René Girard would say Stefan is objectively Christian.

[Donnadogsoth]

Sorry, I missed your question til now.

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

 

Yes, theologically.

 

 

 

...Stefan is against the power of the state all together.  That is a way in which he is objectively Christian that is extremely significant.

 

But Stefan is emphatically not against violence in self-defense.  That he supports the right to self-defense negates his purity attained by opposing the power of the State, doesn't it?  He's not a true objective Christian if he supports violence in self-defense, is he?

[shirgall]

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.

 

Then why did you bring violence up? That's a lot of postings and replies for something that you are now agreeing was unrelated. Neither Stefan nor I have taken a position that self-defense is wrong. Both Stefan and I have taken a position that the initiation of force is wrong. Why did we waste so many electrons on this?

 

Are you now saying that Christianity is against the state? That is demonstrably untrue. And if Christianity has nothing to do with the state and decries violence, why are the guards at the Vatican armed?

[junglecat]

Yes, theologically.

 

 

 

 

But Stefan is emphatically not against violence in self-defense.  That he supports the right to self-defense negates his purity attained by opposing the power of the State, doesn't it?  He's not a true objective Christian if he supports violence in self-defense, is he?

A 'true objective Christian'?  I find that very funny. I don't buy into the whole argument about who is a 'true Christian' at all. Why would I buy into 'true objective Christian'? To be against the state in a categorical way as Stefan does is more than enough to call him objectively Christian.

 

As far as violence in self defense goes, I don't know how Christ would justify it. There is much more to violence than just deadly force against deadly force. Violence generally escalates a long way over a long time before it gets to killing. To ignore everything that leads up to it is a kind of blindness.

Then why did you bring violence up? That's a lot of postings and replies for something that you are now agreeing was unrelated. Neither Stefan nor I have taken a position that self-defense is wrong. Both Stefan and I have taken a position that the initiation of force is wrong. Why did we waste so many electrons on this?

 

Are you now saying that Christianity is against the state? That is demonstrably untrue. And if Christianity has nothing to do with the state and decries violence, why are the guards at the Vatican armed?

Self defense is one kind of violence. The state powers have the ultimate say in when this is permissible.  Generally, violence comes from state power.

Your argument is akin to the one that states if a Christian is not a perfect replica of Christ, then they are not a 'true' Christian. Christianity has a lot to do with the state, of course. I never said it didn't. I wrote that the power of the state is contradictory to the power of Christ.  The guards at the Vatican are for self defense. The pope supporting state powers is a better example of the corruption of Christianity.

[thebeardslastcall]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[Donnadogsoth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

Yes, but is it a true fallacy?

A 'true objective Christian'?  I find that very funny. I don't buy into the whole argument about who is a 'true Christian' at all. Why would I buy into 'true objective Christian'? To be against the state in a categorical way as Stefan does is more than enough to call him objectively Christian.

 

As far as violence in self defense goes, I don't know how Christ would justify it. There is much more to violence than just deadly force against deadly force. Violence generally escalates a long way over a long time before it gets to killing. To ignore everything that leads up to it is a kind of blindness.

Self defense is one kind of violence. The state powers have the ultimate say in when this is permissible.  Generally, violence comes from state power.

Your argument is akin to the one that states if a Christian is not a perfect replica of Christ, then they are not a 'true' Christian. Christianity has a lot to do with the state, of course. I never said it didn't. I wrote that the power of the state is contradictory to the power of Christ.  The guards at the Vatican are for self defense. The pope supporting state powers is a better example of the corruption of Christianity.

 

I asked you if self-defense was wrong and now you're telling me you don't know Christ's attitude toward it.  Something as basic as whether or not you can morally defend your family from murder and rape, and you don't know.

 

Well I do.  It's called Just War doctrine, taught by the Church, which maintains an apostolic succession going back to Peter, whom Christ gave the keys to the kingdom to.  According to a Catholic friend of mine, the original Evangelists even wore swords to protect themselves.

