Christianity - force for liberation or for oppression?

Remove all ads!

I'm not trying to be pro or anti-Christianity. All I want to say is Christianity's worth is relative in a pragmatic sense. Since any faith is clearly, on its most basic level, metaphysical in nature, it lacks any sort of synthetic a posteriori truth and we certainly wouldn't want to label it as an analytic a priori truth. It's value is ultimately determined by its truth in a given situation, that is, how well it works. It maybe condemnable in one situation and worthy of praise in another simply because it works in one and not another. I have no intent of going all John Dewey here, but isn't that how we always operate? Willard Quine even pointed out the pragmatism in science and mathematics (I'll never be able to prove the law of cause and effect or the truth of mathematics, but I diregress). Anyway, when used within practicality, pragmatism, I find is a good way to deal with entities that operate on a type of knowledge that can never be proven.

 

Darkthorne, the problem with your communism analogy is that it has been done more than once, and has worked in the past. The early Christian church was communistic, and it worked well. The problem is that people tend to see one catastrophic failure (usually to issues not associated with the idea itself) and assume it will never work. Look at the Hindenburg. Airships are just barely beginning to recover from that now, yet they were a major means of areal transportation beforehand. The failure of the Hindenburg? Someone used a flamable sealent on the canvas envelope (the balloony part), so a single lighning strike sent the whole thing up in flames. The use of hydrogen didn't actually change anything, because all the oxygen in the air had been used up before it got to the hydrogen. Did people care? No, they just saw a big ball of flames where one of the largest airships ever built had just been and tossed the whole idea as a bad one.

Basically, my point in all that is that a failure in application does not make an idea bad, or even not the best. So long as you can point to actual failures in application, there's nothing wrong with saying, "Yeah, but those psychos did X, Y, and Z and everyone knows you're not supposed to. See, it's right here in the instruction manual."

 

Christianity, Like all other religions are not meant to rule politically, but they ought to influence the rulers. Just like any theory, like communism, socalism, democracy or whatever else, it will not make for a working government in it's purest form. But we can learn from them can benefit the rest of the world...

The value of Christianity is to the individual. By improving the individual, you imporve the influence they have on society around them.

By your theory, someone abuses something, the rest of us can't have it either. Someone murders someone with a gun? Take away all the guns. Someone gets drunk and kills someone with a car? I guess everyone's walking. Someone beats someone to death with a baseball bat? Well, that's one way to get rid of the New York Yankees...

 

Gnarfflinger, your last post is among the most sensible things I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading from you. If, indeed, the Christian position was that Christianity is just one of a manifold of competing theories and ideologies, I wouldn’t have felt obliged to post in these “Religion – Pro/Contra” threads anyway. I was, however, under the distinct impression that you always wanted to share your individual Christian benefits and values with your neighbours. The homosexual marriage threads come to mind.
I’m glad that you changed your way of thinking to a more adequate “live and let live, each to their own, their lives don’t bother me” attitude. Kudos to you, then.

By the way, I haven’t promoted any theory at all. If you read what I’ve written – which, I agree, is a tedious thing to do because of my erratic schoolmasterly style -, you will find that I just said - or at least tried to if you would be so good to give me the benefit of doubt – that I can see no reason to brush aside the doubts often exhibited by those opposed to religion concerning the often cruel and misbecoming history of, e.g., the Roman Catholic Church while at the same time maintaining that for example communism is out-dated because of the failure of the former Soviet Union. End of sentence.

Now all of you are surprising me, and I’m overjoyed to realize this. Look here:

Although I don’t clearly understand whether it is the communism analogy, communism itself, or Christianity that has been done more than once in the past, I take it that you are saying that a failure of a particular idea doesn’t speak against the idea but rather against its particular implementation. Which is cool, because that’s what I think as well. I think that maybe we should give communism another try and I’m glad to read that many of you Northern Americans would support such an idea or, at least, wouldn’t oppose it on the basis of “Stalin was a devil – do you really want to go through all that again?!”

It is good to read out of your posts that you all have a relaxed attitude towards atheism – but I dimly remember NOG (No Other Gods) saying something in the past about how atheism has been tried under Stalin and how we all know how bad this turned out in the end, right? I must have been mistaken, obviously.

Swell.

 

Religion in general has that effect, IMO. When a person has a spiritual connection to the world and all its inhabitant, s/he will treat that world and those inhabitants differently than someone who has minimal reason to care about anything beyond his/her own interests. There is nothing that sets Christianity apart from other religions in this regard.

