A case for Christianity

[Mithrae]

Sometimes I like to imagine the interesting conversations I might have if I ever decided to 'become a Christian' again: “No, I'm actually not even sure that 'God' exists. In fact I think that any rational assessment would conclude on balance that Jesus probably did not literally rise from the dead.� Christians often profess a desire for others to become members of their religion, yet obviously I couldn't pretend to believe things that I don't believe, or to not know the things which I do. So if they somehow got their wish, how would I explain or justify those seeming contradictions, even to myself? According to most Christians throughout history, including in the bible itself, many of those intellectual hurdles but particularly these two above are pretty much non-negotiable, central elements of the religion.

Of course, there are some Christians who would disagree with that. I haven't read or seen much of them in books or the like – I gather that John Shelby Spong would be one well-known example – but there've been a few such folk on the forum on occasion. Trying to put myself in their shoes, I believe that they would emphasise more of a 'mythopoetic' perspective on 'God' and the resurrection; perhaps not necessarily viewing them as definitely literally false, but treating them primarily as powerful, fundamental or even transformative archetypes or metanarrative placeholders whose value (at least in day to day life) do not depend on a literal understanding at all.

How would I explain that to some of my more traditionalist family members? The simple fact is that aside from vague notions of 'feeling God's presence,' the actual existence of a deity has basically zero relevance to our day to day life; overt miracles or the like are pretty rare, to say the least! In fact in all probability, if a god exists it would be simply impossible for human minds to have anything even remotely approaching a conception of what that entity is really like; to imagine otherwise is to commit the 'sin' of dragging the Ultimate Reality down to our meagre level and reconstructing 'God' in our own image. So from that perspective perhaps even more traditional Christians might be able to acknowledge that 'God' as we conceive it probably doesn't exist. Yet the concept of god, however far removed that may be from the reality, is one which provides us with a potential sense of place in the world, some imagination of what might be a purpose to existence, and perhaps even hope for the future. The concept of god is a mere placeholder for something which our minds probably can't even come close to comprehending, but that concept represents an overarching story or metanarrative about our world which arguably serves us much better than a bleak deterministic materialism.

It may well turn out that after we die we'll find ourselves in a new life, and with a greatly expanded capacity for understanding reality; a scenario in which the literal reality of God (or rather, something probably quite unlike our base conception) will have become much more relevant. But in day to day life, the relevance of this placeholder concept really only comes from its role in 'answering' or even simply outlining existential questions.

Similarly for the resurrection: Again, the supposedly magical transformation of the conversion experience aside (which arguably could more properly be considered the work of the Holy Spirit in any case), whether or not Jesus literally rose from the grave really doesn't affect anyone's day to day living. But the imagery or symbolisms of humility, of self-sacrificing love, of triumph over (or fearless towards) death, of transformation and of new life... these are profound and powerful themes which find many expressions in many different cultures, but perhaps most profoundly and certainly most widely and enduringly in the stories of the Jesus of Christianity. More than once as a young Christian, when faced with a difficult course of action or hostility from others, I thought of Jesus' courage in even going to his own death and his forgiveness of those who crucified him, and they sometimes gave me the inspiration and strength do what I considered right.

Of course the thematic and existential roles which these stories of Jesus and God occupy could potentially be filled by others instead. There are stories of courage and self-sacrifice in the face of wars or disaster which by any natural measure are unquestionably more compelling than Jesus' largely self-provoked execution. With so many thousands of examples in the centuries since, it could hardly be otherwise. Similarly some of the stories of people who've overcome crippling adversities or turned tragedies into triumphs are more inspirational than the contradictory gospel stories of the resurrection. But more than those discrete themes considered individually, Christianity offers the unity and diversity of over a thousand years of ancient Hebraic culture from the bible alone, and two thousand years of Christian evolution, mistakes and growth since then.

It's a possibly unfortunate tendency amongst Protestant Christians especially to ignore or dismiss much of church history, rather than 'owning' and learning from our culture's failures every bit as much as from those of Israel and Judah in the Tanakh. In all likelihood, if we'd grown up in the times and cultures of a few centuries ago many of us would have been there burning witches with the best of them. So rather than just self-righteously condemning such atrocities, part of the historical and cultural legacy of Christianity should be providing an opportunity – perhaps even a responsibility – to learn about what went so badly wrong with Jesus' message of love, and why, and how we can hope to make our own lives and institutions better because of that knowledge. But even more than just the lessons of history, there is a vast wealth of artistic, architectural, literary and musical legacy to relate to on the basis of even tentatively-shared religious reference points: Because I was a Christian, I can appreciate anything from Handel's Messiah to Ben Hur potentially more than I might have if I'd been raised in an entirely different culture.

Socially therefore, Christianity potentially offers a sense of context, culture and community which can often be sadly lacking in our atomised, consumeristic world.

Personally, it offers the moral and existential reference points of the bible stories; whether those stories are true or false, and even when we decide that they are stories which show how earlier generations and societies have used 'god' as an excuse for their xenophobic or even genocidal agendas.

And spiritually, it offers the hope and possibility that maybe, just possibly, there really will turn out to be a loving God and a better life after death, along with the inner peace and fulfilment – for those who seek it – of exploring and imagining those possibilities as if they were fact.

In short, the role of religion in this perspective bears some similarities to the kind of cultural fandom we often see in devotees of particular sports teams, musicians, games and the like, but going much, much deeper: Fandom fulfils some of the social role above, and even that quite meagrely or transiently. A slightly closer comparison would be patriotic nationalism, which offers a broader and more enduring answer to the social role, and provides an historical context for possible questioning and answers of moral and existential questions also. It's important to note that in these examples, identifying with this or that group needn't imply that one considers it to be monolithic or perfect in any way: Being proud to be an Australian doesn't mean that I share all of even most of my views in common with other Aussies, and nor does it mean I can't acknowledge and hopefully learn something from the historical (or recent) crimes or missteps of the country.