 

What good is Stefan Molyneux's "objective Christianity" if it can't answer a basic moral question like whether or not you can defend your family from murder and rape?

 

Get that settled and we'll talk about the roots of violence.

[junglecat]

Yes, but is it a true fallacy?

 

I asked you if self-defense was wrong and now you're telling me you don't know Christ's attitude toward it.  Something as basic as whether or not you can morally defend your family from murder and rape, and you don't know.

 

Well I do.  It's called Just War doctrine, taught by the Church, which maintains an apostolic succession going back to Peter, whom Christ gave the keys to the kingdom to.  According to a Catholic friend of mine, the original Evangelists even wore swords to protect themselves.

 

What good is Stefan Molyneux's "objective Christianity" if it can't answer a basic moral question like whether or not you can defend your family from murder and rape?

 

Get that settled and we'll talk about the roots of violence.

I said I don't know how Christ would justify it.  I don't see anything in the gospels that condones any violence. I see Jesus rebuking Peter when he tries to defend him. I read Jesus ideologically refuting violence of all kinds. I see Christians in the first two centuries being driven underground and being thrown to the wild beasts. I don't know of any stories where they fight against state powers. Get these issues settled and then we can talk about just war theory.

 

I am not saying you can't defend yourself. You can do whatever you can do. Theologically speaking, justification comes from Christ.

[Donnadogsoth]

I said I don't know how Christ would justify it.  I don't see anything in the gospels that condones any violence. I see Jesus rebuking Peter when he tries to defend him. I read Jesus ideologically refuting violence of all kinds. I see Christians in the first two centuries being driven underground and being thrown to the wild beasts. I don't know of any stories where they fight against state powers. Get these issues settled and then we can talk about just war theory.

 

I am not saying you can't defend yourself. You can do whatever you can do. Theologically speaking, justification comes from Christ.

 

Not much of a Christ who can't even tell us whether or not we should defend our families from rape and murder.

 

Yes, theological justification comes from Christ, who already delegated his authority to Peter, and through him the rest of the Church.  You keep throwing the issue of self-defense back towards a mute Christ, when in fact his statement on the matter is to give the authority for interpreting his life and mission to the Church.

 

Whether any individual Christians did defend themselves against aggressors, from the State or from individuals or non-State groups, is irrelevant to Just War doctrine.

[junglecat]

Not much of a Christ who can't even tell us whether or not we should defend our families from rape and murder.

 

Yes, theological justification comes from Christ, who already delegated his authority to Peter, and through him the rest of the Church.  You keep throwing the issue of self-defense back towards a mute Christ, when in fact his statement on the matter is to give the authority for interpreting his life and mission to the Church.

 

Whether any individual Christians did defend themselves against aggressors, from the State or from individuals or non-State groups, is irrelevant to Just War doctrine.

Always the rape and murder hypothetical. Always denying the escalation of violence up to that point. Only focusing on the final "rape and murder".  I would never say you are not a "true Christian" but I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

[shirgall]

Which religion invested and endorsed the power of violence in a tiny few inbred bloodthirsty narcissists and their lackeys via the divine right of kings for hundreds of years?

[junglecat]

Which religion invested and endorsed the power of violence in a tiny few inbred bloodthirsty narcissists and their lackeys via the divine right of kings for hundreds of years?

Ideologically speaking, it was the religion of archaic mythology.

[Donnadogsoth]

Always the rape and murder hypothetical. Always denying the escalation of violence up to that point. Only focusing on the final "rape and murder".  I would never say you are not a "true Christian" but I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

 

No.  To hell with the forest.  I don't have the time to psychoanalyse it.  I am supposing I am faced with a tree, coming to murder my family.  Do I have the right to defend them or not?

[junglecat]

Yes, but is it a true fallacy?

