Arguments/hypotheticals against Christianity

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What does religion have to do with anything? An atheist can be a moral Platonist. It's simultaneously championing moral relativism and Western values which makes no sense.

...they might try to counter by saying that they can still champion Pluralism and either Tolerance or Affirmation of cultural diversity (which as we know are Western values). ;) The affirmation of Pluralism is basically only one step away from affirmation of Moral Relativism. The strange bedfellows that these ideas are can be seen in that one of my atheist philosophy professors told us in class, "we are all really Absolutists, and we just hold different sets of ideas about what count as absolute." (And this guy would be someone you would have liked: he was a former lawyer from D.C. who later transitioned into philosophy. Of course, I didn't necessarily agree with everything he said, but he was a sharp and interesting chap.)

So, for instance, a person with Western, liberal values could affirm that holding absolutely to a bona-fide tolerance/affirmation of other diverse peoples also means we have to be intolerant of intolerance (which, I guess by inference, means that these are two types of intolerance-----meaning that there is supposedly a semantic loop-hole which prevents this position from being self-referential. I'm not sure it isn't self-referential to some degree, but this is the thinking the professor above professed. I'm guessing that by this he meant that the second kind of intolerance should be changed out as a term for 'bigotry' so that is all becomes clearer; so in essence, he could be a liberal moral absolutist and therefore be intolerant of bigotry, thus making room for affirmation of multiple cultural pathways of expression).

For me, the interesting thing has been to mull over how any of this may or may not count against my Christian faith. :cool: I guess it would be too much to wonder if @Jane_the_Bane would care about any of this.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟168,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
What fresh silliness is this? Funny that you would talk of being 'removed from reality'...

Greek was the only written language in the history of the ancient world which did not develop directly out of the spoken language. On the surface, this may not seem that important, but the "very process of reading and writing Greek... transformed the tribal dream into the private psyche of ego-trips unlimited; it had divorced thinking from doing; it had... replaced myth replaying universal human experience with history recounting particular events about individual people; and it had substituted abstract Nature for chaotic existence as the basis, not only for science and philosophy, but for all thought and action that constitute Western civilization" (Barrington Nevitt)
Because it did not develop out of their spoken language, in the Greek written language neither the individual letter nor the syllable had any meaning in itself. (Unlike in Hebrew, or Chinese, or Hopi, or...)
This permanently influenced the way we try to understand reality, by moving on to increasing levels of abstraction instead of looking at relationships.

As I told you before, to measure one thing against another as an improvement, requires a third thing against which both must be measured that one conforms to more closely than the other.
And as I told you before, this is a pure semantics game, like "creation needs a creator". A question of linguistic utility and self-referential logic, nothing more.
A Capuchin monkey understands nothing about any of these theistic arguments, but it does understand the difference between fair treatment and unfair treatment:

 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Greek was the only written language in the history of the ancient world which did not develop directly out of the spoken language. On the surface, this may not seem that important, but the "very process of reading and writing Greek... transformed the tribal dream into the private psyche of ego-trips unlimited; it had divorced thinking from doing; it had... replaced myth replaying universal human experience with history recounting particular events about individual people; and it had substituted abstract Nature for chaotic existence as the basis, not only for science and philosophy, but for all thought and action that constitute Western civilization" (Barrington Nevitt)
Because it did not develop out of their spoken language, in the Greek written language neither the individual letter nor the syllable had any meaning in itself. (Unlike in Hebrew, or Chinese, or Hopi, or...)
This permanently influenced the way we try to understand reality, by moving on to increasing levels of abstraction instead of looking at relationships.

This looks like extreme speculation based on the already controversial theory that abstract thought arose due to the nature of the Greek alphabet--a piece of ethnocentric theorizing usually used to support the exceptionalism of Western culture, so it's strange that you think being able to think abstractly is a negative. In any case, the Indian philosophy of the Upanishads is just as abstract and otherworldly as the extremes of Platonism, so the idea that it was specifically the Greek alphabet which led to this type of thinking just doesn't work. You would need to account for the ancient Indian scripts as well.

