Perhaps the most troubling possibility is that Kirill’s Church, with its canny blend of politics and faith, turns out to be better adapted to survival in our century than mainstream Churches are.
This, as a “mainstream Christian”, if that still means something today, is a question that almost keep me awake at night. Jesus preached peace and forgiveness, freedom from rules and universality of human dignity, and yet Christian nationalism is on the rise in America, Kirill is winning the Orthodox war of secession, in Europe the Catholic and Protestant reactionaries are winning traction, not to speak about Africa and Asia, … Secularism is not freedom from religion, it’s reinforcing the worse part of religion.
I have troubles expriming qualified opinions in English, which is not my mother tongue, sorry.
Of course secularism is not the problem, that was not what I intended to say, sorry again. But still, secularism has this secondary effect to weaken rational and open forms of religion while strengthening reactionary forms of religion.
I’ll back you on this one. I believe the nation-state (or any empire) has a vested interest in 1) pinning historical injustice on the Church, absolving worldly government of its responsibility for those injustices, and 2) capturing religion as a banner for tribalism.
I’ll give you the oft repeated, but rarely challenged adage “religion starts wars”. You could more accurately state that governments start wars, but I don’t see many people taking anarchistic positions.
I’d be curious to hear your hypothesis on why governments like and support reactionary forge of tl religion.
BTW I believe most American expressions of religion are more nationalistic than Christian.
Wars are caused by power, and people searching it. Religious, political, economical, symbolic, … when there’s power, there could be war.
Religion is a way to give sense to a world which seems very chaotic. Governments need legitimacy. Mix the two, and the sense given to the world by a religion can be justifying the legitimacy of a government. If it’s the case, this legitimacy can be very strongly rooted in people’s mind, making any decision of this government a part of the sense of the world (even if for an individual, this decision may look nonsensical). The more nonsensical a political movement is, the more religion will be useful to it, but ut’s a very strong temptation for any government, and that’s why the religions and the State should be separated.
Now, religion is a very complicated thing. I was reading yesterday an article in the last issue of the socialist American magazine Jacobin which says : “there is not, and has never been, a single identifiable thing that we can call ‘Christianity’ except with excruciating generality.” And I think it’s true for Christianity, but also for any religion. For our subject, we could discern to kinds of movement within every religion:
An open one, which sees in the Divine a reality exterior to the world, thus too complex to be locked up in any religious tradition. This kind of religion don’t give a turnkey sense to the world but ask their members to think by themselves. They’re more a method than a dogma.
A closed one, which sees the Divine as perfectly given in their own tradition. This kind of religion ask for obedience and conservation of the dogma. The sense of the world is given, no need to think by oneself.
Of the two kinds, which one will be more useful for a government? Of course, the second one. That’s why we see, all around the world, alliances between oligarchic political movements (which have less legitimacy than more popular political movements) and with reactionary forms of religion. Trump with evangelicals, Putin with super-Z orthodoxs, and so on.
Interesting. I’ve been wondering about that pattern. I think what you’re referring to as ‘closed religions’ I’ve been labeling ‘fearful’ and ‘legalistic’ because I’ve noticed a pattern. They seem to have a great and suspicious view of the world, and prescribe a set of strict laws to keep us all “safe”. Ironically, not what I believe Christianity was intended to be, but there have certainly been forces shaping it that way.
I like a challenge, so will show how you are wrong just with Matthew
Jesus preached peace
Matthew 10:34-36
and forgiveness
Matthew 8:12
freedom from rules
Matthew 5:18
And universality of human dignity,
Matthew 15:24
Save yourself a bit of time. There was no historical Jesus. There is no God. The fictional Jesus people like has nothing to do with the fictional Jesus of the Bible. Christianity has always been a fascist faith.
Matthew 10 is not about what Jesus desired, but about the persecutions.
Matthew 8 is a parabola, not meant to be taken literally.
Matthew 5:18 is followed by Matthew 5:19-48 when Jesus change the law. The teaching is clear, especially when compared to the actions of Jesus: what should be followed is the spirit of the law, not its letter. And that’s valid for the letter of Jesus’ commandments themselves.
Matthew 15:24 is followed Matthew 15:28, where he does save the Canaanite’s daughter. Jesus changes his mind in this text. You’re fond of cherry picking, aren’t you?
