Truth Or Relevance?

[shantonu]

Shantonu, you mentioned that you think that atheism does in fact entail beliefs other than the inherent statement of the word, would you be willing to elaborate on that? While I can see that many beliefs have developed out of atheism, I do not see how the concept itself can carry a belief system with it any more than theism does.

 

You've repeatedly equated atheism with Christianity, but I do not think the two can really be compared. As has been said atheism is simply an answer to one question, an on/off switch as it were. Christianity is an entire belief system, predicated on certain precepts that grew out of theistic belief. A much more accurate parallel can be drawn between atheism and theism as in and of themselves they only address one thing.

 

Without getting too deep into a philosophical quagmire, I think there are varieties of atheism. The type we have here has been influenced by the types of atheists that came before us, Voltaire especially. We tend to phrase things in the sort of way that Enlightenment atheists would phrase them. Buddhist atheists would not see things exactly the way we see them. There are lots of Buddhist atheists who assert that there are minor gods, but none of these gods is immortal or all powerful. Is that atheism? The Buddhist atheist does not believe in God in the Western sense. But is this "true" atheism?

 

Even to ask that question in a sense demonstrates that atheism is not content free. You think of it as content-free non-belief system that simply denies the existence of any supernatural beings. However, that in of itself is content inasmuch as a Buddhist atheist would not see atheism in that light. Western atheism grows out of a particular experience and represents a particular worldview. At least that's my argument.

[shantonu]

but to say that all dogma leads to unacceptabable irrationality is iteself a dogma.

 

If dogma, founded on an unsupported faith, leads to a rational and correct conclusion, it is a coincidence.

 

I don't love my mom or my girlfriend because I'm trying to reach a rational and correct conclusion. I love my mom non-rationally. I love my girlfriend irrationally. That's the whole point of love. Unless love has no value in your system, then rationality can't be the sole arbiter of human experience. And if love has no place in your system, then so much the worse for your system.

[Legion]

I don't love my mom or my girlfriend because I'm trying to reach a rational and correct conclusion. I love my mom non-rationally. I love my girlfriend irrationally. That's the whole point of love. Unless love has no value in your system, then rationality can't be the sole arbiter of human experience. And if love has no place in your system, then so much the worse for your system.

Damn Shantonu, keep 'em coming!

[Zaramon]

shantonu said

 

There are no "basic tenets" of Christianity other than the Creeds, ..."

 

Interesting discussion so far. Don't want to jump in the middle of it but I had to comment on this statement. No offense, shantonu, but this statement is absolutely false. As a former seminarian and Bible teacher this is as far from the truth as east is from west. One Bible verse, just one, destroys this argument. But I'll give you the whole Roman Road (named because it is based on verses taken from Paul's epistle to the Romans.

 

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Universal Sin

 

Romans 6:23a "The wages of sin is death" The foundation of soteriology, the need for salvation.

 

Romans 6:23b "But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." The rest of the process of salvation.

 

Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

 

Romans 10:13 "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved"

 

Romans 10:9,10 "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

 

And the kicker, right from the mouth of Jesus, John 3:16-18

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

 

That is the nucleus of the tenets of Christianity. Wind your way through Pauline Christianity and you find a bazillion tenets of Christianity. These are verses straight out of the New Testament. Much of what Creeds want us to state does come from branch off ideologies that did not necessarily quote scripture, such as the Apostles Creed. But there are enough "basic tenets" in the NT to spawn a thousand creeds and thousands of Christianity based sects and religions.

 

Pardon the interruption. We now return you to your irregularly scheduled posting, already in progress.

[florduh]

And if love has no place in your system, then so much the worse for your system.

 

Why would you even say that? I'm talking about deciding larger truths with logic rather than some imposed myth or dogma, not our emotional responses to daily life.

 

I guess you haven't read my other posts. We're starting to answer propositions or statements framed one way with a completely different reference point in the response. It's like your changeable definition of atheism. When I say "atheist" I mean simply one who has no belief in gods - for whatever the reason. Depending on the point you want to make, someone's use of the word "atheist" may be changed to mean "anti-theist." For clarity, I go by commonly understood and popular dictionary definitions when choosing words. Torturing the language for its own sake is another sport altogether.