I find this whole thread highly amusing in that, although the Founding Fathers were largely Christian, the principles underpinning the US Constitution can all be found in the Torah.

 

I don't really hold any animosity towards communism, but I don't think it would work well on a large scale. There are too many opportunities for abuse. I suppose, if the Founding Fathers had been communists, they may have developed sufficient checks and balances, they did a pretty good job with our republic, after all, but I think it would be a much harder task. That, however, is simply from an analysis of the theory, and not from experience.

I seem to remember saying something along those lines, yes, but I believe I continued to reference other attempts at atheist government, as well. If the idea has been tried many times by many different groups and has never worked, then maybe we should take a closer look at the idea. Also, again, I see problems with the theory itself, not just with the application of it.

Christiantiy has been tried many, many times and has had some stunning successes (Mother Theresa, a missionary in Nepal I know named Sashi Bandari), as well as some catestrophic failures (the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials). This shows that, when properly implemented, it CAN work, and work wonderfully.

 

I'm sorry, Rallymama, but I don't share the view that we have spiritual people on one side and uncaring people on the other side. I think that spirituality and empathy are largely independent of one another. I would place myself without hesitation in the unspiritual/caring group.

NOG (No Other Gods), there are successes and failures nearly everywhere we look in nearly any attempt of forming stable human societies.

Some people do good, some are evil bastards, and the distribution of these people seems to be largely independent of the underlying world outlook. Attributing successes to the proper implementation and failures to bad individuals seems to be an easy way out.

Consequently, I think that having a closer look a the given idea is always in order. And this is where we disagree most strongly when it comes to Christianity, because I really do not think that the theoretical foundation of Christianity is in a position to do the world heaps of good.

I will elaborate on this if I can find the time...

 

The main problem I have with you comparison is that I don't see where Christianity has exactly failed? The Catholic Church has existed for well over a millenia which is quite a lot longer than any communist state. To me if anything this would point that religion in one form or the other would actually contribute to the creation of a stable and civil society.

In addition in order for anyone to convince me that communism will work they'd have to create a party programme which addresses the points in which the now fallen or declining communist states have failed, and I'd rather have it without all the ideological rethoric. Their arguments would also have to be appealing enough for me to abandon my pretty decent life that I'm quite satsified with to go to the barricades and overthrow it all in hope of achieving something better even while knowing that most times in the past such attempts have failed. Quite frankly, I don't see anyone capable of producing a programme to satisfy those demands.

 

Morgoroth, communism was just a friggin' example with no real meaning. I'm no communist, I ain't in favour of communism, I do not want to see it installed anywhere, right? I tried to tackle the argument that failures of Christianity have nothing to do with Christianity itself. And I will have done so with this very example for the last time now. I couldn't care less for communism. I don't give a **** about communsim, don't bother me again with communism, for Christ's sake, man! Stop asking about the communism, I don't want to hear again about communism, I don't ****ing need no communism in my life, my life up till now was completely communism-free, I can't be bothered with communism! Hell, I don't even know a communist, none of my friends are communists, I wouldn't like to be acquainted to communists, I really can't be having with communists again. Understood? No more communism, please. If I could choose between communism and football world champion 2010 I would gladly choose the football title, communism is for the underclasses, you hear me, Barmy, for the underclasses! I'm the friggin' Queen, I am! No communism in my house is all I'm saying.

Concise posting for beginners.

Communism slipped in here just because I wanted to move the argumentation more to the inner values of Religion/Christianity. Sorry for having usurped this fine thread in an awful manner, I will try to be more substantial later on.

My next 20 postings will contain no mention of communism, I swear.

 

You did notice that I talked about "them" without refering to you and was in no way implying that you were a communist, merely addressing the faults in your reasoing on the similarities between communism and religion.

Religion in my opinion really becomes a problem only when it wants to establish itself as the predominant social model and starts to dominate society and enforcing itself on others. That we have tried I can agree but I doubt you'll find many here argumenting for theocracy. Instead as an politically neutral institution religious institutions christian, muslim, jewish or jedi benefit the society. Freedom of religion and tolerance towards other religions are very important for a healthy modern society.

 

I couldn't agree more. It's a convenient means of making yourself think you're right. People always want to have some reassurance that they're right - especially when it comes down to something like religion, in which you're never going to get hard proof that you're right, as it's a matter of faith. By simply saying it works because in this particular case it was properly implemented is a means of seeing that a particular religion works - and if that religion happens to be your religion, you definitely want to see it in that particular way. And the same is true in converse when you say it didn't work because of bad individuals.

