Mailbag: What is Real Christianity? Part 1
Subject: What you left out.
I have recently read some of your articles on various areas of Christianity, and, no offense, they're a bit off. One such thing is that Nazism is not supported by the teachings of Jesus, which are the foundation of Christianity. Neither is imperialism, anti-semitism (Christianity was originally a sect of judaism, which is also why I believe the churches should celebrate the same holidays), aggression in any way, forceful conversion, hatred, tele-evangelists (we christians dislike the concept as much as non-christians), fire and brimstone sermons, racial extermination, any other racism (heaven is described as a gathering of people of all races), or holy wars.
What Christianity “is” is what Christians do, and what Christians “do” goes far beyond the alleged teachings of Christianity. This is why Christianity is not only compatible with, but has in fact promoted, all of the things Braden lists. This is a historical fact and is undeniable. The fact that Braden doesn’t like those things and doesn’t consider them compatible with Christianity as Braden practices it changes nothing.
Christianity is different from one era to the next, from one culture to the next. Christianity as Braden practices it is different form the Christianity practiced in present-day South Africa, 19th century Japan, and medieval France. None of those manifestations of Christianity is any more “true” or “genuine” than the next. All are equally Christian and, by being a Christian, Braden is complicit in what they taught.
I always find it interesting when religious believers want to associate themselves with the good things done by their co-religionists in other eras or cultures, but are so quick to disassociate themselves form co-religionists who do bad things. Responsibility is two-way street, though: your association with the good things done by other members of your group is just as strong as your association with the bad things done by members of your group.
Jesus’ teachings DO support love, respect, charity, sacrifice (not human :) dispite what Nero said), faith, and working for the good of mankind. Those so-called Christian concepts that are often misconstrued as Christian such as anti-semitism that came later were not of Christian origin, Christians accepted them, but they were of other origin. Much of the medieval church was the effect of mixing with Roman concepts and the power they had received in such a short time.
Jesus’ teachings support plenty of good things; Jesus’ teachings can also be used to support plenty of bad things. In the end, Christianity is comprised of the actions and beliefs of Christians because that’s all that really exists — there is no “pure” form of Christianity sitting out there, against which all current and historical manifestations of Christianity can be judged.
Anti-Semitism is a good example because, contrary to what Braden says, it is of Christian origin. This is not to say that there was no anti-Semitism before Christianity, but Christians gave it a fervent, religious backing. The anti-Semitism in the gospels is frankly undeniable, so I have to wonder just how much time Braden has spent reading and studying about his own religion.
I hope this is helpful information and I hope it prevents the mistake of connecting Christianity with all the mentioned concepts mentioned earlier.
No, the mistake is made by Christians, such as Braden himself, who assume that there is some pure, unadulterated form which allows them to disassociate themselves from the reality of Christianity over the millennia. Christianity, like any religion, has its good and its bad aspects and Christians must learn that they have to take responsibility for both, not simply pick and choose the aspects which make them look or feel good.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
If Christianity is what Christians do? Then would driving be what a car is? The logic is a little weird on that one. That would mean that Atheism is child molestation because an Atheist once molested a child.
Christianity is what Christians do because the nature of Christainity is defined by the actions of Christians - there is no pure form of Christianity that exists somewhere and against which all actual forms of Christianity can be judged.
Cars and driving aren’t an accurate analogy. An appropriate one would be science (Science is, ultimately, what scientists do), politics (Conservatism is what conservatives do), language (English is what English-speakers say), and other human activities.
Atheism doesn’t work here because atheism isn’t a belief system or activity. Atheism is just the absence of belief in gods. It’s a neutral quality, like being tall or being apolitical.
Chris, you’re funny (albeit unintentional).
Here we have the corollary to the No True Scotsman fallacy. Self-righteous Christians who claim to know and follow the “true” Christianity ought to talk with other self-described Christians who hold opposing philosophical and theological views. Those Christians, too, would claim that their Christianity is the “true” Christianity and offer up a bunch of equally compelling justifications. A grudge match would ensue.
This is why Christianity can be hard to define: The range of beliefs is so diverse that the only reasonable definition is the one most commonly used by outsiders: Christians are people who interpret the Bible and attempt to apply their interpretations to their lives. Or, as Austin so elegantly put it, Christianity is what Christians do.