[Skankboy]

All men are created equal

One of the worst lines in my opinion. All men are most certainly not created equal. We all vary in our physical and mental capacity. If we didn't, there wouldn't any need for civil rights laws.

[mwc]

All men are created equal

One of the worst lines in my opinion. All men are most certainly not created equal. We all vary in our physical and mental capacity. If we didn't, there wouldn't any need for civil rights laws.

I was going to say it was written to oppose the caste systems but it appears it was probably more against the idea of divine right for kings (makes sense).

 

It could have been lifted from the Massachusetts Constitution:

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

 

As for the rights (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness). It appears to have come from two places:

"no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." - John Locke

And the Virginia Declaration of Rights:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Does it all make more sense now? These are pretty basic rights. All people should be afforded these things. You should probably not be offended by the line itself but more by the abuse of it.

 

mwc

[Skankboy]

Does it all make more sense now? These are pretty basic rights. All people should be afforded these things. You should probably not be offended by the line itself but more by the abuse of it.

 

Fair enough. I guess my contention is more with the PC take on it which ends up appealing to the lowest common denominator. All people should be allowed the same rights under the law, I have no issue with that, it's when we start creating special laws to make some people "more" equal that I get a bit twitchy.

[shantonu]

shantonu said

 

There are no "basic tenets" of Christianity other than the Creeds, ..."

 

Interesting discussion so far. Don't want to jump in the middle of it but I had to comment on this statement. No offense, shantonu, but this statement is absolutely false. As a former seminarian and Bible teacher this is as far from the truth as east is from west. One Bible verse, just one, destroys this argument. But I'll give you the whole Roman Road (named because it is based on verses taken from Paul's epistle to the Romans.

 

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Universal Sin

 

Romans 6:23a "The wages of sin is death" The foundation of soteriology, the need for salvation.

 

Romans 6:23b "But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." The rest of the process of salvation.

 

Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

 

Romans 10:13 "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved"

 

Romans 10:9,10 "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

 

And the kicker, right from the mouth of Jesus, John 3:16-18

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

 

That is the nucleus of the tenets of Christianity. Wind your way through Pauline Christianity and you find a bazillion tenets of Christianity. These are verses straight out of the New Testament. Much of what Creeds want us to state does come from branch off ideologies that did not necessarily quote scripture, such as the Apostles Creed. But there are enough "basic tenets" in the NT to spawn a thousand creeds and thousands of Christianity based sects and religions.

 

Pardon the interruption. We now return you to your irregularly scheduled posting, already in progress.

 

With respect, I think you may be confusing doctrine with devotion, but even the doctrine is not all that clear. For a good long while, the meaning of Romans hase been debated. Someone on this site has posted what, for example, the Roman Catholic Church has said in its Cachetchism about atheists getting into heaven.

 

When you actually look at doctrine, when you actually look at what large groups of Christians say is true, it turns out to bean enormously diverse set of beliefs. Although all denominations respect Paul and claim to be authentic to Paul, the Pauline doctrines are not treated the same way in Catholic and Episcopal churches as they are in Calvinist and Evangelical churches.

 

And that's just the doctrine. The devotional differences are even more extreme. And devotion is ultimately what matters. What a few experts and priests say a religion "is" is often quite distinct from how the practitioner experience it. And it is the practitioners that must get the final word. As an Ex-Catholic I can tell you that we do not pay much attention to John 3:16. In fact, we don't pay much attention to the Bible. That's more of an Evangelical thing. Catholics have their own methods and they are the largest Christian denomination. I'm sure the Eastern Orthodox have their own as well. Mormons do their thing. Pentacostals another.

 

There is really an great diversity of belief out there walking around under the name "Christian." Christianity is really a family of related faiths. I don't think it's reducible in any sense to a few lines of Paul.

[shantonu]

And if love has no place in your system, then so much the worse for your system.

 

Why would you even say that? I'm talking about deciding larger truths with logic rather than some imposed myth or dogma, not our emotional responses to daily life.

 

 

 

I think if you try to decide "larger truths," whatever those are, without reference to emotional responses to daily life, you're making a big mistake.

