René Girard would say Stefan is objectively Christian.

[junglecat]

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?

[Jot]

I am glad you read UPB, the next one I recommend is "Against the Gods? A Concise Guide to Atheism and Agnosticism"

[junglecat]

I am glad you read UPB, the next one I recommend is "Against the Gods? A Concise Guide to Atheism and Agnosticism"

Are you familiar with Girard's theory?

[Jot]

Are you familiar with Girard's theory?

I am not...what is his theory?

[junglecat]

I am not...what is his theory?

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.

[Jot]

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.

 

The thing that makes someone a Christian or not is if he believes in the divinity of Jesus and the existence of the Abrahamic god.

 

Stefan does not believe in those. It does not matter that he shares some common beliefs with the doctrines or the Christians. Those are meaningless if he does not believe in God. 

[junglecat]

The thing that makes someone a Christian or not is if he believes in the divinity of Jesus and the existence of the Abrahamic god.

 

Stefan does not believe in those. It does not matter that he shares some common beliefs with the doctrines or the Christians. Those are meaningless if he does not believe in God. 

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.

[Jaeger]

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.

I had to google Mimetic Theory as I to have never heard of it.  https://woodybelangia.com/what-is-mimetic-theory/

 

Are you trying to say that Stefan is a "Christian" because UPB mimics Christianity?  Sorry I'm trying to understand what you are trying to convey.

[junglecat]

I had to google Mimetic Theory as I to have never heard of it.  https://woodybelangia.com/what-is-mimetic-theory/

 

Are you trying to say that Stefan is a "Christian" because UPB mimics Christianity?  Sorry I'm trying to understand what you are trying to convey.

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.

[neeeel]

He is objectively Christian 

 

what does this even mean?

[junglecat]

what does this even mean?

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.

"What Stefan is driving at" is obvious and needs no further reading into because he states explicitly that his goal is objective truth. 

 

Which definition of Christian are you asserting that Stefan fits? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christian

1a

[junglecat]

Link a podcast where he professes his belief in Jesus' teachings, please.

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.

[Filip S]

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.

 

Hey junglecat, welcome to the boards!

 

Christianity and archaic religion are actually the same in this respect. The greatest example of this is in the Passion of Jesus. In fact, Christianity is entirely based on an innocent man being sacrificed to bring salvation for all of humanity. 

 

An example of sacrificing the innocent bringing prosperity can be found in the story of Abraham and his son Issac. Where Abraham was to sacrifice his innocent son because God had commanded him to do it, only to be stopped by one of God's angel (I don't recall who it was) who stopped him the moment he was to sacrifice Issac. Because Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, Abraham was promised by God that his descendants will be as numerous as grains of sand on a beach (or something like that, basically there's going to be a lot of them) and that they will conquer the Earth.

 

I don't know what Christianity you're talking about. You have a lot of knowledge regarding this Girard fellow, know his arguments, and clearly have a strong passion regarding his work. Reading through the posts and speaking for myself, this board is rather confused as to what you are talking about. If I were you, I'd spend some time creating a tl;dr version of his work. Resist the temptation to say, "read this article," or "read this book," or "look up this theory," because I guarantee you most of the people here on the board (and even in your everyday life) will not read this or that; there's just not that many hours in the day. 

 

If it's so important for people to understand what you're talking about - it's about connection. Here at FDR, we don't take anything for granted. In this thread, you're bringing up a new theory; my suggestion for you (and you can do what you want) is to define everything so that there's no ambiguity.

[junglecat]

Hey junglecat, welcome to the boards!

 

Christianity and archaic religion are actually the same in this respect. The greatest example of this is in the Passion of Jesus. In fact, Christianity is entirely based on an innocent man being sacrificed to bring salvation for all of humanity. 

 

An example of sacrificing the innocent bringing prosperity can be found in the story of Abraham and his son Issac. Where Abraham was to sacrifice his innocent son because God had commanded him to do it, only to be stopped by one of God's angel (I don't recall who it was) who stopped him the moment he was to sacrifice Issac. Because Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, Abraham was promised by God that his descendants will be as numerous as grains of sand on a beach (or something like that, basically there's going to be a lot of them) and that they will conquer the Earth.