“Christianity is what Christians do” = False!
To be a Christian, by definition, is to be Christ-like. This is the very reason you all find yourselfs capitalizing the word (I note this only because I have read a few other entries dealing with God and find that you all have the balls to lowercase that name, therefore, it seems ironic to me that you would “respect” the religion’s name enough). What PEOPLE do in the name of Christianity does not change the definition or the truth of the belief system. I will agree that every religion I have researched has a “dark” history that follows a “bright” begining. However, I strongly deny any complacency or support of any act that falls under the sin category of my personal religion. That includes, but is not limited to: racism, murder…well, you saw Braden’s list and you have made your own abundantly clear.
Austin says: ” Jesus’ teachings can also be used to support plenty of bad things.”
Please sir, be so kind as to quote/reference the verses you are speaking of. I have a Bible handy (as well as a Quran and the Catholic Creedo) and would be happy to verify your information. FYI - If you plan to quote the Old Testament, it would be wise to understand the context of the writing. As a “modern-age Christian” that is not of Jewish heritage, I would encourage you to discuss it with a Rabi. If you have done this previously, please forgive my assumption that you would not have based on your previous comments that seem so directed of feeling and completely uneducated.
Well, then, until you get yourself crucified, killed, and rise again after three days, then you aren’t a Christian, are you?
What people do in the name of a belief system is an important part of what defines a belief system — any belief system.
All of them. Even the verses on love played an important role in justifying the Inquisition. More immediately problematic are verses about taking up swords and claiming that mental attitudes are equivalent to external actions.
“What Christianity “is” is what Christians do, and what Christians “do” goes far beyond the alleged teachings of Christianity.”
Deciding what constitutes Christianity is certainly not easy, but your suggestion here doesn’t seem satisfactory.
If Christianity ‘is’ what Christians do, do you accept that atheism ‘is’ what atheists do? (including the monsters?).
I don’t recall that your articles explaining the meaning of atheism agree with this definition. As a result it does look as though you’re applying a double standard.
Bitbutter,
If Christianity ‘is’ what Christians do, do you accept that atheism ‘is’ what atheists do? (including the monsters?).
I don’t recall that your articles explaining the meaning of atheism agree with this definition. As a result it does look as though you’re applying a double standard.
You clearly haven’t read enough. Take a look at the post by Atheism up there. It is NOT a double standard because atheism is not a belief system like Christianity is, which austin DOES state in his articles defining atheism.
Your problem is atheism is NOT comparable to Christianity. It would be more accurate, and it would also demonstrate why Austin is not engaging in a double standard, to compare atheism to theism. Like atheism, theism is not a beleif system it is just the belief in any god or gods.
Also like atheism, theism can be a part of a belief system. Christianity for instance is a theistic belief system. Mere theism is not by itself a belief system though, and neither is atheism.
When atheism is part of a belief system and that belief system motivates people to do bad things than that belief system can be legitimately criticized. But then you would be criticizing the belief system and not mere atheism.
When you refer to the monsters of atheism I assume you are refering to people such as Stalin, but like I said people such as Stalin were motivated by belief sytems that happend to include atheism not by mere atheism itself. Just like Muslim, Jewish, and Christian extremists are motivated by their individual religions rather then mere theism itself.
To point to an atheistic beleif system, such as Buddism or the Raelians and say that their belief system is as its believers do would be an accurate comparison and if Austin did that their would be a double standard but that is not what he’s doing.
Since mere atheism was not what motivated the actions of the monsters you mention then their actions do not reflect on mere atheism. Since atheism is not a belief system and is not comparable to Christianity, there is no double standard.
The comparison doesn’t work because atheism isn’t a belief system or ideology. Atheism is a state or condition, akin to being blonde. It doesn’t make sense to say that “blondeness” is what blondes do. A belief system, however, is defined to a great extent by how that system’s adherents behave.
You’ll find that Christians tend to accept this in other circumstances. Communism is defined in large part by what communists actually do, for example, and Christians readily accept that communism cannot and should not be limited solely to ideals written by Marx. They have no problem including the crimes of communist governments in under the definition of “communism.”