Finally of course there are many people who are “spiritual but not religious,� to greater or lesser degrees. I was interested to learn recently that even the noted atheist Christopher Hitchens once said “We have a need for what I would call 'the transcendent' or 'the numinous' or even 'the ecstatic,'� and that “Everybody has had the experience at some point when they feel that there’s more to life than just matter. But it’s very important to keep that under control and not to hand it over to be exploited by priests and shamans and rabbis and other riffraff.� And perhaps for some the smorgasbord approach is found to be preferable, seeking spiritual fulfilment from one place and social integration in another while tackling moral and existential questions from yet a third angle.

But the only format in which all these needs are met (or at least addressed) in a united format as far as I'm aware is in religious contexts, in which community and history share equal importance with abstract theology and philosophy. As such it could well be argued that, even if it's not for everyone, religion fills a role in human society which is ultimately even more important than mere sports or nationalism, even in spite of the harm that it too has sometimes caused (or at least served as a vehicle for).


Does religion fill an essential role in society?
.

[Divine Insight]

Mithrae, after reading your post #7 I can only say that you and I have dramatically different view on Christianity. Views that are probably so dramatically different that it's highly unlikely that we could ever find common ground.

In this post I would like to comment on what these differences are.

You say:

This is an interesting perspective: Certainly some variations of Christianity seem to suggest that other conflicting ideologies should ultimately not exist, that the world would be better off without them.

I have to take the position often expressed by Christopher Hitchens here: If you think that you can twist the Bible that far from what it actually has to say, then you are fooling yourself if you think that you believe in the Bible.

The Bible clearly demands that the God of the Bible is a jealous God and there are not to be any other Gods placed before him. The New Testament proclaims that if a person does not believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of this specific jealous God then they are condemned already. John 3:18. And John 4:6 has Jesus proclaiming: " I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

I could go on to even post scriptures where the Biblical God commands men to seek out those who preach of other Gods and to destroy them. Therefore if a person doesn't believe these things, then what sense does it make for them to claim to believe in the Bible or be a "Christian".

So do we in turn say that those variations of Christianity should not exist?

Or even (as you seem to here) ignore the nuances of different sects and interpretations, and suggest that all Christianity is bad for society?

What we can say is that those variations of Christianity are so removed, and opposite to what the Bible actually teaches that it's a farce to even call them "variations of Christianity". I mean, how far can religious sect be removed from the original texts that it claims to be based on before we call it out as being clearly a totally different ideology entirely?

Anyone can form a religious cult and claim that it represents "Christianity" when it fact it has very little to do with the original religion.

In fact, this is why the very term "Christianity" is pretty meaningless today. People use this term to mean all manner of totally incompatible ideologies. Ideologies that are not only incompatible with each other, but are also incompatible with the very Bible they claim to be based on.

In short, the very term "Christianity" is a meaningless term today. Even the people who call themselves "Christians" can't even agree on what it means.

Diversity certainly is essential for a culturally, politically and intellectually vibrant society, and diversity inevitably means division.

I disagree here as well. Diversity doesn't inevitably mean division. It may seem like division when a group of people are trying to come to a consensus to make laws, etc. Like in a governmental congress. But it doesn't need to mean division in general.

Different people of different beliefs and faiths could all get together in the same place and have a big party, each diverse group performing their own rituals and worshiping their own imagined Gods, with even atheists included perhaps just looking through telescopes standing in awe of the universe. There is no fundamental reason why diversity needs to result in division. It's the "Jealous God Religions" that are the cause of division.

It would be the Christians, or the Muslims who would start complaining that all the non-Christians or non-Muslims are 'worshiping the wrong God', or performing the wrong rituals, or following the wrong dogma.


It's the "Jealous God Religions" that cause the problems.

Like you suggest, there may be "Christians" who don't push the "Jealous God" agenda. But that's not Biblical. The Bible pushes the jealous-God agenda to the hilt and condemns all those who reject the Biblical God.

Most Christians can get along peacefully and productively even in discussion of religion with folk of a different denomination or even a different religion entirely; but some of course do not. Most classic rock fans get along with and might even appreciate other genres; but some will ridicule contemporary pop as mindless commercial crap or classical as boring antiquated pretentiousness. Most politically liberal folk and politically conservative folk get along with each other fine; but some consider those differences hugely important and irreconcilable.

Exactly. But now we're just talking about individual human nature. If rock fans become irate it's on them. They can't point to any "jealous-God" dogma to back them up.

When Christians become irate they start beating people over the head with the Bible proclaiming that they are just standing up for God's WORD!

There's a huge difference there.

And the Christians who aren't doing that have ironically already rejected what the Bible actually teaches anyway.

I've often said that one of the greatest strengths of Christianity - compared to say Islam - is the range of different perspectives evident from the various authors of the anthology which is the bible, and the obvious evolution and adaptiveness evident between the 'old' and 'new' testaments.

The problem is that the New Testament cannot truly be separated from the Old Testament. Even the New Testament has Jesus proclaiming that ever jot and tittle of the law in the Old Testament shall not pass until heaven and earth pass.

And besides, the idea that Jesus was radically different from Yahweh is a contradictory position in any case. It makes no sense to claim that an unchanging God changes in character so radically overnight.

So this idea that some Christians have that they can just flush the Old Testament down the toilet whilst proclaiming Jesus as God truly can't be made to work.

Remember even Jesus proclaimed in John 4:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

The jealous-God aspect of this religion doesn't go away with Jesus.

Fundamentalists who insist that there is or should be only One True Christianity (and these days, those fundamentalists seem to be critics more often than they are Christians) seek to destroy the wealth of interpretations, contradictions and questions which enhance both its potential to adapt alongside changing societies and technologies, and its potential to provide an intellectually rich and challenging culture.

And again, this is where I agree fully with Christopher Hitchens. Any so-called "Christians" who think they can just pretend that the Bible doesn't actually say what it says are just fooling themselves.

I actually agree with the Fundamentalists. Either the Bible is true in what it actually says, or it's garbage.

Of course the Fundamentalists stand behind the Bible being true in what it actually says.

And I have concluded that it's garbage.

But the non-fundamentalist "Christians" that you keep referring to are not Christians at all. And by that I simply mean that they don't represent Christianity as described in the Bible. Instead, they think they can just toss out the garbage that is the Bible whilst keeping the baby Jesus as their own cute little God.

