René Girard would say Stefan is objectively Christian.

[junglecat]

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."

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

[shirgall]

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

 

I've said repeatedly on this forum and in other venues that judicious use of violence to quell violence can work, and that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent, and that the circumstance that justifies the *threat* of lethal force is to quell felonious conduct. What does the question have to do with the conversation?

[Donnadogsoth]

I have to agree with shirgall here.  Deducting the right to self defense is immoral.

 

But junglecat, do you agree that Christianity is a bi-level religion, in that it has the salvation game, and it also has the progress game?

 

By "salvation game" I mean the plan of salvation whereby humans are reconciled with God through Jesus, thus attaining Heaven.  But this game cannot be Christianity's only purpose, and I'll prove by citing one thing:  people who die without knowledge of Christ.  Whether through young age or physical distance from evangelists, millions of people live and die not receiving the gospel.  Either God is fair or unfair.  If God is fair, they will be given the chance to repent after they die.  If God is unfair, He is not worth the time of day.  If everyone is given the chance to repent, then why should Christians spread the gospel?  What difference does it make?  Why take the effort?

 

So, Christianity must have a second purpose, which involves the concept of progress, of improving the material and spiritual conditions of man on Earth.  Girard's theory fits into this second category, which justifies Christianity's evangelisation on the grounds that it will help mankind survive more effectively.  Realising that we are in a phase of massive sacrifice of European lives, culture, and (mostly women's) sexual integrity--facilitated by godless cultural Marxism--is an example of how Christianity can be yoked into serving a practical, Earthly purpose.

[junglecat]

I've said repeatedly on this forum and in other venues that judicious use of violence to quell violence can work, and that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent, and that the circumstance that justifies the *threat* of lethal force is to quell felonious conduct. What does the question have to do with the conversation?

Shirgall, I get the feeling that you are not actually reading my words. Did you read when I wrote, "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."? Can you see how my question of violence relates to this?  You believe violence can contain and control violence. The problem with this sort of thinking is that the people you are fighting will always feel the same way. Take WW2. There were millions of innocents killed in that war- by the winners of that war, the "good guys".  Christ says that violence will never destroy violence. Satan can not cast out Satan. At least not for long. A house divided against itself can not stand. The violence will always escalate. This is precisely what we see in the world. This is what I mean by the divinity of Christ as opposed to the divinity of the "god of this world". You seem to have a knee jerk reaction against what I am saying because you can only see Christianity in terms of some abstract non-existent 'sky god' that has no relevance to anything in this world. You're missing the forest for the trees. 

[Donnadogsoth]

A God who would deny man the right to self-defense, defense of his wife, his children, from murderers and rapists, is the Devil.

[shirgall]

Shirgall, I get the feeling that you are not actually reading my words. Did you read when I wrote, "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."? Can you see how my question of violence relates to this?  You believe violence can contain and control violence. The problem with this sort of thinking is that the people you are fighting will always feel the same way. Take WW2. There were millions of innocents killed in that war- by the winners of that war, the "good guys".  Christ says that violence will never destroy violence. Satan can not cast out Satan. At least not for long. A house divided against itself can not stand. The violence will always escalate. This is precisely what we see in the world. This is what I mean by the divinity of Christ as opposed to the divinity of the "god of this world". You seem to have a knee jerk reaction against what I am saying because you can only see Christianity in terms of some abstract non-existent 'sky god' that has no relevance to anything in this world. You're missing the forest for the trees. 

 

At no point did I say violence was the only answer but instead of a tool for use in limited circumstances. I made a claim about when its use would be moral. The statement does not rely on any of the what you have included above.

 

I do not seek submission but survival. You refer to winning a war and I agree that the deaths of so many people is intensely regrettable, and a failure of reason. I judge countries by the same yardstick that I do individuals. was a particular group's response to the war an effort to save from grievous harm or annihilation oneself or the innocent? I consider that appropriate. Claiming I'm an adherent of Christ because of a standalone logically consistent statement that has no basis in religious teachings or faith of Christ is incorrect.

[rosencrantz]

A God who would deny man the right to self-defense, defense of his wife, his children, from murderers and rapists, is the Devil.

 

Superman is in favour of Capitalism, the Non Aggression Principle and Apple Pie. Doctor Evil wants Communism. I am all for Superman.

