René Girard would say Stefan is objectively Christian.

[Donnadogsoth]

The imposition of a "uni-level" religion is yours. Of course I (and Girard) believe in the resurrection of the dead. I don't think we stop being human after the resurrection. We become more so. And if you are stuck in a hell in this life it may well continue then.

 

Apocalypse means uncovering. The truth of the gospel is becoming more and more revealed as time goes on. And while it is getting worse and worse it is also getting better and better all the time, the wheat and the tares.

 

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

[junglecat]

Okay, I think I get what you are saying, but it's not an appropriate application of objectivity. Stefan is not the judge, a dispassionate, disinterested observer is. That judge would not think Stefan was a Christian either. He is not an adherent to Christian faith, nor a believer in his divinity.

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

[shirgall]

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

 

Then we don't agree on what a Christian is. Not believing in Christ is breaking something more fundamental than some odd digression about violence. You can confirm this by asking Christians.

[junglecat]

Then we don't agree on what a Christian is. Not believing in Christ is breaking something more fundamental than some odd digression about violence. You can confirm this by asking Christians.

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

[shirgall]

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

 

I do read what you are saying, but it's irrelevant to whether or not someone is a Christian, therefore I cast it aside. We already agreed, over and over, that being a Christian is being an adherent to Christ. You have selected one aspect of Christ's alleged teachings and made it central but most people would not agree that use of force doctrine is central to being a Christian. Christians waged war for a variety of reasons, even against their own. In the 1920s there was violence against Catholics by Protestants over religious interpretation in the United States. I discard the myth that any Abrahamic religion is a religion of peace. Religion is a tool of convenience and control, and there's enough material to find any "central tenet" desired over thousands of years. It's like horoscope wisdom writ large.

 

The community aspect of some churches is laudable (help one another, raise children with strong values, come together to solve problems, and so on). Religion is not necessary for community, but it seems to help. If there was a central tenet I'd champion it would be that.

 

As for the violence angle, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." When you are defending your life from attack, you cannot waste precious moments determining whether the attacker feels justified. If you had that kind of time, you probably could avoid or extract yourself from the situation. If I interpret correctly, you've latched onto this as some sort of bloodthirstiness, but it's not.

[junglecat]

I do read what you are saying, but it's irrelevant to whether or not someone is a Christian, therefore I cast it aside. We already agreed, over and over, that being a Christian is being an adherent to Christ. You have selected one aspect of Christ's alleged teachings and made it central but most people would not agree that use of force doctrine is central to being a Christian. Christians waged war for a variety of reasons, even against their own. In the 1920s there was violence against Catholics by Protestants over religious interpretation in the United States. I discard the myth that any Abrahamic religion is a religion of peace. Religion is a tool of convenience and control, and there's enough material to find any "central tenet" desired over thousands of years. It's like horoscope wisdom writ large.

 

The community aspect of some churches is laudable (help one another, raise children with strong values, come together to solve problems, and so on). Religion is not necessary for community, but it seems to help. If there was a central tenet I'd champion it would be that.

 

As for the violence angle, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." When you are defending your life from attack, you cannot waste precious moments determining whether the attacker feels justified. If you had that kind of time, you probably could avoid or extract yourself from the situation. If I interpret correctly, you've latched onto this as some sort of bloodthirstiness, but it's not.

I repeat, I am not saying you or Stefan are Christians. I'm talking about the broad anthropological picture. I am not saying your 'use of force' doctrine is central to Christianity.  I'm saying this is precisely where you and Stefan get it wrong.

 

The central tenets of Christianity come from Christ. To be a Christian means to believe in Christ's teachings.

[Donnadogsoth]

I repeat, I am not saying you or Stefan are Christians. I'm talking about the broad anthropological picture. I am not saying your 'use of force' doctrine is central to Christianity.  I'm saying this is precisely where you and Stefan get it wrong.

 

The central tenets of Christianity come from Christ. To be a Christian means to believe in Christ's teachings.

 

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

[junglecat]

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

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

 

 

This is the lie that says there is something, some free will essence that is able to act independently for good or for bad.

[junglecat]

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

 

 

This is the lie that says there is something, some free will essence that is able to act independently for good or for bad.

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

[Donnadogsoth]

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

 

 

This is the lie that says there is something, some free will essence that is able to act independently for good or for bad.

