That kind of paints Christianity as an addendum to Judaism. I think he majority of both Christians and Jews would have a problem with that interpretation, and the history of both religions for the past 2000 years certainly doesn't bare that out. I grant it may have started out that way- The early Christians were Jews first, and they probably tried to preserve that as best they good, but it seems it rapidly became impossible to view Christianity that way.
Back to the original point though, I think the image of Christianity you present here is a valid one, but I'm not sure it's relevent to people living in a free country with modern conveniences.
Ahh, but that freedom is a double-edged sword. People these days have been taught that with respect to religious matters, they ought to ‘think for themselves’, even if they lack the discipline, interest or intelligence to explore these matters fully. I really don’t think the naive Christian believing whatever the pastor says is worse off than the ‘free-thinking’ wiccan believing whatever strikes their fancy. One is a slave, the other a fool.
I don't believe that the Church saves, I believe Jesus saves. I believe (and the Bible teaches) that there are roads to salvation for the savage, the dullard or the child- people who never hear or never comprehend the Gospel- and I believe further that those roads all involve the intercession of Christ. I don't believe, however, that other religions are just as valid [i]even if[/i] some of the followers of those religions are excused for their ignorance. We don't fault a baby for needing diapers, but that's not the same as seeing diapers as a healthy alternative to a toilet for an adult.
First of all, in these modern times the sufferers [i]are[/i] Christians more often than not. That said, of course you ought to be shocked and appalled by these things. However, to the degree one's reactions to these things shapes their dogma, that dogma is founded in emotionalism. That was my point in bringing them up. I will not say the heathen's beliefs are [i]valid[/i] just to distance myself from those that would condemn the heathen to death. That does the heathen no favors, and further it's not sound logic or sound theology.
Point of note: I'm not saying you fall into this trap, I'm saying this is a common source of pluralism these days, and the reason I am skeptical of it being taught to the masses.
But isn’t it a supplement? Wasn’t Judaism around long before “Christianity”? Wasn’t Jesus a Jew? Did Jesus ever say that his followers should be something other than Jews? The problem is that a certain kind of Christianity has to try and be the new Israel. Jewish scholars have said that the dialogue between the religions always failed when Jews accepted Jesus into their ranks and acknowledged his teaching. The Jews thought it would be a starting ground, but instead they made Jesus and his teaching become very “normal” - and that was unacceptable for Christians. “Christians always had a different agenda” said Susannah Heschel.
The truth is that much of Judaism today grew out of the teaching of the Pharisees and modern scholars see Jesus teaching fully in line with Pharisee criticism of their own people. It points to the fact that it was “some” of the Pharisees who were overdoing the Law, not all of them. There is criticism from their own ranks on record which very much paraphrases what Christ has said.
Christianity grew away from Judaism when the Jews refused to have anything to do with the “troublemakers” who were getting everybody excited and giving the Synagogues a bad name. The missionary activity was a very dangerous thing in Roman days because they were most interested in keeping the peace. Roman society worked quite well as long as everybody played their role. Once people started boycotting public life, they disturbed the peace. Just read the writings of Pliny and Tacitus to see what problems they had with the Christians. They were far away from executing them for faith in Christ.
In fact, it was only when Contantine used Christianity to unite his realm that the Church took on real form - and turned away from it’s origins.
It either is or it isn’t. If anything, Christianity was always a Religion of the oppressed. It doesn’t function properly when in Power. Or it sounds sickening, clearly hypocritical, leaving red faces when Christ talks about the impossibility of a rich man having faith.
With the history of the church in mind, no wonder. The critics inside the church were always put away somewhere or executed, people with different traditions had to be “evangelised” or killed, with the church always marching into “uncivilised” countries behind the soldiers. No wonder that educated people are encouraged to think for themselves.
Excuse me, but it isn’t the ignorant who are ripping down the rain forrests, exploiting every part of nature, regardless of how much is destroyed, never to return! It is predominantly christian countries doing this. We christians complain about the “unproductive primitives” and how they haven’t exploited their ressources.
It has been “christian” aggression for hundreds of years, endorsed by the church and supported by the mighty, as a continuance of the missionary drive that originally only went about “planting” churches and watching them grow. Nowadays we are following Genesis 1:26 “let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” and interpreting it our way!
We forget that before it says: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” - a likeness that was to “replenish the earth” not only “subdue it”. A likeness that wanted it to be good. It is clearly turning even worse than when “the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep” - and not because of adversaries, but because of “christian” exploitation.
You clearly can’t see the racism in what you are saying - I have heard this argument before, spoken by otherwise very nice people. They didn’t even think of it as an insult to people who are far from uncivilised. In India, the wives of farmers are very often highly educated people, although they labour in the fields. They do their physical labour without our highfluting ideas of grandeur - and are looked down upon by “christian” ladies.
You have to walk in the moccasins of another to understand him the American Indians say. But “christians” have no need of this, they have the “truth” in their hand, have no need of doubt and no further questions. God isn’t a mystery, it’s all very clear for the “christian” with his systemised beliefs and structured thoughts. What doesn’t fit is thrown out an what doesn’t budge is forcibly moved.
This is so clearly wrong that it borders on a lie. The anti-communist hysteria that broke loose from America an it’s satellites after the IIWW war has killed millions, as has the spread of globalisation, the communists themselves suppressed the church and have killed very many - but not only because they were christians. It has been Moslems that have had large death tolls - admittedly, sold as saving the world from some threat.
When Muslims then counterattack, it is branded as “terrorism” and duly calls the greatest military power the world has ever seen on earth to “bravely” bomb the substance out of the people. And does anything change? No, western power puts the people they want in power and everything goes on as though nothing has ever happened.
