junglecat

I understand that. My question is about violence. Do you believe that violence can be used to control or contain violence?

I actually agree with your definitions. Your definition of a Christian as someone who adheres to Christianity is correct, however it doesn't say anything about what a Christian does in practical terms. Also, I completely agree, a Christian is one who believes in the divinity of Christ. However, this is nonsensical taken out of the context of the ancient world where people believed in the divinity of the gods of war, the gods that use violence to contain violence. I'm not sure what you or Stefan believe in this regard. Maybe, at some level, you believe violence can be used to contain or control violence. Do you?

I agree, teach them. I wasn't condoning or recommending thrashing. My question remains: how do you intstil in them the urgency the situation demands? How do you teach them?

What I am saying is not any kind of stretch. You define a Christian as someone who adheres to Christianity. That doesn't say much. Belief in the divinity of Christ. That is practically nonsensical from a modern point of view. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. Among these teachings the most important is love and non-violence. I saw in one video where Stefan tells of Christians confiding in him that he is a much better Christian than many self-professed Christians, people who are subjectively Christian. He accepts the compliment with grace. I've basically said the same thing in this forum and I get rebuttals and incomprehension.

The point of what I am saying is that there is a progression to thought about many things said in the Bible. The Bible has been sited many times in this thread concerning spanking. I'm saying this is a good debate to have. If we are using the Bible as a starting point for the debate it might be helpful to see the Bible's progression of thought in other areas. I then asked you if you had children and what your approach to disciplining them is. For instance, if your child has an annoying habit, or dashes out in a busy street, how do you instill in them the urgency of your directives?

I doubt that. I haven't redefined either of those words. Or if he does mean that he can't have read the thread because what I meant by both words was made explicitly clear and they are clearly standard definitions. We should let Señor MMD speak for himself though. What about you? Can you explain why if you feel the words are used in an unorthodox manner?

I see your point. It's a constant game of oneupmanship in the world at large (and maybe even in this thread) Do you mean the word 'sacrifice'? How do you define the word?

I certainly wouldn't simplify my response as either spank or live with brats. This is only my observation of a few children and I am speaking in a more general sense of discipline and not simply 'spanking'. It would also be a mistake to not see the progression of cultural thought in the Bible. For example, at the time the story of Abraham and Isaac was written human sacrifice was the norm in human culture. The story is a record of the shift from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice. By the time of the later prophets the Bible is declaring even animal sacrifice as useless. Today, Christians and Jews have left animal sacrifice far behind. I think some Muslims still kill goats ritually. My point is that the Bible is a progressive, self-critical text. The modern argument as whether or not to spank as one level of discipline is just that- a modern argument. My statement was simply one observation from my childless perspective. Do you have children? I would like to hear your approach.

Yes, I agree with you that these things are going on. I would hesitate to call them all 'sacrifice' though. There are diametrically opposed ways to use the word 'sacrifice' as well. Think of the 'judgement of Solomon.' You could call the killing of the remaining child a type of sacrifice and you could also call the 'good prostitute' giving up the child so that it can live a type of sacrifice. In that story we have a clear example of a good and a bad sacrifice. One is obviously violent and selfish and the other de-escalates the violence and is self-giving. Of course the figure of Christ in that story is the good prostitute. The other thing to remember is Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares. We live in a world where the good and the bad are growing at the same time. One can't simply say that evil is taking over the world and good is losing. The fact is we save more victims than we ever have before and we also kill more victims than ever before. To see it both ways is much more difficult but closer to the truth Christ reveals.

I'm not sugar coating anything. The fact is that archaic religion, myth, and ritual are primarily about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. Whether a divine creator exists or not is a thoroughly modern debate, and in my opinion completely superfluous. When I am being bombed or shot or tortured it makes no difference whether the person doing the bombing etc. believes in a divine creator. It makes all the difference in the world what they believe about the escalatory dance of violence and the innocence of the victim. Why did Campbell miss the difference between the Bible and all other archaic myths? Probably the same reason Frazer missed it in his seminal book, The Golden Bough. Simply put, he was scapegoating the past and couldn't see it in his modern context. Archaic sacrifice- outside of the Bible- is not sacrifice of the unwilling. Recall that Oedipus gouges his own eyes out. And there is also the element of coercion with modern soldiers. Many men enlist because there are no other viable options economically or the military is going to pay for their schooling. And men who enlist generally believe in the collective guilt of whatever nation of brown people they are sent to kill. War is a giant lie on all sides. You bring up Cosby. Ask yourself why Cosby is excoriated and not Bill Clinton- who has done much worse. There has been an evolution of sacrifice. In the ancient world it brought peace to communities. Today, it still functions in the same way but with much less efficacy. Bill Cosby's scandal acts as a tiny steam valve for much greater scandals. Yes, sacrifice is echoing. The efficacy of sacrifice diminishes through the ages and violence grows worse and worse. This is what Christ predicted. His death was the complete revelation of the Satanic system, "Satan casting out Satan", using violence to contain violence. When the world is deprived of sacrifice and refuse to repent, you get the modern world as Christ predicts in the synoptic gospels. Christ's judgement sayings are not talking about violence from God, but man's violence against man.

