Cause & Effect is tough. So, let's first lay out the facts without assigning causation.
I'm going to post and give you a chance to comment to make sure we agree on the facts.In the fifteenth century Europeans began extensive overseas exploration. Almost immediately they began taking slaves. That practice was sanctioned by Christian Church.
Both the Church and nations received great financial benefit from the slave trade and the land stolen by explorers from native people.
By the end of the eighteenth century Americans and Europeans began ending the slave trade. By the middle of the nineteenth century the institution of slavery had ended. Must of our history since that time has concerned treating non-whites equally under the law and within social institutions.
Christians were involved in the movements to end both the slave trade and the institution of slavery. Likewise Christians have been involved in the Civil Rights Movement. The Church, at least in the United States, was split on the issue of slavery. Most who opposed the Civil Rights movement were Christian.
I checked myself on some of the history here: http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/History_n2/a.html
What other facts do we need before we start looking for motivation & causation?
Friday, February 23, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Matt: Still Churning on Cause and Effect
I think the Civil Rights Movement is the better example. Abolition is less clear morally on either side.
I can't argue against the fact that Christians were often the primary advocates for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. I haven't done the research, but I wouldn't be surprised if non-christians (as well as non-theists) were also important (and I am assuming that Jews in this case fit into your argument that Judeo-Christian is the ethic here). That having been said, I am going to fall back on the earlier tack I took, but perhaps develop the point a bit.
So in 1455 (January 8th, by the way) the Romanus Pontifex Papal Bull was issued on behalf of Portugal and its claims regarding some (or all) of South America (please excuse this, it's incredibly hard to edit 15th century legal language for clarity):
So there you go. In the 15th century, the Catholic authority said that Portugal could enslave anyone they found in S. America at their discretion. The authority the papacy used to determine they could issue this permission was not more or less developed than that used by the mid-20th Century American Christians to argue against unequal treatment for blacks. Martin Luther King, Jr. was no smarter than Pope Nicholas V. He certainly couldn't claim to know more about the Bible or of Christian Theology and traditions. Not more about what the historical or biblical Jesus had to say about the treatment of other people. In fact the only thing MLK had over NV was a greater understanding of science&technology, and an ethic informed by 20th century Western thought.
Do you think MLK had a greater understanding of Christ or Christianity? I would assume you do, given that you come in to this discussion with the assumption that Christianity is almost MLK's vision by definition. But I would argue that an easier explanation (Occam's Razor) for the difference is that ethics have matured in the last few hundred years, and Christianity has moved with it.
I can't argue against the fact that Christians were often the primary advocates for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. I haven't done the research, but I wouldn't be surprised if non-christians (as well as non-theists) were also important (and I am assuming that Jews in this case fit into your argument that Judeo-Christian is the ethic here). That having been said, I am going to fall back on the earlier tack I took, but perhaps develop the point a bit.
So in 1455 (January 8th, by the way) the Romanus Pontifex Papal Bull was issued on behalf of Portugal and its claims regarding some (or all) of South America (please excuse this, it's incredibly hard to edit 15th century legal language for clarity):
We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery...
So there you go. In the 15th century, the Catholic authority said that Portugal could enslave anyone they found in S. America at their discretion. The authority the papacy used to determine they could issue this permission was not more or less developed than that used by the mid-20th Century American Christians to argue against unequal treatment for blacks. Martin Luther King, Jr. was no smarter than Pope Nicholas V. He certainly couldn't claim to know more about the Bible or of Christian Theology and traditions. Not more about what the historical or biblical Jesus had to say about the treatment of other people. In fact the only thing MLK had over NV was a greater understanding of science&technology, and an ethic informed by 20th century Western thought.
Do you think MLK had a greater understanding of Christ or Christianity? I would assume you do, given that you come in to this discussion with the assumption that Christianity is almost MLK's vision by definition. But I would argue that an easier explanation (Occam's Razor) for the difference is that ethics have matured in the last few hundred years, and Christianity has moved with it.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Jim: A Real Problem
This is an alarming poll. The stigma that most Americans evidently associate with the term atheist is alarming. On this blog, I will argue that this sort of behavior is not the product of Christianity. I will argue that if instead of identifying ourselves as Christians, most of us identified ourselves as Star-Belly Americans, a majority of Democrats and/or Republicans would say that they could not vote for Non-Star-Bellies.