 

I don't know what Christianity you're talking about. You have a lot of knowledge regarding this Girard fellow, know his arguments, and clearly have a strong passion regarding his work. Reading through the posts and speaking for myself, this board is rather confused as to what you are talking about. If I were you, I'd spend some time creating a tl;dr version of his work. Resist the temptation to say, "read this article," or "read this book," or "look up this theory," because I guarantee you most of the people here on the board (and even in your everyday life) will not read this or that; there's just not that many hours in the day. 

 

If it's so important for people to understand what you're talking about - it's about connection. Here at FDR, we don't take anything for granted. In this thread, you're bringing up a new theory; my suggestion for you (and you can do what you want) is to define everything so that there's no ambiguity.

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 have listened to UPB. Link with timestamps to support your claim, please.

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'?

[Donnadogsoth]

Hi junglecat,

 

As a Christian of the Catholic persuasion I'm unsure what to make of your theory, but it interests me because I like to drill down to the bedrock of my faith and see what's down there.  In line with but beyond C.S. Lewis, I'm seeking the "merest" Christianity possible.  So I can accept the possibility of a person being Christian implicitly but not explicitly.  This smacks of intelligent ecumenicism.

 

The specific question I have for you is, what are we to make of the Atonement?  Christ on the Cross atones for the sins of man, by repairing the primary metaphysical damage caused by sin, and so opens the way for all men to avoid eternal punishment for their respective sins.  You seem to be suggesting the mechanism of the Atonement particularly and possibly exclusively has to do with the temporal war against Satan, and I'm not sure I understand you.  Are you saying that essential Christianity is nothing other than a defeat of temporal violence using methods of peace, something other cultures have groped towards?

[Filip S]

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'?

Junglecat,

 

There's no rule on telling people, "read this" or "reading that." I find it an ineffective method of disseminating information, and this doesn't just apply to you - but to everyone else as well!! 

 

What do you mean that the biblical stories are told from the point of view of the victim? What do you mean by the archaic stories are told from the point of view of the mob? Can you elaborate specifically on it in one of the stories you cite?

 

From what I understand of "the point of view of the mob," I see the Passion of Christ as a tale from a mob perspective, where the Jew mobs wanted Jesus crucified - and got their wish.

[junglecat]

Hi junglecat,

 

As a Christian of the Catholic persuasion I'm unsure what to make of your theory, but it interests me because I like to drill down to the bedrock of my faith and see what's down there.  In line with but beyond C.S. Lewis, I'm seeking the "merest" Christianity possible.  So I can accept the possibility of a person being Christian implicitly but not explicitly.  This smacks of intelligent ecumenicism.

 

The specific question I have for you is, what are we to make of the Atonement?  Christ on the Cross atones for the sins of man, by repairing the primary metaphysical damage caused by sin, and so opens the way for all men to avoid eternal punishment for their respective sins.  You seem to be suggesting the mechanism of the Atonement particularly and possibly exclusively has to do with the temporal war against Satan, and I'm not sure I understand you.  Are you saying that essential Christianity is nothing other than a defeat of temporal violence using methods of peace, something other cultures have groped towards?

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

Junglecat,

 

There's no rule on telling people, "read this" or "reading that." I find it an ineffective method of disseminating information, and this doesn't just apply to you - but to everyone else as well!! 

 

What do you mean that the biblical stories are told from the point of view of the victim? What do you mean by the archaic stories are told from the point of view of the mob? Can you elaborate specifically on it in one of the stories you cite?

 

From what I understand of "the point of view of the mob," I see the Passion of Christ as a tale from a mob perspective, where the Jew mobs wanted Jesus crucified - and got their wish.

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.

[Donnadogsoth]

"A fool who persists in his folly becomes wise"   William Blake

 

Hi junglecat,

 

Minuses?  Faults in my presentation and knowledge I'm guessing. This board has some Christianity-hatred, accusations that Christians adhere to their faith out of a desire to see their enemies burn in Hell, that kind of thinking, so my defense of the Faith probably earned me some minuses, too.

