking me if Existentialists should get tax breaks? I'm not sure on what level we're playing here, which is a shame because I think we might be going somewhere interesting with this.

[Thad]

is A Christmas Carol a Christian work?

Well, it's a rather secular Christmas story, in the British tradition, but I believe it's all in Tiny Tim's reference to "he who made lame beggars walk and blind men see".  Christ's barely in it, but he's in it where it matters.

Christian but not evangelistic?  That's my favorite kind of Christian.

[Pacobird]

My first instinct is to hazard ridiculous gut-feeling answers, but before I put my toe any deeper in there I kind of want to understand how any of these questions matter one way or another. I do want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just talking semantics here, but I have to admit I'm not seeing the concrete purpose of these labels from where I'm sitting right now. Like, are you asking me if Existentialists should get tax breaks? I'm not sure on what level we're playing here, which is a shame because I think we might be going somewhere interesting with this.

The basic idea is that A Christmas Carol is part of the Christmas Canon, but isn't really a religious work imo.  It actually eschews God almost entirely (as much as any of the western canon does) in favor of an explicit message of finding meaning in life through connection with other people.  Which is what Atheists say; it's what I have said on these boards in about a zillion different ways whenever Big Questions come up.

Kierkegaard and Kant, OTOH, are explicitly Christian philosophers that have had a huge influence on modern thought, but the Christian churches do not, to my knowledge, consider them divinely inspired.  Why not Kant if we're going to canonize Paul?

Kind of drunk right now but looking forward to discussing this because I am still fascinated by where the "line" lies.

[Bongo Bill]

I think I'll ramble a bit as well, because this is the sort of topic that can be interesting.

One element to this is that it is possible to take a set of philosophical principles that make no ontological claims at all, and still identify it as being Christian (depending on denominational and historical factors, it might have considerable overlap with Buddhism or Islam). One gets a sort of chicken-and-egg paradox from this: did this philosophy emerge from the nature of fundamental Christian teachings, or did Christianity occupy this philosophical space as its own, or (in my own opinion, only minimally tainted by exposure to relevant historical facts) was there a sort of evolutionary process by which the phenomenon of Christianity and identifiably Christian philosophy mutually reinforced one another as they grew?

A further problem is that the definition of a Christian is based on acceptance of certain ontological propositions. Through upbringing, cultural osmosis, scholarly study, etc. one can be exposed to and even accept a Christian philosophy without ever developing even one mustard seed's worth of faith in Christ. (This can generally be applied to most denominations thereof, as most of them just add more ontological claims to the membership requirements.) If it thinks like a Christian, judges like a Christian, sins like a Christian, and quacks like a Christian, but hasn't accepted Jesus Christ as its Lord and Savior or whatever, in what sense is it wrong to consider it a Christian? Obviously there are some, so maybe the inverse question will be more illustrative: In what sense is it right to consider it a Christian?

All of these questions are probably easier to answer with the assistance of the abundant history and distinct identity of Catholic (and Orthodox, and probably Anglican and Episcopal as well) Christianity rather than those of comparatively ad-hoc Protestantism.

For statistical purposes: religion-friendly atheist here, raised Catholic, never confirmed. Disbelieving in Jesus the man never diminished, to me, the extraordinary power of Jesus the idea, which is omnipresent in my society. If there are those who are "spiritual but not religious," call me "religious but not spiritual." Glibly: God is a fiction, but in the whole realm of human activity (which is of course strictly material and not special save for the fact that it's ours), is there anything more powerful than fiction?

[François]

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. My first reaction to this sort of questioning is twofold:
-I don't know.
-Who cares?

That said, these concerns can be addressed with "it can't hurt to try and find out" and "you do", respectively, so okay, let's go.

I would say that A Christmas Carol is not a specifically Christian story, but it did come from a culture immersed to its eyeballs in Christianity, so it can't help but be colored by it in some fashion. And it's not difficult to see how its message of charity and community can be co-opted by Christians to great benefit. But then again Christianity still doesn't have a monopoly on that message. It could work with a cruel daimyo being visited by three kami, and it could work with a drug dealer who takes a bong hit too many and is visited by three hallucinated manifestations of his own guilt. The Christmas setting is just a perfectly convenient way to convey the striking contrast between the wretched state of the poor and lonely in the deep of winter and the genuine happiness that can be reached even through such hardship if you get your priorities straight; narratively, it doesn't really have anything to do with Jesus' birthday.

Kierkegaard and Kant, OTOH, are explicitly Christian philosophers that have had a huge influence on modern thought, but the Christian churches do not, to my knowledge, consider them divinely inspired.  Why not Kant if we're going to canonize Paul?

Sainthood, prophecy, divine inspiration... That's the supernatural. I think that's all there is to it. The virtuous mundane don't get sainted. If they did, the Vatican wouldn't have time for anything else. (Which might be a good thing, come to think of it.)

That said, leave it to Thomas Aquinas to mess up my equation. The man was sainted for his philosophical writings, without a single traditional miracle to his name. We might think he was admired for his mind's work alone, and so in that regard it's only fair to do the same for more recent Christian philosophers.