That argument will be tough. This graphic fills me with not a little shame.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Jim: Topic I: Tolerance: Methodology
In my first post on this topic, I argue that Matt had the cause and effect backward. That in reality Christianity drove people to be more tolerant. I provided some textual evidence from the Bible to demonstrate that the Judeo-Christian tradition supports loving the stranger and the enemy. {See comments to that response for a brief discussion of whether my choice of scripture is fair.}
As we've said before, "the Bible says so," is not the end of the discussion. In fact, because I've rejected the idea that God wrote the Bible and that it is infallible, maybe I don't get to rely on "the Bible says so." {Probably not, I think I still get to use it as an indication of where the tradition started.}
So, what do we use? I think examples are the best. So, I'm gonna give some examples to help my cause:
Both Abolition and the Civil Rights movement were driven by Christians seeing the movement as an extension of their Christianity. The Civil Rights movement is a slam dunk for me, in that the change came from Christians, and the movement was tinged with Christian ideals. (True, many status quo folks were Christian, but the social change motivated by Christianity was for civil rights.) Abolition may be more tricky. But here's one essay that seems to post some evidence. http://www.jubilee-centre.org/online_documents/TheabolitionoftheslavetradeChristianconscienceandpoliticalaction.htm
Should we pick an example and counter example and delve more deeply into it?
As we've said before, "the Bible says so," is not the end of the discussion. In fact, because I've rejected the idea that God wrote the Bible and that it is infallible, maybe I don't get to rely on "the Bible says so." {Probably not, I think I still get to use it as an indication of where the tradition started.}
So, what do we use? I think examples are the best. So, I'm gonna give some examples to help my cause:
Both Abolition and the Civil Rights movement were driven by Christians seeing the movement as an extension of their Christianity. The Civil Rights movement is a slam dunk for me, in that the change came from Christians, and the movement was tinged with Christian ideals. (True, many status quo folks were Christian, but the social change motivated by Christianity was for civil rights.) Abolition may be more tricky. But here's one essay that seems to post some evidence. http://www.jubilee-centre.org/online_documents/TheabolitionoftheslavetradeChristianconscienceandpoliticalaction.htm
Should we pick an example and counter example and delve more deeply into it?
Friday, February 16, 2007
Matt: Cause & Effect
I remain unconvinced that tolerance is necessarily derived from Christianity.
Your point about the teachings on the treatment of strangers is strong. But you also made the obvious counter-argument, that all the words about tolerance in the world can still be ignored when another central message is that non-believers are doomed to, and deserve, eternal damnation.
I wonder about the cause and effect angle here. You proposed that as Christianity swept into cultures, it became a reflection of those cultures, but ultimately subsumed those cultural values into a "truer" Christian ethos.
We have seen the West moderate over the last couple of hundred years, but I don't know that it is coincident with Christianity's spread. The Inquisition, mass killings of Jews, the burning of witches, and other cultural movements I believe would indicate that cultural mores stand independent of the current religious underpinnings of a culture. If a culture is currently burning heretics, they'll do it in the name of Christianity, in the name of mono-culturalism, or in the name of whatever the dominant national identity of the time is.
You mentioned that you had migrated to a kind of pluralistic view of Christianity and faith. Is it possible that this kind of view, along with other liberal (religiously liberal) interpretations of Christianity represent not the attainment of the true message of Christianity, but actually a secularized form of Christianity? A humanistic distortion, perhaps? In support of that question I submit that the most secular nations on Earth right now are Japan, Sweden, Norway, and France, and in recent studies, the United States is largely alone as a prosperous nation with belief levels approaching third-world levels. We share more in common, ethically, with Japan, Scandinavia and France, than we do with Nigeria and Indonesia which are closer to the US in levels of religiosity.
There is a correlation between secularization and what you and I would argue is ethical behavior.
To go back to your definition of Christianity for a minute, I would think that in the two-dimensional view of Christianity (the breadth of it today as well as the depth of Christians historically), you share very little in common in terms of your basic beliefs -- the Aquinas quote shows that. I think most of those Christians in both directions would agree with you that Jesus is the foundational teacher, but would vehemently disagree that your views of God, deity, afterlife and ethics are Christian at all. Your theology is sound, but Christianity is not, after all, the teachings of Jesus, it is the dominant ethical beliefs of the overwhelming majority of self-professed Christians at the time in question.
Your point about the teachings on the treatment of strangers is strong. But you also made the obvious counter-argument, that all the words about tolerance in the world can still be ignored when another central message is that non-believers are doomed to, and deserve, eternal damnation.
I wonder about the cause and effect angle here. You proposed that as Christianity swept into cultures, it became a reflection of those cultures, but ultimately subsumed those cultural values into a "truer" Christian ethos.
We have seen the West moderate over the last couple of hundred years, but I don't know that it is coincident with Christianity's spread. The Inquisition, mass killings of Jews, the burning of witches, and other cultural movements I believe would indicate that cultural mores stand independent of the current religious underpinnings of a culture. If a culture is currently burning heretics, they'll do it in the name of Christianity, in the name of mono-culturalism, or in the name of whatever the dominant national identity of the time is.
You mentioned that you had migrated to a kind of pluralistic view of Christianity and faith. Is it possible that this kind of view, along with other liberal (religiously liberal) interpretations of Christianity represent not the attainment of the true message of Christianity, but actually a secularized form of Christianity? A humanistic distortion, perhaps? In support of that question I submit that the most secular nations on Earth right now are Japan, Sweden, Norway, and France, and in recent studies, the United States is largely alone as a prosperous nation with belief levels approaching third-world levels. We share more in common, ethically, with Japan, Scandinavia and France, than we do with Nigeria and Indonesia which are closer to the US in levels of religiosity.