Also, if you want less abstract ideas about philosophy, including legal philosophy, go back to Hammurabi's Code.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
...they might try to counter by saying that they can still champion Pluralism and either Tolerance or Affirmation of cultural diversity (which as we know are Western values). ;) The affirmation of Pluralism is basically only one step away from affirmation of Moral Relativism. The strange bedfellows that these ideas are can be seen in that one of my atheist philosophy professors told us in class, "we are all really Absolutists, and we just hold different sets of ideas about what count as absolute." (And this guy would be someone you would have liked: he was a former lawyer from D.C. who later transitioned into philosophy. Of course, I didn't necessarily agree with everything he said, but he was a sharp and interesting chap.)

So, for instance, a person with Western, liberal values could affirm that holding absolutely to a bona-fide tolerance/affirmation of other diverse peoples also means we have to be intolerant of intolerance (which, I guess by inference, means that these are two types of intolerance-----meaning that there is supposedly a semantic loop-hole which prevents this position from being self-referential. I'm not sure it isn't self-referential to some degree, but this is the thinking the professor above professed. I'm guessing that by this he meant that the second kind of intolerance should be changed out as a term for 'bigotry' so that is all becomes clearer; so in essence, he could be a liberal moral absolutist and therefore be intolerant of bigotry, thus making room for affirmation of multiple cultural pathways of expression).

For me, the interesting thing has been to mull over how any of this may or may not count against my Christian faith. :cool: I guess it would be too much to wonder if @Jane_the_Bane would care about any of this.

I actually think this position is worlds away from moral relativism. It's pretty much word for word where I stand on things. ^_^
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I actually think this position is worlds away from moral relativism. It's pretty much word for word where I stand on things. ^_^

Perhaps it is a few steps away from moral relativism, although I'm still spinning my head at your earlier comment above about how one would have to be a moral relativist in order to accept all those nasty and violent things we find in the O.T., or as @Jane_the_Bane called it, "morally void Stalinist Theism." :confused:

Personally, I'm fairly tolerant of diversity and pluralism, especially since my view of Christianity holds love, compassion, grace, mercy, charity, and altruism to be central components of Christian doctrine. The tough part is in realizing that holiness, purity, justice, obedience and truth are also central components of Christian doctrine, so even though I want to be nice to as many people as possible, even Capitalist Objectivists, I can't really fully affirm all those other ... *ahem*... opposing, non-christian ideas that profusely and continuously float around out there. I try to be very choosy about what I incorporate into my faith so I don't poison the baby's bathwater: a bit of Judaism here, a little Tao there, and a good helping of Western philosophy to flesh out and shape up my Christian theology. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Perhaps it is a few steps away from moral relativism, although I'm still spinning my head at your earlier comment above about how one would have to be a moral relativist in order to accept all those nasty and violent things we find in the O.T., or as @Jane_the_Bane called it, "morally void Stalinist Theism." :confused:

I'm specifically thinking about the divinely commanded genocides, though I'm sure I could come up with other complaints if pressed. But if one of the key commandments of Christianity is to love your neighbor as yourself, even your enemies, how can genocide ever be justified? I don't see any way to reconcile these things that does not put morality completely out of the reach of human understanding and therefore as good as nonexistent. I would not say "Stalinist theism," but it does have more than a touch of Islamic authoritarianism to it, in that moral truths can be known only by revelation.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Greek was the only written language in the history of the ancient world which did not develop directly out of the spoken language. On the surface, this may not seem that important, but the "very process of reading and writing Greek... transformed the tribal dream into the private psyche of ego-trips unlimited; it had divorced thinking from doing; it had... replaced myth replaying universal human experience with history recounting particular events about individual people; and it had substituted abstract Nature for chaotic existence as the basis, not only for science and philosophy, but for all thought and action that constitute Western civilization" (Barrington Nevitt)
Because it did not develop out of their spoken language, in the Greek written language neither the individual letter nor the syllable had any meaning in itself. (Unlike in Hebrew, or Chinese, or Hopi, or...)
This permanently influenced the way we try to understand reality, by moving on to increasing levels of abstraction instead of looking at relationships.
This is still being quite silly. Many writing systems were adapted for other languages, often vastly different ones. Have you ever heard of Cuneiform? This was created to write the language isolate of Sumerian and rapidly the signs became stylised until they showed no clear connection to what had originally been depicted. This then became adapted to write Semitic Akkadian and later Indo-European Hittite. Cuneiform was a syllabary, so its signs had meaning as representations of sounds, even having signs not to be read to act as determinatives. So I fail to see why your little rhethorical quotation could not equally be said to apply here, as the situation is very analogous.
In anyway, the Greek Alphabet still represented the spoken language, so wasn't a completely divorced system. The letters though did have meaning in and of themselves - they were used as numbers, which was eventually greatly simplified. We also see individual letters being used as shorthand, like Sparta using a lambda to represent Lacedaemon, so the letters were also used logographically on occasion still. If you want a representational system completely divorced from any spoken language, Etruscan/Roman Numerals would fit much better, as these likely developed from notches cut in tally sticks.

