Christianity stands against a functional society

Post Reply New Topic

AG

My argument about how you misinterpret the Bible goes to the heart of the logical fallacy you have presented as your argument. You have interpreted sections of the Bible in a way the mainstream Christian society does not and then presented this as the basis of your argument that it stands against a civil society.

For your argument to be correct you would firstly have to argue that the interpretation you have put forward represents the mainstream theology (of any present mainstream denomination), then demonstrate that it was adhered to by the majority of its current members and then argue that these values stand against civil society. Unless you do, you are simply assuming that the first two are the case and the proceeding to argue the third.

Go tell that to the Polish Catholic Clergy, some 18% were killed in concentration camps.


LKL



Slavery was outlawed in the United Kingdom long before it was in the United States and the effort was due to in large part to the efforts William Wilberforce an Evangelical Anglican Member of the House of Commons.

Ancalagon has provided a sufficient answer to you in relation to slavery in the United States and your comments on Womens Suffrage.

You cannot present as a case against the role of Christianity in society examples that have other good explanations. Otherwise your argument is predicated upon prejudicial interpretation.

My comments in relation to slavery were an attempt to reach common ground. Instead you chose to attack harder, that is quite disappointing.

Ok? That's not a logical fallacy.
1) Christian society has no real way of interpreting itself... at all. It condemns itself. It disowns itself. It doesn't take its own source of truth seriously. It is really just full of crap.
2) I am not arguing that "crap is opposed to civil society". By "Christianity", I really mean the fundamental teachings of Christian scripture, holding that any religion that could properly be considered Christian would have to hold to that. Do most Christians read their own scripture well? NO. Rather, what is termed "Christianity" is really just the status quo, and the problem with this is that it just matches the entire religion very very very poorly.
3) Is this appeal to the status quo really going to convince me? No. The fact that most Christians hold to opinions for poor theological reasons is well-known. Many theological opinions common in Christian circles are also ill-founded, this includes the common interpretation of Romans 13, which was easily dismantled by John Howard Yoder. This includes a lot of other teachings as well.



No, I really don't have to accept those rules, 91. I already explicitly made my point on this methodology to Ancalagon. Even further, you do realize that what you are asking for makes no sense, don't you? Denominations don't usually take hard stances on socio-political issues, but allow diversity there, and instead focus on more strictly theological issues. I already know of denominations that take my position, and have some idea of theologians who do the same.

As for "current members", like most atheists, I consider modern Christianity a living sham. Most Christians have nothing to do with most Christian teachings, and there are even books dedicated to how true that is. For instance, I recently bought a book called "UnChristian", which is basically a summary of polling data on how egregiously Christians are perceived as and do betray their own faith.


Umm... you do realize that this alone proves nothing, right? I mean, you might as well have just told me that the Nazis weren't religious because they killed Jews. I mean, yes, some Nazis were undoubtedly Catholic, but I would guess that a very large portion of Germans were Lutheran. Even further, you don't give the reason why these clergy were killed. I mean, you might as well also mentioned the death of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who is a well-known theologian killed by the Nazis. He was killed for reasons not very related to religion taking in that stricter sense though, so there is no conflict there.


Actually, given all the grand claims of Christianity, one can actually argue against it on those kinds of grounds. I've already posted a source that notes that a lot of those resisting slavery were theological liberals or later became them. The same is likely true with Women's Rights, as the Quakerism of those people was noted.

I mean.... seriously... most of your arguments, 91, seem much much much more based upon "I identify as a Christian, ergo you are wrong" rather than any theological or textual argumentation. The issue is just that there is no real reason for me to take any of this seriously.


Ummm.... yeah, he has a freaking opinion on the matter and he actually outright disagrees with you. What do you expect? Most people don't come to agree that quickly, even if you had *great* argumentative abilities.

Your argument is predicated on the assumption that your view of the Christian scripture is correct. Thank you for making a fantastic case for against Biblical literalism and one in favor of spiritual authority btw. However, your view does stand outside of both mainstream theology and Christian practice. Since you are the one making the claim it is your responsibility to prove it.

Isn't that you just acknowledging that current Christian theology has barely anything to do with The Bible? Wouldn't this make your arguments based on the scripture irrelevant? After all if you acknowledge that the scripture doesn't match Christian views any more you acknowledge that the bible is no longer as relevant to theological debates concerning the Christian denominations.

Not at all. The Bible is the basis of a vast majority of Christian theology. However, when it is read from an uncharitable perspective that seeks to make it appear as if it doesn't; then of course it appears inconsistent.

I wish people who identified themselves as "Christian" would be more specific. Otherwise, there's really no grounds for any of them to claim consistency.

But that's probably asking too much.

