Christianity stands against a functional society

Post Reply New Topic

You could start by providing me with a peer-reviewed article from a mainstream theology journal that supports the suppositions made in your opening post.

91, at this point I fully believe you are intellectually dishonest and an a**hole. I am not going to waste my time on this quest.
1) A very significant number of individuals here would not be able to access any article from a mainstream theology journal, simply because most colleges have no interest in theology, and most people out of college have no access.
2) The forum generally does not require anything close to those standards in making an argument, period. Demanding more than that would seem to require some real justification.
3) Your request is impossible to even judge fairly. Who decides "mainstream theology journal"? Who even decides whether the journal is credible?
4) Cynically, I really think you aren't even trying to appeal to intellectual standards, but rather that your major argument is really trying to prove the status quo by reference to the status quo.
5) Finally, I just see this entire effort as irrelevant. My interpretations of scripture are not new. Efforts to uphold these interpretations of scripture have never ended. Heck, monastic movements often to some extent play into this whole theme.(the inconsistency being that scripture clearly denies the ethical doctrine of supererogation, meaning that "higher callings" don't so much exist as perhaps different ones) I don't see how much defense I need for an interpretation that is a persistent undercurrent.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 06 Nov 2010, 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think it is intellectually dishonest to call someone what you have just called me.



I am not sure this argument holds up since we all have access to Google Scholar and even without e-journal access most of the basic stuff can still be accessed.



It was your supposition that Christianity stands against civil society. You supported this view through your interpretation of scripture. The argument you have made is predicated on the assumption that Christian's share your view of that scripture. I am asking you to prove this point. It is incumbent upon you to do so, since you are making this claim.



This is a fair point. However, see things from my point of view; if I asked anything less you would could dig up a fringe article that was not reflective of the mainstream Christian view. Since it is your argument that is based upon the supposition that Christianity is against civil society you would have to provide evidence that most Christians held this view. Otherwise your argument would be limited to a particular Biblical interpretation being against civil society.



Your argument is that Christianity is against civil society. You must therefor prove the mainstream or status-quo of Christianity stands against civil society. My referencing of the status-quo is simply me engaging in the discussion.



This would not be sufficient to logically conclude that Christianity stands against civil society.

I understand that this is an emotive issue and that your position is strongly held. My position is equally firm. But there is no reason to attack me personally. If however, you do not want to discuss this further than that is fine by me. If you would like to leave this discussion, then I encourage you to do so amicably.

So, to paraphrase: "Despite reams of evidence to the contrary, I have this one historian who says that the Nazis really were atheistic."

Also: anti-clerical is not necessarily the same thing as anti-religious.

Not necessarily; it would also work for AG to demonstrate that the most visible, powerful, loud, and/or wealthy aspects of Christianity are against civil society.

Ok some more references that prove my position is the mainstream view of historians.

Victor, George, (1998), 'Hitler: The Pathology of Evil', Pg 49

'Nonetheless Adolf came to hate Catholicism. When in power, he would put Catholic priests in concentration camps and plan to destroy the Church'

Blackburn, Gilmer (1980) 'The Portrayal of Christianity in the History Textbooks of Nazi Germany'
Published online by Cambridge University Press 28 Jul 2009

ABSTRACT
'The study of history in National Socialist Germany served a demolition function. Students were taught to recognize threats to their way of life, all of which were subsumed under Jewish internationalism and included Christianity, Marxism, democracy, liberalism and modernity. The history written by the Nazis undergirded an ersatz religion whose central theme was the German people's faltering attempts to obey the divine will of a racial deity. A major priority of Nazi educators was the liberation of the fierce Germanic instincts which more than a thousand years of foreign influence had repressed; and in their estimation, Christianity bore a major responsibility for blunting the expression of that Germanic spirit. The new German schools would help create a militarized society which would both purge the national spirit and promote the high-tension ethos which accepted war as a normal condition in a life of struggle.'

Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2000), 'The Holy Reich: Nazi conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945' Pg 5

'The only comprehensive work to explore Nazi attitudes towards Christianity in detail was John Conway's The Nazi Persecution of Churches, which argues unequivocally that the Nazis held Christianity in the sharpest contempt.'

'There were undoubtedly pro-Nazi elements within the Germany Christianity but not a pro-Christian element within Nazism.'

'The great majority of churches (within Germany) persistently refused to see the consequences'

I just got partway through a rebuttal and then accidentally closed the tab while shuffling between source and essay. If no one else takes it up in the meantime, I will start again tomorrow.

Yeah... um.... I don't really know what to say than to think that you are confused by what the term "intellectually dishonest" means. Attributing negative personality traits to a person, particularly with perceived justification? That's not intellectually dishonest, regardless of one's relationship to this person. Especially if that person highlights this by making a demand that seems particularly ridiculous.


No, I really think it still pretty much holds. The demand still makes very little sense in context. Nobody can criticize my source, half the people won't know whether I've answered the claim properly or not, and for the most part, it is is really not going to be relevant to almost all people in this case.


No, it really isn't predicated on the assumption that Christians share my view of that scripture. It is incumbent on whether my interpretation of that scripture is the best interpretation of that scripture, regardless of how Christians generally interpret it. There is nothing inconsistent with believing that a significant portion of Christians are dishonest or incoherent in their treatment of their scripture.

As it stands, I already pointed out that I know of Christian groups that uphold the interpretation of scripture I am using as correct in some sense(for instance, I already pointed out the neo monastic movement), even with a citation of the personal opinions of a member of the academic community in some sense, as the blogger I cited is an editor for "The Other Journal" which is affiliated with Mars Hill Graduate School, and an editor for a theological book publishing company. He is also are involved in academic efforts on the blogosphere, such as the Karl Barth Blog Conference, which is mostly an effort of PhD students and a few doctors. http://derevth.blogspot.com/2010/10/201 ... e-and.html His credentials are listed.

How about this: major Calvinist theologian John Piper(who has a PhD) has a book out called "Don't Waste Your Life". Do you know what it is about? The willingness to sacrifice one's life and die. He spends an entire chapter (chapter 5, risk is right) on how Christians should consider security a myth and just trust God and go out there and be willing to die for their cause, spending a lot of the chapter talking about Christians in the New Testament and their willingness to die for their religion. In fact, that's the entire topic of the book, is telling people to die properly, not to die safely, but rather to go out, take risks and convert people to Jesus. He also spends a chapter on wealth, and claims that Christians need to have a war mindset to the issue, and be willing to sacrifice everything they have for the Christian cause. Basically, he says this: "Oh, how many lives are wasted by people who believe that the Christian life means simply avoiding badness and providing for the family. ... We were created for more, far more."

How about this: John Howard Yoder, the student of Karl Barth, and teacher of Stanley Hauerwas has a title within a chapter of "The Politics of Jesus"(which is an academic text) stating "Fourth Jubilee Prescription: The Redistribution of Capital"(it's in the third chapter of the book), in which he states "Evidently Jesus accepted voluntary poverty for the sake of the kingdom and he ordered his disciples to practice the jubilary redistribution of their capital". He even states that Christ's harshness to the Pharisees was in part because the Pharisees were satisfied with simple giving of private charity rather than something more substantive. He goes further and states that Christian social teachings, because they undermine society so much, are subjected to political punishment. "The "cross" of Jesus was a political puishment; and when Christians are made to suffer by government it is usually because of the practical import of their faith" (chapter 7). Also that the Christian stance is very socially costly: "this centering of the apostolic ethic upon the disciple's cross evidences a substantial, binding, and sometimes costly social stance." (chapter 7)