It only looks likes a different standard if you start from the incorrect premise that atheism and Christianity are the same sort of “thing,” such that what is true of one should be true of the other. They are not, so treating them differently is not problematic.
If you want to see if I am applying double-standards, ask if I treat other belief systems and ideologies like Christianity, or if I treat other states or conditions like atheism. It certainly looks as though I do.
(I wrote this before I read Saurian’s comment. I’m repeating many of the same things, but since your question was directed at me personally I thought I should make it clear where I stand myself. Thanks for your comment, Saurian. You did a good job at explaining the difference).
Austin,
(I wrote this before I read Saurian’s comment. I’m repeating many of the same things, but since your question was directed at me personally I thought I should make it clear where I stand myself. Thanks for your comment, Saurian. You did a good job at explaining the difference).
That’s okay, you explained the difference a lot more simply and elequently than I did.
@Saurian and Austin
Thanks or your responses. I retract the accusation of applying a double standard. But I still think there are problems here.
Saurian
Since mere atheism was not what motivated the actions of the monsters you mention then their actions do not reflect on mere atheism. Since atheism is not a belief system and is not comparable to Christianity, there is no double standard.
I agree.
But I still hold that to say that what Christians do, is what Christianity is, is shaky at best, at least without further qualification. Here’s why:
If all Christians go to sleep at night, then according to the definition advanced in this article (taken at face value) Christianity is partly the behaviour of sleeping at night. This doesn’t ring true of course.
I think you want to say that Christianity is that behaviour which is linked in a particular way to certain metaphysical beliefs a person has, beliefs that set this person apart from other religious groups and from atheists.
If I’m right about that, you’re trying to define Christianity based only on certain beliefs (that are acted upon), and not on all beliefs that the Christian has. So somehow you have to decide which of a person’s beliefs are his ‘Christian beliefs’. To do this you’re tacitly relying on some rudimentary definition of Christianity anyway, and one that’s more substantial than ‘Christianity is what Christians do’. I suggest that this background idea, the one allowing you to separate a persons ‘Christian beliefs’ from his other beliefs, is the core of how you really define Christianity.
Maybe instead though, a way of avoiding having to maintain such a background definition would be to decide that a Christian is anyone who claims to be a Christian. But I don’t think anyone really believes this to be true:
If someone announces his belief in the ancient Greek gods, rejects the existence of the supernatural beings who populate the bible, and demands to be considered a Christian, I think we’d all agree that he’s not really a Christian at all.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Except of course insofar as it demonstrates that Christianity is a human belief system for human beings an does not take its adherents beyond normal human needs, behaviors, and functioning.
So in fact it does ring true, as part of a larger context and up to a certain point (it’s a relatively trivial matter, so alone it’s a trivial aspect of any attempt to define Christianity).
Some do end up being more important/relevant.
Not really. The more important/relevant ones are those either done in the name of their belief system or are directly related to whatever they consider most important in their belief system.
> from Chris:
>If Christianity is what Christians do? Then would driving be what a car is?
No, driving would be what drivers do. What is so complicated about this?
> The logic is a little weird on that one.
> That would mean that Atheism is child molestation because an Atheist once molested a child.
No, it would be true to say Atheism was what Atheists do, if it was indeed a belief system of some kind. It isn’t of course, as you now know by reading the other responses. The terminology is not a slight against Christianity, its simply a fact that organised rules for practically anything are subject to change and interpretation by the adherents - the more people there are, the more the change, and inevitably some groups will split away from the main. It is rather easy to find evidence of that with Christianity, so I’m not sure I understand the disagreement with Austins statement. Of course, it is the organisation we are talking about and the current rules applied to it by its adherents; just because a single Christian does 100 push-ups every morning doesn’t make his ritual part of Christianity
.
> from Father of Isaac Christian:
>To be a Christian, by definition, is to be Christ-like
Considering the general traits attributed to Jesus Christ, I find that very hard to believe. I think its rather more likely (based on personal experience) that adherence to Christs teachings are the best any human can hope for, and those teachings, coming as they do from the clergy and current social interpretation of scripture, change substantially decade by decade. So what Austin says is provably true, Christianity is what Christians do. You could argue that some who call themselves Christians have it wrong, but I’m sure they’ll say the same about you
>I note this only because I have read a few other entries dealing with God and find that you all have the balls to >lowercase that name, therefore, it seems ironic to me that you would “respect” the religion’s name enough.
