Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:30 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:11 pm It mighta been Kierkegaard who likened the Bible to a letter from God to the individual. Taken as such: a similar obligation exists to get it right (even if thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, don't), yeah?

This is why Postmodernists have been so keen to declare "the death of the author."

What they really wanted was the death of the Author.

If authorial intent is "dead," as they say, then a text is whatever the recipient understands by it...or more commonly and truthfully, whatever the recipient wants to admit to other people he sees in the text, whether he actually sees that there or not.

The excuse for rejecting all authority is simply, "Well, that's not what I saw, when I 'interacted with the text.'"

But as you say, authors write with a purpose: and if they don't write what they write, nothing gets written at all. Thus, it can never be merely a matter of how the reader "interacts with the text": rather, it remains legitimate to ask, "Is what you're claiming you see in the text anywhere near what the text itself actually says and what they author was at pains to convey?"

In the Postmodernists' case, the author is not "dead." He's just being ignored.

I almost read a piece recently that promotes the idea the creator of a work is irrelevant. I gather from my scan what is important is your interpretation of the work. All more important, then, to deprive rabid interpreters of their chance. Give them no wiggle room.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:36 pm

Christians say they do just that.

People say lots of stuff. It's not necessarily true.

Nor is it necessarily false.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 8:02 pm

The beauty of it is in the irony of how much good will these Christians could have toward men while living by the principles of an utterly unworkable system of anarchism, and to be so innocently naive of this fact.

Actually, the principles they live by are Christian.

You said it yourself quirk: anyone can interpret the bible as they please. So any principle can be christian.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:44 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:36 pm

Christians say they do just that.

People say lots of stuff. It's not necessarily true.

Nor is it necessarily false.

You would need feedback from the author in order to determine if Christians are getting feedback from the author.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:46 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 8:02 pm

The beauty of it is in the irony of how much good will these Christians could have toward men while living by the principles of an utterly unworkable system of anarchism, and to be so innocently naive of this fact.

Actually, the principles they live by are Christian.

You said it yourself quirk: anyone can interpret the bible as they please. So any principle can be christian.

Did I say that, or did I just agree, with you, interpretation happens?

I also said, and asked about, an obligation on the part of the reader to get at what's bein' conveyed instead of what you think is there or want to be there.

And: no, it doesn't seem to me, if you actually work at gettin' to the meanings of, for example, the sermon on the mountain, that you can walk around, as a slaver or a murderer or a rapist or a thief, and claim you're aligned with Christian principle.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:48 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:44 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:36 pm People say lots of stuff. It's not necessarily true.

Nor is it necessarily false.

You would need feedback from the author in order to determine if Christians are getting feedback from the author.

That's not for me to determine: I'm not Christian, I'm a deist.

I can only judge 'em on how closely they adhere to their stated principles.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:54 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:46 pmYou said it yourself quirk: anyone can interpret the bible as they please. So any principle can be christian.

Did I say that, or did I just agree, with you, interpretation happens?

Tell me the difference and perhaps we can thrash it out.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:54 pmI also said, and asked about, an obligation on the part of the reader to get at what's bein' conveyed instead of what you think is there or want to be there.

How much obligation do you feel to understand what I say? Haven't you noticed? The people who demand you agree with them are mental.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:54 pmAnd: no, it doesn't seem to me, if you actually work at gettin' to the meanings of, for example, the sermon on the mountain, that you can walk around, as a slaver or a murderer or a rapist or a thief, and claim you're aligned with Christian principle.

Really? How much work have you done to arrive at that conclusion?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am "Impotent," then. Nothing you assert is more than a personal feeling, you say?

Again, the distinction between the Pope in the Vatican and the Christian God in Heaven. It's not just my "personal feeling" that the Pope resides in the Vatican. True, I'm not in the Vatican now myself to confirm his presence, but there are any number of others who can confirm precisely where he is now. On the other hand, here and now, I do personally feel that the Christian God is not in Heaven. But that feeling is predicated on the fact that neither you nor anyone else has provided me with substantive evidence able to convince that He is in fact there.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:15 pmThat's an empirical question, not a moral one. Of course there are empirical facts: the issue is, are there any moral ones?

Come on, IC, in order to speak of Christianity in terms of morality, one must first be convinced that the Christian God does in fact exist. You claim there are empirical facts. But when I ask you to provide them on par with a ton of empirical facts available to confirm the existence of the Pope, you have nothing tangible to offer.

Or do you? Let's hear it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:15 pmIf your morals are only subjective, then they are impotent with regard to anybody else. There is no reason why something particular to only you and your perspective should be regarded as binding -- or even necessarily interesting -- to another human being.

