Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

IC has provided a clear and appropriate definition of "Christianity", namely (my paraphrasing) "The ethics, behaviour, rituals, and beliefs based directly in the teachings of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible".

Why must I 'provide' as you say a definition?

In any case, I believe I have offered a wide-ranging definition of what I call 'the structure of belief' in this post. Can you tell me why it is that the expansive definition of what Christian belief arises against that I did offer (since I do see it as interposing) is inadequate in your view. What is lacking?

You have not. You refuse to do so. You refuse (unless I am misremembering my reading of this thread) even to explain what is wrong with IC's definition. Note that I am not saying that it is impossible that there is something wrong with his definition, just that, prima facie, given that the name of the guy on which the religion is based is part of the religion's name, it's perfectly appropriate to include him heavily when defining the religion.

I do not have any issue with his definition. His definition, largely, is standard material available in any general primer of Christian belief. I do though note that he is a radical Protestant, and Protestantism is a relatively modern phenomenon.In some posts I have referred to 'hopping over' what Christianity actually became and was and, from a modern perspective, redefining it. Is this 'wrong'? I did not describe it as such. To take such a view results, however, in distortion of what Christianity actually has been.

In any case, the most compelling personal argument I can make for why "wishy-washy" is a fair term is that despite reading through this entire thread - and I think that I am a fair and reasonable reader - I as yet have no idea how to paraphrase your definition of "Christianity" anywhere near as clearly as I am able to paraphrase IC's. I simply have no idea what it is, and you seem to find it of no importance to provide it.

Again why is my stated and declared version of 'what Christianity is' necessary for you? I do not understand what you are asking for.

If you were to ask me, say, what is the 'value' of holding to the Christian belief-system I think I could grasp that. What is it that you want from me? If I did offer some 'definition; it would be along these lines. Is that not adequate for you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's a strawman. I don't care how you present it, whether as a list, an essay, or a downloadable Mind Bomb. I'm just seeking something more specific than you default to. In any case, so what if I wanted a Reader's Digest version? If it is compelling content, then why couldn't it be summarised in that format?

I disagree. Not a strawman. It is part of the issue. I find that many people who have fallen away from what I repeatingly descibe as 'our traditions'; who have not been sufficiently schooled in them, prepared through them, struggle to understand a great deal. You will object here because by saying a 'great deal' I am referring to something undefined. But my view is that one, we, have to be schooled in a whole range of base-information in order to be able to grasp many dimensions of 'higher thought'.

I have recently provided you with a 'metaphysical picture' that in my view succinctly explains how Christianity defines itself. Why, I ask, is this not intelligible to you? What is it insufficient? What more do you want?

And I have already told you: To write an essay, and a series of essays on why Christianity has and has had inestimable importance within the Occident is quite simply beyond my personal capabilities at this time. However, I made significant references which you have not commented on. Why?

[Harry Baird]

Why must I 'provide' as you say a definition?

Why do you ask a question which I've already answered?:

We are on a philosophy forum. Philosophy is the quest for wisdom through clear thinking. Clear definitions are essential to clear thought, or at least to the clear communication of thought.

If you don't want to engage in philosophical processes, then why are you writing in to a philosophy forum?

In any case, I believe I have offered a wide-ranging definition of what I call 'the structure of belief' in this post. Can you tell me why it is that the expansive definition of what Christian belief arises against that I did offer (since I do see it as interposing) is inadequate in your view. What is lacking?

Hmm. I don't think that there is anything inadequate in what you wrote in that post - from the perspective of conveying your views, albeit that we do not see eye to eye on everything in it. I responded to it quite positively, and then I responded again to your follow-up. I make these references to indicate that I am engaging with your ideas and am not ignoring them.

That said, nowhere in your posts to date has there been a clear and succinct definition of Christianity, let alone one which is plausible and generally acceptable. You might not care. Fine. But you're on a philosophy forum where others might well care. You're also offering critiques (and defences) of Christianity. Might it not be useful to carefully define that which you're critiquing (or defending) before critiquing (or defending) it?

