Christian values

[rgraham666]

"I am sinned and I am sorry for it" should be the beginning of Christianity or salvation or whatever you wish to call it, not the end. Simply being sorry doesn't really mean much without sincere change on one's part.

Thomas Aquinas should have used Socrates rather than Aristotle when he rethought Christianity.

Socrates career really started when he realized that he knew sweet-fuck-all and wasn't likely to learn much. He also realized that action without wisdom and doubt was likely to be destructive.

Aristotle was more typical of philosophers. More interested in proving the truth than in finding wisdom. And rather unconcerned with how his thinking affected the real world and the people in it.

It's what you learn after you know it all that's really important.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I've followed the argument with interest, thanks to you all. I'm led to the view that an individual can be drawn to a religion, or born into a religion. Bringing religion to an individual is fraught with problem in that the voice of religion all too often cajoles with salvation or damnation and it seems to me to be a poor way to sell the goods. Faith, Hope and Charity may simply be taking a sabbatical, they always impressed me with their ability to reach beyond doctrine to the human in humanity.

"I am sinned and I am sorry for it" should be the beginning of Christianity or salvation or whatever you wish to call it, not the end. Simply being sorry doesn't really mean much without sincere change on one's part.

Amen to both of those. I think that they're related to each other, as well. Acts of faith, hope, and charity, self-sacrifice and generosity to others, penitent remorse for our sins - those are the ways that show each other and ourselves that we really are sorry for the wrongs we've done. God, I think, can judge the truth of the statement "I'm sorry for the wrong I have done" and know to just what degree it's true and sincere for the speaker, but the rest of us mortals need the actions attached. Those around the sinner need to see the committment to righting wrongs and living a better life to believe its true, and we sinners need the work and continuous effort to keep reminding ourselves that it's true.

Thomas Aquinas should have used Socrates rather than Aristotle when he rethought Christianity.

Socrates career really started when he realized that he knew sweet-fuck-all and wasn't likely to learn much. He also realized that action without wisdom and doubt was likely to be destructive.

Aristotle was more typical of philosophers. More interested in proving the truth than in finding wisdom. And rather unconcerned with how his thinking affected the real world and the people in it.

It's what you learn after you know it all that's really important.

Poor Aristotle! Let me say a word or two in his defense. I think that his model of debate is a beautiful thing. Yes, it's true that he's keen to learn the truth of a proposition, but if you take him at his word as to the best way to find the truth, it's by listening to others, examining your own ideas for their weak spots, and working together to come up with the best information everyone together can supply. Politicians and people with axes to grind, he observes, will of course use rhetoric to attempt to drive their own goals - but the true philosopher uses enlightened debate as the path to learning. If you're approaching it in the right frame of mind, some doubt about your position is inherent in the process.

(And, yes, I'm a fool for that sort of debate. Throw rocks at me if you like. )

 

[rgraham666]

I'll never throw rocks at you, Shang. You're such a well mannered and well balanced horse.

Which, I keep forgetting, is really what the problem is, balance.

Ideologies seek to provide stability, which isn't the same thing as balance. But since stability in this universe is impossible ideologies always fail. Which is why their believers fight for them so. Failure for most people is not an option.

Balance is very difficult, requires constant awareness and continual changes of position. Balance allows for ignorance and mistakes.

But it's so much work people prefer ideologies. Something every religion devolves to at some point in its existence.

 

[CharleyH]

A society based on Christian values is what these people want. Not the values of Christ, of course; the values of Christians. This Christian children's camp is but another link in a horrific chain. Other links include crippling science in the schools with ID or Creationism, having us all pay to have young children indoctrinated in a depraved and irrational set of ideas, giving money to Oral Roberts because God will kill him if you and do not send him millions, and on and on.

We all know the list, and we have all decided, out of some misguided notion of respect, to give it a pass.

At least two of the Republicans going for the presidency this time are pimping for Jesus. That's because they know that the evangelical lobby is just waiting, money in hand, for someone they can call their own. Someone, as Pat Condell put it, who will really do something about the Rapture.

