Does Christianity support and/or teach racism?

[Larniavc]

Were they right to greedily conquer land and people at the expense of other lands and kill numerous human beings out of lust for power?

Not unless they were commanded to by God it the Bible tells us.

 

[linux.poet]

Does non-denominational Christianity have a cohesive theology? It sounds like some sort of grab-bag for churches outside regular denominations.

Non-denominational churches are self-governing entities, so their coherent theology is spelled out in the doctrinal statements of the universities that they accept pastors from. The Dallas Theological Seminary and the Master's college and Seminary are the most famous examples.

Doctrinal Statement - Dallas Theological Seminary

While our faculty and board annually affirm their agreement with the full doctrinal statement (below), students need only agree with these seven Christian

www.dts.edu

students need only agree with these seven Christian essentials:

1. the Trinity
2. the full deity and humanity of Christ
3. the spiritual lostness of the human race
4. the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ
5. salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone
6. the physical return of Christ
7. the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.

Doctrinal Statement | For Christ & Scripture

We hold firm to the sufficiency, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture in our uncompromising commitment to Christ and Scripture.

www.masters.edu

We teach that the Bible is God’s written revelation to man, and thus the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, constitute the Word of God. That is, we teach the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture, that every word is equally breathed out by God in all its parts (1 Corinthians 2:7–14; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21).

We teach that the Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:13), infallible (John 10:35), and absolutely inerrant in the original documents, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit (Psalm 12:6; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5).

There are other theological schools we take pastors from, but those are the biggest ones, and no non-denominational church I've been in for very long has ever deviated very much from the truths outlined in these statements. Unless they are seeker-friendly churches that don't preach the Gospel and are just party nonsense, they all teach the same thing and follow the truths expressed in those doctrinal statements.

Spoiler: More details you may not want to read

We also have Systematic Theology, the most famous of which is Wayne Grudem's 1123 page monstrosity here: https://fbcfairburn.com/app/uploads/2015/04/Systematic_Theology_-_Wayne_Grudem.pdf

That's long, but it's pretty cohesive and consistent. I think we borrowed that from the Baptist/Anglican tradition that Non-denominational grew out of, since we derived ourselves from self-governing Baptist churches that broke away from being in a denomination altogether. Similar to the Baptists, we only baptize believers and not babies. We also ditched altar calls to accept the Gospel in every service in favor of training children in Scripture truth as well as education and intellectual training as an emphasis.

The entire system is broken down into basic principles and is taught to children via the AWANA ministry, which includes a heavy dose of Scripture memorization, because non-denominational follows Sola Scriptura. At one point a Christian school administrator stood up in front of our congregation and stated that 80% of non-denominational converts to the faith occur before age 18. That's because joining the non-denominational systems as an adult is actually more difficult. We expect people to act in accordance with the Scripture, which is difficult if you haven't read and memorized large sections of it already. The emphasis on Scriptural study, memorization, inerrancy, and compliance is what distinguishes us from other denominations. (It's also why How To Stay Christian In College is a book, because we focus on retention.)

A denomination is just a church authority. A non-denominational church is a self-governing entity in submission to Scripture as authority, using Matthew 18 as the method of discipline. The members of the congregation are expected to know the Scripture and hold the pastor accountable to teach it correctly, in line with theological scholarship and in light of the original languages.

It's not a "grab bag", it's a clear and consistent theology that places Christ and Scripture as authorities for truth, with Christ as the first and ultimate authority.

This is the problem, and it is internal to you. It is you that can't accept non-reverant and non-theological analysis of the biblical text.

Neither can they. The Bible is the holy infallible Word of God. Analyzing it without proper scholarship and without respect for the fact that it is Truth is like standing up in front of the Orthodox and calling the Nicene Creed a nice poem. Obviously, we agree with the basics outlined in that creed - we accept the Scripture as authoritative wholesale! It's not only my personal problem, it's my entire non-denominational church consensus's teachings.

If they can reference the philosophy and the theology of your church why would any author I haven't heard of be worse than any other author I hadn't heard of.

I mean, Budiszewski does have a passage where he explains the basic Gospel principles "at an adult level" but I'm not really in the mood to give someone nausea. I think I covered what he would have said, if you're not interested in theology I don't see the need to belabor the point and torture people.

Since I don't know what all of the precepts of these philosophies are and there are so many precepts of Christianity to sort out.

Yes, I know, it can be overwhelming. For me it's all walking through water because I apparently can easily sort through literary and philosophical complications. It's an ugly counterpoint to my comic lack of scientific abilities.

Are those your denomination? You keep trying to contrast this grab bag of philosophy to all of Christianity and it is such a diverse cluster of religions as varied as your

No, I'm not Catholic or Orthodox. I do agree with some points of Catholic theology, but I disagree with others. Let's just put the Doctrine of Discovery in the disagreement column. I also disagree with the Orthodox view of sexuality (they think it is only for reproduction) which I cannot abide by.

I'm not interested in theology like "sin nature" or the ramble that came with it. It is not a blind rejection, but rather one whose depths I cannot describe here as those kind of responses tend to send me to the rubber room.

I'm sorry. I suspected your rejection of the Gospel was highly emotional from the beginning.

I don't know what to say, other than I have experienced such fear as to produce nausea and unconsciousness at points throughout my life. I would wish that on nobody, and I would not be the first to inflict it on someone else.

Everything you describe sounds so unprofessional that I have a hard time accepting it.

I mean, my college career was from 2012-2023 in California. When and where did you go to college? That might help clear this up a bit.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Non-denominational churches are self-governing entities, so their coherent theology is spelled out in the doctrinal statements of the universities that they accept pastors from. The Dallas Theological Seminary and the Master's college and Seminary are the most famous examples.

Doctrinal Statement - Dallas Theological Seminary

While our faculty and board annually affirm their agreement with the full doctrinal statement (below), students need only agree with these seven Christian

www.dts.edu

Doctrinal Statement | For Christ & Scripture

We hold firm to the sufficiency, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture in our uncompromising commitment to Christ and Scripture.

www.masters.edu

My question was "Does non-denominational Christianity have a cohesive theology?" Of course I expected each parish to have their own set of principles/theology. Are the group of churches that call themselves "non-denominational" collectively have some coherent theology that can be compared to that grab-bag of philosophies. (Though I don't know why we are discussing the nature of "non-denominational theology".)

There are other theological schools we take pastors from, but those are the biggest ones, and no non-denominational church I've been in for very long has ever deviated very much from the truths outlined in these statements. Unless they are seeker-friendly churches that don't preach the Gospel and are just party nonsense, they all teach the same thing and follow the truths expressed in those doctrinal statements.

