junglecat

The only way anyone could have supposed I meant Stefan was a Christian was if they hadn’t read what I meant by ‘objectively Christian’ and hadn’t read when I wrote numerous times, “I’m not saying Stefan is Christian’, my comparison to Proust, etc. Your supposing things would have been less “pointless” if I had used a more muddied term is to underestimate the visceral reaction modern secularism has towards Christ. We would kill him today by turning Christian values back on him in the same way we blame Christians for the witch hunting of the middle ages.

You say, "Had you simply used the expected or proper terminology,” How could I have known what you expected me to write? What is more ‘proper’ than Cambridge University dictionary? Is it not expected and proper that when enters an English forum that the definitions will come from an English dictionary? I can’t see this point as anything more than a red herring/strawman argument. How Christianity changed the world is much more encompassing than you suppose. You could say it about other religions in as far as they have all been radically transformed by Christ. I think the misunderstanding is yours regarding Biblical sacrifice. The sins of the community were placed upon the scapegoat. It was then driven out and ritually killed by being driven off a steep cliff. Throughout the Bible there is a progression of less and less violence. For instance, the shift from animal sacrifice instead of human sacrifice in the story of Abraham and Isaac. By the time of the later prophets all sacrifice is deemed useless. Of course, the Jews still sacrificed animals in the temple but their prophets decry it. But the fact that the people were in denial is clear. They actually built tombs and monuments for prophets whose bodies they didn’t have because they had all been killed by previous generations. This in itself is a type of scapegoating. It says, “If we had been alive at the time of these prophets we would not have joined in killing them.” And yet, they all joined in killing Christ. And not just the Jews but the Romans as well. Everyone kills Christ.

Hello! You are wrong about what I mean by ‘objectively Christian. It is not significantly different from how you word it. The modern western secular individual is objectively Christian in that he espouses the substrata of Christian ethics but does not give it a Christian name, so to speak. His feelings are not connected because he feels that this is just the natural way to be and it has nothing to do with Christ or how the world was changed through Christ. We are on our 7th page of this discussion and I have written about the anthropological truth of the gospel throughout. I don’t want to sound rude but I also don’t want to condone intellectual laziness. Scroll back and read some. Or better yet, read Girard. And that is what I mean about taking bits and pieces and saying it doesn’t make sense. My point about the word ‘rational’ is that while it does mean reason it also means facts. Facts not put in a coherent fashion are not reason. Just as a matter of curiosity, how does one get such a bad ‘reputation’? I’ve sat with you criticism for a while. Ironically, I don’t think you’re being objective. You seem very emotional. You’re calling me names and accusing me of screwing with people. You say my definitions are ‘blobby and foggy’ but give no specific examples or corrections. I can’t call your post a critique. It’s more a lashing out. While your criticism is unsubstantial, the tenor of your post is revealing. It seems the greatest push back in what I am saying is when it comes to divinity. Atheists, in general, want to keep the concept of divinity very narrowly confined in the realm of fantasy. It’s much easier to rebuke the idea if it’s only mental mirage, an eidolon. On the other hand, Christians, in general, have kept the debate narrowly confined to abstract arguments for the existence of God. This debate has gone on for so long in a perfect stalemate precisely because neither side wants to talk about the culture. In this way I can see how you have such a bad reaction to me bringing up the anthropological aspect of Christianity. You have it so ingrained in your mind that Christian divinity is a purely mental fabrication that focusing on the anthropology of the gospels is a very real threat to your ideology. Your ’rationality’ is a way of containing and controlling this threat. You want to ration Jewish ancestry, culture, and religious belief and say they are distinct areas of knowledge that won’t make sense if you view them as a whole. You say ‘let’s break this down into pieces, as they are’- this kind of rationality refuses to see the big picture. It’s not simply ‘overlap’ as you suggest. Christianity is the fundamental underpinning of our modern western culture, "the invisible foundation of the modern world. It is the source for our capacity for self-criticism, the cause of our sensitivity to victims but it isn’t perceived as such because we take these capabilities to be a natural endowment and see Christianity as only a corrupting institution that imposes on our native benevolence and rationality and tries to control us by instilling guilt and fear. Girard calls this the enlightenment critique of religion The passion of Jesus corresponds to rituals found all around the world. There’s not an incident of the story that cannot be found in countless instances. The preliminary trial, the derisive crowd, the grotesque honors accorded to the victim, and the degrading punishment that takes place outside the holy city in order not to contaminate it. What makes the story unique is the fact that the victim is someone who stands completely outside of the violence of which everyone else is, without exception, a prisoner. Someone capable of rising above the violence, which until then had risen above mankind. And this luminous victim, unresisting, but also completely uninvolved in the sacrificial game, makes visible what today we take for granted; the ugliness of the violence to which he submits. If you see the truth of that violence, suddenly that violence repels you. Before the cross every violence is portrayed in literature as heroic and justifies the casting out of the victim. Only the Bible doesn’t do that. Therefore we owe so much to the Bible that which we have a feeling comes from us and we cannot recognize our debt. When we criticize the Bible, we can criticize it only with the Bible. Not with the Iliad, not with Greek philosophy. We have assimilated so much and we are not aware that the substance we have assimilated comes from the Bible"

