There's a dying man, who talks of God. The discussions help mend long held grudges and unsettled feelings. The man dies with a peace and contentment that came as a result of the God talk.

Waste of time?

These scenarios are endless. No one knows exactly why people talk about such things. No one knows the causal affects/effects of all such practices.

The OP mistakenly presupposes that there has never been a goal reached by virtue of God talk.

The only way all questions of God and all God talk could be a waste of time is if there were never a goal reached by virtue of God talk.

There have been goals reached by virtue of God talk.

Therefore, not all God talk is a waste of time.

If any instance of God talk resulted in doing good, and all God talk is a waste of time, then God talk that resulted in doing good is a waste of time.

That’s all very nice. It’s not philosophy in the sense I mean. I don’t agree with your particular characterization. So my former point stands. — Mikie

What kind of argument is that? You're basically saying, "I don't agree with you so I'm right and you're wrong. That's not an argument, and it's not doing philosophy.

Your question was sloppily phrased.
I try not to make assumptions about what other people mean. — DingoJones

Yep— I should have specified. I was in part building off of an earlier response that didn’t involve you, so you had no way of knowing.

“Why or why not should the above be taken seriously, philosophically speaking? Let’s assume the imagined interlocutor can give loads of delusional reasons and evidence and arguments.“ — DingoJones

Well, kind of. My point is that everyone has arguments and reasons, and I added that because in another discussion it didn’t seem obvious. No one will come right out and say they have no reasons, nor will they say they’re delusional. It’s up to us to figure that out.

With that being said, the question stands— is this easier to ignore than other claims? I say it is for a simple enough reason: it’s completely made up by me. I think you must agree with this somehow. You wouldn’t really waste time on any of my questions, because it’s just fabricated nonsense. Right?



Yes indeed!

What kind of argument is that? You're basically saying, "I don't agree with you so I'm right and you're wrong. That's not an argument, and it's not doing philosophy. — Sam26

No, I’m not saying I’m right. I’m saying I have a different definition of philosophy. I said that before, too. Yours is fine— but that’s not what I’m meaning when I use the term.

With that being said, the question stands— is this easier to ignore than other claims? I say it is for a simple enough reason: it’s completely made up by me. I think you must agree with this somehow. You wouldn’t really waste time on any of my questions, because it’s just fabricated nonsense. Right? — Mikie

Correct, if all someone has is a story then their idea shouldnt be treated any differently than any other story. Also, we should treat those criminals over there like criminals, and those yonder cows? Lets mix it up and treat them like cows.
Im not seeing the philosophy here.
You say you want theists to lay down their delusional beliefs but theists do not consider them delusional so again, who is it that you are directing this at? Not theists obviously, surely not atheists either since they would be compelled by their atheist position to include all the religion/god myths the same.
So what’s your point? All you have done is petition believers to lay down delusions they do not believe they possess. (I of course concede you made an argument, you just might as well have made it to a rock) You don’t seem to have any takers and I’m finding it hard to believe you are surprised to be honest.

I don't know quite what you mean by 'taking the religious claims seriously?' Are you including their claims of witnessing supernatural events?

No, I just mean accepting some points for the sake of argument. We do the same things in proofs by double negation; assume x and see where that leads us. Taking a claim seriously just means not putting it on par with Santa Klaus and sports.

I personally think the platonic idea of the existence of such as an ideal chair or an ideal philosophy is BS. Do such proposals still hold value in modern philosophy?

I initially felt the same way. I still don't like abstract objects, but I can see why they are so popular now.

Things like Plato's forms, now called universals, are part of a larger class of entities in modern philosophy called "abstract objects." These include propositions (descriptions of the world with a true/false value), numbers and other mathematical objects, and some other types. They are still very popular.

They're even popular among physicists. Penrose has a quote to the effect of "the Platonic realm of numbers seems more real...," and you have theories like the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, which posits that the universe is a mathematical object, or "It From Bit," that the universe is composed of information, which are quite popular.

Plenty of people have wanted to do away with universals but it isn't easy. Partly, this has to do with set theory and using properties to decide who goes in which set. But there is plenty of opposition to them too.

Any bigotry is projection on the readers’ part.

You were taught these stories as a child. Anyone who thinks them through, if they’re strong enough, will just let them go as cultural fairytales — on par with Santa Klaus and caring about the National Football League.

