Christianity stands against a functional society

Post Reply New Topic

you know, AG, they've got a point.

you're taking this all too literally.

you're failing to see the sophistication of modern christianity.

i think both of you would enjoy this humorous article about areas of our lives that are already effectively "post scarcity" and how we've decided to just pretend they're not.

Actually, my point is that these points aren't useful. In fact, I don't even think these points were MEANT to be useful. If one reads Christian scripture, one cannot help but notice a lot of adulation for the idea of dying on a cross.

Even further, I don't think I am just assembling a strawman. Rather, I think modern Christians don't take their text seriously, and even some Christian sources have made similar points about some of the things I've stated. Frankly, I can't prove that these points "have no value", and I didn't argue that. I argued that these positions undermine our current society. (this is not in contradiction with other Christian teachings at all)


No, I don't. I take this as an excess in "kindness". There is no statement on judgment in this passage at all, and even if we moderate it down a bit by claiming that some statements are hyperbole, we still end up with an instruction that would have negative impact, as it still suggests something going way way way too far.


Umm.... Paul is basically saying "your rights are less important than keeping the honor of Christianity".(honor is a bad word, but likely sufficient to get the point across) His point isn't that strongly about victory, and Christianity, unless you really have no freaking clue, is really really not about victory(except an otherworldly victory, which can be seen in the various passages glorifying the cross, and telling people that they will be as hated as their messiah) I suppose one can reinterpret this as "common bond", but... doing so is blunting the meaning of the passage.

I mean, he isn't just talking about "getting along" because of other statements IN CONTEXT. 1Co 6:2-3 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? (3) Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!

The real suggestion is that Christians, instead of secular courts, should handle disputes. Not that they should all play nice. "Play nice" isn't the thrust of the passage, as the real objection is non-Christian courts.


Arguably your interpretation is correct, but that doesn't really destroy my point. Saying "the rich are less willing to accept their calling" is still a statement that questions the moral integrity of the rich. I mean... I'm rather indifferent to whether your interpretation is right, as it is coherent with both expressed claims.


No.... I really don't twist it at all. I mean, you provide interpretations, but your interpretations blunt the meaning to an extreme extent. I mean, my interpretations aren't just uniquely mine, but rather a large number of Christians have accepted them AND even gone further, such as Christian pacifists have taken Christ to oppose violence to the point of death. And... well... honestly, unless your interpretation of Christian scripture has at the CENTER of New Testament teachings, as martyrdom, I will have to argue that you are misinterpreting the text. Christianity is explicitly otherworldly, and centered on accepting one's self-destruction. That's kind of the meaning of the cross.

Frankly, I'd have to argue that any interpretation of Christianity that makes it appear in congruence with the values of the middle class in any first world nation is twisting the moral logic to a massive extreme. Christianity is all about death, but the middle classes aren't.


Oh yes, of course, just quote a Total Depravity statement. Wow, I am *so* impressed.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 02 Nov 2010, 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not really a refutation either, however, modern law is descended from Rome, more so than anything uniquely Christian. Even further, the best example I think you could give of "supporting the law" are the points where Paul tells people not to be a jerk to their rulers. (which is far from really supporting law as its own end)


What exactly are you looking for an example of? I mean, there is that time where Jesus told this rich man to give away everything he owned. There is that church that stopped having personal possessions and shared everything in common. (Acts 2) But, really, what exactly are you looking for? There is even that time where Jesus, the example that Christians are supposed to follow, allowed himself to be taken by Roman soldiers to be executed.(I suppose you might just argue that the last one was a purposive act rather than a moral statement)


There is some spin, but honestly, I don't think it is as big as you are trying to represent it as. I mean, it isn't as if Christians say "don't enjoy life!". Rather, they simply reject the earthly things for the spiritual things, and this emphasis undermines their importance. It isn't a terrible spin. Some Christians themselves would likely make similar points, and go further.

Even further, once again, where is martyrdom in your notion of Christianity? I mean, if Christianity is only a hobby, then your points make a lot of sense. If it is an all-consuming lifestyle, then what's really the problem with these very high claims of what it requires? It is supposed to require a lot. It is claimed to require more than any person could ever do.