[junglecat]

A God who would deny man the right to self-defense, defense of his wife, his children, from murderers and rapists, is the Devil.

Your previous reply was so different!

 

I don't know of any god that denies any man the 'right' to self-defense. Certainly not the Devil.  The Satanic mechanism centers on violence.

[junglecat]

I have to agree with shirgall here.  Deducting the right to self defense is immoral.

 

But junglecat, do you agree that Christianity is a bi-level religion, in that it has the salvation game, and it also has the progress game?

 

By "salvation game" I mean the plan of salvation whereby humans are reconciled with God through Jesus, thus attaining Heaven.  But this game cannot be Christianity's only purpose, and I'll prove by citing one thing:  people who die without knowledge of Christ.  Whether through young age or physical distance from evangelists, millions of people live and die not receiving the gospel.  Either God is fair or unfair.  If God is fair, they will be given the chance to repent after they die.  If God is unfair, He is not worth the time of day.  If everyone is given the chance to repent, then why should Christians spread the gospel?  What difference does it make?  Why take the effort?

 

So, Christianity must have a second purpose, which involves the concept of progress, of improving the material and spiritual conditions of man on Earth.  Girard's theory fits into this second category, which justifies Christianity's evangelisation on the grounds that it will help mankind survive more effectively.  Realising that we are in a phase of massive sacrifice of European lives, culture, and (mostly women's) sexual integrity--facilitated by godless cultural Marxism--is an example of how Christianity can be yoked into serving a practical, Earthly purpose.

Ah! I found it. I forgot that your posts are hidden.

 No, I don't believe there's a separation the way you see it. While I agree with what you say, "humans are reconciled with God through Jesus" I think we mean two very different things with those same words much the same way Shirgall and I agree that belief in the divinity of Christ is fundamental to being a Christian but radically disagree on what those words mean.  It's not that Jesus 'took the rap' for us. It's that we did to Jesus what we want to do to God. Jesus' death showed the world once and for all, that God is not angry at us and forgives unconditionally. 

 

The 'unforgivable sin' is to deny the Holy Spirit, which is the opposite of retributive violence. Retributive violence is all violence because we are mimetic beings. Violence begets violence all the way back to Cain and Abel, who founded the first city/civilization/culture. Mimetic desire goes back to the serpent. The serpent (Satan) has no corporeality, no being outside of what we give it through participation in the scapegoat mechanism. Evangelicals will say that we are all sinners and they are right, and yet they turn around and create situations where they feel their violence is justified. Jesus says 'even the elect will be fooled, if that were possible.' He also says that the saints will suffer persecution and be put to death. He never says the saints will kill the unrighteous.  Secular people believe most people are good and the bad minority need to be punished and put down.  In the end, both groups do the same thing.

 

We are all going to die, every one of us. Nobody wins anything by being the last to stand. 

[shirgall]

The unforgivable sin is to invent a conceptual category called "sin", then insist it is analogous to disease, and finally assert that only adherents to a specific non-empirical conceptual system can be cured.

[junglecat]

The unforgivable sin is to invent a conceptual category called "sin", then insist it is analogous to disease, and finally assert that only adherents to a specific non-empirical conceptual system can be cured.

I didn't invent anything.

 

What I am saying about retributive violence is experiential and observable. Again, you are not engaging with the words I am saying and simply have a knee jerk reaction to them because you have long ago written off Christianity as having any explanatory value for the problem of the world's violence.

If you really think you are right about this, why don't you explain your reasons instead of mocking? There is no sin save the sin I invented? That's not even funny and it's self-defeating. You can do better than that.

[Donnadogsoth]

Ah! I found it. I forgot that your posts are hidden.

 No, I don't believe there's a separation the way you see it. While I agree with what you say, "humans are reconciled with God through Jesus" I think we mean two very different things with those same words much the same way Shirgall and I agree that belief in the divinity of Christ is fundamental to being a Christian but radically disagree on what those words mean.  It's not that Jesus 'took the rap' for us. It's that we did to Jesus what we want to do to God. Jesus' death showed the world once and for all, that God is not angry at us and forgives unconditionally. 