 

There's tendency to see emotion and non-rational aspects of human nature as something base and bad and something to be "overcome by reason." But our emotions aren't any worse than our reason--and what I've been trying to say in this thread--our reason isn't necessarily any better than our emotion. Both reason and emotion are parts of being human, both are capable of leading us to truth and to error.

 

Generally speaking I agree that I'd rather base decisions on logic and empirical facts nore than intuition and emotion. But not always. Logic and reason are not "gods" that infallably lead to correct results. You also have to possess qualities that reason does not capture. A person can be very logical, very reasonable and yet still be an asshole. If a person does not have good will, does not love nature and beauty, does not abhor violence, what good will logic do him?

[The-Captain]

Without getting too deep into a philosophical quagmire, I think there are varieties of atheism. The type we have here has been influenced by the types of atheists that came before us, Voltaire especially.

 

Undoubtedly so, my only contention is of a more semantic nature I suppose. I would term it more as the different directions that atheism takes, or belief systems derived from the base concept just as some religions stem from the concept of theism. Both by definition only cover one thing.

 

At least in the Western sense of the word that is. You are correct in saying that the words are limited to the Western concepts of deity and the supernatural, be it the Greek pantheon or the creator Allah. Problems of language and ideas developing in isolation I suppose?

 

All I'm getting at is this, the term itself conveys little though people may attach more meaning to it than that. Whereas at least a few things can be assumed about Christianity, reverence for the Christ, reference of the Bible, belief in one God etc.

[shantonu]

Without getting too deep into a philosophical quagmire, I think there are varieties of atheism. The type we have here has been influenced by the types of atheists that came before us, Voltaire especially.

 

Undoubtedly so, my only contention is of a more semantic nature I suppose. I would term it more as the different directions that atheism takes, or belief systems derived from the base concept just as some religions stem from the concept of theism. Both by definition only cover one thing.

 

At least in the Western sense of the word that is. You are correct in saying that the words are limited to the Western concepts of deity and the supernatural, be it the Greek pantheon or the creator Allah. Problems of language and ideas developing in isolation I suppose?

 

All I'm getting at is this, the term itself conveys little though people may attach more meaning to it than that. Whereas at least a few things can be assumed about Christianity, reverence for the Christ, reference of the Bible, belief in one God etc.

 

I'm with you except for the last paragraph. The terms "atheism" or "atheist" encompass a large and diverse set of beliefs, as does the term "Christian." And since beliefs are slippery things, dictionary definitions will not help us. Being an "American" means standing in a certain legal and social relationship with others. It's pretty easy to define because it doesn't imply subjective beliefs. So I guess being an "American" is something like "having American citizenship, being eligible to carry a U.S. Passport, being liable for U.S. taxes, being protected by U.S. laws."

 

But "atheist" and "Christian" do not work that way. There is not a simple way of describing what an atheist is without really getting into the nuanced history of that stance.

 

There are sects of Buddhism that are purely atheistic, as I mentioned before. Would it be appropriate to lump these atheists with the ex-Christian atheists who post on this site? I don't think so. Is is appropraite to even call them "atheists." Well yes, but also no. It's not that they don't believe in God, or have rejected the belief in god, it's that their religion does not have a single, all-powerful God that is responsible for all creation, which is what we are rejecting when we say "I am an atheist." The Buddhists are not rejecting that belief because that belief was never a real option that had to be rejected.

 

For this reason alone, different types of atheists must mean different things when they say "I am an atheist." When Florduh says "I am an atheist," that statement does convey quite a lot given that he's a Western person, speaking English, and is probably an American. Context is crucial as are the nuances of actual belief. In context, Florduh's statement "I am an atheist" means much more than simply "I do not believe in the existence of a supreme being."

[Deva]

When you actually look at doctrine, when you actually look at what large groups of Christians say is true, it turns out to bean enormously diverse set of beliefs. Although all denominations respect Paul and claim to be authentic to Paul, the Pauline doctrines are not treated the same way in Catholic and Episcopal churches as they are in Calvinist and Evangelical churches.