 

Hypotheticals help clear the mind of subconscious fears about indecision in the face of the world's chaos.  The more hypotheticals we can answer firmly, the more confident we will be.

 

I see your "romantic lie" and I raise you one "need to be practical."  Practically speaking, men who are complete strangers to violence are in danger, and they endanger the lives, limbs, and welfare of their family and friends.  How did I cause a mugger to attempt to mug me?  That's his violence, not mine.  How is a woman causing or contributing to the actions of a would-be rapist?  That's his violence, not hers.  Her and I are both innocent victims as far as that immediate situation goes, and the mugger and the rapist are both culpable and completely unrighteous.  These are not rare hypotheticals, these things happen every day.

 

When you come in here and start jawing about morality and religion and theories, but you can't even answer a basic question about whether or not you would (or anyone else should) take steps to stop someone from committing an evil act upon you or your family, you sound like you're talking from a hundred-foot ivory tower and are completely detached from the dangerous realities that people face.  We don't need you to worm your way into our ears and convince us to disarm ourselves and submit our well-being and property to the unrighteous desires of unscrupulous men.

[junglecat]

Hypotheticals help clear the mind of subconscious fears about indecision in the face of the world's chaos.  The more hypotheticals we can answer firmly, the more confident we will be.

 

I see your "romantic lie" and I raise you one "need to be practical."  Practically speaking, men who are complete strangers to violence are in danger, and they endanger the lives, limbs, and welfare of their family and friends.  How did I cause a mugger to attempt to mug me?  That's his violence, not mine.  How is a woman causing or contributing to the actions of a would-be rapist?  That's his violence, not hers.  Her and I are both innocent victims as far as that immediate situation goes, and the mugger and the rapist are both culpable and completely unrighteous.  These are not rare hypotheticals, these things happen every day.

 

When you come in here and start jawing about morality and religion and theories, but you can't even answer a basic question about whether or not you would (or anyone else should) take steps to stop someone from committing an evil act upon you or your family, you sound like you're talking from a hundred-foot ivory tower and are completely detached from the dangerous realities that people face.  We don't need you to worm your way into our ears and convince us to disarm ourselves and submit our well-being and property to the unrighteous desires of unscrupulous men.

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

[MysterionMuffles]

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.

 

That's a very interesting theory, I don't know why you got downvotes for it.

 

EDIT: Nevermind. Misrepresenting Stefan in that way was...yeah.

[junglecat]

That's a very interesting theory, I don't know why you got downvotes for it.

 

EDIT: Nevermind. Misrepresenting Stefan in that way was...yeah.

How do you think I misrepresented him?

[MysterionMuffles]

Stefan is objectively Christian because he feels so strongly against the idea that violence can bring peace,

 

That doesn't make him Christian. Several religions share that principle in their own way. He's not Christian if he doesnt believe in God or the religious docrtine of Christianity,

[thebeardslastcall]

That doesn't make him Christian. Several religions share that principle in their own way. He's not Christian if he doesnt believe in God or the religious docrtine of Christianity,

 

There you have it, Christians are objectively Muslim. The end.

[junglecat]

That doesn't make him Christian. Several religions share that principle in their own way. He's not Christian if he doesnt believe in God or the religious docrtine of Christianity,

 

You are right, he's not a Christian.  I am not saying he's a Christian.  I've been through all of this.  I'm saying he is "objectively" Christian.

 

"I am using is a standard definition for objectively:

 

cambridge

 

objectively: in a way that is not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings; fairly:

 

Stefan is Christian in a way that is not influenced by his personal beliefs or feelings. If you were to ask him, "Are you a Christian?" he would most likely say he does not believe himself to be one, he does not feel he is Christian.  If you were to ask him if he believes Christ was an innocent victim and that scapegoats are innocent in general he would likely say yes.

He is not subjectively Christian in that he doesn't recognize that it is Christ who reveals this truth to the world. The proof that Christ did reveal this truth to the world is his universally perceived innocence. Otherwise he would be just one more guilty victim like all the gods throughout mythology. 

Girard says "We owe so much to the Bible but we have a feeling it comes from us. When we criticize the Bible we can only criticize it with the Bible, not with the Illiad, not with Greek philosophy. We have assimilated so much and we are not aware that the substance we have assimilated comes from the Bible""

There you have it, Christians are objectively Muslim. The end.