I couldn't agree more. But not every subjectivist is "fractured and fragmented". Many are willing to embrace democracy and the rule of law -- moderation, negotiation and compromise -- such that those with differing subjective conclusions about abortion or gun control or capital punishment are willing to allow elections to decide what the actual laws of the land will be.

This as opposed to, say, theocracy.

Are you a theocrat? Would you champion the country in which you reside embracing Christianity as the font for all morality and law? And, of course, it goes without saying that if there are disagreements among Christians themselves, your own value judgments will by default predominate.

Right?

Again, I'm just trying to imagine how you would go about dealing with those who embrace a completely different God. Like Henry.

Then back to this:

Is he acknowledging that his own belief in the Christian God is just another existential leap of faith?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:15 pmNope.

Exactly. That's my point. All the more reason it is incumbent upon you to provide others with the evidence they need to come over to Christianity. You don't have faith that He exists, you know it!!

Or is he telling us that he knows the Christian God does in fact exist?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:15 pmOf course.

If only [for now] "in your head".

That, unless others accept Jesus Christ as their savior, it won't go well for them at Judgment Day?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:15 pmI'm just telling you exactly what the Bible tells you about that. What you do with it, well, that's up to you.

Okay, then, what exactly does the Bible tell Henry? What does the Bible tell the Jews? And here it gets particularly surreal [for me] since Jesus Christ was Himself a Jew!!

That's something I explored over at ILP: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=197537

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am No, you can't believe it's "true" for anybody but yourself. It's not true for anybody else, because that would make it objective.

Over and over and over again: I'm considerably less interested in what others claim to believe is true about the Christian God and far more interested in what they can demonstrate to us that all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am That's what one does when a claim is obviously, definitionally true. One reaffirms it, rather than abandoning it, when somebody complains.

Indeed, this completely abstract assumption regarding the existence of the Christian God is your "proof" in a nutshell: you define and deduce Him into existence!!

Many Christians will tell us that God's Commandments and His Word in the Bible are the basis for objective morality on this side of the grave. And, in turn, they tell us that unless we obey them we might burn for all of eternity in Hell on the other side.

How about IC? Does he agree?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am Answered in the previous message.

That, in other words, one either embraces the Christian Bible and accepts Jesus Christ as their personal savior or they do not have access to objective morality and will burn in Hell for all of eternity?

How close to or far away from is this from your own answer?

But other religious denominations, while basically agreeing with that,

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am They don't.

Other religious denominations don't have their own Holy Book and their own rendition of Judgment Day?

Do they know that?

Do you believe that [the Bible] is to be taken literally as many Christians do?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am What do you mean by "literally"? Do you mean that a "literal" person can't recognize poetry or parable, even when the speaker explicitly says that's what they are? Does a "literalist" have to say that everything men did that is recorded therein is automatically thereby only actions approved by God?

Oh, so you're saying that chapter by chapter, verse by verse, the true Christian [you, for example] can make these distinctions all the way through from Genesis to Revelations?

Of course, if that is the case, how do you explain the fact that are are so many different Christian denominations -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... of_members

They can't all be right in regard to what they tell their flocks about the Word of God...in all the Bible "affirms". Just look at how some Protestants despise Catholics almost as much as they do the Jews. Again, even though Christ Himself was a Jew!!

In other words, that the entire Bible itself is a Commandment from God.

And are you telling us that you yourself know what the "condition of salvation" is?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am I'm just telling you what the Bible says about it. Again, it's up to you what you do with that knowledge.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. I'm asking you to tell me what the Bible tells you the condition of salvation is. What will take you to Heaven and what will not.

Specifically in terms of the behaviors that you choose from day to day.

And, just out of curiosity, what do you imagine the fate of Henry Quirk to be on Judgment Day? Will he or will he not have to renounce the Deist God and accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am You're asking me to read Henry's mind. I don't do that.

No, I'm pointing out that Henry does not believe in the Christian God. Now, when he dies is his own belief in the Deist God going to be a problem given your own understanding of what the "condition of salvation" is?

And what of Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Shintos and Buddhists and all those many, many others who embrace the other denominations?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am They all say essentially the same thing: that anybody who follows their system of belief is better off that somebody who doesn't. In that sense, all religions are exclusive. Because even those that purport to be inclusive insist the exclusive ones are wrong...so they are exclusive of the exclusive.

So that's not even unusual. All religions have a path they advocate. And the Bible says that, too. But it says this, about that:

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Okay, but, come on, what does this vague general description spiritual passage have to do with crunch time and all those who are not Christians -- or even construe Christians to be infidels -- are being judged for passage into Heaven?

