According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

[Idaho]

Not really. I have quite a positive view of humanity. However human behaviour tends to go downhill when certain people decide that they are more rightious or deserving. Or that believing something abstract means that they are automatically good and will go to heaven and can ignore fundamental issues with the world.

[Husar]

Not really. I have quite a positive view of humanity. However human behaviour tends to go downhill when certain people decide that they are more rightious or deserving. Or that believing something abstract means that they are automatically good and will go to heaven and can ignore fundamental issues with the world.

Christians actually believe everybody is deserving and can be righteous, if they want to, HoreTore for one doesn't want to, at least not according to christian values.
Christians don't want to be moral according to his values either and it's not like he as an atheist doesn't claim to be more righteous.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really. I have quite a positive view of humanity. However human behaviour tends to go downhill when certain people decide that they are more rightious or deserving. Or that believing something abstract means that they are automatically good and will go to heaven and can ignore fundamental issues with the world.

These are beliefs that can only possibly be ascribed to Calvinistic Protestants, and only then in cases of ignorance. As a social control mechanism Christianity is a poor choice, Islam and Hinduism are both much more finely tuned to that purpose, for example. However, Christianity has a 1,700 year history of being the religion of the elite. That there have been cases of abuse is hardly surprising.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Stop bashing Calvinism PVC, you know those things aint true.

Anyway, Christianity really must be a terrible option for social control. The only possible bit in the NT I can think of that is an example of supporting oppression would be the bits that denouce any sort of revolt against tyrannical rulers, although even then that's part of the idea of keeping the faith pure from politics, which most people would hardly say is a bad thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Stop bashing Calvinism PVC, you know those things aint true.

Anyway, Christianity really must be a terrible option for social control. The only possible bit in the NT I can think of that is an example of supporting oppression would be the bits that denouce any sort of revolt against tyrannical rulers, although even then that's part of the idea of keeping the faith pure from politics, which most people would hardly say is a bad thing.

I know they aren't true of you; but you know that the place of the praedestini in Calvin's thought provides a platform to develop the idea that some people are better than others. It's the major weakness of Calvinism; and stems (admittedly) more from Calvin's rhetoric than his theology.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know they aren't true of you; but you know that the place of the praedestini in Calvin's thought provides a platform to develop the idea that some people are better than others. It's the major weakness of Calvinism; and stems (admittedly) more from Calvin's rhetoric than his theology.

I can see how it could be so, although I think the emphasis on total depravity has stopped any such ideas from ever seriously taking hold.

Remember, from the free will viewpoint, an argument could also be made that Christians are more deserving of salvation, since they choose it and live their life accordingly(although as you said was the case with Calvinism, this would be more due to rhetoric and misconceptions than the actualy theology of it). I know you don't do this, but I get a feeling it can be pretty common, especially from some of the comments I see on US evengelical-orientated forums.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can see how it could be so, although I think the emphasis on total depravity has stopped any such ideas from ever seriously taking hold.

Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. Calvin's original formulation is to be understood as marking man as totally depraved in all his facalties, in that no part of him is free from corruption; neither body, nor mind, nor soul. This formulation is entirely Augustinian. However, because of his rhetoric, Calvin has been taken to mean that each of man's faculties is totally depraved, so that man is utterly without any redeeming features.

So Calvin is misunderstood, and all goodness is transfered outside of the human being and becomes the sole privilage of the divine. In this sense Christians become better people because God imbues them, and only them, with the quality of goodness which only he possesses.

It is the this absense of natural goodness along with the legalistic language of "natural" justification that leads some Calvinistic sects to conclude that their followers are made better than other human beings by God. The issue is then further compounded by deterministic element to Calvinism.

Every commentary I have read agrees this is not what Calvin intended, as evidenced by his unpollemical writings where he praises the many virtues hummanity is naturally capable of.

Rather like Marx the problem is not so much the man as the philosophy he fathered. Though I personally believe that the seed of the error begins in the deficiencies of both men.

While I accept that the doctrine of free will can cast Christians as "better" people because they can be viewed as making better choices, I would argue that this is mitigated by the fact that Christians can still be held accountable for their bad choices and (crucially) are capable of falling away from God; and then coming back to Him.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. Calvin's original formulation is to be understood as marking man as totally depraved in all his facalties, in that no part of him is free from corruption; neither body, nor mind, nor soul. This formulation is entirely Augustinian. However, because of his rhetoric, Calvin has been taken to mean that each of man's faculties is totally depraved, so that man is utterly without any redeeming features.

So Calvin is misunderstood, and all goodness is transfered outside of the human being and becomes the sole privilage of the divine. In this sense Christians become better people because God imbues them, and only them, with the quality of goodness which only he possesses.

I would say that these people are showing a misunderstanding of what Calvin means when he talks about depravity, sin etc. Remember my earlier post where I said that righteousness = perfection, whereas sin = anything less than perfection. I think the problem is other people tend to use the definitions where righteousness = something generally good, and sin = something generally bad. Of course, Calvin did not argue that every human was pure evil through and through. The problem is that wherever there is anything that might have been good, the 'bad bits' (which he does say go through every aspect of a person) corrupt these. And as soon as they are in some way corrupt, they are sinful, going by the more absolute definitions of righteousness/sin. And so, every aspect of a person is sinful, and hence total depravity.