 

I asked you if self-defense was wrong and now you're telling me you don't know Christ's attitude toward it.  Something as basic as whether or not you can morally defend your family from murder and rape, and you don't know.

 

Well I do.  It's called Just War doctrine, taught by the Church, which maintains an apostolic succession going back to Peter, whom Christ gave the keys to the kingdom to.  According to a Catholic friend of mine, the original Evangelists even wore swords to protect themselves.

 

What good is Stefan Molyneux's "objective Christianity" if it can't answer a basic moral question like whether or not you can defend your family from murder and rape?

 

Get that settled and we'll talk about the roots of violence.

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/

 

What do you think about this source?

[junglecat]

No.  To hell with the forest.  I don't have the time to psychoanalyse it.  I am supposing I am faced with a tree, coming to murder my family.  Do I have the right to defend them or not?

I've given you my take on it. Why are you so troubled about your justification from my point of view?  I understand your reasoning. Christ gave Peter all authority and on it goes.  If a pope said we are now adopting elements of Islam it wouldn't make it true. It would have to be in line with the gospel. I still don't see how just war theory can be in line with the gospel. I'm open to your reasoning but if everything Christ said and did goes against it I don't see how it can be true from a Christian perspective. 

 

Just war theory is very fuzzy. There is so much wiggle room that I don't see how it can hold anything. Is the bottom line when you are being physically attacked? What about a siege scenario. Certain death through starvation. Do you have the right to kill then?  What about any series of actions that, while not physical attack, will most certainly bring about your downfall? Do you have the right to kill then?   What I have tried to point out to you is that most violence comes about through a gradual escalation.  Jesus talks about this. If someone makes outrageous demands on you, that is the time to drop everything because if you push back, the situation will get worse and worse. This is because we are mimetic creatures. Nobody feels they are violent. It's always the other guy. That's what vengeance is. Doing what the other guy does. Always the same thing.

 

Correct my thinking with reasoning. Even if it's "this particular pope said so"-  I'll take that on your reasoning that Christ gives the pope all authority to change what he did and said.

[Donnadogsoth]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/

 

What do you think about this source?

 

Isn't religion supposed to answer questions like this?  It's a philosophical take on the matter, not a religious one.  I want to know what religion says.

 

I've given you my take on it. Why are you so troubled about your justification from my point of view?  I understand your reasoning. Christ gave Peter all authority and on it goes.  If a pope said we are now adopting elements of Islam it wouldn't make it true. It would have to be in line with the gospel. I still don't see how just war theory can be in line with the gospel. I'm open to your reasoning but if everything Christ said and did goes against it I don't see how it can be true from a Christian perspective. 

 

Just war theory is very fuzzy. There is so much wiggle room that I don't see how it can hold anything. Is the bottom line when you are being physically attacked? What about a siege scenario. Certain death through starvation. Do you have the right to kill then?  What about any series of actions that, while not physical attack, will most certainly bring about your downfall? Do you have the right to kill then?   What I have tried to point out to you is that most violence comes about through a gradual escalation.  Jesus talks about this. If someone makes outrageous demands on you, that is the time to drop everything because if you push back, the situation will get worse and worse. This is because we are mimetic creatures. Nobody feels they are violent. It's always the other guy. That's what vengeance is. Doing what the other guy does. Always the same thing.

 

Correct my thinking with reasoning. Even if it's "this particular pope said so"-  I'll take that on your reasoning that Christ gives the pope all authority to change what he did and said.

 

To deny good men the right to self-defense is to hand evil men the world on a plate.  Do you think evil men will become good if their victims throw themselves and their possessions at those evil men?  Will Islam become tame if Christianity bears its throat for it?  Will psychopaths cease to be psychopaths?  Total submission is what evil entities want, not what will convert them to goodness.

[thebeardslastcall]

Isn't religion supposed to answer questions like this?  It's a philosophical take on the matter, not a religious one.  I want to know what religion says.