If anything, this seems a bit ethnocentric as @Silmarien noted and she made a good point on the Upanishad. I find it highly speculative and frankly implausible, to ascribe so much to the simple act of adapting the Phoenician Alphabet to writing Greek. Abstract conceptualisation was present before it, so why this specifically was responsible for Greek Philosophy is beyond me.
And as I told you before, this is a pure semantics game, like "creation needs a creator". A question of linguistic utility and self-referential logic, nothing more.
A Capuchin monkey understands nothing about any of these theistic arguments, but it does understand the difference between fair treatment and unfair treatment:

I am not going to go over things we have discussed before ad nauseam. However, what is the point of your little monkey video?It really is not helping your case. For is their reciprocality in all nature? A sense of fairness? Do lions share their kills equally? Or wolves? Do not Chimpanzees hunt and kill each other in territorial wars? Do ants not engage in slavery? Even if we just look at primates, there are multiple behaviours. Why is one behaviour 'more correct' than another? No, biology argues a prisoner's dilemma in a form of game theory, that 'bad' behaviour is rewarded up until a point where it becomes too prevalent and punishing such behaviour becomes advantageous. As such, nice guys and jerks end up in an equilibrium in the population. Why are nice guys then more correct than jerks? It is just a system of natural selection and adaptation. There is no real morality here, as it is just you preferring the one to the other, but both would be equal stances by developmental standards. If you say altruistic behaviour is inherently 'more good', upon what are you basing that value judgement? This is a function of semantics, but one based on the inherent meaning of the concepts themselves, for morality by convention is no morality.

This is not what human morality is. This leads to ideas like Herd Mentality and Nietsche's Will; and not necessarily as he meant it, but as his sister did. If we argue for one side of the coin from developmental theories of biology, we might just as well argue for the other side.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm specifically thinking about the divinely commanded genocides, though I'm sure I could come up with other complaints if pressed. But if one of the key commandments of Christianity is to love your neighbor as yourself, even your enemies, how can genocide ever be justified? I don't see any way to reconcile these things that does not put morality completely out of the reach of human understanding and therefore as good as nonexistent. I would not say "Stalinist theism," but it does have more than a touch of Islamic authoritarianism to it, in that moral truths can be known only by revelation.

Yes, I got the reference to "divinely commanded genocide(s)." That particular issue seems to be one of the main deal-breakers for a whole lot of people. And I have some theories as to why:

1) We in the Post-Holocaust West are stuck in a social paradigm shift in which we are tempted to completely discount the value and graveness of "sin." That concept just doesn't register for us. "Crime" does; "sin" does not. Some of this shift began in the Renaissance, but really got going after the European religious wars finished in the 1700s, with the 20th century Holocaust and Communist pogroms and tyranny providing yet additional catalysts for this shift. See law professor Gordon A. Christenson's (2012) article about how Enlightenment, Modernist thinking has brought about a legal sea-change (social paradigm shift) for the practice [and understanding] of religion in the West.

[Please note: I'm NOT saying or implying that peace is bad. Obviously, "peace" is a cardinal idea of the Christian faith. The caveat is that the Christian faith implies that real social and political peace can only be found in Christ, and can only be had if everyone gets on the same religious page ...]

2) Many people today think the Bible, or New Testament specifically, extols a generic concept of "love" above all else, but it really doesn't. If anything, it emphasizes God's "love" in Christ for the world, but it does so conditionally and only in tandem with all of the other aspects that are central to God's View Point. What this shows is that not many people are given to reading the Bible very closely, or correctly, and they have no desire to even contemplate hermeneutical applications in their reading. They think everything should be simply interpreted, that God would have made it simple, and thus our conclusions should be intuitively simple. However, if the God of the Bible is truly real and in accordance with a full and complete reading of the Bible, I think we can see how this reaction among people can be seen as the onset of a gullibility that comes with the paradigm shift I mentioned above.

