What is CRT?

[muichimotsu]

On this sub-topic, I'm not going to go into deeper elaboration since I think it's a bit of a tangent from simply focusing on CRT (as Tom has wanted to do in this thread). I'll just say that I think what @RDKirk has said above captures the kind of general response I'd also give.

As for the application of CRT to the Gospels, you may be right---it's actual relevance is debatable and some of whether we think there is an ideological problem regarding justice bleeding from the pages of the New Testament will depend on our individual hermeneutical choices that go into our readings of it (or of selected, specific passages of it-----which actually have to be cited and presented rather than just talked about on the sidelines).

Well, it's little different than trying to analyze the Bible at all in regards to sexual orientation because they didn't have that concept remotely in terms of cultural or societal understandings at the time, same as the idea of race in any sense that we tend to understand it in modern times (versus those points where it was justified based on a lens that viewed race as something God declared or altered via things like Ham's curse). It was far more just sexual behavior and norms around that, not any sort of notion that they're involuntary or even immutable in their essence.

Behavior is relevant, certainly, but treating someone like they deserved to be stoned to death by acting in a way that, for all intents and purposes, is not violating human dignity or autonomy to a reasonable observer, is just encouraging outdated prejudices via antiquated perspectives on what is appropriate for sexual activities.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Never said they were perfect, but you'd expect better if they're supposed to be so great and guided by God. It almost seems more like goalpost shifting to excuse bad behavior while praising all the good ones that are emphasized in contrast while always having a pessimistic cynical viewpoint that we will disappoint consistently and have to submit to an authority that has "our best interests" in mind

It's not goalpost shifting if my comments on this have been thus far only been short and pointed and have barely gotten out of the gate. Give me a chance, will you? I never said I was formally Catholic or Orthodox. I don't revere the Patristics. I do keep them in mind as examples (whether they were exemplary or not) of how various 2nd and 3rd century Christians handled what was reported to be the Gospel Tradition from the 1st century generation.

So, how about this? If I don't explicitely say something about certain details of my view on the Christian Faith, then maybe you can be mindful to refrain from jumping to conclusions about things I didn't actually say or imply. Deal? I know you're smarter than that and, if you have integrity, you'll just stop trying to analyze me in such a way that you "beat me to the punch." We're both too educated to fool each other, so give me a bit of slack here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, it's little different than trying to analyze the Bible at all in regards to sexual orientation because they didn't have that concept remotely in terms of cultural or societal understandings at the time, same as the idea of race in any sense that we tend to understand it in modern times (versus those points where it was justified based on a lens that viewed race as something God declared or altered via things like Ham's curse). It was far more just sexual behavior and norms around that, not any sort of notion that they're involuntary or even immutable in their essence.

Yeah, I understand some of that. Denise Kimber Buell discusses the race and ethnic aspects of this in her work.

Behavior is relevant, certainly, but treating someone like they deserved to be stoned to death by acting in a way that, for all intents and purposes, is not violating human dignity or autonomy to a reasonable observer, is just encouraging outdated prejudices via antiquated perspectives on what is appropriate for sexual activities.

I'm not even sure where this part is fitting in with the rest of what we're talking about here.

So far, I've only been talking about CRT in reference to "race" relations, not sexual practices. Let's not bring sexuality into all of this since that'll just get this thread banned.

Stoned to death? I don't think anyone is doing that today that I know of. And I don't think Jesus or the Apostles and their immediate entourages were doing any of that either. So, you're kind of grasping at anachronisms here since we're talking in a Christian forum.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think anyone is dismissing the relevance of ethnicity in the discussion, it overlaps with race and can even get more complex in how Hispanic is considered both a race and an ethnicity, as I recall.

The superficial aspects factor in with how we can treat someone as Hispanic and White, while some don't have that leisure because they don't pass as "white enough", that whole factor contributing to profiling and prejudices based purely on appearances.