Islam is to be spread through the sword. This is the exact opposite of Christianity. Muslims believe in sanctioned deception for the spread of their faith. Christ taught 'let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.'  But you're not being serious, are you?   You chimed in earlier confessing you hadn't read any of the thread. Have you had a chance to read any of it yet?

That doesn't make him Christian. Several religions share that principle in their own way. He's not Christian if he doesnt believe in God or the religious docrtine of Christianity,

By the way, I have heard that before in this forum. "Several religions"-  can you name any?

[MysterionMuffles]

Hindu, Buddhism, Mormon, Judaism, and Falundafa (sp?) are all religions based on non-violence. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[junglecat]

Hindu, Buddhism, Mormon, Judaism, and Falundafa (sp?) are all religions based on non-violence. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

There are those that would argue Hinduism and it's offshoot Buddhism are not religions but philosophies (Falon Gong is also an offshoot of Buddhism)

Mormon is a spin-off of Christianity and really more a cult. I'd wager a bet that many people on this forum would call Judaism a religion of violence. There is a lot of sacrificing going on although the trajectory is towards less and less. First the Jewish god says no to human sacrifice, only animal sacrifice. The later prophets were saying that animal sacrifices were worthless.  Anyway, it wasn't any of these movements or religions that had the shaping effect that Christianity did on western culture. Today intellectuals will not admit this but that was to be expected. All cultures scapegoat their past. The temptation is too great and it is too easy. It's much harder to not pass judgement and try to understand why people acted the way they did in the past. Much easier to say "We would have done better if we were in their place."

 

So do you have any problem with the Cambridge definition of 'objectively' or any quibble with my explanation of what I mean by 'objectively Christian'?

[Donnadogsoth]

You are right, he's not a Christian.  I am not saying he's a Christian.  I've been through all of this.  I'm saying he is "objectively" Christian.

 

"I am using is a standard definition for objectively:

 

cambridge

 

objectively: in a way that is not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings; fairly:

 

Stefan is Christian in a way that is not influenced by his personal beliefs or feelings. If you were to ask him, "Are you a Christian?" he would most likely say he does not believe himself to be one, he does not feel he is Christian.  If you were to ask him if he believes Christ was an innocent victim and that scapegoats are innocent in general he would likely say yes.

He is not subjectively Christian in that he doesn't recognize that it is Christ who reveals this truth to the world. The proof that Christ did reveal this truth to the world is his universally perceived innocence. Otherwise he would be just one more guilty victim like all the gods throughout mythology. 

Girard says "We owe so much to the Bible but we have a feeling it comes from us. When we criticize the Bible we can only criticize it with the Bible, not with the Illiad, not with Greek philosophy. We have assimilated so much and we are not aware that the substance we have assimilated comes from the Bible""

 

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

[shirgall]

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

 

Since Noah Webster was also a sticker for definitions, wouldn't the above make you objectively Congregationalist?

[junglecat]

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

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

[shirgall]

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

 

You have a selective memory.

 

And, of course atheists do not connect objectively with Christian because you cannot connect something that is not true to the the idea that something is true whether or not someone believes it.

[junglecat]

You have a selective memory.

 

And, of course atheists do not connect objectively with Christian because you cannot connect something that is not true to the the idea that something is true whether or not someone believes it.

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

[shirgall]

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

 

There is no truth in the supernatural claims of any religion. Therefore, claiming that someone who does not believe in any supernatural claims is a member of a religion which has as central tenets specific supernatural claims because of a subset of shared secondary values is incorrect.

[Donnadogsoth]

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

 

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

[junglecat]

There is no truth in the supernatural claims of any religion. Therefore, claiming that someone who does not believe in any supernatural claims is a member of a religion which has as central tenets specific supernatural claims because of a subset of shared secondary values is incorrect.

I have in no way made any supernatural claims. I am only talking about the anthropological truth of Christianity, specifically as it opposes the archaic religion, particularly of Greek and Roman mythology.  You know what they say about assuming. When you assume you make an ass out of you and me. Let's not continue on that path, eh?