There was no historical Jesus
So you’re a science denier. I don’t know if Jesus is just a man without relationship with a God or more than that, or even if a God exists. But denying the historicity of Jesus is like saying we don’t walked on the Moon.
Christianity has always been a fascist faith.
Say that to MLK, William Wilberforce, Dorothy Day, or the Lübeck martyrs.
Matthew 10 is not about what Jesus desired, but about the persecutions.
Doesn’t say that. Post hoc justification on your part
Matthew 8 is a parabola, not meant to be taken literally.
Doesn’t say that. Post hoc justification on your part
Matthew 5:18 is followed by Matthew 5:19-48 when Jesus change the law. The teaching is clear, especially when compared to the actions of Jesus: what should be followed is the spirit of the law, not its letter. And that’s valid for the letter of Jesus’ commandments themselves.
No. Your Jesus is clear that the law has to be followed when it came to most things, especially the sexual laws which he said didn’t go far enough. Most likely this was an attempt by the author to undo the smack Mark has written about James. So he made Jesus take a deeds vs faith and did it with a Paul alignment, invoking sex.
Matthew 15:24 is followed Matthew 15:28, where he does save the Canaanite’s daughter. Jesus changes his mind in this text. You’re fond of cherry picking, aren’t you?
He saves the kid only AFTER the woman begs at his feet and calls herself a racial slur. You are found of fucking lying aren’t you?
so you’re a science denier.
Present your evidence.
Say that to MLK, William Wilberforce, Dorothy Day, or the Lübeck martyrs.
Just because a religion has a good people in it doesn’t mean the religion is good.
You mix up “justification” and “interpretation”. The Bible wasn’t written by a 21st century American you know… for example that Matthew 10 is about the persecutions is well known by every serious historian, but you don’t care about history. You just care about your hatred for Christianity. It’s your right, but it’s not very interesting yo discuss in these conditions.
What it says must be interpreted in the light of what historians said about the context of the writing. Jesus didn’t wrote the Gospels. Do you think you know better than historians?
Same with Jesus? All serious historians, both religious and atheists, agree on the existence of Jesus. 19 texts from high Antiquity speak about Jesus, 9 between then weren’t written by Christians (Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Galen, Mara bar Serapion, Celsus, and the Babylonian Talmud). If you think it’s not enough, please prove me the existence of Julius Caesar.
If you reject the conclusions of the scientific community, you’re no better than a conspiracy theorist.
You might be able to get a refund on whatever class you took on debate, just a fyi. In any case it isn’t even a question of what I think the context was the question is what the text actually says. If the text endorses fascism it endorses fascism. The fact that you can lie about the history and say that it was okay at the time written changes nothing. It still led to the horrors Christianity unleashed.
Same with Jesus? All serious historians
No true Scotsmen logical fallacy combined with posioning the well logical fallacy
both religious and atheists,
Not relevant. Truth is truth and doesn’t depend on personal belief.
. 19 texts from high Antiquity speak about Jesus,
Proof of attestation is proof that of attestation not proof that it is true. There have been way more than 19 Batman comics lines. That doesn’t give you Bruce Wayne.
, 9 between then weren’t written by Christians (Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Galen, Mara bar Serapion, Celsus, and the Babylonian Talmud
Josphius: wrote his book 4 decades after supposed events and the two passages are known frauds.
Tactius wrote even later and was repeating what a group called the Christus (not Christians) told him.
The remainder are all the same except the Talmud mentions which was 3 whole centuries later and talks about a Messiah figure of the 1st century BCE and was no doubt written in response to Christianity.
Not a single contemporary of Jesus recorded him. A man with a large following in an urban area, for supposedly 2.5 years, in a civilization actively documenting religions and they are all silent. And amazingly not a single secular historian notes this huge James community for 40 years.
you think it’s not enough, please prove me the existence of Julius Caesar.
Nope. You accuse Jesus of existing you prove your Messiah existed. I won’t let you shift the burden of proof. Another logical fallacy.
you reject the conclusions of the scientific community, you’re no better than a conspiracy theorist.
Science isn’t history and your personal attacks are a pointless waste of time.