I'm not sure how seriously to take your criticism since your in your first post you confessed to not having read any of the thread. Have you read any of it since then?

Sounds like we are in agreement. I think if the secular world can see the anthropological truth of the gospel, if they can have an intellectual awakening it can lead to a spiritual awakening. The two go hand in hand.

I'm sorry. It was not my intent to ignore what you said. To your point: yes, basically. But I wouldn't say he is an 'objective Christian' as you put it. I say he's objectively Christian. I know it sounds like I am splitting hairs but I think it makes a difference. I mean the substrata of his ideology is Christian. And I wouldn't say he is unique in this regard. Western secular society in general is this way, not cognizant of the underlying Christian principle that is at the root of their ideology. You're right. It makes no sense if you disconnect that one statement- Stefan is objectively Christian- from the anthropological truth of the gospel, the explanation of the Christian decoding of myth, of the archaic sacred. Read what I am saying in this regard and the former statement becomes coherent. People like the word 'rational'. It sounds so reasonable. But it really means to chop ideas up into little bits. The world is not like that. The world is a whole. It could be that you are taking that one bit and trying to make it intelligible without the rest of what I am saying.

You are funny! What are you saying 'no' to? You gave me your definition that clearly stated 'Objective describes something that is outside all minds'. I pointed out that this is a logical contradiction since anything you can produce as an explanation or description necessarily will come from your mind or the mind of someone else. For example; give me one example of an objective truth, by your standard of what objective is. Can whatever you produce be outside all minds?

I believe our impasse in understanding each other is centered on your conception of what divinity is. What I have been trying to lay out is the social/cultural/anthropological truth of what divinity is in both archaic religion and in Christianity. I suspect you can only think of it in terms of a ’supernatural’, therefore you dismiss it out of hand. Modern western culture has moved beyond archaic divinity that is shaped by scapegoats, sacrifices, Satan casting out Satan, etc. and yet these non-efficacious systems still remain in place. Thus we ideologically point out the lie of state power, the power that creates order through violence and the threat of violence. Ideologically we align ourselves not with the divinity of that archaic religion but of Christ, who reveals the lie of the Satanic system that is self contradictory and heading towards its own destruction. We align ourselves ideologically with the divinity of Christ but we have internalized it to such a degree that we can’t intellectually recognize it for what it is. This is what I mean by being ‘objectively Christian’. I say ‘objectively’ because that is precisely what the word means, 'in a way that is not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings’. What you have said is self contradictory. You have disproven 'objectivity' because you can not show me anything that is outside all minds. With what would you show me anything 'objective' by your standards? With you mind? Anything you put forth as an explanation or example will come from your mind.

I have in no way made any supernatural claims. I am only talking about the anthropological truth of Christianity, specifically as it opposes the archaic religion, particularly of Greek and Roman mythology. You know what they say about assuming. When you assume you make an ass out of you and me. Let's not continue on that path, eh? Let's finish this debate. All you have to do is give me a definition (look in any dictionary) for 'objectively'. I don't care to know what anyone's subjective idea of what the word means. I'm not interested in solipsism. I want to know what it is divorced from your personal feelings. Look up any dictionary on the web, open up any dictionary in your house. Words have meaning, objective meaning, meaning that is not influence by personal beliefs or feelings. Type them in. End of story.