That's why I also have a hard time following any religion, but in all honesty I can't call myself an atheist, I'm more of a strong agnostic.

EDIT: I guess the more simply way to put it is this: If you are a Christian, than seeing Christianity as a source of good in the world make you feel better about your religion, and therefore indirectly about yourself as well. If this is a faith of good, and I follow this faith, then I am good too.

 

Aldeth, I think I need to turn that edit around a little bit. Seeing Christianity as a source of good doesn't just make me feel good about myself, it is a major part of why I'm a Christian in the first place. In fact, I would dare to say that anyone that follows any religion in anything more than name thinks that that religion is the best way, in many cases, the only way. If they didn't, they probably wouldn't have joined that religion in the first place (I'm not counting those that 'follow' out of fear or complacency).

In other words, you seem to have put the opinion of Christianity being good as a rationalization (right or not) that Christians make to feel better about themselves. I put the opinion of Christianity being good as a direct cause of joining it in the first place.

Anyway, now to Morgoroth.
Morgy, can I call you Morgy? I see a failure of Christianity every time those professing it failed to follow the teachings of Christ. All the moments I mentioned (and many more) are such examples. People stopped doing what Christ had told them to do and started doing what made them richer, more powerful, or just feel better. They ignored Christ's teachings on love and forgiveness, and the entire idea of forcing or threatening people into following Christianity is loopy to begin with. So while the overall trend has, in my opinion, been successful, there have been some major failings in the process.

 

Darkthorne: I don't think I've changed as much as you think I have. And perhaps I've looked at a point of view more from Mormonism. It is actually in our core doctrine that theocracy is bad. No religion should govern the land. It does reserve the right to lobby, however, and to some in our faith (Mitt Romney the obvious example, but he's not unique in this by a long shot) believe that we ought to do all in our power to influence the government.

The Church recognizes that we are not the only theory or philosophy out there, but we believe ours is the most accurate and the best out there. This, when left unchecked, leads to all manner of trouble, and perhaps is one of the reasons that Theocracy is so maligned...

The Gay Marriage debate (please don't spin this off and hijack this thread) is one area, where Christians will lobby against it, believing that it will erode the morality in the community as a whole. AS the agreed upon morality erodes, the potential benefit of religion will erode with it...

I'm not questioning that, but can you question the influence of teaching such empathy? That, in essence, is what Christ taught in a nutshell. He taught to care for those less fortunate. He taught peace. Is that not a direct infusion of these traits? Wouldn;t that increase the odds of a person in society having such traits?

The same principle creates strikes against both Communism and Christian Theocracy. First, Power corrupts. Those in power will be tempted to abuse their position to get a little more than they would otherwise be entitled to, or to order atrocities to satisfy their pride or to cover their sins.

 

Followed by:

NOG,

I think you are somewhat unique in that you chose to join your religion. Most people who are religious follow the religion they are raised in. If you are indoctrinated into a religion as a child, it is highly unlikely that you will change to a new religion later (yes, all religions have converts, but they make up a small percentage of any church's membership).

I'll use myself as an example here. Even though I consider myself agnostic, I was raised Catholic, as was my wife. When we were children growing up, going to church on Sundays (or Saturday evenings) was non-negotiable. However, the only reason I was raised Catholic was that's what my parents were. I my parents were Muslim, I'd be a Muslim. If my parents were Hindi, I'd be a Hindu.

That's how the indoctrination works, and I have to admit, it works well. While I doubt I will ever be overly religious again in my life, I can say with certainty that if I ever start going to church again frequently, it will be a Catholic church. I recently had a child, and if my son is raised with any religion, it will be the Catholic faith.

Like it or not, the religious practices you learn as a child tend to carry over throughout the rest of your life. Perhaps with me it's because I'm unwilling to make the effort to learn about another religion enough to seek to change, but I honestly think that whatever religion people learn as children will by and large be the religion they follow throughout thier lives if they decide to follow any religion at all.

So going with the basis that your religion is selected for you, and that people are generally unwilling to change, I think it is natural to look for reasons that your religion is good. This may not apply to you NOG, and I certainly stand to be corrected by others if they feel my assessment is entirely in error, but I just think people usually pick the easy way out, and then look for outside evidence to justify the place they find themselves.

 

Aren't all religions oppressive in some way? Don't all religions have intolerance inherent in their membership? I'm quite sure the Spanish monks that came to America believed they were liberating the Native Americans and bringing them to 'greater glory.' At the same time they were torturing and enslaving entire races.