 

Although I agree with you on other matters, I simply have to disagree with this position. It isn't really that enormous. There are different interpretations of doctrines now, otherwise there would not be so many different churches, but the Catholic church (which was the Christian church) was united in its basic beliefs, under the authority of the Pope, until the reformation-- except for the separation from Eastern Orthodoxy. That WAS Christianity. If that is mistaken, I want to see some documentation to back it. I am not going to say it was united in the beginning, because no one actually knows what the early christian churches believed. No question that there were radically different beliefs from one church to another, if for no other reason, geographic isolation.

 

I say the Christian church is basically still saying the same set of beliefs with some variations in interpretation.

 

The eastern orthodox church broke because of a difference in wording in the Nicene creed and other non-religious reasons. I still think that most people in my section of the U.S., at least, would say that Christian means they believe Jesus is divine, the Bible is the word of God (even Catholics lol) and there is a resurrection to judgment.

 

I totally agree with you on the importance of devotion, but many Christian churches put a premium on what you believe.

[The-Captain]

There are sects of Buddhism that are purely atheistic, as I mentioned before. Would it be appropriate to lump these atheists with the ex-Christian atheists who post on this site? I don't think so. Is is appropraite to even call them "atheists."

 

I'd call them Buddhists, their beliefs contain elements of atheism.

 

For this reason alone, different types of atheists must mean different things when they say "I am an atheist." When Florduh says "I am an atheist," that statement does convey quite a lot given that he's a Western person, speaking English, and is probably an American. Context is crucial as are the nuances of actual belief. In context, Florduh's statement "I am an atheist" means much more than simply "I do not believe in the existence of a supreme being."

 

Well, yes the word itself is English from the French atheisme and then from the original Greek atheos so I would say that the context is limited to the Western idea of deity. But the word still denotes a simple yes/no statement, like a binary switch it can only mean those things. Now that isn't to say that the word can be used to convey other things, or that when used people might assume things from that statement, but I think it would be incorrect to do so.

 

I hope you don't think I'm being deliberately obtuse here, but I think the distinction stands and is somewhat relevant considering the earlier discussion along these lines.

[shantonu]

When you actually look at doctrine, when you actually look at what large groups of Christians say is true, it turns out to bean enormously diverse set of beliefs. Although all denominations respect Paul and claim to be authentic to Paul, the Pauline doctrines are not treated the same way in Catholic and Episcopal churches as they are in Calvinist and Evangelical churches.

 

Although I agree with you on other matters, I simply have to disagree with this position. It isn't really that enormous. There are different interpretations of doctrines now, otherwise there would not be so many different churches, but the Catholic church (which was the Christian church) was united in its basic beliefs, under the authority of the Pope, until the reformation-- except for the separation from Eastern Orthodoxy. That WAS Christianity. If that is mistaken, I want to see some documentation to back it. I am not going to say it was united in the beginning, because no one actually knows what the early christian churches believed. No question that there were radically different beliefs from one church to another, if for no other reason, geographic isolation.

 

I say the Christian church is basically still saying the same set of beliefs with some variations in interpretation.

 

The eastern orthodox church broke because of a difference in wording in the Nicene creed and other non-religious reasons. I still think that most people in my section of the U.S., at least, would say that Christian means they believe Jesus is divine, the Bible is the word of God (even Catholics lol) and there is a resurrection to judgment.

 

I totally agree with you on the importance of devotion, but many Christian churches put a premium on what you believe.

 

Well that's true, but I am talking about now, or at least the past few hundred years. Historically, the Church has much more unity. Certainly before 1517 it was fairly unified. There have been various schisms and heresies over the years, but from about 900 to about 1517, the Western Church was pretty much unified.

 

But there were periods, even back then, of dissenters, some of them quite powerful, particularly (though at very different times) Arians and Cathars. The Cathars are of particular note because they remained a popular and radical threat to the Church for a long time and were tied to powerful lords in Toulouse, and other parts of Southern France and North Western Spain.

 

Of course, the unity of the Church was imposed by force. But it was really not as unified as we think today. There were always heretics, Gnostics, Lollards, Hussites, and various mystic groups, etc. Probably at the high point of Chruch power under Innocent III, there was substantial unity. But this was also the point when Catharism was infecting France.