Now, look, I've probably spent more effort on academically showing this whole position more so than you. My position is more coherent with both Piper's viewpoint and Yoder's viewpoint than either thinker is with your viewpoint, and both men are on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. Piper, while refusing to directly comment on issues of wealth, also can't outright deny my interpretation for the same reason, and even after refusing to comment on the proper interpretation of all of the verses on giving away wealth, makes his implicit direction clear by pointing out that Jesus lauded the woman who gave her last two coins to the church, rather than condemning her for a lack of prudence. (Note: there are other theologians I could likely try to reference directly or indirectly. The issue is that the statements here allow me to argue that my interpretations are MORE coherent than other available interpretations, particularly the minimalist ones in the thread. The reason being that this minimalism seemed explicitly motivated to limit the radicalism of the text, but the radicalism of the text is pretty mainstream in theology, and is found in both liberal and conservative theological circles.


Your reasoning is flawed. You assumed something I already rejected in conversation with Ancalagon.


No, I really do not. I've instead focused on fundamentals, and the fundamental here is the teaching of scripture. If status-quo Christianity is shown to be incoherent, then I don't think my argument really matters, as then being Christian has been shown to really be nothing. After all, if the religious group dedicated to following Christ no longer follows Christ, then they can't be labeled as dedicated to following Christ. Sort of like how the Woody Allen fanclub would no longer be the Woody Allen fanclub if instead of Woody Allen, all of the people there were instead dedicated to John Travolta.


Um.... depending on the argument, yes. It really can be used to service my argument.


I didn't attack you because this was an "emotive issue", I attacked you because I consider your behavior to be that of an a**hole. I don't mind people who disagree. I mind people who disagree in a particularly idiotic manner, and I consider you to have done that. I have made my argument. I have put forward the standards I planned on using for that argument. Other posters have also agreed on those standards as relevant and good standards, such as Vexcaliber, who also upheld the standard of a proper interpretation of the Christian text. Ultimately, your behavior just pisses me off. You attack my reading as just flawed, mostly through asserting your opinion on the meaning, but not addressing the literal text. Then you try to deny literalism because of the workings of my interpretation. Finally, you want to make me dig through Google Scholar, just for your own little head-game, because that's really all it is. Christianity doesn't justify itself by itself, it almost always refers to the original sources, such as "the traditions of the apostles", the "word of God" or some other thing. Justifying itself by itself, would indicate that Christianity is false, as it would suggest very strongly that Christ was a false prophet, not the son of God, due to the falsehood of the Christian teachings.

Honestly, I don't think I really care. I mean, if we are going to go by the 91 golden standard, then the Nazis were clearly not anti-Christian given that the vast majority of them, by any metric, self-identified as Christians. This is an uncontroversial fact.

As for "unequivocal hatred of Christianity"... um... there were Nazi efforts to find an interpretation of Christianity that fit their ideology well. This does not seem to show hatred, but rather is how many ideologies treated Christianity. The fact that the Nazis tried is standard historical evidence. The Nazi effort was called "Positive Christianity".

As for one of your sources, 91, you're misusing it. I actually have found the introduction to a book by your author, and even words you quoted in that introduction. Here's my more correct quoting of what is important about this book.
"In what follows, we explore the ways in which many leading Nazis in fact considered themselves Christian (among other things) and their movement (among other ways) within a Christian frame of reference. They drew upon Christian traditions to articulate their vision of Nazism - not only to the German people, but more importantly to each other and themselves.", "We have come to realize with growing empirical certainty that many Christians of the day viewed Nazism to be in some sense a Christian movement" In fact, it is actually the source of some of your own quotations, so that people can actually see what your scholar that you cite to show "peer-review" is actually SAYING in the text.
It is right HERE http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/23 ... 3715ws.pdf For anybody who questions who is using and quoting it right, you or I. So.... yeah.... a**hole.