I am an unmarried marriage counselor, so to speak, but I have seen children of parents who never discipline their children and those that do. The latter are much more pleasant to be around. The former are generally hellacious brats who treat their parents with disdain and verbal abuse.

It's funny. I see you as divorcing (delaminating?) the anthropology from the metaphysics. Girard's theory is nothing like Campbell's He certainly didn't see Christ as just one more dying and resurrecting god. He saw the distinct difference in the perceived guilt of the victim (in archaic myth) and the perceived innocence of the victim (in the Bible). That difference is 'crucial' (pun intended) I am certainly not saying heaven and hell don't exist in an eternal way. Quite the opposite. I believe we are eternal beings. I most certainly believe in the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the saints. And yes I too believe that love is the endpoint of human psychology. I am not certain that mankind has the ability to manifest this endpoint. Not without Christ. And I don't believe Christ was happenstance. Spotless? Was Job spotless? That's what the text implies. If you don't see the sacrifice in our modern culture then maybe you aren't paying attention. I live in the US where our rulers often talk about the sacrifice our "heroic" soldiers make on the multitude of battle fields around the world. It's not heroic. It's all based on a fundamental lie. I see our modern pop stars rise to fame, get embroiled in scandals, and then sacrificed on the alter of shame and defamation.

Metaphysical damage demanding blood to repair. This is highly metaphorical language and quite frankly, impossible for anyone outside Christian circles to decode or make any sense out of. Those within Christian circles take it on faith as some sort of impenetrable axiom to be accepted without question or understanding. Girard's theory decodes this puzzle and lays bare the plain anthropological truth that anyone should be able to see. How does Christ's death on the cross have a 'once and for all' effect? I think it's because this was the first time this truth, the innocence of the victim, was revealed. Of course it's revealed throughout the Bible starting at the earliest book written, Job. Job's friends are not friends at all. They are delegates from the mob. They are sent to try and convict Job, trying to convince him of his guilt. He vacillates but in the end declares his own innocence. Abraham and Isaac is a story that modern secular and religious people overlay a thoroughly modern interpretation which has nothing to do with the context it is written in. There is nothing new in the gods asking for a blood sacrifice. All culture at that time practiced human sacrifice. What is novel about the story of Abraham and Isaac is that it is the first record of humans moving away from human sacrifice. By the time of the later prohets they are declaring animal sacrifice to be of no use. The story of the Bible is a long progression out of the sacrificial system. This is the system that Stefan talks about, the system of using violence to cast out violence, the kingdom of Satan that is divided against itself and cannot stand for much longer. Why? Because philosophy is winning. The philosophy of the cross, the Holy Spirit, has worked it's way so deeply into the fabric of our culture that today that most can't even see it for what it is. For instance, take the example of the witch hunting trials in the middle ages. The story is exactly the same in form as all the archaic myths. The community has the plague and so unites against a single victim. We see the victim as innocent today because of the decoding of the sacrificial system of Christianity. Modern secular society manages to blame Christianity for witch hunting. "How can such things happen in so-called Christian times?" They don't realize that the only reason they are able to see the innocence of the victim is through Christianity. We always deny the foothold into non-violence that Christianity gives us. You are right in a sense that the scapegoat system does not work in today's society. Culturally we go through the motions but the effect is not one that brings peace anymore. You are wrong about scapegoating in ancient Judaism. The original meaning of scapegoat comes from the Tyndale translation of the Bible. Other languages use 'emissary'. Our modern use of the word scapegoat means innocent victim, but it certainly didn't mean that to the ancient Jews. They truly believed the goat took on the sins of the community. It was then driven out and killed in a ritualistic way. It's very odd to me that the goal today of many Jews is to rebuild the temple and practice animal sacrifice again. Some 'conspiracy theory' circles say that the 'elite' want to do mass human sacrifice again. But you don't have to grasp after wild conspiracy theories to see ineffectual human sacrifice going on all around us. Take the modern political system. I've never seen the US, indeed the world, so incredibly divided over political candidates. Donald Trump is almost universally denounced by the MSM here and around the world. He's certainly no 'spotless victim' but then again, who is? The whole thing reminds me of bands in the 70's like the Bee Gees or Carpenters. They were considered so 'uncool'- and yet they managed to sell millions of records. So how can the whole world be so vociferously against Donald Trump and yet he is the Republican nominee? I say it's because of Christ. Christ's death did not unite the people and bring peace to the community. Christ's death divides people. Christ himself said as much. And since then that's all we ever see. The 'salvation' Christ offers has a concrete anthropological truth to it. He offers us the kingdom of heaven. Follow the rules of the kingdom of heaven and mankind will have salvation. Reject the rules of the kingdom of heaven and mankind will destroy itself through internal violence. The judgement statements of Christ also have a concrete anthropological truth. Hell is the never ending escalation of violence and that's exactly what we see in the world today. I don't know how to understand when you say that love is the goal that renders all sacrifices meaningful. Can you clarify that? Also, I would never say Stefan is Christian. I say he is objectively Christian. He leans towards the rules of the kingdom of heaven, as many professing Christians also do but he does not recognize the source of his ethics.