Spoiler: More details you may not want to read

We also have Systematic Theology, the most famous of which is Wayne Grudem's 1123 page monstrosity here: https://fbcfairburn.com/app/uploads/2015/04/Systematic_Theology_-_Wayne_Grudem.pdf

That's long, but it's pretty cohesive and consistent. I think we borrowed that from the Baptist/Anglican tradition that Non-denominational grew out of, since we derived ourselves from self-governing Baptist churches that broke away from being in a denomination altogether. Similar to the Baptists, we only baptize believers and not babies. We also ditched altar calls to accept the Gospel in every service in favor of training children in Scripture truth as well as education and intellectual training as an emphasis.

The entire system is broken down into basic principles and is taught to children via the AWANA ministry, which includes a heavy dose of Scripture memorization, because non-denominational follows Sola Scriptura. At one point a Christian school administrator stood up in front of our congregation and stated that 80% of non-denominational converts to the faith occur before age 18. That's because joining the non-denominational systems as an adult is actually more difficult. We expect people to act in accordance with the Scripture, which is difficult if you haven't read and memorized large sections of it already. The emphasis on Scriptural study, memorization, inerrancy, and compliance is what distinguishes us from other denominations. (It's also why How To Stay Christian In College is a book, because we focus on retention.)

A denomination is just a church authority. A non-denominational church is a self-governing entity in submission to Scripture as authority, using Matthew 18 as the method of discipline. The members of the congregation are expected to know the Scripture and hold the pastor accountable to teach it correctly, in line with theological scholarship and in light of the original languages.

It's not a "grab bag", it's a clear and consistent theology that places Christ and Scripture as authorities for truth, with Christ as the first and ultimate authority.

Given the lack of coordination, all "non-denominalization" looks like from the outside is some subset of generalized protestant theology.

Neither can they. The Bible is the holy infallible Word of God. Analyzing it without proper scholarship and without respect for the fact that it is Truth is like standing up in front of the Orthodox and calling the Nicene Creed a nice poem.

This is exactly what I thought was driving this. To you the text of the Bible is sacred and the assigned meaning must be treated with respect. This can be incompatible with scholarship on the text. (Some can manage, but some have problems with it, especially fundamentalists and literalists.) You claim it truth with a capital "T". That seems to impede consideration of any aspect of the text outside the explicit religious context for some people. It does not for others, even believers. I did not hold that kind of view of scripture, so I had no problem considering the story of Noah compared to other flood stories from the same region and era. (Of course, I didn't believe it had literally happened.)

Obviously, we agree with the basics outlined in that creed - we accept the Scripture as authoritative wholesale! It's not only my personal problem, it's my entire non-denominational church consensus's teachings.

Oh, you're in one of these non-denom churches. That would explain why you care about them.

I mean, Budiszewski does have a passage where he explains the basic Gospel principles "at an adult level" but I'm not really in the mood to give someone nausea. I think I covered what he would have said, if you're not interested in theology I don't see the need to belabor the point and torture people.

I'm not sure what would cause nausea. I just think theology is boring and pointless human inventions.

Yes, I know, it can be overwhelming. For me it's all walking through water because I apparently can easily sort through literary and philosophical complications. It's an ugly counterpoint to my comic lack of scientific abilities.

No, I'm not Catholic or Orthodox. I do agree with some points of Catholic theology, but I disagree with others. Let's just put the Doctrine of Discovery in the disagreement column. I also disagree with the Orthodox view of sexuality (they think it is only for reproduction) which I cannot abide by.

This is why the whole notion that those different philosophies and all of the variations of Christianity were all incompatible. I never found theology to be interesting in the slightest and am less interested now.

I'm sorry. I suspected your rejection of the Gospel was highly emotional from the beginning.

Nope. It was the utter lack of evidence for any of the supernatural (and even many of the non-supernatural) claims in them.

I don't know what to say, other than I have experienced such fear as to produce nausea and unconsciousness at points throughout my life. I would wish that on nobody, and I would not be the first to inflict it on someone else.

But that's not what I was referring to. I was noting that if I actually explained why I reject/disdain the notion of "sin nature" I would be violating the protectionist rules of this board.

I mean, my college career was from 2012-2023 in California.

That's a rather long time to spend in college.

When and where did you go to college?

A large, midwestern state university in the early 1990s.

That might help clear this up a bit.

I have maintained contact with academia since then. Professional standards haven't changed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is why the whole notion that those different philosophies and all of the variations of Christianity were all incompatible. I never found theology to be interesting in the slightest and am less interested now.

That kind of attitude will clearly endear Christians to listen to anything and everything you might have to say for their educational betterment, won't it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

That kind of attitude will clearly endear Christians to listen to anything and everything you might have to say for their educational betterment, won't it?

If they are listening to me in a theology or philosophy thread for educational betterment, then that is their own fault.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If they are listening to me in a theology or philosophy thread for educational betterment, then that is their own fault.

You've missed my intended point entirely.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You've missed my intended point entirely.

I think I might not have finished the first sentence you quoted. My point was supposed to be that the mish-mash of philosophies listed and the broad variety of Christian theology doesn't give much confidence that the other poster was conveying correct information about the incompatibility of the philosophies and "Christian theology" (in the broad sense) given that I don't know what the detailed content of those philosophies are that would be contrary and anti-Christian.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think I might not have finished the first sentence you quoted. My point was supposed to be that the mish-mash of philosophies listed and the broad variety of Christian theology doesn't give much confidence that the other poster was conveying correct information about the incompatibility of the philosophies and "Christian theology" (in the broad sense) given that I don't know what the detailed content of those philosophies are that would be contrary and anti-Christian.

I'm fairly familiar with the historical divisions among the various branches of Protestant and later non-Denominational churches, and from what she has said, it doesn't really seem like she attends what has typically been a "non-denominational" church. If anything, it sounds like she goes to an evangelical church that, under the storefront facade, has formerly used a specific identifier, like "Bible Church."

But over the past 20 years roughly, a lot of mainstream Baptist and 'Bible' Churches have chosen to identify themselves by covert names, so for instance, let's say some church used to be Main Street Bible Church, it might these days be calling itself "Liberty Church" or "Redeemer Church" some other similar seemingly off-brand name, but if we read the fine print on their website, they're actually still a Baptist or Bible Church in doctrine. They're not really what has in time past been identified as "non-denom," especially where ministers from Dallas Theological Seminary or the Master's College are being culled.

Previous to about the first decade of our present century, the 'non-denoms' were typically 'Charismatic' churches, led by highly individualistic leaders, rather than various sorts of mainstream Protestants who have been merely rebranding themselves (as if that actually does anything).

Anyway..................................................I know the above info is probably neither her nor there for you since it doesn't really interest you.