There is a correlation between secularization and what you and I would argue is ethical behavior.
To go back to your definition of Christianity for a minute, I would think that in the two-dimensional view of Christianity (the breadth of it today as well as the depth of Christians historically), you share very little in common in terms of your basic beliefs -- the Aquinas quote shows that. I think most of those Christians in both directions would agree with you that Jesus is the foundational teacher, but would vehemently disagree that your views of God, deity, afterlife and ethics are Christian at all. Your theology is sound, but Christianity is not, after all, the teachings of Jesus, it is the dominant ethical beliefs of the overwhelming majority of self-professed Christians at the time in question.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Jim: Topic I: Tolerance
Matt reminds me that Thomas Aquinas advocated killing heretics. And while Christianity does not currently advocate killing non-believers, the attitude of Christians towards non-Christians is a major impact on American Society.
First off, there are two very different issues wrapped up in the issue of non-believers. One issue is: What does American Christianity teach about how to treat non-believers? The other issue is: What does American Christianity teach about the fate of non-believers?
A. Treatment of Non-believers
Matt indicates that Christianity has moderated over time and wonders whether that is a response to Western thought. I would suggest that what has happened is as Christianity spread through the west it initially adopted the belief system of the society it spread to. Then, the values of Christianity percolated through the society, transforming it into a more Christian society.
1. The origins of the faith require tolerance.
The example we're looking at now is that of tolerance. The Judeo-Christian faith clearly requires hospitality toward the stranger and outsider. Jews & Christians did not always behave that way, for sure, but it is the mandate from the faith.
In the Old Testament, the Israelites are reminded that they began as strangers in a strange land:
The priest shall take the basket from your hands and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God. Then you shall declare before the LORD your God: "My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor.
Deut. 26:4-6. The book of Hebrews, most Jewish of the New Testament letters concludes with:
Keep on loving each other as brothers. Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it. Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.
Jesus actually required loving not just brothers, or even strangers, but enemies. See, e.g., Matthew 5:43. Furthermore, the parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates, that Jesus professed judging people not on whether they were from a rival nation and religion, but based on their deeds. The foreigner with his heretical religion was the neighbor to be loved as oneself, not the priest or pharisee.
2. American Christians have run the full spectrum.
Whatever the origins of Christianity say, the discussion we're having is the impact of American Christianity. The Calvinists were absolutely not tolerant, to be sure. I will concede that. However, Christians were also Quakers who worked to end slavery. During the Civil War some denominations split over the issue of slavery, which I think illustrates that society can influence religions pretty dramatically.
3. Look at some tolerance issues today.
Consider the anti-gay today. Now, at first, they seem to be arguments for you. But I would suggest it demonstrates the work of Christian values toward compassion. The anti-gay movement is abandoning the hatred of difference in favor of reaching out to help the mentally sick. Now, I still think that is horrible--to call gay people sick--but it is more compassionate that hating people. My point is that people who are different are distrusted. But that Christianity acts as a moderator encouraging compassion--even if patronizing and misinformed--as a first step toward real tolerance.
B. Fate of Non-believers
This is the sort of pure theological question that will always be trouble for me. Many Christians will say that non-believers will go to hell. I frankly don't think Jesus was talking about the after life. I think He was talking about a Kingdom of God that was at hand. So, I don't worry about the afterlife much.
Still, the notion that everyone unlike you is eternally damned certainly encourages intolerance. It can serve as a vehicle to marginalize and dehumanize your enemies.
C. Conclusion
While it is true that the notion of damnation is bad for society, the overall admonition to treat the stranger with kindness and love is a Christian influence on western society. It has helped to moderate the fear of others that comes from man in his natural state. Love of the stranger leads directly to tolerance.
First off, there are two very different issues wrapped up in the issue of non-believers. One issue is: What does American Christianity teach about how to treat non-believers? The other issue is: What does American Christianity teach about the fate of non-believers?
A. Treatment of Non-believers
Matt indicates that Christianity has moderated over time and wonders whether that is a response to Western thought. I would suggest that what has happened is as Christianity spread through the west it initially adopted the belief system of the society it spread to. Then, the values of Christianity percolated through the society, transforming it into a more Christian society.
1. The origins of the faith require tolerance.
The example we're looking at now is that of tolerance. The Judeo-Christian faith clearly requires hospitality toward the stranger and outsider. Jews & Christians did not always behave that way, for sure, but it is the mandate from the faith.
In the Old Testament, the Israelites are reminded that they began as strangers in a strange land:
The priest shall take the basket from your hands and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God. Then you shall declare before the LORD your God: "My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor.
Deut. 26:4-6. The book of Hebrews, most Jewish of the New Testament letters concludes with:
Keep on loving each other as brothers. Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it. Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.
