René Girard would say Stefan is objectively Christian.

[junglecat]

You posted the above, and are claiming that it's evidence of something. I don't know what it's evidence of. I am assuming that it's evidence of the existence of God or the veracity of Christianity or something along those lines , but it is actually evidence of neither.

Why would you assume that when I told you exactly what it is evidence of?

[shirgall]

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

 

Is this what you mean? Is this your definition?

 

 

By dragging this out it become's very difficult to apply Hanlon's Razor to the conversation, which devalues engagement.

[junglecat]

By dragging this out it become's very difficult to apply Hanlon's Razor to the conversation, which devalues engagement.

Hanlon's Razor indeed!  Don't infer malice when stupidity makes more sense.

I still don't see any disagreement in the definitions. I wrote on the first page of this thread:

 

 

"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."

 

So what's the problem? You disagree with me adding the practical element of Christianity or the cultural context of divinity?

 

And then I am still left with trying to understand what 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?

 

If you don't want to clear it up, that's fine. I'll chalk it up to fuzzy thinking or some reasoning I can't figure out. The last thing I would do is think you're being "disingenuous".

 

 

[shirgall]

But in practical terms a Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible, both of which are at odds with philosophy, which means Stef is NOT objectively Christian.

 

I have no idea why use of force discussions have anything to do with with the above. Obviously the threat of force in response to felonious conduct is not a paper thread, as the justification for the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. The threat is used to avoid the danger. If the danger ceases you've avoided it, which I mark as a success. If the danger does not cease then the actor may have to to use lethal force, as it has become unavoidable. What does this have to do with Christianity? Why does it matter if the person who has led you to this precipice think he or she is justified?

[neeeel]

so let me see if I have understood correctly.

 

this

 

The Bible in general and the passion of Christ as the culmination of the myth is told from the point of view of the victim.  All other archaic myths are told from the point of view of the mob. The Bible decodes mythology. This is the central evidence that points to the anthropological truth of the gospel.  Stefan talks about the power of the state, right? It gets it's power through violence, correct? This is the old myth, the archaic gods all do this, they bring peace and order through violence. Christ says "I give you peace, not as the world gives it" (through violence)  The hyper awareness of victims in our modern culture is a concrete form of Christianity. Imagine going to a Roman functionary 2000 years ago and complaining that you were wronged by the state. They would be completely amazed and say "You deserve to die for saying that. Crucify him. Throw him to the lions."

 

 

which you posted when I asked for evidence

 

is evidence for 

 

the anthropological truth of the gospel

 

[Donnadogsoth]

But in practical terms a Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible, both of which are at odds with philosophy, which means Stef is NOT objectively Christian.

 

I have no idea why use of force discussions have anything to do with with the above. Obviously the threat of force in response to felonious conduct is not a paper thread, as the justification for the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. The threat is used to avoid the danger. If the danger ceases you've avoided it, which I mark as a success. If the danger does not cease then the actor may have to to use lethal force, as it has become unavoidable. What does this have to do with Christianity? Why does it matter if the person who has led you to this precipice think he or she is justified?

 

I have to commit the No True Scotsman fallacy by correcting you.  To hell with what the dictionary says, a true Christian is one who has developed a relationship with Christ by changing his life's direction to orient towards Christ and the rest of the Trinity.  This involves a conviction of sinfulness by the Holy Spirit and entails a general personality shift.  Any other definition of Christian may be true in a dictionary sense, but in a practical sense, other than for the purposes of filling out a census form, such a definition is useless and bordering on meaningless.

[shirgall]

I have to commit the No True Scotsman fallacy by correcting you.  To hell with what the dictionary says, a true Christian is one who has developed a relationship with Christ by changing his life's direction to orient towards Christ and the rest of the Trinity.  This involves a conviction of sinfulness by the Holy Spirit and entails a general personality shift.  Any other definition of Christian may be true in a dictionary sense, but in a practical sense, other than for the purposes of filling out a census form, such a definition is useless and bordering on meaningless.

 

Fair enough, but let me add that only people that believe a concept is real can also claim to have a relationship with that concept, and to get there you have to believe in the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible. My goal is to arrive at an agreed upon definition that makes "objectively Christian" mean the same thing to all the participants of the discussion.