Regardless, my earlier point was meant to convey that by telling those of us who are Christian that you "don't care" about our beliefs, many of us will be less likely to engage you in a way by which we might actually learn something from you about science or come to care about your own political views.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm fairly familiar with the historical divisions among the various branches of Protestant and later non-Denominational churches, and from what she has said, it doesn't really seem like she attends what has typically been a "non-denominational" church. If anything, it sounds like she goes to an evangelical church that, under the storefront facade, has formerly used a specific identifier, like "Bible Church."

This is useful. It frankly explains a lot.

But over the past 20 years roughly, a lot of mainstream Baptist and 'Bible' Churches have chosen to identify themselves by covert names, so for instance, let's say some church used to be Main Street Bible Church, it might these days be calling itself "Liberty Church" or "Redeemer Church" some other similar seemingly off-brand name, but if we read the fine print on their website, they're actually still a Baptist or Bible Church in doctrine. They're not really what has in time past been identified as "non-denom," especially where ministers from Dallas Theological Seminary or the Master's College are being culled.

That would explain why "non-denominationals" keep sounding like evangelicals and I can't keep track of the "differences".

Previous to about the first decade of our present century, the 'non-denoms' were typically 'Charismatic' churches, led by highly individualistic leaders, rather than various sorts of mainstream Protestants who have been merely rebranding themselves (as if that actually does anything).

Ah, OK. My slight understanding of the charismatics is related to practice, not a theological distinctiveness.

Anyway..................................................I know the above info is probably neither her nor there for you since it doesn't really interest you.

It was useful and informative. It is also the kind of information I am not good at integrating into my memory. I need some sort of hook to make my long-term memory care to remember it. I have some hope this bit will stick.

There is so much about the details of protestantism that I don't know and can't contextualize, so info dumps don't mean anything to me and I'm not going to be able to take them in.

Regardless, my earlier point was meant to convey that by telling those of us who are Christian that you "don't care" about our beliefs, many of us will be less likely to engage you in a way by which we might actually learn something from you about science or come to care about your own political views.

It is particularly these detailed variations in the theology I have no context for or interest in. What I have some familiarity with are the Evangelische Kirche and The Church. All the (other) evangelicalism is alien to my history and I barely know the "familiar" one. I get a bit frustrated responding to long, rambling posts that clump together a blob of philosophy that does not seem to cohere and a claim that it is "anti-Christian" without giving explanations and then the examples that eventually show up are referring to some other denomination not held to.

 

[linux.poet]

I'm fairly familiar with the historical divisions among the various branches of Protestant and later non-Denominational churches, and from what she has said, it doesn't really seem like she attends what has typically been a "non-denominational" church. If anything, it sounds like she goes to an evangelical church that, under the storefront facade, has formerly used a specific identifier, like "Bible Church."

Almost all of the churches that I've been to have actually placed Bible Church in their name. They aren't trying to hide anything. However, we're not part of a denomination, and they have all claimed not to be part of one, except for one that was part of the Evangelical Free Church of America, and that pastor stood up and said the EFCA was the "least denominational denomination there is". They were talking about church self-governance there too. Nobody is reporting to a Baptist convention.

With that being said, I've struggled to explain what my Christian faith entails and how it is different because we don't have an easy recognizable name that I can easily point to, especially because I disagree with John MacArthur and his Scriptural overreaches. MacArthur has taken Scriptural authority too far up to the point where he is disregarding the expertise of other academic fields (namely psychiatry) and violating large sections of the process.

The part of our faith that is so contentious is that we actually believe that all other knowledge fields have their own expertise, but we also believe that all of those fields are consistent with Scriptural truth. So a valid non-denom "Bible Church" approach to psychiatry would actually be to learn the field of psychiatry and psychology and to understand how that interacts with Scripture to correct unbeliever errors in the field, like Dr. Minrith and Dr. Meyer, Dr. Cloud and Dr. Townsend, have done. MacArthur's Biblical counseling program treats their work with disrespect.

(Not to mention the fact that we believe in creationism because the Bible is historical truth grr. Ken Ham satisficed - did not consider all of the evolution data - when he tried to reconcile the unknowns, apparently. As Strobel put it "Once we establish that the infinite God exists, He could have created in 6 days without using anything like evolution." And, well, if God is capable of creating in 6 days, and He said that he created the world in 6 days, then He created the world in 6 days! It's not that hard! But science is its own field of expertise, so I need to consider that field as its own valid area. The Theistic Evolution argument is "well, He was capable of creating the world in 6 days, but if we look at the scientific evidence, that's not what He did. Budziszewki gives enough latitude to say that you can believe either way and still be a Christian, so I leave it alone as a pointless debate.)

This is also why I made my college error, because I wanted to program computers and write novels when I started, both activities that I didn't think I needed advanced theological knowledge to provide. I was right about not needing advanced theological knowledge to do those things, but I was wrong to think that God would let me get away with just doing them unimpeded. He had other plans.

Regardless, my earlier point was meant to convey that by telling those of us who are Christian that you "don't care" about our beliefs, many of us will be less likely to engage you in a way by which we might actually learn something from you about science or come to care about your own political views.

If he knows something about science or politics, his expertise in those areas is worth listening to. At one point he hinted at working in a scientific field.

This is a literary and theological thread, however, and if he's not really interested in engaging in that, my advice is that he should consider his participation. I think he might have been looking at the thread title from a political perspective, but it's really hard to go to bat without dealing with the theological and literary nuances here.

I think I might not have finished the first sentence you quoted. My point was supposed to be that the mish-mash of philosophies listed and the broad variety of Christian theology doesn't give much confidence that the other poster was conveying correct information about the incompatibility of the philosophies and "Christian theology" (in the broad sense) given that I don't know what the detailed content of those philosophies are that would be contrary and anti-Christian.

This isn't utterly complicated.

From How to Stay Christian in College, pages 54-55:

Postmodernism
Postmodernism is the belief that nothing hangs together - that everything is in pieces.

A postmodernist thinks truth is fragmented. He doesn't believe in a truth that is the same for everyone; he believes in "stories" or "narratives" or "discourses" that are different for every group. One race tells a story about pioneers carving out civilization from the wilderness; another tells one about another race taking over their land. One religion tells a story about God saving man; another tells one about man saving himself. If you try to ask "But shouldn't we find out whether any of these stories is true? the postmodernist will mutter something about "people who want to impose their stories on others."

It should be noted that Christians believe in absolute truth, which means that contradictory narratives need to be resolved or declared as an unknown, something must have happened, actually.

A podmodernist thinks personality is fragmented. He doesn't believe in a soul, a self, and "I" that keeps its identity and is responsible for everything it does.

Christians believe in souls and are accountable for our sins to a Holy God.