In English you tend to start names of things with a capital letter, so language dictates “Christianity” gets one. The reason god doesn’t get one is because in most cases, its a general term for any god (or concept of what one is), not a specific one - you would’nt capitalise “tree” would you?
>from bitbutter:
If someone announces his belief in the ancient Greek gods, rejects the existence of the supernatural beings who populate the bible, and demands to be considered a Christian, I think we’d all agree that he’s not really a Christian at all.
I feel Father of Isaac Christian may disagree with you, as he says…
To be a Christian, by definition, is to be Christ-like.
So if you are enough like Christ then you are a Christian, what your beliefs actually are would not enter into it.
Ultimately though, if YOU think you are a Christian than surely you are, otherwise you are being dictated to by people who say you are not a “true christian” i.e. not the same as them.
@Austin
“So somehow you have to decide which of a person’s beliefs are his ‘Christian beliefs’”
Not really. The more important/relevant ones are those either done in the name of their belief system or are directly related to whatever they consider most important in their belief system.
It’s still not clear to me how you’re proposing we decide whether a person’s belief system is a Christian one or not.
Considering the hypothetical theist who insists on being called a Christian while he believes in the Greek gods. Do we actually consider him to be a Christian, or merely someone claiming to be one? If it’s the latter, what criteria are we using to make the distinction between genuine Christians and people merely claiming to be Christians?
If we do consider him to be a Christian on the grounds that he self-identifies as one, does it follow that Christianity includes making sacrifices to Zeus? (since that’s an activity that’s indisputably of central importance in this persons belief system).
I don’t “decide.” Unless there are unusual circumstances, I let people decide for themselves.
Depends on what their reason is for using the label “Christian.” Do they have a serious argument for why such beliefs are necessary or at least allowable, or are they just being contrary in order to create arguments out of thin air on internet forums?
We’d have to conclude that, yes, Christianity can (at least on the fringes) include that. Christianity is a very large, diverse set with fuzzy borders. There are plenty of behaviors and beliefs which are solidly within the set and others out on the fuzzy borders. Some are current while others are just historical. Some can be found in many places and some can only be found in certain cultures. It’s all a part of what Christianity is and it’s all a part of what defines Christianity.
I don’t “decide.” Unless there are unusual circumstances, I let people decide for themselves.
You do decide in the sense I intended here: You decide whether or not to consider a person a ‘real Christian’.
And from your answers I think that you make the decision about whether someone is a Christian based on whether the person, in full possession of his mental faculties, seems to sincerely self-identify as a Christian or not (the Zeus guy probably doesn’t match this profile).
Do I have that about right?
“or are they just being contrary in order to create arguments out of thin air on internet forums?”
It’s a shame that you think I’m dreaming up these scenarios merely to be contrary. I hoped that you would appreciate better than most the value of thought experiments in helping to test out an idea.
I have to question whether or not you are entirely clear on what you mean by “decide.” It’s not at all clear to me.
Are you asking whether or not I decide what the definition of Christianity is, which is suggested by #12, whether I decide if a person’s belief system is “Christian,” which is suggested in #16, whether I decide if a person is a “real Christian,” which is implied by #16, or whether I decide to ever accept people’s religious self-reporting, which is suggested here.
Those are all related, obviously, but they aren’t the same thing. I don’t make decisions for others about what “real Christianity” is or what a “real Christian” is. Christians themselves don’t agree and I won’t be trying to make that determination myself. I “decide” that I will treat religious self-reporting much as I treat other self-reporting: barring extraordinary and unusual circumstance, I accept what people tell me about their own minds.
If a person says they are happy, I accept that. If a person says their politics are more liberal than conservative, I accept that. If a person says they enjoy reading Hemingway, I accept that. If a person says their religion is Christian, I’ll accept that as well. It’s not much of a “decision” to not treat religion the way I treat other aspects of a person’s mental life. It’s possible in all of these cases for a person to be wrong in some fashion, but I’ll need very good, very strong reasons to even suggest it and discuss why there is an apparent conflict between their self-reporting and whatever it is that indicates something else is true.