What can the Rabbi from Nazareth have to do with this kind of politics? The one who preached Matth. 3 to his jewish brothers:
1] And seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him:
2] and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying,
3] Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4] Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5] Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6] Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8] Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9] Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.
10] Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11] Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12] Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you.
Well, yes. In a perfect world Christianity would have been adopted by all the Jews as the fullfillment of the Torah and the next step in their historical religion, and that would be that. It didn’t happen- but Christianity has to continue to be what it is despite that, right?
Yeah, a lot of the powerful imagery and things that happened early in Christianity lose relevence for free, happy people. The need for salvation is still there, though, so the faith must apply itself to people all situations.
If only it were limited to the educated people, and if only it were motivated by the mistakes in the Church’s past! I’d love to think that the 20 year old wiccans at the college in my town had read their Augustine and their Luther. I’d love to think that their religious explorations were spurred because their hearts cried out for their persecuted brethren in Old Salem.
But it’s all a sham, an illusion. Free-thinking religionists exist because we live in such an arrogant, relativistic age that people have it in their heads that they have a devine mandate to invent their own religions, their own gods! They believe that their own self-satisfaction comes before anything else, and if that means creating a pantheon that serves their base instincts, so be it. The only reason they assume the names of groups persecuted in the past (druid, pagan, witch) is because the people who play the tune they all dance to know the power that comes from associating yourself with a persecuted minority these days.
Bah. Have you ever seen what 'unproductive primitives' do when you give them a chainsaw and a couple bulldozers? The same things we do with them. The only reason Christian nations are devestating the environment is because we have more effecient technologies to do so.
As my Christian brothers rot in Communist, Muslim and Hindu prisons [i]right now[/i] for no reason other than being Christian, and while I can just turn on the TV or read a newspaper and see that Christian nations [i]right now[/i] are the most religiously free countries ever to exist, it makes it hard to see your point in bringing up the horrible things Christians did before my grandfather was born. The people that say that religious diversity is spurred by the oppressiveness of Christians are living an anachronism.
Even if my ideas were racist, I wouldn’t care in the least- truth is truth, regardless of stigma attached. As it stands, though, I wasn’t making a comment on race, but rather religion. There are people in the world who will never hear the Gospel, and Jesus will be merciful with them.
The short answer is "Yes, that's right, so what?" The long answer is, I'm not going to adopt pluralism just because modern sentiment is if I believe I'm right, I must be a bad person. I'm sure you know what an exaggeration the above is, too. Christian theologians know that we don't have all the answers, there is controvery and debate about pretty much every possible matter of dogma.
That's rubbish. The people in those countries have been burning effigies of our Presidents for as long as I've been alive, and their 'freedom fighters' would kill me, my whole family, and everybody I know with a smile on their face if they had half a chance. They'd all still be alive, happily burning our flags and spitting on Bibles if they hadn't taken down the WTC. What measures do you suppose were taken to minimize civilian casualties when they did that, BTW?
Anyways, we're getting away from the main point here. It should be clear by this point why I say pluralism is founded on emotional reaction and not and clear-thinking rationalism.
What is Christianity? Is it a mock copy of Judaism? Is it a competitive sequel? Is it a new Religion? I get the feeling that Christians don’t know and (if you’re right) many don’t care. But if that is true, then that kind of Christianity has no merit to be continued. It wasn’t a nominal church that Christ was after, it was people who could think and react. People who can’t think have normally been subject to some kind of treatment which impairs their thinking abilities, or they are actually sick.
Quite - so what do we need Church for if it isn’t relevant?
The destruction, difficulty, or evil that we need deliverance from, is what many non-christians see as what “christian” Nations are bringing upon them. It is quite a joke when christian missionaries preach the Gospel in a flak jacket - although nobody is laughing.
I believe you have one idea in mind and need to broaden your horizons. If you want people to come into line with your thinking, you do it best by proving that it is beneficial. Paul’s idea was to have a thriving Parish with clear blessings by which God’s Grace could be acknowledged. People need to know they are acknowledged and loved before they give themselves over to people who want to form them.
Christianity has for too long forgotten that selfless love is at the root of it’s beginnings. Instead it “apologises” for it’s behaviour by bringing moral causes into play. “We have to bomb people because good men fight for what is good…” etc. Christianity has a bad track record and has invariably been proven wrong by records - even in the last years, the released secrets of Britain and America has proven that these countries have been by far the largest supplier of lethal weapons into areas of known unrest. If there is a way of promoting war, it is by providing weapons.
Exactly, but not the same things they would do if they weren’t forced to get their economy in line with the west. It is by forcing the same values as we have on these people that we make them act as we do.
The exploitation is going on right now and is planned to be extended to areas that were protected until now. Talk about the destruction of the brasilian rain forest to the people who live there, ask the experts what effect this is going to have on the O2 production and climate. The Christian countries are the most exploitive countries in the world - and they are proud of it - despite the warnings given.
The “heathen” religions preached respect for the environment, they preached about replenishment as in Genesis. Many Religions were in fact a method of supporting the circulation of ressources, preventing over fishing, overgrowing and draining of water springs. The problem was that these thing became known only after the people had been evangelised, civilised and made into third-rate citizens behind Afro-Americans and other ethnic groups. If these people at least became “brothers” - but they’re only good for headlines in evangelical Papers.
True colours at last, Uccisore?
Not long then? America, for all of it’s power today, hasn’t been around THAT long. But what is true, is that despite the shortness of time, it has made it’s mark. Over seventy military interventions since WWII, mostly against countries that were unable to show the same military capacity. You’d think, considering it is “God’s own land”, that America would show the same kind of eagerness to bring people on their side by being nice to them. Fact is, that America has supported third-world countries far less than other countries (not including military aid of course) in relation to economic capacities.