In some posts I have referred to 'hopping over' what Christianity actually became and was and, from a modern perspective, redefining it.

Bingo. This gets at the heart of the problem. You speak of a "redefining" of Christianity, which implies an original or default definition - but you haven't supplied one! You just imply or assume it! Or otherwise just instruct us to "do your own work and read this book".

[Harry Baird]

I find that many people who have fallen away from what I repeatingly descibe as 'our traditions'; who have not been sufficiently schooled in them, prepared through them, struggle to understand a great deal. You will object here because by saying a 'great deal' I am referring to something undefined.

I'm reminded here of the truism (paraphrased): "You don't understand something fully until you can explain it succinctly to an eight year old".

I have recently provided you with a 'metaphysical picture' that in my view succinctly explains how Christianity defines itself. Why, I ask, is this not intelligible to you? What is it insufficient? What more do you want?

As I pointed out in my previous response: I am engaging with your ideas. It is not that they are insufficient as such. My "complaint" if I could be said to have one is that you allude to various truths which lie behind Christian "Stories", and you applaud the great value in Christianity (despite that you are not a Christian), and yet you never explain what these truths and values are!

And I have already told you: To write an essay, and a series of essays on why Christianity has and has had inestimable importance within the Occident is quite simply beyond my personal capabilities at this time.

So, go for the Reader's Digest version then. Pretend that I'm eight years old. Surely you have the capacity for at least *that*.

However, I made significant references which you have not commented on.

I'm not aware of any significant references you've made that I haven't commented on. Can you please redirect me to them?

Why?

It can only be because I overlooked them. As I wrote, I'm not aware of any.

[Immanuel Can]

So to declare the bible as the standard of reality would, I agree, logically not require a consensus since revealed truth and reality does not require agreement if such is presupposed.

That's kind of the reverse of what I said: not that "The Bible is the standard of reality," (though in a way, it is), but that "reality is the right test to use on questions of both science and of 'religion.'"

It is as it stands. Of course, and here I think you would agree, that necessitates accepting the bible as a narrative literally true from cover to cover being itself the revelation of it.

As I was saying to Harry, that requires a careful specifying of what is meant by "literal." There are "literal" readings that are not plausible or Biblical, such as any that mangle parables or metaphors. But these are identified by the text itself: so ultimately a person who recognizes them is more "literal" (in the sense of 'reading correctly') than somebody who does not, even though the reading of the latter is more "literal" in a crass sense.

So, to illustrate, somebody who reads a parable as "literal," as if it were talking about real people when they are only metaphors, is less Biblical that somebody who notices that the Bible says, "And Jesus spoke this parable, saying..."

That's an important nuancing of the answer.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you don't want to engage in philosophical processes, then why are you writing in to a philosophy forum?

That's a red herring. I do not know exactly what 'philosophical processes' -- I engage in conversation here on topical themes -- are and yet I write, day after day, in order to communicate my thoughts in clear prose. Is this not sufficient? What in your view is lacking?

You seem to me to be asking for a definition. What is lacking in the definitions that I have provided, and linked to right now? What precisely do you want? and what is lacking?

Hmm. I don't think that there is anything inadequate in what you wrote in that post.

Very well. Then what is the problem that you have?

Bingo. This gets at the heart of the problem. You speak of a "redefining" of Christianity, which implies an original or default definition - but you haven't supplied one! You just imply or assume it! Or otherwise just instruct us to "do your own work and read this book".

Do I need to supply one?Do you yourself lack a grasp of what are the basic tenets of Christian belief?

Is something like this adequate for you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm not aware of any significant references you've made that I haven't commented on. Can you please redirect me to them?

Here

[Immanuel Can]

[*] The Garden of Eden, and in particular whether or not it is a literal location on planet Earth, and, if not, where its literal location is.

Well, the narrative itself tells you that nobody can find that garden again, so it's not reasonable to suppose, in either case, that it should be floating around Mesapotamia or something.