3) We have people today (many Christian, even) who promulgate either superficial understandings of the Bible, or at times, erroneous ones which lead others into confusion, making the undertaking of serious study of the Bible not so much a difficult one, even though it is, but one prone to the emotional detachment and complete emotional aversion (and now avoidance) that comes with the apparent lack of relevance the Bible has for people now living in the same paradigm shift.

Those are my initial theories. Of course, as I've said before, there's more where that came from ... :cool:

As far as Islamic authoritarianism is concerned, I'm not sure how that counts against the truth value of the Old Testament. To me, attributing fault to the O.T. by referring to a later contrivance such as Islam is anachronistic. Besides, Islam is discounted straight off the bat by Christians because the weight of the disagreement they have with Muslims is much, much heavier than the weight of any theological agreement they may also have. That is, since Islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God, and denies that He died on the cross and rose again, denies that humanity is reconciled to God by the person and work of Jesus Christ alone, this one most important point itself proves the inefficacy of the late-comer to World Religion. So, it should immediately be swept off of the table of discussion for any further consideration from a Christian point of view and not count against Christianity, or against the remaining, post-resurrection cogency of the O.T.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
1) We in the Post-Holocaust West are stuck in a social paradigm shift in which we are tempted to completely discount the value and graveness of "sin." That concept just doesn't register for us. "Crime" does; "sin" does not. Some of this shift began in the Renaissance, but really got going after the European religious wars finished in the 1700s, with the 20th century Holocaust and Communist pogroms and tyranny providing yet additional catalysts for this shift. See law professor Gordon A. Christenson's (2012) article about how Enlightenment, Modernist thinking has brought about a legal sea-change (social paradigm shift) for the practice [and understanding] of religion in the West.

This is not a modern problem. It's ancient. You can find it as far back as the Patristic period, where theologians were arguing over whether these passages were to be understood literally or spiritually. This is why I mentioned Marcion before, though Origen works just as well for a (somewhat) less controversial example. Attributing it to modern psychology really doesn't work.

One of my problems is in fact connected to the concept of sin--genocide is not just terrible for the victims; it has consequences for the perpetrators as well. So God appears to be commanding people to carry out acts that will rebound horrifically upon their souls. Though I suppose painting God in fullblown utilitarian terms is one way to deal with the Problem of Evil.

However, if the God of the Bible is truly real and in accordance with a full and complete reading of the Bible, I think we can see how this reaction among people can be seen as the onset of a gullibility that comes with the paradigm shift I mentioned above.

Islam is relevant in that Ash'ari theology holds that God cannot be known through reason in any way, and that even morality can only be known through revelation. Christianity has traditionally rejected this radical split between faith and reason, but I'm not sure how the two can be reconciled if the same behavior can be divinely mandated in one age and prohibited in another. I'm not attributing fault to the O.T. with this comparison, but rather explaining what I mean in saying that this particular approach invites moral relativism. I don't bring up Islam as a more coherent revelation, but as a theological model of what it means for morality to be irreconcilable with reason.

So, it should immediately be swept off of the table of discussion for any further consideration from a Christian point of view and not count against Christianity, or against the remaining, post-resurrection cogency of the O.T.

I'm speaking as a Platonist here, really--my concern is the Euthyphro Dilemma. Islam fails as an answer to it. If Christianity fails for similar reasons, that is a big problem.
 
Upvote 0

Zoness

667, neighbor of the beast
Supporter
Jul 21, 2008
8,384
1,654
Illinois
✟468,399.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
This is not a modern problem. It's ancient. You can find it as far back as the Patristic period, where theologians were arguing over whether these passages were to be understood literally or spiritually. This is why I mentioned Marcion before, though Origen works just as well for a (somewhat) less controversial example. Attributing it to modern psychology really doesn't work

As it turns out, I find I found Origen's beliefs very appealing and frankly found a lot of appeal with Marcion too though his arch-heretic status would earn me a good lashing in my birth faith.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is not a modern problem. It's ancient. You can find it as far back as the Patristic period, where theologians were arguing over whether these passages were to be understood literally or spiritually. This is why I mentioned Marcion before, though Origen works just as well for a (somewhat) less controversial example. Attributing it to modern psychology really doesn't work.
Actually, Sil, the problem I'm referring to is more the one which exists between those who believe and have faith in God and Christ on one side, and those who don't, on the other, a divide often brought about by issues like genocide or slavery, issues which can play a pivotal role in which 'side' one forms emotional attachments. Sure, theologians can, and have, disagreed to some extent on just how literally to take the O.T., but that's not what I'm getting at. If you're going to refer to Christian figures of the past, then I'd say that what I'm talking about refers mostly to something like was seen between Origen and Porphyry rather than between Tertullian and Marcion.

