René Girard would say Stefan is objectively Christian.

[Donnadogsoth]

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

 

 

Not at all.

 

Yes, if we take Stefan subjectively, as a subject, he is not a Christian,

 

but if we take Stefan objectively, as an object, he is a part of Christendom.

 

By "Christendom" I mean the demesne of Christian principle that has informed the West, and globally-extended European civilisation (GEEC) generally.

 

Deduct the Christian "substrata" and the West collapses, GEEC collapses, and so would Stefan collapse.

[junglecat]

Not at all.

 

Yes, if we take Stefan subjectively, as a subject, he is not a Christian,

 

but if we take Stefan objectively, as an object, he is a part of Christendom.

 

By "Christendom" I mean the demesne of Christian principle that has informed the West, and globally-extended European civilisation (GEEC) generally.

 

Deduct the Christian "substrata" and the West collapses, GEEC collapses, and so would Stefan collapse.

Sounds like we are in agreement.  I think if the secular world can see the anthropological truth of the gospel, if they can have an intellectual awakening it can lead to a spiritual awakening. The two go hand in hand.

[junglecat]

Does troll spray clear up fog?

 

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

 

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

 

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

I'm not sure how seriously to take your criticism since your in your first post you confessed to not having read any of the thread.  Have you read any of it since then?

[EclecticIdealist]

You're right. It makes no sense if you disconnect that one statement- Stefan is objectively Christian- from the anthropological truth of the gospel, the explanation of the Christian decoding of myth, of the archaic sacred.

What you are saying here is, "objectively Christian" means something significantly different from "Christian, according to a standard "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."  In fact, you have a very particular definition in mind as: "Christian from the anthropological truth of the gospel" (What precisely is the "anthropological truth" of the Christian message?) "the explanation of the Christian decoding of myth, of the archaic sacred." (whatever that means). 

 

People like the word 'rational'. It sounds so reasonable.

That's because that is precisely what rational means: reason-able- able to be reasoned, as contrasted to "emotional" or "spiritual".

 

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

No, the problem is you are using familiar terms and inventing unique, new meanings for the conjunction of these terms and pretending that you're not doing precisely that. That is why you're sowing nothing but confusion. If you were to simply use the established meanings of words as they are currently and consistently used, rather than resorting to wordplay with archaic meanings and multiple definitions, you'd at least succeed in getting your point across.

[Donnadogsoth]

What you are saying here is, "objectively Christian" means something significantly different from "Christian, according to a standard "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."  In fact, you have a very particular definition in mind as: "Christian from the anthropological truth of the gospel" (What precisely is the "anthropological truth" of the Christian message?) "the explanation of the Christian decoding of myth, of the archaic sacred." (whatever that means). 

 

That's because that is precisely what rational means: reason-able- able to be reasoned, as contrasted to "emotional" or "spiritual".

 

No, the problem is you are using familiar terms and inventing unique, new meanings for the conjunction of these terms and pretending that you're not doing precisely that. That is why you're sowing nothing but confusion. If you were to simply use the established meanings of words as they are currently and consistently used, rather than resorting to wordplay with archaic meanings and multiple definitions, you'd at least succeed in getting your point across.

 

What term would you use to replace "objectively Christian"?

[junglecat]

 

[junglecat]

What you are saying here is, "objectively Christian" means something significantly different from "Christian, according to a standard "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."  In fact, you have a very particular definition in mind as: "Christian from the anthropological truth of the gospel" (What precisely is the "anthropological truth" of the Christian message?) "the explanation of the Christian decoding of myth, of the archaic sacred." (whatever that means). 

 

That's because that is precisely what rational means: reason-able- able to be reasoned, as contrasted to "emotional" or "spiritual".

 

No, the problem is you are using familiar terms and inventing unique, new meanings for the conjunction of these terms and pretending that you're not doing precisely that. That is why you're sowing nothing but confusion. If you were to simply use the established meanings of words as they are currently and consistently used, rather than resorting to wordplay with archaic meanings and multiple definitions, you'd at least succeed in getting your point across.

Hello!

 

You are wrong about what I mean by ‘objectively Christian. It is not significantly different from how you word it.  The modern western secular individual is objectively Christian in that he espouses the substrata of Christian ethics but does not give it a Christian name, so to speak. His feelings are not connected because he feels that this is just the natural way to be and it has nothing to do with Christ or how the world was changed through Christ.

 

We are on our 7th page of this discussion and I have written about the anthropological truth of the gospel throughout. I don’t want to sound rude but I also don’t want to condone intellectual laziness. Scroll back and read some. Or better yet, read Girard.