I had a big discussion with people about this elsewhere. But yes, I do believe that an original mating pair is how the human race came to be. Now, you can call them whatever you like, but any biological theory would have to agree that humanity had to have its origins in a suitable mating pair. There's no alternate theory, except the old "Punctuated Equilibrium" or "Magic Monster" theory, which nobody how holds.

[*] Noahs' Ark, and whether that vessel contained two of every creature on Earth, and whether the planet was repopulated solely from those creatures.

Flood narratives are among the most common narratives in ancient history. Most cultures have one. And that's very interesting.

[*] Jonah living in the belly of a whale for several days.

If one believes there's a God, why not? On what theory would one say, "Well, there is a Supreme Being who made everything, but he's not capable of keeping one of his creatures alive?" It seems to me that the sticking point is not on Jonah, but on the existence of the Supreme Being.

But this gets to an important point: that we could disbelieve in all three, and we would still have to face the reality of Jesus Christ. That's the real centerpiece of the Biblical narrative, and of Christianity itself. And a person who disbelieved in all of the things you list, for whatever reason he felt he had, yet had the right attitude to Jesus Christ has the basics of what he needs to be a Christian.

Nobody will be sent to Hell for disbelieving in Jonah's whale. But disbelieving in Jonah's God would be quite a different thing.

[Alexis Jacobi]

As I was saying to Harry, that requires a careful specifying of what is meant by "literal."

You seem to evade the entire question and thus the problem. All aspects of the Genesis stories, every single elementt, is mythological narrative. Gardens, people created out of thin air and dropped into the world, snakes that are emissaries of Satan, expulsions, and each and every history and description that follows. All of these things, each one of them, are now unbelievable to many people. The reason? They are fantastic tales.

Even and specially the escape from Egypt -- sorry to burst your bubble! It is a fantasy-story, a story about a heroic God who saves his people through an impossible event.

Stop this BS about 'seeking more information' and 'honing the definitions'. This is game.

If you want to or if you need to believe these things and if your believe depends on believing fantastic things, why should anyone stop you? (I sound like uwot!) But you cannot assert that any part of these things are 'true'. And if you actually believe they are true and real, I submit that you become a problem that requires a careful conversation to get to the core of why this is.

If one believes there's a God, why not? On what theory would one say, "Well, there is a Supreme Being who made everything, but he's not capable of keeping one of his creatures alive?" It seems to me that the sticking point is not on Jonah, but on the existence of the Supreme Being.

And here you have stated, clearly, why you hold to these odd beliefs that most today cannot. Sure, if the God defined as the absolute magician is real -- you certainly believe that -- then yes, anything is possible! But why stop there?

[Immanuel Can]

As I was saying to Harry, that requires a careful specifying of what is meant by "literal."

You seem to evade the entire question and thus the problem.

Not at all. You should read my answer to him. I'm very specific about what I mean.

Even and specially the escape from Egypt -- sorry to burst your bubble! It is a fantasy-story, a story about a heroic God who saves his people through an impossible event.

"Impossible," you say? So you think that even if there were a Supreme Being, the one thing he could never do is save anybody? It's hard to see why you think that. But maybe you can say...

Stop this BS about 'seeking more information' and 'honing the definitions'.

Your allergy to precision will be the death of your favourite theory. It's your own lack of a basic definition of your key term that makes everything you say afterward into unverifiable speculation.

However, that's your problem, not mine. And I'm no longer very optimistic you'll ever realize that and save your own theory.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Impossible," you say? So you think that even if there were a Supreme Being, the one thing he could never do is save anybody? It's hard to see why you think that. But maybe you can say...

You have just begun another rehearsal of the phenomenal games that you play. Carry on . . .

[Harry Baird]

You seem to me to be asking for a definition. What is lacking in the definitions that I have provided, and linked to right now?

By "linked to right now" I take it you mean this:

Is something like this adequate for you?

A twenty page long definition seems unnecessarily long.

More generally, what's lacking in the definitions you have provided is that you haven't provided any!

What precisely do you want? and what is lacking?