 

In the end you realize religion doesn't say anything; people do. People claim whatever religious alignment they like, for themselves and others.

[junglecat]

Isn't religion supposed to answer questions like this?  It's a philosophical take on the matter, not a religious one.  I want to know what religion says.

 

 

To deny good men the right to self-defense is to hand evil men the world on a plate.  Do you think evil men will become good if their victims throw themselves and their possessions at those evil men?  Will Islam become tame if Christianity bears its throat for it?  Will psychopaths cease to be psychopaths?  Total submission is what evil entities want, not what will convert them to goodness.

To be clear, nobody is  denying anybody the ability to act violently. Not me, not Christ, not the state.  I believe Christ's teachings on violence are a prescription to avoid runaway violence in the world. He is not saying, "Do this or else I will punish you in hell". He is saying, "If you go down this road of tit for tat your problems are going to get infinitely worse and you'll never be able to get out of them."  And that's the definition of hell. 

In the end you realize religion doesn't say anything; people do. People claim whatever religious alignment they like, for themselves and others.

You're right. I don't know about Islam, but Christianity certainly doesn't oblige anyone to act in any particular way. People tend to want hard and fast rules because they want to justify violence. Christ throws the rule book out and instead gives men freedom and choice.

[Donnadogsoth]

To be clear, nobody is  denying anybody the ability to act violently. Not me, not Christ, not the state.  I believe Christ's teachings on violence are a prescription to avoid runaway violence in the world. He is not saying, "Do this or else I will punish you in hell". He is saying, "If you go down this road of tit for tat your problems are going to get infinitely worse and you'll never be able to get out of them."  And that's the definition of hell. 

You're right. I don't know about Islam, but Christianity certainly doesn't oblige anyone to act in any particular way. People tend to want hard and fast rules because they want to justify violence. Christ throws the rule book out and instead gives men freedom and choice.

 

Jesus very clearly threatens people with Hell for even calling their neighbours "fools".  How much more then will a person be in danger of being sent to Hell for actually committing violence upon them or even killing them?  Freedom of choice my foot.

 

We're obviously talking about two different Jesuses.

[ValueOfBrevity]

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

 

Stefan is an atheist. His podcast about atheism deals with secondary beliefs of atheism (statism), and does not argue for the existence of a god.

 

 

 

 

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.

Could you mean memetic? As coined by Richard Dawkins in the Selfish Gene?

[junglecat]

Stefan is an atheist. His podcast about atheism deals with secondary beliefs of atheism (statism), and does not argue for the existence of a god.

 

 

 

 

Could you mean memetic? As coined by Richard Dawkins in the Selfish Gene?

No. I mean Mimetic.  From a Girardian perspective, statism and its corollary are the anthropological aspects of gods.

Jesus very clearly threatens people with Hell for even calling their neighbours "fools".  How much more then will a person be in danger of being sent to Hell for actually committing violence upon them or even killing them?  Freedom of choice my foot.

 

We're obviously talking about two different Jesuses.

Can you explain what you mean by hell?  I wouldn't assume we are talking about two Christs.

[Donnadogsoth]

No. I mean Mimetic.  From a Girardian perspective, statism and its corollary are the anthropological aspects of gods.

Can you explain what you mean by hell?  I wouldn't assume we are talking about two Christs.

 

"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented."

--Luke 16:19-25

[junglecat]

"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented."

--Luke 16:19-25

And how do you interpret the parable?

[Donnadogsoth]

And how do you interpret the parable?

 

I interpret it as a warning to those value luxury over humanity, that they will go to Hell.  How do you interpret it?

[csekavec]

Mimetic theory is post modernist drivel.

[shirgall]

Mimetic theory is post modernist drivel.

 

Nah, it's objectively logic because it really wants to imitate logic's clarity and certainty.

[junglecat]

I interpret it as a warning to those value luxury over humanity, that they will go to Hell.  How do you interpret it?

