Christian Egalitarianism?

Post Reply New Topic

Whatever. I've got better things to do - - like sleeping.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Making up your own definition of "Christian" and trying to force them on everyone else? Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Uh... When the f**k did I ever say I was going to force my ideas on everyone else? I'm only talking about my personal opinion.
And as a matter of fact, as an Aspie, I'm cursed with insomnia, so I rarely sleep well, even with a clear conscience.
Oh wait, you don't know if you are an Aspie or not, so you may not know.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You already tried forcing them on everyone else when you started denying the idea that Christians can be pricks by saying "They aren't real Christians!"

No True Scot would eat his haggis with his fly unbuttoned.

ruveyn

It should, but doesn't always.

I'm not sure why everyone has jumped on your back.

I'm not really sure either. If anything, I'm the mainline Christian who gets along with atheists and agnostics.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Just because someone says they're a real Christian doesn't mean that they are.
Remember, Christ himself had said, "You will know a tree by it's fruit."
While his brother James had written, "I will show you my faith by showing you my works."
In other words, those calling themselves Christians will do things that are right, while those who aren't won't.
If that's forcing my views on others, then waah!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It's a sneaky trick to evade responsibility for those influenced to do wrong by the belief. That's how I see it - a mentality of severe irresponsibility. You define a group as good, and then say that when it's not, that doesn't count because the perpetrators are not true members because they weren't good, applying the No True Scotsman fallacy. So that you're always good, or at least, you don't have to cop to anything more than token/acceptable wrongs. That way you never have to deal with problems that the group/belief has tendencies towards, or even accept that there are tendencies, no matter how blatant a pattern might emerge.

Needless to say, this allows the pattern to continue as well, and in a sense bears responsibility with regards to the bad behaviour, because it is an attempt at deliberately frustrating solutions, in order to avoid liability. It is a most common habit among Christians, and this does not cause me to trust that they have a good moral compass at all, when they do this. As you have demonstrated, this sort of irresponsibility is actually a structural part of the worldview, and not just a tendency of human nature in its members.

You know we're arguing around in circles. I'm only stating how I see things, which is: if you call yourself a Christian, but treat people like s**t, then you're not living up to your faith. And I'll readily admit, every Christian, even the best, has behaved badly probably more times than they have behaved good - if I haven't been clear on that point, I apologize. But it's consistent behavior, like those dicks who had made ruveyn's life hell growing up, were hardly real Christians, despite how they had represented themselves.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It seems the Tree of Christianity has been producing sour apples for over 1500 years.

Indeed, by their fruit ye shall know them.

Once the Christians got in power in Rome (thank you Constantine!) it has been bad news ever since.

ruveyn

ruveyn

Maybe so but you still have to take responsibility for people influenced to do wrong by the belief system. That's part of correcting and perfecting it (which Christians have difficulty with because it's supposed to have been handed down by God and perfect to begin with, any modification or evolution therefore being undesirable, unless it can be framed as getting back to the supposedly perfect original state, which was in fact far from perfect).

You don't want to incorporate bad behaviour into the worldview, but you do have to accept that a worldview can be flawed and requires evolution. Unfortunately, Christianity has structural problems both with forward evolution and with accepting responsibility for its structural flaws. This makes it very difficult to correct problems.

As Ruveyn has pointed out you can even apply Christian principles to this - know a thing by its fruits, and Christianity has some rotten fruits. Deal with it. Literally.

You won't find any disagreement with me there.
Incidentally, Constantine's conversion was probably a matter of political advantage, and not of deeply held faith. By that time, Christians of all classes composed half of the Roman Empire's population, despite being an illegal religion, and Constantine saw the advantage he'd have by harnessing their power. In fact, Constantine was a life long worshiper of of Helios (the Roman Apollo), and his deathbed baptism may have involved a priest pouring water on the head of a corpse.
I think Christianity is at its best with morals and tolerance when it's disenfranchised. As a Protestant, I can tell you, Protestants were as good as gold when they were religious rebels, before their faiths had become the state religions in much of the German states, Switzerland, England, Scotland, and the Scandinavian countries. Unfortunately, that golden age was brief, as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Crammer saw their faiths gain political legitimacy. And as you well know, that was when the old, sick Luther gave into the Antisemitism he was raised with, Crammer compromised what he knew was right when he gave Henry VIII the go ahead for granting himself a divorce, Zwingli lost his grip on the gospel in favor of armed nationalism, and Calvin just became a legalistic prick with the blood of dissenters on his hands.
Despite this, there will always be those who hold to their faith and do the right thing, despite their churches.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That is quite true though I do not believe it is their faith which accounts for this - it is just themselves who bear credit. Because let's face it, they do this by interpreting things in a way that is compatible with what they know to be right or what appeals to their sense of what is right, and often find ways to exclude elements that are not right. Those who hold look to the faith itself to know what is right, rather than themselves, become fundamentalists.

That is not to say that there isn't some useful philosophy in the thing, that can be applied to achieve moral progress. But I think it's a matter of having a good moral compass to begin with, to be discriminating about it.

Last edited by edgewaters on 30 May 2012, 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As a matter of fact, I agree with ruveyn about institutionalized Christianity bearing spoiled fruit. I'm talking about individuals.
And I have to take responsibility? I need only have to take responsibility for myself, not for others. There's no such thing as collective guilt, but in the minds of bigots.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You have to take responsibility not for the individuals, but for the worldviews you subscribe to. Because you chose to subscribe to them; and as a member you do in some small way affect the thinking within that worldview, if you communicate about it at all (which you are doing presently). Either for good or for bad.

Last edited by edgewaters on 30 May 2012, 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.