Does Christianity support and/or teach racism?

[Hans Blaster]

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

It is a path you seem to have chosen. That includes the "respond to multiple people in the same post" path.

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.

This was in the bits before any responses to me, which I have been skipping for sanity porpoises, but this caught my eye just above your first quote of me, and it is... wrong.

1. Evolution is not the basis for naturalism, the dependency is backward. Evolution is built using methodological naturalism. Anyone claiming evolution is the basis for naturalism just doesn't know what they are talking about.

2. Nietzche was 15 when Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was published. He is not in anyway an inspiration for Darwin's studies of nature.

3. Darwin's study of the how species arose is not in anyway derived from poetry of any kind.

4. Not knowing about Rousseau, I can't say if Rousseau influeneced Darwin's work, but it certainly wasn't through poets or teenaged philosophers.

I was a naturalist *long* before I left Christianity, and not necessarily just that more compatible "methodological" type.


On to your responses to me...

Spoken like a true naturalist.

From the opening line of "Cosmos", if not sooner. Thank you for recognizing that and not (as some Christians insist on doing) claiming I really do believe in some god or supernaturalism.

How to Stay Christian In College, page 51:

which said:

"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."

There's a mangled version of the quote I mentioned, though it is not the full meaning as presented that 1980 evening in our living room.

He continues:

"For that matter, if naturalism is true, then there isn't anything at all except particles of matter in motion. Nothing else is real."

Isn't that cool!

A little later on the page J. Bud builds an army of strawmen for burning at the stake:

"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."

Don't believe this guy. He is setting up "enemies" with false characterization, so that his readers won't stray from their papal enclosure. [He's a Catholic, you knew that right?]

Page 59

On which J. Bud wrote:

"Of course, naturalism contains a grain of truth, because naturalism is real. "

At least he understands that., though he should have said "Nature is real". Then he wrote these things:

"But naturalism goes wrong because material nature is not all there is."

Claim, not proven.

" Greater than nature is God, who created it."

Claim, not proven.

" Not only that, He put much more than matter into His creation."

Claim, not proven.

" He also put things into it like meaning, your soul, and right and wrong."

Claim, not proven. He sure claims a lot of stuff. Let's see about the last one:

"That's why Christians aren't naturalists."

Wrong. Some of us were.

Now to your commentary related to the above:

Anything will seem like mysticism to a naturalist.

No, not all unnatural things or claims are mysticism to the naturalist. We do get annoyed when people try to claim that poking quantum entangled system alters them is some sort of mystical thing, rather than just normal quantum mechanic.

I've seen naturalists waste time attacking the miracles of the Bible and claiming that they would have never occurred,

That's why I've moved on to just simple dismissals -- to save time.

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.

We could discuss the racism/Christianity thing if you wanted to.

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.

Mine looks like this from one side:

Wotan et al. --> (leaders meet evangelist priest) --> Catholicism --> (local boy nails theses to church) --> Lutheranism

While the other side mostly looks like this

Wotan et al. --> (leaders meet evangelist priest) --> Catholicism

with the exception that one part of that side looked more like:

Wotan et al. --> (leaders meet evangelist priest) --> Catholicism --> (local boy nails theses to church) --> Lutheranism --> (angry archbishop sends in aggressive Jesuits) --> Catholicism.

(Well that was fun)

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'm not sure what your point was.

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

I kind of agree with you here as I don't think Christianity is compatible with the natural world, but certainly many Christians have no problem with these apparent conflicts. I was for many many years.

[cognitive dissonance] leads to mental illness.

Whoa! I'm pretty sure that's not true.

The human brain is not biologically designed to process contradictory ideas. I already cited that finding of cognitive science down in the science topic.

What "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.

What? (This and what is below isn't a response to the text you quoted, but I'll address what you wrote anyway.)

We simply assume that, without the Holy Spirit, they cannot interpret the Bible correctly and that their interpretations cannot be trusted.

I never tried interpreting the Bible (the Church had professionals for that, I let them do that bit), nor did I ever experience any "Holy Spirit".

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,

There is that wall again.

but that has never occurred since we have better scholarship than they do.

Not sure who "we" is in that sentence, but it is my understanding that the evangelical scholars tend not to be very good.

This is why we tell unbelievers not to mess around with what they don't know about.

We'll read and interpret it and any other text as much as we want, though in my case, that amount is exceedingly small.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I assume their writings are for the others.

No. I list them for anyone who may find them helpful. ....... but usually, since so many people are looking for a form of Christian faith that would better be described by a scene from 1,001 Arabian Nights, I'm probably not going to see much interest in my own particular avenue toward the Christian Faith.