Jesus actually required loving not just brothers, or even strangers, but enemies. See, e.g., Matthew 5:43. Furthermore, the parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates, that Jesus professed judging people not on whether they were from a rival nation and religion, but based on their deeds. The foreigner with his heretical religion was the neighbor to be loved as oneself, not the priest or pharisee.
2. American Christians have run the full spectrum.
Whatever the origins of Christianity say, the discussion we're having is the impact of American Christianity. The Calvinists were absolutely not tolerant, to be sure. I will concede that. However, Christians were also Quakers who worked to end slavery. During the Civil War some denominations split over the issue of slavery, which I think illustrates that society can influence religions pretty dramatically.
3. Look at some tolerance issues today.
Consider the anti-gay today. Now, at first, they seem to be arguments for you. But I would suggest it demonstrates the work of Christian values toward compassion. The anti-gay movement is abandoning the hatred of difference in favor of reaching out to help the mentally sick. Now, I still think that is horrible--to call gay people sick--but it is more compassionate that hating people. My point is that people who are different are distrusted. But that Christianity acts as a moderator encouraging compassion--even if patronizing and misinformed--as a first step toward real tolerance.
B. Fate of Non-believers
This is the sort of pure theological question that will always be trouble for me. Many Christians will say that non-believers will go to hell. I frankly don't think Jesus was talking about the after life. I think He was talking about a Kingdom of God that was at hand. So, I don't worry about the afterlife much.
Still, the notion that everyone unlike you is eternally damned certainly encourages intolerance. It can serve as a vehicle to marginalize and dehumanize your enemies.
C. Conclusion
While it is true that the notion of damnation is bad for society, the overall admonition to treat the stranger with kindness and love is a Christian influence on western society. It has helped to moderate the fear of others that comes from man in his natural state. Love of the stranger leads directly to tolerance.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Matt: On A bit more on the Bible
I think the best point you made in the post is that people don't believe everything they say in polls. I quote polls a lot, because they can remove my biased view of the world to give me insights my biases wouldn't normally allow, but there are indeed flaws. Most Christians, when presented with a challenge like a poll question, might tend to present themselves as more conservative than they are.
Richard Dawkins gave a talk last year wherein he said tht after writing The God Delusion he had been approached by many Christians (including clergy) who said, essentially, that they no longer believed in God in any meaningful way, but that rejecting Christianity would be a rejection of their family and friends and the only community they really knew, and that that was the larger hurdle to disavowing their faith in God.
All that having been said, if half of Americans say they believe in Young Earth Creationism, even with our mitigating statements, a whole ton of people believe in YEC, or at least don't think deeply enough about the issue to know it's moronic to believe it.
I still argue that we have to proceed with the discussion of faith driving morality with the stipulation that Christianity, and specifically Biblical Christianity, is believed by most people to be the driving force of morality in the United States.
--
So let's do bring an issue into focus. I would like to examine how Christians generally beleive we should deal with non-believers.
Thomas Aquinas, in Summa contra Gentiles and Summa Theologiae concludes that heretics should be killed. I think we'd agree that this would have been a pretty widely held belief amongst Catholics at the time (in fact he was sainted almost 100 years later, so his views would have to have been considered as authoratative, yes?).
I think we could also agree that almost no modern sect of Christianity, no matter how fundamentalist, would agree that killing the heretic is justfied.
Chritianity has moderated to a great degree in the last 700 years. The question is, has it moderated and driven Western Culture before it (morally speaking), or has the secularization of the West pulled Christianity toward that change in attitude?
Richard Dawkins gave a talk last year wherein he said tht after writing The God Delusion he had been approached by many Christians (including clergy) who said, essentially, that they no longer believed in God in any meaningful way, but that rejecting Christianity would be a rejection of their family and friends and the only community they really knew, and that that was the larger hurdle to disavowing their faith in God.
All that having been said, if half of Americans say they believe in Young Earth Creationism, even with our mitigating statements, a whole ton of people believe in YEC, or at least don't think deeply enough about the issue to know it's moronic to believe it.
I still argue that we have to proceed with the discussion of faith driving morality with the stipulation that Christianity, and specifically Biblical Christianity, is believed by most people to be the driving force of morality in the United States.
--
So let's do bring an issue into focus. I would like to examine how Christians generally beleive we should deal with non-believers.
Thomas Aquinas, in Summa contra Gentiles and Summa Theologiae concludes that heretics should be killed. I think we'd agree that this would have been a pretty widely held belief amongst Catholics at the time (in fact he was sainted almost 100 years later, so his views would have to have been considered as authoratative, yes?).
I think we could also agree that almost no modern sect of Christianity, no matter how fundamentalist, would agree that killing the heretic is justfied.
Chritianity has moderated to a great degree in the last 700 years. The question is, has it moderated and driven Western Culture before it (morally speaking), or has the secularization of the West pulled Christianity toward that change in attitude?
Jim: A bit more on the Bible
The Bible & Me
The Bible is extremely important part of the Christian Faith. The Bible challenges me to behave differently then I would without it. It challenges me to be uncertain where I might find certainty.
