Donnadogsoth

Those mosquitos know what they're doing.

The Pope is objectively Christian, because I, an objective observer, can see that he fits the definition of "Christian". Objectively determining a person's religious status does not depend on the subjectivity or the objectivity of said person, only on the objectivity of the observer. "Being objective" is another way of saying "being truthful." But you're using "'objective' Christian" to refer to something other than just an answer to the question of whether a person is a believer. Shirgall et al think that you're referring to his status as part of the religion, using, as shirgall said, "a subset of shared secondary values", different from an objective determination of the person belonging to said religion because of their subjective faith. So this is where we're getting hung up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you're referring to an objective outside truthful observer's (your) determination of an actor's (Stef's) participation in an essential quality of Christianity? In other words he's Christian in everything except belief? He is a "cultural Christian" but you're using "objective" to differentiate him from people who merely observe Christian holidays or the like without believing. He's participating in the Christian drama in a way that calls for a better term, and you, or Girard, have supplied "objective". Is this correct?

You're still confusing everyone with this objectively Christian business, and it's turning people off from considering your anthropological point. Isn't there any other way to refer to what you're talking about without using the term " 'objectively' Christian"?

Rationality can be either individual or societal. Individually rationality is merely a tool, that can be used or good or evil like any other tool, and one can be good or evil while still being rational. But socially, reason is directly associated with the survival of the group. Using reason for good is indispensable for survival of the group historically. So in that sense evil is irrational, because it leads to collective doom. You can be an evil rationalist for your own purposes, but if you're evil socially, you're insane, socially speaking.

The locus of the problem is the absence of Christianity. Without its moral cohesion, rationality, and sense of tradition the high moral ground has been ceded to the squeaky-wheel Year Zero secularists who are more invested in having a totalist society than modern Christians were. So in that rainbow spirit, why not a polyamourous S&M Australian Aborigine Superman or a Red Indian paraplegic virtuous-paedophile Wolverine? Or whatever. Will it be long before the heroes' (remember when there were heroines?) names themselves of these characters are discarded in favour of funkier, more “diverse” and ethnicised names? Time will tell. Darth Vader's portrayal is RACIST

Hypotheticals help clear the mind of subconscious fears about indecision in the face of the world's chaos. The more hypotheticals we can answer firmly, the more confident we will be. I see your "romantic lie" and I raise you one "need to be practical." Practically speaking, men who are complete strangers to violence are in danger, and they endanger the lives, limbs, and welfare of their family and friends. How did I cause a mugger to attempt to mug me? That's his violence, not mine. How is a woman causing or contributing to the actions of a would-be rapist? That's his violence, not hers. Her and I are both innocent victims as far as that immediate situation goes, and the mugger and the rapist are both culpable and completely unrighteous. These are not rare hypotheticals, these things happen every day. When you come in here and start jawing about morality and religion and theories, but you can't even answer a basic question about whether or not you would (or anyone else should) take steps to stop someone from committing an evil act upon you or your family, you sound like you're talking from a hundred-foot ivory tower and are completely detached from the dangerous realities that people face. We don't need you to worm your way into our ears and convince us to disarm ourselves and submit our well-being and property to the unrighteous desires of unscrupulous men.

You shouldn't have used the term "objective Christian". That's where you're confusing us. You should retire that term.

So, would you, as bi-level Christian, use violence to defend yourself if such an unfortunate situation arose? In case it's not obvious: do you think recourse to violence in self-defense endangers your immortal soul?

But, junglecat, that flattens it down to a uni-level religion. If there is no literal Heaven and Hell, then what you're (or M. Girard is) saying is that there is no personal resurrection and personal bodily immortality, there is only Christ's concern for the future well-being of the temporal human race. Christ must have forecast that, given the fallen nature of man, this would eventually lead to an Apocalypse whereby evil was either vanquished for all time, or the human race would destroy itself. But this has nothing to do with a literal Heaven and a literal Hell involving personal resurrection and personal bodily immortality. Correct me if I have not understood what you're saying.

I'm quite happy to accept bi-level meaning in Christianity, but I'm still stuck on the moral law as such. Shall we expect a man who defends his family from harm is damned? If even angry words are worthy of hellfire, how much more would physical violence be? Or, for that matter, using the power of the State to stop a migrant invasion?

Stuck in a dissatisfying pattern of thinking? So you think that all the Biblical descriptions of fire and brimstone, of weeping and gnashing of teeth, of the final Judgement, are just metaphors for rich people being bored? And all the two thousand years worth of Christians and their teaching authorities got it completely wrong?!