 

Sure, in your part of the U.S. that's what most people think. There's nothing wrong with that. It may even be the majority view. But when viewed historically and looking at Christianity in it's global scope, that view of Christianity has very significant challengers.

 

And here is where I would just point to people's behavior--to devotion. If two people believe that "the Bible is the word of God" but one expresses that by worshiping an icon of the Virgin and another expresses that by rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues, to what extent to they "believe the same thing"?

[Zaramon]

 

With respect, I think you may be confusing doctrine with devotion, but even the doctrine is not all that clear. For a good long while, the meaning of Romans hase been debated. Someone on this site has posted what, for example, the Roman Catholic Church has said in its Cachetchism about atheists getting into heaven.

Naw, I don't think so. I was merely addressing the tenets of Christianity without regards to various doctrines and sects. I disagree with the premise that there are not tenets for the existence of all of Christendom.

 

When you actually look at doctrine, when you actually look at what large groups of Christians say is true, it turns out to bean enormously diverse set of beliefs. Although all denominations respect Paul and claim to be authentic to Paul, the Pauline doctrines are not treated the same way in Catholic and Episcopal churches as they are in Calvinist and Evangelical churches.

Agreed, while the salvific formula related in the Roman Roads of Pauline Christianity seem pretty close to the John 3:16-19 passage (remember, Paul did not have access to these verses as that part of the Bible hadn't been written when Paul wrote his own Bible..HEHEHE) it is the gobbledy-gook that Paul uses as the bricks and mortar of his own warped doctrines. Urging men not to marry, homophobia, mysogyny. John Calvin was just warped enough to pretty much toss out the doctrine of salvation in favor of election that Calvinists probably erased the passages from their "Official Calvin Bible". And the poor Catholics are burdened with the ramblings of every pope that comes along speaking new doctrines into their slavish lives. They probably feel like ping-pong balls.

 

And that's just the doctrine. The devotional differences are even more extreme. And devotion is ultimately what matters. What a few experts and priests say a religion "is" is often quite distinct from how the practitioner experience it. And it is the practitioners that must get the final word. As an Ex-Catholic I can tell you that we do not pay much attention to John 3:16. In fact, we don't pay much attention to the Bible. That's more of an Evangelical thing. Catholics have their own methods and they are the largest Christian denomination. I'm sure the Eastern Orthodox have their own as well. Mormons do their thing. Pentacostals another.

Granted, I grew up in the Bibleolatry of the Baptist thumpers so my view of tenets and doctrine are skewed by that experience. It is my understanding that the process of becoming Catholic is far more ritualistic in things like infant baptism, catechism and the 7 sacrements of the Holy Church. Sorta like being born Jewish. And god only knows what in the hell 5 point Calvinists are clinging to except that they are utterly depraved.

 

However, I do feel that in discussing mainstream Christianity (that sounds pretentious but in the US the majority faith is Protestantism) we can define doctrine as tenets. Doctrines are the result of interpretation of tenets. Those tenets of Protestantism are just as "real" as the 7 sacraments or pillars of other religious faiths. While each sect of Christianity does indeed hold various doctrines to be true to their own order, the tenets of these doctrines are quite real in their development.

 

There is really an great diversity of belief out there walking around under the name "Christian." Christianity is really a family of related faiths. I don't think it's reducible in any sense to a few lines of Paul.

 

Amen and amen.

[Deva]

Well that's true, but I am talking about now, or at least the past few hundred years. Historically, the Church has much more unity. Certainly before 1517 it was fairly unified. There have been various schisms and heresies over the years, but from about 900 to about 1517, the Western Church was pretty much unified.

 

Then we agree that Chrisitianity was unified for 1,000 years. Force or no force, don't you think that is significant?

 

 

But it was really not as unified as we think today. There were always heretics,

 

Of course, but basically Christianity meant certain core beliefs, as expressed in the catechism and the creeds. It was unified.

 

Sure, in your part of the U.S. that's what most people think.

 

That's right, there is a broad popular consensus as to what Christianity is.

 

But when viewed historically and looking at Christianity in it's global scope, that view of Christianity has very significant challengers.