Also, to people who disagree with me, while I admit that I have taken a more negative reading of the texts in question, I am not acting in ignorance of context, rather, I am interpreting this text by themes that I perceive in there. Here are the themes:
1) Radical living: I perceive Christianity as explicitly rejecting the mainstream society and culture that it resides in, which I see as expressed in the division between Christianity and "the world". The latter is that which is controlled by the devil, and it includes most aspects of reality. The former is what is morally right, and it lives by a code in opposition to the latter, and which is regarded as absurd and even persecuted by this other. Basically, because of this cleave, a Christianity in line with "the world", and largely acceptable by "the world" reeks of false doctrine. Even further, given that the Christian aim is moral perfection, there isn't going to be room for "eh, that's good enough" which will tend itself towards ethical extremism in doctrines.
2) Death, martyrdom, otherworldliness. Christianity is not oriented towards this life. While it says that one will enjoy this life, such as when Jesus claims that his yoke is easy, it does not claim that this life will be very long or filled with worldly success. Rather, in identifying Christians as those who are like Christ, and similarly hated by the world, it suggests that Christians will be persecuted. Because of this, claims that Christianity is oriented towards, or very attached to issues that only matter to living Christians, as opposed to otherworldly concerns, is something I feel should be rejected. We might say that Christianity cares about the worldly concerns of other people, but Jesus died on the cross.
3) Identification with the weak in society. Throughout scripture, it is the weak who are the ones Christians are called to reach out to, more so than any other group. This includes prisoners, the poor, and the sick. (passages can be given) Because of this, correspondingly, the rich, and the ideologies of the rich are not so deeply part of the belief-system, rather, money and desiring money is identified as wrong, rather than ,as I would argue society needs, right. Because of this, I perceive Christianity as "anti-rich", not as an overt hatred, but rather as a mood within its framework. Moods are harder to identify, but they exist by the focus given, the questions asked, and the problems put forward, and other less overt aspects of a framework.

1) "Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves."
You're assuming your misinterpretation is correct. A pretty bad assumption when everyone who actually holds these views is telling you that you're wrong...
2) Show me where it says to use force of any kind to convert people.
3) 'Just plain game theory' is just fine in the Christian's worldview. Just plain greed isn't, but they aren't the same thing.

Christianity supports generosity and opposes greed on principle, but that doesn't make it the prophesied Anti-Economics.

You say
Your interpretations blunt the meaning to an extreme extent.

I would argue something different. You have the logic backwards.

That your extreme interpretations blunt the meaning to an extent.

Talk about putting the cart in front of the horse, huh.

I always get a laugh when people who oppose biblical literalism and fundamentalism decide they will oppose it by doing the exact same things.

Umm.... duh??? You're assuming YOUR misinterpretation is correct. Is this actually meant to progress the issue? Even further, I don't see how it is a bad assumption. Generally when I and other people disagree, I am right, and they are wrong. Certainly I see no reason to change my mind on this issue by you just asserting that I am wrong.

Now, I suppose we can go deeper into methodology: I am assuming that "Christianity" is a position in which the Christian scriptures are considered highly normative. Not an issue where a person who "says they are Christian" is taken as authoritative. The reason being that like, I think a lot of people do consider Christianity the theological system in which Christian scriptures(and their correct interpretation) are given supreme weight, not the claims of believers. If I let the claims of believers dissuade me from arguing these issues, then I would have already accepted zer0netgain's rape of Romans 13, by accepting the view that it is contingent upon good governance and sanctions rebellion when the government does not satisfy God.

In this case, my objection to Christian reinterpretations is that they do not take the stated text seriously. Only 91 has presented an interpretation of the sermon on the mount, and it is "encouraging us to be kind". The issue is I think that this outright removes the teeth from the text, and I object that we are not given much reason in the text to consider this hyperbole enough to destroy my point.(once again, we have to admit that other Christian teachings are incredibly extreme. Christianity puts a high value on being a martyr, that is dying for one's beliefs. The idea that one of its beliefs could end up being nearly impracticable, or actually impracticable does not seem extreme to me given that)

For the most part, people have just dismissed my efforts. Now, if you want to start a thread on the Sermon on the Mount, and what the explicit text means if it is not as uncompromising as the literal reading suggests, then go ahead. If you want to debate it here, then also go ahead. I do not regard my effort as an extreme distortion of the scripture. Heck, author (and arguably theologian) Leo Tolstoy argued that the Sermon on the Mount required pacifism, and that mainstream churches suppressed it just to keep the flock in line, even though the actual teachings of the Sermon would require actions that would outright overhaul the society at the time. (found in the book "The Kingdom of God is Within You") As such, even if we hold that he is an extremist, he is still in many ways considered part of Christianity, and as such, I am not sure that I consider point blank dismissal very relevant.


I don't have to. You misunderstood the context of what I said. I was presenting issues. I was not saying "Christianity supports use of force to convert people". I don't think it does. However, I am pointing out the issue so that people see the obvious problem, and so there isn't effort exploring an already explored set of possibilities.


Well.... actually, they are. Game theory has to do with self-interest. Self-interest and greed don't have this black and white line dividing them unless one wants to proclaim it as really out there. Even further, unless you are assuming everyone is Christian, then "plain greed" is still relevant.


Well... that's a matter of argumentation. Some have argued that Christianity supports socialism, and if their efforts are somewhat right, then it may be true that it is "anti-economics". Certainly an Acts 2 church is incompatible with large-scale progress.

Ok, but the issue is that I am following the literal meaning here, and then extrapolating to get a conclusion. You still haven't justified your conclusions in my eyes.