I interpret it as a warning to those value luxury over humanity, that they will go to Hell. How do you interpret it?

"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented." --Luke 16:19-25

Jesus very clearly threatens people with Hell for even calling their neighbours "fools". How much more then will a person be in danger of being sent to Hell for actually committing violence upon them or even killing them? Freedom of choice my foot. We're obviously talking about two different Jesuses.

Isn't religion supposed to answer questions like this? It's a philosophical take on the matter, not a religious one. I want to know what religion says. To deny good men the right to self-defense is to hand evil men the world on a plate. Do you think evil men will become good if their victims throw themselves and their possessions at those evil men? Will Islam become tame if Christianity bears its throat for it? Will psychopaths cease to be psychopaths? Total submission is what evil entities want, not what will convert them to goodness.

No. To hell with the forest. I don't have the time to psychoanalyse it. I am supposing I am faced with a tree, coming to murder my family. Do I have the right to defend them or not?

Not much of a Christ who can't even tell us whether or not we should defend our families from rape and murder. Yes, theological justification comes from Christ, who already delegated his authority to Peter, and through him the rest of the Church. You keep throwing the issue of self-defense back towards a mute Christ, when in fact his statement on the matter is to give the authority for interpreting his life and mission to the Church. Whether any individual Christians did defend themselves against aggressors, from the State or from individuals or non-State groups, is irrelevant to Just War doctrine.

Yes, but is it a true fallacy? I asked you if self-defense was wrong and now you're telling me you don't know Christ's attitude toward it. Something as basic as whether or not you can morally defend your family from murder and rape, and you don't know. Well I do. It's called Just War doctrine, taught by the Church, which maintains an apostolic succession going back to Peter, whom Christ gave the keys to the kingdom to. According to a Catholic friend of mine, the original Evangelists even wore swords to protect themselves. What good is Stefan Molyneux's "objective Christianity" if it can't answer a basic moral question like whether or not you can defend your family from murder and rape? Get that settled and we'll talk about the roots of violence.

Yes, theologically. But Stefan is emphatically not against violence in self-defense. That he supports the right to self-defense negates his purity attained by opposing the power of the State, doesn't it? He's not a true objective Christian if he supports violence in self-defense, is he?

As far as I know he did, to his credit.

I call a crock, shirgall. St. Bernard exhorted the faithful to take up arms against the constant threat of Islam. It's misleading to suggest Christianity (chiefly Catholicism, which is the bulk of the religion) doesn't allow for defense of self and country. It's also misleading to suggest that St. Bernard was not doing a good thing in his exhortation. Will you answer my question? Is a police officer shooting a rapist about to commit a rape justified in doing so?

Well, we can only hope. Do you suppose a police officer who uses force to stop a rape becomes a member of Olympus?

(1) How does Job run counter to Oedipus? Both are innocent men ruined by Fate. (2) How is Trump, who advocates using violence to sterilise the world of Islamic terrorists, not also a worshipper, or avatar, of Loki?

It's a useless and meaningless definition to the extent that it fools people into thinking that census form-fillers who tick "Christian" in a box are somehow meaningfully and usefully Christian, to their own souls. You and I know that isn't true. Christianity is a direction of soul, not a set of utterances, actions, or virtue signals. Sociologically or anthropologically that definition makes it hard to track true Christians. Indeed, according to Jesus we can't even judge the matter perfectly ourselves without imperiling our souls. So in a broad sense we can't track true Christians, but we can track Christendom, for Christendom supplies the main pool from which true Christians are drawn. Stefan is not a Christian in the census-filler sense, but he is exploring the demesne of true Christianity. What remains to be seen is whether he will rehabilitate Jesus-the-Christ, Jesus as Crucified One as something akin or beyond the idea of the "noble lie" or the "pious fiction" (actually pious fraud) and integrate him into his defense of the Culture. If this is his intention, whether subconsciously or not, he has already made overtures toward it in his "The Rise of Globalism: The Death of Culture" video. But we don't know, shirgall, who really believes and who does not. All we can do is track the census numbers for self-proclaimed "Christians". That's why a differentiation needs to be made between true and nominal Christians, rationally if not empirically.

I have to commit the No True Scotsman fallacy by correcting you. To hell with what the dictionary says, a true Christian is one who has developed a relationship with Christ by changing his life's direction to orient towards Christ and the rest of the Trinity. This involves a conviction of sinfulness by the Holy Spirit and entails a general personality shift. Any other definition of Christian may be true in a dictionary sense, but in a practical sense, other than for the purposes of filling out a census form, such a definition is useless and bordering on meaningless.