junglecat

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" What definition would you like to use? Pick any dictionary. What have I said here that is illogical? I'm beginning to feel like that character in the Monty Python sketch. "I came here for an argument and all you're doing is contradicting me!" No, I think they got it right, especially the further back you go. Today most Christians think of heaven and hell as only post mortem experiences. Jesus was giving instructions for "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". Post mortem is important but equally important is not ending up in hellish experiences here on earth. One way of thinking of an 'eternal hell' is to be caught up in a mimetic conflict. Eternal literally means 'one turn'. As I said, vengeance is doing what the other guy does. Nobody feels like they are initiating violence. Everybody feels like the other guy started it. And so it goes ad infinitum. That is hell. Maybe it continues post mortem. Maybe it doesn't. Is there anything wrong with pointing out the practical application to Christ's teachings for the living? And here especially, in a predominately secular forum. Stefan is no Christian. Atheists get their nose out of joint just bringing out the Christian elements in Stefan's philosophy. Why on earth would I address post mortem realities to strict naturalists?

Hell is being stuck in a pattern of thinking you can't get out of even though it no longer brings any satisfaction. The rich man is in complete denial of his situation and still wants Lazarus to be his servant. Yes, it's a warning, but it's a warning of man's craziness, not God's wrath. At no point does Jesus say, "God will punish you". It's no more a threat than it is to say that if you jump from an airplane without a parachute, you'll bounce and die. It's a punishment from man, not God. That's not an argument, is it? What do you know about mimetic theory that leads you to that conclusion? Mock if you like, but offer any substantial criticism. What have I said that's illogical? What have I said that's untrue?

And how do you interpret the parable?

No. I mean Mimetic. From a Girardian perspective, statism and its corollary are the anthropological aspects of gods. Can you explain what you mean by hell? I wouldn't assume we are talking about two Christs.

To be clear, nobody is denying anybody the ability to act violently. Not me, not Christ, not the state. I believe Christ's teachings on violence are a prescription to avoid runaway violence in the world. He is not saying, "Do this or else I will punish you in hell". He is saying, "If you go down this road of tit for tat your problems are going to get infinitely worse and you'll never be able to get out of them." And that's the definition of hell. You're right. I don't know about Islam, but Christianity certainly doesn't oblige anyone to act in any particular way. People tend to want hard and fast rules because they want to justify violence. Christ throws the rule book out and instead gives men freedom and choice.

I've given you my take on it. Why are you so troubled about your justification from my point of view? I understand your reasoning. Christ gave Peter all authority and on it goes. If a pope said we are now adopting elements of Islam it wouldn't make it true. It would have to be in line with the gospel. I still don't see how just war theory can be in line with the gospel. I'm open to your reasoning but if everything Christ said and did goes against it I don't see how it can be true from a Christian perspective. Just war theory is very fuzzy. There is so much wiggle room that I don't see how it can hold anything. Is the bottom line when you are being physically attacked? What about a siege scenario. Certain death through starvation. Do you have the right to kill then? What about any series of actions that, while not physical attack, will most certainly bring about your downfall? Do you have the right to kill then? What I have tried to point out to you is that most violence comes about through a gradual escalation. Jesus talks about this. If someone makes outrageous demands on you, that is the time to drop everything because if you push back, the situation will get worse and worse. This is because we are mimetic creatures. Nobody feels they are violent. It's always the other guy. That's what vengeance is. Doing what the other guy does. Always the same thing. Correct my thinking with reasoning. Even if it's "this particular pope said so"- I'll take that on your reasoning that Christ gives the pope all authority to change what he did and said.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/ What do you think about this source?

Ideologically speaking, it was the religion of archaic mythology.

Always the rape and murder hypothetical. Always denying the escalation of violence up to that point. Only focusing on the final "rape and murder". I would never say you are not a "true Christian" but I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

I said I don't know how Christ would justify it. I don't see anything in the gospels that condones any violence. I see Jesus rebuking Peter when he tries to defend him. I read Jesus ideologically refuting violence of all kinds. I see Christians in the first two centuries being driven underground and being thrown to the wild beasts. I don't know of any stories where they fight against state powers. Get these issues settled and then we can talk about just war theory. I am not saying you can't defend yourself. You can do whatever you can do. Theologically speaking, justification comes from Christ.