Please do not respond to this thread; I'll be okay in a few hours, probably. It's just caught me while I was tired.

A society, as I have experienced living in Canada, based on Christian values, is a limited one. I am not sure what else I could say until I have read the whole thread. My theory, or pseudo-premintion on the election is this: a democrat will be elected and it matters not that the President would be a woman or black, but that democrat will likely be assassinated if they are one or the other.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'll never throw rocks at you, Shang. You're such a well mannered and well balanced horse.

Which, I keep forgetting, is really what the problem is, balance.

Ideologies seek to provide stability, which isn't the same thing as balance. But since stability in this universe is impossible ideologies always fail. Which is why their believers fight for them so. Failure for most people is not an option.

Balance is very difficult, requires constant awareness and continual changes of position. Balance allows for ignorance and mistakes.

But it's so much work people prefer ideologies. Something every religion devolves to at some point in its existence.

Ah, it's posts like this that make a whole day worthwhile.

Beautiful thoughts, Rob, and beautifully put.

 

[rgraham666]

Arigato gozimas.

 

[WRJames]

The strange thing about Christianity -- at heart, it is a religion of subversion and revolution. An established Christian church is an oxymoron.

The strange think about fundamentalists -- they have totally warped and misinterpretated the Bible. The seeds of their destructuction are in the very words they claim to worship.

Have any of you heard of Rob Bell? The evangelical movement is mutating, even as we fret about its hegemony.

In the meantime, the mainstream denominations (I'm a Presbyterian) are tearing themselves apart over gay rights issues. Probably, we will see the Protestant denominations split completely, and maybe merge again based on their stands on some of these.

The real risk isn't the evangelicals. The real risk is that the Democrats will put up an unelectable candidate, and an eminently qualified Republican will win the general election. Then we will see the Supreme Court swing even further to the right.

As things stack up, it looks like either Clinton or Obama on the Democrat side -- secular liberals -- you are creating the crisis, not the conservatives.

 

[Weird Harold]

The strange thing about Christianity -- at heart, it is a religion of subversion and revolution. An established Christian church is an oxymoron

How so? That certainly doesn't sound like the Christianity I learned as a child nor the Christianity I've studied since then.

The "Render unto Caeser..." instruction would seem to suggest that Jesus was in favor of separation of church and state -- or at least recognised that they properly had distinct and separate spheres of influence.

Perhaps radical and subersive to the established religion of the day, but an inherently live and let live philosphy. (nothing like what the centuries and the catholic church has warped it into, granted but the basic teachings are about anything but subversive and revolution as I understand them.

 

[WRJames]

How so? That certainly doesn't sound like the Christianity I learned as a child nor the Christianity I've studied since then.

The "Render unto Caeser..." instruction would seem to suggest that Jesus was in favor of separation of church and state -- or at least recognised that they properly had distinct and separate spheres of influence.

Perhaps radical and subersive to the established religion of the day, but an inherently live and let live philosphy. (nothing like what the centuries and the catholic church has warped it into, granted but the basic teachings are about anything but subversive and revolution as I understand them.

Well, certainly subversive to the Jewish religious establishment. And, one would suspect, the various established sects today are just what Jesus came to overturn. There is always the danger that someone will actually pay attention to what's in the Gospels and overturn the established church.

As for coexisting with the state -- always a tricky proposition. Christianity changed a lot when it became the state religion of the Roman Empire.

 

[Boxlicker101]

How so? That certainly doesn't sound like the Christianity I learned as a child nor the Christianity I've studied since then.

The "Render unto Caeser..." instruction would seem to suggest that Jesus was in favor of separation of church and state -- or at least recognised that they properly had distinct and separate spheres of influence.

Perhaps radical and subersive to the established religion of the day, but an inherently live and let live philosphy. (nothing like what the centuries and the catholic church has warped it into, granted but the basic teachings are about anything but subversive and revolution as I understand them.

