So any historical claim is of necessity non-factual. — Ennui Elucidator
There are those on this thread - and it turns out that you are not amongst them - who choose to deny the facts of early Christianity. They render themselves irrelevant to the main discussion here.
That's why Ennui Elucidator and @Metaphysician Undercover find themselves advocating telling lies. — Banno
Depends on what you mean by inclusivity, fairness, charity, and righteousness.What you say is true but I wonder is there a difference in the foundational nature of government and religion? Is religion not founded on and galvanized by notions of moral correctness and inclusivity and fairness and charity and righteousness, making religion's considerable violations all the more hypocritical and scandalous; — Tom Storm
Funny, our government keeps saying how the vast majority of people in this country do not have access to the truth, and that they (the government) are the defenders of the truth (but that inthe spiriti of democracy, they let others have their opinions, however wrong).while the business of politics is by nature conflictual and partisan? Religion also tends to maintain that it holds the truth, while government rarely gets any more totalizing than expressing broadly held community values.
???I think you're right. Most religions ask unacceptable behavior from followers and seek to impose their often bigoted and unsophisticated views on the world. — Tom Storm
I have never seen any religion make such a claim. Do provide at least three examples of it.But the difference with religion is it makes unverifiable claims about bettering the world.
Religions can offer metaphysical justifications. Something that sewing circles characteristically can't.Religions should stop playing the morality card and recognize that they have nothing to offer that any social club can't offer too.
And more should not be expected from humans than from some animals?
— baker
It should, but we err if we deny our core nature — Michael Zwingli
People calling themselves Christian both proclaimed the legitimacy of slavery and fought for its abolition. Neither group was an apologistor any less Christian than the other. History (constructed as it might be) simply does not bear out an enduring strain of religion from early adoption through hundreds of years of people carrying on its name, iconography, or myths. Even in its foundation Christianity had multiplicity of thought with warring factions, some of which continued on and some which were snuffed out. — Ennui Elucidator
Where you go wrong is in assuming that they secretly believe they've done something wrong.The problem is the Christian denial of the less tasteful aspects of their history. — Banno
And at what cost!To all, Christianity introduced charity is a way that was not found in other religions and philosophies. They built hospitals and freed slaves, things previously unheard of. — Banno
Yes.if one allows religion not to be factually correct, to consist in metaphor and allegory, for the betterment of mankind, then does that mean it need not be honest?
That can't be, as the term "tragic", as it is used in Greek classical literature, can be used only in reference to royals, but not the commoners, and not even to aristocracy. Drowning a baby prince, heir to the throne, is a tragedy. Terrorists blowing up a bus of schoolchildren (none of whom is a royal), is not.To my eye, and I suppose you will agree, the dive into darkness that followed the destruction of classical culture was tragic. — Banno
Your ideas about the value of honesty need to be supported. Being a philosopher, I'm sure you are aware of "the noble lie". That the noble lie is somehow wrong, or immoral, is a very difficult claim to support. We might support it with the principle of "equality", but equality isn't real so as much as it might provide a legal base, it provides no moral base.
We might try a Christian principle like love your neighbour, but for some reason we still see the efficacy in lying to those whom we love.
Where do you derive the idea that the betterment of mankind might be accomplished without dishonesty? — Metaphysician Undercover
No, it requires more than that. Belief in the historicity of Jesus is essential to Christianity. One has to believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, or else the whole project of salvation becomes moot.The object isn't to take Jesus. It's just to note that whether he actually walked the earth and did the things suggested shouldn't matter. So the claim goes, salvation from eternal damnation requires faith that Jesus died for your sins. — Hanover
What a strange idea. People don't believe that "even the coldest souls are capable of redemption" based on the story of Ebenezer Scrooge.If we learned there were no actual Ebenezer Scrooge or Tiny Tim, would the moral that even the coldest souls are capable of redemption be impacted? — Hanover
The type of problem you point to comes from reading literature primarily in a didactic, ideological sense, from reducing literature to a didactic, ideological message. It's a moralistic approach typical for American literary theory, but it is far from universal. It's not how we would read literature in continental Europe, for example.That there was no talking fox means his sour grapes story is bullshit?