The reasons are easy to explain too - there is less profit in compassion.
Britain has kept up admirably with it’s favourite ally, providing more weapons than even America in relation to economic capacity. The various Governments have kept it a secret that regardless of what Party was in power, a comparable foreign policy was adopted by all. And of course, we always get the dribble about the good that was done for Germany after the war, forgetting of course that this country was just a show-piece against Communism. Since the cold-war is over, we are getting back to normal.
I am simply not convinced by western Christianity - even though I fight away, trying to create around me an atmosphere of compassion (as a Care-Manager) in which people see human beings in the way that Christ would have us see them. I am fortunately not alone, but restricted in my area of influence. It is the Protestant Church I work for, I occaisionally hold Church Services and try bring Christ’s compassion into sight, and I have many people around me who are moved, despite misgivings about the church.
What I am trying to point out is that very often the missionary church does God less of a service that the church that is charitable. And if a charitable Church is effective, then so too could a charitable christian country be effective. I truly believe that compassion for the world would be more effective than a million evangelists and a Bible in every household. And if this compassion was also willing to learn before pouring the own doctrine down the throats of helpless victims, then the world could become a very spiritual place.
My notion of that is that it was intended by God to be the next phase of Judaism (and perhaps someday it still will be), but because people are fallible we messed it up and now it's a new religion instead. And yes, many (I'd say most) Christians don't know or care about that. It's simply deeper than they care to do with their religion- they are too busy learning how to fix cars, perform surgery, teach mathematics, and other things society needs.
Sure, and the church leaders and experts are like that. Once the total number of Christians in the world grew past 20 or so, it had to be expected that some would be leaders and some would be followers. If Christianity is going to be a religion for [i]everybody[/i] and not just for people with the time/money to study theology, than it has to have a heirarchy, and people have to respect their place in it.
Look, I'm not a politician, and I'm not here to discuss politics- I know little about it! Even if, for the sake of argument, I granted that the US is a horrible tyrany striving to rule the world, and that the Muslims of the Middle-East were misunderstood pacifists at heart just doing what they have to do survive, then even so what's the argument for Pluralism? Argument from Racial Guilt? Do I adopt pluralism as a form of reparations to persecuted people? That's irrational nonsense.
Again, this is away from the point, but I will say this- If you jumped in a time machine and gave the Native Americans of 2000 years ago industrial-age technology, I guarentee the United States would be a barren wasteland right now. People are the same all over the world, and if there's some place on earth where people aren't taking everything they can from the Earth, it's just because they haven't figured out how yet.
?? That's quite a broad statement to make about the 'heathen' religions, considering your covering hundreds of faiths over tens of thousands of years, on every continent, eh? I know it's romantic these days to think of the old 'pagans' as nature-loving proto-hippies with flowers in their hair, but where's the evidence of that? They prayed to nature because nature regularly thrashed them, and they were begging for mercy. Again, show me a heathen nation that didn't exploit nature to the extent that their technology allowed them to. Most of the heathen nations weren't advanced enough to write things down, so we can say anything we like about them.
Anyways, I don't see what environmentalism has to do with anything. I'm beginning to think you're just jumping from one thing to another, bashing the Western world in any category you can think of- and to what end? Christianity isn't an American religion anyways- If I felt like it, I could talk trash about the US all day long. I have plenty of complaints.
That’s right. I’d like to find the truth of things, even if it doesn’t result in a group hug at the end of the day.
Politics are the expression of values - and the President seems to make a point about being a born again Christian. Just to point out that I am not “anti-american” I’ll quote an American woman, Teresa Josette:
"You see, we here in America speak loudly, and often, about our proud Christian status. Bypassing for a moment the unfairness therein, in that many of our citizens are Jewish or Muslim or agnostic or Hindu or Buddhist or atheist or something else, let us focus for a moment on the “Christian” idea.
What kind of Christian, might I be so bold as to ask, injects poison into another human being, however guilty he or she may be?
Well of course, it would have to be the kind of Christian who doesn’t put much stock in that Christ fellow. It’s the kind of Christian who prefers good old wrath-of-God stuff, who finds the Gospels a dreadful bore, and much prefers the murder, rape and tortures found in the Old Testament and Revelations. You know, those non-Christ parts of the Bible that give us plenty of excuses to kill our fellow man with impunity.
I just wish that we could gather up all the hell-and-brimstone, burn-our-enemies-at-the-stake fundamentalist “Christians” who are just dying for the End Times so they can laugh at all their poor friends and neighbors and relatives will be, with any luck, Left Behind–you know, the self-proclaimed Christians who think that they alone speak for God; the ones who are running this country behind the scenes (and will surely have fits and foam at the mouth because of the Massachusetts’ ruling on gay marriages, yet not worry for a moment about civilian casualties of unholy wars or armless little Ali)–well as I was saying, I’d like to haul them off to a remote part of the South Pole or Houston, whichever seems harshest. Then they can boil and bubble and hate and kill one another-and Leave Us Behind to live in relative peace, and to remember love and beauty and kindness and a loving God."
You’re making the same mistake again. I am talking about “phony” Christianity - which raises its ugly head in the foreign policy of your Government - not about how bad America is. If you think that the Corporates are run by Christians with anything in mind other than $$$$$$ then you would be extremely naive, but I don’t think you are. These are the people who ARE striving to rule the world. They ARE Empire and they have been successful in putting a man in office to support this goal - and maybe they have given Bush enough money to get voted in this time.