However, Tom wanted to join the Dominicans at age 19, and though it didn't exactly work out as he planned at that time he basically spent his life studying and teaching and generating theology on Dominican appointment. On the other hand, the medieval clergy revered Aristotle, but he was a pagan. Kierkegaard publicly criticized the Church of Denmark and wrote that the human race had outgrown Christianity. Kant said that the supernatural element of Christianity is superfluous. Organized church doesn't take well to dissent, and it exerts its influence largely by way of its claims to the supernatural. Of course they're not gonna put these guys on a pedestal. They're not considered ideal examples to be followed.

To the individual truth-seeking Christian though? These guys are great. That's beyond question. Approaching spirituality and ethics through reason? Yes! Fuck yes! Booyah!

And yeah, Bongo's got a finger on a big issue at hand here. Once you say that there is Christianity the philosophy and Christianity the religion, do you label things as Christian when they have one, or the other, or both? And even then, if we limit ourselves to what we all agree are Christian elements, we don't address the problem of, say, people who would rather see a mother die with her child rather than perform a life-saving abortion, but also claim to be Christians despite how Jesus probably would have improvised a weapon and gave 'em a good whack upside the head had he been present when the decision was taken. Err, well, physically present, in any case.

[Pacobird]

And yeah, Bongo's got a finger on a big issue at hand here. Once you say that there is Christianity the philosophy and Christianity the religion, do you label things as Christian when they have one, or the other, or both? And even then, if we limit ourselves to what we all agree are Christian elements, we don't address the problem of, say, people who would rather see a mother die with her child rather than perform a life-saving abortion, but also claim to be Christians despite how Jesus probably would have improvised a weapon and gave 'em a good whack upside the head had he been present when the decision was taken. Err, well, physically present, in any case.

That one's easy: Christianity the religion.  Calling a philosophical, ethical idea Christian simply because it is compatible with Christianity and is not explicitly anti-Christian is how you convince people there's no way to be an ethical individual WITHOUT Christianity.  It is the single most important cause of atheists being distrusted and reviled in the U.S. today.

This is why I consider A Christmas Carol such an important talking point: it's held up as this wonderful modern example of the True Meaning of Christmas and thus implicitly religious, but it's as deeply humanist as any of Dickens' other work.  Nobody ever suggests Scrooge look to Christ for salvation or as a model; I mean, hell, spirits sent by God are telling him to look to his purely secular relationships with other people to find happiness and meaning.  If that's not humanism, then I guess I'm still a Christian!

[Brentai]

If you have an ethical philosophy, that's great.

If you live by your ethical philosophy, that's religion.

Confucianism is considered a main religion even though Confucius himself rarely touched on cosmology, basically boiling it down to "Whatever the hell the Gods want from us can be communicated through the Emperor, don't worry about it.  Respect your ancestors."

[François]

Calling a philosophical, ethical idea Christian simply because it is compatible with Christianity and is not explicitly anti-Christian is how you convince people there's no way to be an ethical individual WITHOUT Christianity.

I don't do that. I know some do, but I'm not going to defend them, because I disagree with them. They wield my ethical system like a crude truncheon and twist it to avaricious and exclusionist ends. That's not my fault, and that's not the system's fault. I can look at the Noble Eightfold Path and recognize it is a truly righteous way, even though I acknowledge it's a set of Buddhist precepts that originated in an entirely different culture on the other side of the planet twenty-five centuries ago. I call myself Christian, I read the Bible, I believe in the God of Abraham in my own way, I pray, and I don't have the problem you describe. So I don't know what to tell you, kind sir! There are assholes out there, and I'm ashamed that some of them call themselves what I call myself, but beyond that, I can't explain them or reason on their behalf. On that level, I'm on your side. I agree with you.

And in a way, that reinforces my feeling that I don't have a horse in the "is X thing/person/behavior Christian?" race (outside of self-examination). I'm only interested in applying labels to a group if it gets me closer to people who would otherwise be foreign in some way*. If it's to exclude, then I kinda don't want hear about it because that's bullshit. I mean, I'm even uncomfortable using the term "fundamentalists" as shorthand for those Christians I disagree with because, in some specific and limited sense of the word, I am a fundamentalist. I'm all about the fundamentals of my religion. It's just that I seem to disagree with many about what those are. Like, that "law exists for the benefit of man, not the reverse" passage I've quoted a couple times here in the past? That's beyond crucial to me, but clearly not so important to some. I do ignore parts of the Bible I disagree with. So do they. We're explicitly allowed to by the Book itself. The difference lies in how I don't skip over the bits that would prevent socially ruinous policies of exclusion and intolerance.

*: Like the fascinating concept of the People of the Book, specifically in the Muslim sense. "And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit." We could use some of that these days, couldn't we? Of course, you may object that it doesn't solve anything in regard to people with multiple or no gods, but to that I say: baby steps, brother.

[Pacobird]

If you have an ethical philosophy, that's great.

If you live by your ethical philosophy, that's religion.

Confucianism is considered a main religion even though Confucius himself rarely touched on cosmology, basically boiling it down to "Whatever the hell the Gods want from us can be communicated through the Emperor, don't worry about it.  Respect your ancestors."

Is Confucianism not the outlier when considering religion?  Buddhism may not need a God, per se, but it DEFINITELY relies on a metaphysical karmic order to the universe. 

If I were to identify a wide array of ducks and also a horse under the collective name of "duck", wouldn't you kind of look at me funny?  If religion doesn't require a supernatural element then the word doesn't really mean anything.