The problem is that I don't think Christianity has anywhere to stand if certain qualities of the literal text are ignored. Often non-literalists get by through arguing that the literal text is flawed, but they are instead reaching beyond the flawed historical contingencies of the text to core messages. The problem is that the social teachings of the Bible aren't "flawed historical contingencies", but rather they are a significant issue for any religion that would call itself Christian. If you do not uphold these teachings, then what basis do you have for theology? I can see arguing that there is a tension in anti-homosexual treatment in scripture, and loving other people, and because of this, we will be non-literal and pursue the heart of the text by loving homosexuals. I do not see the case for outright disregarding or nullifying messages that go through the heart of scripture because you dislike them or disagree with them. Christianity is all about death(note the centrality of the cross in both the text, and the symbols for the religion). Impracticality isn't an argument against it without outright ignoring the teachings of Jesus Christ.

My challenge has been ignored, it seems.

The Bible should have absolutely nothing to do with the law, since not only does it contradict itself, but it can be twisted to mean anything when you take passages out of context.

Anyone here read The Handmaid's Tale by any chance?

No, but I've heard of it.

I am not sure how we can ascertain what a "vast majority is", or even how we will define "Christian theology", however, it is without much question that many theological positions are really driven by cultural factors, or even the teachings of early Christians that are either not explicit in the text, or even questionable by the text. (many Protestants oppose the perpetual virginity of Mary, while other churches support it)

To a certain extent, I really think the theology depends on the person who is trying to do theology, not on the text of scripture.

That being said, I think the Bible is inconsistent. God is loving in scripture, but also God is in some sense involved in the fact that so many people will be damned. While some details of this aren't laid out in a simple manner, I think part of it is just that the problems become hard to avoid after thinking over a period of time on all of the possibilities and problems.

I'll gladly give a free pass to the Quakers. They are one of the rare sects that has been consistently on the right side of ethics, and consistently declined to push their religious views on other people. It was pretty rare to find members of other sects, though, that supported either freedom or sufferage.


Actually, no; I'm not talking about the health care bill recently passed. I'm talking about parents who choose to pray over diabetic children rather than give them insulin, or pray over children with pneumonia rather than give them antibiotics, or pray over children with cystitis rather than allow them to have a catheter inserted. Or, for that matter, parents who starve their three-year-old to death because he won't say 'amen' before eating. All of these things have happened - some of them more than once - in the United States, in the last 10 years.
I hope that providing insulin to a diabetic child can only be considered 'political' in the farthest fringes of any party.


?


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.[/quote]
*blush*
yes, million with an m.
as for the Nazis, they were NOT anti-religious:
http://ahquotes.tripod.com/
http://bp2.blogger.com/_g3YUxj9bf7U/SBq ... stians.jpg
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1779
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/1069962/


True; I got onto a general 'religions are bad' tangent.


See above.

The relevant detail is that a group of people took over the US and slowly made it into a place they called Gilead (and even that's taken from the Bible), then they used Bible extracts to brainwash the people in their highly totalitarian system, and this is a book based on actual historical events. Well, not one specific thing in history, but a bunch of things which have happened in the past. I won't reveal anymore details because they'd be spoilers.

I have; it's basically a dystopic science fiction story in which a America has been taken over by a Taliban-like Christianity.

Yep, and did convinced everyone in Gilead that what they were doing was "the duty of god" and such by using out of context Bible extracts and edited hymns.

So, if you say you're basing law on a part of the Bible, you can pretty much use it to enforce what the hell you want.

I love it when people trot this one out. Ian Kershaw is probably one of the best writers on the topic of Nazi Germany. His works on the subject form a basic reading requirement of most university courses on the subject. The conclusion of his work was that Hitler was rabidly anti-clerical in practice and that had he won the war, the Christian faith would almost certainly have been removed from German society (this is also the view of all mainstream history on the subject as well). Also, before you start putting forward quotes from Hitler to the contrary, do your history and keep in mind that he was still saying that he wanted peace, while SS men in Polish uniforms were attacking a German radio station to give himself pretext to go to war.



Also I enjoy seeing people mention the 'God with us' buckle. people who think it has anything to do with Nazi Germany show how little they know on the subject. For the record it was introduced in Imperial Germany, long before the Nazis. It is originally from the Coat of Arms of Frederik the Great and the Byzantine Empire before that.

It was worn by Wehrmacht soldiers on their belts. The German army was separate from the Waffen SS (the SS being the soldiers of the Nazi party itself) and it has its own history and set of traditions. Coincidently the SS belt buckle said Meine Ehre heißt Treue 'My honour is loyalty'.

Last edited by 91 on 06 Nov 2010, 8:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.