IDK, this seems to imply that the religious are simply weak minded simpletons, unable to let go of past conditioning. And in any event, it seems like a very narrow diagnosis seeing as how there are many people who grow up in adamantly atheist households who become religious in adulthood, or even middle age (and the reverse happens plenty enough too).

Plus, the comparison fails because Tom Brady IS a Greek God. Or at least a son on Zeus. Babe Ruth? Another obvious demigod, look at his slugging average.



Historical context matters in philosophy, particularly in the Continental tradition. I wouldn't want to paint Continental philosophy in too broad a brush, but one popular idea in the tradition is that history matters. History shapes how we do philosophy and the philosopher is a historical actor. Your initial post seems based on this first part; we are products of our culture, what comes before.

History and philosophy reveal man to be finite. There is no absolute standpoint from which to view truth, reality, etc. The Analytic "view from nowhere," is rejected. If such a view exists, we cannot have access to it. Thus, finite man must always be viewed contextually. We cannot look at "just the arguments," we have to look at the context.

So, on this view, someone asking about some made up God simply lacks the context that asking about Christ would have.

Why Christianity and not Hinduism? You're on an English language site, and Christianity is by far and away the most popular religion in the Anglophone world and it is the most relevant religion for Western philosophy. If you were on a Hindi site, you would see more references to Hindu Gods. No one is going to be particularly interested in a made up God who is only a stand in for some point about pluralism. This goes to the point made above re: context.

Just that they shouldn’t be treated as special — IF, and this is very important and maybe I wasn’t clear about, you assume Christianity is indeed one religion among others.

But if you are an adherent of a religion then you do think that your religion is special. This is just begging the question. I don't expect an idealist to treat idealism the same as any other ontology and I don't expect a Muslim to treat Islam like any other religion.

So what’s your point? All you have done is petition believers to lay down delusions they do not believe they possess. — DingoJones

As the disclaimer notes, I’m not aiming this at believers. I’m aiming this at those who are interested in questioning; in philosophy. That can be anyone— Christian or non-Christian, Hindu or non-Hindu. Those who recognize whatever religion they happen to be brought up in as one of many stories.

Given this situation, I would argue it’s just as much a waste of time to give special attention to Shiva (because one happened to be raised in India) or God (because one happened to be raised in the West) as it is to Xhandizi. It’s all perhaps interesting in an anthropological sense— but we needn’t give it extra weight or seriousness based on cultural familiarity. I see it done often — especially by atheists, in fact. So my advice is based on personal feeling, of course — but I think it’s potentially useful. Just let it go. I speak from experience in fact.

As for those who really do believe, and don’t view Christianity (or pick a religion) as just one of others, but assign it extra importance because it’s their faith— well, let them be happy with that. It’s not my business to tell people what to believe or to upbraid them for not being secular enough or whatever. Especially if they’re kind and moral people, of which I know many. My advice doesn’t even apply to them.

You were taught these stories as a child. Anyone who thinks them through, if they’re strong enough, will just let them go as cultural fairytales — on par with Santa Klaus and caring about the National Football League.

IDK, this seems to imply that the religious are simply weak minded simpletons, unable to let go of past conditioning. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I see that now. I didn’t mean that exactly— by “strong enough” I’m referring to how difficult it is to make that transition. It’s extremely hard. But I’m aiming this at those who already have done so, or at least are close to doing so. I’ve met people who describe themselves as Christian who even agree with Nietzsche’s characterization!

But no, to be clear: I don’t consider Christian people — or Muslim people, or Hindu people, or followers of Shinto, etc —to be simpleminded or weak minded on account that they don’t share my view of their religions as cultural phenomena (on par with languages or music) and not deserving of any special attention. To them I assume it’s very special indeed.

I don't expect an idealist to treat idealism the same as any other ontology and I don't expect a Muslim to treat Islam like any other religion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well I consider this a kind of dogmatism, and especially so if it’s simply due to the happenstance of upbringing.

Why shouldn’t we treat idealism as any other ontology? At some point we should, no? Maybe we’re convinced by it and grant it special importance, but that’s further down the road — and definitively not simply because it was the ideology of our family.

By my conception of philosophy, we should be free to question everything. If we aren’t willing to, that’s fine— but then whatever else this activity may be, it isn’t philosophy.