More to the point; this isn't psychology, but rather a problem inherent within the current political, sociological, and ethical paradigm.

One of my problems is in fact connected to the concept of sin--genocide is not just terrible for the victims; it has consequences for the perpetrators as well. So God appears to be commanding people to carry out acts that will rebound horrifically upon their souls. Though I suppose painting God in fullblown utilitarian terms is one way to deal with the Problem of Evil.
Well.....the 'apparent' issue of genocide in the O.T. is a soar spot for many, and it doesn't get addressed in the ways that it should by the Church. The issue of genocide in the O.T. has little to do with any Utiliarian measures taken by God and mostly to do with Israel's maintenance of Holiness before a Holy God.

I can see why many Christians are hesitant to talk about this issue, or to defend the biblical position, because due to the paradigm shift in which we are now all socially and politically plunged, for a person like myself to even broach this topic in the way that I'm doing here tends to make other people suspicious of that person's sanity; and then the doors of communication get slammed shut and nothing is heard or learned because assumptions are what they are in a democratic West.

Islam is relevant in that Ash'ari theology holds that God cannot be known through reason in any way, and that even morality can only be known through revelation. Christianity has traditionally rejected this radical split between faith and reason, but I'm not sure how the two can be reconciled if the same behavior can be divinely mandated in one age and prohibited in another. I'm not attributing fault to the O.T. with this comparison, but rather explaining what I mean in saying that this particular approach invites moral relativism. I don't bring up Islam as a more coherent revelation, but as a theological model of what it means for morality to be irreconcilable with reason.
Usually, the only people who really contest the moral solidity of the O.T. are those who are either somewhat unfamiliar with it, not knowing what contexts are actually there, or those who are so blinded by today's Western assumptions that they refuse to try to understand an explanation.

I'm speaking as a Platonist here, really--my concern is the Euthyphro Dilemma. Islam fails as an answer to it. If Christianity fails for similar reasons, that is a big problem.
I've already poked some holes in the Euthryphro Dilemma a few years ago. It's nothing to be concerned with, really. It doesn't apply to Biblical faith ... :D

Anyway, I guess a full-fledged discussion over apparent genocide in the O.T. might be better placed in the apologetics section than here, although I'm not looking for debate, but a reasonable, motivated discussion with those who are willing to consider and maybe learn. As it is, this issue gets swatted away out of hand by many, as if seeking to answer it is unneeded and only undertaken by those without compassion and common sense. However as it may sound initially, I'm really not a heartless bastard. :cool:

[Now, we have some things to finally, really disagree about ... ]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As it turns out, I find I found Origen's beliefs very appealing and frankly found a lot of appeal with Marcion too though his arch-heretic status would earn me a good lashing in my birth faith.

...as I told Silmarien earlier, Marcion deserves a good spanking! :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
As it turns out, I find I found Origen's beliefs very appealing and frankly found a lot of appeal with Marcion too though his arch-heretic status would earn me a good lashing in my birth faith.

Origen is a bit... mmm, extreme to me with some of the crazy esoteric speculation. ^_^ But I do like the Alexandrites in general. And some of the other Greek thinkers.

Anyway, I guess a a full-fledged discussion over apparent genocide in the O.T. might be better placed in the apologetics section than here, especially since I'm not looking for debate, but a reasonable, motivated discussion with those who are willing to consider and maybe learn.

I would be willing to consider why the Abrahamic God as a fictional character would command such things, but I can't imagine such a discussion being theologically edifying. Except in that it might convince me that Christianity is actually false. Especially right now, since I'm spiritually burnt out and at my most apophatic anyway. Heideggerian dark night of the soul.
 
