Christianity stands against a functional society

Post Reply New Topic

This statement is a simple enough statement. It is a statement that every Christian who knows their scriptures should admit to. It is also a statement of fact though.

Christianity does not promote proper legal relations, but rather subverts them, reducing the economic rationality of society. This is seen in the sermon on the mount.

Mat 5:40-42 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (41) And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (42) Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

1Co 6:7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?

In denying people the right over the protection of their property in the New Testament, Christianity undermines the promotion of wealth through undermining protection for this wealth. Ultimately, this is done in service of the "ultimate good", that is God, as believers are encouraged to reject earthly things for God, thus undermining the value and goodness of these earthly things. This includes attacking the wealthy:

Mat 19:23-24 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. (24) Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."

Ultimately, the divine point is this:

Mat 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

This is despite the fact that it is man seeking his own gain, preserving his culture and family, and all of that which has improved mankind more so than God's kingdom adding things to man. Ultimately, these teachings are wrong, but not only that, they undermine our society, our culture, and the goodness of our way of life.

Finally, Jesus, and his example stand against the human right to defend ourselves from harm:

Mat 5:39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Even holding that Christians submit to a government trying to kill them.

Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Even holding that Christians accept being enslaved.

Col 3:22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

Ultimately, holding that the proper path of man is that he be destroyed. It is Christianity's bent towards self-destruction that is why it symbolizes itself with the cross, and holds to the glories of martyrdom, rather than rational symbols, such as those of coin or social prosperity. Christianity is only meant for slaves, not men of any mastery, and in seeking mastery, we ought to reject it. In the end, Christianity is not only wrong, but it is wrong for the foundational principles of society. In order to defend our way of life, Christianity must be rejected as the hippie-cult that it is, and instead replaced with a culture that reflects the glorious Western tradition of rationality and enlightenment descended from the Greeks and Romans, rather than this self-destructive path.

Rules for a ancient bygone era...
They sound rather normal for a feudal agrarian society designed to maintain the authority of kings and landowners, but that isn't the modern world.

Only fools take those seriously today. (Not saying how many fools there are... but they're out there.)

Mankind has many delusions and one of them is that there is a society, perhaps over the rainbow, that is functional.

Well, the Old Testament is actually more meant to maintain the authority of kings and landowners. Christian teachings really were meant more for a cult than a society(something you can notice from their content), which is why deriving political teachings from the Christian text is such a pain. There aren't really political teachings, because Christianity came about within a society in which it could never have expected to get power.

Actually, I would argue that the Sermon on the Mount is the foundational statement for a truly functional society. Of course, no society in human history has ever been "functional" ... they have all fallen desperately short... Then again, no society has ever seriously attempted to live according to the Golden Rule.

I agree. Most of the New Testament talks about loving one another, forgiving others who wronged you, and helping the less fortunate.

It's when the opposite happens like hating each other, holding grudges, and leaving the poor to fend for themselves that society begins to fall apart.

I don't know what to say, as there will likely be a little bit of talking past each other here.

However, the problem is that the sermon on the mount undermines economic stability and capital growth by diverting resources, and diverting them in an ad hoc manner to those who ask for resources, as opposed to a more rational accounting method.

As for the Golden Rule, the problem is that Jesus put in place something a lot STRICTER than the Golden Rule in the Sermon on the Mount.

Finally, another issue is stability. Some value systems are just unstable. They are too easy to exploit, and thus collapse. The Sermon on the Mount is too easy to exploit. Thus, it really cannot be practiced, except for a Christian martyr, and such beings, due to that lifestyle, are less capable of contributing to society.

Well, the problem isn't just the simplified message you present, the problem is that what the New Testament presents is actually rather extreme. I mean, nobody is against loving other people, most cultures have some notion of forgiveness, and most societies have some regard for the less fortunate. Christianity though is extremist if one actually cares to look at the text. It talks about loving EVERYONE. It asks you to forgive EVERYONE. It requires you to help EVERYONE. The problem is that a functional society really does need more limits to it.

The Sermon on the Mount is too easy to exploit? Is that not the case with every system? The Sermon on the Mount is supposed to tell us about the Kingdom of Heaven. There's a hymn which says of the Kingdom of Heaven "and soul to soul and silently her shining bounds increase, and her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace." Obviously such a system will be imperfect while humans are imperfect... but if indeed "from soul to soul" the Kingdom increases, then the Laws of the Kingdom will increasingly be seen in the life of it's inhabitants.

The problem when talking about the morals of the Kingdom as opposed to the morals of the World is that the World looks, for now at least, as though it has more power.