Does your argument henge on the opinion that a Christian isn't a Christian unless bound to Christian scripture? If so it might be better to discuss whether or not a religion is required to bind itself to static doctrines. Your statement that a Christian isn't a Christian unless they agree with The Bible is kind of silly considering that a label is bound to change with time. I'm kind of confused in the head right now so i might have just misunderstood your posts.

Well, what is a Christian, if Christianness is unrelated to Christian scripture? I mean, regardless of whether all religions hold to that kind of standard, Christianity very much has as its foundation very strong reasons as to why it can't evolve so extremely.

I mean, to get to your point, I recognize labels can change, but Christianity is very much about the concept of a Christian, and this ties back to earlier Christian traditions. If we just allow the word to mean anything, then neither a defense of Christianity, nor an attack on it can commence. Even talking about the word will become a bit muddled.

A Christian religion is a group of people who believe in an interpretation of The Bible that includes a new testament. A Christian is a member of a Christian religion. Thats my definition any ways. This kind of fails when considering individuals who interpret the Bible independent of a church but still call themselves Christian but whatever.(I could just loosen the term to include any person who interprets The Bible) This definition assumes that the people or person is interpreting the books for spiritual reasons. And of course i never call someone anything unless they claim that label first.(excluding the Internet)

An attack on a Christian(following this definition) would be either attacking their interpretation or convincing them that your interpretation is better. Saying that they are not Christian because they lack a certain believe isn't likely to be convincing, and if your attacking their identity isn't an attempt to convince them of something your wasting energy and if your doing it in a way that will prove infective your also wasting energy.

Whats your definition of Christianity? Also what did you want to accomplish with this thread? Do you find any errors in my definition of Christianity?

Well name me an academic institution that would consider the use of that word to describe someone to be appropriate?

It is not even considered appropriate here on this forum:
'Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not'



I am not sure this makes any sense; since when are the people on this forum incapable of understanding the relevance of a well referenced point?



1) Why would you assume that your view is correct? Isn't this sort of logic exactly the sort of thing you have an issue with?

2) You argument is with Christianity (being basically defined as the majority of people adhering to the Christian faith) , you still have to argue that this view is held by the majority of Christians.



Once again this is predicated upon your view of a what a Christian is and your view of what their scripture means.



1) The Neo-monastic movement does not represent the majority of Christians

2) The Neo-monastic movement seeks to separate itself from civil society. This only supports your argument if you consider someone who is not a part of civil society to be someone who is opposed to it.



John Piper interprets Tornadoes; blaming them on homosexual behavior and the local Church's view on the subject. Are you seriously putting this forward as your mainstream Theologian?



Your use of this quote shows that you do not really understand the concept of vocation within Christian theology. The essential nature of this concept is that people are called for different things and that having been blessed with certain gifts that are of use to the general good. Most sects of both the Catholic and Protestant side of the Christian world-view accept this position.

As to your claim that this stands opposed to capitalism. Max Weber argued that the Protestant Work Ethic was absolutely essential to the development of capitalism. considering how seminal this work is when combined with Luther's 'On Vocation', this constitutes an epic fail. While this may not give enough credit to my own Catholic Church it certainly proves they did not see the modern economy as something Christians should be opposed to.

Epic fail here too. Your quote only gave you licence to state that 'many Christians of the day viewed Nazism to be in some sense a Christian movement'. Your statement that many leading Nazi's considered themselves Christian is stated as being not the case in the article (FAIL).

You must have missed the part where it says.

'The Nazi leaders were not themselves believing Christians, how ever much they may have 'borrowed' from Christian traditions in erecting their own policies.' -Pg 5

Honestly, the problem is that "interpretation of the Bible" is too loose. You see, the Bible is a large book with multiple themes, and even a retraction of themes at points. Merely holding to an interpretation allows for so much theological diversity that I think the definition basically ends up allowing too many possible beliefs. As such, I'd still hold that the proper interpretation is a better metric, especially given that most Christians have a theology that is contingent upon fidelity to the original revelation. I think that more liberal Christians might try to escape that, but I think that many of the more liberal Christians who are willing to go so far as to deny major themes really fail to uphold the religion sufficiently to maintain the title as Christian.