Please note: I don't expect that you will agree with my position outlined above. None the less this is how I see things, and why I don't find your argument that a confused diverse Christianity is a "strength". That is not a strength at all. To the contrary if these people who call themselves "Christians" have such widely diverse and disagreeing theologies from the same fundamental Holy Texts, then this can only mean one of two things:

1. The Holy Texts themselves must then be extremely ambiguous and confusing.

That can hardly be considered a "strength" for any religion.

OR

2. The Fundamentalists are right and all the non-fundamental Christians simply aren't paying close enough attention to the original texts.

And by the way, I'm not so sure this level of confusion and disagreement doesn't exist equally in Islam. Just as the Christians have their major divide between Catholicism and Protestantism, the Muslims have their major divide between Sunnis and Shiites. And I'm quite certain that the Muslims have further disagreements within those two major divisions as well.

I think the Muslims would actually pounce on your willingness to say that they have little disagreement over their religion. If that were true this would actually be a strength for them. This would indicated that their theology is more clear and consistent.

However, I don't even agree with you on that point. I see Islam clerics as being in just as much disagreement and confusion as Christian clerics. Although, like the Christians they aren't likely to admit it.

Even the Christians who have wildly different views often support each other when confronted by an atheist.

We even see this on this forum. We see theists who have made wildly different and clearly opposite arguments for Christianity being quite happy to cover each others backs when it comes to debating an atheist. It's funny to watch actually.

[marco]

Half the population is hardly "a few." From some quick wiki-ing, here's the level of religiosity in some of the world's countries:

As I said, I believe the word "essential" has been misused. I have no idea what determines "religiosity" as opposed to religion, but these figures, fascinating as they are, do not add an iota to the worth of the word "essential." People may like religion, may use religion, may go with their gran to church - but I cannot see how this troubles the word "essential."

it seems evident that roughly half the members of any given society, give or take, find that it has something important to offer them.

Perhaps. But you said "essential".

The needs which seem to be met by religions - spiritual, existential, moral and social - are fairly important, some would say critically important,

People need food and oxygen to survive. You list cosmetic concerns which, granted, add warmth to life. I don't know how we evaluate "spiritual need" and I am sure that the vast majority of the population live happily without knowing about Sartre and existential angst. People with no religion seem to survive morally, spiritually and socially without need for communal prayer.

But I think it would still be fair to describe it as an essential role if religions manage to satisfy those needs for a substantial proportion of people.

Well I disagree. I have a tremendous respect for the word "essential" and don't like to see it trivialised. I am more in tune with the description that religion is the opium of the people. Does that make it essential? I think not.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

Does religion fill an essential role in society?

Yes.

That said, the essential role it fills is a political one and in that it gathers together potentially troublesome individuals and gives them a message which is designed to pacify them enough to accept the systems of disparity and those administrations in authority which govern these systems as being set in place and condoned by GOD, while at the same time allowing for them not to feel guilt because they are promised that they will receive their reward in the next life by being faithful to the teachings of religion in this one.

[Mithrae]

Half the population is hardly "a few." From some quick wiki-ing, here's the level of religiosity in some of the world's countries:

As I said, I believe the word "essential" has been misused. I have no idea what determines "religiosity" as opposed to religion, but these figures, fascinating as they are, do not add an iota to the worth of the word "essential." People may like religion, may use religion, may go with their gran to church - but I cannot see how this troubles the word "essential."

it seems evident that roughly half the members of any given society, give or take, find that it has something important to offer them.

Perhaps. But you said "essential".

The needs which seem to be met by religions - spiritual, existential, moral and social - are fairly important, some would say critically important,

People need food and oxygen to survive. You list cosmetic concerns which, granted, add warmth to life. I don't know how we evaluate "spiritual need" and I am sure that the vast majority of the population live happily without knowing about Sartre and existential angst. People with no religion seem to survive morally, spiritually and socially without need for communal prayer.

Could society survive without religion? Sure, I already said that. But flourish? As I hinted in the opening post, besides religious and political messages - and in fact, much more than both of those combined - overwhelmingly the images and worldview that we in the 21st century are bombarded with is that of material consumerism and the associated extrinsic values of wealth and status. Commercial advertising increasingly targets the youngest and most vulnerable members of society (as religions used to and sometimes still do), and to a much greater extent has come to be represented by increasingly sophisticated psychological methods of persuasion designed by professional teams intending to circumvent even adults' rational choice. The consequences seem to be mostly negative:

• http://www.monbiot.com/2013/12/09/one-r ... ntentment/
  
  But an impressive body of psychological research appears to support these feelings. It suggests that materialism, a trait that can afflict both rich and poor, which the researchers define as “a value system that is preoccupied with possessions and the social image they project�(5), is both socially destructive and self-destructive. It smashes the happiness and peace of mind of those who succumb to it. It’s associated with anxiety, depression and broken relationships.
  
  There has long been a correlation observed between materialism, a lack of empathy and engagement with others, and unhappiness(6,7,8). But research conducted over the past few years appears to show causation. For example, a series of studies published in June in the journal Motivation and Emotion showed that as people become more materialistic, their well-being (good relationships, autonomy, a sense of purpose and the rest) diminishes(9). As they become less materialistic, it rises. . . .
  
  
  These studies, while suggestive, demonstrate only correlation. But the researchers then put a group of adolescents through a church programme designed to steer children away from spending and towards sharing and saving. The self-esteem of materialistic children on the programme rose significantly, while that of materialistic children in the control group fell. Those who had little interest in materialism before the programme experienced no change in self-esteem(11).
  
  Another paper, published in Psychological Science, found that people in a controlled experiment who were repeatedly exposed to images of luxury goods, to messages which cast them as consumers rather than citizens and to words associated with materialism (such as buy, status, asset and expensive), experienced immediate but temporary increases in material aspirations, anxiety and depression(12). They also became more competitive, more selfish, had a reduced sense of social responsibility and were less inclined to join demanding social activities. The researchers point out that as we are repeatedly bombarded with such images through advertisements, and constantly described by the media as consumers, these temporary effects could be triggered more or less continuously.
  
  A third paper, published (ironically) in the Journal of Consumer Research, studied 2,500 people for six years(13). It found a two-way relationship between materialism and loneliness: materialism fosters social isolation; isolation fosters materialism. People who are cut off from others attach themselves to possessions. This attachment in turn crowds out social relationships.