For many, abstract thinking is toil; for me, on good days, it is feast and frenzy. Abstract thinking a feast? The highest form of human existence? … The feast implies: pride, exuberance, frivolity; mockery of all earnestness and respectability; a divine affirmation of oneself, out of animal plenitude and perfection—all obviously states to which the Christian may not honestly say Yes. The feast is paganism par excellence. For that reason, we might add that thinking never takes place in Christianity. That is to say, there is no Christian philosophy. There is no true philosophy that could be determined anywhere else than from within itself.

Do you think that what "most" think is important? — Janus

When it comes to politics and economy, very much so.

The openness I'm speaking about is the absence of egoic interests. If you haven't encountered that in people, all I can suggest is that you get out more. Did you perchance know Mother Theresa and Gandhi personally? — Janus

You're addressing poetic truths. I'm addressing the technicality of reality. No person is devoid of ego, of I-ness - unless they happen to be comatose. Besides, I haven't commented on what you should do with your life. Please don't comment on what I should do with mine.

I don't see why not since this thread has hardly been a paragon of staying on topic, and I wouldn't see such a discussion as being off-topic anyway. Mikie was not just addressing God and Christianity, which should be clear if you read the OP. If you want to argue for reincarnation, then you must think it is special, so have at it...or not...but if not, then be honest and say you don't want to instead of hiding behind the excuse that it would be off-topic. — Janus

I stated that I disagree with your views on reincarnation. It directly addresses identity of being. You rely on a theory of identity based on memory: In short, you uphold that what you cannot remember as yourself is not yourself. I find this faulty in numerous ways. The ontology/metaphysics of personal identity is, however, an expansive and cumbersome topic, one that I have no interest in currently engaging in, and one that has nothing to do with the "special-ness" or lack of religious beliefs. That ought to clarify that.

As the disclaimer notes, I’m not aiming this at believers. I’m aiming this at those who are interested in questioning; in philosophy. That can be anyone— Christian or non-Christian, Hindu or non-Hindu. Those who recognize whatever religion they happen to be brought up in as one of many stories. — Mikie

Yes, my point being that that criteria doesnt apply to anyone. If a believer thought their religion was just a bunch of stories they wouldnt be a believer. You are petitioning the wind sir.

If a believer thought their religion was just a bunch of stories they wouldnt be a believer. — DingoJones

It’s rare perhaps, but not as rare as you’d think. Tradition and identity go a long way. What’s so great about belief?

Anyway— I’m surprised you didn’t ask whether it’s impossible to be a believer and do philosophy; i.e., whether a Christian philosophy is possible. I’d have answered in the negative.

It’s rare perhaps, but not as rare as you’d think. Tradition and identity go a long way. What’s so great about belief? — Mikie

Asking the wrong guy, I have no idea.

Anyway— I’m surprised you didn’t ask whether it’s impossible to be a believer and do philosophy; i.e., whether a Christian philosophy is possible. I’d have answered in the negative. — Mikie

Why would that surprise you? It would depend on how strictly one defines philosophy, I dont buy into a strict definition of philosophy. Save that for strict academic settings. To do philosophy is simple, wonder about something and maybe mention it to some others and see if they have anything to say about it. Philosophy. So yes, a theist reflecting on god and the possibilities of the concept is philosophy. Call it bad philosophy if you like but it’s still an attempt at knowledge and answering difficult questions. That’s philosophy in my books.

:kiss:

When it comes to politics and economy, very much so. — javra

Do you mean important for determining what will come about in politics and economy, or determining the truth or determining whether there is a truth?

In any case the issue was whether or not material prosperity is necessary for happiness or will necessarily make those who have it happier than those who don't. In that connection the issue of what actually will happen politically and economically seems irrelevant.

You're addressing poetic truths. I'm addressing the technicality of reality. No person is devoid of ego, of I-ness - unless they happen to be comatose. Besides, I haven't commented on what you should do with your life. Please don't comment on what I should do with mine. — javra

I'm not addressing poetic truths but the question of whether an attitude of openness is more likely to lead to happiness than an attitude of closedness. Also I don't agree that no person is devoid of ego; I think it is possible, and some of the reports of people like Ramana Maharshi reinforce that opinion. I don't claim to know for sure that it is possible, but then in order to know it is impossible I would have to know everyone on the planet, which is itself impossible.

I have encountered people with varying degrees of ego-focus, some intensely egotistical and others seemingly with little (I won't say no) ego, and that was why I suggested getting out more. I think it is most likely a spectrum, from extreme egotism to none.