Look, why don’t you actually read your book, learn the languages it was written in, and study this a bit instead of wasting my time and yours quoting whatever random blog you are quickly searching? I don’t believe for a second you knew who Celsius was or said and yet you feel confident enough to copy and paste him in the list. Get back to me when you are fluent in Biblical Hebrew and Konic Greek.
Edit: oh sorry I missed another logical fallacy you made. Argument from adverse consequence s. The whole idea that since an atheist historian says Jesus exists he Jesus must have existed. I will endeavor to be better at pointing out the flaws in your “argument” next time.
History is a science, it’s my formation (I actually worked on some people I cited), and you don’t answer to scientific arguments with YouTube rhetorics. It’s perfectly normal for a man for Antiquity not to be recorded in texts from his lifetime.
This, as a “mainstream Christian”, if that still means something today, is a question that almost keep me awake at night. Jesus preached peace and forgiveness, freedom from rules and universality of human dignity, and yet Christian nationalism is on the rise in America, Kirill is winning the Orthodox war of secession, in Europe the Catholic and Protestant reactionaries are winning traction, not to speak about Africa and Asia, … Secularism is not freedom from religion, it’s reinforcing the worse part of religion.
Sorry… did you end that with a critique of secularism as if that’s the problem?
I have troubles expriming qualified opinions in English, which is not my mother tongue, sorry.
Of course secularism is not the problem, that was not what I intended to say, sorry again. But still, secularism has this secondary effect to weaken rational and open forms of religion while strengthening reactionary forms of religion.
Must have been a whole lot of secularism going on in the dark ages when Christianity was very much into torture and murder.
I’ll back you on this one. I believe the nation-state (or any empire) has a vested interest in 1) pinning historical injustice on the Church, absolving worldly government of its responsibility for those injustices, and 2) capturing religion as a banner for tribalism.
I’ll give you the oft repeated, but rarely challenged adage “religion starts wars”. You could more accurately state that governments start wars, but I don’t see many people taking anarchistic positions.
I’d be curious to hear your hypothesis on why governments like and support reactionary forge of tl religion.
BTW I believe most American expressions of religion are more nationalistic than Christian.
Wars are caused by power, and people searching it. Religious, political, economical, symbolic, … when there’s power, there could be war.
Religion is a way to give sense to a world which seems very chaotic. Governments need legitimacy. Mix the two, and the sense given to the world by a religion can be justifying the legitimacy of a government. If it’s the case, this legitimacy can be very strongly rooted in people’s mind, making any decision of this government a part of the sense of the world (even if for an individual, this decision may look nonsensical). The more nonsensical a political movement is, the more religion will be useful to it, but ut’s a very strong temptation for any government, and that’s why the religions and the State should be separated.
Now, religion is a very complicated thing. I was reading yesterday an article in the last issue of the socialist American magazine Jacobin which says : “there is not, and has never been, a single identifiable thing that we can call ‘Christianity’ except with excruciating generality.” And I think it’s true for Christianity, but also for any religion. For our subject, we could discern to kinds of movement within every religion:
Of the two kinds, which one will be more useful for a government? Of course, the second one. That’s why we see, all around the world, alliances between oligarchic political movements (which have less legitimacy than more popular political movements) and with reactionary forms of religion. Trump with evangelicals, Putin with super-Z orthodoxs, and so on.
Interesting. I’ve been wondering about that pattern. I think what you’re referring to as ‘closed religions’ I’ve been labeling ‘fearful’ and ‘legalistic’ because I’ve noticed a pattern. They seem to have a great and suspicious view of the world, and prescribe a set of strict laws to keep us all “safe”. Ironically, not what I believe Christianity was intended to be, but there have certainly been forces shaping it that way.
I like a challenge, so will show how you are wrong just with Matthew
Matthew 10:34-36
Matthew 8:12
Matthew 5:18
Matthew 15:24
Save yourself a bit of time. There was no historical Jesus. There is no God. The fictional Jesus people like has nothing to do with the fictional Jesus of the Bible. Christianity has always been a fascist faith.
No. Dentists aren’t causing teeth decay.
Matthew 10 is not about what Jesus desired, but about the persecutions.
Matthew 8 is a parabola, not meant to be taken literally.
Matthew 5:18 is followed by Matthew 5:19-48 when Jesus change the law. The teaching is clear, especially when compared to the actions of Jesus: what should be followed is the spirit of the law, not its letter. And that’s valid for the letter of Jesus’ commandments themselves.