Most religions, most of the time, promote intrinsic values rather than extrinsic, and emphasize community and social gathering as an important aspect of religious practice. Certainly there are also other options available to meet these needs, as I've stressed all along, but - even if you choose to ignore the existential and spiritual entirely - it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that religion is a very important counterbalance to material consumerism, from which many if not most of the 40-80% of folk in developed democracies who remain religious are probably deriving significant benefits in mental health.

But I think it would still be fair to describe it as an essential role if religions manage to satisfy those needs for a substantial proportion of people.

Well I disagree. I have a tremendous respect for the word "essential" and don't like to see it trivialised. I am more in tune with the description that religion is the opium of the people. Does that make it essential? I think not.

If your only objection is semantic, fair enough. Perhaps we could likewise say (and many do) that public education is not 'essential,' universal health care is not 'essential,' and the right to a voice in government is not 'essential.' Societies have survived and sometimes even seen relative increases in prosperity and general well-being without those things too, after all. In terms of numbers of people affected and impacts on quality of life, I would guess that they are each perhaps two or three times times more important than the availability of religion.

We could say that sports are not essential, music is not essential, and access to parks and nature reserves are not essential. They contribute to physical and mental health as well as social cohesion (usually). In terms of numbers of people and relative impacts I'd guess that they are each perhaps half or a third as important as the availability of religion.

So if you want to say that religion merely fills a very important role in society, that's fine

[Mithrae]

Mithrae, after reading your post #7 I can only say that you and I have dramatically different view on Christianity. Views that are probably so dramatically different that it's highly unlikely that we could ever find common ground.

After all the times we've discussed it before, that's no great surprise

This is an interesting perspective: Certainly some variations of Christianity seem to suggest that other conflicting ideologies should ultimately not exist, that the world would be better off without them.

I have to take the position often expressed by Christopher Hitchens here: If you think that you can twist the Bible that far from what it actually has to say, then you are fooling yourself if you think that you believe in the Bible.

The Bible clearly demands that the God of the Bible is a jealous God and there are not to be any other Gods placed before him. The New Testament proclaims that if a person does not believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of this specific jealous God then they are condemned already. John 3:18. And John 4:6 has Jesus proclaiming: " I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

I could go on to even post scriptures where the Biblical God commands men to seek out those who preach of other Gods and to destroy them. Therefore if a person doesn't believe these things, then what sense does it make for them to claim to believe in the Bible or be a "Christian".

Who said anything about "believing in" the bible? Besides fundamentalists, I mean? Historically, many if not most Christians have been illiterate and/or had no access to a bible in their language. What kind of definition are you trying to push if it's going to exclude those people?

It's not up to you or Christopher Hitchens to decide who is and is not a Real Christian (TM). I'm sorry, but that's the very height of arrogance and hubris, and is exactly the kind of dogmatic/divisive attitude you're complaining about in the first place! Hitchens of course tries to do the same thing with agnostics, attempting to define them out of existence as simply some variety of atheist; meanwhile, some religious folk reciprocate in declaring that no-one is really an atheist, they're just angry at God. None of these is a respectable approach, and the critic who tells Christians that they are not really Christian is just as bad as the theist who tells atheists that they're not really atheists.

Would you, for comparison, declare that an ancient Greek person wasn't really a follower of Hellenic religion if he considered the stories of Prometheus, Sisyphus and so on to be mythical/moral tales rather than historical realities? Would you say that someone who is a Buddhist must agree with and be accountable for everything within the Tripitaka?


I rather suspect not, in both cases. Or perhaps you would, I don't know; it doesn't really matter in any case. Christianity is not defined by your personal peculiarities or double standards, but by the community of Christians. And while there obviously are and have been fringe cults whose inclusion in the umbrella term might be ambiguous, liberal theology represents something like one-quarter of Christians in the United States. (In 2015 a third of US Protestants - about 20% of all Christians - identified with mainline in contrast to evangelical traditions, with the proportion of Catholics and 'Black Protestants' holding liberal theologies unspecified.) They don't need approval from me or you or Christopher Hitchens to know that they are Christians.

Fundamentalists who insist that there is or should be only One True Christianity (and these days, those fundamentalists seem to be critics more often than they are Christians) seek to destroy the wealth of interpretations, contradictions and questions which enhance both its potential to adapt alongside changing societies and technologies, and its potential to provide an intellectually rich and challenging culture.

And again, this is where I agree fully with Christopher Hitchens. Any so-called "Christians" who think they can just pretend that the Bible doesn't actually say what it says are just fooling themselves.

I actually agree with the Fundamentalists. Either the Bible is true in what it actually says, or it's garbage.

Of course the Fundamentalists stand behind the Bible being true in what it actually says.

And I have concluded that it's garbage.

But the non-fundamentalist "Christians" that you keep referring to are not Christians at all. And by that I simply mean that they don't represent Christianity as described in the Bible. Instead, they think they can just toss out the garbage that is the Bible whilst keeping the baby Jesus as their own cute little God.

The Bible itself pretty clearly states in various places that the Bible is not the perfect 'Word of God,' simply a record of various believers' actions, opinions and experiences (including sometimes allegedly hearing the actual words of God) over time. The fact that you and many Christians are ignorant of what the Bible says about itself, about God's communication to humanity, and about the new covenant in general is hardly a strong argument in favour of fundamentalism!

Another fact which you seem to overlook is that one of earliest and most profound principles which the Torah itself established is that 'God' cannot be represented by any name or image available to humans. 'God' is what it is - "I am that I am" - and trying to fixate on any more specific description or imagery or concepts of 'God' is an exercise in futility at best or blasphemy at worst. As I commented in the opening post, even many traditionalist believers would probably agree when they give it some thought that God as we conceive it probably does not exist; whatever 'god' is, is something to hopefully understand when we die.