There's pretty much just one use that even tends to work and it isn't the ones that have fallen out of practice because they don't match up remotely with scientific findings about genetics (as in race cannot be said to be a genetic aspect, more phenotypal at best)

Yes, I understand your points. However, my inclination is to encourage people to drop the term 'race' to force people to own up to the biological reality that is shared among human beings (thus undermining the mistaken notions about inherited adaptations and/or speciation held among those who are cultic in their mindsets, like Neo-Nazis or other similar hate groups).

By the way, did you at least look at the article I posted? I've also posted some other sources in this thread that play into my point of view, so whether your peruse them or not, maybe keep that in mind.

 

[muichimotsu]

It's not goalpost shifting if my comments on this have been thus far only been short and pointed and have barely gotten out of the gate. Give me a chance, will you? I never said I was formally Catholic or Orthodox. I don't revere the Patristics. I do keep them in mind as examples (whether they were exemplary or not) of how various 2nd and 3rd century Christians handled what was reported to be the Gospel Tradition from the 1st century generation.

So, how about this? If I don't explicitely say something about certain details of my view on the Christian Faith, then maybe you can be mindful to refrain from jumping to conclusions about things I didn't actually say or imply. Deal? I know you're smarter than that and, if you have integrity, you'll just stop trying to analyze me in such a way that you "beat me to the punch." We're both too educated to fool each other, so give me a bit of slack here.

Being explicit would help if you're going to not want to have someone make some provisional conclusion (not absolute, I'm not that naive). From what perspective are you talking about in regards to this notion about the intersection of Christianity and discussions about prejudice in general, but specifically racism here?

We have various examples, especially from the Civil Rights Movement of using Christianity in a positive way for advancing against racism, but the more dominant thread even when liberation theology was starting to gain traction was the ideas that enabled and even encouraged racism as normal and it was far more dominant for the majority of American history even with abolitionism that was likely speaking out and invoking Christian ideals as well.

I'm not remotely suggesting it was all negative. But more like 90/10

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes, I understand your points. However, my inclination is to encourage people to drop the term 'race' to force people to own up to the biological reality that is shared among human beings (thus undermining the mistaken notions about inherited adaptations and/or speciation held among those who are cultic in their mindsets, like Neo-Nazis or other similar hate groups).

By the way, did you at least look at the article I posted? I've also posted some other sources in this thread that play into my point of view, so whether your peruse them or not, maybe keep that in mind.

Dropping it is not going to be easy, because we're innately superficial in how we categorize people. The goal should be the conveyance of race as a category that is not reductive like some people seem to think it is. Acknowledging it is not the same as excluding the other categories we should consider, like ethnicity, nationality, and gender as well in cultural ideas we have about it (norms, behaviors, identity, etc). Our identities are multifaceted, of course, and the issue is how so often we generalize based on superficial traits, the major one being race, which we then conflate with ethnicity and alienate people by treating them as an other.

Ethnicity is usually way more important and should be especially for white people because whiteness doesn't really have a unifying ethnic identity, it tends to just be unified under prejudice and marginalization of others (colonialism, etc)

I don't really have the time, to be blatantly honest; even an abstract would probably help convey the idea in a condensed fashion.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yeah, I understand some of that. Denise Kimber Buell discusses the race and ethnic aspects of this in her work.

I'm not even sure where this part is fitting in with the rest of what we're talking about here.

So far, I've only been talking about CRT in reference to "race" relations, not sexual practices. Let's not bring sexuality into all of this since that'll just get this thread banned.

Stoned to death? I don't think anyone is doing that today that I know of. And I don't think Jesus or the Apostles and their immediate entourages were doing any of that either. So, you're kind of grasping at anachronisms here since we're talking in a Christian forum.

Of course no one's stoning people to death for their race, most people even if they're rooted in other prejudices know better than to do that, but the abusive attitude is still there.