 

And that is what I mean about taking bits and pieces and saying it doesn’t make sense. My point about the word ‘rational’ is that while it does mean reason it also means facts. Facts not put in a coherent fashion are not reason.

 

Just as a matter of curiosity, how does one get such a bad ‘reputation’?

Does troll spray clear up fog?

 

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

 

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

 

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

I’ve sat with you criticism for a while. Ironically, I don’t think you’re being objective. You seem very emotional. You’re calling me names and accusing me of screwing with people. You say my definitions are ‘blobby and foggy’ but give no specific examples or corrections.  I can’t call your post a critique. It’s more a lashing out. While your criticism is unsubstantial, the tenor of your post is revealing.

 

It seems the greatest push back in what I am saying is when it comes to divinity. Atheists, in general, want to keep the concept of divinity very narrowly confined in the realm of fantasy. It’s much easier to rebuke the idea if it’s only mental mirage, an eidolon. On the other hand, Christians, in general, have kept the debate narrowly confined to abstract arguments for the existence of God.  This debate has gone on for so long in a perfect stalemate precisely because neither side wants to talk about the culture.  In this way I can see how you have such a bad reaction to me bringing up the anthropological aspect of Christianity. You have it so ingrained in your mind that Christian divinity is a purely mental fabrication that focusing on the anthropology of the gospels is a very real threat to your ideology.  Your ’rationality’ is a way of containing and controlling this threat. You want to ration Jewish ancestry, culture, and religious belief and say they are distinct areas of knowledge that won’t make sense if you view them as a whole.  You say ‘let’s break this down into pieces, as they are’-  this kind of rationality refuses to see the big picture.  It’s not simply ‘overlap’ as you  suggest. Christianity is the fundamental underpinning of our modern western culture, "the invisible foundation of the modern world. It is the source for our capacity for self-criticism, the cause of our sensitivity to victims but it isn’t perceived as such because we take these capabilities to be a natural endowment and see Christianity as only a corrupting institution that imposes on our native benevolence and rationality and tries to control us by instilling guilt and fear.  Girard calls this the enlightenment critique of religion

 

 The passion of Jesus corresponds to rituals found all around the world. There’s not an incident of the story that cannot be found in countless instances. The preliminary trial, the derisive crowd, the grotesque honors accorded to the victim, and the degrading punishment that takes place outside the holy city in order not to contaminate it. What makes the story unique is the fact that the victim is someone who stands completely outside of the violence of which everyone else is, without exception, a prisoner. Someone capable of rising above the violence, which until then had risen above mankind. And this luminous victim, unresisting, but also completely uninvolved in the sacrificial game, makes visible what today we take for granted; the ugliness of the violence to which he submits.

 

If you see the truth of that violence, suddenly that violence repels you.  Before the cross every violence is portrayed in literature as heroic and justifies the casting out of the victim. Only the Bible doesn’t do that. Therefore we owe so much to the Bible that which we have a feeling comes from us and we cannot recognize our debt. When we criticize the Bible, we can criticize it only with the Bible. Not with the Iliad, not with Greek philosophy. We have assimilated so much and we are not aware that the substance we have assimilated comes from the Bible"

 

 

[junglecat]

 

[EclecticIdealist]

You are wrong about what I mean by ‘objectively Christian. It is not significantly different from how you word it.

That you do not recognize that it IS significantly different and precisely HOW it is significantly different is the problem.

 

As you are aware, there are two dictionary definitions for the word "objective". This is usually the first definition listed as it is an adjective. It is defined as describing  a fact or facts, or the knowledge of such a fact or facts (truth, or truths) which exist independent of subjective bias (i.e., personal feelings, opinions, perspective, and so on). The other dictionary definition is for a noun. It is defined as a purpose or goal to be obtained as the result of action. The adverb form of the word "objectively" is almost always a usage of the adjective definition of the word; whereas you unconventionally used the noun definition of the word suggesting a common or shared purpose or goal, not a fact existing independent of subjective bias (in this case, your perspective on Christianity informed by the anthropological theories of Rene Girard).

 

At one point throughout the month-long discussion, you go on to use a secondary definition of "subjective" indicating that which is subordinate to, which, while related to the more common usage of the term when relating to philosophical ideals--"biased by personal feelings, perspective, opinion, etc.", only served to suggest further usage of the less common definition or meaning of terms in a philosophical context.

 

Had you simply used the expected or proper terminology, or properly explained upfront rather than having to have it dragged out of you, that you were using the less common definition, you might have avoided all the confusion and circular discussions and actually enabled people to focus on the more interesting points you had to make regarding Rene Girard's Mimetic theory and the supposed resolution of the scapegoat scenario by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

 

The modern western secular individual is objectively Christian in that he espouses the substrata of Christian ethics but does not give it a Christian name, so to speak. His feelings are not connected because he feels that this is just the natural way to be and it has nothing to do with Christ or how the world was changed through Christ.

The modern, western, secular individual's ethics do share many of those ethics espoused by Christianity; however to call this "objectively Christian" is probably not the best choice of terminology. A more clear turn of phrase might be "The modern, western, secular individual espouses many traditionally Christian virtues and ethics." Of course making such a claim would hardly be controversial. One could say the same thing about the ancient and modern practitioners of Buddhism, of the modern, western, cultural Jew, and modern, western, moderate Muslim, and the modern, western, etc.

 

We are on our 7th page of this discussion and I have written about the anthropological truth of the gospel throughout. I don’t want to sound rude but I also don’t want to condone intellectual laziness. Scroll back and read some. Or better yet, read Girard.

Having read and re-read the most clear explanation you gave on 25-Jun-2016 @ 4:31p, I believe I understand what you are attempting to convey as "the anthropological truth of the gospel". I nevertheless find the term "truth of the gospel" applied to what you claim more than a bit presumptive, but typical of religious claimants. Nevertheless, I do find Girard's mimetic theory interesting, as well as his unorthodox exegesis of the passion as a resolution to the scapegoat scenario to be interesting as well.

 

What I do not agree with (and I don't know whether this is because you misunderstand Girard's claims, or whether Girard simply misunderstands the Bible's claims), is his notions of the Jewish sacrificial tradition; what is clear is that the Jews, from the time of Moses until the destruction of the Temple and Diaspora were practicing ritual sacrifice of that which was deemed perfect, unblemished, and pure as a penal propitiation to the violent God Jehovah for their sin and uncleanliness; not that which was deemed unclean or unholy; with the exception of the scapegoat ritual (in which a goat is "sacrificed" in the sense of being offered, but it is not killed; rather all the sins of the community are transferred onto it and it is then led out of the community and the allowed to "escape" in the wilderness). For Christians, Jesus is considered the ultimate penal sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices for sin and uncleanliness. Paul makes this abundantly clear; yet Girard appears to reject the notion that the passion should be seen as a penal sacrifice of the pure and innocent for the corrupt and guilty; but rather as a means of shocking society into realizing the immorality of sacrificing the innocent for the sake of the guilty, the pure for the sake of the impure... that the so-called "scapegoat sacrifice" is not a divine mandate from a perfect and just God, but a lie used by archaic religions as a safety valve to release the conflict caused by our innate covetous nature which arrises out of our mimetic brain. Girard instead views Christianity as a repudiation of scapegoating and the providing of an alternative course for society to follow in order to break the cycle of violence-- a pacifistic rather than confrontational approach to conflict resolution, and a discipline of avoiding the covetous thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are so natural, carnal and combative, and instead striving to embrace a "divine" or ideal mindset of omni-benevolence.

 

As to how I got my "bad reputation", I vehemently disagreed with a particular individual over what I considered to be invalid or unsupported assertions, and what I perceived to be logical contradictions and fallacious reasoning. Rather than only attempting to refute my assertions and arguments, they (and apparently another one or two confederates) additionally negged my posts, insulted me, and asserted a lack of personal integrity. Foolishly, I returned in kind from a position of weakness (not having the ability to neg them as they did me, and not having a currently unassailable positive reputation).

[Donnadogsoth]

What I do not agree with (and I don't know whether this is because you misunderstand Girard's claims, or whether Girard simply misunderstands the Bible's claims), is his notions of the Jewish sacrificial tradition; what is clear is that the Jews, from the time of Moses until the destruction of the Temple and Diaspora were practicing ritual sacrifice of that which was deemed perfect, unblemished, and pure as a penal propitiation to the violent God Jehovah for their sin and uncleanliness; not that which was deemed unclean or unholy; with the exception of the scapegoat ritual. For Christians, Jesus is considered the ultimate penal sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices for sin and uncleanliness. Paul makes this abundantly clear; yet Girard appears to reject the notion that the passion should be seen as a penal sacrifice of the pure and innocent for the corrupt and guilty; but rather as a means of shocking society into realizing the immorality of sacrificing the innocent for the sake of the guilty, the pure for the sake of the impure... that the "so-called" scapegoat sacrifice is not a divine mandate from a perfect and just God, but a lie used by archaic religions as a safety valve to release the conflict caused by our innate covetous nature which arrises out of our mimetic brain. Girard instead views Christianity as a repudiation of scapegoating and the providing of an alternative course for society to follow-- a pacifistic rather than confrontational approach to conflict resolution, and a discipline of avoiding the covetous thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are so natural, carnal and combative, and instead striving to embrace a "divine" or ideal mindset of omni-benevolence.

 

Girard implicitly splits the meaning of Christianity in two:  the Atonement for the salvation game, and the Scapegoat for the progress game.  The former is needed to reconcile man with God; the latter is needed to reconcile man with man.

 

pejoration

[pej-uh-rey-shuh n, pee-juh-] 

noun

2.

Historical Linguistics. semantic change in a word to a lower, less approved, or less respectable meaning.

Compare melioration (def 1).

dictionary.com

[EclecticIdealist]

What term would you use to replace "objectively Christian"?

For the sake of clarity, if I were to re-title the thread, I would write: René Girard would say, "Stefan is anthropologically Christian".  I would then explain the basis of my assertion lies in René Girard's mimetic theory of the origin of conflict and the Anthropological resolution of the Scapegoat scenario of Archaic religions by Christianity. I would suggest that Girard's theory has parallels to Stefan's philosophy of anti-statism and non-violence. I would further opine that Stefan has adopted his ethical philosophy from modern, Western, libertarian values which were largely informed by the Enlightenment era of Europe and which values were in turn informed by the values of Christianity which permeated throughout Europe with the spread of Christianity and its resurgence in opposition to the state.

 

THAT's what I would have done were I Junglecat in starting this thread. It would have avoided weeks and pages of pointless discussion about the meaning of the terms which were used. At that point, no one would suppose that JungleCat was ever asserting directly or otherwise that Stefan was Christian in any traditionally conventional sense of the term, but merely from the standpoint that most atheists who retain many Christian ideals and values might be termed "secular Christians" or "Anthropological Christians" or some other such term that clearly delineates between a belief in the supernatural divinity claims (even if unconsciously) and one who harbors no such beliefs.

[shirgall]

For the sake of clarity, if I were to re-title the thread, I would write: René Girard would say, "Stefan is anthropologically Christian".  I would then explain the basis of my assertion lies in René Girard's mimetic theory of the origin of conflict and the Anthropological resolution of the Scapegoat scenario of Archaic religions by Christianity. I would suggest that Girard's theory has parallels to Stefan's philosophy of anti-statism and non-violence. I would further opine that Stefan has adopted his ethical philosophy from modern, Western, libertarian values which were largely informed by the Enlightenment era of Europe and which values were in turn informed by the values of Christianity which permeated throughout Europe with the spread of Christianity and its resurgence in opposition to the state.

 

THAT's what I would have done were I Junglecat in starting this thread. It would have avoided weeks and pages of pointless discussion about the meaning of the terms which were used. At that point, no one would suppose that JungleCat was ever asserting directly or otherwise that Stefan was Christian in any traditionally conventional sense of the term, but merely from the standpoint that most atheists who retain many Christian ideals and values might be termed "secular Christians" or "Anthropological Christians" or some other such term that clearly delineates between a belief in the supernatural divinity claims (even if unconsciously) and one who harbors no such beliefs.

 

And it would have saved me a lot of time trying to ferret the meaning out.

[EclecticIdealist]

Girard implicitly splits the meaning of Christianity in two:  the Atonement for the salvation game, and the Scapegoat for the progress game.  The former is needed to reconcile man with God; the latter is needed to reconcile man with man.

I'm not going to address the problems I see with respect to the Atonement of Christ to reconcile man with God in this thread. However, with respect to the idea of Christ's atonement reconciling man with man, I would say that Jesus' teachings or philosophy of love, mercy, and forgiveness alone would be sufficient to do that with all but the most intractable, just as the teachings of others like the Buddha, or the Dalai Lama, or Gandhi would equally be sufficient if they were followed. I do not believe the submission of Jesus in the garden, or his beating and subsequent crucifixion at the hands of the Roman soldiers did anything to reveal or bring further illumination of man's covetous nature, nor provide a solution for it. In short, I don't believe it does anything to reconcile man with man at all.

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm not going to address the problems I see with respect to the Atonement of Christ to reconcile man with God in this thread. However, with respect to the idea of Christ's atonement reconciling man with man, I would say that Jesus' teachings or philosophy of love, mercy, and forgiveness alone would be sufficient to do that with all but the most intractable, just as the teachings of others like the Buddha, or the Dalai Lama, or Gandhi would equally be sufficient if they were followed. I do not believe the submission of Jesus in the garden, or his beating and subsequent crucifixion at the hands of the Roman soldiers did anything to reveal or bring further illumination of man's covetous nature, nor provide a solution for it. In short, I don't believe it does anything to reconcile man with man at all.

 

There's no image that the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, or Ghandi can supply that will last as long or have as much of an impact on the human soul as that of the Crucifixion.  Gerard's Scapegoat theory adds another fold of meaning to it.  Could the NAP have arisen in a non-Christian culture?

[ClearConscience]

Anybody who claims that Stefan isn't influenced by his Christian upbringing contradicts the claim that early childhood development affects self-identification.  Furthermore, it's a total disregard for the psychological precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erikson%27s_stages_of_psychosocial_development#Fidelity:_identity_vs._role_confusion_.28adolescence.2C_13.E2.80.9319_years.29)

[junglecat]

That you do not recognize that it IS significantly different and precisely HOW it is significantly different is the problem.

 

As you are aware, there are two dictionary definitions for the word "objective". This is usually the first definition listed as it is an adjective. It is defined as describing  a fact or facts, or the knowledge of such a fact or facts (truth, or truths) which exist independent of subjective bias (i.e., personal feelings, opinions, perspective, and so on). The other dictionary definition is for a noun. It is defined as a purpose or goal to be obtained as the result of action. The adverb form of the word "objectively" is almost always a usage of the adjective definition of the word; whereas you unconventionally used the noun definition of the word suggesting a common or shared purpose or goal, not a fact existing independent of subjective bias (in this case, your perspective on Christianity informed by the anthropological theories of Rene Girard).

 

At one point throughout the month-long discussion, you go on to use a secondary definition of "subjective" indicating that which is subordinate to, which, while related to the more common usage of the term when relating to philosophical ideals--"biased by personal feelings, perspective, opinion, etc.", only served to suggest further usage of the less common definition or meaning of terms in a philosophical context.

 

Had you simply used the expected or proper terminology, or properly explained upfront rather than having to have it dragged out of you, that you were using the less common definition, you might have avoided all the confusion and circular discussions and actually enabled people to focus on the more interesting points you had to make regarding Rene Girard's Mimetic theory and the supposed resolution of the scapegoat scenario by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

 

The modern, western, secular individual's ethics do share many of those ethics espoused by Christianity; however to call this "objectively Christian" is probably not the best choice of terminology. A more clear turn of phrase might be "The modern, western, secular individual espouses many traditionally Christian virtues and ethics." Of course making such a claim would hardly be controversial. One could say the same thing about the ancient and modern practitioners of Buddhism, of the modern, western, cultural Jew, and modern, western, moderate Muslim, and the modern, western, etc.

 

Having read and re-read the most clear explanation you gave on 25-Jun-2016 @ 4:31p, I believe I understand what you are attempting to convey as "the anthropological truth of the gospel". I nevertheless find the term "truth of the gospel" applied to what you claim more than a bit presumptive, but typical of religious claimants. Nevertheless, I do find Girard's mimetic theory interesting, as well as his unorthodox exegesis of the passion as a resolution to the scapegoat scenario to be interesting as well.

 

What I do not agree with (and I don't know whether this is because you misunderstand Girard's claims, or whether Girard simply misunderstands the Bible's claims), is his notions of the Jewish sacrificial tradition; what is clear is that the Jews, from the time of Moses until the destruction of the Temple and Diaspora were practicing ritual sacrifice of that which was deemed perfect, unblemished, and pure as a penal propitiation to the violent God Jehovah for their sin and uncleanliness; not that which was deemed unclean or unholy; with the exception of the scapegoat ritual (in which a goat is "sacrificed" in the sense of being offered, but it is not killed; rather all the sins of the community are transferred onto it and it is then led out of the community and the allowed to "escape" in the wilderness). For Christians, Jesus is considered the ultimate penal sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices for sin and uncleanliness. Paul makes this abundantly clear; yet Girard appears to reject the notion that the passion should be seen as a penal sacrifice of the pure and innocent for the corrupt and guilty; but rather as a means of shocking society into realizing the immorality of sacrificing the innocent for the sake of the guilty, the pure for the sake of the impure... that the so-called "scapegoat sacrifice" is not a divine mandate from a perfect and just God, but a lie used by archaic religions as a safety valve to release the conflict caused by our innate covetous nature which arrises out of our mimetic brain. Girard instead views Christianity as a repudiation of scapegoating and the providing of an alternative course for society to follow in order to break the cycle of violence-- a pacifistic rather than confrontational approach to conflict resolution, and a discipline of avoiding the covetous thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are so natural, carnal and combative, and instead striving to embrace a "divine" or ideal mindset of omni-benevolence.

 

As to how I got my "bad reputation", I vehemently disagreed with a particular individual over what I considered to be invalid or unsupported assertions, and what I perceived to be logical contradictions and fallacious reasoning. Rather than only attempting to refute my assertions and arguments, they (and apparently another one or two confederates) additionally negged my posts, insulted me, and asserted a lack of personal integrity. Foolishly, I returned in kind from a position of weakness (not having the ability to neg them as they did me, and not having a currently unassailable positive reputation).

You say, "Had you simply used the expected or proper terminology,”  How could I have known what you expected me to write?  What is more ‘proper’ than Cambridge University dictionary? Is it not expected and proper that when enters an English forum that the definitions will come from an English dictionary? I can’t see this point as anything more than a red herring/strawman argument.

 

How Christianity changed the world is much more encompassing than you suppose. You could say it about other religions in as far as they have all been radically transformed by Christ.

 

I think the misunderstanding is yours regarding Biblical sacrifice. The sins of the community were placed upon the scapegoat. It was then driven out and ritually killed by being driven off a steep cliff. Throughout the Bible there is a progression of less and less violence. For instance, the shift from animal sacrifice instead of human sacrifice in the story of Abraham and Isaac. By the time of the later prophets all sacrifice is deemed useless. Of course, the Jews still sacrificed animals in the temple but their prophets decry it. But the fact that the people were in denial is clear. They actually built tombs and monuments for prophets whose bodies they didn’t have because they had all been killed by previous generations. This in itself is a type of scapegoating. It says, “If we had been alive at the time of these prophets we would not have joined in killing them.” And yet, they all joined in killing Christ. And not just the Jews but the Romans as well. Everyone kills Christ.

[junglecat]

For the sake of clarity, if I were to re-title the thread, I would write: René Girard would say, "Stefan is anthropologically Christian".  I would then explain the basis of my assertion lies in René Girard's mimetic theory of the origin of conflict and the Anthropological resolution of the Scapegoat scenario of Archaic religions by Christianity. I would suggest that Girard's theory has parallels to Stefan's philosophy of anti-statism and non-violence. I would further opine that Stefan has adopted his ethical philosophy from modern, Western, libertarian values which were largely informed by the Enlightenment era of Europe and which values were in turn informed by the values of Christianity which permeated throughout Europe with the spread of Christianity and its resurgence in opposition to the state.

 

THAT's what I would have done were I Junglecat in starting this thread. It would have avoided weeks and pages of pointless discussion about the meaning of the terms which were used. At that point, no one would suppose that JungleCat was ever asserting directly or otherwise that Stefan was Christian in any traditionally conventional sense of the term, but merely from the standpoint that most atheists who retain many Christian ideals and values might be termed "secular Christians" or "Anthropological Christians" or some other such term that clearly delineates between a belief in the supernatural divinity claims (even if unconsciously) and one who harbors no such beliefs.

The only way anyone could have supposed I meant Stefan was a Christian was if they hadn’t read what I meant by ‘objectively Christian’ and hadn’t read when I wrote numerous times, “I’m not saying Stefan is Christian’, my comparison to Proust, etc.

 

Your supposing things would have been less “pointless” if I had used a more muddied term is to underestimate the visceral reaction modern secularism has towards Christ. We would kill him today by turning Christian values back on him in the same way we blame Christians for the witch hunting of the middle ages.

 

[EclecticIdealist]

You say, "Had you simply used the expected or proper terminology,”  How could I have known what you expected me to write?  What is more ‘proper’ than Cambridge University dictionary? Is it not expected and proper that when enters an English forum that the definitions will come from an English dictionary? I can’t see this point as anything more than a red herring/strawman argument.

How indeed? Why should anyone have been confused when you used the far less commonly used definition for “objectively” in conjunction with the term “Christian”? I’m certain you would have people equally confused if you posted to a Christian Business forum that Jesus was objectively Socialist and followed that up by saying he was objectively Socialist just like Charles Dickens. Later you could explain that they weren’t actually Socialist per se, they were simply concerned about helping the poor and the wickedness and lack of generosity of so many who are wealthy,

 

I think the misunderstanding is yours regarding Biblical sacrifice. The sins of the community were placed upon the scapegoat. It was then driven out and ritually killed by being driven off a steep cliff.

No. It was not ritually killed by being driven off a steep cliff. It is true that the goat winds up being driven off a cliff, but that was only to ensure that it didn’t return to the community. Being pushed off a cliff is not part of the ritual. Also your depiction of ever decreasing violence throughout the Bible is incorrect and unwarranted. Yahweh commands animal sacrifice and forbids human (particularly child) sacrifice. Violence is practiced by Israel to greater or lessor degrees according to their fatefulness to Yahweh after leaving Egypt. Animal sacrifice for Yahweh’s followers only ends with the culminating final sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. And yet, the God of the Bible promises to destroy the world by fire and cast all sinners and non-believers into the lake of fire in an ultimate, final act of violence and destruction against evil and sin. That runs rather counter to Girard’s theory.

 

The only way anyone could have supposed I meant Stefan was a Christian was if they hadn’t read what I meant by ‘objectively Christian’ and hadn’t read when I wrote numerous times, “I’m not saying Stefan is Christian’, my comparison to Proust, etc.

Your comparison of Stefan to Proust (whom doubtless few on this board are familiar, much less so with what you apparently would term is “objectively Christian” perspective) was hardly illuminating, especially when you insisted in a post just prior to mentioning Proust that Stefan believed in the existence of the Abrahamic God and the Divinity of Christ. Furthermore, you’re complaining about how I’m suggesting you should have begun the thread in which you didn’t even refer to Proust until two days later, nor did you clearly explain what you meant by “objectively Christian”

 

Your supposing things would have been less “pointless” if I had used a more muddied term is to underestimate the visceral reaction modern secularism has towards Christ. We would kill him today by turning Christian values back on him in the same way we blame Christians for the witch hunting of the middle ages.

I’m suggesting there would have been less pointless discussion of terms you used in a muddled attempt to convey your thoughts and ideas. But whatever, you’re clearly not interested in any constructive criticism; so i’ll just leave it at that, regardless of any further attempts you might make to justify your in-artful use of the term “objectively”.

 

There's no image that the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, or Ghandi can supply that will last as long or have as much of an impact on the human soul as that of the Crucifixion.  Gerard's Scapegoat theory adds another fold of meaning to it.  Could the NAP have arisen in a non-Christian culture?

Donnadogssoth, you are of course correct that unless Buddha, the Dalai Lama, or Gandhi where murdered in an equally horrifically brutal way, the iconic imagery they might lend to the collective subconscious of the world would hardly be as impactful on the human soul. Such is the nature of such a brutal and violent way to die; that’s why the Romans utilized it. Of course had the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, or Gandhi been murdered in as equally horrific a manner (yes, I know Gandhi was murdered, but being shot at close range is not the same as being tortured to death for hours), then you’d likely be making some other argument.



 

As to your question about the NAP arising in a non-Christian culture:

 

Confucius - “Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.”

 

Buddha - "All men tremble at the rod, all men fear death:

                  Putting oneself in the place of others, kill not nor cause to kill.

                  All men tremble at the rod, unto all men life is dear;

                  Doing as one would be done by, kill not nor cause to kill."

Hinduism - This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you."

 

Yup, I do.

[junglecat]

How indeed? Why should anyone have been confused when you used the far less commonly used definition for “objectively” in conjunction with the term “Christian”? I’m certain you would have people equally confused if you posted to a Christian Business forum that Jesus was objectively Socialist and followed that up by saying he was objectively Socialist just like Charles Dickens. Later you could explain that they weren’t actually Socialist per se, they were simply concerned about helping the poor and the wickedness and lack of generosity of so many who are wealthy,

 

No. It was not ritually killed by being driven off a steep cliff. It is true that the goat winds up being driven off a cliff, but that was only to ensure that it didn’t return to the community. Being pushed off a cliff is not part of the ritual. Also your depiction of ever decreasing violence throughout the Bible is incorrect and unwarranted. Yahweh commands animal sacrifice and forbids human (particularly child) sacrifice. Violence is practiced by Israel to greater or lessor degrees according to their fatefulness to Yahweh after leaving Egypt. Animal sacrifice for Yahweh’s followers only ends with the culminating final sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. And yet, the God of the Bible promises to destroy the world by fire and cast all sinners and non-believers into the lake of fire in an ultimate, final act of violence and destruction against evil and sin. That runs rather counter to Girard’s theory.