However, Christianity would exist without the Bible. The Bible is not the Book of Mormon or the Koran. By its own terms, it is a collection of works written by a varied people for varied reasons. To be a Christian, means to follow the tradition started by the followers of Jesus the Nazarene in c. 60 A.D. It means that I acknowledge the unique role of Jesus—through His teachings and the His spirit embodied in the descendants of His early followers—in improving my life today.
The Bible and the Christian Church of the World
That’s truth. But it is in fact off topic. As you pointed out, many people would find me not to be a Christian based on these stances. And, I think it is possible that such a group would be in the majority. I want to suggest the issue is more subtle than it might seem. Consider the following from Divino Afflante Spiritu written by Pope Pius XII in the 1940’s:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html
Inspired by the Divine Spirit, the Sacred Writers composed those books, which God, in His paternal charity towards the human race, deigned to bestow on them in order "to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
But, paragraph 20, says:
Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent concerning the Latin Vulgate.[24] It is historically certain that the Presidents of the Council received a commission, which they duly carried out, to beg, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff in the name of the Council that he should have corrected, as far as possible, first a Latin, and then a Greek, and Hebrew edition, which eventually would be published for the benefit of the Holy Church of God.[25] If this desire could not then be fully realized owing to the difficulties of the times and other obstacles, at present it can, We earnestly hope, be more perfectly and entirely fulfilled by the united efforts of Catholic scholars.
In other words, the Catholic Church recognizes scholarly criticism of the scripture, and recognizes that there is value is finding the unadulterated meaning. Furthermore, consider the Catholic Church’s position against capital punishment. This position is in direct contradiction to the Hebrew Scripture. The vast majority of Christians on the planet believe that the Bible is a tool to be used hand in hand with Church tradition and the Pope’s inspiration to find God’s truth.
The Bible and the Church in America
I think you have a really important point here. Adherence to the Bible’s moral teachings is super important to American Christianity. So much so, that for me to have a “liberal” view on gay rights, I must be able to explain to you why I find it not only consistent with, but mandated by, the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible.
So, if you say, “The Bible says X, and X is bad for the country,” I absolutely have to explain with either the Bible doesn’t say X and/or X is not bad for the country AND why it is not Christianity’s fault that people think the Bible says X.
From Gadfly, quoted again below: http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200447
On to the bible:
"Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man]?"
Word of God: 34%
Inspired word: 48%
Fables: 15%
Here’s the deal, the people who answer “Word of God,” don’t all believe that. The Bible says that polygamy is okay. It says that woman can’t talk in church. It says lots of other things, and nothing about abortion. The people who said “Word of God,” are saying “I’m a Conservative Christian.” Do they believe that there is water above the sky? No, because no one is telling them to believe that.
Now, this is really my problem (as a fellow Christian to these people) and not yours. So, like I said, I’ll have to defend things advocated in the name of the Bible, but people say stuff all the time they don’t really mean. (See e.g. 1970’s surveys about the desire for fuel efficient cars.)
Quibble about Creationism
I know this was not your source, but it sounds like the same Gallup poll.
http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200447
"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?"
Note that the question assumes there is a God - if you are not a believer, the closest you can come to an answer that fits your beliefs is that God is up there, but he just isn't doing anything. That aside, here are the answers:
Humans developed, but God guided the process: 38%
Humans developed, God had no part: 13%
God created humans as they are 10,000 years ago: 45%
Yeah, this is scary. The thing here is that the people were told to believe it, so they did. Here’s an article that says only 51% of Americans said that aliens have never visited Earth. http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_believe_051103.html I’m blaming education for both. Does the Church need to take heat for this? I don’t think say. At least not for all 45%. I think but for Christianity many of the 45% would believe that elves created humans. Or that they were descended from aliens. Same article says ¼ of Americans believe in astrology.
There is plenty more to say about the Bible, but maybe we should move on to an issue and examine the Church's impact on that issue. I'll leave it up to you.
The Bible is extremely important part of the Christian Faith. The Bible challenges me to behave differently then I would without it. It challenges me to be uncertain where I might find certainty.
However, Christianity would exist without the Bible. The Bible is not the Book of Mormon or the Koran. By its own terms, it is a collection of works written by a varied people for varied reasons. To be a Christian, means to follow the tradition started by the followers of Jesus the Nazarene in c. 60 A.D. It means that I acknowledge the unique role of Jesus—through His teachings and the His spirit embodied in the descendants of His early followers—in improving my life today.
The Bible and the Christian Church of the World
That’s truth. But it is in fact off topic. As you pointed out, many people would find me not to be a Christian based on these stances. And, I think it is possible that such a group would be in the majority. I want to suggest the issue is more subtle than it might seem. Consider the following from Divino Afflante Spiritu written by Pope Pius XII in the 1940’s:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html
Inspired by the Divine Spirit, the Sacred Writers composed those books, which God, in His paternal charity towards the human race, deigned to bestow on them in order "to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
But, paragraph 20, says:
Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent concerning the Latin Vulgate.[24] It is historically certain that the Presidents of the Council received a commission, which they duly carried out, to beg, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff in the name of the Council that he should have corrected, as far as possible, first a Latin, and then a Greek, and Hebrew edition, which eventually would be published for the benefit of the Holy Church of God.[25] If this desire could not then be fully realized owing to the difficulties of the times and other obstacles, at present it can, We earnestly hope, be more perfectly and entirely fulfilled by the united efforts of Catholic scholars.