Oh well.

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

Okay. I'll move your name off my "didn't really suggest I did" list, so I don't confuse you with a lot of the other atheists whom I've talked to over the years who have suggested that I did.

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...")

Show ................ off? Funny, Hans.

No, I think folks confuse my "showing off" with attempting to offer alternative lines of thought. Y'know---I do the Philosopher's Analytic Jig----because that's what I do. But, somehow, and I know I should have learned long ago from all the history I've read, doing the 'Jig' just seems to annoy people more than anything else.

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.

Oh, ok then. Thanks for clarifying.

Which is all fine and dandy.

It definitely is, Hans!

 

[Hans Blaster]

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,

I'm not particularly familiar with Rousseau, but I like him so far...

arguing that if we returned to a primitive state of nature, we would have superior morality.

... and then it devolves into a "back to nature" utopianism. Sigh.

This is against Christianity which argues that man is basically evil.

A regrettable position I can not abide that is pushed to various degrees w/in Christianity. There is certainly a common notion that all are capable of sin and will, at times at least, succumb to temptation, and can best resist through the grace of God. I don't think most Christians want to call themselves "basically evil" even as they accept that they are "sinners". This reflects the conversations I've had and the sermons I've heard from the pulpit in person.

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.

Now we seem to be switching to a book by a Christian theologian call Carl Trueman, who starts with something about asparagus theft, not sure why. (I personally would thank anyone that stole asparagus from my plate, those vile green shoots emerging from the dirt.)

Page 111:

Trueman summarizes: "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."

And yes, I read Rousseau's Confessions in college and I concur with this analysis.

I haven't, so I leave it to those who have. Clearly Rousseau and Augustine are in disagreement.

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)

Which is a silly thing to say.

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.

And some silly people took it up. Who cares?

The Modernists said that language was not good enough to do that but they had no idea what would,

Fantastic, they figured out words are not magical.

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.

WW Uno? I think you have the wrong ordinal number. The rest seems like a weird characterization of post-modernism. If there is some core to postmodernism it would seem to be something like "there is no way to be certain what is objectively true" which would seem to include the "basically good" claim of Rousseau and the "total depravity" claim of many Protestant theologies being unable to be demonstrated as "objectively true".

Then Shelley and Blake and Freud

who? who? and the perv...

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.

I'm not going to discuss the pit that is Christian sexual morality. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Page 155 - Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self

Cliff's notes: Trueman disagrees with some one from the past, who is not apparently a psychoanalyst.

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

Why should we care? Freud was obsessed with translating childhood traumas or experiences into explanations of adult behavior. I think modern psychology has moved beyond that and his techniques are largely abandoned.

Page 239

where Trueman says something of the sort then you comment..

Which puts us back with naturalistic contempt.

What? I think if you look at naturalistic psychology it rejects the weird personal interpretations of Freud to gauge mental health and causation, just as it rejects demonic possession.

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.

A mere claim.

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.

It would seem Trueman is cribbing his analysis from Nietzsche.

Darwin provided the means in which to get rid of the concept.

Woah. Darwin does no such thing. (get rid of god). Darwin's work explains how the diversity of life came about. What it does to to "religion" is to put a fatal blow to the "look at the trees" apologetic (not that the half the C&E board participants have noticed). There is something useful that Dawkins (whom I generally have little use for) said in about this claim of Darwin and God that I will paraphrase as: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied non-believer." What Dawkins is saying is that if want to know how the diversity of life arose is part of your intellectual curiosity about the world (as it clearly is for both Dawkins and Darwin), then when you don't have an explanation, there is "intellectual tension" in the non-believer. (However, if you don't care about the diversity of life, an explanation is not needed believe or disbelieve.) It seems clear from the positions of thinkers about god(s) before and after "Origins" that evolution by natural selection made it easier for those who were distant from traditional religion to complete the journey.

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.

Humans are 100% apes and 0% "not-apes". This is an inevitability of our biological history on this planet. Being apes has nothing to do with any of these claims for or against the 'weight of civilization" arguments.

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.

Jung always reads like Freud on a bad acid trip. I'm not sure what we are supposed to conclude from his nonsense.

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.

Don't know who that is but the conclusions they make sound like drivel.

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 it gets worse.

And now we're back to blaming colonialism and racism on Christianity.

It was nice of you to visit the thread title. It also seem like Lacan was making a really bad conclusion.

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.

Psychological nonsense will do that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No. I list them for anyone who may find them helpful. ....... but usually, since so many people are looking for a form of Christian faith that would better be described by a scene from 1,001 Arabian Nights, I'm probably not going to see much interest in my own particular avenue toward the Christian Faith.

