Critiques/Aberrations of Religion

[eborr]

[This thread was split from the "Heathens" thread in Tol Eressëa because a new topic was launched by eborr's post. The split followed this post by Menaltarma: http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/view ... 6811#16811 Thanks to eborr for hosting this note. Jn]
____________________________________________________________

I have done a small study of Julian the Apostate, and found his to be a very interesting character.

In short he became the Emperor when Rome was officially “Christian”.

He had been schooled in various Greek academies and was a fervent support of the philosophical imperative, inheriting both the Socratic/Platonic tradition as well as the Aristotlian, with of course reference to other philosophers.

His personal dislike of Christianity, and it was profound came from two main sources.

1 The contradiction between Christian idea’s and faith and the empirical tradition of the Greek schools

2 The intolerance and cruelty of the Christians, not only between Christians and other religions, but between the various sects, and schisms that made up Christianity at that time.

He saw these not so much a matter of “faith” but rather vested interests by personalities within the various factions.

Now it is a common matter for contemporary Christians to treat the various inhumanity of their church – EG the inquisition, the internal crusades as a matter of historical aberration on the part of individuals, in an attempt to distance themselves and their religion from such horrors, but that is intellectually an invalid approach – folk want to hang on to and honour those bits of their religious organisation that suits them and not take responsibility for the rest.

The fact is this – had the Emperor Constantine the Great embraced Mithraism, and not Christianity, then that would be the dominant religion in Western Europe and the USA

[truehobbit]

The fact is this – had the Emperor Constantine the Great embraced Mithraism, and not Christianity, then that would be the dominant religion in Western Europe and the USA

I'm sorry, but that's not a fact, that's a speculation.

Now it is a common matter for contemporary Christians to treat the various inhumanity of their church – EG the inquisition, the internal crusades as a matter of historical aberration on the part of individuals, in an attempt to distance themselves and their religion from such horrors, but that is intellectually an invalid approach – folk want to hang on to and honour those bits of their religious organisation that suits them and not take responsibility for the rest.

So - you think that in order to be Christian you'd have to embrace the idea of inquisition, crusades etc, as a defining element of Christian identity, just because it's something that happened in history?
I think that's absurd (although I realise the spirit of resentment it springs from).

What you are saying here means that, by your logic, Americans could only claim to be Americans when they embrace slavery and genocide as essential parts of their national identity.

Besides, if you knew anything about the modern Church you'd know that it does very well take responsibility for past crimes.

Btw, what's the "philosophical imperative"?

[Cerin]

So - you think that in order to be Christian you'd have to embrace the idea of inquisition, crusades etc, as a defining element of Christian identity, just because it's something that happened in history?

What you are saying here means that, by your logic, Americans could only claim to be Americans when they embrace slavery and genocide as essential parts of their national identity.

I took hobby to mean here, not that we try to deny these as elements of history, but rather, that I am not required to accept slavery as an inherent and defining aspect of the ideals of America. In other words, I view it, rather, as an historic aberration withinin the conceptual ideal of 'liberty and justice for all'.

In the same way with Christianity, I don't take the inquisition as truly reflecting the teachings of Jesus, but rather as a way that Christians went off the track at that time in history. In other words, people are fallible and naturally make a mess of just about any religion or philosophy in its practical realization; those mistakes reflect the flawed nature and motives of human beings, not necessarily the true nature of the political or religious philosophy they are ostensibly practicing.


eta: I just realized that my above comments are exactly what eborr said was an intellectually invalid approach:

Now it is a common matter for contemporary Christians to treat the various inhumanity of their church – EG the inquisition, the internal crusades as a matter of historical aberration on the part of individuals, in an attempt to distance themselves and their religion from such horrors, but that is intellectually an invalid approach – folk want to hang on to and honour those bits of their religious organisation that suits them and not take responsibility for the rest.

eborr, you seem to be saying that adherents of religions or philosophies must embrace all manifestations as legitimate expressions of that religion or philosophy. So then you would agree that if Christians must accept the inquisition as a legitimate expression of Christianity (rather than an aberration due to the flawed nature of human beings), then Muslims must accept the activities of Al Quaida as a legitimate expression of Islam? That any religion or philosophy is truly defined by all manifestations of those who claim to be its adherents?

As I said, I strongly disagree. I think people can hijack a religion or philosophy and commit acts in the name of that religion or philosophy that do not accurately reflect the principles it espouses.

[Whistler]

To the degree that Christians reflect Christ, they are Christians.