It directly addresses identity of being. You rely on a theory of identity based on memory: — javra

That's because I understand identity as being an idea; I don't think anyone actually is an identity; I think that is an illusion based on the fact of difference, which makes people identifiable. Identifiability is as far as identity goes in my view. Anyway, it doesn't bother me if you don't want to discuss it further.

@Mikie I think some softer liberal wishy-washy Christians would agree with you. They think all the God stuff is true, but recognise that the imagery and vocabulary they approach the matter with are culturally relative.

As the disclaimer notes, I’m not aiming this at believers. I’m aiming this at those who are interested in questioning; in philosophy. That can be anyone— Christian or non-Christian, Hindu or non-Hindu. Those who recognize whatever religion they happen to be brought up in as one of many stories.

Given this situation, I would argue it’s just as much a waste of time to give special attention to Shiva (because one happened to be raised in India) or God (because one happened to be raised in the West) as it is to Xhandizi. It’s all perhaps interesting in an anthropological sense— but we needn’t give it extra weight or seriousness based on cultural familiarity. I see it done often — especially by atheists, in fact. So my advice is based on personal feeling, of course — but I think it’s potentially useful. Just let it go. I speak from experience in fact. — Mikie

Have you realised yet that this thread is a waste of time? I sometimes refer to Aesop's fables. They are morally instructive, even for people who do not believe in talking foxes. I refer to stories I am familiar with and that are widely understood. I will continue to do so, and also to bible stories because they permeate the culture and still shape our thinking whether we are aware of it or not. I prefer to be aware of it. It is convenient and communicative to speak of the Good Samaritan as the epitome of kindness to strangers, and I would rather leave the site than be silent about the wisdom and beauty of such tales. And I think there is a deal of support here for my views. Likewise, the Book of Job is wonderful philosophical approach to the problem of evil, and particularly 'natural evil'.

Your advice is bad advice, to deprive oneself of much wisdom from the past because of some fantastic elements and the limitations of factual knowledge of the time. It is Philistinism, and antihistorical. Furthermore it functions to give those stories more potency in the mind that rejects them - your own mind. Your advice is irrational — stories are not harmful, but illuminating.

In that case, don't take a simplistic view, but instead a nuanced one, and condemn the nefarious purposes and not religion as a whole. It's pretty obvious that most things in human life have both positive and negative aspects. — Janus

Perhaps its your assessment/interpretation of my postings that cause you to judge my viewpoints as simplistic. That's not my problem, it's more your inability to interpret my postings in the same way I do.
I fully accept that this is a very common circumstance, that we have no choice but to each endure in our own way.

No, I just mean accepting some points for the sake of argument. We do the same things in proofs by double negation; assume x and see where that leads us. Taking a claim seriously just means not putting it on par with Santa Klaus and sports. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I broadly agree. I am willing to travel down a path such as 'ok, lets assume Jesus was a real boy, then.....' etc. But it becomes rather ridiculous when we take a path such as, ok, lets assume Jesus did come alive again after being dead for three days...... Well ........ I might even take that path, if the argument was that Jesus was secretly injected with borg nanoprobes, from one of the drones (who was also using a Klingon cloaking device) from a time travelling borg cube, and that's why he became alive again.
Now there's a fun episode of Star Trek the evanhellicals would probably enjoy ....... or would they?

Things like Plato's forms, now called universals, are part of a larger class of entities in modern philosophy called "abstract objects." These include propositions (descriptions of the world with a true/false value), numbers and other mathematical objects, and some other types. They are still very popular. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for that info, Any info that adds to my knowledge of modern philosophy is welcome.

They're even popular among physicists. Penrose has a quote to the effect of "the Platonic realm of numbers seems more real...," and you have theories like the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, which posits that the universe is a mathematical object, or "It From Bit," that the universe is composed of information, which are quite popular. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, there are typings such as:
Does Penrose Go Beyond Mathematics?
Roger Penrose has been very open-minded about (as it were) Platonic seeing when it comes to such things as “beauty” and “goodness”. Despite that, he’s never done any detailed work on any of these strictly philosophical issues. Much of what Penrose has said has been the result of interviewers pressing him on subjects which aren’t his speciality . (In most cases these have been attempts — by such interviewers — to get Penrose to backup their own prior views — see here for a perfect example of this.)
From: https://www.cantorsparadise.com/platonist-roger-penrose-sees-mathematical-truths-61a45840fe00

So I am not so sure about Roger's true position on Platonism.