Hell is being stuck in a pattern of thinking you can't get out of even though it no longer brings any satisfaction. The rich man is in complete denial of his situation and still wants Lazarus to be his servant.  Yes, it's a warning, but it's a warning of man's craziness, not God's wrath. At no point does Jesus say, "God will punish you".  It's no more a threat than it is to say that if you jump from an airplane without a parachute, you'll bounce and die. It's a punishment from man, not God.

Mimetic theory is post modernist drivel.

That's not an argument, is it?  What do you know about mimetic theory that leads you to that conclusion?

Nah, it's objectively logic because it really wants to imitate logic's clarity and certainty.

Mock if you like, but offer any substantial criticism. What have I said that's illogical?  What have I said that's untrue?

[shirgall]

Mock if you like, but offer any substantial criticism. What have I said that's illogical?  What have I said that's untrue?

 

It is illogical to attempt an argument using terms without agreed definitions.

 

[Donnadogsoth]

Hell is being stuck in a pattern of thinking you can't get out of even though it no longer brings any satisfaction. The rich man is in complete denial of his situation and still wants Lazarus to be his servant.  Yes, it's a warning, but it's a warning of man's craziness, not God's wrath. At no point does Jesus say, "God will punish you".  It's no more a threat than it is to say that if you jump from an airplane without a parachute, you'll bounce and die. It's a punishment from man, not God.

 

Stuck in a dissatisfying pattern of thinking?  So you think that all the Biblical descriptions of fire and brimstone, of weeping and gnashing of teeth, of the final Judgement, are just metaphors for rich people being bored?  And all the two thousand years worth of Christians and their teaching authorities got it completely wrong?!

[shirgall]

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

 

Since neither I nor Stefan are Christians under this definition, why continue further?

[junglecat]

It is illogical to attempt an argument using terms without agreed definitions.

 

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"

 

What definition would you like to use? Pick any dictionary.  What have I said here that is illogical?  I'm beginning to feel like that character in the Monty Python sketch.  "I came here for an argument and all you're doing is contradicting me!"

Stuck in a dissatisfying pattern of thinking?  So you think that all the Biblical descriptions of fire and brimstone, of weeping and gnashing of teeth, of the final Judgement, are just metaphors for rich people being bored?  And all the two thousand years worth of Christians and their teaching authorities got it completely wrong?!

No, I think they got it right, especially the further back you go. Today most Christians think of heaven and hell as only post mortem experiences. Jesus was giving instructions for "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".  Post mortem is important but equally important is not ending up in hellish experiences here on earth. 

 

One way of thinking of an 'eternal hell' is to be caught up in a mimetic conflict. Eternal literally means 'one turn'.  As I said, vengeance is doing what the other guy does. Nobody feels like they are initiating violence. Everybody feels like the other guy started it. And so it goes ad infinitum. That is hell. Maybe it continues post mortem. Maybe it doesn't. Is there anything wrong with pointing out the practical application to Christ's teachings for the living? And here especially, in a predominately secular forum.  Stefan is no Christian. Atheists get their nose out of joint just bringing out the Christian elements in Stefan's philosophy. Why on earth would I address post mortem realities to strict naturalists?

[shirgall]

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.

 

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.

[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.

I originally posted that on June 25. It is an appropriate use of the word.  I am not saying he is a Christian. I am saying he is objectively Christian in that he shares the same objective in the largest sense.  He is against the power of the state, the power that uses violence to control violence. This power is what archaic religion knew as divinity, the gods. Christ is the divinity that overturned the archaic god's rule. The power of the state, the archaic gods are still around, no doubt, but they no longer have the power to bring peace through sacrifice. Now their violence only brings an escalation of violence in the world.