I know and remember well what you have said. I go back through the thread and re-read and still I can not find any substance to your objection. If you found fault in my definition, if you found some fault in what I have said, some semantic problem, I will hear it. You have not. "Something is not true"-- What is it? I have clearly seen how you and others have bypassed things I have said. I repeat them over and over. Then, suddenly, you comprehend- and then refute without any basis. It shows me you're not listening, not listening- then suddenly you hear- and then disagree without reason. Put up or shut up. No offense, but this is a philosophy forum. Reason should be paramount. Give me a reason. I know you think what I say is not true. If you don't say why you think it's not true, it's all just blather.

I've been asking people here what other definition they have for 'objectively' and no one has come forth. They all seem to have baseless objections, including yourself. It seems to me a cognitive dissonance. No atheist wants to connect the words 'objectively' and 'Christian' even though it means exactly what I want to say and it is precisely true. But I hear what you're saying and I will try to reword it.

There are those that would argue Hinduism and it's offshoot Buddhism are not religions but philosophies (Falon Gong is also an offshoot of Buddhism) Mormon is a spin-off of Christianity and really more a cult. I'd wager a bet that many people on this forum would call Judaism a religion of violence. There is a lot of sacrificing going on although the trajectory is towards less and less. First the Jewish god says no to human sacrifice, only animal sacrifice. The later prophets were saying that animal sacrifices were worthless. Anyway, it wasn't any of these movements or religions that had the shaping effect that Christianity did on western culture. Today intellectuals will not admit this but that was to be expected. All cultures scapegoat their past. The temptation is too great and it is too easy. It's much harder to not pass judgement and try to understand why people acted the way they did in the past. Much easier to say "We would have done better if we were in their place." So do you have any problem with the Cambridge definition of 'objectively' or any quibble with my explanation of what I mean by 'objectively Christian'?

You are right, he's not a Christian. I am not saying he's a Christian. I've been through all of this. I'm saying he is "objectively" Christian. "I am using is a standard definition for objectively: cambridge objectively: in a way that is not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings; fairly: Stefan is Christian in a way that is not influenced by his personal beliefs or feelings. If you were to ask him, "Are you a Christian?" he would most likely say he does not believe himself to be one, he does not feel he is Christian. If you were to ask him if he believes Christ was an innocent victim and that scapegoats are innocent in general he would likely say yes. He is not subjectively Christian in that he doesn't recognize that it is Christ who reveals this truth to the world. The proof that Christ did reveal this truth to the world is his universally perceived innocence. Otherwise he would be just one more guilty victim like all the gods throughout mythology. Girard says "We owe so much to the Bible but we have a feeling it comes from us. When we criticize the Bible we can only criticize it with the Bible, not with the Illiad, not with Greek philosophy. We have assimilated so much and we are not aware that the substance we have assimilated comes from the Bible"" Islam is to be spread through the sword. This is the exact opposite of Christianity. Muslims believe in sanctioned deception for the spread of their faith. Christ taught 'let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.' But you're not being serious, are you? You chimed in earlier confessing you hadn't read any of the thread. Have you had a chance to read any of it yet? By the way, I have heard that before in this forum. "Several religions"- can you name any?

How do you think I misrepresented him?

I would look for ways to de-escalate the situation rather than bring them to a certain life or death scenario. I have never been an advocate of being disarmed nor do I suggest to anyone to be helpless victims. I was given several hypotheticals since participating in the forum and they don't resemble anything that has happened to me or anyone I know. Life is not as black and white as you make it. Shoot the invader if you like. I will even loan you a pistol or shotgun. I'll throw it down from my ivory tower.

http://www.cottet.org/girard/desir1.en.htm

I do think about the possibility, not obsessively, and I really don't know what I'd do. So much of what is slung around here are hypothetical situations that, in my view, have very little to do with the world I see around me and in all of my personal interactions. I see aggression start with a glance. Aggression is a kind of violence. It usually escalates and often turns into physical violence. What I have been trying to say all along here is that physical violence does not exist in a vacuum. The hypothetical situations I have been given are categorically false. There is no person who can initiate violence because all violence- all behavior- is imitative. Everyone thinks the aggression, the violence, comes from the other guy. The "non-aggression" principle is based on what Girard calls "the romantic lie. " This is the lie that says there is something, some free will essence that is able to act independently for good or for bad.

