Christianity stands against a functional society

Post Reply New Topic

AG

'Umm.... yeah, because I have no right to disagree with you?'

This is not what I said, what I indicated is that your position has no theological basis at all. It is typical of most atheist positions, in that most of their positions are based in a twisted for of inapplicable biblical literalism that has been discredited again and again.

The earliest use of this silly form of interpretation was the accusations that Christians had cannibalistic dogmas. How many mainstream Christians do you known of that actually eat one another?

You engage in the same form of interpretation when you read a verse about a rich man rejecting God and make it about God rejecting a rich man.

The verse discussed in the article you posted uses the same logic. Taking a dissociation about how serving one another in love makes us more. Then twists it into the exact inversion of what was said.

Saying that the person is a Christian does not make it theologically valid. In the same way as looking at the periodic table does not make one a scientist.

Catholics do, in fact, believe that the host is transformed into the literal body of christ, meaning that consuming the wafer could legitimately be considered canibalism. Just look at the furor in the last two years over the supposed 'desecration' of the host by a student who 'kidnapped' a wafer and then by an atheist college professor who stuck a nail in one. This philosophy was behind the 'blood libel' by which thousands of Jews were killed and persecuted in Europe for supposedly desecrating the host.
(note here that I come from a Catholic family and am not just yakking about this).

As far as interpretation goes: If we are not to take the bible to mean what it says, then we can take it to mean anything at all. It becomes, in other words, an utterly meaningless way to justify whatever we want, backed by the supposed will of a god.

And often take it out of context or quote it out of context.

Christians do have a way of reading the Bible that is consistent across its subject matter, moral and does not conflict with civil society. The Christian views the text through the prism of the sacrifice of Christ. Any reading of the text that takes place outside of that view can obviously lead to terrible things. The same thing happens when we start reading laws as if they exist in a way that is separate to the preservation of justice for the body politic.

Edit: Fixed some spelling

Last edited by 91 on 05 Nov 2010, 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

I could not agree with you more

So am I imagining the fact that Christians have been schisming and killing each other over different interpretations for pretty much the last 2000 years?



Ah, yes. The sacred scapegoat.
Unfortunately, the concept of salvation through sacrifice (however bogus) does not address the fact that the Bible also, pretty explicitly, sets down laws that are particular to the time and place in which the Bible was written, but are treated as if they are the word of God.

People have been killing each other for a good deal longer than that. If you are looking for an explanation for that religion or Christianity does not function as an effective lowest common denominator. I have answered this question previously but unfortunately must do so again. The lowest common denominator is man, this is perfectly consistent with my view that men are fallen creatures.



The concept of salvation through sacrifice is what gives meaning to the laws of the Old Testament (remember the statement about Christ's sacrifice being the prism through which things should be viewed). The two do not work in opposition to one another. If one reads one without the other then the meaning will be lost.

I would argue that you are attempting to make a scapegoat of Christianity. When you have an issue with people in western civil society, you state the it is Christianity, not man, that is inconsistent. When you take a wider view, the truth that man wars with man for pretty much any reason he can get his hands on, Christianity becomes a moderator to the worst aspects of our character.

Yes, they have been, but that is not the point; you claimed that Christians have a consistent way of interpreting the bible that is conducive to civilization, but the simple fact of the matter is that even within Christian communities the interpretation is INconsistent enough that people are and have been killing each other over it.



The old testament is not the only place the bible sets down laws. The new testament has plenty of passages condoning slavery. Sure, it forbids beating your slave too harshly - but owning another human being was just fine with Jesus.



The first half of that is actually perhaps a valid criticism. Sometimes I see (for example) some fundie who has killed his child by withholding basic medical care in favor of prayer, and the rage just about pours from my ears. You may be right that idiots like that would find some other stupid way to kill their offspring even without religion.

However, I tend to lean towards Christopher Hitchens' conclusion: bad people will find ways to be bad regardless of the paradigm that they are in, but only faith can make an otherwise good person do evil things.

Yes this is true, on this subject I agree wholeheartedly. However, where our opinions seem to diverge is that you see this as an indictment on Christianity, not one on man. This is essentially the heart of the debate going on here.

People have killed each other over divergences in opinion over the values displayed in the United States Constitution. The fact that they have does not mean that there are not good values at the heart of the document, or that those values stand opposed to civil society. People seem perfectly acceptable making that distinction and many others like it. Why then should Christianity not be subject to the same standard?



I will admit that I find the discussion surrounding slavery to be something I have a hard time reconciling with my beliefs. Dealing with the discussion on slavery in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 is something I find quite difficult to reconcile. There are theologians who would have a better answer for you on this question. All I can say if that it was the Christian lobby that sought to end it in Britain which though not 100% convincing, is an encouraging thought.



So are hungry people who steal evil people?

I believe personally that it is opportunistic behavior combined with a lack of self-respect that makes otherwise good people do evil things. If you would like further evidence of that please look up the 'Stanford Prison Study' (http://www.prisonexp.org/) or read the book 'The Wave' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(novel))

More likely they are desperate.

ruveyn

It helps that the bible is so full of BS that it makes it pretty easy to quote out of context and make it look like BS.

