Jump to content

Contentless Christian Quotations


ficino
 Share

Recommended Posts

Does this actually say anything?

 

"Orthodoxy is idolatry if it means holding the 'correct opinions about God' - 'fundamentalism' is the most extreme and salient example of such idolatry - but not if it means holding faith in the right way, that is, not holding it at all but being held by God, in love and service. Theology is idolatry if it means what we say about God instead of letting ourselves be addressed by what God has to say to us. Faith is idolatrous if it is rigidly self-certain but not if it is softened in the waters of 'doubt'."

- John D. Caputo (What would Jesus Deconstruct?)

 

How sweet, but really ... WTF? This vacuous stuff reminds me of the story about Hermann Goering saying he wanted to reach for his revolver. And why is "doubt" in quotation marks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is meant to assuage the growing masses of doubting christians, promising them that their doubt is simply a phase before finding greater faith.  

 

All the idolatry talk seems like the typical pharisee shaming that is characteristic of christian teachings.  Just when you think you are doing what you are supposed to and living correctly, they move the goalposts.  Now faith without doubt is idolatry?  When did that happen?

 

Christianity tells you who to hate and why, then it tells you to do this with love.  It's basically doublethink.  

Doubt will lead to more faith?  I thought doubt was a step backwards.  Strange!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this actually say anything?

 

"Orthodoxy is idolatry if it means holding the 'correct opinions about God' - 'fundamentalism' is the most extreme and salient example of such idolatry - but not if it means holding faith in the right way, that is, not holding it at all but being held by God, in love and service. Theology is idolatry if it means what we say about God instead of letting ourselves be addressed by what God has to say to us. Faith is idolatrous if it is rigidly self-certain but not if it is softened in the waters of 'doubt'."

- John D. Caputo (What would Jesus Deconstruct?)

 

How sweet, but really ... WTF? This vacuous stuff reminds me of the story about Hermann Goering saying he wanted to reach for his revolver. And why is "doubt" in quotation marks?

 

It means you should always feel guilty and not trust your own self confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
It's not what you think.  He's trying to reason Christians out of their dogmatic certainties.  He's not advocating belief in supernatural revelation.  From John D. Caputo's concluding chapter of The Insistence of God:

"So we come to stand on the ground of a certain materialism....There is grace, grace happens, but it is the grace of the world.  There is salvation, but we are 'saved' only for an instant, in the instant, saved without salvation by a faith that does not keep us safe. This insistence upon time and mortality is poorly described as a form of radical atheism because it is a way we have come upon to reconfigure what we mean by God and to break the grip not only of a strong theology but no less of a violent atheism and above all of the tiresome wars between the two."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in agreement with TrueFreedom here. If you honestly try understanding what Caputo says instead of just cast aspersion all around the place, you'd see this is a criticism of fundamentalism and dogmatic thinking, and not an apologetic text. Just a sliver of reading comprehension would get you to understand that if you weren't set on automatic hostility to every christian writer you encounter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in agreement with TrueFreedom here. If you honestly try understanding what Caputo says instead of just cast aspersion all around the place, you'd see this is a criticism of fundamentalism and dogmatic thinking, and not an apologetic text. Just a sliver of reading comprehension would get you to understand that if you weren't set on automatic hostility to every christian writer you encounter.

 

Is this necessary?  Can you not make your point around here without attacking fellow members?  Please notice that TrueFreedom was able to make his point without being discourteous to others.    

 

If you want to waste your time exercising your reading comprehension skills by reading Caputo's books, go right ahead.  Some of us don't feel safe even with a watered-down version of christianity.

 

I'm still under the impression that moderate christianity empowers fundamentalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in agreement with TrueFreedom here. If you honestly try understanding what Caputo says instead of just cast aspersion all around the place, you'd see this is a criticism of fundamentalism and dogmatic thinking, and not an apologetic text. Just a sliver of reading comprehension would get you to understand that if you weren't set on automatic hostility to every christian writer you encounter.

Relax. This is the "Rants" section, not The Philosophical Review.

 

I agree with xtify, btw.  I've noticed for some time that you have a tendency to word many posts so as to cast aspersion on what other members of this forum write, Miekko.  Not sure why you have that need.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I might come off as hostile is that I fear there's a tendency among us atheists and ex-christians to fall for the exact same fallacies as before, but with new conclusions. Conclusions that might be useful for getting rid of religion, but dangerously close to being just as stupidly wrong.

 

It would be better if we tried to think in rational ways instead of dumb, over-the-top hostile ways. And I'll express this by casting aspersion because I believe shaming is the only way to get this to work, after years of having seen atheist dogma-bots applaud anyone who says anything that is hostile to christianity, and reject any rational arguments offered to show how that particular criticism is off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I might come off as hostile is that I fear there's a tendency among us atheists and ex-christians to fall for the exact same fallacies as before, but with new conclusions. Conclusions that might be useful for getting rid of religion, but dangerously close to being just as stupidly wrong.

 

It would be better if we tried to think in rational ways instead of dumb, over-the-top hostile ways. And I'll express this by casting aspersion because I believe shaming is the only way to get this to work, after years of having seen atheist dogma-bots applaud anyone who says anything that is hostile to christianity, and reject any rational arguments offered to show how that particular criticism is off.

 

It's probably bad to fall into the trap that your own personal take on reality is the only true one and that all others are false. Especially since my personal take on reality shifts now and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...And I'll express this by casting aspersion because I believe shaming is the only way to get this to work...

 

Casting aspersions for casting aspersions...

Bit hypocritical, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...And I'll express this by casting aspersion because I believe shaming is the only way to get this to work...

 

Casting aspersions for casting aspersions...

Bit hypocritical, isn't it?

 

The evidence for my aspersions is pretty much present a few posts up in this thread though, whereas the aspersions cast in those posts are based on nothing but ill will towards whoever wrote the thing quoted in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's saying that Xians shouldn't put their own things of which they feel sure above God and listening to what he "says."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.