The idea that slavery was a normal status was the founding principle in the Cornerstone Address of the Confederacy and they appealed to Christian ideas within it, albeit scattered around, but they weren't focused on some scientific or even sociological perspective, it was primarily an idea that they were in the right for fighting to own black people as property as their right as a sovereign state distinct from the original Union in 1776

Race relations and Christianity are something that can go hand in hand, especially when we have conflicting ideas as to what Jesus stands for: the sort of "white savior" Jesus that encourages colonialism and the black Jesus that liberated those in chains, gave them hope and unified because it wasn't about stepping on people to convert them or spread some gospel because "manifest destiny"

 

[RDKirk]

Being explicit would help if you're going to not want to have someone make some provisional conclusion (not absolute, I'm not that naive). From what perspective are you talking about in regards to this notion about the intersection of Christianity and discussions about prejudice in general, but specifically racism here?

We have various examples, especially from the Civil Rights Movement of using Christianity in a positive way for advancing against racism, but the more dominant thread even when liberation theology was starting to gain traction was the ideas that enabled and even encouraged racism as normal and it was far more dominant for the majority of American history even with abolitionism that was likely speaking out and invoking Christian ideals as well.

I'm not remotely suggesting it was all negative. But more like 90/10

That's from the point of view that European Christianity in general and American Christianity in particular define Christianity. To be sure, when there are millions of professed Christians who can countenance and even perform the torture and murder of other Christians in their own neighborhoods and not feel the slightest remorse or conviction...they are certainly doing Christianity wrong.

But there are significant streams of Christianity that never passed through the European channel and never encouraged racism. They define Christianity more validly.

 

[muichimotsu]

That's from the point of view that European Christianity in general and American Christianity in particular define Christianity. To be sure, when there are millions of professed Christians who can countenance and even perform the torture and murder of other Christians in their own neighborhoods and not feel the slightest remorse or conviction...they are certainly doing Christianity wrong.

But there are significant streams of Christianity that never passed through the European channel and never encouraged racism. They define Christianity more validly.

Don't pull the no True Scotsman goalpost shifting, you have to own that part of Christianity's history, it's not swept under the rug without you being complicit in enabling or otherwise diminishing the suffering it caused

And I never claimed it represented all of Christianity, same as I don't judge all Muslims by the acts of Shia and Sunni sects.

 

[RDKirk]

Don't pull the no True Scotsman goalpost shifting, you have to own that part of Christianity's history, it's not swept under the rug without you being complicit in enabling or otherwise diminishing the suffering it caused

And I never claimed it represented all of Christianity, same as I don't judge all Muslims by the acts of Shia and Sunni sects.

I don't have to own anything. I certainly don't have to own the Christianity that chose to keep slavery and segregation alive in America...especially since it was already an outlier even in its own time.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't have to own anything. I certainly don't have to own the Christianity that chose to keep slavery and segregation alive in America...especially since it was already an outlier even in its own time.

So it doesn't matter because you don't care to acknowledge it? That sounds oddly dodgy rather than acknowledging the flawed nature of the faith that prides itself on preaching to the flawed in the first place, not saints.

Citation needed on that. Sure, maybe it was a loud minority, but it was certainly dominant for over 200 years, it must've done something "right" in its influencing, even if it was abhorrent and inhuman.

 

[RDKirk]

So it doesn't matter because you don't care to acknowledge it? That sounds oddly dodgy rather than acknowledging the flawed nature of the faith that prides itself on preaching to the flawed in the first place, not saints.

Citation needed on that. Sure, maybe it was a loud minority, but it was certainly dominant for over 200 years, it must've done something "right" in its influencing, even if it was abhorrent and inhuman.

It's no historical secret that slavery had been repudiated by Christianity worldwide for the second time by the early 1800s, being clung to only by Christians in SE United States.

Nor is it a historical secret that the only argument against slavery anywhere came from Christian philosophy. No other philosophy in the world provides an argument against slavery, except through Christian influence.

 

[muichimotsu]

It's no historical secret that slavery had been repudiated by Christianity worldwide for the second time by the early 1800s, being clung to only by Christians in SE United States.

Nor is it a historical secret that the only argument against slavery anywhere came from Christian philosophy. No other philosophy in the world provides an argument against slavery, except through Christian influence.

Don't pull this exceptionalist garbage if you can't back it up, because that kind of absolutism doesn't help except to further alienate everyone else in the discussion because you think only your perspective can offer a solution, which is the height of arrogance, not remotely humble.