Ok, ok. I already said, for the purposes of argument, I'm granting any horrible thing you want to quote about America, the way Americans practice Christianity, and etc. If you wanted to say that all Americans were actually giant baby-eating insects, I wouldn't argue with you at this point. What I want to know is, how does any of this add up to a case for pluralism? It seems to me that there's no direct connection between your premise, which seems to be "The way America Does Christianity Sucks" and the conclusion "Non-Christian Religions enjoy a co-redemptive degree of validity".
OK, I'm sorry, but I'm really losing the point here. Does this have [i]anything[/i] to do with pluralism or the validity of fear as a motivation for religious belief, or are you just fund-raising for Ralph Nader or something?
Again- I'm not interested in your politics or what you think of America. I see it as irrelevent to the issue I thought we were discussing.
What I’m pointing at is that the opposite end of the scale to pluralism is fundamentalism, from many to one. And America is just a good example of where fundamental Christianity ends up. There are these type of groups throughout the world though it isn’t as obvious as when the American President stands up and presents himself in this light.
The argument for religious pluralism is clearly in the fact that our perception is alway subjective and that only when we start talking about a common experience do we start getting the full picture. I can’t believe that it is any different when human beings percieve the divine message.
I see fundamentalism as a movement in any Religion that leads to war. Pluralism seems to me to be a method of preventing this - and promoting an understanding between the Religions. If there is anything more needed in view of the hostilities existing in world today, then I can’t see it.
Indirectly of course it does. Fundamentalism, as the opposite of Pluralism, uses fear to install a kind of loyalty and gain followers. If people get this message throughout the world, we’re going to see more terrorism, not less. If the “Peacemakers will be called Sons of God” then it must be the chief responsibility of Christianity to “make peace” as best they can. I see quite the opposite occuring.
The main thing that I have noticed in your argument, please don’t take offence, is that it is shallow. It is the same thing that I’ve experienced all along with evangelicals (with a few exceptions). It really is like what Teresa Josette said, Fundamentalism has “fits and foam at the mouth because of the Massachusetts’ ruling on gay marriages” but doesn’t “worry for a moment about civilian casualties of unholy wars or armless little Ali”.
For someone moved by the compassion of Christ, how can gay marriages invoke rage, whereas the death of 55,000 people is just shrugged off as collateral damage?
It's hard for me to wrap my brain around the idea of the US being a fundamentalist Christian country anymore. I mean, my understanding was that the vast majority of US citizens don't go to Church except on holidays, have very dusty unread bibles, and don't much care about that stuff anymore. We have fundamentalists in our country, and through missionary work they do have a global influence, but I don't think of them as being strong enough to characterize the country by.
Certainly the president refers to his faith, and he makes decisions based on his ethical ideals, which are in turn guided by his religious beliefs, but I don't think that alone qualifies for fundamentalism.
In general, though, I agree that a certain kind of fundamentalism can be a bad thing.
Well, I see one more thing lacking- Truth. Pluralism may lead to everybody getting along better in the short term, but if it isn’t true, then it will inevitably lead to more problems than it solves. If it just happens to be case that Christianity is basically correct, and every other religion is basically incorrect, the pluralism could be rightly called a ‘stumbling block’ to one’s faith, and we know what they say about people who create those. So we first need to establish that something like Pluralism can be true before we can consider whether it’s a healthy attitude to adopt.
From the outset, it seems to me that all religions contradict each other on a number of very fundamental issues, so saying they are all correct it at least trivially false. If we are to say that all religions are true, we can’t mean it in the ‘strictest sense’, so in what sense?
I’m seeing the same thing in your argument, and I think the reason why is this: Neither of is is giving much weight to the basics of the other’s argument. For example, your arguments seem to center on the political or social ramifications of a view, which mean nothing to me at all, so I’m not getting very ‘deep’ in responding to your points. By the same token, I’m coming from a more analytical “is it technically true” perspective, which seems to be less important to you, and likewise, you aren’t going very ‘deep’ in that direction.
Pardon me, but would you be so kind as to show me exactly where and what is the argument, if there is one, and if you are agreeing or debating.
I noticed the major change in the theme of this thread came about when someone mentioned pluralism. What does the coexistence of different religious groups have to do with the question about “fear” as a motivation for belief in “God?”
…oh, sorry, that question was already asked.
Still I am lost somewhere between quoting bible scripture and raising campaign funds for evangelical occupation.
Help me out, fellas. Better yet, help me help you.
As I have already stated, it is fundamentalism that utilises fear to motivate it’s followers to “believe in” God. The more pluralist you get, the less this fear is predominant.
Well, according to the political analysis this group of people still have enough influence so that candidates have to bow down to them. And apparently the country voted a “born-again” into the Presidency. The whole subject of Religion plays a far greater role than for many Europeans - a point accentuated by Europeans who travel to America.
Pluralism as a stumbling block for the infirm? That is a fair argument. The difference is that with the meat from the temples, the brothers were expected to eat it knowing where it came from (Paul said that they should rather not have mentioned where it came from). The same expectancy isn’t made by myself - believers should hold on to their beliefs, but not regard the beliefs of a fellow human being as inferior, just because it is not the same belief.
To my mind the inferior “faith” is induced by fear. And it is apparent that fundamentalists in all religions play on fear. The Bottom line is that fundamentalism is an inferior form of religion. The God of the Bible is the God of faith or trust. Buddhism is “The Path of Serene Trust.” Confucius spoke of the importance of “kindness justice courtesy wisdom and trust.” Lao Tzu says “While day by day the overzealous student stores up facts for future use, He who has learned to trust nature finds need for ever fewer external directions.”
All very different depending upon the perspective, but I tell you, it comes down to trust against fear.
But Bob, I am already at the bottom, do you wish that I follow you even further down?