Matthew 15:24 is followed Matthew 15:28, where he does save the Canaanite’s daughter. Jesus changes his mind in this text. You’re fond of cherry picking, aren’t you?
So you’re a science denier. I don’t know if Jesus is just a man without relationship with a God or more than that, or even if a God exists. But denying the historicity of Jesus is like saying we don’t walked on the Moon.
Say that to MLK, William Wilberforce, Dorothy Day, or the Lübeck martyrs.
This is a very bad analogy.
Doesn’t say that. Post hoc justification on your part
Doesn’t say that. Post hoc justification on your part
No. Your Jesus is clear that the law has to be followed when it came to most things, especially the sexual laws which he said didn’t go far enough. Most likely this was an attempt by the author to undo the smack Mark has written about James. So he made Jesus take a deeds vs faith and did it with a Paul alignment, invoking sex.
He saves the kid only AFTER the woman begs at his feet and calls herself a racial slur. You are found of fucking lying aren’t you?
Present your evidence.
Just because a religion has a good people in it doesn’t mean the religion is good.
So was your moon landing analogy
You mix up “justification” and “interpretation”. The Bible wasn’t written by a 21st century American you know… for example that Matthew 10 is about the persecutions is well known by every serious historian, but you don’t care about history. You just care about your hatred for Christianity. It’s your right, but it’s not very interesting yo discuss in these conditions.
No. The passage is to be read based on what it says not based on what you decided it means 19 centuries later.
Why can’t you produce evidence that your boy existed?
What it says must be interpreted in the light of what historians said about the context of the writing. Jesus didn’t wrote the Gospels. Do you think you know better than historians?
Same with Jesus? All serious historians, both religious and atheists, agree on the existence of Jesus. 19 texts from high Antiquity speak about Jesus, 9 between then weren’t written by Christians (Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Galen, Mara bar Serapion, Celsus, and the Babylonian Talmud). If you think it’s not enough, please prove me the existence of Julius Caesar.
If you reject the conclusions of the scientific community, you’re no better than a conspiracy theorist.
Argument from authority logical fallacy
You might be able to get a refund on whatever class you took on debate, just a fyi. In any case it isn’t even a question of what I think the context was the question is what the text actually says. If the text endorses fascism it endorses fascism. The fact that you can lie about the history and say that it was okay at the time written changes nothing. It still led to the horrors Christianity unleashed.
No true Scotsmen logical fallacy combined with posioning the well logical fallacy
Not relevant. Truth is truth and doesn’t depend on personal belief.
Proof of attestation is proof that of attestation not proof that it is true. There have been way more than 19 Batman comics lines. That doesn’t give you Bruce Wayne.
Josphius: wrote his book 4 decades after supposed events and the two passages are known frauds.
Tactius wrote even later and was repeating what a group called the Christus (not Christians) told him.
The remainder are all the same except the Talmud mentions which was 3 whole centuries later and talks about a Messiah figure of the 1st century BCE and was no doubt written in response to Christianity.
Not a single contemporary of Jesus recorded him. A man with a large following in an urban area, for supposedly 2.5 years, in a civilization actively documenting religions and they are all silent. And amazingly not a single secular historian notes this huge James community for 40 years.
Nope. You accuse Jesus of existing you prove your Messiah existed. I won’t let you shift the burden of proof. Another logical fallacy.
Science isn’t history and your personal attacks are a pointless waste of time.
Look, why don’t you actually read your book, learn the languages it was written in, and study this a bit instead of wasting my time and yours quoting whatever random blog you are quickly searching? I don’t believe for a second you knew who Celsius was or said and yet you feel confident enough to copy and paste him in the list. Get back to me when you are fluent in Biblical Hebrew and Konic Greek.
Edit: oh sorry I missed another logical fallacy you made. Argument from adverse consequence s. The whole idea that since an atheist historian says Jesus exists he Jesus must have existed. I will endeavor to be better at pointing out the flaws in your “argument” next time.
History is a science, it’s my formation (I actually worked on some people I cited), and you don’t answer to scientific arguments with YouTube rhetorics. It’s perfectly normal for a man for Antiquity not to be recorded in texts from his lifetime.
I lost enough time with you.