 

The 'unforgivable sin' is to deny the Holy Spirit, which is the opposite of retributive violence. Retributive violence is all violence because we are mimetic beings. Violence begets violence all the way back to Cain and Abel, who founded the first city/civilization/culture. Mimetic desire goes back to the serpent. The serpent (Satan) has no corporeality, no being outside of what we give it through participation in the scapegoat mechanism. Evangelicals will say that we are all sinners and they are right, and yet they turn around and create situations where they feel their violence is justified. Jesus says 'even the elect will be fooled, if that were possible.' He also says that the saints will suffer persecution and be put to death. He never says the saints will kill the unrighteous.  Secular people believe most people are good and the bad minority need to be punished and put down.  In the end, both groups do the same thing.

 

We are all going to die, every one of us. Nobody wins anything by being the last to stand. 

 

I'm afraid you're losing me.  I can consider a bi-level religion consisting of a salvation game and a progress game, and even that the general application of force needs revision in light of Christ's sacrifice, but I can't accept that all violence for any reason is evil.  That's against the Church, that's against human goodness, that's against my love of man and of myself and my family, and I will not counsel it.  I have a right to defend myself and my family from rapists and murderers.  If that means religion goes in the toilet, then I will happily flush it myself.

[shirgall]

 

I didn't invent anything.

 

What I am saying about retributive violence is experiential and observable. Again, you are not engaging with the words I am saying and simply have a knee jerk reaction to them because you have long ago written off Christianity as having any explanatory value for the problem of the world's violence.

If you really think you are right about this, why don't you explain your reasons instead of mocking? There is no sin save the sin I invented? That's not even funny and it's self-defeating. You can do better than that.

 

 

Didn't say you invented it, but religions, superstitions, and myths were all were invented.

 

I don't need religion to understand violence. Religion doesn't explain anything about violence better, more clearly, or in more depth. It does provide violent people with an excuse to be violent, but violent people will always find an excuse. Therefore I should not waste my time with it.

[junglecat]

I'm afraid you're losing me.  I can consider a bi-level religion consisting of a salvation game and a progress game, and even that the general application of force needs revision in light of Christ's sacrifice, but I can't accept that all violence for any reason is evil.  That's against the Church, that's against human goodness, that's against my love of man and of myself and my family, and I will not counsel it.  I have a right to defend myself and my family from rapists and murderers.  If that means religion goes in the toilet, then I will happily flush it myself.

What is salvation in your definition? Does it include saving us from a cycle of unending violence that threatens to destroy all flesh?

[junglecat]

Didn't say you invented it, but religions, superstitions, and myths were all were invented.

 

I don't need religion to understand violence. Religion doesn't explain anything about violence better, more clearly, or in more depth. It does provide violent people with an excuse to be violent, but violent people will always find an excuse. Therefore I should not waste my time with it.

You wrote,

 

"I've said repeatedly on this forum and in other venues that judicious use of violence to quell violence can work, and that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent, and that the circumstance that justifies the *threat* of lethal force is to quell felonious conduct."

 

This is an excuse to be violent.  I'm sure you feel completely justified in what you wrote. It's still an excuse.

 

Can you give an example of how people might use the words of Jesus as an excuse to be violent?

[shirgall]

You wrote,

 

"I've said repeatedly on this forum and in other venues that judicious use of violence to quell violence can work, and that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent, and that the circumstance that justifies the *threat* of lethal force is to quell felonious conduct."

 

This is an excuse to be violent.  I'm sure you feel completely justified in what you wrote. It's still an excuse.

 

Can you give an example of how people might use the words of Jesus as an excuse to be violent?

 

There are important differences in definitions and in poisoning the well. The difference between an excuse and a justification is that the action is either wrong or right. I'm claiming the use of force in response to a lethal threat is right and you, by claiming it is an excuse, are claiming it is wrong. You are equivocating.

 

There are a lot of examples of people saying God told them to do something heinous. The fact that heresy existed as a crime is plenty. Perhaps "The Great Schism" is a significant conflict that one could point to.

 

I'm getting less and less value from this conversation and am likely to end my own participation in it.

[junglecat]

There are important differences in definitions and in poisoning the well. The difference between an excuse and a justification is that the action is either wrong or right. I'm claiming the use of force in response to a lethal threat is right and you, by claiming it is an excuse, are claiming it is wrong. You are equivocating.