Here’s the deal, brother Bob. Deep within the recesses of your mind there is a legitimate concern and a very real experience of matters which you have failed to recognize as existentially predominant in your notions of religion and god. In a word, what you feel, what you are capable of believing, has nothing to do with any religion or what religions you have been exposed to. These are all contingencies, I tell you over and over again. What you do not realize is that you are arguing from a position that has been manufactured and is delineating from the actual structures of the phenomena of “religious” experience.
You are misunderstanding your dilemma.
Believe it or not, the root of the issues that you are discussing exists with or without Christianity. It should have come naturally that you forget about the Bible, Jesus Christ, Pluralism, and Fundamentalism when examining this phenomena. The human “religious” experience predates any organized religion, and cannot be encompassed in any single doctrine. They are all expediencies and no individual one has any presidence over another.
[insert my salespitch]
If you really want to get to the bottom of what you find yourself seeking, you will purchase Kierkegaard’s “Fear and Trembling,” lock yourself in a room, and throw away everything you had previously believed.
Now, you know I refuse to argue with you if you are going to quote the bible, use it as an analogy or metaphor, or place any philosophical value in it. I wonder what you would be saying if we were having this argument thousands of years ago before Jesus existed. Who knows, but I can tell you this: my argument is timeless.
Hi de’trop,
you weren’t annoyed at my little wink were you?
I see it the other way around, religions have a lot to do with what people intuitively experience. I personally have found that materialism and philosophy is acutely lacking for human beings, who experience themselves in a threefold manner: as Body, Soul and Spirit. Many people want to find a solution for the hole that is at the core of their being - that is where Religion comes from.
They may be unlikely occurences, they may even be incidental to some other experience. The fact is that all over the world, people experience a phenomenon that equates to the experience of others, it causes a common frame of mind which changes the people in a similar way, independent of cultural background. That is what Mysticism is all about.
I won’t claim to be able to explain it, but I won’t allow people to just brush it aside either. I feel that there are too many important aspects of life adressed by it. I was an ardent even if distant student of Erich Fromm’s literature (an atheist), which convinced me that we need to learn to “be” what is potentially within us, and avoid the derogative experience of being led by what we “have.”
I think I understand my “dilemma” quite well. But what I cannot put away (especially in discussion with a “conservative” Christian) is my understanding of scripture. I am well aware that the “conserved” Oral traditions of all Religions are in danger of loosing the immediacy or the spontaneity of the message. Through all too rigid exegesis things are thrown out of context. But that is why I embrace Mysticism.
From the above you should realise that I am aware of this. I think many Christians are not.
You’re not reading my postings, de’trop. It is Uccisore who is saying otherwise. I have already written that we go conform for some of the way,
Thank you, it has been a long time, but my reading of scripture agrees with his (at least in part) in that the Bible isn’t just a nice comfortable illustration of faith, but a source that depends upon “fear and trembling” to expose the truth, or even dispute and argument, as was the Pharisee method.
We would have been the timeless heroes of the past of whom the poet would have written his song
No not really, commoners like us were listeners to the oral traditions, not the poets themselves. But if we could have been grasped by the wisdom, and elated by the perception of heaven, we would have been a long way along the road.
The two most important questions for your statement, the two that just might be the turning point in your reasoning, the only two questions:
Setting aside the possibility that Materialism is “right” or “wrong,” which is irrelevent in this question, what is it that Materialism is lacking in, and is this “lack” a justification for the belief that Materialism is wrong? Simple asked, is it wrong because “it is wrong,” or because “you don’t like it?”
There are two possible simple logical fallacies that you might note. The post hominum and the straw man.
Because of these, I am deducing that Materialism is wrong because:
It yields unfavorable consequences and creates personal prejudices which affect your judgement. (post hominum)
It is “psychologically,” or “spiritually,” or “soulfully” lacking, and any theory that is “right” is not lacking for those things.(straw man)
I think there are a few more fallacies as well, but hey, I’m no Logician, so I’ll leave it to Marshall or Raf to suddenly post any examples and/or give web links related there to.
Here’s the problem, Bob. I don’t want to discard Materialism for those reasons only.
I also don’t feel very stable with the idea of three types of ontological being, as I am having trouble even now accepting two. In matters of science, material monism is the most popular view held because it is the most efficient and simple model for the “universe.” I am willing to go the philosophical distance and split this monism into two items, but that is only because I feel that experience, and giving that its own genus, would not be harmful to science. Obviously I admit that scientific theory is often undisclosed and incomplete, but this doesn’t give me permission to freak out and believe anything I want to. “Philosophy” does, unfortunately, need boundaries if it is to get away with even the simplest dualisms.
The dualism I am willing to acknowledge, the bit about “experience” and how I will set that aside as its own, is still as critical as a science. The maximum length I will go is accepting that human “consciousness” is essentially a “free” agent in the sense that it has a different kind of causal existence than physical entities in space. This doesn’t mean that it gets to be its own determination or is outside of the system, but only that it can be regarded as a kind of epiphenomena which can be separated from empirical phenomena and working by its own particular “laws,” I guess. Still it remains essentially materialistic because it admits that physical being must constitute the existence of the epiphenomena, not the other way around: the mind comes from the world, not the world from the mind. This is ontology, which is philosophy, not science. And it is the easiest explaination, so even as a philosophy it tends to take the form of a science, which, obviously, should be intended. Otherwise, why stop with the “spirit” and “soul?” Why not add a fourth or fifth dimension to the scheme. By now its “no holds barred” because we’ve already refused to accept that its all meat and potatos. We call ourselves “philosophers” and make up our own rules, right?
Yep, in the existential abyss, anything goes. I see it all the time. Because we “don’t know” what’s going on we think that we can conceive of any possible possibility, and that it is equally likely to be possible since there is the experience of being ignorant to what could possibly be anyway.