I understand the early Christians were very much into proselytizing, which is what got them into trouble in Rome. From what I have read and heard, Rome was very liberal about various religions, as long as the members didn't hassle each other.

 

[Weird Harold]

Well, certainly subversive to the Jewish religious establishment. And, one would suspect, the various established sects today are just what Jesus came to overturn.

I don't think I would cast a blanket aspersion on all of the various sects, but I can certainly see your point when it comes to the majority of them.

I can see your point, but I always thought the "Jewish establishment" was corrupt and no longer represented the Jewish Religion or People -- more of a restoration than a revolution in intent.

As for coexisting with the state -- always a tricky proposition. Christianity changed a lot when it became the state religion of the Roman Empire.

That's the problem we're facing today -- once a religion and government merge then they are no longer "co-existing" and the proper "spheres of influence" get indistinct.

Right now, we're in need of a Restoration and the "moneychangers" need to be thrown out of the Temple once again.

 

[WRJames]

I can see your point, but I always thought the "Jewish establishment" was corrupt and no longer represented the Jewish Religion or People -- more of a restoration than a revolution in intent.

No. Jesus came to overturn the Law of Moses, not to restore it. That's the whole point of the parable of the Good Samaritan, and the incident where Jesus heals on the Sabbath.

Of course, there is some hint of a revolt against corruption when Jesus chases the money changers out of the temple. But it is the very pious, upright, honest folk, the Pharisees and the Saducees, that he torments the most.

 

[Weird Harold]

I understand the early Christians were very much into proselytizing, which is what got them into trouble in Rome. From what I have read and heard, Rome was very liberal about various religions, as long as the members didn't hassle each other.

They were and they weren't -- not all of them were the kind of hellfire and brimstone, you're going to hell if you don't convert that the Roman laws forbade. The evangelists' worst sin as far as the Romans were concerned was their opposition to (and obsrtuction of) the official Roman state pantheon.

Even from the very beginning, there were the "fundamentalists" and the "moderates" and the "fundamentalists" got more press and caused more trouble.

 

[cantdog]

Permanent Revolution

There's a sort of romance that accrues when an idea is new, people are afire with it, it is cast in the role of opposition to the great weight of established ideas that precede it.

In a way, each new generation of innocent humanity comes de novo to every idea, and even the hoariest is new.

Maintaining the stance of the romantic revolutionary? A set of ideas extending back through millennia and having undergone so many upheavals and transformations? Sure, you can see it that way. History will bolster it in some ways and mock you in others. But the idea itself and its advocates will gain a bit of vitality from a stance like that.

In the end, though, its a stance. A way of looking at it.

To my way of thinking, the freshness and boldness of the ideas of Christ were already in the past when the gospels were written, especially John's gospel. Those writers were already trying to set Jesus into history, place him in the stream of previous religious thought, encapsulate his life and words in a case and frame of Meaning. How many times do they refer to one thing or another as a fulfilment of prophecy? How many shaggy old wonder tales did they graft onto the factual record?

Phooey. Men's ideas all but swamp what we can still manage to make out of Jesus's own story, and Paul nails the lid shut. Revelation is a raving mushroom vision filtered through more historical concepts John liked the sound of. The story of the revolutionaries themselves has its romance, but when these people achieved the patronage of the Roman state, all the revolution ceased, to be replaced by a sort of purge.

Science faltered and retreated, governance took a back seat. The Huns came, the Germans flowed across the map, soon enough the muslims swept in from the other direction upon the Germanic successor states. None of this could be affected in any organized way by a priest-ridden government obsessed with a war on its own population. Heresy became defined as the notions which were held by the weaker of the contending parties. Might not only made mayhem, but right as well, even noospheric right.

The rigid, riddled hulk of the Christian ideas tottered into the new millennium, which has just now come to a close. But yeah. Go ahead and take the stance that it's still revolutionary.