 

The Catholic view is that sin causes metaphysical damage demanding blood to repair. This metaphysical damage is indeed reflected in the operations of an unjust society. I see no conflict between believing both things. Christ's sacrifice as innocent victim is not absurd, it only appears so to the ignorant. If it has the added effect of increasing our moral clarity with regards to the operation of harming the innocent, that is good.

 

But I don't see a scapegoat mechanism at work in contemporary society or in history. There is, almost universally, sacrifice, but sacrifice need not necessarily be of human beings. The Torah lists the exacting requirements for satisfactory sacrifices of animals and food to Yahweh and this has nothing to do with human sacrifice unless you count the odd adulterer or Sabbath stick-collector to be stoned to be human sacrifices, but such sacrifice is incidental, never continual. Any innocent human can avoid being sacrificed simply by obeying the Mosaic Law, so there is no scapegoat mechanism in ancient Judaism.

 

When you talk about Jesus as if he had a sense of socially-transforming mission beyond the salvation game, and also the wheat and the weeds, however, I sense a depth that I do not want to paint as being shallow. I have to situated these things in terms of a second metaphysical operation that parallels the first, which reduces to a single answer to the following two questions, one from the Old Testament, the other from Star Trek (TOS):

 

1. If “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” what is its end?

2. If “Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not its end,” what is its end?

The answer is, of course, agape, Christly love of man. Fear and logic are not ends but means, agape is the goal that transforms and renders all sacrifices meaningful.

 

So, to tie this onto Stefan, we see that he is operating (a) in terms of agape, (b) in terms of opposing the Mammonic system of the world, and (c ) in terms of justice. So we know he believes in the essential emotion and motivation of Jesus, which extends to the Holy Spirit as convictor, motivator, and drive to curiosity. He's a Christian in your terms, and what I would call a righteous pagan. His only flaw here is that he has intellectualised his way out of literal belief in Christ, but there may be ways around that.

[Bruce Elwood]

Suffice it to say that theist may borrow whatever sectarian thinking they wish, in order to sophisticate their brand and make it easier to sell. In all of theism there is but a single topic that defines the proposition. Is there a god? What is the evidence and is it worthy of conference. I simply note that god is a concept entirely without substance. An excuse for magic for some but more typically a tool for controlling others, at their expense. There is simply no good in it that was not borrowed from more disciplined thinkers.

[junglecat]

Hi junglecat,

 

Minuses?  Faults in my presentation and knowledge I'm guessing. This board has some Christianity-hatred, accusations that Christians adhere to their faith out of a desire to see their enemies burn in Hell, that kind of thinking, so my defense of the Faith probably earned me some minuses, too.

 

The Catholic view is that sin causes metaphysical damage demanding blood to repair. This metaphysical damage is indeed reflected in the operations of an unjust society. I see no conflict between believing both things. Christ's sacrifice as innocent victim is not absurd, it only appears so to the ignorant. If it has the added effect of increasing our moral clarity with regards to the operation of harming the innocent, that is good.

 

But I don't see a scapegoat mechanism at work in contemporary society or in history. There is, almost universally, sacrifice, but sacrifice need not necessarily be of human beings. The Torah lists the exacting requirements for satisfactory sacrifices of animals and food to Yahweh and this has nothing to do with human sacrifice unless you count the odd adulterer or Sabbath stick-collector to be stoned to be human sacrifices, but such sacrifice is incidental, never continual. Any innocent human can avoid being sacrificed simply by obeying the Mosaic Law, so there is no scapegoat mechanism in ancient Judaism.

 

When you talk about Jesus as if he had a sense of socially-transforming mission beyond the salvation game, and also the wheat and the weeds, however, I sense a depth that I do not want to paint as being shallow. I have to situated these things in terms of a second metaphysical operation that parallels the first, which reduces to a single answer to the following two questions, one from the Old Testament, the other from Star Trek (TOS):

 

1. If “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” what is its end?

2. If “Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not its end,” what is its end?

The answer is, of course, agape, Christly love of man. Fear and logic are not ends but means, agape is the goal that transforms and renders all sacrifices meaningful.

 

So, to tie this onto Stefan, we see that he is operating (a) in terms of agape, (b) in terms of opposing the Mammonic system of the world, and (c ) in terms of justice. So we know he believes in the essential emotion and motivation of Jesus, which extends to the Holy Spirit as convictor, motivator, and drive to curiosity. He's a Christian in your terms, and what I would call a righteous pagan. His only flaw here is that he has intellectualised his way out of literal belief in Christ, but there may be ways around that.