Oh well.

In other words, "others". I'm not going to read a book of Christian theology or philosophy because I know that I'll put it down to never pick it up after 10 pages or less because it will bore or frustrate me endlessly. It's the same reason I put certain annoying people on "ignore".

Okay. I'll move your name off my "didn't really suggest I did" list, so I don't confuse you with a lot of the other atheists whom I've talked to over the years who have suggested that I did.

Cool.

Show ................ off? Funny, Hans.

No, I think folks confuse my "showing off" with attempting to offer alternative lines of thought. Y'know---I do the Philosopher's Analytic Jig----because that's what I do. But, somehow, and I know I should have learned long ago from all the history I've read, doing the 'Jig' just seems to annoy people more than anything else.

Showing off or just can't help yourself when your special topic, it's hard to tell. As for talking like a philosopher when you're set off, none philosophy phans don't really care for that sort of discussion.

Oh, ok then. Thanks for clarifying.


It definitely is, Hans!

Cheers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

I think you overestimate the explanatory power of Christianity (whichever version you use). Nothing you've presented in this thread is undeniably true.

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.

Peterson seems like a nutter, and certainly a dodger and weaver, unwilling to state his actual opinion on most things. I don't take him seriously, especially as an "intellectual".

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 don't think Peterson has a license to see patients any more.

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.

I'm generally not interested in having private conversations. It goes against the point of a discussion board.

I can't argue against "sin nature" on theological grounds, because I do not know theology and do not give it any credence. So my only arguments will be based on moral revulsion, and there are no ways to make those types of arguments and not be called "attacking religion".

On a different note, how do I block "stalkers" on this site?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In other words, "others". I'm not going to read a book of Christian theology or philosophy because I know that I'll put it down to never pick it up after 10 pages or less because it will bore or frustrate me endlessly. It's the same reason I put certain annoying people on "ignore".

Cool.

Showing off or just can't help yourself when your special topic, it's hard to tell. As for talking like a philosopher when you're set off, none philosophy phans don't really care for that sort of discussion.

Cheers.

Alrighty then........................ but remember that in the words of the illustrious Pat Benatar, "Love is a battlefield!"

 

[RileyG]

Short answer: no, Christianity does not support or teach racism.

There. Let's all get back to enjoying our lunch now.

Yup. Book of Jonah is a great start.

 

[RileyG]

An easier question would be "Have/Do Christians teach Christianity as a religion that supports/teaches racism?" for the answer is clearly yes.

The answer to the question posed is more along the lines of "There's a huge text and an even huger commentary on the text, and like every other things that Christians disagree on (abortion, divorce, clerical celibacy, female clergy...) supporters on both sides rely on their interpretation to support their view as 'what Christianity says'."

Rubbish!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Rubbish!

Well that was a convincing argument...

 

[essentialsaltes]

Rubbish!

There are still Christian churches that oppose interracial marriages.

 

[RileyG]

There are still Christian churches that oppose interracial marriages.

Ok? But not Christianity as a whole.

 

[RileyG]

Well that was a convincing argument...

Christianity is a religion. All races are part of it.

Good grief

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ok? But not Christianity as a whole.

Right, like divorce and clerical celibacy, 'Christianity' does not have one opinion on race/racism. Different churches differ on these issues.

 

[RileyG]

Right, like divorce and clerical celibacy, 'Christianity' does not have one opinion on race/racism. Different churches differ on these issues.

Right. I recall reading years ago about a Church in the south refusing to marry an interracial couple.

It anything, Christianity is incredibly diverse from denomination to denomination.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Christianity is a religion. All races are part of it.

Good grief

What's that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you not realize that replying "No/I disagree/Rubbish/etc." just ISN'T an argument?

 

[RileyG]

What's that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you not realize that replying "No/I disagree/Rubbish/etc." just ISN'T an argument?

I’m simply stating Christianity isn’t a monolith. As a whole it doesn’t teach racism. It’s not so black and white.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I’m simply stating Christianity isn’t a monolith. As a whole it doesn’t teach racism. It’s not so black and white.

Which is not expressible in a single word.

 

[RileyG]

Which is not expressible in a single word.

I see.

 

[linux.poet]

What's that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you not realize that replying "No/I disagree/Rubbish/etc." just ISN'T an argument?

Do you recognize that? Basically that is what your argument against my intellectual argument amounts to. “I’m not interested” and “which is a silly thing to say” are just as much as emotional non-arguments as “Rubbish!”. Apathy is an emotional response - namely lack of emotion- and it usually has fear as a root, not caring about the danger in order to maintain mental function in face of a threat that needs mental capacity to defeat.