But (and I'll talk to you about this tomorrow, because it's currently past midnight my time) the Kingdom was never about Caesar.

You talk as though the World were a Bad Thing. God made the World or so it is believed. If so, how can it be a Bad Thing?

ruveyn

Well, because economic instability obviously isn't responsible, nor is the lack of capital growth. Both traits are important for our welfare, and for the improved welfare of our society.

I think that capitalism is the only economic system that has shown any ability to handle the needs of an advanced economy. I think other systems get bogged down in too many problems. I think that an advanced economy is essential though if we care about our well-being and happiness, as well as if we care about knowledge and improvement of human society.

Finally, I think that if knowledge can grow and improve nearly infinitely than growth can do about the same. Part of growing isn't just getting more resources, but also using existing resources better. Take for instance, a computer. Computers didn't create resources, but knowing how to make them makes a huge difference in using the existing resources to meet human desires better.


You can start a thread on that, but any ethic requiring that you give up your cloak to those who try to force you to give up your tunic, requires you to give to those who ask of you, and that requires you to turn the other cheek is demanding a lot.


No. "too easy to exploit" is a relative term. The sermon on the mount is supposed to tell us about what to do here and now. While some parts are heaven oriented, a lot of the teaching is ethical.

Even further, the following things must be recognized:
1) If you can't force people to be Christian, then non-Christians within the context will exploit these "gentlenesses".
2) If you can force people to be Christian, then you have a totalitarian society.
3) Flaws of humans may be important, but to me, the issue is just plain game theory. Takers benefit, producers lose, less production occurs.


Well, no, I know that. As it stands, I think most Christians solve the tensions in their system with later theological creations, rather than the scriptures themselves. I think this is probably more apparent with the interpretation of Romans 13 in many groups, as Christians tend to read Romans 13 as if they were the ones in power(or at least with a lot of acceptance of their faith) when Romans 13 was originally written in a context of persecution.

There is a society. It is as functional as it is ever going to be.

We do have a system of laws which are mostly enforced by not perfectly administrated. There is order in the society in most places and people do get along, for the most part without cutting each others throats.

There will never be Perfection. That is because humans are not Perfect. However the lack of perfection does not mean a lack of function.

You live in Finland, yes? Do they have a functional society in your immediate neighborhood?

ruveyn

In the poem 'If' by Rudyard Kipling it says

'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools'

I do not mean this to be a personal attack on you Awesomelyglorious but you are taking very useful points that are being made by Jesus, taking them out of context, assembling them into a straw man and preceding to light them on fire because according to your definition they have no value.

When Jesus says

Mat 5:40-42 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (41) And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (42) Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

He is encouraging us to be kind but you see this as an instruction to be gullible

When Paul says

1Co 6:7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?

He is not making a decision about your rights, he is trying to explain that you share a common bond with that person and victory is not always as important as getting along.

When Jesus says

Mat 19:23-24 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. (24) Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."

Jesus had issued a calling to a rich man, the man refused. Jesus is teaching us that those of us with a good deal to lose are less willing to give up themselves for their calling. You see this as an attack on the rich,

You use this same logic on every verse you comment on. You twist the moral logic to make it appear that it is in opposition to the values of a good society. This form of Biblical literalism only conforms to the straw man you make of it. If however, you really do see no value in those statements then that is your loss.

“Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear; for they are a rebellious house." Ezekiel 12:2

By a functional society I assume a society that accommodates all the desires and needs of its members. In general Finland does better than the USA at that but it in no way fulfills all the requirements. No society even faintly approaches that deal.

The squeeze will come in full force for capitalism when the means of production no longer requires much of a work force since automation and robotics will become more economical.That's still off in the future somewhat but the effects are being felt now to a small extent. A bit of that is appearing by removing the work force from the source of consumption which outsourcing is doing in the USA. Consumers then lose the source of money to purchase the production. It destroys the system. That's the current depression.

Not even close.


Please show me even just one example of such, and please do not bother with wasting your time re-misrepresenting "The Sermon On The Mount".


Your spin is laughable! Have you really nothing better to do with your time?!

Absolutely right! Capitalist economics is still rooted in the management of scarcity. What happens when the world wallows in plenty? Right now we do not have the right intellectual equipment to handle it. Applying scarcity policy to the world of plenty, the child of modern technology, will ruin the peace and justice of the world. I hope the intellectual turnover can be made without bringing civilization down around our ears.

Once we get our heads properly straightened out ( most like not in my lifetime or yours) we can move of the Mazlow hierarchy and behave sanely with the conditions we are creating.

ruveyn