This is awesome. Only a human being could do that.
[there is a moment of silence]
Precisely, Bob. Please refer to my “portable de’trop” pseudo-manuscript in the essays thread and read the part about the “psychological motive” of religion.
That’s just it! Right there, man. Religion is a solution. For there to be a solution, there must be a problem. How unfortunate it is that man’s highest aspirations, his belief in gods, can be equated with going to the pharmacy to get a pain-killer perscription because “life sucks.” Hey, wait a minute, pal. I didn’t say life sucked, I said that when a belief comes about that has its origins as a compensation for a loss, and does nothing but act as a justification for that loss, it has, no, it must have, negative value. It is a contingency plan.
When you see people in celebration over their “gods,” declaring that life is good and dancing around singing hymns, this is after the fact that first this god had to represent a solution for the elementary problems and anxiety the we experience at the start. If this god promises an excuse for our existence, an award for our tribulations, maybe even an eternal life(in one form or another: reincarnated cow, disembodied spirit, whatever your taste), we will be more likely to dance around the fire in praise. Why can’t we just accept that we all die, destroy the earth, and war against each other for no appearant reason, and that this is how God wants it?
Never thought about it that way, eh?
There’s something fishy going on here, Bob. Look at those Baptists with poisonous snakes around their necks! Dancing around chanting. Its cool because God has already promised redemption from an otherwise miserable life. “I once was a drinkin’ man, but now I found da Lord,” (a few anonymous “AMEN’s!” can be heard over the audience), as the crippled, exploited Vietnam vet turns his wheel-chair around and rolls off the stage, going back to the mental ward where he plays checkers all day with the other nuts.
Life is good at planet earth.
This is all approximations, Bob. Mysticism accounts for your famous “inexplicable phenomena,” and as such it remains obscure. If there are similiar experiences being experienced by other people throughout the world, that is acceptable. If you are trying to say that this involves a study other than what science(or our epiphenomena) can provide, that it is a “mysticism,” then you have to distinguish mysticism from science and philosophy and show me the tenents and why they are different. Remember, I am willing to go as far as Descartes(excepting his ontology and belief in God), and will allow for “consciousness” to have its own study. But this doesn’t mean that we can go crazy with mysticism and posit consciousness as independent of the material world. Which is usually the medium between mysticism and religion: the concept of “spirit.” This is in the cultural background of most all theistic religions…they all have that in common and rely on the gray area to even exist.
Something fishy is going on,Bob.
I don’t feel the need to respond to the rest of your post because I know one thing here and now. Whatever you say cannot rely on any “scripture” to be true. Unless, of course, you are narrating stories and proverbs. You have a lot of good ideas, but you don’t know that I know that these ideas do not depend on scripture, that these ideas exist without it, and that it would be possible for you to have these ideas in the event that you never found the scriptures in the first place.
I DON’T CARE WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY.
I care what Bob says, unless he begins writing scriptures.
I find it lacking, because here again is a kind of fundamentalism at work, saying that there isn’t a variety of phenomena, but just “one†that explains a whole rainbow of experiences. I don’t believe that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
Of course I am too experienced medically to want to ignore that there are a whole range of emotional and experiences that can be explained by physical phenomena. But especially in psychosomatic illnesses you find physical disorder brought about by psychical or emotional causes, enough to reconsider to what degree is the mind dictated to by the body and vice versa.
Materialism is also the theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life. A widely held view that gives some comfort to many people who are in the fortunate position to own “thingsâ€. I believe that “things†tend to own us, and that we very often loose sight of what is good and valuable because we are infatuated by some “thingâ€.
Philosophy is lacking for one reason only: it too often rules out that some source of information could be available to human beings, which they can’t immediately access, but which is shared with those who are receptive. If you do that you factor out phenomena and impinge upon the equation. Otherwise, “I love Philosophyâ€.
I believe that Materialism is incorrect in its assumption that physical matter is the only reality. For example, the failure of computer systems to cope with with sentience, understanding of meaning and qualitative experience proves to me that a whole area of human existence isn’t accounted for by a purely physical interpretation of the universe. It lacks answers to questions in my mind.
Darwinists try to show through science that our world and its inhabitants can be fully explained as the product of a mindless, purposeless system of physics and chemistry. But C.S. Lewis (Subject of Victor Reppert’s “C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Ideaâ€) demonstrated that the Darwinian argument was circular: if such materialism or naturalism were true, then scientific reasoning itself could not be trusted. I don’t think that we have all of the answers we need to explain everything we experience.
I appreciate your position, but I think we are all in danger of falling into some fallacy – especially if we think ourselves safe. We all have our bias.
I have come to differentiate Body (Soma), Soul (Psyche) and Spirit (cognisance) as a result of my observance of the elderly people in different psychological states. I distinguish between Awareness (Spirit) and Psyche (Soul). Awareness and Body are mirrors of the Psyche’s well-being or ill-being, which is, if you like, the core (if not the heart) of a human being.
Knowing that the symptoms of Alzheimer and Parkinson are biochemistry malfunctioning, and that biochemical medicine has a beneficial effect on the brain, I’m not a purist in this sense, but my pragmatic system of nursing diagnosis uses 3X3 as a basis to assert whether a person is experiencing “wholeness of beingâ€:
Body:
Movement, vital functions and digestion.
Soul:
Comprehension of ones self (I), of the inherent group (Them), concept of life (Meaning, Purpose)
Spirit:
Reception and perception, processing, and expression
I think it is quite acceptable to say that Religion, wherever it comes from, is a search for answers. It is the attempt to find purpose and meaning, which rationality doesn’t provide. There is some ethical reason for not giving in to our predator potential, although we know that the boost we could get by perpetuating the dangers of a predacious life is hard to experience in safety.