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.

[Donnadogsoth]

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.

 

You're talking like Joseph Campbell now, delaminating the the metaphysics from the psycho-anthropology.  Joseph Campbell didn't like Christianity and thought it was useless except as yet another iteration of the hero myth and the sacrifice theme.

 

If Judaism, or whatever it was called in Abrahamic times, was moving away from human sacrifice (Isaac) towards the revelation of the Spotless Victim, that's understandable.  But if we want to convince people of the veracity of this psycho-anthropological process generated by said Spotless Victim, then we have to really--pardon the phrase--nail it to the cross.

 

I am not against a bi-level mystery.  I am against an attempt to de-metaphysicalise the Religion by submitting that God, Heaven, and Hell don't matter in an eternal sense, but are just tinsel decorating a temporal psycho-anthropological process.

 

So, if I read you right, you're saying that the happenstance sacrifice of a Spotless Victim, whom everyone knew was so, revealed to the world the unjust nature of the sacrificial-mentality system that consumes victims, as for example the global village consumes itself in war?  And that this Sacrifice called into question, based on agape, the validity and morality of these invalid and immoral sacrifices?

 

I speak from the perspective of one who has lived all his life in a particular society and not once seen or heard of anyone being sacrificed.  Am I just not paying attention?

 

Love is the endpoint of human psychology, and the beginning of human endeavour.  It is the highest pitch our emotions can be raised to, and the quality of emotion needed to overcome the devil, whether devil as transcendent or the devil-in-the-world.

[junglecat]

You're talking like Joseph Campbell now, delaminating the the metaphysics from the psycho-anthropology.  Joseph Campbell didn't like Christianity and thought it was useless except as yet another iteration of the hero myth and the sacrifice theme.

 

If Judaism, or whatever it was called in Abrahamic times, was moving away from human sacrifice (Isaac) towards the revelation of the Spotless Victim, that's understandable.  But if we want to convince people of the veracity of this psycho-anthropological process generated by said Spotless Victim, then we have to really--pardon the phrase--nail it to the cross.

 

I am not against a bi-level mystery.  I am against an attempt to de-metaphysicalise the Religion by submitting that God, Heaven, and Hell don't matter in an eternal sense, but are just tinsel decorating a temporal psycho-anthropological process.

 

So, if I read you right, you're saying that the happenstance sacrifice of a Spotless Victim, whom everyone knew was so, revealed to the world the unjust nature of the sacrificial-mentality system that consumes victims, as for example the global village consumes itself in war?  And that this Sacrifice called into question, based on agape, the validity and morality of these invalid and immoral sacrifices?

 

I speak from the perspective of one who has lived all his life in a particular society and not once seen or heard of anyone being sacrificed.  Am I just not paying attention?

 

Love is the endpoint of human psychology, and the beginning of human endeavour.  It is the highest pitch our emotions can be raised to, and the quality of emotion needed to overcome the devil, whether devil as transcendent or the devil-in-the-world.

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.

[Donnadogsoth]

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.

 

 

 

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)

 

Why do you think Campbell missed this?

 

 

 

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.

 

Then we agree on this.

 

 

 

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.

 

Are you suggesting that Christ is psychologically/spiritually necessary even to those who lived and died before he was born? In other words that a good man, for example in ancient India, dies implicitly believing in Jesus, even if he'd never heard the Name nor could explain his belief to anyone around him or even to himself, isn't that the basis (what the Church calls the Baptism of Desire) for Christ as universally necessary for the manifestation of agape?

 

In other words, recognising we live in a sacrificial system, no matter what period in history that is up to today, and recognising human nature for what it is (being convicted by the Holy Spirit), is to anticipate the existence of Spotless Victim who exemplifies agape? Does that follow?

 

Modern society doesn't sacrifice the unwilling. Our heroic soldiers are all volunteers. That's very different from a system that murders unwilling victims.

 

And I don't think Bill Cosby, for example, is being sacrificed so much as self-immolating. And even if I grant your point, how much does the “sacrifice” of celebrities matter?  Or are you submitting that as an example of how sacrifice-culture echoes throughout a society?