In other words, the Catholic Church recognizes scholarly criticism of the scripture, and recognizes that there is value is finding the unadulterated meaning. Furthermore, consider the Catholic Church’s position against capital punishment. This position is in direct contradiction to the Hebrew Scripture. The vast majority of Christians on the planet believe that the Bible is a tool to be used hand in hand with Church tradition and the Pope’s inspiration to find God’s truth.
The Bible and the Church in America
I think you have a really important point here. Adherence to the Bible’s moral teachings is super important to American Christianity. So much so, that for me to have a “liberal” view on gay rights, I must be able to explain to you why I find it not only consistent with, but mandated by, the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible.
So, if you say, “The Bible says X, and X is bad for the country,” I absolutely have to explain with either the Bible doesn’t say X and/or X is not bad for the country AND why it is not Christianity’s fault that people think the Bible says X.
From Gadfly, quoted again below: http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200447
On to the bible:
"Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man]?"
Word of God: 34%
Inspired word: 48%
Fables: 15%
Here’s the deal, the people who answer “Word of God,” don’t all believe that. The Bible says that polygamy is okay. It says that woman can’t talk in church. It says lots of other things, and nothing about abortion. The people who said “Word of God,” are saying “I’m a Conservative Christian.” Do they believe that there is water above the sky? No, because no one is telling them to believe that.
Now, this is really my problem (as a fellow Christian to these people) and not yours. So, like I said, I’ll have to defend things advocated in the name of the Bible, but people say stuff all the time they don’t really mean. (See e.g. 1970’s surveys about the desire for fuel efficient cars.)
Quibble about Creationism
I know this was not your source, but it sounds like the same Gallup poll.
http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200447
"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?"
Note that the question assumes there is a God - if you are not a believer, the closest you can come to an answer that fits your beliefs is that God is up there, but he just isn't doing anything. That aside, here are the answers:
Humans developed, but God guided the process: 38%
Humans developed, God had no part: 13%
God created humans as they are 10,000 years ago: 45%
Yeah, this is scary. The thing here is that the people were told to believe it, so they did. Here’s an article that says only 51% of Americans said that aliens have never visited Earth. http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_believe_051103.html I’m blaming education for both. Does the Church need to take heat for this? I don’t think say. At least not for all 45%. I think but for Christianity many of the 45% would believe that elves created humans. Or that they were descended from aliens. Same article says ¼ of Americans believe in astrology.
There is plenty more to say about the Bible, but maybe we should move on to an issue and examine the Church's impact on that issue. I'll leave it up to you.
Matt: New Terms?
Here's a question. I have always considered Biblical Literalism a sect of Christianity. Are we about to come to the agreement that the religion you practice and and the kind of religion a Chrisitan Biblical Literalist practices can't be called the same thing?
Matt: On Christianity and the Bible
"I do not believe the Bible is an unedited, unadulterated how-to-live manual by the creator of the universe."
But very many people do. And for those who don't believe that, can we agree that the biblical lessons on how to conduct your life and how to treat others are inspired?
If we can't agree even on that, then I am left wondering what Christianity means to you. Is it just a collection of mutually agreed-to mores amongst people describing themselves as Christian? Do you see my question?
There are certainly Christians who would argue that you aren't a Christian.
"But it is my position that literalism is contrary to the teachings of Jesus and does not represent the impact of Christianity on the country. But am I right?"
I disagree. Not with the theology of literalism, but with your assertion that literalism is not driving the cultural impact of Christianity in the U.S. It isn't the whole impact, but I think we know that the current administration is making some decisions based on literalism. Second-order effects are things like stem-cell research bans.
Additionally, since 1982 (within 2 percentage points and updated in May 2006), 45% of Americans answer that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" (Gallup: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=21814)
10,000 years indicates a literalist view of the Bible. When 45% of the country believes this, you have to believe that a literalist view of Biblical Christianity is a major force driving culture and ethics of a country, do you not?
"Is advocating a thinking reading of scripture copping out?"
No, but it is the minority view.
I would propose that we can continue the discussion with the stipulation that the Bible is one of *the* major forces behind culture and ethics in the United States. I would put the Constitution/Declaration of Independence/Revolution Philosophy up there with equal impact.
Even as we move forward though, I'm going to reserve the right to bring in the fundamentalist view, as I think it is relevant, especially given the 45% quoted above.
Jim: Christianity and the Bible
Matt pointed out that my last post was "one of the harmless ways to elucidate of the problem of believing that you have in your possession, the unedited, unadulterated how-to-live manual by the creator of the universe."