I think this is one fundemantal issue in this thread causing the dispute over Gandhi. To HoreTore or Wizard, Gandhi was righteous because his deeds, and perhaps even his character, were on the whole good. But going by the stricter standard I would use, he is not perfect, hence he is sinful.

Such absolutes may seem harsh, but Christianity wouldn't make much sense without them. What if God was just generally a nice guy, and not perfect? Or if he just has a lot of power, without being omnipotent?

It is the this absense of natural goodness along with the legalistic language of "natural" justification that leads some Calvinistic sects to conclude that their followers are made better than other human beings by God. The issue is then further compounded by deterministic element to Calvinism.

Regardless of whether it is God or ourselves that prompts regeneration, the same argument could be used that having been given a heart of flesh over one of stone, we become better than the rest of humanity. In this life at least though, it should be remembered that we do still walk in sin, and depend on the external influence of Jesus to be both made acceptable before God, and to continue to grow in the faith.

Every commentary I have read agrees this is not what Calvin intended, as evidenced by his unpollemical writings where he praises the many virtues hummanity is naturally capable of.

Indeed, I recall a few occasions where he does praise the merits of even 'the heathen'. But at the same time, IIRC he does tend to attribute these as being gifts of God, and very much a different matter from the wider issue of depravity/righteousness.

[The Wizard]

You speak as if the Bible exists in some kind of vacuum. God (heh), how naive. Tell that "boy, Christianity sure is a bad choice for social control!" fairy tale to the millions of people who live and lived under the thumb of the church, the local priest or pastor, or simply the enmity and gossiping of their fellow Christians.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You speak as if the Bible exists in some kind of vacuum. God (heh), how naive. Tell that "boy, Christianity sure is a bad choice for social control!" fairy tale to the millions of people who live and lived under the thumb of the church, the local priest or pastor, or simply the enmity and gossiping of their fellow Christians.

Oh, just thought I'd pick up on this; I'm neither stupid nor naive. Had you bothered to read my posts on Biblicalism in the past you would know I have a (probably better than you) nuanced understanding of the context of the construction of the Bible. For starters; most of the constituant books, and all of the NT, were written by authors under subjugation to non-Christian powers.

[HoreTore]

These are beliefs that can only possibly be ascribed to Calvinistic Protestants, and only then in cases of ignorance. As a social control mechanism Christianity is a poor choice, Islam and Hinduism are both much more finely tuned to that purpose, for example. However, Christianity has a 1,700 year history of being the religion of the elite. That there have been cases of abuse is hardly surprising.

Franco's powerbase was the church.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Franco's powerbase was the church.

Stalin's powerbase was "Communism", The Taliban's is "Islam"; what's your point?

Give me a belief system and I'll show you an example of it being abused.

[The Wizard]

Stalin's powerbase was "Communism", The Taliban's is "Islam"; what's your point?

Give me a belief system and I'll show you an example of it being abused.

Your argument was Christianity was badly suited to it, which as illustrated by HoreTore is not true. Here, you more or less admit that and put Christianity on par with other belief systems. Good.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Your argument was Christianity was badly suited to it, which as illustrated by HoreTore is not true. Here, you more or less admit that and put Christianity on par with other belief systems. Good.

No, I put all humans on the same level. Christianity is much less suited to authoritarian social control; that doesn't mean it can't be twisted in that direction. People like you are always gleeful in pointing up cases of Christians falling short of their high ideals. You are so much more gleeful, I think, because the gulf between the ideal and relaity are that much greater.

That indicates Christian ideals are less suitable for subjugating people.

The problem is not the belief system, but the practical application.

So this is just another instance of me not thinking Christians are better than other people.

[The Wizard]

I'm not very gleeful when what can in essence be a good influence on someone's life is turned to evil, I'll have you know. I just took exception to you claiming that Christianity is a "bad choice" for social control or oppression, using the argument that Jesus's message is peaceful and anti-authoritarian. Sure that may be true if all you're looking at is the text, but the examples in history of Christians willfully ignoring all of that and using the same book to oppress people with are simply too numerous to even begin to count. In this it is no different from any other ideology or belief system, and no less suitable.

[HoreTore]

Stalin's powerbase was "Communism", The Taliban's is "Islam"; what's your point?

You stated that christianity was a "poor choice" for social control. Franco proves that wrong.

Along with a ton of other murdering dictators, most of them royals.... And djeezez, the catholic Church has maintained strong social control ever since it was founded.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, Christianity as an organised religion (as opposed to the faith and true church of all believers, which I see seperately) has had good and bad political associations. In Europe, it was often used to uphold far-right regimes. Yet in the USA, Protestant principles were at the root of the revolution its whole concept of political rights etc.

It's certainly better than communism, which has a 100% success rate for supporting oppressive regimes so far.

[The Wizard]

You tell that to Rosa Luxemburg.