A postmodernist thinks life is fragmented.
[...]
If you try to ask "But shouldn't there be some kind of commitment or continuity to life - shouldn't it have a core?" the postmodernist will probably change the subject.

The biggest problem postmodernists face is meaninglessness. Different kinds of postmodernists cope with meaninglessness in different ways.
[...]

Political postmodernists say, "If I need a meaning, I'll get one from my group. Whatever we say is true, that's true for us." The problem is that there is no such thing as "true for us." If the group said rape were okay, would it be okay? If the group said babies were vermin, would they be vermin? If the group said a man and his dog were married, would they be married? In the eyes of the group, sure - but in reality, no. We can't change reality by changing the way we talk; we can only pretend to.

Page 59:

Postmodernism also contains also contains a grain of truth, because when we try to live apart from God, everything does fall apart. But postmodernism goes wrong because we don't have to live apart from God. He invites us into fellowship with Him through Jesus Christ. When we accept His invitation, everything bent is made straight, and everything broken is made whole. That's why Christians aren't postmodernists.

This actually pushes us back on topic, because postmodernism states that the discourse of the colonizers and the colonized are disparate pieces. The reality is that that the colonizers were cruel and the story of the colonized should be accepted as truth, which would be step 1 in getting the traumatic torture to stop. This leaves a huge irony in the relationship between postmodernism and postcolonialism: postmodernism legitimized the colonized narrative as something that could be written (as opposed to just being silenced by "Christian truth") but now it needs to get out of the way because having no truth just leaves everyone not responsible for their psychological cruelty in colonization.

I'm just going to post this and keep going because I think the begining clarification will be helpful, but I'm still typing. Time to pull my notes on modernism and psychoanalytic thought and how they are opposed to Christianity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Almost all of the churches that I've been to have actually placed Bible Church in their name. They aren't trying to hide anything. However, we're not part of a denomination, and they have all claimed not to be part of one, except for one that was part of the Evangelical Free Church of America, and that pastor stood up and said the EFCA was the "least denominational denomination there is". They were talking about church self-governance there too. Nobody is reporting to a Baptist convention.

Yeah, that's what I sort of thought. They're not too dissimilar from the autonomous Churches of Christ/Christian Churches in their self-governance.

With that being said, I've struggled to explain what my Christian faith entails and how it is different because we don't have an easy recognizable name that I can easily point to, especially because I disagree with John MacArthur and his Scriptural overreaches. MacArthur has taken Scriptural authority too far up to the point where he is disregarding the expertise of other academic fields (namely psychiatry) and violating large sections of the process.

The part of our faith that is so contentious is that we actually believe that all other knowledge fields have their own expertise, but we also believe that all of those fields are consistent with Scriptural truth. So a valid non-denom "Bible Church" approach to psychiatry would actually be to learn the field of psychiatry and psychology and to understand how that interacts with Scripture to correct unbeliever errors in the field, like Dr. Minrith and Dr. Meyer, Dr. Cloud and Dr. Townsend, have done. MacArthur's Biblical counseling program treats their work with disrespect.

I think you're doing okay in describing your present view. And I know that MacArthur has been a bit heavy handed in addressing what he thinks are errors in everyone else's thinking. Not that he's been wrong about everything, but I've never had any problem incorporating a bit of the four Christian psychologists you've mentioned. I've listened to their radio show here and there over the past 30 years and I have a few of their books. Of course, my positive predisposition toward the fields of psychology and psychiatry was already in place before I heard of any of them.

Thanks for sharing your clarification of your position.

(Not to mention the fact that we believe in creationism because the Bible is historical truth grr. Ken Ham satisficed - did not consider all of the evolution data - when he tried to reconcile the unknowns, apparently. As Strobel put it "Once we establish that the infinite God exists, He could have created in 6 days without using anything like evolution." And, well, if God is capable of creating in 6 days, and He said that he created the world in 6 days, then He created the world in 6 days! It's not that hard! But science is its own field of expertise, so I need to consider that field as its own valid area. The Theistic Evolution argument is "well, He was capable of creating the world in 6 days, but if we look at the scientific evidence, that's not what He did. Budziszewki gives enough latitude to say that you can believe either way and still be a Christian, so I leave it alone as a pointless debate.)

This is also why I made my college error, because I wanted to program computers and write novels when I started, both activities that I didn't think I needed advanced theological knowledge to provide. I was right about not needing advanced theological knowledge to do those things, but I was wrong to think that God would let me get away with just doing them unimpeded. He had other plans.


If he knows something about science or politics, his expertise in those areas is worth listening to. At one point he hinted at working in a scientific field.

This is a literary and theological thread, however, and if he's not really interested in engaging in that, my advice is that he should consider his participation. I think he might have been looking at the thread title from a political perspective, but it's really hard to go to bat without dealing with the theological and literary nuances here.

I think I generally agree with your position here.

This isn't utterly complicated.

From How to Stay Christian in College, pages 54-55:


It should be noted that Christians believe in absolute truth, which means that contradictory narratives need to be resolved or declared as an unknown, something must have happened, actually.


Christians believe in souls and are accountable for our sins to a Holy God.



Page 59:


This actually pushes us back on topic, because postmodernism states that the discourse of the colonizers and the colonized are disparate pieces. The reality is that that the colonizers were cruel and the story of the colonized should be accepted as truth, which would be step 1 in getting the traumatic torture to stop. This leaves a huge irony in the relationship between postmodernism and postcolonialism: postmodernism legitimized the colonized narrative as something that could be written (as opposed to just being silenced by "Christian truth") but now it needs to get out of the way because having no truth just leaves everyone not responsible for their psychological cruelty in colonization.

I'm just going to post this and keep going because I think the begining clarification will be helpful, but I'm still typing. Time to pull my notes on modernism and psychoanalytic thought and how they are opposed to Christianity.

Just keep in mind two things in regard to Post-modernism: 1) It's not a monolithic position in Philosophy, but rather a very diverse one, and 2) There are some serious Christian Philosophers who are identified as 'post-modern' who might not fit the epistemological parameters that J. Budziszewki predicts will accompany their teachings (and I know, Budziszewki is another strand of Christian Philosopher---and I've thumbed through his "How to stay Christian in College" book. It's a decent book.)

 

[Zceptre]

MacArthur and his Scriptural overreaches

I listened to his sermons for some time, years in fact. Always had a feeling of "judgment" afterward, not really "grace." Never "checked" on him and he seemed pretty solid on doctrine overall. I've since learned he denies the blood of Jesus is what atones for our sins (Witness testimony of a believer who confronted him on the matter). There are deeper darker things involved here, but I won't get into the weeds save to say his sermons tend not to bring much freedom and far more condemnation in the heart of a listener it seems. I've seen women crying and asking him from the aisle during questions if she can know she is saved. The consolation was non-existent and tragic, and certainly didn't reflect God's love and the heart and compassion of Christ imho. She left the mic with the same level of uncertainty that she had when she approached. I would just be very weary of welcoming his words unchecked into my psyche.