I didn’t say you were, but I would wonder if that were the case of anyone who tried to say that about themselves. If you are going to raise odd examples, even as a thought experiment, then you have to be willing to accept realistic responses to them. If your example existed they would, under the most generous interpretation, probably just be a person who’s being contrary in order to create arguments. That’s no reflection on you, except insofar as it doesn’t end up testing the idea very much.
Maybe this is just me, but I think it depends on how “Christianity” is defined. Obviously, Austin, you are defining differently than Braden is. And evengelicals who say other people that consider themselves Christian but disagree with them are not “true” Christians are using yet another definition. Given the number of Christians who have furthered opposing causes, wouldn’t defining Christianity as “what Christians do” make it essentially meaningless?
How could it be BOTH racist AND anti-racist, BOTH anti-slavery AND pro-slavery, or BOTH anti-Nazi AND Nazi?
How can American culture include both racism and anti-racism, slavery and abolition, drinking and abstinence, etc.? Easy: because American culture isn’t simplistic. American culture is diverse — and American culture has existed for just a few centuries in one place. Christianity has existed for two millennia across the globe.
Given how old Christianity is, how many cultures it has existed in, and how many eras it has gone through, we should rather be surprised if it were completely consistent simple throughout its history. Christianity is made up from a wide variety of traditions, ideas, practices, rituals, beliefs, etc. Some are in harmony. Some are in conflict. This isn’t unusual.
On the contrary, it is very meaningful because, first, it underscores the fact that Christianity does not exist independent of what Christians actually do as Christians and, second, it underscores the fact that Christianity is a completely human ideology which includes both good and bad aspects rather than a divine ideology which has been imposed from the outside, partaking of no human inadequacies.
These are very important points given how often some Christians try to insist that any problems which exist in Christianity shouldn’t reflect negatively on Christianity itself. They attempt to get people to believe that there is some sort of “Christianity” out there that is outside of culture, outside of history, perfect, unalterable, and independent of human thought. That’s nonsense.
The fact that Christianity encompasses many conflicting causes and ideas isn’t a problem for anyone except those who try to paint Christianity as a simplistic system. For those who recognize Christianity as a cultural and ideological system that crosses many peoples and centuries, it’s simply a testament to how deeply entwined Christianity has become with the various places it has existed. The diversity of traditions and practices in Christianity, and its ability to keep absorbing more, is in fact part of what has helped it survive and thrive so well. If it were rigid, unyielding, and refused to incorporate new things into it, then it would have become a mere footnote in history.
@Austin. Apologies that i misconstrued your comment about arguments and thin air.
I still interpret what you’re saying as boiling down to: Christianity is the total of the things that self-identifying Christians do that are motivated by their Christian beliefs.
The problem is that this is circular.
If I’m misunderstanding, could you formulate a corrected version of this statement? One that takes into account the idea you mentioned in the comments here that not all actions of Christians contribute equally to ‘what Christianity is’.
Thanks.
@Saurian. You said:
“Since mere atheism was not what motivated the actions of the monsters you mention then their actions do not reflect on mere atheism. Since atheism is not a belief system and is not comparable to Christianity, there is no double standard.”
As a belief system, atheism is not comparable to Christianity (atheism is not a belief system at all), but notice that this only applies if i assume the same definitions of these words that you’re using (i think i do).
But as a label, ‘atheism’ certainly is comparable to ‘Christianity’.
Imagine the following: A violent atheist group is formed that go around beating up old people. Accepting the Karamazov thesis they take atheism to _include_ the fact that anything is permitted, and they act accordingly.
When asked to define atheism they give a standard definition but add a new bit: “real atheism includes the belief that anything is permitted”.
If this were to happen (and it’s likely that comparable things have happened), would a Christian be justified in saying that atheism includes the belief that beating up pensioners is okay? and that: “No manifestation of atheism is any more “true” or “genuine” than the next. All are equally atheist”?
Both statements are wrong.
The first statement is wrong because if I said that, then I would be denying that Christian beliefs are a part of Christianity. Wouldn’t that be silly? Of course Christian beliefs are a part of Christianity — both what they say they are supposed to believe (dogmas, doctrines) and what they actually believe. The point, however, is that it’s also silly to limit Christianity to just the beliefs (especially just those in lists of dogmas) while ignoring behavior.