[junglecat]

Suffice it to say that theist may borrow whatever sectarian thinking they wish, in order to sophisticate their brand and make it easier to sell. In all of theism there is but a single topic that defines the proposition. Is there a god? What is the evidence and is it worthy of conference. I simply note that god is a concept entirely without substance. An excuse for magic for some but more typically a tool for controlling others, at their expense. There is simply no good in it that was not borrowed from more disciplined thinkers.

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 do you think Campbell missed this?

 

 

 

 

Then we agree on this.

 

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that Christ is psychologically/spiritually necessary even to those who lived and died before he was born? In other words that a good man, for example in ancient India, dies implicitly believing in Jesus, even if he'd never heard the Name nor could explain his belief to anyone around him or even to himself, isn't that the basis (what the Church calls the Baptism of Desire) for Christ as universally necessary for the manifestation of agape?

 

In other words, recognising we live in a sacrificial system, no matter what period in history that is up to today, and recognising human nature for what it is (being convicted by the Holy Spirit), is to anticipate the existence of Spotless Victim who exemplifies agape? Does that follow?

 

Modern society doesn't sacrifice the unwilling. Our heroic soldiers are all volunteers. That's very different from a system that murders unwilling victims.

 

And I don't think Bill Cosby, for example, is being sacrificed so much as self-immolating. And even if I grant your point, how much does the “sacrifice” of celebrities matter?  Or are you submitting that as an example of how sacrifice-culture echoes throughout a society?

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.

[Donnadogsoth]

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.

 

Let's say I believe you and Mr. Girard that society is defined by a sacrificial direction.  If so, that directionality should be shot through the society like veins in marble.  And if the sacrificial system is no longer efficacious, we might expect society to h eap sacrifice on sacrifice.  We might expect to find epic sacrifices.

 

So isn't that what is happening in the West today?  You speak of sacrificing soldiers and brown people, but what about the ongoing suicide drive by white people, who have a fertility rate below the needed replacement rate of 2.1 per women?  Aren't we sacrificing our fertility, not to mention our millennia of culture and our education system, our holidays and even our relationships with our fellows in favour of cybernetic interaction?  Europe, through a misguided "love of neighbour" is even sacrificing its territorial integrity into the hands to unassimilable people who will forever change the cultural and racial and linguistic and religious nature of Europe.  

 

Aren't men being sacrificed by the increasingly feminist-influenced family courts system, quota systems for jobs, and lack of redress for men's issues like job fatalities and homelessness?

 

Isn't Christianity itself going the way of the cross around the world, getting erased from Moslem countries and increasingly from Christendom, too?

Are we not seeing the biggest sacrifice in history as the potent, once-glorious West bites the multicultural bullet?

[junglecat]

Let's say I believe you and Mr. Girard that society is defined by a sacrificial direction.  If so, that directionality should be shot through the society like veins in marble.  And if the sacrificial system is no longer efficacious, we might expect society to h eap sacrifice on sacrifice.  We might expect to find epic sacrifices.

 

So isn't that what is happening in the West today?  You speak of sacrificing soldiers and brown people, but what about the ongoing suicide drive by white people, who have a fertility rate below the needed replacement rate of 2.1 per women?  Aren't we sacrificing our fertility, not to mention our millennia of culture and our education system, our holidays and even our relationships with our fellows in favour of cybernetic interaction?  Europe, through a misguided "love of neighbour" is even sacrificing its territorial integrity into the hands to unassimilable people who will forever change the cultural and racial and linguistic and religious nature of Europe.  

 

Aren't men being sacrificed by the increasingly feminist-influenced family courts system, quota systems for jobs, and lack of redress for men's issues like job fatalities and homelessness?

 

Isn't Christianity itself going the way of the cross around the world, getting erased from Moslem countries and increasingly from Christendom, too?

Are we not seeing the biggest sacrifice in history as the potent, once-glorious West bites the multicultural bullet?

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.