Here's a working definition of Christianity that I imagine you might propose:

"Christianity is a system of religious belief the origins of which are claimed to be in the teachings of an historical Jewish person named Jesus, later christened as Christ by his followers in recognition of their belief that He was (is) the Jewish Messiah based on his claimed resurrection; a religious belief that was universalised beyond Jews to all peoples. Because [I, AJ, believe, that] Jesus is not a valid religious authority, the naming of the religion after him is merely nominal, and does not reflect any authority that might be claimed of him, and His (merely claimed) authority need not be respected. Instead, Christianity is properly [according to me, AJ] defined as the workings out of, extrapolations of, and additions to ideas in the nascent religion by later scholars and religious institutions, including the Catholic Church and the scholastics, and is only loosely derived from a literal understanding of the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels - which, indeed, are of questionable veracity when it comes to recordings of literal historical fact. Christianity is thus a malleable body of ideas only nominally based in the teachings of Jesus [who was not, according to me, AJ, literally] the Christ, which any suitably respectable religious figures and scholars might add to, delete from, or extend."

Yes?

Hmm. I don't think that there is anything inadequate in what you wrote in that post.

Very well. Then what is the problem that you have?

Here's what I wrote previously:

My "complaint" if I could be said to have one is that you allude to various truths which lie behind Christian "Stories", and you applaud the great value in Christianity (despite that you are not a Christian), and yet you never explain what these truths and values are!

I'm not aware of any significant references you've made that I haven't commented on. Can you please redirect me to them?

Here

But I've responded to that post, here. Yes, it was a brief response, but I read your original closely, and didn't consider it to require a deeper response. If you think it does, then let me know.

[Immanuel Can]

"Impossible," you say? So you think that even if there were a Supreme Being, the one thing he could never do is save anybody? It's hard to see why you think that. But maybe you can say...

You have just begun another rehearsal of the phenomenal games that you play. Carry on . . .

I'm waiting for you to explain how the Supreme Being would be "supreme," and still be unable to keep a human being alive. It was your question: I just want to know what you were thinking when you asked it.

[Dubious]

So, to illustrate, somebody who reads a parable as "literal," as if it were talking about real people when they are only metaphors, is less Biblical that somebody who notices that the Bible says, "And Jesus spoke this parable, saying..."

That's an important nuancing of the answer.

Well, obviously! When Jesus or anyone speaks in parables one takes the literal meaning of parable for what it is namely a story that conveys a message external to the main text. People, children and adults love stories! Something which can be meaningful, though somewhat abstract are best rendered in a manner which makes the message clear giving it a poetic ambiance. Such stories well told do that whether in the bible or elsewhere. Importantly as well, such stories are easier to remember.

Parable-like features in the form of small morality plays are themselves encapsulated in fairy tales, meaning that in spite of its deceptive label, fairy tales can be serious business!

[Harry Baird]

[*] The Garden of Eden, and in particular whether or not it is a literal location on planet Earth, and, if not, where its literal location is.

Well, the narrative itself tells you that nobody can find that garden again, so it's not reasonable to suppose, in either case, that it should be floating around Mesapotamia or something.

Can you please be clear as to whether (in your view) The Garden of Eden was or wasn't on planet Earth?

I do believe that an original mating pair is how the human race came to be.

I see. How does this square with God's moral proscription against incest?

[*] Noahs' Ark, and whether that vessel contained two of every creature on Earth, and whether the planet was repopulated solely from those creatures.

Flood narratives are among the most common narratives in ancient history. Most cultures have one. And that's very interesting.

I see. Am I then to understand that you endorse the historical reality of Noah's Ark, being a vessel containing two of every creature on Earth, from which the planet was solely repopulated?

If your answer is "Yes", then, again, how does this square with God's moral proscription against incest? Does it not apply to animals?

[*] Jonah living in the belly of a whale for several days.

If one believes there's a God, why not?

Sure, we might well ask "Why not?" (and I personally would), but I'm actually asking you: do you believe that it literally happened? It's OK to be direct and succinct. A yes/no answer is fine.