I repeat, I am not saying you or Stefan are Christians. I'm talking about the broad anthropological picture. I am not saying your 'use of force' doctrine is central to Christianity. I'm saying this is precisely where you and Stefan get it wrong. The central tenets of Christianity come from Christ. To be a Christian means to believe in Christ's teachings.

One's position on violence is central to being Christian in any sense. It's not an odd digression. Your statement "it doesn't matter what the other person thinks" reveals your blindness to this fact. Your problem with the definition of 'Christian' is that you can't wrap your mind around the anthropological aspect of divinity in archaic religion or Christianity. If you're not interested in actually reading and comprehending what I am saying then don't bother replying. You've shown me over and over that you haven't even read half of what I've said. That's not a dialogue and I'm not interested in continuing that way.

You still don't get it. I'm not saying Stefan is a Christian. I'm saying objectively he is in line with Christianity in a fundamental way. He does not worship the god of archaic religion, what he would call the state. He doesn't need to be a 'dispassionate, disinterested observer'. It just means his personal beliefs and feelings about Christianity are not at play in the way he is in line with the gospel. In a way, he has the same objective goal of Christianity, that of dethronement of the archaic god that rules through violence, but I would not say he is Christian because he does not recognize the corollary power as Christ. The reason he does not recognize Christ is due to his muddled thinking on what is the initiation of violence and the structure of mimetic conflicts. You are the same way. It comes out when you wrote, "It doesn't matter what the other person thinks".

The imposition of a "uni-level" religion is yours. Of course I (and Girard) believe in the resurrection of the dead. I don't think we stop being human after the resurrection. We become more so. And if you are stuck in a hell in this life it may well continue then. Apocalypse means uncovering. The truth of the gospel is becoming more and more revealed as time goes on. And while it is getting worse and worse it is also getting better and better all the time, the wheat and the tares.

If you look at hell as a punishment from God for disobeying the law then you will be stuck, as you say. If instead you see Christ fulfilling the law completely and his warnings of hell are warnings to refrain from getting caught up in mimetic conflicts, then you are saved. The reason he tells us not to even think bad thoughts is because that is where violence begins. Once you go down that road it is very hard to turn back. That's why it is better, in the general sense, to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile. It's not out of some insipid altruistic purpose. It's to save us from certain destruction resulting from our own violence getting out of hand.

I originally posted that on June 25. It is an appropriate use of the word. I am not saying he is a Christian. I am saying he is objectively Christian in that he shares the same objective in the largest sense. He is against the power of the state, the power that uses violence to control violence. This power is what archaic religion knew as divinity, the gods. Christ is the divinity that overturned the archaic god's rule. The power of the state, the archaic gods are still around, no doubt, but they no longer have the power to bring peace through sacrifice. Now their violence only brings an escalation of violence in the world. Where Stefan (and you) still are muddled is in the area of what you call self defense in the case of 'initiated violence'. You say, 'thou shalt not initiate violence'. Once initiated though it is perfectly reasonable and justified to use violence in defense. The fault in that reasoning is that nobody ever feels, thinks, believes, or reasons that they are the one who is initiating the violence. This is because if there is a normal order in societies it must be the fruit of an anterior crisis. Now maybe you can see why these questions about what you wrote are relevant: "I've said repeatedly on this forum and in other venues that judicious use of violence to quell violence can work, and that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent, and that the circumstance that justifies the *threat* of lethal force is to quell felonious conduct." 1) were these your own thoughts that you wrote down? 2) does *threat* mean only a threat and no chance of violence? (an empty threat) 3) when you wrote, "We have no mechanism to directly sense or measure another's sense of justification for an activity" does that include your own thoughts on the justification for violent threats or actions? 4) when you wrote, "It doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified." does this mean that only your thoughts matter?