[junglecat]

so let me see if I have understood correctly.

 

this

 

 

which you posted when I asked for evidence

 

is evidence for 

You finally got it! Bravo!

I have to commit the No True Scotsman fallacy by correcting you.  To hell with what the dictionary says, a true Christian is one who has developed a relationship with Christ by changing his life's direction to orient towards Christ and the rest of the Trinity.  This involves a conviction of sinfulness by the Holy Spirit and entails a general personality shift.  Any other definition of Christian may be true in a dictionary sense, but in a practical sense, other than for the purposes of filling out a census form, such a definition is useless and bordering on meaningless.

Yep. I agree. I would unfold that truth with different words than you, but I agree.

Fair enough, but let me add that only people that believe a concept is real can also claim to have a relationship with that concept, and to get there you have to believe in the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible. My goal is to arrive at an agreed upon definition that makes "objectively Christian" mean the same thing to all the participants of the discussion.

Yeah, and that is inextricably bound up in the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible.  Read through the myth of Oedipus and Dionysus.

[neeeel]

You finally got it! Bravo!

 

 

Ok , and by anthropological truth, do you mean

 

To see the divinity of Christ in context with the divinity of the gods that ruled the world at that time- and that still do to a large extent. I'm talking about the gods of the ancient world that had violence as their primary ordering function, the mechanism of the scapegoat

 

 

which is what you posted right after mentioning anthropological truth? 

 

If not, can you explain what you mean by "the anthropological truth of the gospel"?

[junglecat]

Ok , and by anthropological truth, do you mean

 

 

which is what you posted right after mentioning anthropological truth? 

 

If not, can you explain what you mean by "the anthropological truth of the gospel"?

Yes! You've got it, by Jove! 

I have to commit the No True Scotsman fallacy by correcting you.  To hell with what the dictionary says, a true Christian is one who has developed a relationship with Christ by changing his life's direction to orient towards Christ and the rest of the Trinity.  This involves a conviction of sinfulness by the Holy Spirit and entails a general personality shift.  Any other definition of Christian may be true in a dictionary sense, but in a practical sense, other than for the purposes of filling out a census form, such a definition is useless and bordering on meaningless.

You're saying the same thing with different words. Yes, repentance is orienting one's self towards the divinity of Christ ABOVE the divinity of the gods of this world. I don't see Shirgall's definition as useless or meaningless. There is, of course, a lot more that can be said about it and what "divinity" means etc. but his definition is spot on. People, Christians and atheists alike, are more apt to be confused and fuzzy about the concept of "developing a personal relationship with Christ" as if it means saying your propitiatory prayers and going to church on Sundays or having an inner dialogue. In a practical sociological/anthropological sense it makes more sense to talk about the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible.

 

What drove me to join this site was the fact that I heard Stefan exposing quite reasonably and clearly the "god of this world"- as Jesus called it- and directing people away from that divinity. Of course he doesn't give the alternative to that divinity a Christian name and that is why I say he is objectively Christian. He doesn't give credit where credit is due, from the subjectively Christian perspective.

[neeeel]

Yes! You've got it, by Jove! 

 

 

In that case, what you posted is in no way evidence for the anthropological truth of the gospel. For a start, it uses the bible to prove the bible. It doesnt prove that gods exist, it doesnt prove that jesus was divine. Even if we accept the fact that the christian myth is from the point of view of the victim , this proves absolutely nothing. 

 

If that is your standard of evidence, then I am sure you will also accept the islamic claim that, because the koran has existed for centuries without a single alteration, this is evidence that its the real truth.

[Donnadogsoth]

You're saying the same thing with different words. Yes, repentance is orienting one's self towards the divinity of Christ ABOVE the divinity of the gods of this world. I don't see Shirgall's definition as useless or meaningless. There is, of course, a lot more that can be said about it and what "divinity" means etc. but his definition is spot on. People, Christians and atheists alike, are more apt to be confused and fuzzy about the concept of "developing a personal relationship with Christ" as if it means saying your propitiatory prayers and going to church on Sundays or having an inner dialogue. In a practical sociological/anthropological sense it makes more sense to talk about the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible.