To the degree that they do not, they are weaklings at best and pretenders at worst.

But this is all beside the point.

No individual Christian, no church, no organization, no historical period, no theological viewpoint, no evangelical movement, defines Christianity.

Christianity is Christ.

Period.

All other commentary is noise.

[vison]

To the degree that Christians reflect Christ, they are Christians.

To the degree that they do not, they are weaklings at best and pretenders at worst.

But this is all beside the point.

No individual Christian, no church, no organization, no historical period, no theological viewpoint, no evangelical movement, defines Christianity.

Christianity is Christ.

Period.

All other commentary is noise.

This is very true, I am sure.

The difficulty always arises in the "interpretation", doesn't it?

[Whistler]

It's not so hard, vision.

Most of us know what love is all about. Show love always, and you won't stray far from the mark.

[truehobbit]

Cerin explained it better than I could.

Americans cannot define itself as being NOT a people who have a shameful history of African slavery and Native American genocide, i.e. we can't say, "Yes, that happened, but those people who did those horrible things didn't understand what it meant to be American. They didn't understand our ideals, and so were not truly American in some metaphysical sense." Nonsense. Of course they were. And their actions are in some sense a part of our identity and a part of our legacy.

I see your point, nerdanel - but I think what eborr was saying (transferred to being American) was that because this is your past, this is what being American is, part of the American nature.
You do take responsibility for that past by saying "yes, that's what happened in the name of my country", but I think you are entitled to say that you don't agree with those actions and are sorry they happened without being accused of trying to disentangle yourself from something that is really you - they are an instance of human failure and not something you do because you're American.

[Frelga]

Most of us know what love is all about.

Do they, Whistler?

Oh, most of US do, most of the time. And many others TALK about love - of God, man, country - and commit acts of hate.

Show love always, and you won't stray far from the mark.

There is still the problem of interpretation, of HOW one shows love, but I'll leave it aside for now. I think most of US have similar definition, even though we have different religions.

The thing is, when you strip religion down to that phrase, it applies to any religion including the absense of religion. When you boil it down to that phrase, it applies to being human.

[Maria]

Show love always, and you won't stray far from the mark.

Interesting.... I've noticed that when I'm trying to do something psychic/"magical", it goes a LOT better if I let a feeling of love fill me. It's like it reduces friction on the energy flow or something. Not that I can do anything really impressive or anything... but the little things I can do, do better with love. I hadn't quite thought of it that way before. Cool.

I still lack a god belief, though, so I'm not sure I really qualify as a heathen.....

[Jnyusa]

Well, there's three ways we can approach the events of our past.

• delusion and denial
• distancing
• acceptance

Delusion and denial: It didn't happen. Our enemies made it up and fools believed them.

Distancing: It happened but it was an aberration. The people who did it aren't really "us."

Acceptance: It happened and it represents something that we also have the potential to be. We no longer agree with it, but we need to analyze honestly why it happened so that it won't be repeated.

If eborr is talking about the first two approaches, then I agree with him that they are intellectually dishonest.

I do think it is necessary to accept that all cultures have a Dark Side. There is almost no philosophy or religion or civilization that has not been hijacked to extremes by someone at some point in history, and the starting point is always something within the core of that belief system, not something from outside of it. Moslems could not create a Christian inquisition - only Christians arguing from their own text could do that. Christians could not create the semi-heretical brand of jihad practiced by terrorists today - only Moslems arguing from their own text could create the rationale for that. And neither Christians nor Moslems could create the peculiar brand of contempt that Jewish emigrees developed toward the Palestinians. Only we could come up with the Ashkenazic-Zionist blend of philosophies that would make integration with the natives impossible and decades of warfare inevitable.

"Always there is a dark spot in our sunlight. It is the shadow of ourselves." Thomas Carlyle

Jn

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You raise a host of issues that are well worth discussing, Jn. But I think we have gotten quite far from the subject matter of this thread. Would it be worth a split? And if so, should the continuing discussion remain here in TE or be better served in LBL?

[Whistler]

Oh, Jn!

Absolutely it is essential for people of any group to discuss and explore aberrations within their own group. We must certainly learn from the folly of those who came before us, whether we regard them as or "legitimate" or not. The Inquisition seems impossibly far from my own mentality and behavior, but I must bear it in mind if I wish to keep it that way.

All I'm stressing is that aberrations are indeed aberrations, and that if it is intellectually dishonest to disregard ugly facts is it equally misguided to wallow in them.