Upvote 0

MehGuy

A member of the less neotenous sex..
Supporter
Jul 23, 2007
55,893
10,815
Minnesota
✟1,155,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Concerning Marcion, tempted to make a thread about heretical beliefs one may have had/have when they were a Christian. Although that might be pushing things a little bit too much here.. lol.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I would be willing to consider why the Abrahamic God as a fictional character would command such things, but I can't imagine such a discussion being theologically edifying. Except in that it might convince me that Christianity is actually false. Especially right now, since I'm spiritually burnt out and at my most apophatic anyway. Heideggerian dark night of the soul.

Well, if you're feeling burned-out, now probably wouldn't be a good time to discuss darker things in the O.T. Since I've experienced some of the same feelings about things (and religion) in my life at various times, I can empathize. No problem. We'll just reach for more positive fare to talk about. ;) Blessings, Sil!
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟168,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
Ugh, Marcion.

The Gnostics had some good ideas, but their general disdain for physicality (and their veneration for disembodied, "pure" spirit) renders them hard to stomach. Christianity in general has got this tendency to demonize "the World", but Gnosticism took this to even more ridiculous extremes. Such dissociation is never healthy. (And look at what Origen did just to escape the "sins of the flesh"...)

My objection to Marcion's exegesis is mostly his anachronistic approach.
Yes, I get that these scriptures only work properly when perceived in their historical context.

Read from today's perspective, Abraham's tale is the story of a fawning yes-man who'd butcher his own son to appease a seemingly sociopathic deity. Read within the context of the ancient middle east, however, it's a tale of a god who rejects the human sacrifice commonly practiced by the surrounding culture, while demonstrating what really matters about the whole practice (i.e., the gesture counts).

That's the problem, though. Most Christians who aren't chastised as "liberals" reject historical-critical exegesis, and hold that it's perfectly just and utterly good for a God that embodies Perfection to order death by stoning for minor misdemeanours. (Of course, they'll say in the same breath that their deity doesn't do such things *now*, but it nonetheless characterises the deity they worship in a very specific manner.)

Long story short: I don't think it's a coincidence that a man like Donald J. Trump could find such staunch supporters among contemporary evangelicals.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
For the record, although Marcion is lumped with the Gnostics by many, he technically was not, nor did he teach Gnosticism. A lot of his ideas are compatable, but they have significant differences.

Marcion taught a spiritual Christ and that the OT God was a demiurge, but unlike gnosticism he did not teach that divine sparks were embedded in matter that needed to be freed from it. Nor was his demiurge fallen from or ultimately related to the spiritual realm as in Gnosticism. It was utterly separate realms in a way. While Valentinian had complex syzygies and essences of Sophia or Wisdom captured in matter, Marcion taught no revelatory doctrine of secret knowledge nor entrapped divine sparks.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ugh, Marcion.

The Gnostics had some good ideas, but their general disdain for physicality (and their veneration for disembodied, "pure" spirit) renders them hard to stomach. Christianity in general has got this tendency to demonize "the World", but Gnosticism took this to even more ridiculous extremes. Such dissociation is never healthy. (And look at what Origen did just to escape the "sins of the flesh"...)

My objection to Marcion's exegesis is mostly his anachronistic approach.
Yes, I get that these scriptures only work properly when perceived in their historical context.

Read from today's perspective, Abraham's tale is the story of a fawning yes-man who'd butcher his own son to appease a seemingly sociopathic deity. Read within the context of the ancient middle east, however, it's a tale of a god who rejects the human sacrifice commonly practiced by the surrounding culture, while demonstrating what really matters about the whole practice (i.e., the gesture counts).

That's the problem, though. Most Christians who aren't chastised as "liberals" reject historical-critical exegesis, and hold that it's perfectly just and utterly good for a God that embodies Perfection to order death by stoning for minor misdemeanours. (Of course, they'll say in the same breath that their deity doesn't do such things *now*, but it nonetheless characterises the deity they worship in a very specific manner.)

Long story short: I don't think it's a coincidence that a man like Donald J. Trump could find such staunch supporters among contemporary evangelicals.

Jane, you're so close, but yet still so far away. (Why do I have this kind of Yin-Yang feeling about you...?) :rolleyes: One thing you might also want to consider: that in politics in the U.S., voting choices are not just a matter of whether one is either "Liberal" or "Conservative"---there can also be a difference in choices between those who are educated and those who are generally uneducated. I count myself as an educated conservative, so in my case, I didn't fall into the social confluences of typicality.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums