Christianity

[Gary Childress]

His views...

By the way, we have a caste system too, and have burned books at times. I'm not saying those things aren't the wrong way of doing things, however, maybe in Confucianism, it's better to burn books than people.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Gary Childress]

Gary, you never respond to me...that's okay...as with AJ, I don't expect or, frankly, want one from you...this post isn't for you...it's a continuation of my post just above...your question is just a jumpin' off point.

Do you think it's possible to get along in the world without "loving" thy neighbor?

Love is a big word. An abused word. We have to narrow it down. In context: loving your neighbor means respectin' him. It means recognizin' him as sumthin' other than a commodity. It doesn't mean you have to like him. associate with him, transact with him, break bread with him, agree with him, or love him. It means, minimally, you ought to leave him be to do as he sees fit.

So, no, as a moral being, you can't get along in the world without loving your neighbor.

Sorry, Henry, I didn't see your post. I usually respond to posts that show up in my alerts and since you quote differently, they don't show up in my alerts so I miss your posts directed at me a lot.

If love meant respect, then wouldn't the Bible have used the word respect? Instead the Bible gives us an almost impossible task to live up to. That can only be frustrating and frustration breeds anger and everything else or else it can be disheartening and lead to depression.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

[Immanuel Can]

OK. But taken as societies, which societies have done the most harm to the world? It seems like the Abrahamic religious societies have done an awful lot.

Of good, you mean? They certainly have.

Which society do you want to live in: Britain or Saudi Arabia? Do you prefer Israel or Sri Lanka? How about America or Burkina Faso? Or South Korea or North Korea?

As we used to say during the days of the Cuban boatlift, "All the boats are going one way." That tells you something.

...have they been more violent and awful than Christian societies?

See above.

I mean, look at China.

Oh please...let's. Shall we start with their persecution of Christians or of the Uighurs? How about their actions in Tibet? What about their 400 million murdered babies, their Cultural Revolution, or their booming traffic in sex slaves? How about their treatment of Hong Kong and Taiwan? Where shall we start?

...the Abrahamic societies seem to be harder on unbelievers.

If you mean the Muslims, maybe. Yes. They have commandments to kill "infidels," actually.

But Christians? They're not hard on unbelievers at all. In fact, the easiest place to be a religious dissenter is in the most nominally "Christian" countries. "Love thy neighbour" goes a long way, it seems.

[Immanuel Can]

If love meant respect, then wouldn't the Bible have used the word respect?

In the Greek, the word "love" isn't one word: it's at least four: Eros, Agape, Storge and Philia. Each is somewhat different. The Greeks had a more complete vocabulary in that regard than we have in English.

Instead the Bible gives us an almost impossible task to live up to. That can only be frustrating and frustration breeds anger and everything else or else it can be disheartening and lead to depression.

That's why it doesn't tell us to do it ourselves, Gary. it tells you instead that the only way it's going to happen is through God's actual help.

The Christian commandment isn't "try to be better, so God will accept you." It's "call out to God to help you to become and do what you could never do on your own."

[Gary Childress]

His views...

OK. I'll give you credit where it is due, perhaps you are on to the right thing. I hope so because things are looking pretty bleak in the international political scene right now. One can only hope that Christ's love will win out I guess.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Nick_A]

To whoever sent me those meaningful questions as to why the Cross is essence and purpose of Christianity. I had some personal problems requiring me to be absent from the Internet. I can't find your post. Either it was deleted or I'm going senile. Anyhow if those questions seriously interest you, send me a PM and we can discuss it. You've raised interesting questions which should be contemplated.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ referred to: The Vedantic concept

Pseudo-Vedantic. You're no more a Hindu than the Beatles were.

To be accurate, though this has nothing to do with anything I say, assert or recommend, George Harrison was, I'd say, a bona fide follower of a modern expression of a Hindu religion (Vaishnavism = the religion of Krishna-Vishnu).

Myself, I am both post-Judaic and post-Christian -- that is, by cultural position. As such I would have to describe myself in terms of the social and cultural context that produced me. It would be fair to say though, just to be truthful and accurate, that in many ways I have more experience with Vedanta and it has had more influence on me than any other religious philosophy.

Nevertheless I did not (and do not) refer to myself as a practitioner of Vedanta or of any particular religious practice. The comparative position is very helpful -- in my own case. When I mention a *concept* [here you go Henry, you grump!] I am simply and exclusively referring to an idea that can operate as a guide.

But none of this really matters since, as I now conceive it, religion and religious practice must be defined in terms of its purpose. What is the purpose of a religion and a religious practice? What does one hope to achieve? What is one trying to achieve. Or seen another way (if one is so inclined) what is god trying to communicate to us?

Though I fully understand, Immanuel, that you are completely ensconced within an Evangelical Christian religious position, that you have accepted all its tenets, and believe that all other people should also do the same, or suffer dire consequences, I personally do not. Still, I would not expect you to stop your apologetic endeavors.

You think you're saying something radical and new. But you're not. You're channelling the old, Westernized pseudo-Hinduism that tries to pick and choose the elements of that worldview it likes, and dump the rest...thus becoming incoherent in the process.

Here, you engage as you often do with a haughty imperiousness. I have made no assertions about anything 'radical' nor 'new'. It is true nonetheless that ideas and concepts from the Eastern philosophies and religions have certainly influenced Occidental thinkers -- Aldous Huxley comes to mind though there are many others.

And it is not a question of what I 'like' or don't like it is a question of what makes conceptual sense. I do not believe in 'dumping' Christian or Catholic ideas either. I think they should be studied and understood. There is no way to understand ourselves, or our Occidental culture, without a background in this. The more we understand, the better. The less and the result is not good.

It's not just a rejection of Christianity, actually; it's a rejection of Hinduism too. It's just veiled self-worship, half couched in the "culturally appropriated" language of the East. So if you regard (whatever you mean by) "Christianity" as imperialistic, I think you need to take a look in the mirror, and apologize to some Hindus.

Once again you re-phrase and re-state to serve your own purposes. It is typical underhanded Immanuel Can!

One has to clearly and carefully define what, exactly, one is rejecting (in Christianity, in Judaism) and why. It cannot be done in a casual manner. You mistake a rejection of your fanaticism with a rejection of Christian concepts or Christian values.

As I always remind you: you can say anything, you can twist anything someone says or means in any way that you like, but this is just evidence of underhandedness. And it is related to Hebrew idea imperialism (or imperiousness).

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

[Immanuel Can]

...as I now conceive it, religion and religious practice must be defined in terms of its purpose.

So truth is off the table, for you. If Nazi occultims "worked," and "had a purpose," you wouldn't see it as immoral?

You think you're saying something radical and new. But you're not. You're channelling the old, Westernized pseudo-Hinduism that tries to pick and choose the elements of that worldview it likes, and dump the rest...thus becoming incoherent in the process.

Here, you engage as you often do with a haughty imperiousness.

Here I "engage" with rationality. Coherence is an attribute of beliefs that make sense with themselves. Your beliefs don't have it, it seems.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ wrote: Yet in the world of man, a world in which man's psyche is the major element, other possibilities are conceived. Here morality is conceived and defined.

No. Man doesn't conceive morality; he recognizes moral fact. Yes, nature is red in tooth & claw and man is mired in it. Unlike all other life, though, man can stand up and -- as I say -- recognize he's a moral being. He can do sumthin' else. More accurately: he ought to do sumthin' else.

If you wish to bicker over things which really don't matter much you certainly can. I used the verb *to conceive* in the sense of 'come to understand' and 'realize'. And when it is conceived (realized, understood) it is also defined: expressed, translated into communicable terms; applied. .

It does not pop out of the air or drop down from the sky. Though it is often pictured in that way.

he ought to do sumthin' else

The word 'ought' comes from a Old English word āgan which means 'to owe'. So he owes it to do something else does make sense to me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...as I now conceive it, religion and religious practice must be defined in terms of its purpose.

So truth is off the table, for you. If Nazi occultims "worked," and "had a purpose," you wouldn't see it as immoral?

Why must truth and what is true be off the table?

The purpose still has to be defined and clarified. And truth is a problematic concept since each declaration of truth will always need to be gone through carefully.

Here I "engage" with rationality. Coherence is an attribute of beliefs that make sense with themselves. Your beliefs don't have it, it seems.

You may assert that you engage rationally but in my experience this is not so. You are an irrationalist you tarts himself up in rationalistic garb.

You will have to demonstrate specially what is incoherent in anything I have so far said.

If Nazi occultims "worked," and "had a purpose," you wouldn't see it as immoral?

Not sure what the typo occultims is meant to refer to.

I took it as columns for the sake of a point. . .

A better question would be to refer to the acts committed by our side. Such as carpet bombing of civilian areas with the express purpose of harming civilian populations to weaken resolve or to punish.

They say that dropping the bomb on Japan had a real and a moral purpose: to cause the Japanese to surrender so to avoid an invasion and occupation that may have (was predicted to) cost the lives of tens of thousands of Americans.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh you meant Nazi occultism. You'll have to explain what you mean. What occultism?

[henry quirk]

It certainly goes beyond just "leaving him be."

Legitimately, I don't see how. Look here, you say: It means to honour, sacrifice for, and seek the best for the person. Embedded in it is the idea you know what the other guy needs. You may. Even if you do, can't see how you're empowered to impose a solution. Offer one, sure. But when told no thanks back off.

That's why I believe, in context, love thy neighbor is respect your neighbor.

[Immanuel Can]

...as I now conceive it, religion and religious practice must be defined in terms of its purpose.

So truth is off the table, for you. If Nazi occultims "worked," and "had a purpose," you wouldn't see it as immoral?

Why must truth and what is true be off the table?

What you believe is pragmatism. It has nothing to do with truth. It tries to operate purely on "function."

Of course, it's always necessarily naive about what the thing it's advocating is functioning FOR. Since if it specified what a pragmatic analysis has to be grounded in, it would be back to having to legimize itself. And that's what it's trying to avoid.

Here I "engage" with rationality. Coherence is an attribute of beliefs that make sense with themselves. Your beliefs don't have it, it seems.

You may assert that you engage rationally but in my experience this is not so.[/quote]
Yeah, well...so much for your "experience," then. Coherence is, in fact, a feature of rationality. Your beliefs lack it. That's objectively true.

If Nazi occultims "worked," and "had a purpose," you wouldn't see it as immoral?

Not sure what the typo occultims is meant to refer to.

For you, it doesn't really matter. Whatever "works," and whatever it "works for" is fine, in pragmatism.