A 'true objective Christian'? I find that very funny. I don't buy into the whole argument about who is a 'true Christian' at all. Why would I buy into 'true objective Christian'? To be against the state in a categorical way as Stefan does is more than enough to call him objectively Christian. As far as violence in self defense goes, I don't know how Christ would justify it. There is much more to violence than just deadly force against deadly force. Violence generally escalates a long way over a long time before it gets to killing. To ignore everything that leads up to it is a kind of blindness. Self defense is one kind of violence. The state powers have the ultimate say in when this is permissible. Generally, violence comes from state power. Your argument is akin to the one that states if a Christian is not a perfect replica of Christ, then they are not a 'true' Christian. Christianity has a lot to do with the state, of course. I never said it didn't. I wrote that the power of the state is contradictory to the power of Christ. The guards at the Vatican are for self defense. The pope supporting state powers is a better example of the corruption of Christianity.

It's a non sequitur. There is no special virtue in calling oneself a Christian. People of all stripes commit violence. MLK was for the use of state power, the power of violence, on some issues. The power that uses violence to counter, contain, and control violence is contradictory to the power of Christ. I've been saying this all along. Stefan is against the power of the state all together. That is a way in which he is objectively Christian that is extremely significant. Sorry, I missed your question til now. It depends on who is doing the justification. Are we talking theologically?

I am dumbfounded by your reasoning or lack thereof. Let me get this straight: because Bernard of Clairveux, Joshua, King David, George W. Bush, etc. were violent, this somehow proves that Christianity is not true. Is that what you're saying? And so if I find one secular philosopher in history who was 'unjustly' violent I will have proven secular philosophy false? I thought the truth of an idea rests on the idea itself and not whether or not someone puts it into practice. Take your violence manifesto: "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." I love the wording of it. You are basically saying what all the gods of the ancient world said. Violence can cast out violence. Jesus said, "How can Satan cast out Satan?" The problem is that violence never happens this way, out of the blue. There is always an escalation which you conveniently leave out. Even if there are cases where it seems like violence is happened upon someone out of the blue this is peripheral to the main conflict, the exception and not the majority. World wars are escalatory mimetic conflicts on a huge scale. Your manifesto is incredibly naive. You conveniently leave out all the circumstances leading up to the violence, plug in your formula, and, voilà, you are justified. The world does not work that way. It also leaves out the fact that the person on the other side of that conflict feels justified in the exact same way as you do. To this you tell me "It doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified." The truth of the gospels is self evident. It is a true reflection of the world as it is, not a myopic fantasy. Christ gives the precise solution to our problem of runaway violence but he's not in denial of the high possibility that we won't make it, that violence will get out of hand. If you are trying to show me how Christ is not true you need to use the words and actions of Christ.

Yes, rulers love to justify violence, but so do you! "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." Yes. It's been addressed. I encourage you to read.

No, I don't see violence and Christianity as statistically independent. Why should I? They are inextricably tied up. Man is the only species capable of wiping itself out. It's kind of important. Can you explain how you see them 'orthogonally'?

How exactly is what I have said at odds with philosophy? The use of force is directly related to philosophy because violence is the central organizing principle of culture.

The scapegoat mechanism DID work and it was ancient culture's only source of transcendence. Since the cross this mechanism has lost it's efficacy. The powers of this world still scapegoat but it does not bring peace, transcendence. Jesus says "Don't think I have come to bring peace to the world. It isn't peace I bring but a sword. I have come to set son against father, etc." "Human societies create order by channeling violence towards scapegoats. Envy and resentment are directed away from one another and towards a common enemy. Ritual sacrifices institutionalize this way of expelling violence. Jesus denounces the lie on which this system rests and allows himself to be crucified in order to reveal for all time the innocence of all sacrificial victims. But this revelation, by depriving people of the means to disown their violence and project it onto others, inevitably brings that violence home to roost, so to speak, setting son against father, etc. Jesus flushes the hidden violence of culture into the open, imposing a choice on people. It's this choice that Christians call the apocalypse. It means 'if we are without sacrifices, either we are going to love one another or we are going to die. We have no more protection against our own violence. Therefore we are confronted with the choice- either we are going to follow the rules of the kingdom of god or the situation is going to get infinitely worse. Sacrifice limits violence, a single victim thrown to the gods so that the rest can live in peace. So when people no longer sacrifice and also fail to repent, violence can easily get worse." The revelation proves that the old way is over, it's going to it's ultimate destruction, because a kingdom divided against itself can not stand.