 

Your comparison of Stefan to Proust (whom doubtless few on this board are familiar, much less so with what you apparently would term is “objectively Christian” perspective) was hardly illuminating, especially when you insisted in a post just prior to mentioning Proust that Stefan believed in the existence of the Abrahamic God and the Divinity of Christ. Furthermore, you’re complaining about how I’m suggesting you should have begun the thread in which you didn’t even refer to Proust until two days later, nor did you clearly explain what you meant by “objectively Christian”

 

I’m suggesting there would have been less pointless discussion of terms you used in a muddled attempt to convey your thoughts and ideas. But whatever, you’re clearly not interested in any constructive criticism; so i’ll just leave it at that, regardless of any further attempts you might make to justify your in-artful use of the term “objectively”.

 

Donnadogssoth, you are of course correct that unless Buddha, the Dalai Lama, or Gandhi where murdered in an equally horrifically brutal way, the iconic imagery they might lend to the collective subconscious of the world would hardly be as impactful on the human soul. Such is the nature of such a brutal and violent way to die; that’s why the Romans utilized it. Of course had the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, or Gandhi been murdered in as equally horrific a manner (yes, I know Gandhi was murdered, but being shot at close range is not the same as being tortured to death for hours), then you’d likely be making some other argument.



 

As to your question about the NAP arising in a non-Christian culture:

 

Confucius - “Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.”

 

Buddha - "All men tremble at the rod, all men fear death:

                  Putting oneself in the place of others, kill not nor cause to kill.

                  All men tremble at the rod, unto all men life is dear;

                  Doing as one would be done by, kill not nor cause to kill."

Hinduism - This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you."

 

Yup, I do.

The argument about the definition of "objectively" is very strange to me. First people said I was using it wrong. I produced the definition from Cambridge and they said I was defining Christian wrong. I explained what I mean by Christian in the broad anthropological sense and people said I was using the words the wrong way in conjunction. You say my use is 'less common'. Ok. I don't think so, but ok. So what? Can you only work with 'common'?

 

As I said, Stefan (or generally secular western culture) is not Christian subjectively. They are objectively so in that they deny the divinity of the archaic god, the god that rules through violence. So in a sense, they hold up the divinity of love instead but they refuse to call it Christian.

 

I suppose it's subjective whether you think the discussion is pointless. I thought there was and there is a definite point to my part. If a discussion is truly pointless it usually doesn't carry on for long. I'm happy to end it if you'd like. If you feel it is pointless, why engage? It's still a point if your point is merely to prove me wrong, isn't it?

[Donnadogsoth]

Donnadogssoth, you are of course correct that unless Buddha, the Dalai Lama, or Gandhi where murdered in an equally horrifically brutal way, the iconic imagery they might lend to the collective subconscious of the world would hardly be as impactful on the human soul. Such is the nature of such a brutal and violent way to die; that’s why the Romans utilized it. Of course had the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, or Gandhi been murdered in as equally horrific a manner (yes, I know Gandhi was murdered, but being shot at close range is not the same as being tortured to death for hours), then you’d likely be making some other argument.



 

As to your question about the NAP arising in a non-Christian culture:

 

Confucius - “Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.”

 

Buddha - "All men tremble at the rod, all men fear death:

                  Putting oneself in the place of others, kill not nor cause to kill.

                  All men tremble at the rod, unto all men life is dear;

                  Doing as one would be done by, kill not nor cause to kill."

Hinduism - This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you."

 

Yup, I do.

 

Where is the Indian or Chinese anarcho-capitalist movement then?  It might exist, but dollars for doughnuts it was an import...from the Christian West.

[EclecticIdealist]

Where is the Indian or Chinese anarcho-capitalist movement then?  It might exist, but dollars for doughnuts it was an import...from the Christian West.

I don't personally know anything about it, but a simple search online produced this:

 

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

 

While the brief entry suggests some cross-pollination between the West and India, I did not find it surprising at all.

 

Also, keep in mind, Marxism is an import from the West as well.

[junglecat]

Where is the Indian or Chinese anarcho-capitalist movement then?  It might exist, but dollars for doughnuts it was an import...from the Christian West.

Good points. And the negative side of that is our hyper awareness of victims. Everyone is a victim in the west and nobody feels they are the persecutors. And the fascistic political correctness is also a concrete form of Christianity.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't personally know anything about it, but a simple search online produced this:

 

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

 

While the brief entry suggests some cross-pollination between the West and India, I did not find it surprising at all.

 

Also, keep in mind, Marxism is an import from the West as well.

 

Yes, Marxism is a byproduct of Christendom too, as is Capitalism.

 

I would like to know if there is an Indian counterpart to Stefan, and if so, where did he get his ideas.