Nevertheless, the core concepts of Christianity relate to issues and remedies which are widespread enough that even many non-Christians could undoubtedly see the value in all or most of them when stripped of religious jargon:
- The sovereignty of 'God'
- The centrality of love
- The inevitability of shortcomings and failure
- The necessity of grace and forgiveness
- The value of transformative experience and a 'new life'
- The importance of personal commitment and action

I obviously can't speak for all liberal Christians since I am not even one myself, and it's a very diverse group in any case, but I suspect that most would share these views in common with Paul and John and most Christians throughout the millennia. Nowadays, some folk might get all hung up on words like 'God' or (for the latter four in order) 'sin,' 'redemption,' 'salvation' and 'faith,' but those peculiarities hardly make it a false or incoherent philosophy. Is it for everyone? I know some members of the forum have insisted at times that they are perfect, that such notions simply don't apply to them. Well, good on 'em I guess. I never have and never will try to argue that religion (let alone Christianity specifically) is essential for everyone. I'm not even religious myself.

But it does seem clear as outlined in my various other responses that religion does fill a very *ahem* important role in society at large. And I simply do not accept the kind of narrow fundamentalist thinking which tries to specifically ostracise and deny the utility or acceptability of two or three of the world's great religions. I advocate reform, not rejection, whereas you are championing precisely the kind of divisive attitude you profess to dislike in them!

[Divine Insight]

Who said anything about "believing in" the bible? Besides fundamentalists, I mean? Historically, many if not most Christians have been illiterate and/or had no access to a bible in their language. What kind of definition are you trying to push if it's going to exclude those people?

You're right the term "Christian" is basically a meaningless term precisely because it's used to mean things that have absolutely nothing to do with "Christianity" as based on the Bible.

This is why the very term "Christianity" has itself become a meaningless term anymore.

It's not up to you or Christopher Hitchens to decide who is and is not a Real Christian (TM).

Exactly. That's why I formed it as a question:

I asked, "Therefore if a person doesn't believe these things, then what sense does it make for them to claim to believe in the Bible or be a "Christian?" Although I did notice that in my original post I placed a period at the end of that question instead of a question-mark. Me bad.

And the same goes for Christopher Hitchens, he's not deciding who is or not a "Real Christian" (TM), he's simply pointing out that people who call themselves "Christians" but who don't support what's in the Bible either aren't well-educated on the religion they claim to be a member of, or they simply aren't paying attention.

Keep in mind a lot of people call themselves "Christians" simply because they grew up in a Christian environment, accepted Jesus as their savior, and bingo, they are a "Saved Christian". There is no requirement that they ever read the Bible or have a clue what's in it.

So let's face it, the term "Christian" is being used today in a way that doesn't require having a clue what's actually in the Bible at all.

That's why we need to ask who it is that is passing out the (TM) on the term "Christian" without requiring that there be any understanding at all of what it supposedly means.

In fact, what does it mean? It clearly doesn't mean to have an understanding of the Christian Bible, that much is guaranteed.

None of these is a respectable approach, and the critic who tells Christians that they are not really Christian is just as bad as the theist who tells atheists that they're not really atheists.

Actually this is a very bad comparison. If a person claims to be a Christian they should at least have a clue about the religion they claim to be a member of. An atheist is simply a person who sees no reason to believe in a God. Therefore they really need don't need to know anything specific. In fact, most atheists actually know more about the religions they don't believe than the Christians know about the religion they claim to believe in.

Christianity is not defined by your personal peculiarities or double standards, but by the community of Christians.

Wrong.

Yes, your right it's not defined by me personally. But you're wrong that it's defined by the "Community of Christians" too.

No one today can define define what they think Christianity should be. Not me, and not any community of Christians. What defines Christianity are ancient scriptures that were written several thousand years ago. And it's not possible to go back and re-write them.

A community of Christians cannot re-write Christianity today. That makes no sense. They are stuck with having to support a dogma that has been written thousands of years ago.

And that is the standard which I go by, and it's hardly a "double standard". It's just recognizing the origins of these fables and the claims they make.

And while there obviously are and have been fringe cults whose inclusion in the umbrella term might be ambiguous, liberal theology represents something like one-quarter of Christians in the United States. (In 2015 a third of US Protestants - about 20% of all Christians - identified with mainline in contrast to evangelical traditions, with the proportion of Catholics and 'Black Protestants' holding liberal theologies unspecified.) They don't need approval from me or you or Christopher Hitchens to know that they are Christians.

No one is saying they need our approval. However, if they are going to make claims that are in direct contradiction to the books they claim to be basing their religion on, then there's no reason we should take them seriously either.

Especially if they are trying to make a "Case" for Christianity that doesn't even match up with their Holy Book.

The Bible itself pretty clearly states in various places that the Bible is not the perfect 'Word of God,' simply a record of various believers' actions, opinions and experiences (including sometimes allegedly hearing the actual words of God) over time.

If that's true then the Bible is a self-contradictory collection of texts, because in other places it claims that it is the word of God and that it is perfect, and that the scriptures cannot be broken. There are even places where it says that nary a word shall be added to it or taken from it.

So if it claims in other places that it's not the perfect "Word of God" and that it is simply an undependable record of various opinions that could be totally not from God or approved by God, then it's clearly a self-contradictory collection of fables.

Any argument that the Bible cannot be trusted to be the perfect word of God is necessarily going to lead to the only possible conclusion - The Bible cannot be trusted to be the Word of God. And once we have an open confession of this the Bible become utterly useless, because there would be no way to know which parts are from God and which parts are the erroneous opinions of men.

So that argument only serves to destroy the religion, not support it.

Another fact which you seem to overlook is that one of earliest and most profound principles which the Torah itself established is that 'God' cannot be represented by any name or image available to humans. 'God' is what it is - "I am that I am" - and trying to fixate on any more specific description or imagery or concepts of 'God' is an exercise in futility at best or blasphemy at worst. As I commented in the opening post, even many traditionalist believers would probably agree when they give it some thought that God as we conceive it probably does not exist; whatever 'god' is, is something to hopefully understand when we die.

I don't know why you would think that I would have overlooked this. I don't need for God to be anything. All I do is point out the self-contradictory commandments and behavior assigned to God. God could be an invisible elephant fart as far as I'm concerned. I mean, clearly that's crude description, but the point is that my arguments never require that God has any specific physical form.

Nevertheless, the core concepts of Christianity relate to issues and remedies which are widespread enough that even many non-Christians could undoubtedly see the value in all or most of them when stripped of religious jargon:
- The sovereignty of 'God'
- The centrality of love
- The inevitability of shortcomings and failure
- The necessity of grace and forgiveness
- The value of transformative experience and a 'new life'
- The importance of personal commitment and action

So? Those same core concepts are no doubt central to just about ever religion mankind has ever invented.