The Theistic Evolution argument is "well, He was capable of creating the world in 6 days, but if we look at the scientific evidence, that's not what He did.

I would cordially disagree with this sentiment. While I know many people feel this way, I've been studying this subject for a long time. I won't go into a formal treatise on the matter, but I will mention my favorite topic to bring up that is exploding right now in young Earth creationism (Which I hold to adamantly). They are finding dinosaurs everywhere with flesh on them across the world. The scientific community is hitting back at this phenomenon with a long list of "explanations" and lots of "fact-check" publications... but they are breaking records at finding more and more of this "soft-tissue" of dinosaur remains. If one really searches and checks the current Christian scientists and their work on this right now, they are showing clearly this was not a "one-off" when Mary Schweitzer found her samples in a t-rex leg bone. They don't like the discovery, and you'll see countless headlines that say things like "finally been explained," and "explained at last." I strongly disagree, and I have a giant list of reasons why I believe they are absolutely denying the clear accuracy in Occam's razor to attend to their narrative they must adhere to even if they must jump through one thousand hoops to do so. These bones are not found in ice.

I've also did extensive searching in the meaning of the original texts, and there isn't much question the intent of the author on the time factor nor the determination of a day. The only way to distance oneself from a literal and historical rendering of the text is to hold that it is metaphorical in its entirety. Many people simply can't visualize the process, and that factors into their discernment. There are many other evidences and this isn't the place to discuss so it suffices to say I think people should continue their search for truth on the matter.

This doesn't mean I don't have brothers and sisters that believe in "millions of years" as I do, and ones that I hold in high esteem even, in other areas of study. But I also make a point that they were very busy in their respective fields of study while I was digging into this exact topic most of all my life, so I don't expect them to know the pitfalls and hidden information. Their faith is strong in my opinion, and I admire that. I also am not out to change anyone's opinion if they have heels dug in, I simply share openly what I know.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Christians believe in souls and are accountable for our sins to a Holy God.

I find this to be a contradiction in their intrinsic sense of justice (accountability) which I've yet to find in a human being to date.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This isn't utterly complicated.

From How to Stay Christian in College, pages 54-55:

I took a look at the quotes from this book and looked around a bit more.

The first bit you quoted from it:

"Postmodernism
Postmodernism is the belief that nothing hangs together - that everything is in pieces.

A postmodernist thinks truth is fragmented. He doesn't believe in a truth that is the same for everyone; he believes in "stories" or "narratives" or "discourses" that are different for every group."

Seemed OK, but not really any better than that from what I understood and could grasp of postmodern philosophy (which also appears to be fairly broad itself).

Though this quote I found elsewhere seems to fit what I had understood of postmodernism much better: " that there is no common denominator in 'nature' or 'truth' ... that guarantees the possibility of neutral or objective thought"

It should be noted that Christians believe in absolute truth, which means that contradictory narratives need to be resolved or declared as an unknown, something must have happened, actually.

If you say so. I seem to recall finding Christianity to be a bit too mysterious and ill-defined for my liking at times.

It was this quot from the book I found the most bizarre:

"A podmodernist thinks personality is fragmented. He doesn't believe in a soul, a self, and "I" that keeps its identity and is responsible for everything it does."

Which no only bears no resemblance to any notion I had of postmodernism, but seems to contradict it. No "self" doesn't fit in the same box as "everyone's narrative matters and has value". Is this guy serious? And "doesn't believe in a soul"? Come on! The post-modernist, cultural relativist types always seemed like the ones most likely to believe in things like souls whether they believed in gods or not. Not believing in souls is the sort of thing that comes from hard, naturalistic realism not from the "all narratives are valid" people.

Christians believe in souls and are accountable for our sins to a Holy God.

*I* don't believe in souls because I don't think they are compatible with a natural interaction with the brain/body under the limits of detected and undetected physical interactions. (I also find post-modernism almost as mushy as religion.)

Then you quoted a bunch of text that seems to be no more than a general attempt to paint PM in a bad light, though that seems to be the point of this section of his book.

The bit you quote from...

Page 59:

"Postmodernism also contains also contains a grain of truth, because when we try to live apart from God, everything does fall apart. But postmodernism goes wrong because we don't have to live apart from God. He invites us into fellowship with Him through Jesus Christ. When we accept His invitation, everything bent is made straight, and everything broken is made whole. That's why Christians aren't postmodernists."

Which was a bit of "wow". Again a claim that doesn't seem to fit (post-modernists want you to live "apart from God") is made. It seems nothing more than a prophylactic apologetic for students to reject "new thoughts", akin to the creationist apologetics given to HS bio students before they start classes so they can "resist" learning any biology contrary.

I think this whole book from Bud-whatever is unfortunate. It seems to prime Christian students entering college to treat it as a "spiritual battle field" rather than a chance to experience new and unfamiliar ideas.

This actually pushes us back on topic, because postmodernism states that the discourse of the colonizers and the colonized are disparate pieces. The reality is that that the colonizers were cruel and the story of the colonized should be accepted as truth, which would be step 1 in getting the traumatic torture to stop. This leaves a huge irony in the relationship between postmodernism and postcolonialism: postmodernism legitimized the colonized narrative as something that could be written (as opposed to just being silenced by "Christian truth") but now it needs to get out of the way because having no truth just leaves everyone not responsible for their psychological cruelty in colonization.

The impression I get from searching those two terms together indicates a connection between them, rather than the conflict you conjure.

I'm just going to post this and keep going because I think the begining clarification will be helpful, but I'm still typing. Time to pull my notes on modernism and psychoanalytic thought and how they are opposed to Christianity.

psychoanalysis -- that should be "fun".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think this whole book from Bud-whatever is unfortunate. It seems to prime Christian students entering college to treat it as a "spiritual battle field" rather than a chance to experience new and unfamiliar ideas.

Because on some level, in a certain ideological sense, maintaining faith in Christ is a "battlefield," although one doesn't have to come at it from the viewpoint of J. Budziszewski. Personally, I prefer coming at the Christian Faith in the vain of Malcolm Jeeves or Peter Enns, but without all of the 'Progressive Left' mixed in with it.

psychoanalysis -- that should be "fun".

It is, especially when neuroscience and epistemology are combined with it in order to understand the complex and complicated reasons some people have for attaching themselves emotionally to certain ideas like racism, and continue to do so within politically, socially, and religiously conditioned contexts.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because on some level, in a certain ideological sense, maintaining faith in Christ is a "battlefield," although one doesn't have to come at it from the viewpoint of J. Budziszewski. Personally, I prefer coming at the Christian Faith in the vain of Malcolm Jeeves or Peter Enns, but without all of the 'Progressive Left' mixed in with it.