 

What drove me to join this site was the fact that I heard Stefan exposing quite reasonably and clearly the "god of this world"- as Jesus called it- and directing people away from that divinity. Of course he doesn't give the alternative to that divinity a Christian name and that is why I say he is objectively Christian. He doesn't give credit where credit is due, from the subjectively Christian perspective.

 

It's a useless and meaningless definition to the extent that it fools people into thinking that census form-fillers who tick "Christian" in a box are somehow meaningfully and usefully Christian, to their own souls.  You and I know that isn't true.  Christianity is a direction of soul, not a set of utterances, actions, or virtue signals.

 

Sociologically or anthropologically that definition makes it hard to track true Christians.  Indeed, according to Jesus we can't even judge the matter perfectly ourselves without imperiling our souls.  So in a broad sense we can't track true Christians, but we can track Christendom, for Christendom supplies the main pool from which true Christians are drawn.

 

Stefan is not a Christian in the census-filler sense, but he is exploring the demesne of true Christianity.  What remains to be seen is whether he will rehabilitate Jesus-the-Christ, Jesus as Crucified One as something akin or beyond the idea of the "noble lie" or the "pious fiction" (actually pious fraud) and integrate him into his defense of the Culture.  If this is his intention, whether subconsciously or not, he has already made overtures toward it in his "The Rise of Globalism: The Death of Culture" video.

Fair enough, but let me add that only people that believe a concept is real can also claim to have a relationship with that concept, and to get there you have to believe in the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible. My goal is to arrive at an agreed upon definition that makes "objectively Christian" mean the same thing to all the participants of the discussion.

 

But we don't know, shirgall, who really believes and who does not.  All we can do is track the census numbers for self-proclaimed "Christians".  That's why a differentiation needs to be made between true and nominal Christians, rationally if not empirically.

[junglecat]

In that case, what you posted is in no way evidence for the anthropological truth of the gospel. For a start, it uses the bible to prove the bible. It doesnt prove that gods exist, it doesnt prove that jesus was divine. Even if we accept the fact that the christian myth is from the point of view of the victim , this proves absolutely nothing. 

 

If that is your standard of evidence, then I am sure you will also accept the islamic claim that, because the koran has existed for centuries without a single alteration, this is evidence that its the real truth.

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

[shirgall]

But we don't know, shirgall, who really believes and who does not.  All we can do is track the census numbers for self-proclaimed "Christians".  That's why a differentiation needs to be made between true and nominal Christians, rationally if not empirically.

 

We can't know. We have no tool that looks at a brain and measures faith.

 

My only quibble is the terminology "objectively Christian" and it does not appear we can come to grips on a common definition for those words, which makes discussion on the matter pointless.

[junglecat]

We can't know. We have no tool that looks at a brain and measures faith.

 

My only quibble is the terminology "objectively Christian" and it does not appear we can come to grips on a common definition for those words, which makes discussion on the matter pointless.

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

 

I am using is a standard definition for objectively:

 

cambridge

 

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

 

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

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

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

[shirgall]

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

 

I am using is a standard definition for objectively:

 

cambridge

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your definitions. Does it mean that I'm objectively Norse if I think that some people are tricksters even if I have no personal belief in Loki?

 

A lot of critics of the Bible accuse the authors of stealing its many stories from other religions and myths, actually, not just the fact that parts of the Bible contradict other parts of the Bible, let alone the criticism that there was a meeting where they voted on what ancient writings were part of the Bible and what were voted off the island.

[junglecat]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your definitions. Does it mean that I'm objectively Norse if I think that some people are tricksters even if I have no personal belief in Loki?

 

A lot of critics of the Bible accuse the authors of stealing its many stories from other religions and myths, actually, not just the fact that parts of the Bible contradict other parts of the Bible, let alone the criticism that there was a meeting where they voted on what ancient writings were part of the Bible and what were voted off the island.

You are a devotee of Loki in as much as you comply with the mythology of the trickster god, the god that rules through violence. A modern example is someone like Hillary Clinton.  She is the modern day trickster god. You can take most any politician but she is fantastic in this regard. Everything about her world is ruled by violence. Christ is the mythology that runs counter to the trickster god. Job runs counter to Oedipus. The Bible as a whole runs counter to the structure of the myth of the trickster god. Yes, the form is the same but the perspective is opposite. The truth of the Bible is that it is told from the perspective of the innocent victims as opposed to the perspective of the mob. Of course the Bible is self critical. It is an evolution, a revelation of this truth and it culminates and reaches it's perfection in Christ.