But this didn't do away with interreligious competition. On the contrary, it made it worse, far worse.Also, to throw this in there, the evolution to monotheism was a positive moment in the intellectual history of humanity. It moved us from a world of competing anthropomorphic physical gods to a single incorporeal conceptual god posited to offer meaning and generalized explanations for the our existence. — Hanover
Yet Jesus himself didn't turn the other cheek.What do we learn from this story? Kindness to evil is a sin. Compare and contrast to "turn the other cheek." Different ethical principles I guess, which is why the word "Judeo-Christian" ethics makes no sense to me. — Hanover
So "Christian" is a term like "white", "black", "Scottish", ie. it's not a term denoting a particular quality or set of qualities, but a term that is not specifically linked to any quality, but is merely a name? — baker
Which brings us deep into Humpty Dumpty land.Unless we are religious ourselves, i.e. have a vested interest in who gets to define the word, it is more "intellectually honest" to both recognize and affirm the various uses of a term in the variety of contexts in which it is used. — Ennui Elucidator
Of course. A discussion of religion should be about what is normative in it. Focusing merely on the descriptive is an exercise in politically correct futility, for that way, anything goes, and anything can pass for anything.A claim of what is "essential" about Christianity is normative, not descriptive.
By "factually incorrect" you mean what?
That there is no heaven, no eternal damnation, and no nibbana?
— baker
Pretty much. Also that Jesus probably didn't do any miracles, etc. — stoicHoneyBadger
Then Dawkins clearly didn't think this through.1. Dawkins focuses on the fact of Islam, or Christianity or any other religion being factually incorrect.
But what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion? — stoicHoneyBadger
Of course. A discussion of religion should be about what is normative in it. Focusing merely on the descriptive is an exercise in politically correct futility, for that way, anything goes, and anything can pass for anything. — baker
ON BAPTISM
CANON I.-If any one saith, that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that one who has been baptized cannot, even if he would, lose grace, let him sin ever so much, unless he will not believe; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the baptized are freed from all the precepts, whether written or transmitted, of holy Church, in such wise that they are not bound to observe them, unless they have chosen of their own accord to submit themselves thereunto; let him be anathema.
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that the resemblance of the baptism which they have received is so to be recalled unto men, as that they are to understand, that all vows made after baptism are void, in virtue of the promise already made in that baptism; as if, by those vows, they both derogated from that faith which they have professed, and from that baptism itself; let him be anathema.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that by the sole remembrance and the faith of the baptism which has been received, all sins committed after baptism are either remitted, or made venial; let him be anathema.
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that baptism, which was true and rightly conferred, is to be repeated, for him who has denied the faith of Christ amongst Infidels, when he is converted unto penitence; let him be anathema.
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that no one is to be baptized save at that age at which Christ was baptized, or in the very article of death; let him be anathema.
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.
CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema. — Council of Trent Session 7
For your reading pleasure - the Catholic Church in response to the Reformation... — Ennui Elucidator
So when the Protestants claimed that the Catholics weren't Christian and the Catholics claimed that the Protestants weren't, one of them magically ceased to be Christian? Or maybe you think that the Catholics never created their own litmus test for what a true Christian was that is in opposition to what other groups defined as a true Christian? — Ennui Elucidator
We must agree on a meaning of a term (in this case, of "Christian"), or we better cease discussing. — baker
The difference between us, Baker, is that you probably don't know the religious people that I know. It is tough to have a serious conversation about modern religion with a person that is committed to fighting religious battles from prior to the 1950s. Yes, lots of people haven't moved on. Many in the intellectual community have. — Ennui Elucidator
And the limits of this approach have been reached in the OP of this thread.We don't have to agree on what the word means for other people, we merely have to use the word in a way that facilitates further conversation. — Ennui Elucidator
Useful to whom? Someone who wishes to paint religion as impotent? To excuse it? To make it seem less formidable?One can speak of Christianity usefully without drawing distinct boundaries around its usage.
So in the name of the politically correct love of novelty and "moving on", we should summarily envision religion as impotent, ineffective, and most of all, non-factual, so that we can come up with a theory of religion that is currently fashionable and enables us to stay relevant in the current business of academic writing about religion? — baker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.