Honestly, I've already put forward efforts to show that they are obliged to uphold the theological structures I put forward. I don't think I am failing at showing obligation.

I'd have to say, as many Christians say themselves, that Christianity is a term describing people who show fidelity to the original teachings of Jesus Christ and/or some of his early disciples. (or partially here because Jesus never wrote anything personally) If there is no fidelity, then there is not a meaningful way to label someone "Christian", as there are a thousand BS theologies. I mean, there is even a such thing as Christian atheism, which in the hands of Thomas Altizer is actually based upon an interpretation of the New Testament through the eyes of Nietzsche, William Blake, and Hegel, so.... I know how far theologies go, and I firmly believe they should not be given that much slack.

Eh, I consider my point a statement of fact. You are an a**hole.

I'd bet that professors are willing to use the term where they think it is appropriate.

And well.... honestly, you have no freaking idea of what "intellectual honesty" means. Whether an academic institution tends to consider it appropriate or not has very little to do with whether it is honest in any sense or not.


Yeah, it really makes a lot of sense. "A well-referenced post" can be an intellectual dodge as the sources are not shared, and could be made up. It is also quite pointless because nobody really cares to argue with hidden sources they cannot criticize. I wouldn't want to argue with those hidden sources either in most cases.

If I want to reference something, in general, I'll post links. Links are more democratic. Links are simpler. Links are easier for everybody. That's how most people do it. Requiring more really tends to suggest a personal problem.


Because I've argued it. Because most of the counter-interpretations are based upon a minimization of the requirements of the text, even though this kind of radical statement is demanded by this text.


I don't hold to your argument. I am not bound by those requirement. Frankly, "the majority of Christians" are liars, losers, and IDIOTS. A sizable number believe that "God helps those who help themselves" is in the text. Even further, given that the vast majority of them are grossly theologically incoherent, I really have no reason to take any of these idiots seriously.


Yes, and both are sufficient.


Irrelevant.


Civil society requires people within it. If the Neo-Monastic movement had any large-scale success proselyting large numbers of people, or influencing the culture, then they would obviously destroy it.


Um... you mean that Jerry Falwell is better? How about Joel Osteen?

John Piper is a serious theologian. He's well-respected within conservative Christianity, particularly conservative Calvinism.


Umm..... I have the actual text. Yoder says "All that has been debated is whether debated is whether this redistribution of capital was commanded by Jesus for all Christians at all times and in all places or whether it was just a "counsel of perfection" directed to the saints.", and then later states "this is not a counsel of perfection". This means he explicitly affirmed that this is a requirement for all Christians. (note: you might find this insufficient, but block-quoting EVERYTHING wouldn't be desired.)


"epic fail"? 91, I have no desire to argue with the intellectually dishonest. Go away. I don't want you in my thread.

I've read Max Weber, Weber's point is that an unresolved tension in the workings of Calvinist theology ended up driving an immense drive, particularly given that worldly success was interpreted as a sign of divine favor. A possible issue is that part of the theology proposed there is also flawed, not on Weber's part, but in the attribution. For one, Weber already notes that the theologians driving the movement had no unresolved tension of this nature, but rather it only belonged to the laity, which can suggest it wasn't real. Furthermore, by the kind of view I am holding of Christianity, a modern pro-capitalist movement, in order to really be attributed to the Christian faith, would have to tie back to original Christianity. I don't see a case for that.

That being said, the modern economy actually does hold HUGE theological problems for Christians, period. Mostly due to the juxtaposition of extreme poverty and extreme wealth. (think third world and first world)

And... yeah, I think that Catholicism is a huge load of crap. Even worse than Protestantism. Partially because I regard supererogation in Christianity as completely false.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 07 Nov 2010, 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.