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

Let's finish this debate. All you have to do is give me a definition (look in any dictionary) for 'objectively'. I don't care to know what anyone's subjective idea of what the word means. I'm not interested in solipsism. I want to know what it is divorced from your personal feelings.  Look up any dictionary on the web, open up any dictionary in your house. Words have meaning, objective meaning, meaning that is not influence by personal beliefs or feelings. Type them in. End of story.

[shirgall]

I have in no way made any supernatural claims. I am only talking about the anthropological truth of Christianity, specifically as it opposes the archaic religion, particularly of Greek and Roman mythology.  You know what they say about assuming. When you assume you make an ass out of you and me. Let's not continue on that path, eh?

 

Then you need to use a different term, as the central tenet of Christianity is the divinity of Christ. "Cultural Christianity" perhaps, but you've really dulled the edge somewhat. There's nothing special about the values of Christianity without the magic of divinity.

[neeeel]

I've been asking people here what other definition they have for 'objectively' and no one has come forth.

 

 

really? No one came forth, challenged your definition of objectively, and gave an alternative?

 

 

It seems like you are just trying to claim someone ( and his "followers") and bring them into your in-group. Ie, you are trying to claim Stef ( and therefore FDR members) as christian.

 

Objectively christian doesnt make sense. Objective describes something that is outside all minds, outside all "personal beliefs or feelings".  This includes your beliefs and feelings. If something is objectively true, then its true whether or not anyone believes it. 

 

For someone to be objectively christian, it would have to be true whether or not anyone believed it. 

 

Dogs have some human traits, can we then claim that they are objectively human?

[junglecat]

Then you need to use a different term, as the central tenet of Christianity is the divinity of Christ. "Cultural Christianity" perhaps, but you've really dulled the edge somewhat. There's nothing special about the values of Christianity without the magic of divinity.

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

really? No one came forth, challenged your definition of objectively, and gave an alternative?

 

 

It seems like you are just trying to claim someone ( and his "followers") and bring them into your in-group. Ie, you are trying to claim Stef ( and therefore FDR members) as christian.

 

Objectively christian doesnt make sense. Objective describes something that is outside all minds, outside all "personal beliefs or feelings".  This includes your beliefs and feelings. If something is objectively true, then its true whether or not anyone believes it. 

 

For someone to be objectively christian, it would have to be true whether or not anyone believed it. 

 

Dogs have some human traits, can we then claim that they are objectively human?

What you have said  is self contradictory. You have disproven 'objectivity' because you can not show me anything that is outside all minds. With what would you show me anything 'objective' by your standards? With you mind? Anything you put forth as an explanation or example will come from your mind.

[neeeel]

no, objectively true means, its true whether or not anyone believes it

As I said, objectively christian doesnt make sense, for the reason you state.

[junglecat]

no, objectively true means, its true whether or not anyone believes it

As I said, objectively christian doesnt make sense, for the reason you state.

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

[Donnadogsoth]

I have in no way made any supernatural claims. I am only talking about the anthropological truth of Christianity, specifically as it opposes the archaic religion, particularly of Greek and Roman mythology.  You know what they say about assuming. When you assume you make an ass out of you and me. Let's not continue on that path, eh?

Let's finish this debate. All you have to do is give me a definition (look in any dictionary) for 'objectively'. I don't care to know what anyone's subjective idea of what the word means. I'm not interested in solipsism. I want to know what it is divorced from your personal feelings.  Look up any dictionary on the web, open up any dictionary in your house. Words have meaning, objective meaning, meaning that is not influence by personal beliefs or feelings. Type them in. End of story.

 

I've supplied my attempt at an understanding of what you are talking about and you've ignored it.  From dictionary.com:

 

adj.

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

an objective opinion.

 

Here, the adjective "objective" basically means "true" or "factual".  An objective understanding is a true or factual understanding.  A subjective one, by comparison, must be prey to falsehood, whether due to cathexised beliefs or other emotional influences.

 

The best I can work out is that, according to you, Stef, as I have said, is participating in a high form of cultural Christianity, unwittingly, as that relates to the anthropology you've been expounding on.  We say he is an "'objective' Christian" because he is participating in the facts of the historical drama, and not the belief associated with Christianity.  No?

[EclecticIdealist]

Here's the disconnect you're having Junglecat.