 

[WRJames]

There's a sort of romance that accrues when an idea is new, people are afire with it, it is cast in the role of opposition to the great weight of established ideas that precede it.

In a way, each new generation of innocent humanity comes de novo to every idea, and even the hoariest is new.

Maintaining the stance of the romantic revolutionary? A set of ideas extending back through millennia and having undergone so many upheavals and transformations? Sure, you can see it that way. History will bolster it in some ways and mock you in others. But the idea itself and its advocates will gain a bit of vitality from a stance like that.

In the end, though, its a stance. A way of looking at it.

To my way of thinking, the freshness and boldness of the ideas of Christ were already in the past when the gospels were written, especially John's gospel. Those writers were already trying to set Jesus into history, place him in the stream of previous religious thought, encapsulate his life and words in a case and frame of Meaning. How many times do they refer to one thing or another as a fulfilment of prophecy? How many shaggy old wonder tales did they graft onto the factual record?

Phooey. Men's ideas all but swamp what we can still manage to make out of Jesus's own story, and Paul nails the lid shut. Revelation is a raving mushroom vision filtered through more historical concepts John liked the sound of. The story of the revolutionaries themselves has its romance, but when these people achieved the patronage of the Roman state, all the revolution ceased, to be replaced by a sort of purge.

Science faltered and retreated, governance took a back seat. The Huns came, the Germans flowed across the map, soon enough the muslims swept in from the other direction upon the Germanic successor states. None of this could be affected in any organized way by a priest-ridden government obsessed with a war on its own population. Heresy became defined as the notions which were held by the weaker of the contending parties. Might not only made mayhem, but right as well, even noospheric right.

The rigid, riddled hulk of the Christian ideas tottered into the new millennium, which has just now come to a close. But yeah. Go ahead and take the stance that it's still revolutionary.

Well, one of the mottos of my denomination is "Reformed and always reforming." Which may seem pretty comical if you ever took a look at the Book of Order -- but still, the idea is still there, lurking.

Of course, any clear eyed view of the Bible and history of the church includes exactly the problems you describe. My daughter is a recent seminary graduate, as is her husband, and I have had exactly the same discussions with them. They study these things, as part of their training,

But still, beneath all that dross, all that obfuscation, all the attempts to rationalize and exploit and deny, there is still that raw glimmer of -- something. Something that could inspire Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Mother Teresa. Much as we have attempted to smother it, that spark still smolders. I mentione Rob Bell before -- he is part of the "Emergent" movement which has sprung out of the Evangelicals -- much more liberal, radical even. And what has driven them -- the Bible itself, properly understood,

 

[Boxlicker101]

There's a sort of romance that accrues when an idea is new, people are afire with it, it is cast in the role of opposition to the great weight of established ideas that precede it.

In a way, each new generation of innocent humanity comes de novo to every idea, and even the hoariest is new.

Maintaining the stance of the romantic revolutionary? A set of ideas extending back through millennia and having undergone so many upheavals and transformations? Sure, you can see it that way. History will bolster it in some ways and mock you in others. But the idea itself and its advocates will gain a bit of vitality from a stance like that.

In the end, though, its a stance. A way of looking at it.

To my way of thinking, the freshness and boldness of the ideas of Christ were already in the past when the gospels were written, especially John's gospel. Those writers were already trying to set Jesus into history, place him in the stream of previous religious thought, encapsulate his life and words in a case and frame of Meaning. How many times do they refer to one thing or another as a fulfilment of prophecy? How many shaggy old wonder tales did they graft onto the factual record?

Phooey. Men's ideas all but swamp what we can still manage to make out of Jesus's own story, and Paul nails the lid shut. Revelation is a raving mushroom vision filtered through more historical concepts John liked the sound of. The story of the revolutionaries themselves has its romance, but when these people achieved the patronage of the Roman state, all the revolution ceased, to be replaced by a sort of purge.