Think about the witch hunting in the middle ages. The form is exactly the same as archaic myth. The community has the plague and the mob gangs up on a single victim to bring peace. The thing that is remarkable about the witch hunting of the middle ages is not that it happened. Scapegoating happened all throughout history. What makes it remarkable was that this was one of the first times that we were able to decode it, were able to see it as a lie. This was only possible because of Christianity. And this revelation becomes clearer every day. The cynicism for our leaders, our modern day gods, increases every day.

[Donnadogsoth]

You are a devotee of Loki in as much as you comply with the mythology of the trickster god, the god that rules through violence. A modern example is someone like Hillary Clinton.  She is the modern day trickster god. You can take most any politician but she is fantastic in this regard. Everything about her world is ruled by violence. Christ is the mythology that runs counter to the trickster god. Job runs counter to Oedipus. The Bible as a whole runs counter to the structure of the myth of the trickster god. Yes, the form is the same but the perspective is opposite. The truth of the Bible is that it is told from the perspective of the innocent victims as opposed to the perspective of the mob. Of course the Bible is self critical. It is an evolution, a revelation of this truth and it culminates and reaches it's perfection in Christ.

Think about the witch hunting in the middle ages. The form is exactly the same as archaic myth. The community has the plague and the mob gangs up on a single victim to bring peace. The thing that is remarkable about the witch hunting of the middle ages is not that it happened. Scapegoating happened all throughout history. What makes it remarkable was that this was one of the first times that we were able to decode it, were able to see it as a lie. This was only possible because of Christianity. And this revelation becomes clearer every day. The cynicism for our leaders, our modern day gods, increases every day.

 

(1) How does Job run counter to Oedipus?  Both are innocent men ruined by Fate.

 

(2) How is Trump, who advocates using violence to sterilise the world of Islamic terrorists, not also a worshipper, or avatar, of Loki?

[neeeel]

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

 

Sorry, but this doesnt make sense to me. Scapegoats are used to bring peace back to the community, except its a fraud, exposed by jesus, except, when scapegoats are removed, violence gets worse( implying that scapegoats did actually work in lowering violence, ie not a fraud).  Perhaps I have misunderstood

 

And, I do not see how any of this proves anything. The bible shows that the scapegoat narrative is a fraud, therefore the bible is true? 

[junglecat]

(1) How does Job run counter to Oedipus?  Both are innocent men ruined by Fate.

 

(2) How is Trump, who advocates using violence to sterilise the world of Islamic terrorists, not also a worshipper, or avatar, of Loki?

Job runs counter to Oedipus because Job does not believe his friends (who are not friends at all but delegates of the mob) when they try to convince him of his guilt. Oedipus agrees with the mob that he is guilty and tears his eyes out.

 

I agree, Trump is yet another politician. Its just that Clinton has such an infamous record of criminality. Trump hasn't done anything yet except speak. He may join the pantheon of the gods of this world yet.

[Donnadogsoth]

Job runs counter to Oedipus because Job does not believe his friends (who are not friends at all but delegates of the mob) when they try to convince him of his guilt. Oedipus agrees with the mob that he is guilty and tears his eyes out.

 

I agree, Trump is yet another politician. Its just that Clinton has such an infamous record of criminality. Trump hasn't done anything yet except speak. He may join the pantheon of the gods of this world yet.

 

Well, we can only hope.

 

Do you suppose a police officer who uses force to stop a rape becomes a member of Olympus?

[junglecat]

Well, we can only hope.

I forgot to add that God vindicates Job and shouts down his "friends".

 

Are you hoping Trump becomes president?  I think he would make for a very entertaining president.

[junglecat]

Sorry, but this doesnt make sense to me. Scapegoats are used to bring peace back to the community, except its a fraud, exposed by jesus, except, when scapegoats are removed, violence gets worse( implying that scapegoats did actually work in lowering violence, ie not a fraud).  Perhaps I have misunderstood

 

And, I do not see how any of this proves anything. The bible shows that the scapegoat narrative is a fraud, therefore the bible is true? 