I find this "battlefield" position to be unfortunate. If faith and religion have value, then it needs to live with the rest of reality. Using the defense of faith as an excuse to wall off the rest of reality and treat anything different outside the walls as a threat creates conflicts that aren't their and angst about the things that do challenge it instead of working through the conflict.

It is, especially when neuroscience and epistemology are combined with it in order to understand the complex and complicated reasons some people have for attaching themselves emotionally to certain ideas like racism, and continue to do so within politically, socially, and religiously conditioned contexts.

I hope for something more modern, but my fear is that this "survival" book will only present the ancient ideas of the psychoanalysts like Freud and Jung. (I almost typed "Junk". I think my fingers were thinking for me...)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I find this "battlefield" position to be unfortunate. If faith and religion have value, then it needs to live with the rest of reality. Using the defense of faith as an excuse to wall off the rest of reality and treat anything different outside the walls as a threat creates conflicts that aren't their and angst about the things that do challenge it instead of working through the conflict.

Right.................which is EXACTLY WHY I'm directing you to people like Malcolm Jeeves and Peter Enns. I understand all too clearly that a number of people who subscribe to the Christian Faith use their own specific conceptualization of "faith" as an excuse to wall themselves off from the rest of reality. But I don't do that, in any way, shape or form that I'm aware of. What I am aware of is it a large number of people, both left and right, both skeptic or believer, wall themselves off from engaging much of anything I have to say. But..................that's human behavior for ya!

I hope for something more modern, but my fear is that this "survival" book will only present the ancient ideas of the psychoanalysts like Freud and Jung. (I almost typed "Junk". I think my fingers were thinking for me...)

You're quite incorrect and jumping to conclusions. Jeeves is a Neuroscientist, not a theoretical psychologist. Enns is a "progressive" theologian who engages the frayed edges of where science (and evolution), and scholarship with A.N.E. studies clash or contrast with the Christian Faith.

I'll just say that their work, along with many other modern Christian theorists or scientists whose work I have also incorporated, represents (~approximately) my own views and approach. My views don't incorporate mere Freudian or Jungian theory.

 

[linux.poet]

Sigh...I am getting outpaced, overwhelmed, and undermined before I even I have the chance to finish typing my responses. Grrr!

2) There are some serious Christian Philosophers who are identified as 'post-modern' who might not fit the epistemological parameters that J. Budziszewki predicts will accompany their teachings (and I know, Budziszewki is another strand of Christian Philosopher---and I've thumbed through his "How to stay Christian in College" book. It's a decent book.)

Ugh. "Postmodern theology" is still fundamentally opposed to the authority of Scripture, which alienates it from "evangelical" thought. I tend to shy away from that word because it implies lack of Scriptural knowledge and intellectual stupidity.

Postmodern Theology

Postmodern theology appropriates postmodernist methodologies to articulate perspectives within frameworks of liberal and orthodox theologies.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

First, evangelicalism as a matter of course affirms that Scripture is the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God. Theological postmodernism, however, expresses profound skepticism regarding the inspiration of Scripture and its entailments. Further, postmodern theologians observe that culturally-conditioned interpreters, laden with presuppositions and biases, cannot interpret texts objectively.

What is post-modern Christianity? | GotQuestions.org

What is post-modern Christianity? Why is post-modern Christianity so dangerous, and why is it becoming so popular?

www.gotquestions.org

For example, because experience is valued more highly than reason, truth becomes relative. This opens up all kinds of problems, as this lessens the standard that the Bible contains absolute truth, and even disqualifies biblical truth as being absolute in many cases. If the Bible is not our source for absolute truth, and personal experience is allowed to define and interpret what truth actually is, a saving faith in Jesus Christ is rendered meaningless.

Yet, we need to be ever mindful of Acts 17:11 and be like the Bereans, weighing every new teaching, every new thought, against Scripture. We don’t let our experiences interpret Scripture for us, but as we change and conform ourselves to Christ, we interpret our experiences according to Scripture. Unfortunately, this is not what is happening in circles espousing post-modern Christianity.

Post-modern Christianity is just a word salad term to me. Christianity is an authoritative belief system of absolute truth. Now one can situate that absolute truth and authority in the Scripture, the Magisterium of the Catholics, the ancient creeds and church fathers, the Scripture, Tradition, and Reason of the Anglicans, but the bottom line is this: there is an absolute truth and there is an authority, whether the Church or the documents. Postmodernism is a dodge of culpability for sin by claiming that there is no truth and thus no individual responsibility. I'm not surprised that fallen humans have tried to merge the two, but doing so is just a theological error. Either one is absolutely culpable for sin or is not; there is no in-between.

Even considering this is revolting levels of cognitive dissonance to me. I have no idea how anyone could believe such nonsense without experiencing profound mental illness as a result.

(Frankly, I believe that postmodernism is mental illness, actually, since mental fragmentation is a trauma symptom, and meaninglessness causes depression. If you believe in spiritual fragmentation, you're spiritually traumatizing yourself through all of the cognitive dissonance load. But that is neither here nor there.)

I've seen women crying and asking him from the aisle during questions if she can know she is saved. The consolation was non-existent and tragic, and certainly didn't reflect God's love and the heart and compassion of Christ imho. She left the mic with the same level of uncertainty that she had when she approached. I would just be very weary of welcoming his words unchecked into my psyche.

That's another reason why I don't like him: he's a legalist. After a decade of CPTSD, a doctrine that does not contain God's love, grace, compassion, and gentleness, (in addition to His holiness and Truth) is a doctrine that I reject.

I get why people like him, because he's willing to stand up for Scriptural truth kind of like the spiritual version of Tony Stark, but like, you can't do that, actually. Spirituality is where humans are the weakest and most broken. You must strike and also heal like the Lord does (Isaiah 19:22). He does not do the healing part. (The epitome of his problem is the Biblical Counseling, which is why I keep bringing that up as unscriptural because it violates the book of Job, and it's an easy shorthand.)

At one point, I wanted to take a theological program from the Master's Online just to learn Biblical Hebrew and Greek, but I was put off (literally) by the harsh legalism in the admissions process and all of the agreements. I think I need to find another online seminary that isn't a hack, because this kind of stuff bothers me. I need the kindness of the Angel and the sensibility and clarity of the Ambassador to act as a counterbalance to the harshness of my moderation sword. Likewise, IRL I can't just be like "Scripture is the authority! All obey or suffer!" I need to do the prayer and support parts too. Sometimes I'm stuck hoping someone else will fill in the authority, prayer, or support I can't do and I'm stuck in one role for one person, but I see all of it and I want to do it all haha.