Anyway, small quick challenge. Pick any of AG's quotes in this thread, proceed to provide the 'context' that somehow makes the quote mean something different. Make sure the something different is actually sane and not something as nonsensical as the quote out of context was..

Christianity was also used to keep slaves in line here in the States, and was used to hold back women's sufferage as long as possible.



I'm not talking about bad things, I'm talking about evil things: sacrificing children (in the States, this most often occurs in the form of denying them medical care). Gassing 6 billion Jews because they 'killed Jesus.' Flying planes full of passengers into buildings full of workers. etc, etc, etc.

I know about the Stanford Prison Study, and frankly while it is revealing about human nature, the reporting on it is overblown. The 'guards' were being total as*holes, but they did not become physically violent. They did not start to behave 'like Nazis,' as they are frequently claimed to have done.

According to wikipedia, "Prominent leaders of the feminist movement in the United States include Lucretia Coffin Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, and Susan B. Anthony; all strongly influenced by Quaker thought and all of whom campaigned for the abolition of slavery prior to championing women's right to vote". Yes, people did misuse religion to try and stop these things, but most of the people doing the reform were also religious. People sometimes use their ideology to justify unjustifiable things, including things their ideology doesn't actually approve of.


The 'denying medical care' bit kind of makes me think there's a political rant here, waiting to get out.

Religions are often motivators for concern about children, and since we're talking about Christianity specifically, perhaps I should mention that one rather famous pro-children event in the life of Jesus....


Given that there are only about 6 billion people on the earth, you're either referring to something that never happened, or you're referring to the 6 million (with an 'm') that were killed by the *anti-religious* Nazis. Either way, I don't see that as an indictment of religion.


May I point out in this thread about how Christianity is supposedly bad for society, that this was not done by or approved by Christians.

May I also point out that Hitler and Stalin, specifically, were not religious types. If your argument here is that any group may be blamed for the actions of its members, whether or not they approve them, why shouldn't I simply blame you for the actions of these two evil dictators? After all, they were irreligious, and so are you, so that makes you almost exactly alike, right?

That's nice, but you are wrong, and there are theologians who outright go further than I do. Even further, that's nice that you use my beliefs against my position, as if that discredits me, but that's the reason I cited that Christian.

Even further, I don't even know what you mean by "discredited again and again". You've hardly discredited my position, and many other people actually go to these lengths.


91, comparing me to an interpretation of the Lords Supper as cannibalistic still does not make your case. This is particularly the case given that I am directly addressing the text. I mean, it is nice that you know a small smattering of the history of Christianity, but honestly, that hardly means you've refuted me.


Umm...... yeah.....

I didn't say "God rejects rich men!". I made the claim that Christianity is against the accumulation of wealth. I used "attack the wealthy" more in the sense of rejecting the morality of their wealth, which is an arguable point. I mean, I think I've already pointed this out, but the Acts 2 church shared all things in common, which expresses a strongly egalitarian opinion.


I don't take the author as inverting the text. Even further, the text, if it speaks of making us more, is talking about making us more spiritually. It does not prevent the author's interpretation.


Well, no, but an earlier commentator actually did criticize me for not being a Christian yet taking a position on the meaning of the text. Even further, most of your arguments have really just been "I read the text as being this, therefore it is, therefore you are wrong". That's not really very solid theological reasoning.

Note: Not all Christians hold to the "civil society" assumption so strongly. The anabaptists have tended to very much urge against that, as have the neo-monastic movement within emergent Christianity. This isn't to say that they are uncivil, only that they reject the notion of "civil society" as really the goal or aim.

The issue with the prism of the sacrifice of Christ is that the sacrifice of Christ stands against civil society as a goal. It is very focused on martyrdom. Finally, I take this action of death as rather central for my interpretation of the text.

I'd hold that LKL's statement still stands. Quakerism isn't a very solid Christian group. A lot of quakers are very liberal. Many of them are outright pacifists. Finally, a big part of quakerism is the notion that personal revelation is on the same level of the Christian text. If one does not believe Quakers are receivers of revelation, then it is very questionable whether their actions are motivated by their Christianity.

I would have to hold that it was the foundations of the religions that stood for slavery, while it was the people who rejected it. The issue is that tensions about slavery still end up existing for this reason, as noted by 91's problem with handling issues of slavery. I mean, one theologian considers this *THE* crisis for American Christian relations to scripture: http://percaritatem.com/2010/10/17/gues ... c-america/


No... most Nazis weren't that anti-religious. The average Nazi was just a German dude. The Nazi leaders were not serious about religion, but they didn't really put their effort into suppressing it, and made some efforts to co-opt it. Even further, the anti-Jewish sentiment IS partially for reasons like what LKL pointed out. There has been a 2000 history of negative Christian-Jewish relations, and it is because of the Jews rejecting Christ. (perhaps along with the segregation of both parties) http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers.htm