After all, there are literally millions of Christians who are absolutely adamant about this: accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior...or else.

What of those who have never even heard of Christianity?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am That isn't you

Okay, but what about those who have never heard of Christianity? Do they obtain a "get out of Hell free" card for being lucky enough to have never been faced with having to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 10:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am "Impotent," then. Nothing you assert is more than a personal feeling, you say?

It's not just my "personal feeling" that the Pope resides in the Vatican.

It's a merely empirical question.

True, I'm not in the Vatican now myself to confirm his presence, but there are any number of others who can confirm precisely where he is now.

So you're putting your faith in where you THINK he ought to be, and where somebody else TELLS you he is. And if your guess is right, and your informers don't lie or be mistaken, then that's good.

But you're still not sure.

On the other hand, here and now, I do personally feel that the Christian God is not in Heaven. But that feeling is predicated on the fact that neither you nor anyone else has provided me with substantive evidence able to convince that He is in fact there.

Well, since there's no evidence you would ever accept, that's unsurprising. Those who have no standard of evidence never get any.

You claim there are empirical facts.

Of course.

But when I ask you to provide them on par with a ton of empirical facts available to confirm the existence of the Pope, you have nothing tangible to offer.

Au contraire: if you apply the same evidentiary standards you use on the Pope, then you would go on a combination of what you think and what others say. That's what you did with the Pope.

So there are lots of people who say God exists. Your personal disposition may incline you not to believe them. But that's not a very strong case against these particular informers, is it?

In point of fact, if you opened your own eyes, you'd figure out that there are a ton of evidences. The problem is that you won't accept any of them, not that they don't exist.

But on the unlikely chance you're actually interested, here are some interesting arguments for you to ponder: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX.

So there are evidences and arguments. But will you consider any of them?

I'm thinking you will not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:15 pmIf your morals are only subjective, then they are impotent with regard to anybody else. There is no reason why something particular to only you and your perspective should be regarded as binding -- or even necessarily interesting -- to another human being.

I couldn't agree more. But not every subjectivist is "fractured and fragmented". Many are willing to embrace democracy and the rule of law

That changes nothing.

Whether somebody "embraces democracy and the rule of law" does not turn their "laws" into moral facts. Islamists embrace Sharia. Nihilists embrace meaninglessness. Egoists embrace themselves. None of that matters at all, unless what they embrace is itself an objective moral truth.

Are you a theocrat?

Nope.

...it is incumbent upon you to provide others with the evidence

See above.

Now it's incumbent upon them to admit evidence when they see it.

That, unless others accept Jesus Christ as their savior, it won't go well for them at Judgment Day?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:15 pmI'm just telling you exactly what the Bible tells you about that. What you do with it, well, that's up to you.

Okay, then, what exactly does the Bible tell Henry?

Henry and I talk about that. But you don't imagine I'm inviting you into our conversation, do you?

What matters is what the Bible has to say to you.

That, in other words, one either embraces the Christian Bible and accepts Jesus Christ as their personal savior or they do not have access to objective morality and will burn in Hell for all of eternity?

Is that what the Bible says to you? Then you should take it seriously.

Do you believe that [the Bible] is to be taken literally as many Christians do?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am What do you mean by "literally"? Do you mean that a "literal" person can't recognize poetry or parable, even when the speaker explicitly says that's what they are? Does a "literalist" have to say that everything men did that is recorded therein is automatically thereby only actions approved by God?

Oh, so you're saying that chapter by chapter, verse by verse, the true Christian [you, for example] can make these distinctions all the way through from Genesis to Revelations?

Of course. It's nothing even remotely hard. A poem looks like a poem. A parable starts with words like, "And Jesus spoke this parable..." And history is written as history, and a commandment as a commandment. So even a simple person can figure out which is which.

And are you telling us that you yourself know what the "condition of salvation" is?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am I'm just telling you what the Bible says about it. Again, it's up to you what you do with that knowledge.

I'm asking you to tell me what the Bible tells you the condition of salvation is.

See John 3:16.

I'm pointing out that Henry does not believe in the Christian God.

Henry is Henry's business. He's none of yours.

And what of Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Shintos and Buddhists and all those many, many others who embrace the other denominations?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am They all say essentially the same thing: that anybody who follows their system of belief is better off that somebody who doesn't. In that sense, all religions are exclusive. Because even those that purport to be inclusive insist the exclusive ones are wrong...so they are exclusive of the exclusive.

So that's not even unusual. All religions have a path they advocate. And the Bible says that, too. But it says this, about that:

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Okay, but, come on, what does this vague general description spiritual passage have to do with crunch time and all those who are not Christians -- or even construe Christians to be infidels -- are being judged for passage into Heaven?