Plenty of people have wanted to do away with universals but it isn't easy. Partly, this has to do with set theory and using properties to decide who goes in which set. But there is plenty of opposition to them too. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But universals are metaphysics not physics, yes? I find it easy to dismiss the suggestion that 'greenness' or 'chairness' or 'darkness' etc are 'universals' but from the standpoint of physics and not metaphysics perhaps something like 'motion' is a real universal property, rather than a metaphysical one. Is anything in the universe absolutely still, in all reference frames?

Your entire post is a strawman. But you’re free to feel persecuted if you wish.

Your entire post is a strawman. But you’re free to feel persecuted if you wish. — Mikie

I don't think so. I think you really are missing the point of unenlightened's post. Questions about divinity and Christianity aren't as simple as you're making them out to be. I would encourage you to delve into them and find out.

. I suppose people could end up on a philosophy forum without knowing much at all. — DingoJones

Probably, but they wouldn't stay long if they didn't want to change that.

But you’re free to feel persecuted if you wish. — Mikie

Of course, how could you stop me from feeling persecuted if I felt persecuted. I don't feel persecuted at all, as it happens, at least, not by you. But perhaps your imputation of my feeling persecuted implies that I should feel persecuted?

But aside from that, if my post is a straw man, then I must have misunderstood you. But if you are not addressing believers, and you are not addressing non-believers like myself who have an interest in religions and use religious terms and stories, then who are you addressing, and what are you saying for them not to do?

I don't feel persecuted at all, as it happens, at least, not by you. — unenlightened

Glad to hear it.

then who are you addressing, and what are you saying for them not to do? — unenlightened

Not to treat it as special or requiring special attention, philosophically. I think we do that subconsciously — I’ve been guilty of it too. It’s why I invoked ethnocentrism, which I think is a related phenomena.

I’m not saying don’t read the Bible, or deprive yourself of the wisdom of Christianity, etc.

I think we do that subconsciously — I’ve been guilty of it too. It’s why I invoked ethnocentrism, which I think is a related phenomena. — Mikie

I see. Well perhaps we have a substantive disagreement after all. If one invokes Christian imagery, one is laying oneself open to the accusation of ethnocentrism, certainly; but avoiding the mention does nothing to avoid subconscious ethnocentrism, it merely prevents the challenge that might make one become conscious of it.

Why shouldn’t we treat idealism as any other ontology? At some point we should, no? Maybe we’re convinced by it and grant it special importance, but that’s further down the road — and definitively not simply because it was the ideology of our family.

Sure. We absolutely should be prepared to treat our beliefs to the same rigorous analysis we subject other's beliefs too.

My point is simply that your point generalizes beyond religion. Believing something just because you have passively absorbed it as part of the culture you grew up in is:

A. Inevitable to some degree. (E.g., I didn't grow up in Chicago so I don't call pouring sauce and cheese into a bread bowl "pizza.") - a joke, I like a good deep dish lol.

B. Not a good justification for any belief, religious or otherwise.

But you seem to be commiting the "fallacy of equal knowledge," i.e., "if everyone had the relevant information they would agree." This isn't true for religion though. People don't necessarily only belong to a religion because they grew up in it, nor do many (most I think) go through their entire lives without seriously questioning their beliefs to some degree. E.g. I know someone who spent their early to late 20s thinking Christianity was just a myth they had learned as a child, and spent some of that time as a practicing Buddhist, who later returned to Christianity, albeit in a different sect.

Of course, some people do never question the beliefs they were brought up with. But this applies to areas outside religion as well, e.g. jingoistic nationalists who never consider if their country might be on the wrong side of some issues.

The fallacy as I see it is twofold. First, to assume that those who are religious haven't engaged in any sort of rigorous analysis of those beliefs or serious praxis, i.e., practical engagement with that tradition outside of cultural ritual. Second, to assume that someone must be a "believer," to find value in examining religion.

To the second point, consider just how much of philosophy and general work in the humanities is simply engaging the process of grappling with the culture one grew up in, trying to determine why it has the traits it does, what its essence is. People who aren't Christians still have plenty of reasons to be interested in church history and theology, just as Christian theologians have gained much from dialogues with Muslims and Jews. There has been a ton of work on this front.

The opening view also seems to discount perennialism, the idea that all religious traditions get at some set of essential truths, out the gate.