Hello Donnadogsoth, I posted the below script in another thread on this site. I think it will answer your question about atonement and maybe help the others understand Girard's theory a bit more: "Stefan is objectively Christian, no doubt. If he were introduced to the interpretation of the Biblical scriptures of French philosopher René Girard I believe he would agree wholeheartedly. The main difference in Girard's approach to Christianity and "evangelical" Christianity is in the understanding of the atonement. Evangelicals believe in penal substitution, that is, God demands the death of his son to pay for the sins of humanity- an absurd notion taken at face value. Girard's approach begins with his theory of how society is structured, the Mimetic Theory. The theory states that people are mimetic. Everything they learn is through imitation. A child imitates his parents. Children imitate other children, and so on. Conflicts arise when desires converge on the same object. Two children playing will fight over the same toy. You can give the one of the children an identical toy and it will not solve the fight. This is because it is not actually the thing itself that is being fought over but the idea of the thing. As we get older our desires become more abstract; prestige, power, money, etc. What keeps society ordered and not falling into the war of all against all, as Hobbes put it, is the scapegoat mechanism. As conflicts arise and become more numerous at some point the people unite against a single victim. This single victim is then seen as the cause of all the problems in the community. This victim is then killed or driven out. Suddenly, there is peace in the community again. This victim that was a moment before the cause of all of the community's problems now becomes a god. This is the god of the ancient world and the god of our modern world to a significant faction still. How is peace maintained? Through violence, of course. Girard would say Jesus had to die, not to appease his father, but to lay bare the scapegoat mechanism upon which culture was founded. Jesus asks, "How can Satan cast out Satan?" Since the death and resurrection of Jesus, this mechanism no longer brings peace to the community but only more and more violence because Jesus deprives us of the efficacy of sacrifice. The kingdom of Satan (peace through violence) is divided against itself and can not stand. Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, etc. not for us to be masochists but to stop the escalation of violence. It is a rule of thumb for not letting the violence get out of hand. The Holy Spirit is very visible in today's world. We see it in our hyper-awareness of victims. We see it in the 'political correctness' of the day. We can say that we save more victims than we ever have in history and at the same time we also kill more victims than ever before. Jesus' parable of the wheat and the weeds is key. The Holy Spirit is growing at the same time the anti-Christ spirit is growing. The problem with atheists in general (and Christians, for that matter) is that they believe religion is primarily about God the creator of everything. This is false. Archaic religion is about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. We are living in a world now where sacrifice no longer brings us peace and prohibitions are becoming more and more obsolete. If the world does not follow the rules of the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus laid out then humanity will indeed perish as he predicted. The judgement statements of Jesus were not him warning of God's violence, but the violence of man against man. I'm very interested to hear what the group thinks about these ideas and if they have ever read anything by René Girard. I hope the thought of Girard can make it's way to Stefan because he seems to me already almost there. " I see you have many strikes against you! What did you do to earn such a bad 'reputation'? I also earned a few strikes against me for what I don't know. Maybe we have some sin in common? I grew up Catholic but do not practice as such now. Girard was a Catholic although his thought was at odds with contemporary Christian thought. "A fool who persists in his folly becomes wise" William Blake Hello Filip S, The passion of Christ is told from the point of view of the victim. Christ is portrayed as innocent and falsely accused. Compare this to the myth of Oedipus. Oedipus agrees with the mob that he is guilty. He tears his own eyes out in acceptance of his own guilt. The difference is in how the victim is portrayed, not the unifying fact that they are all killed. The differentiation is the guilt or innocence of the victim.