[Donnadogsoth]

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 sure how you don't see that all the things I mentioned are sacrifices on the altar of historical redress--or should I say envy, malice, ugliness, and short-sighted stupidity.  Would you prefer to call it a punishment, or a judgement, on whites, heteros, males, Christians?  It seems to me that those groups are being sacrificed to the devil, on the premise that their destruction will bring peace to the world.  Isn't that exactly what you and Girard are talking about?

[junglecat]

I'm not sure how you don't see that all the things I mentioned are sacrifices on the altar of historical redress--or should I say envy, malice, ugliness, and short-sighted stupidity.  Would you prefer to call it a punishment, or a judgement, on whites, heteros, males, Christians?  It seems to me that those groups are being sacrificed to the devil, on the premise that their destruction will bring peace to the world.  Isn't that exactly what you and Girard are talking about?

 

I'm not sure how you don't see that all the things I mentioned are sacrifices on the altar of historical redress--or should I say envy, malice, ugliness, and short-sighted stupidity.  Would you prefer to call it a punishment, or a judgement, on whites, heteros, males, Christians?  It seems to me that those groups are being sacrificed to the devil, on the premise that their destruction will bring peace to the world.  Isn't that exactly what you and Girard are talking about?

I see your point. It's a constant game of oneupmanship in the world at large (and maybe even in this thread)

If you redefine what the word/term means - you can say that anybody is anything.

 

Strange thread.

Do you mean the word 'sacrifice'? How do you define the word?

[shirgall]

Do you mean the word 'sacrifice'? How do you define the word?

 

I'm pretty sure MMD was commenting on the unusual definition of "objective" and "Christian".

[junglecat]

I'm pretty sure MMD was commenting on the unusual definition of "objective" and "Christian".

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?

[shirgall]

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?

 

"objectively" identifying a person with a concept? Objective facts do not depend on a mind for existence, but you are applying it to a concept.

 

"Christian" describes a person that adheres to Christianity, which means at a minimum believing in the importance of Jesus... the least believing in Jesus's divinity are cultural Christians and Deists. however, philosophy focusing on things that are true whether or not you believe them doesn't sound the same. You are basically saying northern European values are Christian no matter what you actually believe, and that stretches the term to a lack of meaning.

 

To get personal, how much I live my ancestor's Viking, Celtic, or Pagan Greek values might make me objectively Norse using this logic. I'm sorry you are under Loki's spell and I will burn a hamburger as an offering to Freya both to see your mind cleared and because my daughter likes them overcooked.

[junglecat]

"objectively" identifying a person with a concept? Objective facts do not depend on a mind for existence, but you are applying it to a concept.

 

"Christian" describes a person that adheres to Christianity, which means at a minimum believing in the importance of Jesus... the least believing in Jesus's divinity are cultural Christians and Deists. however, philosophy focusing on things that are true whether or not you believe them doesn't sound the same. You are basically saying northern European values are Christian no matter what you actually believe, and that stretches the term to a lack of meaning.

 

To get personal, how much I live my ancestor's Viking, Celtic, or Pagan Greek values might make me objectively Norse using this logic. I'm sorry you are under Loki's spell and I will burn a hamburger as an offering to Freya both to see your mind cleared and because my daughter likes them overcooked.

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.

[shirgall]

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.

 

Probably because calling people Christians who are not (and whose parents weren't and whose grandparents weren't) is not just incorrect, it's offensive. When I stopped by this thread I had no intention on wasting my time, I just wanted to post a helpful explanation.

 

I don't think we can come to agreement on definitions, therefore we have no basis on which to argue.

[junglecat]

Probably because calling people Christians who are not (and whose parents weren't and whose grandparents weren't) is not just incorrect, it's offensive. When I stopped by this thread I had no intention on wasting my time, I just wanted to post a helpful explanation.

 

I don't think we can come to agreement on definitions, therefore we have no basis on which to argue.

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?

[shirgall]

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?

 

Neither I nor several generations of my ancestors believe in the divinity of anyone. As I pointed out, if you go back far enough, there's Norse, there's Greek, there's Romani, etc. My mother may have been religious, as she gave me my name which is indeed the same as a religious historical figure (and one of the most common call-in show names), but I was never indoctrinated.

 

As an aside, my Romani heritage probably gives me the most cynicism about religion as a tool for profit and manipulation. "Cross my palm with silver and I will tell you your future."