I established that literary thinkers want to blame racism on Christianity and I properly situated their opposition in anti-Christian philosophy and a veneer of historical argument. Your posts have repeatedly declared disagreements with the finer points of my analysis and a lack of interest in the whole. At any point one had the option to stop participating, and if I was annoying, I did not twist anyone’s arm. One has an infinite capacity to reject what one does not like; that proves nothing.

In any event, naturalists are not racists because there are multiple scientific studies that prove that race does not exist biologically - there is no correlation between skin color and internal make-up. I have no idea why one naturalist would care if some Christians agreed with them on that point. Maybe because it pokes a hole in the naturalist/psychoanalytic idea that Christians are lacking in intelligence.

It anything, Christianity is incredibly diverse from denomination to denomination.

One of the advantages that non-denominational Christianity has in situating authority in Scripture as opposed to the papacy is that we can easily reject or criticize people who preach anti-Scriptural teachings. It doesn’t take us hundreds of years to repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery. I hate to say it, but Catholic historical blunders have given credence to Christianity’s detractors, so much that I ended up distancing myself from Catholicism in order to clarify that I am not a racist for believing in Christianity in the academic situations I referred to above. It was the easier course, though perhaps not the best.

On the other hand, the Vatican has repudiated said doctrine, and the Church calls racism an intrinsic evil, so I think Catholicism has learned their lesson there. Collective sanctification of the Catholic papacy has been very visible and public over the years, including their faults, but we do believe that believers in Christ should be afforded the opportunity to repent and turn from evil, and if they do correct their mistakes, that should be recognized and respected and not brought up again. Secular scholars are just not so forgiving.

This does not mean that the Catholic approach is without its advantages either; the flaw of the non-denominational approach is that it situates a person’s faith in the psychological performance of each individual. This allows emotional abuse to run rampant in families because of the internalized criticism for lack of Scriptural compliance, forcing people to “perform” gender roles instead of just understanding gender via body understanding as in Catholic theology. Another glaring flaw is to blame circumstances on lack of Scriptural compliance and performance - using 1 Thessalonians 3:10 to abandon the poor and needy, for example. The cruelty is horrific. But hey, at least we’re not racist!

I honestly think that Christians have a lot to learn from each other. Maybe in the hypothetical unified Christian church of the future we should leave caring for the needy to the former Catholics and academic battling of the Rousseauist postmodern rascals to the former non-denominational folks.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you recognize that? Basically that is what your argument against my intellectual argument amounts to. “I’m not interested” and “which is a silly thing to say” are just as much as emotional non-arguments as “Rubbish!”.

Seriously? Pages of writing and engaging in (at least some) of your claims is the same as a one word post?

(The think I called "a silly thing to say" was what *Roussaeu* wrote about returning to a more natural state would improve our morality.)

Apathy is an emotional response - namely lack of emotion-

Lack of emotion is an emotion now? Is "bald" now a hair color, too? (I'm not sure why you are talking about apathy.)

and it usually has fear as a root, not caring about the danger in order to maintain mental function in face of a threat that needs mental capacity to defeat.

And here I thought apathy was based on not caring about something. Whatever.

I established that literary thinkers want to blame racism on Christianity and I properly situated their opposition in anti-Christian philosophy and a veneer of historical argument.

The sources you used on philosophy and psychoanalysis were polemics, and didn't seem particularly accurate.

Your posts have repeatedly declared disagreements with the finer points of my analysis and a lack of interest in the whole.

I frankly couldn't make head nor tail of the literary arguments themselves. As I said earlier, it was perhaps a mistake to ask for details. I guess I forgot how much I dislike literary theorists. (The memories fade over the decades...)

In any event, naturalists are not racists because there are multiple scientific studies that prove that race does not exist biologically - there is no correlation between skin color and internal make-up.

Race is a social construct. No one except the "race realists" (who are actually just racists dressing it up with pseudo-intellectualism) thinks there is a biological basis to race.

I have no idea why one naturalist would care if some Christians agreed with them on that point.

Which naturalist? Me?

Maybe because it pokes a hole in the naturalist/psychoanalytic idea that Christians are lacking in intelligence.

"Naturalist/Psychoanalytic"? What do those things have to do with each other? You quoted one nitwit psychoanalyist (Freud) who made those claims about Christians. I don't know if he was a naturalist or not, but his ideas don't seem that grounded in naturalism from the outside. (My last examination of Freud was in HS, in the late 80s.)