Finally, I'd just point out Saint Augustine's "believe so that you might understand." We can be skeptical of anything. How do we know who our parents are? Only by the authority of others? How do parents know that their children are their children, that they weren't switched at birth? Generally, this is often something we have to take on authority. One can't learn a subject if one doesn't take it seriously and take some things on authority. You can't learn physics if you think it is nonsense and question everything from the begining. Likewise, I don't think you can truly understand a faith, a philosophical camp, a literary tradition, etc. without some level of "believing to understand," even if it isn't an absolute belief, but more a suspension of disbelief.

Surface level just leads to a caricature and of course that caricature looks like it will shake apart with any level of rigour.

BTW, this topic has made me think, "what do people consider overtly Christian? "

I have had two different arguments over whether or not the musical adaptation of Les Miserables is a Christian play/film. With an evangelical and an atheist, both of whom didn't think it was a Christian work for largely the same reasons:

-it was done by Hollywood as a major theatrical release
-it has dick jokes and a sex joke involving Santa Claus
-it has a socialist revolution it casts in a largely positive light
-it doesn't beat you over the head with its message to the degree that it becomes hackneyed (e.g. the film "God's not dead.")
-a protagonist is driven into prostitution
-it has a largely unhappy ending, with most of the characters dying while not achieving what they wanted to
-the most ostentatiously devote person commits suicide

To my mind, I don't see how any of these preclude a work being Christian. And in any event, the whole play is the story of a man who has his life turned around by the kind actions of a priest and who lives a life focused on redemption.

And this is finale, how it ends:

On this page
I write my last confession
Read it well
When I, at last, am sleeping
It's the story
Of one who turned from hating
The man who only learned to love
When you were in his keeping


Come with me
Where chains will never bind you
All your grief
At last, at last behind you
Lord in Heaven
Look down on him in mercy

Forgive me all my trespasses
And take me to your glory

Take my hand
I'll lead you to salvation
Take my love
For love is everlasting
And remember
The truth that once was spoken
To love another person
Is to see the face of God...

Do you hear the people sing
Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people
Who are climbing to the light
For the wretched of the earth
There is a flame that never dies
Even the darkest night will end
And the sun will rise

They will live again in freedom
In the garden of the Lord
We will walk behind the ploughshare
We will put away the sword
The chain will be broken
And all men will have their reward

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?

Do you hear the people sing?
Say, do you hear the distant drums?
It is the future that they bring
When tomorrow comes!

I mean, case closed, right? But the question is, why is there a tendency to see Christian art only as that which is highly sanitized?

IMO, it comes from a trend in American Evangelical Protestantism that is extremely unreflective and sees itself as the one true expression of Christianity while also being unaware of its minority status or modern nature (modern fundementalism is highly unlike the early church, which was full of allegorical, non-literalist readings of the Bible). This trend has remained at the cultural forefront even as Roman Catholicism has become by far and away the largest denomination and the share of Orthodox and Coptics living in the US also swells.

I can't quite put my finger on what the phenomena is, but it is a tendency to represent the faith in a highly stylized, highly sanitized, kitsch, hyper real fashion. Hence, I've also had the same debate over whether or not Bob Marley is Christian praise music.

Is Christian music only for bands that only make Christian music? What about Let It Be, the Virgin Mary coming in times of trouble seems overtly Christian, right? Bob Marley seems less equivocal:

Jamming:
Now we're jammin' in the name of the Lord.

Holy Mount Zion
Holy Mount Zion
Jah seated in Mount Zion
And rules all creation ya...

Three Little Birds:
...saying praise and thanks to the Lord and it will be all right.

So Much Things to Say:
Well, INI no come to fight flesh and blood
But spiritual wickedness in high and low places
So while they fight you down
Stand firm and give Jah thanks and praises
'Cause I and I no expect to be justified
By the laws of men, by the laws of men
Whole jury found me guilty
But prove, truth shall prove my innocency

There are other examples. Bob Dylan's "Every Gain of Sand," Foster the People's "I Would Do Anything For You," get played at nightclubs and sounds like a love song, which it is, just towards God, Johnny Cash's"When the Man Comes Around," is mostly cribbed from Revelations, Collective Soul's grunge classic Shine, even Queen's less ambiguous "Jesus." I don't even think an X religion song needs to come from a member of that religion, it just needs to seriously express its message in a serious way. That's sort of an example of "understanding the cultural/emotional/spiritual context without having to buy into all doctrines."

I think it was John Fowles who said Great Expectations sums up the main points of Christianity. I agree.