At least, while my pastor (not John MacArthur) does struggle with providing pastoral care to the broken and tries to delegate it away, at the very least he acknowledges that it needs to be done. He had the elders pray for my mother who had stage 4 cancer a couple weeks ago. He has his pet people he likes to help with pet problems, but he has preached entire sermons to deal with people's spiritual doubts. I don't think he would treat the woman you described with harshness, and instead try to deal with her doubt and fear. Our church is a lot smaller though, so it's easier.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, back to the nightmare world of modernism. Unfortunately Budziszewski's statements were against naturalism, not modernism, which means that I may have to let that go, EXCEPT for the fact that modernism comes off the Rousseau tree like Freudian psychoanalysis does.

Rousseau --> Romantic poets (rascal poets causing trouble again ) ---> Modernism (ugh Virginia Woolf and Ulysses why)

Modernism

Poems, readings, poetry news and the entire 110-year archive of POETRY magazine.

www.poetryfoundation.org

For artists and writers, the Modernist project was a re-evaluation of the assumptions and aesthetic values of their predecessors. It evolved from the Romantic rejection of Enlightenment positivism and faith in reason. Modernist writers broke with Romantic pieties and clichés (such as the notion of the Sublime) and became self-consciously skeptical of language and its claims on coherence.

Rousseau --> Freud --> Jung --> Lancan (psychoanalysis)

Rousseau --> Romantic Poets --> Nietzche --> Darwin (naturalism)

It should be noted that while evolution is not opposed to Christianity, naturalism is, and evolution is frequently cited as the basis for naturalism.

Which no only bears no resemblance to any notion I had of postmodernism, but seems to contradict it. No "self" doesn't fit in the same box as "everyone's narrative matters and has value". Is this guy serious? And "doesn't believe in a soul"? Come on! The post-modernist, cultural relativist types always seemed like the ones most likely to believe in things like souls whether they believed in gods or not. Not believing in souls is the sort of thing that comes from hard, naturalistic realism not from the "all narratives are valid" people.

*I* don't believe in souls because I don't think they are compatible with a natural interaction with the brain/body under the limits of detected and undetected physical interactions. (I also find post-modernism almost as mushy as religion.)

Spoken like a true naturalist.

How to Stay Christian In College, page 51:

Naturalism is the belief that the material world of nature is all there is, all there is ever been, and all there ever will be - that nothing supernatural is real. If naturalism is true, there isn't any God. For that matter, if naturalism is true, then there isn't anything at all except particles of matter in motion. Nothing else is real.

Many naturalists also think that the truth of naturalism is obvious to any rational person. Many even think it has somehow been proven by science. They conclude that faith is irrational, that belief in God is superstition, and that Christians are just too weak-minded to face the facts.

Page 59

Of course, naturalism contains a grain of truth, because naturalism is real. But naturalism goes wrong because material nature is not all there is. Greater than nature is God, who created it. Not only that, He put much more than matter into His creation. He also put things into it like meaning, your soul, and right and wrong. That's why Christians aren't naturalists.

Anything will seem like mysticism to a naturalist. I've seen naturalists waste time attacking the miracles of the Bible and claiming that they would have never occurred, and while I have allowed this thread to get off topic a bit to discuss the secular philosophies behind why secular literary scholars believe that Christianity as racist, if we were to debate THAT we should start yet another thread.

To me, my belief in Scripture seems entirely logical and rational and reasonable. The church history family tree for my church runs as follows:

Orthodox --> Catholic --> Anglican --> Baptist --> American "Bible Church" Non-Denominational.

Anglican: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The Baptists threw reason out the window with the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings and Non-Denominational threw Tradition out the window, leaving only Scripture to remain. But in our reliance on Sola Scriptura, Reason walked back through the door and took a seat at the table, whether we acknowledge its presence or not; in subjecting our thinking to the Scripture, that's not an emotion-based process.

I find this "battlefield" position to be unfortunate. If faith and religion have value, then it needs to live with the rest of reality. Using the defense of faith as an excuse to wall off the rest of reality and treat anything different outside the walls as a threat

I actually agree with this, to an extent, but we also need to realize when philosophies are fundamentally opposed to each other, otherwise we end up with cognitive dissonance that leads to mental illness. The human brain is not biologically designed to process contradictory ideas. I already cited that finding of cognitive science down in the science topic.

Believing in an entire "battlefield" position leads to irrationalisms like assuming that unbelievers don't know how to program websites or that they can't fly airplanes, which is a comic error. We simply assume that, without the Holy Spirit, they cannot interpret the Bible correctly and that their interpretations cannot be trusted. Therefore, when an unbeliever interpretation of the Bible contradicts our interpretation, we assume that we are right and the unbeliever is wrong unless we can find evidence to support their position, but that has never occurred since we have better scholarship than they do. This is why we tell unbelievers not to mess around with what they don't know about.

 

[linux.poet]

psychoanalysis -- that should be "fun".

Now I finally get to the point of this post. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the most prominent guy who stood up and argued that man was basically good, arguing that if we returned to a primitive state of nature, we would have superior morality. This is against Christianity which argues that man is basically evil.

From the Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, page 109:

The context of Truman's argument is comparing Rousseau's Confessions with Augustine's Confessions of the same type. Augustine is a Christian making the Christian argument.

Thus, the act [of theft] was not driven by some inward impulse that was intrinsically sinful but by a good desire that led him to perform a sinful act. He stole the Asparagus to help Verrat. The desire was a basically good one; it was only the manner in which he fulfilled it that was morally problematic. This is important for understanding Rousseau's view of human corruption as something that is created and fostered by social conditions and is not something to be considered innate.

Page 111:

The difference between the two is instructive. For Augustine, the moral flaw is ultimately intrinsic to him. He is by nature wicked, a sinner. Circumstances merely provide an opportunity for a particular action to reveal the immorality of his innate inner disposition.

[...]

For Rousseau, by way of contrast, his natural humanity is fundamentally sound, and the sinful act comes from social pressures and conditioning. He becomes depraved by the pressures society places on him. We might summarize the basic difference between the two men as follows: Augustine blames himself for his sin because he is basically wicked from birth; Rousseau blames society for his sin because he is basically good at birth and then perverted by external forces.

What the account of the asparagus does is point to the fact that, for Rousseau, the social order is a source of falsehood, or, to use the modern term, inauthenticity. Men and women are born good and corrupted by the society that surrounds them.

And yes, I read Rousseau's Confessions in college and I concur with this analysis. Rousseau, in his Discourses, argues that a return to the rustic and primitive state of nature would return us to a more moral state. (page 114) The Romantic Poets took that and argued that the power of language, though poetry, could return humanity back into the rustic and primitive state and stir the "basically good" part of humanity. The Modernists said that language was not good enough to do that but they had no idea what would, after WWI, and the postmodernists just gave up and said that there was no hope to put the basically good parts of ourselves back together again, that we were too fragmented by the world around us and cut up into all sorts of fragmented parts.