Apparently egocentrism is very healthy and ensures that the blood vessels are duly fed, that the hormones are emanated at the right times, that the immune system is up and going. It may be that life is short, but then again, most reach the stage when they’re glad that it’s over. Very consuming stuff this egocentrism after a certain age.
The argument against this is that you and I don’t go around killing each other, just because we haven’t found God. Of course we don’t, but we forget who built the foundations of our society. How do people get out of the vicious circle and start building together? How do people learn to forgive? Religion was always at the root of society, even if modern man wants to throw it out as archaic today. Modern man forgets the grace of having been born after the hard work has been done and shows disrespect for the forefathers, who bore the brunt.
I’m not from yesterday de’trop, I can’t “just accept that we all die, destroy the earth, and war against each other for no apparent reason.†I believe that fear of the unknown plays an important part in all we do. Especially when we do things that are derogative for Mankind, we are acting against the intuitive knowledge that we are going against the grain, against our specifications if you like. These are things we are “driven†to do – for whatever reason.
There have always been some weirdo’s around -wherever you look.
I’m afraid I haven’t got the time to do an empirical study de’trop – I’m busy doing some good with people who can’t argue as well as you can, but they have their heart in the right place. They’re called “Salt of the Earth” by some, but that’s a quote again.
Probably the one thing that keeps me going more than anything is the fact that some of my staff are very “simply knitted” as the Germans say, there is no doubt in my mind that they all have some helper-syndrom or something. But perhaps it’s just the need to do something that they can be proud of, the need to be able to say they did some good.
Better than some untouchable Ivory Tower, looking down on the world, able to explain everything but remaining distant, safe and devoted to some books. Paul Simon wrote “The Rock” all those years ago. Seems it still fits.
Another difference is that with the meat from the temples example, the conclusion was that there was nothing
wrong eith eating the meat, the sin would lie in giving others a false impression of irreverence, or a sense that the pagan gods ought to be respected (which is a Biblical argument again pluralism in and of itself, but enough of that for now). We can’t go that far with pluralism- there is no assumption that “Yes, pluralism is fine, but it may mislead some people.” Pluralism may not even be fine- as a matter of fact, the vast majority of evidence from the Scriptures and from the history of the Church shows that it’s not alright. The Bible is quite clear in several places that other religions are bad, and what’s more, the Church fathers martyred themselves to bring people out of their heathenous religions, so obviously they weren’t pluralists.
The only argument that I’ve heard for pluralism is that it’s somehow more polite or reduces tension as compared to exclusivism, which is no argument at all from the perspective of Jesus, who brought not peace, but a sword.
Yes. Faith because of fear (say, of hell), is an immature sort of faith. However, it is still a
sort, in that some people need to begin with that step before they can have a more mature and robust faith.
If I believe A, and you believe not-A, I think your belief is inferior to the extent that it is incorrect. If I don’t think not-A is incorrect, I don’t really believe A. All pluralism boils itself down to either a brand new religion that denies all other faiths by glossing over their differences, or more often, it’s simply a ‘spiritualized’ sort of agnosticism.
While it is true that fundamentalism often plays off fear, and pluralism does not, I believe that pluralism is still basically [i]false[/i] thus ultimately fails as an alternative to exclusivism. Fear will always be a factor when dealing with any real god- and why shouldn't it? People often tremble when they encounter a beloved politician or celebrity! If you can comtemplate the immortal, all-knowing Creator of the Universe and judge of mankind without any trace of fear, I think that's a sure sign that what you are contemplating is honestly a creation of your own mind, and thus not worthy of fear (respect).
But, I don't think Christianity [i]needs[/i] fear as the crux of it's message in order to be taught- even to be taught exclusively. IF fear were the only way of converting people to an exclusive Christianity, then missionaries would never have any success in countries where Christianity is violently opposed by the Government, and as we've both noted, that's where it's often most strong.
I read it this way:
A member of the group turns up with meat at the community and says he got it cheap.
The others ask him where he got it.
He says “at the temple, but it doesn’t matter, there is only one God and heathen Idols are not Gods.”
One of the group says,“I’m sorry, I can’t eat meat sacrificed to heathen gods.”
The group says, “look, you don’t have to worry - nothing will happen to you if you eat this stuff!”
He says, “I can’t!”
Paul says that we shouldn’t force the person to eat against his conviction. In fact, we should take such convictions into mind, when supplying food. If someone is forced to eat against his convictions, he is being forced to sin.
My position isn’t forcing anyone into anything. In fact, I support the expression of someones faith in not wanting to have any other Belief. Therefore I cannot be regarded a stumbling block for the infirm.
What I promote is the cessation of seeing other people as “the enemy” because they have a different perspective. I am quite capable of saying that I have already got my perspective and need no other, but that doesn’t mean I have to regard the other as possessed by the devil! People who do this are acting out of fear, not faith.
That is only true if you assume that there is no other perspective from which we can observe life, that the Gospel has encompassed all things worth knowing and that there is nothing else that could complement this view. Martin Buber called this Christian Gnosis.
There is only a conflict between two varying views if one or both rules the other out. That is enough for me to say that Christianity is responsible for many conflicts in the world because it does just that. And I believe it does so without biblical support. We’re not talking about idolatry, which I am against. We are talking about Beliefs that complement the view of Christianity and comprehend a compassionate principle as being at the core of intelligent life.
The is a difference between being afraid and awe. Awe is much more the extreme reverence towards an instance or authority and can contain faith. Fear is more a dreading or apprehension that exists more when faith has failed.