The scapegoat mechanism DID work and it was ancient culture's only source of transcendence.  Since the cross this mechanism has lost it's efficacy.  The powers of this world still scapegoat but it does not bring peace, transcendence. Jesus says "Don't think I have come to bring peace to the world. It isn't peace I bring but a sword. I have come to set son against father, etc."

 

"Human societies create order by channeling violence towards scapegoats. Envy and resentment are directed away from one another and towards a common enemy. Ritual sacrifices institutionalize this way of expelling violence. Jesus denounces the lie on which this system rests and allows himself to be crucified in order to reveal for all time the innocence of all sacrificial victims. But this revelation, by depriving people of the means to disown their violence and project it onto others, inevitably brings that violence home to roost, so to speak, setting son against father, etc.    Jesus flushes the hidden violence of culture into the open, imposing a choice on people. It's this choice that Christians call the apocalypse. It means 'if we are without sacrifices, either we are going to love one another or we are going to die. We have no more protection against our own violence. Therefore we are confronted with the choice- either we are going to follow the rules of the kingdom of god or the situation is going to get infinitely worse. Sacrifice limits violence, a single victim thrown to the gods so that the rest can live in peace. So when people no longer sacrifice and also fail to repent, violence can easily get worse."

 

 The revelation proves that the old way is over, it's going to it's ultimate destruction, because a kingdom divided against itself can not stand.

[junglecat]

But in practical terms a Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible, both of which are at odds with philosophy, which means Stef is NOT objectively Christian.

 

I have no idea why use of force discussions have anything to do with with the above. Obviously the threat of force in response to felonious conduct is not a paper thread, as the justification for the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. The threat is used to avoid the danger. If the danger ceases you've avoided it, which I mark as a success. If the danger does not cease then the actor may have to to use lethal force, as it has become unavoidable. What does this have to do with Christianity? Why does it matter if the person who has led you to this precipice think he or she is justified?

How exactly is what I have said at odds with philosophy?

The use of force is directly related to philosophy because violence is the central organizing principle of culture.

[shirgall]

How exactly is what I have said at odds with philosophy?

The use of force is directly related to philosophy because violence is the central organizing principle of culture.

 

The "at odds with philosophy" comment related to Christianity not use of force doctrine. I think the underlying issue is that you do not see that use of force and Christianity are orthogonal concepts.

[junglecat]

The "at odds with philosophy" comment related to Christianity not use of force doctrine. I think the underlying issue is that you do not see that use of force and Christianity are orthogonal concepts.

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

[thebeardslastcall]

I didn't bother to read most of the thread, so this may have already been addressed, but did anyone question why he saw two similarities and chose the direction "Stefan is objectively Christian", instead of drawing the equally (il)logical conclusion, going the other way, that Rene Girard is objectively atheist?
My first impression was "I see some similarities, maybe I can force him into my group and claim I'm right!"
One of the necessities of philosophy is being able to parse your ideas. You might as well be saying "Christianity is about being good, therefore anyone doing good must objectively be a Christian!"
How would you view the statement "Atheism is about truth, therefore anyone speaking the truth must objectively be an atheist!"

 

 

Are you hoping Trump becomes president?  I think he would make for a very entertaining president.

 

Presidents have the power to destroy real lives. I don't want an entertaining president. I want a president no one knows or cares about because he's powerless. That is, a president in name only, like a relatively harmless crazy person.

[shirgall]

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

 

Since there are statements about avoiding violence in a number of religions, Christianity cannot claim such an idea for its own. Then there's my bloodthirsty namesake, Joshua. Deuteronomy 20:17: "You shall not leave alive anything that breathes." Canaan will never be the same.

 

Supposedly Christians renounce violence, but "The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently; for he serves Christ when he strikes, and saves himself when he falls.... When he inflicts death, it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is his own gain." (Bernard of Clairveux) Rulers love to justify violence and motivate the troops with manipulation. Manipulation is the key driver of religion.

 

I was not raised by Christians. I was not raised as a Christian. Perhaps this is hidden by the fact that my Romani ancestors are used to hiding in plain sight amongst various religions. I cannot accept a definition at whose heart is the idea that people who follow a love of truth (literally "philosophy") could identified as objectively someone or even someone that shares the objectives of someone that discards truth for a comfortable fiction.