 

You understand the term "objectively" correctly. It means (as previously mentioned) "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." The problem lies when you tie this to the term "Christian". To say that something is "objectively Christian" is to suggest that something may be classified as Christian without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." The trouble is, you have a subjective definition of Christianity which differs markedly from other subjective definitions of Christianity. In point of fact, Christendom as a whole has yet to come to a consensus of what it means to be Christian, so we cannot even point to an objective definition of Christianity as a standard or reference. You're attempting to claim that Stefan is objectively (subjective definition). That makes as much sense as trying to nail jello to a wall to keep it from falling to the ground.

[junglecat]

I've supplied my attempt at an understanding of what you are talking about and you've ignored it.  From dictionary.com:

 

adj.

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

an objective opinion.

 

Here, the adjective "objective" basically means "true" or "factual".  An objective understanding is a true or factual understanding.  A subjective one, by comparison, must be prey to falsehood, whether due to cathexised beliefs or other emotional influences.

 

The best I can work out is that, according to you, Stef, as I have said, is participating in a high form of cultural Christianity, unwittingly, as that relates to the anthropology you've been expounding on.  We say he is an "'objective' Christian" because he is participating in the facts of the historical drama, and not the belief associated with Christianity.  No?

I'm sorry. It was not my intent to ignore what you said.  To your point: yes, basically. But I wouldn't say he is an 'objective Christian' as you put it. I say he's objectively Christian. I know it sounds like I am splitting hairs but I think it makes a difference.  I mean the substrata of his ideology is Christian.  And I wouldn't say he is unique in this regard. Western secular society in general is this way, not cognizant of the underlying Christian principle that is at the root of their ideology.

Here's the disconnect you're having Junglecat.

 

You understand the term "objectively" correctly. It means (as previously mentioned) "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." The problem lies when you tie this to the term "Christian". To say that something is "objectively Christian" is to suggest that something may be classified as Christian without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." The trouble is, you have a subjective definition of Christianity which differs markedly from other subjective definitions of Christianity. In point of fact, Christendom as a whole has yet to come to a consensus of what it means to be Christian, so we cannot even point to an objective definition of Christianity as a standard or reference. You're attempting to claim that Stefan is objectively (subjective definition). That makes as much sense as trying to nail jello to a wall to keep it from falling to the ground.

You're right. It makes no sense if you disconnect that one statement- Stefan is objectively Christian- from the anthropological truth of the gospel, the explanation of the Christian decoding of myth, of the archaic sacred. Read what I am saying in this regard and the former statement becomes coherent.

 

People like the word 'rational'. It sounds so reasonable. But it really means to chop ideas up into little bits. The world is not like that. The world is a whole. It could be that you are taking that one bit and trying to make it intelligible without the rest of what I am saying.

[thebeardslastcall]

Does troll spray clear up fog?

If you take the divinity out of Christianity and reduce it to a culture and then claim someone who stands opposed to that culture and the divinity it claims, but admits they have some overlap in values, is objectively part of the group that is just purely nonsense. You share some genes with a virus, you must objectively be a virus. A virus must objectively be a human, because I'm disregarding what everyone else thinks of as humanity to use a definition which is in stark contrast to a sensible use of the word. Jewish ancestry and Jewish culture and Jewish religious belief in the old testament God are three different things. If you conflate them into one or talk about one part when clearly everyone else is talking about the other parts you're not going to have any sensible discussion.

What I want to know is has anyone in this thread cleared up the fog at all or gotten anything useful out of this thread? Junglecat is clearly trolling people with fog and corrupted definitions turning this into a completely nonsensical discussion that has gone no where.

 

If you wanted this to actually go anywhere instead of just screwing with people you wouldn't have used the word Christian, but you would have talked about what you actually mean. Objective is based in reality, so stop using the word Christian and use the base grounded meanings for what it is you are describing. If you want to say Stefan supports the tenet of peace then say he is objectively peaceful, but stop this bullshit of calling him objectively Christian because he supports peace. Let's break this down into pieces and call things as they are and stop using conflated, blobby, and foggy terms to describe what you mean. If you call him Christian one more time instead of just saying what you really see as the constitutes of overlap, then you are clearly and definitively just trying to confuse and troll people. You don't end cognitive dissonance by staying in the domain of foggy, emotional, and conflicted terms.