[Jnyusa]

Um ... yeah, I think a split would be a good idea. And since we are talking the philosophy of religion, it's probably better off in the Lasto forum.

I guess you can split beginning with eborr's post which began this topic ... I think there was one response after that which referred to the earlier topic but perhaps we can put a Shirriff note on that post with a link back to the original topic. Or ... if you're really talented, you might be able to separate it and leave it behind.

Jn

eta: it's nerdanel's post. Why don't you try to leave her post with this thread, because most of it is about this thread, and put a Shirriff not under her final comment linking it to the new thread. For those who quoted her in the new thread, you might add a link to their posts as well. Is that too much work?

[Cerin]

Could Maria's post be left here as well? I think it pertains more to the 'Heathens' discussion than to the other.

[Jnyusa]

Whistler - we cross-posted earlier ... I was surveying the earlier posts while editing ...

Yes, I agree with you. Obsession with the brutalities of history is also a kind of sickness.

Cerin, yes, I'll leave Maria's post ... just realized that Voronwë is not online, so I'll take my own advice to him.

Jn

eta: I left Maria's post with this thread finally, Cerin, because she was responding to Whistler, whose post is now in this thread.

Will work on links and moving thread to Lasto over the next few moments.

etaa: OK, links put in. I left a PM for eborr to change the title if he wishes. I wasn't sure what to call the thread, and since he started out talking about Julian the Apostate, he may want to give that as the thread title.

[Cerin]

There is almost no philosophy or religion or civilization that has not been hijacked to extremes by someone at some point in history, and the starting point is always something within the core of that belief system, not something from outside of it.

I would disagree with this by saying that the starting point is something perceived or misunderstood within the core of that belief system, not necessarily something that really is at the core of that belief system.

In other words, I'm insisting that the fault is always with us, not necessarily with the belief system.

[Frelga]

In other words, I'm insisting that the fault is always with us, not necessarily with the belief system.

But is not the belief system also "us"?

For the purpose of this discussion, would it be more accurate to say "the fault is with human constructs, including belief systems, rather than with the divine/enlightened beings whom those belief systems attempt to follow"

[Cerin]

But is not the belief system also "us"?

For the purpose of this discussion, would it be more accurate to say "the fault is with human constructs, including belief systems, rather than with the divine/enlightened beings whom those belief systems attempt to follow"

That's interesting, Frelga.

I don't believe all belief systems are human constructs. If they were human constructs, then 'the divine/enlightened beings whom those belief systems attempt to follow' are none other than ourselves (our own ideas).

No, I would have the fault be with sinful human nature (and whatever ideas and schemes that nature gives rise to, that are separate from divine truth).

[Jnyusa]

I would not like to exclude the belief system from all fault because different belief systems lead to different aberrations. There is some relationship between the nature of our belief and ... the kind of lunatic for whom we'll have to apologize later.

I'm trying to think of a neutral example ... some religion that no one practices any longer ... OK, well, we were talking in the Abraham thread about child sacrifice, which was part of a fertility rite, and in the early Druidic religion (around the time of J. Caeser) they would burn people alive to ensure fertility ... I don't think that either Judaism or Christianity could come up with an aberration like that because (1) they're not agriculture centered religions, and (2) the role of blood in our two religions is exculpatory and has nothing to do with fertility. It would not occur to someone from a Judeo-Christian background that pouring blood into the earth would have an effect on crops. They just wouldn't think of using blood that way. But because blood is exculpatory we get a different kind of aberration in both these religions, which is persecution based on 'blood origin.' That approach would be incomprehensible to ... Mithraists, for example.

As Frelga has pointed out, though, the fact that the aberration arises from the belief system does not mean that the object of the belief system is at fault.

Jn

eta: having cross-posted with Cerin ... you are presuming that the recipient of the belief system has understood perfectly what their god intended. I think rather that the divine being can be perfect and still be misunderstood by the imperfect receiver of the message.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There is almost no philosophy or religion or civilization that has not been hijacked to extremes by someone at some point in history, and the starting point is always something within the core of that belief system, not something from outside of it.

I would disagree with this by saying that the starting point is something perceived or misunderstood within the core of that belief system, not necessarily something that really is at the core of that belief system.

In other words, I'm insisting that the fault is always with us, not necessarily with the belief system.

Cerin, I have the same problem with this that I do with the saying "Guns don't kill people, people do." Well yeah, but people use guns to kill people. Similarly, people use (or, more properly, abuse) particular belief systems as well.

Edit: Cross-posted with both Cerin and Jn.