I have found in my studies that most religious teaching are quite good and beneficial. They teach about ethics and honor, integrity and compassion. But the teachings are only as good as the followers. Many of the followers are flawed (just look throughout history, or across the room, or in the mirror).

I disagree with an earlier comment in that I do not believe religion has the patent on doing good. The rule of 'do no harm' was not come upon by a Christian, Muslim or Hindu. There are people in the world who get great joy by helping others -- I believe that is a basic trait of humans, not of religious individuals. We are, after all, communal creatures and survival of the whole depends on the input of the individual. However, there are also men and women who do not seem to have this basic trait. Very self-centered and self-absorbed, they need a set of ethics to follow -- religion does that for them (and I've seen many in religion like this -- in solely for the eternal reward).

I do not believe that religion inspires 'goodness' but instead establishes guidelines for those whose moral compass is slightly off -- good people will follow their hearts and conscience no matter what religion they follow. The term 'good' is somewhat relative: we all have a basic feel for good and evil, right and wrong; but sometimes the details are not the same for everyone. Any particular religious belief focuses on the details and all too often judges entirely on those details -- those who do not follow the narrow guideline thus created are usually discriminated against (oppressed) by members who are short sighted and don't grasp the bigger picture.

Now, about communism....

 

Two things about the notion that the Founders were all "that" religious:

When asked why God was never mentioned in the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton remarked: "I guess we just forgot."

At a vital impasse during the proceedings of the framing, an exasperated Benjamin Franklin declared that maybe "a clergyman should be brought in to pray for divine guidance."

Franklin, an accomplished man of letters, thundered:

Later that day an astonished Ben found that his idea was soundly rejected, with only 3 or 4 members at the entire Convention declaring in favor of his "divine guidance" idea.

 

Aldeth, while indoctrination is effective in instilling habbits, it is far less so in instilling belief. To those for whom it does, it also instills the belief that it is the best way, thus, a Christian is a Christian because he was taught it was the best way as a youth and so believes it is the best way, thus, a Christian is a Christian because he believes it is the best way. To those for whom indoctrination instilled a habbit, I don't count them as real believers because, well, they don't. If they don't think anyone is listening to their prayers in Sunday morning church, or if they are more concerned with their neighbors listening than any kind of God, then I don't really think they count.

T2Bruno, the inclussion of 'opression' into religion is largely a matter of definition and perspective. Do you consider American laws agianst murder 'oppresive'? In a technical sense, they are, and, in a similar sense, such 'oppression' is common to almost all religion (though not absolutely all). The Spanish monks in America are another good example of the failings of the Church, a failed application of Christianity, just like the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials.

I think, though, that the issue I most disagree with you on is that of a 'moral compass'. While I do believe that we all have them, I believe that they are all initially set the same, but they need regular maintanence, and go 'off' on their own without it. Looking throughout history, you see this on a grand scale. Societies tend to start out rather puritan, or at least morally absolute, and then gradually slide towards the more allowing and permissive end until something or someone comes along and jolts them back, then the slide begins again. I have never heard of a society that slid from more permissive to less.

And Chandos is quite right that the Founding Fathers were very careful to NOT make a Christian nation.

 

Thomas Jefferson is an interesting example of someone using the "moral compass," while rejecting the notion of a "religious" state:

Yet, after his death, relatives uncovered within his library, portions of the Gospels of Jesus Christ, meticulously hand copied and joined together, by Jefferson's own hand. Those fragments - the teachings of Jesus - are considered by some Jefferson experts to be a part of his personal moral creed, or "compass," if you will, by which he sought to live. These fragments make up what has come to be known as the "Jefferson Bible."

 

NOG, those are failiures on the individual level. Religion as a social institution has proven itself quite successful. Even in communist countries it has often been replaced by some sort of cult of personality. The failiures on individual level just go on to prove that even if humans are too lazy to follow their religious code to perfection they still take some comfort in it by defining themselves as religious.

And yes you may call me Morg/Morgy.

 

Lol, ok Morgy, I'll hold you to that. While I understand your meaning, I consider a mass-personal failure (like the pedophilic catholic priests being moved around and protected, or the Spanish Inquisition) to be indicitive of an overall failure in the application of the system. It wasn't just one person doing this, it was the whole support network (or at least a large portion of it). This indicates a state of rampant corruption or personal failure that has gone unchecked for an extended period of time. Essentially, it exposes an inherrantly unstable system (computationally speaking).