In other words, why does Christianity always think that it can lay claim to the (TM) of general concepts?

The only one I see above that Christianity might be able to lay claim to placing a (TM) on would be - The necessity of grace and forgiveness. But that's only because they had already laid claim to the (TM) on eternal damnation. This is why grace and forgiveness become necessary in Christianity. That's only to avoid eternal damnation.

I obviously can't speak for all liberal Christians since I am not even one myself, and it's a very diverse group in any case, but I suspect that most would share these views in common with Paul and John and most Christians throughout the millennia.

I agree. But I would also be quick to point out that the bulk of these Christians have embraced the "need" for grace and forgiveness, without really thinking about it deeply.

Why do I say this? Well, because Christian evangelists NEVER go around telling people that they must accept Yahweh as the God who is out to damn them. They just take that part for granted and tend to ignore the entire Old Testament and instead just focus in Jesus and being "Saved" from damnation.

So instead of going around asking people to accept Yahweh as their executioner, they just go around asking people to accept Jesus as their savior. They take the whole damning idea for granted without even thinking about.

But it does seem clear as outlined in my various other responses that religion does fill a very *ahem* important role in society at large. And I simply do not accept the kind of narrow fundamentalist thinking which tries to specifically ostracise and deny the utility or acceptability of two or three of the world's great religions. I advocate reform, not rejection, whereas you are championing precisely the kind of divisive attitude you profess to dislike in them!

The reason I take the position I take is because I sincerely see no hope that the Abrahamic religions could even be "reformed".

They are based on a jealous God who is out to damn people if people refuse to believe in him. Both Christianity and Islam take this idea to the extreme. Islam proclaims that the way to be saved from damnation is to embrace the Qur'an and follow its teachings. Christian claim that the way to be saved from damnation is to accept Jesus as your savior and follow his teachings.

It's not going to be possible to 'reform' these religions from thinking there is a jealous God who is out to damn them if they don't fall in line with some specific moral authority (i.e. the Qur'an, or Jesus).

So since these religions have no hope of ever being reformed into anything reasonable the only hope is to get the preachers of these religions to recognize that the religions are indeed nothing more than man-made folklore.

Atheists would like to see religion just go away entirely. I can't say that I blame them in the face of religions like Christianity and Islam.

I'm not even asking that much. I'd be happy to see everyone just move over to Buddhism. And I'm not even a Buddhist.

I'm not asking anyone to stop believing in a "God", but I will do everything I can do to help people stop believing in "Jealous God Religions" that can never become anything more than divisive religions that brand everyone who refuses to believe in their jealous God as being an immoral person who has chosen to reject all that is good and embrace all that is evil.

We KNOW that the latter is not true. Right?

Therefore these jealous-God religions can't be true either.

So we know that these religions are every bit as false as Greek mythology.

No doubt about it.

[Mithrae]

None of these is a respectable approach, and the critic who tells Christians that they are not really Christian is just as bad as the theist who tells atheists that they're not really atheists.

Actually this is a very bad comparison. If a person claims to be a Christian they should at least have a clue about the religion they claim to be a member of. An atheist is simply a person who sees no reason to believe in a God. Therefore they really need don't need to know anything specific. In fact, most atheists actually know more about the religions they don't believe than the Christians know about the religion they claim to believe in.

[Huge section snipped from quotation/response]

Christianity is not defined by your personal peculiarities or double standards, but by the community of Christians.

Wrong.

Yes, your right it's not defined by me personally. But you're wrong that it's defined by the "Community of Christians" too.

No one today can define define what they think Christianity should be. Not me, and not any community of Christians. What defines Christianity are ancient scriptures that were written several thousand years ago. And it's not possible to go back and re-write them.

A community of Christians cannot re-write Christianity today. That makes no sense. They are stuck with having to support a dogma that has been written thousands of years ago.

I notice that you didn't answer my questions. Maybe you overlooked them. Perhaps I was too subtle in posting a big picture of the Pali Canon:


Do you likewise assert that anyone claiming to be a Buddhist (I notice that you have made yourself a member of that usergroup) is "stuck with" and must agree to and be accountable for everything within the Tripitaka? For example what seems to be Buddhism's own example of purgatory and indulgences:
"Petavatthu 51 poems telling of the suffering of ghosts resulting from bad karma. It gives prominence to the idea that gifts to monks can benefit one's deceased relatives' ghosts."

And do you hence likewise assert that groups which 're-wrote' Buddhism after the establishment of that canon - such as the Mahayana and Vajrayana branches - do not "have a clue about the religion they claim to be a member of"?

Do you likewise assert that "the very term 'Buddhism' has itself become a meaningless term" when it's used so freely by not only those later upstarts, but even by random folk who on other occasions claim that they actually are not Buddhists?



Or is all of this just a wildly obvious double-standard against Christianity? Why do you even fixate on the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, or the Orthodox Bible, when the earliest known specifically-Christian canon consisted only of some unknown variations of Luke and Paul's epistles? The 'bible' is a list of books somewhat arbitrarily created by self-appointed leaders in Jewish and Christian communities ranging from 1600 to 2600 years ago. Do you actually have any logical or empirical basis for asserting that this is somehow the correct way to define the world's religions, or are you just going on some gut feelings here?

What I have proposed is exceedingly simple and obvious: The word is defined by common usage, in particular by members of that group. If one or two fringe weirdos call themselves 'Christian' it means little, but when millions of 11th century Catholics called themselves Christian they were - even if the Eastern Orthodox Christians asserted that they had strayed from the 'true faith.' When millions of Protestants call themselves Christian they are - even if the Catholic Christians claimed that they were the ones straying from the 'true faith.'

And when tens of millions of Christians starting from the early 19th century move towards more liberal theologies - based partly on certain teachings in the bible itself no less, and maintaining consistency with those core principles I outlined above - your protestations that they have strayed from the 'true faith' look every bit as dogmatic, divisive and feeble as all those that went before. Especially if you're not willing to apply those standards consistently to other religions.