The second statement is wrong even if the first were correct because it’s not circular to define a system by actions which are motivated by beliefs. Actions are not the same as beliefs, though actions are a good indicator of what you really believe. You might say that you believe X, but your behavior may be far more consistent with not-X. This is an important reason why it’s silly to ignore behavior.
If someone were to ask me “what is the nature and character of bitbutter,” would I be giving them an accurate response if I simply listed the ideals and principles which you espoused as important while ignoring how you behave in your daily life? Absolutely not — and it wouldn’t be much better to simply talk about your behavior while ignoring all the principles, values, and ideals you espouse.
The same is just as true about movements, ideologies, belief systems, etc. You can’t talk about or define the labor movement in America just through references to documents and principles; you also have to talk about strikes, violence, corruption, achievements, etc. You can’t talk about or define Christianity just through reference to the Bible, creeds, etc; you also have to talk about the Inquisition, slavery, abolition, pacifism, etc. At least, if you are going beyond a simple dictionary-type definition.
How about what I’ve already written: A belief system… is defined to a great extent by how that system’s adherents behave. …Christianity is a very large, diverse set with fuzzy borders. There are plenty of behaviors and beliefs which are solidly within the set and others out on the fuzzy borders. Some are current while others are just historical. Some can be found in many places and some can only be found in certain cultures. It’s all a part of what Christianity is and it’s all a part of what defines Christianity.
No, because they are labels for entirely different things. Atheism is a label for a state or condition; Christianity is a label for a religious belief system. On the one hand we have various things called “Christianity” which are all demonstrably related and the same type of “thing” (belief system). On the other we have various things called “atheism” which are not demonstrably related and not the same type of “thing” (one is a state or condition, one is apparently an ideology). You cannot construct a valid analogy between such dissimilar situations.
A valid analogy here has to be created between like and like: Christianity and some other ideology (communism, existentialism, humanism) or atheism and some other state or condition (theism). Making up an ideology and giving it the same label as atheism doesn’t suddenly mean that what an “atheist” does must have implication for “atheists” generally. Atheism (the state or condition) doesn’t somehow become “what atheists do,” but Atheism-1 (this invented ideology) would be “what Atheists-1″ do.
See the difference?
If I created a new religion and called it Theism, then the actions of my followers would help define Theism, but it would have no necessary implications for theism or theists.
See the difference?
If we have a group of people with an identifiable belief system or ideology, then we have to deal with that ideology. The fact that atheism happens to be part of that ideology carries no more implication to atheists generally than the fact that Muslim terrorism includes theism must carry specific implications to all theists generally.
It’s all getting mixed up. Austin didn’t go far enough. Everything boils down to “Christianity is what Christians do–IN THE NAME OF THEIR RELIGION.” They don’t shower every morning in the name of Christianity. They don’t have a sandwich for lunch in the name of Christianity. These may both be things they do, but they don’t define the religion. On the other hand, an abortion clinic protester is acting on what he/she believes is the edict of his/her religion–Christianity. If they shoot a doctor who commits abortions–even in the name of Christianity–they are violating their commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” It is wrong according to their religion, but it is still something done in the name of that religion. And we all know what David Koresh did in the name of Christianity–his version of Christian beliefs cost the lives of men, women, and children. We also know what Mother Teresa did in the name of Christianity–serving the poor and sick in the name of her god. Two different actions from completely different ends of the spectrum of good and evil.
Slavery was praised from the Christian pulpit in the Civil War era South. Bible verses were quoted to support the keeping of human beings as unpaid laborers. The bible can support any belief or action you want it to–just find the right verse. Christian religion fueled the Inquisition and the bloody Crusades. Christian religion drives the war between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.
A Muslim was just another Muslim, until a few of them decided that they–in the name of their religion–would fly a couple of planes into the twin towers and take innocent lives with them. America does not judge Muslim beliefs by the shopkeeper who runs his store and minds his own business, but by what was done by these terrorists in the name of Islam.