You know what you need to do? You need to read the Bible for yourself. It's much more plain than you imagine on these topics.

What of those who have never even heard of Christianity?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am That isn't you

Okay, but what about those who have never heard of Christianity?

See Romans 1. It answers that question admirably.

But that's still not you. And when you face God, as you surely will, "I didn't know" will not be on your lips. You were told and would not listen. You were given evidence, and refused to count it as evidence. And you had the Bible, and wouldn't read it.

Prepare your own answer. Don't worry about anybody else. That's between them and God.

Tell me the difference and perhaps we can thrash it out.

You laid it out as though it were mine, which it wasn't; you laid it as though it was the only thing on the table, which it isn't.

But: it's not worth a thrash-out.

How much obligation do you feel to understand what I say?

insofar as this conversation goes: quite a bit. Do you feel I'm talkin' past you, not to you? If so: I apologize. I'll do better. And you: do you feel any obligation to understand what I say? It seems you do: your responses seem to meet up with mine; our back & forth is coherent. Am I wrong?

Haven't you noticed? The people who demand you agree with them are mental.

You mean here, yeah? Which people? I could name a few who are nutjobs, but not even they have made any demands. Not even biggy small-berries demanded anything (not directly, anyway). Or do you mean in the world? If so: it ain't Christians makin' demands on me, and the ones I know are sane.

Really? How much work have you done to arrive at that conclusion?

Well, let me rephrase: it doesn't seem to me, if you actually work at gettin' to the meanings of, for example, the sermon on the mountain, that you can walk around, as a slaver or a murderer or a rapist or a thief, and legitimately claim you're aligned with Christian principle.

Anyone can claim to be Christian: don't mean they are. The trick is separatin' the wheat from the chaff. Like I told phyllo, I can only judge 'em on how closely they adhere to their stated principles. And, yeah, I've met some hypocrites, but I know some good people as well.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 12:20 am

Tell me the difference and perhaps we can thrash it out.

You laid it out as though it were mine, which it wasn't; you laid it as though it was the only thing on the table, which it isn't.

..please tell me we are not still talking about ones penis?

Very well played, fish. You saw the opportunity and took it, with excellent form and flawless timing.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 1:41 am Very well played, fish. You saw the opportunity and took it, with excellent form and flawless timing.

I have no idea wot u r talkin about. I got outta bed, read some stuff where I left off, and then ...ok ya, I thought it would be funny, and Veg might not get the opportunity to belittle my penis (no pun intended, it is the way God intended (language and my penis))

..anyway, beyond wot uwot said in defence of having a foreskin, i'd also like to point out that some years ago, me n a bunch of my best mates were in a car (not sure if we stole it) were debating about foreskins. Well, it turned out in the car that two of us had our penis as God designed - non chopped - and two didn't. Well, the two of us that didn't turned out, we both had Catholic upbringings (chewing of Christ etc..) and the other two that had had their foreskins lopped off as babies were brought up in secular, indeed atheist families.
Now. the conversation got interesting.
Turns out, my atheist mate (not the Catholic one - not sure if he had turned at that stage) agreed with me - that the foreskin was natural, and would protect the tip of the willy from wear and tear, hence the tip of the dude with the foreskin would remain through his life with a more 'sensitive tip', for sexual pleasure. He got upset with his Mum (but she survived until cancer, so no problem).

AJ: The way your mind works -- super binary! -- is that if you can catch someone in a 'contradiction' you think you've got them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 7:15 pm It's what's called "logic."

Two genuinely mutually contradictory propositions cannot be true at the same time and in the same way. It's Aristotle's Law. It's a good one.

This reminds me of a PM conversation -- you likely have forgotten -- from a number of years back. I proposed to you that there exist other predicate systems that are not based on strict binaries: The Jaina seven-valued logic. The point was not so much that I use this system, but to contrast it with the strict Aristotelean system. Now I agree that within mathematics, for example, a strict and binary logic is good and necessary. But when one speaks of life-philosophy and the full dimensionality of life-experience, a binary system is not highly useful.

You said:

Oh. So you're interested in the fakes, the frauds, the misguided, the lying, the confused, the politically opportunistic, the ill-informed, the posers, the propagandists, and so on? And you're interested in including them in the category of what you call "Christian"?

It is not so much that I am 'interested' in them but that I recognize them. As I said I see you as one! and even though this is true I would not ever completely dismiss you (and what you believe, or the way you see, or what you understand, and what the importance of what you understand is) simply because you are a fraud (more properly stated you have fraud-aspects). I think this is a crucial point or it has been for me in any case.