Hello Philosopher King. Thanks for the tips. I assumed more people would be aware of mimetic theory, this being a philosophy group but I was just making an ass of myself! I even saw that I had some strikes against me on one of my posts! I certainly meant no harm to anyone. I will refrain from suggesting anyone read or listen to anything, if that's the policy. I was simply responding in kind to another who suggested I listen to one of Stefan's e-books. As for the interpretation of the Bible, my point is that in comparison to other archaic myths the Bible stories are generally told from the point of view of the victim. Compare this to the myths of Oedipus or Dionysus. They are told from the point of view of the mob. The victim is guilty and even a modern thinker like Freud believes in the guilt. Sacrifice in these archaic myths brought peace to the community. Christ is said to be completely innocent. His death and resurrection divides people. Christ predicts human violence will get worse and worse and that's what we see through history, violence escalating out of control. This is because Christ reveals the method of the scapegoat, the mechanism of controlling violence with violence, and through this continuing revelation deprives people of the the unifying power of sacrifice. That's the short answer but I will write up a more complete comparison of Girard and Stefan for another post. Thanks again. I'll go through it again and make notes for you. Since there seems to be some confusion about my premise and presentation, I'd like to ask for clarification from the group on the subject of violence. Would it be too simplistic to say that Stefan's philosophy is against the power of the state to use violence to 'keep the peace'?

You'll find he most resonates with Christ's teaching when he talks against the power of the state. This is the same as the powers and principalities and the same as Satan. It's the scapegoat mechanism that uses violence to control violence. Listen to the e-book on UPB.

He is objectively Christian in that his philosophical goals are in line with Christ's. He is not 'subjectively' Christian in that he does not give his philosophy a Christian name. 1a

He is objectively Christian in the same way as Proust. Proust was not a Christian per se, but the central themes and tenets ran throughout his 'time recaptured' phase. To "believe" in the divinity of Christ means something very different to Girard than it does to the average atheist or evangelical for that matter. The divinity of Christ is in opposition to the god of this world, the state, Satan's power to bring peace through violence, etc. Christ's revelation on the cross was the revelation of the innocence of the victim, the innocence of the scapegoat. It seems to me this is also at the heart of what Stefan is driving at.

Oh, but he does! In archaic religion the sacrifice of the guilty victim resulted in bringing peace to the community. In Christianity the sacrifice of the innocent victim brings the opposite.

It's called the Mimetic Theory. I listened to a little of "Against the Gods" today. I didn't get very far through it. When I heard that old canard about most people don't believe in archaic gods of Greece and Rome, etc I was pretty sure I knew everything in the e-book. But I could be wrong and I'll give it a try again. From the Girardian perspective this point is not true. Girard says that these gods were real people or at least they were mythologies that had real transcendent power and explained how the world worked. In all archaic myth you have a story told from the point of view of the mob. The victim in the story is always guilty and the violence is noble. When the plague struck the community it was always the death of a victim that brought peace back. Therefore the victim becomes a god because he has the power to restore peace. Archaic gods are both good and bad. I say that Stefan is objectively Christian because he feels so strongly against the idea that violence can bring peace, that "Satan casts out Satan" as Jesus says. A good book to sum up Girard's theory is called "I See Satan Fall Like Lightening." There is also a fairly comprehensive CBC program called "The Scapegoat" if you like to listen instead of read.

Are you familiar with Girard's theory?

I am a Christian of the Girardian persuasion and I stumbled upon Stefan's video entitled, "Why I was right about atheism." I was so struck by how coherently and objectively Christian his thought was that I joined this site. I listened to his e book UPB and was convinced even more. I did a search on the site and saw only one reference to Girard. Can I assume that very few people posting here are familiar with the work of René Girard?

I guess it all depends on what you mean by faith and what your faith is in. I'll look into this book. Thank you. Any thoughts on René Girard's theory? I found it extremely relevant to Stefan's video.

Can you explain your concept of Christians using faith as an excuse for objectively immoral actions? And how do you distinguish an objectively immoral action from a subjective one? Is there such a thing?