Your further attempt to justify this prejudice on the grounds that "It's not going to be possible to 'reform' these religions" rings more than a little hollow given the existence and prevalence of peaceful, compassionate Christians; if anything it looks like you're trying to splice them away from your imagined 'true Christianity' simply to further fuel your own attacks against the religion.

[Divine Insight]

Do you likewise assert that anyone claiming to be a Buddhist (I notice that you have made yourself a member of that usergroup) is "stuck with" and must agree to and be accountable for everything within the Tripitaka? For example what seems to be Buddhism's own example of purgatory and indulgences:
"Petavatthu 51 poems telling of the suffering of ghosts resulting from bad karma. It gives prominence to the idea that gifts to monks can benefit one's deceased relatives' ghosts."

No. I do not support any form of strict dogmatic Buddhism. In fact, the Buddha himself taught that we should not accept anything just because someone else claims that it's true. Including his own teachings.

So dogmatic forms of Buddhism are bad form. Not only that but keep in mind that nothing in those texts claims to be the "Word of God" anyway. Those texts truly do just reflect cultural superstitions.

And do you hence likewise assert that groups which 're-wrote' Buddhism after the establishment of that canon - such as the Mahayana and Vajrayana branches - do not "have a clue about the religion they claim to be a member of"?

Yes. I actually do hold that to be true. In fact, for the same reason that the many different denominations of Christianity cannot all be true. Clearly at least some (if not all) of those branches of Buddhism must have misunderstood the Buddha.

Do you likewise assert that "the very term 'Buddhism' has itself become a meaningless term" when it's used so freely by not only those later upstarts, but even by random folk who on other occasions claim that they actually are not Buddhists?

Yes, in fact, I agree that this is extremely problematic when I tell people that "Buddhism" makes some sense. I almost hate to use the term "Buddhism", precisely for this reason. There are "Buddhist sects or demoninations" that I would totally disagree with and dismiss as having clearly become far more dogmatic than the original Buddha had intended.

So yes, it is problematic to be sure. None the less, I don't think there are any sect or forms of Buddhism that actually proclaim to have the "Word of God" or claim that some God will condemn people who refuse to believe in Buddhism.

I tend to support the Dalai Lama's view of Buddhism to a large extent. Although I would probably have disagreements with the Dalai Lama on some details if we ever actually sat down and had a conversation. I can't be certain of this. But if he believes that he truly is a specific reincarnation of a specific previous Buddha Soul, then we probably would have some disagreement. I'm not sure what he actually believes on that specific issue.

Or is all of this just a wildly obvious double-standard against Christianity? Why do you even fixate on the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, or the Orthodox Bible, when the earliest known specifically-Christian canon consisted only of some unknown variations of Luke and Paul's epistles? The 'bible' is a list of books somewhat arbitrarily created by self-appointed leaders in Jewish and Christian communities ranging from 1600 to 2600 years ago. Do you actually have any logical or empirical basis for asserting that this is somehow the correct way to define the world's religions, or are you just going on some gut feelings here?

I have many logical reasons for the conclusions I draw. In fact, I've been arguing based on that logical reasoning on these forums for years now.

In fact, it's funny you should mention Luke and Paul in the same sentence above. They taught radically different and contradictory things. Paul claims that all men are sinners. But Luke has Jesus proclaiming that 99 out of every hundred people who go to heaven do so on their own righteousness.

So Luke and Paul teach radically different and contradictory things. They can't both be right.

What I have proposed is exceedingly simple and obvious: The word is defined by common usage, in particular by members of that group. If one or two fringe weirdos call themselves 'Christian' it means little, but when millions of 11th century Catholics called themselves Christian they were - even if the Eastern Orthodox Christians asserted that they had strayed from the 'true faith.' When millions of Protestants call themselves Christian they are - even if the Catholic Christians claimed that they were the ones straying from the 'true faith.'

And when tens of millions of Christians starting from the early 19th century move towards more liberal theologies - based partly on certain teachings in the bible itself no less, and maintaining consistency with those core principles I outlined above - your protestations that they have strayed from the 'true faith' look every bit as dogmatic, divisive and feeble as all those that went before. Especially if you're not willing to apply those standards consistently to other religions.

But I am willing to apply those same standards to other religions. Keep in mind that Buddhism never claimed to be the "Word of God". It never claimed that its "Scriptures cannot be broken". It never claimed that Buddha was the "Son of God" and that if people don't believe it they will be condemned to hell.

Therefore Buddhist are allowed to have different views because they have no "Holy Book" that they claim is the "Word of God".

In fact, I must confess, that when I tell people to move over to "Buddhism" I'm kind of assuming that they will recognize that it is indeed an entirely different type of religion entirely.

I guess that's probably a lot to assume that people should be able to recognize this.

In fact, many atheists tell me that it's far better to just convince the Christians and Muslims to become atheists, because if they are just sent over to another religion they'll probably figure out a way to try to twist that into being about a jealous God as well, since that's really all they seem to know.

The atheists are probably right. I'm just trying to offer theists an alternative spiritual philosophy.

Your further attempt to justify this prejudice on the grounds that "It's not going to be possible to 'reform' these religions" rings more than a little hollow given the existence and prevalence of peaceful, compassionate Christians; if anything it looks like you want to splice them away from your imagined 'true Christianity' simply to further fuel your own anger against the religion.

Don't kid yourself. "Peaceful, compassionate Christians" may appear to be harmless, but if they are still judging others based on their jealous-God religion, then they may not be nearly as peaceful or compassionate as you think.

After all, if a "peaceful compassionate Christian", is holding moral disapproval over the head of a gay couple or a transgender individual they may be doing far more harm than you might imagine. Especially if this moral disapproval results in driving the gay couple or the transgender person into a state of depression, or suicide.

Then what good is it to say that the Christian was "peaceful and compassionate". Just because they didn't grab a gun and blow these people way doesn't mean that they didn't contribute to their emotional or physical demise.

There's no such thing as a "Compassionate Christian" if they are openly voicing disapproval of other people in the name of their jealous God.

And keep in mind too, just because someone calls themselves a "Christian" doesn't mean that their personal actions reflect what the Bible teaches.

I keep trying to remind everyone on these forums that I really couldn't care less what people who call themselves "Christians" claim to believe. That's totally irrelevant to me.