1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth, is not made perfect in love.
But that is the true character of Jesu’s message. It is opposition to the misuse of worldly power and trust in the power of God to deliver from persecution. Jesus doesn’t say anything against other Religions. Instead he criticises the teachers of his own people for weakening the trust in God at such a crucial point in time - either by persuading the people to take up weapons against an overwhelming opposition, or by burdening the people with pious tasks suggesting that they should all have a bad conscience.
The Romans were especially criticised for sacrilege, because they were idolaters and called men gods. The decadence of the Romans was seen as a sure sign that they wouldn’t last. In India it is said that Buddhism and Christianity blended for a while, but Hinduism retained the most influence.
I've never heard that take on it before. Interpreted that way, it certainly supports a pluralist stance. The idea that sin exists in violating one's own convictions vs. violating a set of external rules seems perilous, though.
It's not an issue of force, it's an issue of your audience's nature. If you preach pluralism, and that leads to them abandoning key Christian doctrines (say, because they find the doctrines of some other religion easier to live by,) then that certainly [i]does[/i] classify as you being a stumbling block- if it turns out that exclusivism is closer to the truth than pluralism.
That's a little extreme, though. I can think somebody else's religious beliefs are factually incorrect, and even dangerous to that person, without hating them or thinking of them as an enemy. People that are unable to converse with members of other religions in a civil manner are doing themselves and their own religious community a disservice.
What I made was a general statement about knowledge and truth, not about religion in particular, If I believe A, then I believe not-A is false. False beliefs are inferior to true beliefs. Therefore, if I have belief A, I think belief not-A is inferior. Which part of that is assailable? Certainly, other religious perspectives can be of great value! But when a contradiction between views comes along, one view must be discarded as incorrect.
Can you give me an example of what you mean here? What sorts of idolatry are you against?
OK, I can agree to distinguish what I was talking about as ‘awe’ instead of ‘fear’, that makes sense.
He didn’t have to explicitly. By upholding the Torah as the center of His teaching, he let it speak for Him. Certainly the Torah is vehemently against other religions.
The Romans were criticized for being polytheistic in general, whether those 'gods' in question were Nero or Jupiter. Again, a
great many of the early Christian leaders lost their lives trying to bring people out of false pagan faiths. It’s overwhelmingly clear where they stood on the matter of other faiths.
Surely you must see, that when you compare your ideas to how Christianity is and was traditionally practiced, that even if you are right what you have isn’t pluralistic at all- you need to deny so much key doctrine to make things work that what you have is a brand new religion- and a religion just as exclusive as any other, I might add.
perhaps if I explain without the quotes I can be clearer.
I envisage a world in which all faiths are free to express their understanding of life, quite firmly standing on the ground they have chosen because they have embraced a certain theology or doctrine. Equally those who have deep misgivings towards religion should be able to express their understanding of life equally.
I would promote a Dialog between the groups, understanding that every teaching has something valuable to it, whether it is insight, wisdom, ethics, social behaviour, inspiration or whatever. In fact I believe that a Dialog about pressing issues would be very helpful.
The border for all, is when the criticism takes on a form which threatens one or all other groups, when a religion or philosophy violates international human rights or when it can be proven that a group aggressively or extortionately recruits new members.
The most important part of this is the fact that people would have to know what they believe - which is the responsibility of the teachers of the group. The fact that people very often don’t really know what they believe is not what I’d understand as “the infirm” - rather these people are those who are pressured by the group to do something they don’t feel comfortable with.
If people find the doctrines of some other religion easier to live by, they are not convinced anyway. I would rather have people who grasp a faith they can identify with that people blown around like an autumn leaf - even if it means that someone says I decide not to believe.
16 ¶ Now, while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.
17 Therefore he disputed in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoics, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? some others, He seemeth to be a setter-forth of strange gods: because he preached to them Jesus, and the resurrection.
19 And they took him, and brought him to Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine is, of which thou speakest?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears; we would know therefore what these things mean.
21 (For all the Athenians and strangers who were there, spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars-hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I to you.
24 God that made the world, and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshiped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he is not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, for we are also his offspring.
29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or silver, or stone graven by art and man’s device.
It is about idolatry - and what it does to mankind.
Everything that I've seen you say in this post I agree with. Especially this above part- as an exclusivist, it's my belief that if an open dialogue is held, and people rationally examine everything given to them, then than can only help spread Christianity and eliminate foolishness. All of the above can occur without seeing other religions as equal to Christianity. All that's needed is to see the believers themselves as equals.
That's an unfortunate, but nessicary reality as far as I'm concerned. If a religion is to have billions of members, then it has to be expected that some (most?) of them won't really be that well-versed in the doctrines. I don't think most people in that situation are 'pressured', per se, I think most of them just don't have the time/interest to study religious matters fully, and so they choose to trust the word of someone they consider an authority. Where we part ways on this matter is that I feel as an exclusivist, that these people are better of trusting that authority than going on their own in ignorance. I grudgingly have to apply that standard to other religions, and not just Christianity- A Bhuddist who is only Bhuddist because his local priest has told him what to believe is better off remaining a Bhuddist than picking what seems right to him- again, in his ignorance. If he's actually willing to devote time to studying such matters, that's a different story.
The reason we differ on this seems to be because I see some religious views as risky traps that the unwary can fall prey to and thus be destroyed, wheras if I understand you correctly, you see all religions as being basically harmless at worst, as long as they don't promote oppression and such.
All false religions are in essence idolatry- as long as we can agree that idolatry doesn’t require a material object as the focus of the misdirected worship. Worshipping a god that is in fact a creation of man is idolatry as well- even if no statue of the god exists, right?