Scientology was done a great deal of damage by the insane antics of Tom Cruise in the name of his beliefs. I maintain that it isn’t what Christians do, but what they do in the NAME of Christianity that defines them. It can be a very wrong thing or a very right one. And it is as individual as the person who commits that act.
Vanita,
You’re ALMOST there. “People’s perception of [religion/ideology] is what people do in the name of it.”
And in most texts, the commandment is “Thou shalt not commit murder”. Killing is just fine, it’s only when you kill without permission that it is sinful. The church/gov’t wants a monopoly on the use of violence. Killing an intruder in your home, killing a convicted murderer or killing an enemy of the state, killing animals by the ton are all fine and dandy.
If the commandment was against killing, i think we’d see Abrahamic religions being a bit nicer to themselves and each other.
This takes me back to the ‘Stalin/Hitler were atheists’ thing. Stalin didn’t kill in the name of ‘no gods’, he just killed anyone who was a threat to his power base. Hitler otoH, made killing and conquering go hand in hand with religion. Even if we assume Hitler used religion cynically, his followers were almost exclusively Xian.
Beliefs are revealed through action alone. It’s not a statement or something one thinks/feels. Belief that stealing is wrong is revealed by not stealing. Stealing indicates that stealing is permissible. One might have conditional rules to explain when it is ok (stealing food when you’re starving, or something trivial) and when it is not (from the poor, someone who trusts you). So the belief can be nuanced. The point is, your beliefs are your actions. Not your oaths or bumper stickers.
This is the very reason you all find yourselfs capitalizing the word (I note this only because I have read a few other entries dealing with God and find that you all have the balls to lowercase that name, therefore, it seems ironic to me that you would “respect” the religion’s name enough). — Father of Isaac Christian on August 3, 2008 at 4:18 pm
“Christian” needs an uppercase “C” because it is a proper noun. In general usage, “god” is a common noun and takes a lowercase “g.” Your god does have a proper name: “Yahweh.” Like all proper names, Yahweh should be capitalized.
A widespread belief among early peoples held that invoking someone’s name gave you magical power over that person. Even today, observant Jews regard the name Yahweh as too sacred to utter, and they will go to considerable effort to employ a substitute.
For similar reasons, ancient Jews and Christians avoided using Yahweh’s proper name. One way they did this was to press the common noun “god” into service as a proper noun.
Of course, Christians (or anyone else) can capitalize “God.” In much the same way, I can adopt a dog from the animal shelter and name it “Dog.”
This doesn’t mean that I can insist that everyone ought to capitalize the word “dog” whenever or however they use it, or that they are somehow being disrespectful with they leave a note on my door that says, “Your dog pooped on my lawn. Again.”
One of my Father’s favourite sayings was
“Police,Parsons, Politicians. “Don’t do as I do Do as I Say.”
What you do and what you say defines your actions as Christian, Muslim, whatever, if it is done in the name of your religious affiliation. As atheism has no ideology nor even any particular aims it is impossible to act in the name of atheism.
My lack of religious belief is the only lack of belief I really need to believe in.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
One of the things that most annoys me about Christianity is that it sets up most of its adherents to be content with almost any form of slavery. It breeds mental, emotional, and physical cowards. The false promises of rewards after death obviously contribute to it, but there are many other causes. It is as if a bunch of crooked rabbis and priests collected every slave supporting sentiment and then crammed it into a few “sacred” books.
In response to the remark about every religion having a dark history, where is the dark history in Buddhism? Can anybody name a single war, for example, that was ever fought in the name of Buddha?
Luo: There may not have been any wars fought “in the name of Buddha,” but Buddhism has played a role in war and violence: Zen at War, by Brian Victoria
I have not yet read the book, and so cannot comment on it in full here. However, I would be very surprised if it showed that their Buddhism was the reason for their involvement in the war. It is possible, particularly if you twist a few meanings (as people are often wont to do), to find excuses in some religious teachings for taking part in wars in certain circumstances, but it would be very difficult to do that with buddhist teachings. However, human creativity knows no bounds, and so I guess it is theoretically possible.
I am not sure, though, that you could call it the fault of the religious teachings when that happens.
I am not sure, though, that you could call it the fault of the religious teachings when that happens. — Luo on September 30, 2008 at 10:09 pm
What would it take for you to be sure?