Then Shelley and Blake and Freud basically agreed that the basically good parts of ourselves were the sexual parts of ourselves, because that gives us the most happiness, apparently. (pages 215-221 in Rise and Triumph). This runs straight into the Christian prohibitions against sexual immorality.

Page 155 - Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self

In fact, religion and morality, as they now stand, compose a practical code of misery and servitude: the genius of human happiness must tear every leaf from the accursed book of God ere man can read the inscription on his heart. How would morality, dressed up in stiff stays and finery, start from her own disgusting image should she look in the mirror of nature!

[interpreting Shelley] Organized Christianity, with its imposition on humanity of the law code contained in the Bible, is that which has alienated human beings from each other and destroyed true liberty. [...]

We should note the rhetorical strategy Shelly employs here. He presents Christian morality not as wrongheaded or benign but as essentially evil. [...] Again, this is characteristic of our present age, when Christian moral codes are seen as positively immoral.

Not to mention the fact that Freud thinks that Christians are dumb and have mental illness:

Page 239

First, Freud regards religion as literally infantile: it is the result of carrying over of childish hopes and fears into adulthood. We might therefore add a noun to the adjective: it is for Freud an infantile neurosis. In this, Freud stands in a well-established tradition of thought that identifies traditional religion both with childishness and with psychological problems, from the French philosophies [Rousseau!] to Feubach, Marx, and Nietzche.

Which puts us back with naturalistic contempt. The Romantics were in the middle of the Industrial Revolution, so their ideas of going back to the state of nature were to get humans out of the miserable factories and had popular appeal, which gave rise to the thought of Marx and the proletariat uprising to bring people back to a rustic state of basic goodness. That never worked, because it turns out the humans are basically evil, actually.

Nietzche said that if you wanted to maintain that humans were basically good and follow Enlightenment Reasoning (which also included Locke's tabla rasa, the idea that humans were basically morally neutral), you needed to get rid of the concept of God. Darwin provided the means in which to get rid of the concept. This leads to the idea that humans are basically just apes that evolved into humans, consistent with Rousseau and Locke, and the Romantics pastoral poems about how we are suffering under the weight of civilization, sexually most of all. Freud was happy to back that up with a pseudoscientific veneer and join Shelley in denouncing Christianity.

Jung was a student of Freud, and his work can confuse people into thinking that it's consistent with Christianity, but it's not. The Jungian Shadow is not the sin nature of mankind, but rather the evil from civilization that we've internalized and repressed. Such "evils" come from Christianity as Shelley just explained, so the Shadow is our dark self who still wants to follow civilization and Christian law codes.

Then Lancan took what Jung said and then said that we look for Others to match our repressed Shadow to conquer in hopes of conquering the Shadow inside of ourselves as well by conquering it externally. This philosophy is used to explain Caucasian conquering because we're out in the wilderness in service to our Jungian shadows which we are attempting to destroy, trying to get the Christianity out of us and return to a state of nature by conquering the Other. And now we're back to blaming colonialism and racism on Christianity.

And now I have a headache. Okay not really, but I was running out of psychological resources there at the end. This is a hard thread, you all pushing my limits with this debate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Right.................which is EXACTLY WHY I'm directing you to people like Malcolm Jeeves and Peter Enns.

I assume their writings are for the others.

I understand all too clearly that a number of people who subscribe to the Christian Faith use their own specific conceptualization of "faith" as an excuse to wall themselves off from the rest of reality. But I don't do that, in any way, shape or form that I'm aware of.

And no one suggested that you did or that nearly all Christians do.

What I am aware of is it a large number of people, both left and right, both skeptic or believer, wall themselves off from engaging much of anything I have to say. But..................that's human behavior for ya!

And here I thought it was because you like to show off with your academic humanities knowledge, and then get annoyed when that interest is not reciprocated. (I'm not trying to antagonize you as I see you have your intellectual guy avatar and a more resigned slogan out, rather than you warrior avatar or flames of destruction. I, however, am dealing with another Confederate uprising... "John Brown's body lies a mouldrin' in the grave...")

You're quite incorrect and jumping to conclusions. Jeeves is a Neuroscientist, not a theoretical psychologist. Enns is a "progressive" theologian who engages the frayed edges of where science (and evolution), and scholarship with A.N.E. studies clash or contrast with the Christian Faith.

My conclusion jumping was about the book by Budz-something, which is the only reference to Freud and Jung so far. It is that "turtle-ing book" that I have little hope for in discussing psychoanalysis.

I'll just say that their work, along with many other modern Christian theorists or scientists whose work I have also incorporated, represents (~approximately) my own views and approach. My views don't incorporate mere Freudian or Jungian theory.

Which is all fine and dandy.

 

[linux.poet]

Another thing that may be helpful: if something is true and it contradicts something else, the Truth needs to show that the other thing is false in order to resolve the contradiction. If Christianity is true, it must explain all other religions and philosophies that contradict it as false. So walling off opposing philosophies is unnecessary if Christianity can explain why they are wrong, which it does. A proven and known falsehood is a hollow threat to a sound faith.

And this might be a side note, but I have no idea what Dr. Jordan Peterson is doing, except I think he divorced Jung from Freud because Freud is scientifically discredited, and also because of his own political views. This leaves him to fall victim to the intellectual simulacra between the Jungian hero's journey and the Christian sanctification process. But if you think about it, Jung is self-improvement, whereas Christian sanctification is God-improvement. We have little control over the pace and timing of each part of sanctification. And while we might try to ignore our remaining sins and have to dig them up to eradicate them, it's not acceptance of the Shadow, it's eradication of the sin nature. But Peterson is an unbeliever and I doubt he can comprehend this level of contrast.

Clinically, however, I imagine this might be horrendously confusing for Peterson, because most evil that his patients are trying to repress and ignore is their sin nature, actually. Which would lead him to believe that the Shadow is the sin nature, or at least something resembling it. His advice to combat it ends up remarkably in line with Christian principles, because that's what you fight the sin nature with.

I was noting that if I actually explained why I reject/disdain the notion of "sin nature" I would be violating the protectionist rules of this board.

You're welcome to PM me if and when you think I've earned the level of trust to say it. I don't think I've earned it. I have no interest in seeing you removed; I appreciate challenges to my thinking, even when I am not equal to the challenge.

All the same, I don't want this debate to end up revolving around what cannot be said like some black hole.

I think I'm done talking here for awhile, and you probably weren't interested in half of what I said anyway, so yeah. Oh well.