Science faltered and retreated, governance took a back seat. The Huns came, the Germans flowed across the map, soon enough the muslims swept in from the other direction upon the Germanic successor states. None of this could be affected in any organized way by a priest-ridden government obsessed with a war on its own population. Heresy became defined as the notions which were held by the weaker of the contending parties. Might not only made mayhem, but right as well, even noospheric right.

The rigid, riddled hulk of the Christian ideas tottered into the new millennium, which has just now come to a close. But yeah. Go ahead and take the stance that it's still revolutionary.

Without necessarily disagreeing with you, I am puzzled by some of the things you have said. The Muslim empire did conquer the Iberian Peninsula, but they were defeated at the Battle of Tours and never advanced beyond that. That area was never really Germanic. Centuries later, the Ottoman Empire did rule the Balkan Peninsula, but was defeated at the Battle of Vienna, However, this was strictly a different conqueror.

Since you are mostly referring to the first thousand years of Christianity, when you say: "the rigid, riddled hulk of the Christian ideas tottered into the new millenium" do you mean they reached 1001 AD? Because, since that happened, it has tottered through a thousand years and has recently entered another millenium.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The "Render unto Caeser..." instruction would seem to suggest that Jesus was in favor of separation of church and state -- or at least recognised that they properly had distinct and separate spheres of influence.

Perhaps radical and subersive to the established religion of the day, but an inherently live and let live philosphy. (nothing like what the centuries and the catholic church has warped it into, granted but the basic teachings are about anything but subversive and revolution as I understand them.

Actually, one of the current great debates in the Catholic church is that over "liberation theology." In a nutshell, the current dominant view of the church is that seperation of church and state is desirable - which is why you don't see priests running for public offices. The pope and church leaders will express their views to the public and offer opinions on what they think would be moral laws, but they tend to eschew direct involvement in political activities.

Liberation theologists see things differently. Many of them are from Central and South America, and they feel that church leaders have the right and even an obligation to involve themselves directly in political matters when there are issues of justice and human rights and liberty at stake.

It's a tricky business. It's hard to argue that priests have no duty to try to stop the regime of a murderous, torturing dictator, but traditionalists fear that that will be the thin end of the wedge and that from that point on, it will be every man's definition of "an urgent matter of human liberty and justice" for itself. The boundaries aren't always as clear-cut as they seem.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The rigid, riddled hulk of the Christian ideas tottered into the new millennium, which has just now come to a close. But yeah. Go ahead and take the stance that it's still revolutionary.

Quite a lot of it is. If nothing else, it's in revolt against earlier forms of itself. If the rising movements to reclaim Christianity from Republicanism, or the Catholic church from the deathgrip of the heirarchy, or sexuality from Leviticus were to succeed, that would be a welcome revolution, no?

 

[Weird Harold]

Actually, one of the current great debates in the Catholic church is that over "liberation theology." In a nutshell, the current dominant view of the church is that seperation of church and state is desirable - which is why you don't see priests running for public offices. The pope and church leaders will express their views to the public and offer opinions on what they think would be moral laws, but they tend to eschew direct involvement in political activities.

Liberation theologists see things differently. Many of them are from Central and South America, and they feel that church leaders have the right and even an obligation to involve themselves directly in political matters when there are issues of justice and human rights and liberty at stake.

It seems to me that the Church can't oppose government abuses if they're part of or sponsored by the government that should be opposed.

I don't really have any problem with religious people -- even part of a formal religious hieracrchy running for public office -- IF he can separate his religious obligations from his civic obligations; or at least make an effort to find non-religious arguments to support civic positions.

The participation of religious figures in politics doesn't violate the separation of church and state -- the participation of religions in politics does. The concept of "campaiging from the pulpit" is fairly simple even if the definitions get a bit slippery at times.

 

[WRJames]

It seems to me that the Church can't oppose government abuses if they're part of or sponsored by the government that should be opposed.

Therein lies the great paradox -- power is corrupting, power is unjust, but a powerless church is not worth much either.

This also gets into the tension between freedom and virtue that I mentioned in another thread recently. Imposing social justice probably means restricting personal freedom.

 

[cantdog]

Without necessarily disagreeing with you, I am puzzled by some of the things you have said. The Muslim empire did conquer the Iberian Peninsula, but they were defeated at the Battle of Tours and never advanced beyond that. That area was never really Germanic. Centuries later, the Ottoman Empire did rule the Balkan Peninsula, but was defeated at the Battle of Vienna, However, this was strictly a different conqueror.

Since you are mostly referring to the first thousand years of Christianity, when you say: "the rigid, riddled hulk of the Christian ideas tottered into the new millenium" do you mean they reached 1001 AD? Because, since that happened, it has tottered through a thousand years and has recently entered another millenium.

Charles Martel, a Frank, led the troops at Tours. It was the Vandal and Gothic Kingdoms on the peninsula which were overrun. Vandals and Franks alike were germanic. Goths too, we believe.

The muslims ate the territories of the Eastern empire as well as that of the Persian Hellenistic empire, in the East.

The millenium I referred to, the one they tottered into in 1001, was indeed the milennium that just concluded in 2001. Exactly so. How fresh and Christlike was it when it crossed that threshhold? Pagans and Arians were still being warred on, too. The Scandinavians were converted at this time, and pagans in the countryside in the North began to feel the iron heel of the Church.

The purge of the pagans continued for centuries, punctuated with hunts for other heresies.

 

[cantdog]

I've heard of Bell, and ordered his book. Light reading around the atheist woodstove.

But I understand he represents hippie, which is going to limit his call a bit. It was in defeating the hippies that the powers that be learned how to combat countercultural movements, and they did a damn thorough job.

I heard Jimmy Swaggart this morning on the tube. He took up Galatians. He likened the false teachers of today to the proponents of the Law that Paul was writing to the Galatians about. Paul uses strong language. He doesn't just chide them for error. He says "I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel:" Jimmy dwelt on the different gospel theme and compared it explicitly to "The Purpose Driven Life." He took a purist line, as Paul did, that unless it's about Grace and the Cross, it's a different gospel, a false teaching.

Meanwhile, you tell me that Warren, he of the fleet of private jets, has turned a corner.

There are cracks around the edges, here.

The hierarchy disagrees with Liberation Theology. And while that Catholic hierarchy appeared on the radio alongside Father Coughlin in a pro-Nazi stance, it is not the force which is driving the fascists today. That would be the nominally Protestant fundies.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The hierarchy disagrees with Liberation Theology. And while that Catholic hierarchy appeared on the radio alongside Father Coughlin in a pro-Nazi stance, it is not the force which is driving the fascists today. That would be the nominally Protestant fundies.

Personally, I think that any group or movement that gains sufficient power will tend toward fascism. How else does one explain the NOW supporting bills attempting to remove any additional legal penalty for assault if the victim happens to be a pregnant woman who loses her child as a result? Women would have so much choice that they ... wouldn't have a choice any more.

It's the nature of absolutism. Humans tend to like it because it keeps things very clear. Sometimes we forget that clarity might not be the best and only goal.

Too, there's the dilemma that WRJames points out (I love your church's motto, by the way). A powerless institution (not just church, but any institution) can't accomplish its goals. However, any organization that has power will draw a certain number of people who just like power. The more power the organization has, the more of those people it will find flocking to it.

Perhaps the founding fathers had it right. A little revolution now and then might be a good thing. You can't stop ruthless and power-hungry people from seeking what they crave, but changing the rules around now and then can help slow them down and let the rest of us have a go.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I heard Jimmy Swaggart this morning on the tube. He took up Galatians ... "I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel:"

And lo, the gods of irony did smite him unto dust?

 

[rgraham666]

We can only hope.

When I'm less tired and drunbk, I'll bring up my old story about the samurai and his three sons. That sums up my attitude towards power quite nicely.