 

Truth is preferable to falsehood. This is not a tenet of a religion.

[junglecat]

Since there are statements about avoiding violence in a number of religions, Christianity cannot claim such an idea for its own. Then there's my bloodthirsty namesake, Joshua. Deuteronomy 20:17: "You shall not leave alive anything that breathes." Canaan will never be the same.

 

Supposedly Christians renounce violence, but "The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently; for he serves Christ when he strikes, and saves himself when he falls.... When he inflicts death, it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is his own gain." (Bernard of Clairveux) Rulers love to justify violence and motivate the troops with manipulation. Manipulation is the key driver of religion.

 

I was not raised by Christians. I was not raised as a Christian. Perhaps this is hidden by the fact that my Romani ancestors are used to hiding in plain sight amongst various religions. I cannot accept a definition at whose heart is the idea that people who follow a love of truth (literally "philosophy") could identified as objectively someone or even someone that shares the objectives of someone that discards truth for a comfortable fiction.

 

Truth is preferable to falsehood. This is not a tenet of a religion.

Yes, rulers love to justify violence, but so do you!

 

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

I didn't bother to read most of the thread, so this may have already been addressed, but did anyone question why he saw two similarities and chose the direction "Stefan is objectively Christian", instead of drawing the equally (il)logical conclusion, going the other way, that Rene Girard is objectively atheist?

My first impression was "I see some similarities, maybe I can force him into my group and claim I'm right!"

One of the necessities of philosophy is being able to parse your ideas. You might as well be saying "Christianity is about being good, therefore anyone doing good must objectively be a Christian!"

How would you view the statement "Atheism is about truth, therefore anyone speaking the truth must objectively be an atheist!"

 

 

 

Presidents have the power to destroy real lives. I don't want an entertaining president. I want a president no one knows or cares about because he's powerless. That is, a president in name only, like a relatively harmless crazy person.

Yes. It's been addressed. I encourage you to read.

[Donnadogsoth]

Since there are statements about avoiding violence in a number of religions, Christianity cannot claim such an idea for its own. Then there's my bloodthirsty namesake, Joshua. Deuteronomy 20:17: "You shall not leave alive anything that breathes." Canaan will never be the same.

 

Supposedly Christians renounce violence, but "The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently; for he serves Christ when he strikes, and saves himself when he falls.... When he inflicts death, it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is his own gain." (Bernard of Clairveux) Rulers love to justify violence and motivate the troops with manipulation. Manipulation is the key driver of religion.

 

I was not raised by Christians. I was not raised as a Christian. Perhaps this is hidden by the fact that my Romani ancestors are used to hiding in plain sight amongst various religions. I cannot accept a definition at whose heart is the idea that people who follow a love of truth (literally "philosophy") could identified as objectively someone or even someone that shares the objectives of someone that discards truth for a comfortable fiction.

 

Truth is preferable to falsehood. This is not a tenet of a religion.

 

I call a crock, shirgall.  St. Bernard exhorted the faithful to take up arms against the constant threat of Islam.   It's misleading to suggest Christianity (chiefly Catholicism, which is the bulk of the religion) doesn't allow for defense of self and country.  It's also misleading to suggest that St. Bernard was  not doing a good thing in his exhortation.

Yes, rulers love to justify violence, but so do you!

 

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

Yes. It's been addressed. I encourage you to read.

 

Will you answer my question?  Is a police officer shooting a rapist about to commit a rape justified in doing so?

[shirgall]

Yes, rulers love to justify violence, but so do you!

 

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

Yes. It's been addressed. I encourage you to read.

 

Is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent insufficient justification to use lethal force to end that danger?

I call a crock, shirgall.  St. Bernard exhorted the faithful to take up arms against the constant threat of Islam.   It's misleading to suggest Christianity (chiefly Catholicism, which is the bulk of the religion) doesn't allow for defense of self and country.  It's also misleading to suggest that St. Bernard was  not doing a good thing in his exhortation.

 

Will you answer my question?  Is a police officer shooting a rapist about to commit a rape justified in doing so?

 

Did St. Bernard not say the thing I quoted?