 

Yes, its had challenges throughout history, but I would say not as much as you are presenting here.

 

And here is where I would just point to people's behavior--to devotion. If two people believe that "the Bible is the word of God" but one expresses that by worshiping an icon of the Virgin and another expresses that by rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues, to what extent to they "believe the same thing"?

 

Granted, the expression of devotion is different but they both still think the Bible is special and a revelation from God. The Catholic believes it the revelation of God as interpreted by the pope and the bishops, the holy roller by his pastor.

[shantonu]

Well that's true, but I am talking about now, or at least the past few hundred years. Historically, the Church has much more unity. Certainly before 1517 it was fairly unified. There have been various schisms and heresies over the years, but from about 900 to about 1517, the Western Church was pretty much unified.

 

Then we agree that Chrisitianity was unified for 1,000 years. Force or no force, don't you think that is significant?

 

 

But it was really not as unified as we think today. There were always heretics,

 

Of course, but basically Christianity meant certain core beliefs, as expressed in the catechism and the creeds. It was unified.

 

Sure, in your part of the U.S. that's what most people think.

 

That's right, there is a broad popular consensus as to what Christianity is.

 

But when viewed historically and looking at Christianity in it's global scope, that view of Christianity has very significant challengers.

 

Yes, its had challenges throughout history, but I would say not as much as you are presenting here.

 

And here is where I would just point to people's behavior--to devotion. If two people believe that "the Bible is the word of God" but one expresses that by worshiping an icon of the Virgin and another expresses that by rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues, to what extent to they "believe the same thing"?

 

Granted, the expression of devotion is different but they both still think the Bible is special and a revelation from God. The Catholic believes it the revelation of God as interpreted by the pope and the bishops, the holy roller by his pastor.

 

But these differences are not just superficial. They are deep. My mom grew up having never read the Bible. This is not uncommon at all, especially in the developing world. Even my roommate in law school had never--not even once--read the Bible on his own. He had heard parts of it read in church, but he was far more interested in praying the Rosary than anything else. Was he a Christian? Yes. Did he think that the Bible was the Word of God? Not in the way that you thought it was or that American Evangelicals think it is. Catholics just don't think of the Bible in that way. For them the Church, with it's oral traditions and episcopal traditions, is God's supreme vehicle. The Bible is secondary. I repeat, the Bible is secondary to the Church. If there is no agreement on this point, I don't see how there can be "broad consensus as to what Christianity is."

[Vigile]

99% of all xian denominations have a salvation meme. An equal amount have a sin meme.

 

They may argue about the details but the implications of these memes will affect believers in much the same way with the difference only being in the personality type of the believer not in the various doctrinal interpretations.

[shantonu]

However, I do feel that in discussing mainstream Christianity (that sounds pretentious but in the US the majority faith is Protestantism) we can define doctrine as tenets. Doctrines are the result of interpretation of tenets. Those tenets of Protestantism are just as "real" as the 7 sacraments or pillars of other religious faiths. While each sect of Christianity does indeed hold various doctrines to be true to their own order, the tenets of these doctrines are quite real in their development.

 

Yes, mainstream American, Evangelical Christianity does have basic tenets. I agree with that. I am saying two things:

 

(1) The American Evangelical tradition is not representative of Christianity as a whole--and even if it were, American Evangelism itself has so many different parts it's hard to say what is really essential. There are Open and Welcoming Baptists that are very gay-friendly, like this church: http://www.ocfairviewchurch.org/social-justice-church.html and then there are the God-Hates-Fags pyschos. With such divergence what is really holding these two groups together? They would not even be able to talk to each other.

 

(2) While there is a credal unity, it's basically irrelevant. "We believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen." Okay, all Christians believe that and no atheist believes that. Fine. But what is that? That's just an abstraction. Christians believe in God. But so what? The God-Hates-Fags fascists believe in one thing, the Open and Welcoming Christians believe in quite another. They don't worship the same God, except only in a nominal sense. So I don't think there are any tenets that make any difference that are universally believed by all Christians. You have to parse that last sentece very carefully, but I think it's true. Interpretation and how a religion is experienced and what belief committs you to is what makes the relgion, not the abstract adherence to a set of beliefs.