 

Where Stefan (and you) still are muddled is in the area of what you call self defense in the case of 'initiated violence'. You say, 'thou shalt not initiate violence'. Once initiated though it is perfectly reasonable and justified to use violence in defense. The fault in that reasoning is that nobody ever feels, thinks, believes, or reasons that they are the one who is initiating the violence. This is because if there is a normal order in societies it must be the fruit of an anterior crisis.

 

Now maybe you can see why these questions about what you wrote are relevant:

 

"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?

[Donnadogsoth]

 

No, I think they got it right, especially the further back you go. Today most Christians think of heaven and hell as only post mortem experiences. Jesus was giving instructions for "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".  Post mortem is important but equally important is not ending up in hellish experiences here on earth. 

 

One way of thinking of an 'eternal hell' is to be caught up in a mimetic conflict. Eternal literally means 'one turn'.  As I said, vengeance is doing what the other guy does. Nobody feels like they are initiating violence. Everybody feels like the other guy started it. And so it goes ad infinitum. That is hell. Maybe it continues post mortem. Maybe it doesn't. Is there anything wrong with pointing out the practical application to Christ's teachings for the living? And here especially, in a predominately secular forum.  Stefan is no Christian. Atheists get their nose out of joint just bringing out the Christian elements in Stefan's philosophy. Why on earth would I address post mortem realities to strict naturalists?

 

I'm quite happy to accept bi-level meaning in Christianity, but I'm still stuck on the moral law as such.  Shall we expect a man who defends his family from harm is damned?  If even angry words are worthy of hellfire, how much more would physical violence be?  Or, for that matter, using the power of the State to stop a migrant invasion?

[junglecat]

I'm quite happy to accept bi-level meaning in Christianity, but I'm still stuck on the moral law as such.  Shall we expect a man who defends his family from harm is damned?  If even angry words are worthy of hellfire, how much more would physical violence be?  Or, for that matter, using the power of the State to stop a migrant invasion?

If you look at hell as a punishment from God for disobeying the law then you will be stuck, as you say. If instead you see Christ fulfilling the law completely and his warnings of hell are warnings to refrain from getting caught up in mimetic conflicts, then you are saved. The reason he tells us not to even think bad thoughts is because that is where violence begins. Once you go down that road it is very hard to turn back. That's why it is better, in the general sense, to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile. It's not out of some insipid altruistic purpose. It's to save us from certain destruction resulting from our own violence getting out of hand.

[Donnadogsoth]

If you look at hell as a punishment from God for disobeying the law then you will be stuck, as you say. If instead you see Christ fulfilling the law completely and his warnings of hell are warnings to refrain from getting caught up in mimetic conflicts, then you are saved. The reason he tells us not to even think bad thoughts is because that is where violence begins. Once you go down that road it is very hard to turn back. That's why it is better, in the general sense, to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile. It's not out of some insipid altruistic purpose. It's to save us from certain destruction resulting from our own violence getting out of hand.

 

But, junglecat, that flattens it down to a uni-level religion.  If there is no literal Heaven and Hell, then what you're (or M. Girard is) saying is that there is no personal resurrection and personal bodily immortality, there is only Christ's concern for the future well-being of the temporal human race.  Christ must have forecast that, given the fallen nature of man, this would eventually lead to an Apocalypse whereby evil was either vanquished for all time, or the human race would destroy itself.  But this has nothing to do with a literal Heaven and a literal Hell involving personal resurrection and personal bodily immortality.  Correct me if I have not understood what you're saying.

[junglecat]

But, junglecat, that flattens it down to a uni-level religion.  If there is no literal Heaven and Hell, then what you're (or M. Girard is) saying is that there is no personal resurrection and personal bodily immortality, there is only Christ's concern for the future well-being of the temporal human race.  Christ must have forecast that, given the fallen nature of man, this would eventually lead to an Apocalypse whereby evil was either vanquished for all time, or the human race would destroy itself.  But this has nothing to do with a literal Heaven and a literal Hell involving personal resurrection and personal bodily immortality.  Correct me if I have not understood what you're saying.

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.