 

There are a lot of examples of people saying God told them to do something heinous. The fact that heresy existed as a crime is plenty. Perhaps "The Great Schism" is a significant conflict that one could point to.

 

I'm getting less and less value from this conversation and am likely to end my own participation in it.

No. I'm saying it's an excuse. The lie is thinking that the other guy doesn't feel justified.

 

End your participation if you like. No one is twisting your arm.

[shirgall]

No. I'm saying it's an excuse. The lie is thinking that the other guy doesn't feel justified.

 

It doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified.

[junglecat]

It doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified.

There you go. You just proved my point.

[shirgall]

There you go. You just proved my point.

 

How did that prove that Stef was objectively Christian?

[junglecat]

How did that prove that Stef was objectively Christian?

It doesn't. That's not the point. The point is you think your your use of violence is justified while at the same time saying it doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified.

[shirgall]

It doesn't. That's not the point. The point is you think your your use of violence is justified while at the same time saying it doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified.

 

Weird, that's not what the thread is about. The thread was about incompatible definitions of "objective" and "Christian".

 

If you are implying that my construction was an excuse for violence, then it's clear you may not have compatible definitions of the words I used in my statement about judicious use of lethal force.

 

If we cannot come to common definitions of words, we are making keyboard noises at one another and not debating or even conversing. I made an effort to come to a consensus and it's going nowhere.

[junglecat]

Weird, that's not what the thread is about. The thread was about incompatible definitions of "objective" and "Christian".

 

If you are implying that my construction was an excuse for violence, then it's clear you may not have compatible definitions of the words I used in my statement about judicious use of lethal force.

 

If we cannot come to common definitions of words, we are making keyboard noises at one another and not debating or even conversing. I made an effort to come to a consensus and it's going nowhere.

You're right. If you can't see the cognitive dissonance in what you said there's not much point.

[shirgall]

You're right. If you can't see the cognitive dissonance in what you said there's not much point.

 

Do you understand that one cannot judge another's intent but only their actions? We have no mechanism to directly sense or measure another's sense of justification for an activity. Another could say they are justified, and might be able to demonstrate that they are justified via communication, but you cannot know if another feels justified.

 

In lethal force scenarios there is seldom any leisure in making such a determination. That's why the "immediate" criteria is part of the statement, let alone the "otherwise unavoidable" part.

[regevdl]

Many religions share the same moral foundations and 'rules'.  so just following these rules doesn't make you a Christian.  Your acceptance of Jesus as the Savior and God and all of that jazz is what defines Christianity.  Jews also have the 10 commandments...their Torah IS the Old Testiment to the Christians, so they share that foundation.... so why can't it be said he's objectively Jewish?

 

In any case I get the point.  When I read UPB, I too thought...wow...this sounds very Christian.  I was raised strict Roman Catholic and wish our virtue training was this simple and straighforward! lol

 

But many religions could claim that UPB matches the moral principles of their religion and they wouldn't be wrong or inaccurate.  I think it's simply the basic breakdown of the moral foundations with a practical approach that can and should be applied by anyone, even people of religious persuasion but especially for atheists because some...not all...are more nihalistic and apathetic to evil.

[Jaeger]

Many religions share the same moral foundations and 'rules'.  so just following these rules doesn't make you a Christian.  Your acceptance of Jesus as the Savior and God and all of that jazz is what defines Christianity.  Jews also have the 10 commandments...their Torah IS the Old Testiment to the Christians, so they share that foundation.... so why can't it be said he's objectively Jewish?

 

In any case I get the point.  When I read UPB, I too thought...wow...this sounds very Christian.  I was raised strict Roman Catholic and wish our virtue training was this simple and straighforward! lol

 

But many religions could claim that UPB matches the moral principles of their religion and they wouldn't be wrong or inaccurate.  I think it's simply the basic breakdown of the moral foundations with a practical approach that can and should be applied by anyone, even people of religious persuasion but especially for atheists because some...not all...are more nihalistic and apathetic to evil.

I was thinking the same thing.  We could just as easily say Stefan is a Buddhist because UPB matches Buddhism.

[junglecat]

Do you understand that one cannot judge another's intent but only their actions? We have no mechanism to directly sense or measure another's sense of justification for an activity. Another could say they are justified, and might be able to demonstrate that they are justified via communication, but you cannot know if another feels justified.