I do not believe the Bible is an unedited, unadulterated how-to-live manual by the creator of the universe. I have not believed that since I was a child. And, I will provide one more sentence of testimonial: If one must believe that to be a Christian, I am not a Christian.
I don't know what strict adherence to the Bible would mean for the country. But it is my position, that literalism is contrary to the teachings of Jesus and does not represent the impact of Christianity on the country. But am I right?
Is advocating a thinking reading of scripture copping out? Is it legitimate to say you are Christian and that you believe the Bible was written by human beings and has value for precisely that reason, but acknowledge that it is chock full of factual errors? I offer the following only to survive summary judgment. That is, only to show there is a question here.
1. Some protestant denominations have explicitly rejected the notion that the Bible is the infallible word of God. See for example: http://www.disciples.org/ccu/dialogues/dialoguedocuments/2005Boring.html (Disciples of Christ)
The United Church of Christ, and I believe the United Methodist Church are two more example.
2. Although the Roman Catholic Church's position would be more complex I suspect, it pre-dates the collection of books into a Bible, and also would reject the notion that the Bible is the definitive word on what is Christian.
3. Finally, nothing in the Bible declares it to be the infallible word of God. Jesus (cf. Mohamed & Joseph Smith) did not declare the Bible to be the infallible word of God.
So, like I said, that doesn't mean I win, but I hope it means there is room to discuss the role of literalistic interpretation of the Bible on the impact of Christianity in America.
Matt also wrote, "Now I know you have asked us to consider "Christianity" and not "The Bible" specifically, but the Bible, after all, *is* the foundational text from which Christianity, even today, purports to take its moral readings."
This is an awesome topic. I am happy to explore it.
I do not believe the Bible is an unedited, unadulterated how-to-live manual by the creator of the universe. I have not believed that since I was a child. And, I will provide one more sentence of testimonial: If one must believe that to be a Christian, I am not a Christian.
I don't know what strict adherence to the Bible would mean for the country. But it is my position, that literalism is contrary to the teachings of Jesus and does not represent the impact of Christianity on the country. But am I right?
Is advocating a thinking reading of scripture copping out? Is it legitimate to say you are Christian and that you believe the Bible was written by human beings and has value for precisely that reason, but acknowledge that it is chock full of factual errors? I offer the following only to survive summary judgment. That is, only to show there is a question here.
1. Some protestant denominations have explicitly rejected the notion that the Bible is the infallible word of God. See for example: http://www.disciples.org/ccu/dialogues/dialoguedocuments/2005Boring.html (Disciples of Christ)
The United Church of Christ, and I believe the United Methodist Church are two more example.
2. Although the Roman Catholic Church's position would be more complex I suspect, it pre-dates the collection of books into a Bible, and also would reject the notion that the Bible is the definitive word on what is Christian.
3. Finally, nothing in the Bible declares it to be the infallible word of God. Jesus (cf. Mohamed & Joseph Smith) did not declare the Bible to be the infallible word of God.
So, like I said, that doesn't mean I win, but I hope it means there is room to discuss the role of literalistic interpretation of the Bible on the impact of Christianity in America.
Matt also wrote, "Now I know you have asked us to consider "Christianity" and not "The Bible" specifically, but the Bible, after all, *is* the foundational text from which Christianity, even today, purports to take its moral readings."
This is an awesome topic. I am happy to explore it.
Matt: More on Morality and Cherry picking
To the extent that what I said above is true, isn't it right that to come to a coherent set of beliefs about morality, musn't a Christian today cherry pick which biblical principles he will choose to believe in, and which he will not?
In the previous post's comments, I propsoed a question about stoning one's wife. I wasn't grandstanding, I aksed specifically because cherry picking is one of the principle problems with bad science -- in other words performing an experiment, but only choosing the data which confirms a theory the experimenter came in wishing to validate.
The bible would exhort you to stone your wife should she cheat on you, while at the same time proposing that you should love thy neighbor as yourself. I would imagine you reject the former and accept the latter, not because one is more clearly from the pen of God, but because it is more in line with the ethical position you already held. And so if your value system has come from a source other than the bible, from where has it sprung?
Now I know you have asked us to consider "Christianity" and not "The Bible" specifically, but the Bible, after all, *is* the foundational text from which Christianity, even today, purports to take its moral readings.
In the previous post's comments, I propsoed a question about stoning one's wife. I wasn't grandstanding, I aksed specifically because cherry picking is one of the principle problems with bad science -- in other words performing an experiment, but only choosing the data which confirms a theory the experimenter came in wishing to validate.
The bible would exhort you to stone your wife should she cheat on you, while at the same time proposing that you should love thy neighbor as yourself. I would imagine you reject the former and accept the latter, not because one is more clearly from the pen of God, but because it is more in line with the ethical position you already held. And so if your value system has come from a source other than the bible, from where has it sprung?
Now I know you have asked us to consider "Christianity" and not "The Bible" specifically, but the Bible, after all, *is* the foundational text from which Christianity, even today, purports to take its moral readings.