Then why call any of them "Christian"? They're just "people," you say; but with no further definition, applying the word "Christian" to them is just a distraction.

But let's cut to the chase. What you desire to do is to apply a very strict limit to who is and who is not a Christian. You say that this definition is revealed in the Gospels. I say that it is not -- not enough and not completely is what I mean. This turns back to another conversation in PM from long ago. I assert that the Gospels do not in any sense provide enough information on which to base a Christian Philosophy -- of social organization, economics, social hierarchy, statecraft, conquest, science, ecology, and so much else. The Gospels are extremely limited. And the person of Jesus Christ, representing God's incarnation into human flesh, deals in a very very limited domain of concerns. But immediately thereafter the 'interpretations' began. I suppose that Paul would have to be described as the first major interpreter.

The fact of the matter is that everything that Christian thought entails, all of it was developed later.

So while it it true that in a given society -- a Christian society -- some will be nearly completely uncommitted to Christian values or to living in a Christian way, and others will have a marginal relationship, and then others on the farther end will be more and also greatly committed -- still we are describing a Christian culture. You are free to label them as you wish. I label them just as I have: part of Christian culture.

You haven't the faintest grasp, there. It's the Atheists and Humanists and Materialists, and Marxists, and other such "ists" who are always insisting that sin isn't a thing, and people are really basically good. Christians are one group who've fully embraced the concept of human fallibility.

There are some, let's say, post-Christian philosophers who wish to diminish the relevance of the sin-concept. They seek to examine what Christians mean by *sin* through a different lens and describe sense of shame. To be sinful inherently is different than to be shameful as a result of meditation on one's errors.

The idea of being 'born in sin' is a peculiar emphasis of Judaic-Christian thought but I do not think it is entirely exclusive to Christianity. It has seemed to me that to be born into our world, as it is, is to be born into a world where sinful actions are necessary. But I widen the sense of *sin* to mean acts that are destructive. Life feeds on life, and beings devour other beings: that is the basis of the biological system. And man born into that world will sin no matter what. I suppose it possible to edge away from extreme forms of sinful activity, but never is it possible to get away from it absolutely.

I see 'sin consciousness' as being an ethic that must be taught. In order to *believe it* (and to feel it) one has to have been introduced tot he metaphysical notion that explains it. Personally, I tend to see the idea of The Fall of Man as having a great deal of sense in it. But it does involve a sort of metaphysical prepositionalism: to fall is to fall from one place, or state, to another place or state. Since I can conceive of *worlds* different and distinct from our earth-world I can conceive of worlds that are less morally fraught than our world. And even for Christians there are the 'many mansions' of worlds-beyond -- which imply different levels of existence (even a heavenly hierarchy).

I likely tend to see more of a useful sense in understanding our world as a dog-eat-dog world -- as in Matsya Nyaya. When the world is honestly examined (and this is not hard) one quickly sees what its laws really are. And this is why I see Christian Law as being *an imposition* that comes from outside the real system (and the way things really work). Thus Christianity and the Christian will always be an outlier. This is not lost on me.

AJ: There is a gradation in 'Christian culture'. But it is still Christian culture and it is still (or it was still) 'the Body of Christ'.

IC: If you suppose that, then you haven't any idea what the term "Body of Christ" means, either. It's not cultural. It depends 100% on the internal disposition of the individual purported members being consonant with the character and faith required by Christ. No frauds are allowed.

Again you can only deal in the most strict binaries. I do not *believe in* the utility of such strict definitions. I believe in predicate-perception that allows for more gradation.

Yet I do agree with you that (in reference to 1 Corinthians) that there are defined Christian ethical values.

I assert that the Gospels do not in any sense provide enough information on which to base a Christian Philosophy

If such a philosophy is supposed to offer overt guidance in matters of social organization, economics, social hierarchy, statecraft, conquest, science, ecology, etc.: you're right.

But, of course, Christianity isn't (directly) about social organization, economics, social hierarchy, statecraft, conquest, science, ecology, etc.

Those pursuits and structures can flow out of Christianity: that is, as a Christian, certain paths when it comes to social organization, economics, social hierarchy, statecraft, conquest, science, ecology, etc. are open while others -- a great many others -- are permanently closed.

As I understand it: to be Christian is to follow Christ, as Way into the Kingdom and as model for livin' a life. It's to face God rather than turn away from Him.

Jesus, assaultin' the money changers in the temple, that there sez a lot about what he thought of social organization, economics, social hierarchy, statecraft, conquest, science, ecology, etc.

But: I've said enough...this ain't my horse to ride.