 

[RDKirk]

Don't pull this exceptionalist garbage if you can't back it up, because that kind of absolutism doesn't help except to further alienate everyone else in the discussion because you think only your perspective can offer a solution, which is the height of arrogance, not remotely humble.

Didn't prove me wrong, though, did you? All you could do was hurl invective.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Don't pull this exceptionalist garbage if you can't back it up, because that kind of absolutism doesn't help except to further alienate everyone else in the discussion because you think only your perspective can offer a solution, which is the height of arrogance, not remotely humble.

But I thought you didn't have "time" to engage, let alone read, anything we might have to back up our points of view, Muichi ...

 

[muichimotsu]

But I thought you didn't have "time" to engage, let alone read, anything we might have to back up our points of view, Muichi ...

Oh you're gonna pull this deflection now? It's called time management, something you apparently think you're so great at, yet you have the time to throw out thinly veiled snipes like this

Bring up your evidence or step out, you're not helping, you're digging the hole deeper

 

[muichimotsu]

Didn't prove me wrong, though, did you? All you could do was hurl invective.

Appeal to ignorance? I thought better of you: me not proving you wrong doesn't make you right, that's not how an argument works when you need to make a substantive presentation of why your conclusion is correct

 

[RDKirk]

Appeal to ignorance? I thought better of you: me not proving you wrong doesn't make you right, that's not how an argument works when you need to make a substantive presentation of why your conclusion is correct

I looked in the refrigerator and found no fire-breathing dragon, so I've concluded there is no fire-breathing dragon in the refrigerator.

Slavery is one of those issues I have particular personal interest in. I have examined other philosophies around the world and found no anti-slavery argument ever developed among them, and I've conferred with professional philosophers who have done the same thing without finding an anti-slavery argument within them, so I've concluded that they have no anti-slavery argument.

If you've found a fire-breathing dragon in the refrigerator, now is the time to say so, or else concede the debate or at least admit you don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

 

[muichimotsu]

I looked in the refrigerator and found no fire-breathing dragon, so I've concluded there is no fire-breathing dragon in the refrigerator.

Slavery is one of those issues I have particular personal interest in. I have examined other philosophies around the world and found no anti-slavery argument ever developed among them, and I've conferred with professional philosophers who have done the same thing without finding an anti-slavery argument within them, so I've concluded that they have no anti-slavery argument.

If you've found a fire-breathing dragon in the refrigerator, now is the time to say so, or else concede the debate or at least admit you don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

Specific negative is not the same as this broader context, don't insult my intelligence like that

Exccept 1) you're not an expert, nor is your research substantive far as I can tell and 2) professional philosophers are not experts in those religious traditions by necessity, you need way more evidence than that for such a claim that paints every non Abrahamic group with a broad brush. Maybe ask religious scholars in regards to this and don't just assume because you find someone that agrees with you that it must be true and settled.

You think Judaism and Islam don't have any anti slavery basis in them? Because I'm almost certain they do, but if you have to shift your goalposts there, what's the point of your exceptionalist nonsense in saying only Christianity leads to a conclusion that owning people is wrong?

Maybe don't succumb to Dunning Kruger or confirmation bias by selectively finding what fits your preconception instead of challenging it like a rational person and having the humility to recognize you could be wrong in claims that are as ludicrous as the notion that only your faith tradition leads to "heaven".

Hinduism, a very longstanding tradition in itself, appears to have people making arguments against slavery, easily as far back as 300 BCE or further. Sikhism as well from its founding was against slavery, even Buddhism's eightfold path notes that you shouldn't engage in slavery, because it violates the principle of right livelihood in the Eightfold Path, along with selling of weapons and other trafficking of things that are damaging in some form or fashion (obviously the weapon distinction is a whole other debate, but the opposition to slavery is there)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh you're gonna pull this deflection now? It's called time management, something you apparently think you're so great at, yet you have the time to throw out thinly veiled snipes like this

Bring up your evidence or step out, you're not helping, you're digging the hole deeper

What evidence is it that you're referring to here? Or what post above are you wanting me to support?