Jim: Christianity in America
Dear My Friend the Atheist,
Tonight my cigar is Arturo Fuente and my Scotch is Johnny Walker Gold. They are both best consumed slowly. Likewise, our inquiry into the value of Christianity in America is well served by proceeding carefully.
Is Christianity in America, the sum total of the acts by Christians?
Probably not. For one thing, that definition almost certainly ends the inquiry. It means that Christianity is a wash. Every U.S. President claimed Christianity. I don't think it would help if we limited it to a certain level of devotion. Maybe you kick off Ronald Regan & Thomas Jefferson, but wherever you set the bar, surely you'd be left with Jimmy Carter and George Bush. I bet we'd find similar results if we tried to examine school principals or engineers. It would be like saying the impact of the English language in America is the sum total of English speakers.
Is Christianity in America, represented only by those things that are in line with Christian teaching?
Maybe. But, this is begging the question. Anytime I want to take credit for something good, you can just say, "Yes, but that is not in line with Christian thought." Similarly, every time you want to impugn Christianity, I can say, "Yes, but that is not in line with Christian thought."
Will we know it when we see it?
Trying to do this only in the abstract is problematic. I think there must be some sort of nexus between what Christians do, and what Christianity teaches. So, let's just look at some examples. Which of these is the result, of Christianity in America?
The Civil Rights Movement
The Women's Liberation Movement
Bombing of Abortion Clinics
The Oklahoma City Bombing
Prohibition
Abolition
Slavery
Salem Witch Trials
What do you think?
Tonight my cigar is Arturo Fuente and my Scotch is Johnny Walker Gold. They are both best consumed slowly. Likewise, our inquiry into the value of Christianity in America is well served by proceeding carefully.
Is Christianity in America, the sum total of the acts by Christians?
Probably not. For one thing, that definition almost certainly ends the inquiry. It means that Christianity is a wash. Every U.S. President claimed Christianity. I don't think it would help if we limited it to a certain level of devotion. Maybe you kick off Ronald Regan & Thomas Jefferson, but wherever you set the bar, surely you'd be left with Jimmy Carter and George Bush. I bet we'd find similar results if we tried to examine school principals or engineers. It would be like saying the impact of the English language in America is the sum total of English speakers.
Is Christianity in America, represented only by those things that are in line with Christian teaching?
Maybe. But, this is begging the question. Anytime I want to take credit for something good, you can just say, "Yes, but that is not in line with Christian thought." Similarly, every time you want to impugn Christianity, I can say, "Yes, but that is not in line with Christian thought."
Will we know it when we see it?
Trying to do this only in the abstract is problematic. I think there must be some sort of nexus between what Christians do, and what Christianity teaches. So, let's just look at some examples. Which of these is the result, of Christianity in America?
The Civil Rights Movement
The Women's Liberation Movement
Bombing of Abortion Clinics
The Oklahoma City Bombing
Prohibition
Abolition
Slavery
Salem Witch Trials
What do you think?
From Jim: Where to Begin
I would like to begin by investigating the last question first, but before I do that, a few words on the first two questions.
Is God real? By this, I mean is there a sentient being that exists from the perspective of a non-believer. So, for example, sometimes people say that Santa Clause exists the the hearts of charitable people at Christmas. If God exists in that sense, and only that sense, then the answer to my question--Is God real?--is no.
I think this is a really hard question to talk about because it is hard to find any other ground rules. The idea of God clearly evolves in the Bible from the Hebrew God to the only God. Before the Israelites started telling stories, I think "God" was one of several gods. Since the Bible has been written, ideas about who God is--even the Christian understanding of God--have not remained stagnant. See Process Theology, http://www.process-theology.org/, teaching that God is still evolving.
So, that woud be a slippery question. Similarly, the lack of objective data makes Is religion good for people? potentially frustrating. I can give my story; someone else can give her story. Then what?
I think the beginning should be the easiest question: Is religion good for the country?
Is God real? By this, I mean is there a sentient being that exists from the perspective of a non-believer. So, for example, sometimes people say that Santa Clause exists the the hearts of charitable people at Christmas. If God exists in that sense, and only that sense, then the answer to my question--Is God real?--is no.
I think this is a really hard question to talk about because it is hard to find any other ground rules. The idea of God clearly evolves in the Bible from the Hebrew God to the only God. Before the Israelites started telling stories, I think "God" was one of several gods. Since the Bible has been written, ideas about who God is--even the Christian understanding of God--have not remained stagnant. See Process Theology, http://www.process-theology.org/, teaching that God is still evolving.
So, that woud be a slippery question. Similarly, the lack of objective data makes Is religion good for people? potentially frustrating. I can give my story; someone else can give her story. Then what?
I think the beginning should be the easiest question: Is religion good for the country?
From Matt: First Post
I suspect the question "Is religion good for people/country?" is going to be most long-lived, but I am more personally interested in your answers to "Is God real?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)