I am here to debate the Bible. Not what people who call themselves Christians claim to arbitrarily believe. That would be totally futile.

And by the way, I wouldn't even bother debating with a Buddhist over what they think Buddhism means. In fact, I could do there is agree with them that Buddhism is indeed highly flexible because even the Buddha himself taught that we should evaluate everything for ourselves and never take anything on pure authority, including Buddha's own teachings.

At least I can point to that.

I don't think Christians can do that. Can you show me where Jesus ever told people to evaluate everything for themselves and never take anything as an authority including the Old Testament or his very own teachings?

This is why you seem to think there is a "double standard" here between Buddhism and Christianity. There is no "double standard" because they are totally different teachings entirely.

The Buddha was sharing his views. Jesus was claiming to be the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but by him.

These aren't even remotely similar in that regard. So the only reason you think there is a "double standard" here is because you seem to think I'm applying different standards to the same types of religious philosophies.

But Buddhism is totally different. Buddhism doesn't even claim that there is a Father God. Buddhism is actually based on the concept of pantheism. Not on the concept of a creator God who is going to hold everyone accountable for their actions.

These religions are totally different and therefore go by different standards entirely.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

Does religion fill an essential role in society?

Essential in what way?

For a society to exist? For there to be harmony in society? For there to be a balance between good and bad? For there to be a higher motivation to spread compassion, generosity, love, and all the virtues?

Maybe religion is essential to counter the progress of mankind. It has certainly done that.

As John Lennon suggested, imagine there's no heaven, no hell, and no religion too.

Imagine the world without religion if you can. I can't.

I think in many ways it would be a better world. But given the scope and depth, emotional bonds, and political influences that constitute world-wide religions, how could one ever predict the effects on society if it were removed? Or what society would look like had there never been a religion?

So I don't think we can answer the question of essentiality. All we can do is speculate.

[Mithrae]

Do you likewise assert that anyone claiming to be a Buddhist (I notice that you have made yourself a member of that usergroup) is "stuck with" and must agree to and be accountable for everything within the Tripitaka? For example what seems to be Buddhism's own example of purgatory and indulgences:
"Petavatthu 51 poems telling of the suffering of ghosts resulting from bad karma. It gives prominence to the idea that gifts to monks can benefit one's deceased relatives' ghosts."

No. I do not support any form of strict dogmatic Buddhism. In fact, the Buddha himself taught that we should not accept anything just because someone else claims that it's true. Including his own teachings.

So dogmatic forms of Buddhism are bad form. Not only that but keep in mind that nothing in those texts claims to be the "Word of God" anyway. Those texts truly do just reflect cultural superstitions.

And do you hence likewise assert that groups which 're-wrote' Buddhism after the establishment of that canon - such as the Mahayana and Vajrayana branches - do not "have a clue about the religion they claim to be a member of"?

Yes. I actually do hold that to be true. In fact, for the same reason that the many different denominations of Christianity cannot all be true. Clearly at least some (if not all) of those branches of Buddhism must have misunderstood the Buddha.

Do you likewise assert that "the very term 'Buddhism' has itself become a meaningless term" when it's used so freely by not only those later upstarts, but even by random folk who on other occasions claim that they actually are not Buddhists?

Yes, in fact, I agree that this is extremely problematic when I tell people that "Buddhism" makes some sense. I almost hate to use the term "Buddhism", precisely for this reason. There are "Buddhist sects or demoninations" that I would totally disagree with and dismiss as having clearly become far more dogmatic than the original Buddha had intended.

So yes, it is problematic to be sure. None the less, I don't think there are any sect or forms of Buddhism that actually proclaim to have the "Word of God" or claim that some God will condemn people who refuse to believe in Buddhism.

I tend to support the Dalai Lama's view of Buddhism to a large extent. Although I would probably have disagreements with the Dalai Lama on some details if we ever actually sat down and had a conversation. I can't be certain of this. But if he believes that he truly is a specific reincarnation of a specific previous Buddha Soul, then we probably would have some disagreement. I'm not sure what he actually believes on that specific issue.

Fair enough - and as we already knew, this isn't something you and I are likely to ever agree on Though interestingly, everything I've seen suggests that the Dalai Lama is pretty big on ecumenism and building common ground among the world's religions, rather than emphasizing the narrowest interpretations of the Abrahamic faiths and condemning the entire religions as a lost cause on that basis! On this issue, I would guess that his views would probably be a lot closer to mine than yours.

• https://www.dalailama.com/messages/reli ... us-harmony
  
  Today, a lot of people from different religious backgrounds are present here. In every religion, there are transcendent things that are beyond the grasp of our mind and speech. For example, the concept of God in Christianity and Islam and that of wisdom truth body in Buddhism are metaphysical, which is not possible for an ordinary person like us to realise. This is a common difficulty faced by every religion. It is taught in every ­religion, including Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam, that the ultimate truth is driven by faith.
  
  I want to emphasise that it is extremely important for practitioners to sincerely believe in their respective religions. Usually, I say that it is very important to distinguish between "belief in one religion" and "belief in many religions". The former directly contradicts the latter. Therefore, we should resolutely resolve these contradictions. This is possible only by thinking in contextual terms. A contradiction in one context might not be the same in the other. In the context of one person, a single truth is closely associated with a single source of refuge. This is of extreme necessity. However, in the context of society or more than one person it is necessary to have different sources of refuge, religions and truths. . . .
  
  
  As far as the Muslims are concerned it is appropriate for them to have complete devotion to Allah while praying in the mosques. This is also the same with Buddhists who are completely devoted to the Buddha when they pray in Buddhist temples. A society, which has many religions should also have many prophets and sources of refuge. In such a society it is very important to have harmony and respect amongst the different religions and their practitioners. We must distinguish between belief and respect. Belief refers to total faith, which you must have in your own religion. At the same time you should have respect for all other religions.

But either way, I think we can agree to disagree.

So supposing for the sake of argument that liberal Christianity "isn't really Christian," it's still obviously religious and still plays an important role in society: Adherent for adherent, probably even moreso than more traditional Christianity, which might be a more involved or intense expression of religiosity but carries some negative baggage (as you helped highlight) precisely because of that fact.