[shantonu]

99% of all xian denominations have a salvation meme. An equal amount have a sin meme.

 

They may argue about the details but the implications of these memes will affect believers in much the same way with the difference only being in the personality type of the believer not in the various doctrinal interpretations.

 

That's a lot like saying that all languages use verbs. All religions--not just Christianity--have a salvation scheme. It's the content of those schemes that makes the difference, really it makes all the difference.

[florduh]

I think the wordplay is making for a less than productive discussion.

 

If someone says he is Republican, we know what that means - even though there are many shades of Republican belief. We may not know from that statement alone if he is a conservative or a moderate, but we know damn well he's a Republican.

[shantonu]

I think the wordplay is making for a less than productive discussion.

 

If someone says he is Republican, we know what that means - even though there are many shades of Republican belief. We may not know from that statement alone if he is a conservative or a moderate, but we know damn well he's a Republican.

 

Well I'm not the one that said that tenents Christianity were intrisicially evil. When that was said, I responded that there are virulent forms of Christianity--and these don't represent, and cannot represent--Christianity as a whole, because the tenets of Christianity are too elusive to be captured by any one denomination. That's what started this somewhat semantic debate. Yet this is not empty wordplay. There are genuine differences afoot.

 

Incidentally, your example could not be better chosen for my purposes. A "Republican" now means a conservative, perhaps. But as little as 140 years ago it would not have had that meaning for all purposes. And it certainly didn't have that meaning in the South, since Southern Democrats were often conservatives. And "being" a converative and a moderate is what this whole debate is about.

[Vigile]

99% of all xian denominations have a salvation meme. An equal amount have a sin meme.

 

They may argue about the details but the implications of these memes will affect believers in much the same way with the difference only being in the personality type of the believer not in the various doctrinal interpretations.

 

That's a lot like saying that all languages use verbs. All religions--not just Christianity--have a salvation scheme. It's the content of those schemes that makes the difference, really it makes all the difference.

 

You completely missed the point. Again, unless you have ever struggled with it you will never understand it. When people are taught to believe that they are utterly flawed, and when they are taught that they are sinners and that natural instincts constitute sin they are taught something damaging. As I said, it doesn't affect everyone in the same way but these teachings will have the same effect on people regardless of minor doctrinal difference that surround them. Other religions that teach people to feel unworthy and live with unwarranted guilt are also hideous IMO.

[shantonu]

99% of all xian denominations have a salvation meme. An equal amount have a sin meme.

 

They may argue about the details but the implications of these memes will affect believers in much the same way with the difference only being in the personality type of the believer not in the various doctrinal interpretations.

 

That's a lot like saying that all languages use verbs. All religions--not just Christianity--have a salvation scheme. It's the content of those schemes that makes the difference, really it makes all the difference.

 

You completely missed the point. Again, unless you have ever struggled with it you will never understand it. When people are taught to believe that they are utterly flawed, and when they are taught that they are sinners and that natural instincts constitute sin they are taught something damaging. As I said, it doesn't affect everyone in the same way but these teachings will have the same effect on people regardless of minor doctrinal difference that surround them. Other religions that teach people to feel unworthy and live with unwarranted guilt are also hideous IMO.

 

The fact that I'm missing the point, which I may be, is evidence of my point. I was not raised in a form of Christianity that made me believe that I was utterly flawed. I was raised in a fairly liberal Catholic Church near Columbia University in New York City. The type of religion that's preached there is miles from your unfortunate experience. It's still wrong. It's still based on false superstitions and ignorance, but it's a sort of happy ignorance. Go to church, do some rituals, pray to the Virgin and Son, give money to the church, and all will be well. That's not anything great or profound,;but it's not virulent, it's just bullshit. There is a difference.

 

So many people on this site come out of a really negative "we are rags at the feet of Jesus incapable of any good, devoid of all worth" version of Christianity. That's why they are here trying to undo years of mental slavery and torture. But that's simply not the end of Christian experience. The non-virulent forms are not less wrong, and I'm not defending them, I'm just pointing out that they exist and we should be mindful of them because they are prefereable to the alternative and we should not let the best be the enemy of the good.