 

In lethal force scenarios there is seldom any leisure in making such a determination. That's why the "immediate" criteria is part of the statement, let alone the "otherwise unavoidable" part.

I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying. When you wrote,

 

"I've said repeatedly on this forum and in other venues that judicious use of violence to quell violence can work, and that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent, and that the circumstance that justifies the *threat* of lethal force is to quell felonious conduct."

 

 1) were these your own thoughts that you wrote down?

 

2) does *threat* mean only a threat and no chance of violence? (an empty threat)

 

3) when you wrote, "We have no mechanism to directly sense or measure another's sense of justification for an activity"

does that include your own thoughts on the justification for violent threats or actions?

 

4) when you wrote, "It doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified."  does this mean that only your thoughts matter?

Many religions share the same moral foundations and 'rules'.  so just following these rules doesn't make you a Christian.  Your acceptance of Jesus as the Savior and God and all of that jazz is what defines Christianity.  Jews also have the 10 commandments...their Torah IS the Old Testiment to the Christians, so they share that foundation.... so why can't it be said he's objectively Jewish?

 

In any case I get the point.  When I read UPB, I too thought...wow...this sounds very Christian.  I was raised strict Roman Catholic and wish our virtue training was this simple and straighforward! lol

 

But many religions could claim that UPB matches the moral principles of their religion and they wouldn't be wrong or inaccurate.  I think it's simply the basic breakdown of the moral foundations with a practical approach that can and should be applied by anyone, even people of religious persuasion but especially for atheists because some...not all...are more nihalistic and apathetic to evil.

To be objectively Christian means you share the same objectives.  I would never say he is subjectively Christian, as in being a subject, as in a king to his subject, or that he has stated some verbal formula that makes him a member of a church.

[neeeel]

 

To be objectively Christian means you share the same objectives.  I would never say he is subjectively Christian, as in being a subject, as in a king to his subject, or that he has stated some verbal formula that makes him a member of a church.

 

Thats not the usual meaning of objective and subjective.

[junglecat]

Many religions share the same moral foundations and 'rules'.  so just following these rules doesn't make you a Christian.  Your acceptance of Jesus as the Savior and God and all of that jazz is what defines Christianity.  Jews also have the 10 commandments...their Torah IS the Old Testiment to the Christians, so they share that foundation.... so why can't it be said he's objectively Jewish?

 

In any case I get the point.  When I read UPB, I too thought...wow...this sounds very Christian.  I was raised strict Roman Catholic and wish our virtue training was this simple and straighforward! lol

 

But many religions could claim that UPB matches the moral principles of their religion and they wouldn't be wrong or inaccurate.  I think it's simply the basic breakdown of the moral foundations with a practical approach that can and should be applied by anyone, even people of religious persuasion but especially for atheists because some...not all...are more nihalistic and apathetic to evil.

Can you give an example of the 'many religions' that could claim UPB as matching their moral religious principles? Certainly not Islam. Buddhism? In what way?

[junglecat]

Thats not the usual meaning of objective and subjective.

Do you care to tell me the 'usual' meanings?

[neeeel]

from http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/

 

Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.

Subjective  is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.

I have never heard it used to mean share the same objectives. Neither have I heard subjective used to mean being a subject of someone else.

 

Being objectively christian does not mean sharing the same objectives. 

[junglecat]

from http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/

 

Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.

Subjective  is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.

 

I have never heard it used to mean share the same objectives. Neither have I heard subjective used to mean being a subject of someone else.

 

Being objectively christian does not mean sharing the same objectives. 

Thanks for your view. Can you verify that by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations?

[neeeel]

Thanks for your view. Can you verify that by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations?

 

ermm wut?

[junglecat]

ermm wut?

That definition you gave me, the one you got from that guy's blog. Can you verify it by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations? Or is it just that guy's opinion which you happen to agree with?  Can I also have faith in the dictionary's definition?

[neeeel]

That definition you gave me, the one you got from that guy's blog. Can you verify it by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations? Or is it just that guy's opinion which you happen to agree with?  Can I also have faith in the dictionary's definition?

 

Its the dictionary definition. Definitions are subjective, in that they are agreed upon, so no, I cant point to facts to prove it . I can point you to a dictionary for the generally agreed upon definition.