 

Rape is "grave bodily harm" in the sense that rape itself is likely to cause irreparable harm, including death, broken bones, or losing the ability to bear children, especially since rape is often backed up with credible threats of physical violence. You have to gauge each situation, of course. (Being rendered unconscious is a serious threat, too, for example.)

[Donnadogsoth]

Did St. Bernard not say the thing I quoted?

 

As far as I know he did, to his credit.

[junglecat]

Since there are statements about avoiding violence in a number of religions, Christianity cannot claim such an idea for its own. Then there's my bloodthirsty namesake, Joshua. Deuteronomy 20:17: "You shall not leave alive anything that breathes." Canaan will never be the same.

 

Supposedly Christians renounce violence, but "The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently; for he serves Christ when he strikes, and saves himself when he falls.... When he inflicts death, it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is his own gain." (Bernard of Clairveux) Rulers love to justify violence and motivate the troops with manipulation. Manipulation is the key driver of religion.

 

I was not raised by Christians. I was not raised as a Christian. Perhaps this is hidden by the fact that my Romani ancestors are used to hiding in plain sight amongst various religions. I cannot accept a definition at whose heart is the idea that people who follow a love of truth (literally "philosophy") could identified as objectively someone or even someone that shares the objectives of someone that discards truth for a comfortable fiction.

 

Truth is preferable to falsehood. This is not a tenet of a religion.

I am dumbfounded by your reasoning or lack thereof.  Let me get this straight: because Bernard of Clairveux, Joshua, King David, George W. Bush, etc. were violent, this somehow proves that Christianity is not true. Is that what you're saying?  And so if I find one secular philosopher in history who was 'unjustly' violent I will have proven secular philosophy false?  I thought the truth of an idea rests on the idea itself and not whether or not someone puts it into practice. Take your violence manifesto:

 

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

 

I love the wording of it.  You are basically saying what all the gods of the ancient world said. Violence can cast out violence. Jesus said, "How can Satan cast out Satan?" The problem is that violence never happens this way, out of the blue. There is always an escalation which you conveniently leave out.  Even if there are cases where it seems like violence is happened upon someone out of the blue this is peripheral to the main conflict, the exception and not the majority. World wars are escalatory mimetic conflicts on a huge scale. Your manifesto is incredibly naive.   You conveniently leave out all the circumstances leading up to the violence, plug in your formula, and, voilà, you are justified.  The world does not work that way. It also leaves out the fact that the person on the other side of that conflict feels justified in the exact same way as you do. To this you tell me "It doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified."

 

The truth of the gospels is self evident. It is a true reflection of the world as it is, not a myopic fantasy. Christ gives the precise solution to our problem of runaway violence but he's not in denial of the high possibility that we won't make it, that violence will get out of hand.  If you are trying to show me how Christ is not true you need to use the words and actions of Christ.

[shirgall]

I am dumbfounded by your reasoning or lack thereof.  Let me get this straight: because Bernard of Clairveux, Joshua, King David, George W. Bush, etc. were violent, this somehow proves that Christianity is not true. Is that what you're saying?

 

No, I'm saying that a lot of supposedly pious Christians use a lot of excuses for violence (I did quote a saint after all). Therefore what does violence have to do with being objectively Christian?

[junglecat]

No, I'm saying that a lot of supposedly pious Christians use a lot of excuses for violence (I did quote a saint after all). Therefore what does violence have to do with being objectively Christian?

It's a non sequitur. There is no special virtue in calling oneself a Christian. People of all stripes commit violence. MLK was for the use of state power, the power of violence, on some issues.  The power that uses violence to counter, contain, and control violence is contradictory to the power of Christ. I've been saying this all along. Stefan is against the power of the state all together.  That is a way in which he is objectively Christian that is extremely significant.

I call a crock, shirgall.  St. Bernard exhorted the faithful to take up arms against the constant threat of Islam.   It's misleading to suggest Christianity (chiefly Catholicism, which is the bulk of the religion) doesn't allow for defense of self and country.  It's also misleading to suggest that St. Bernard was  not doing a good thing in his exhortation.

 

Will you answer my question?  Is a police officer shooting a rapist about to commit a rape justified in doing so?

Sorry, I missed your question til now.

It depends on who is doing the justification. Are we talking theologically?