Even further, "extreme interpretations" don't blunt. Blunting is reducing the harshness. I am not reducing anything.

I am confused by your last statement 91. I mean, you may criticize my efforts at interpreting the text, but you haven't put forward a real reason to think that your interpretation is better. As I already said, even if these statements are hyperboles, they have to be very very hyperbolic before your counter-argument actually threatens my basic point.

'Even further, "extreme interpretations" don't blunt. Blunting is reducing the harshness. I am not reducing anything.'

Of course they do. You take a thing of beauty take it to a wrong conclusion and of course the meaning is lost (aka blunted).

Ok, its time to put your argument away for good.

Firstly why would you seek to validate your world view through an attack on Christianity? We live in a world where the faith in God is the only defense we have against the rule of the strong.

I will not argue, that one cannot be both moral and faithless, that is for another time. But when there is no universal standard, the standard of morality can go one way. Firstly, in a world with no religious universalism, then morality is a matter of will, not of expectation. In our society we have both weak and strong individuals. Therefor morality will become the possession of the strong. In that world, the powerful define what is right and what is wrong.

In all situations where religion has been extinguished, morality inevitably moves in this direction. Soviet Russia, Communist (now nationalist) China, Vietnam, Ancient Rome and Western Europe. Wherever one cares to look, the decline of religion and its place in society inevitably leads to the strengthening (EDIT: corrected spelling error) of the power elite. If you want to learn more about this, please read 'The Rage Against God' by Peter Hitchens. How then can religion be opposed to a civil society?

Now lets take a look at your discussion of Christianity.

I will keep this short and to the point. The extreme lack of understanding you have of the Bible is exposed by your lack of ability to distinguish who it is Jesus, Mattew or Paul are talking to or about in their parables. I have already criticized, amply, your inability to understand what they are talking about, so lets now focus on who.

For instance when you quote Mathew 19:23-24, you are deducing a criticism of the rich as a class when Jesus is talking to the individual.

Then when you discuss Col. 3:22, you make the same mistake, in these passages Jesus is talking to the individual, he is not discussing government. He is making no judgement in relation to the practice of slavery but is invoking the lesson of Joseph, who despite being sold into slavery (unjustly), he makes a success of himself and rises to a position of great power.

Your arguments frequently confuse when the author is talking to the individual and when he his talking about society. You take quotes to the individual and apply them to government and then take ones aimed at government and claim they are incomparable to the individual. You are comparing apples to oranges and then reacting in surprise when you manage to state that they are not the same. The only thing you have proved is that on every level, you have missed the point.

Last edited by 91 on 03 Nov 2010, 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

In every nation where the Christians became politically dominant they were "the strong" and they certainly ruled. And they ruled cruelly and brutally. Christianity is best left in church and best kept out of making public policy.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

ruveyn

You have misunderstood my argument and then quoted me out of context.

Firstly I said religion not Christianity.
Secondly I did not mention nor advocate the introduction of the Church in the affairs of the state.
Thirdly I did not argue that religious societies are not capable of being corrupt.

What you fail to understand is that a sense of moral universalism, voting based on ones faith and voting in favor of the preservation of the role of religion in general society is not the same as a direct overlap between church and state. The state can be based on religious values, provide a moral framework to its citizens without the need to endorse any particular religious dogma (that would be inappropriate).

Where our opinions seem to differ is in relation to that overlap between Christian values and public policy. Arguing based on the US constitution (I am an Australian, so things are a bit different here) the state cannot endorse one religion over another. However, the freedom of religion is also guaranteed. This means that any attempt to limit a citizens ability to exorcise their right to vote, in accordance with that individuals religious values would violate that right.

What I actually argued is stated above and I do not need to repeat it.

Do YOU think the rule of the strong is not at work right now or that it has ever not been at work?

The strong will rule over the week. When there is no slavery or abuse or whatever, it is because the strong choose not to do it. It is not because they cannot. If they were not able to do it, they would not be "the strong".


I like this choice of words.

In a society a where government is separated from Church and state, the central authority may have many powerful tools at their disposal. The people do still have their universal sense of morality (mostly) left to themselves.

However, if you want to see what happens when the state can define its own morality then look at the states I listed above and consider that things can get worse. In one of those states, when one commits a crime against the state, they also commit one against the centrally proclaimed dogma. In Iran for instance, a crime against the state is one against Islam. In China it is against the universal sense of nationalism (which is defined by the state as what is also the only moral standard).

Also, lol at my spelling error.

Fine. Look at what religion has done for the Islamic countries. Egypt is a paradise on Earth and women have few or no rights in the Islamic domains (there are a few exceptions, however). Religion has been a bad thing for mankind.; It has brought war, division, hatred, tyrrany, superstition and death where it is dominant. God did not invent religion. The Devil did.

ruveyn