I forgot to add that God vindicates Job and shouts down his "friends". Are you hoping Trump becomes president? I think he would make for a very entertaining president.

Job runs counter to Oedipus because Job does not believe his friends (who are not friends at all but delegates of the mob) when they try to convince him of his guilt. Oedipus agrees with the mob that he is guilty and tears his eyes out. I agree, Trump is yet another politician. Its just that Clinton has such an infamous record of criminality. Trump hasn't done anything yet except speak. He may join the pantheon of the gods of this world yet.

Thanks for chiming in. I don't believe you to be violent. I was not accusing you of violence. I said you were violently triggered. There's no point going on and on about it as it has nothing to do with the topic. Or maybe it does. I leave that up to you to explain.

It's a double standard criticism. Nobody criticized Shirgall when he pretended to speak for alpha male in saying "I'm betting it's because you used the word "violently", actually." Why speak for him? Why bet on what he thinks. Why not just ask?

You are a devotee of Loki in as much as you comply with the mythology of the trickster god, the god that rules through violence. A modern example is someone like Hillary Clinton. She is the modern day trickster god. You can take most any politician but she is fantastic in this regard. Everything about her world is ruled by violence. Christ is the mythology that runs counter to the trickster god. Job runs counter to Oedipus. The Bible as a whole runs counter to the structure of the myth of the trickster god. Yes, the form is the same but the perspective is opposite. The truth of the Bible is that it is told from the perspective of the innocent victims as opposed to the perspective of the mob. Of course the Bible is self critical. It is an evolution, a revelation of this truth and it culminates and reaches it's perfection in Christ. Think about the witch hunting in the middle ages. The form is exactly the same as archaic myth. The community has the plague and the mob gangs up on a single victim to bring peace. The thing that is remarkable about the witch hunting of the middle ages is not that it happened. Scapegoating happened all throughout history. What makes it remarkable was that this was one of the first times that we were able to decode it, were able to see it as a lie. This was only possible because of Christianity. And this revelation becomes clearer every day. The cynicism for our leaders, our modern day gods, increases every day.

You are involved in a quasi-mystical theological debate that really doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about when I say "Stefan 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"

Archaic religions are primarily about prohibitions and sacrifice. This process of bringing peace through violence, the scapegoat mechanism, was the source of transcendence for ancient people and the one who is sacrificed is the deity. From an anthropological view, this is the divinity of the ancient world. Christ came along and instead of being one more scapegoat who brings peace back to the community through his death, he exposes the whole mechanism as a fraud. He reveals the truth that scapegoats are generally innocent victims and killing them will not bring peace, but division. He deprived us of the efficacy of sacrifice. Therefore, violence gets worse and worse. Escalation is inevitable and that is exactly what we see in history. This is what I mean by the anthropological truth of the gospel

Yes! You've got it, by Jove! You're saying the same thing with different words. Yes, repentance is orienting one's self towards the divinity of Christ ABOVE the divinity of the gods of this world. I don't see Shirgall's definition as useless or meaningless. There is, of course, a lot more that can be said about it and what "divinity" means etc. but his definition is spot on. People, Christians and atheists alike, are more apt to be confused and fuzzy about the concept of "developing a personal relationship with Christ" as if it means saying your propitiatory prayers and going to church on Sundays or having an inner dialogue. In a practical sociological/anthropological sense it makes more sense to talk about the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible. What drove me to join this site was the fact that I heard Stefan exposing quite reasonably and clearly the "god of this world"- as Jesus called it- and directing people away from that divinity. Of course he doesn't give the alternative to that divinity a Christian name and that is why I say he is objectively Christian. He doesn't give credit where credit is due, from the subjectively Christian perspective.