According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Bah! I die on the inside with these arguments where people shout "religion causes wars and oppression", and Christians return with "religion gives us morality and stops bad things like slavery".

Altough I've often heard slavery is only an OT thing and that it is no longer acceptable in Christianity, I don't know how they came to this conclusion. Jesus never actually condemns the institution of slavery, in fact IIRC he tells slaves to be obedient to their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well. Of course, slavery in ancient Palestine was very different to the Atlantic slave trade, and I don't see how an Atlantic slave trader could be comfortable with how their slaves were treated if he was a Christian. But there doesn't seem any ground for condemning it outright.

Again, I don't think this is a bad thing, since normally it's seen as a good thing if a religion isn't political and instead sticks to the spiritual side, which exactly what Jesus does here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bah! I die on the inside with these arguments where people shout "religion causes wars and oppression", and Christians return with "religion gives us morality and stops bad things like slavery".

Altough I've often heard slavery is only an OT thing and that it is no longer acceptable in Christianity, I don't know how they came to this conclusion. Jesus never actually condemns the institution of slavery, in fact IIRC he tells slaves to be obedient to their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well. Of course, slavery in ancient Palestine was very different to the Atlantic slave trade, and I don't see how an Atlantic slave trader could be comfortable with how their slaves were treated if he was a Christian. But there doesn't seem any ground for condemning it outright.

Again, I don't think this is a bad thing, since normally it's seen as a good thing if a religion isn't political and instead sticks to the spiritual side, which exactly what Jesus does here.

well, Christianity should be a wholly positive thing, shouldn't it. Lets not excuse Christians their failings.

[The Wizard]

Just to be clear: I am not saying religion only brings death and destruction and all that . I'm merely saying that it can be used just as easily for those purposes as any ideology can.

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.

What does that have to do with anything I said? I'm commenting on how many Christians ignored their own teachings and then you say something about who wrote them and under what regime? If they were written on the moon, it wouldn't have anything to do with what I'm saying. It's about following them or not, and abusing them. Not writing them.

Slavery is not a bad example. It had to be "sanctioned" with reference to Blacks because it was considered offensive to God in general. That is why Blacks were defined as sub-hman, so that they could be possessed along with any other beast. On the other hand, slavery was absoultely fine by anyone else's God at the time.

Ultimately, however, Blacks were domonstrated not to be significantly different and the theological acrobatics fell mid-backflip; with orthodox, not heretical, Christians often being the ones to prove the point.

Many Christians, the most learned at the forefront, apparently had no problems whatsoever with the idea, LOL. They didn't have any trouble blissfully ignoring half of what Jesus had said, and happily jumped a few rings to give their conscience a bit of a break. Which underwrites my point: when push comes to shove, Christianity is no less suitable than any other ideology to justify wrongs with.

Oh, and I'm sure the Christian master's slave'll appreciate the fact that his master had to do some mental gymnastics to justify his owning a slave. That'll make him feel much better, I'm sure.

[Beskar]

Many Christians, the most learned at the forefront, apparently had no problems whatsoever with the idea, LOL. They didn't have any trouble blissfully ignoring half of what Jesus had said, and happily jumped a few rings to give their conscience a bit of a break. Which underwrites my point: when push comes to shove, Christianity is no less suitable than any other ideology to justify wrongs with.

Oh, and I'm sure the Christian master's slave'll appreciate the fact that his master had to do some mental gymnastics to justify his owning a slave. That'll make him feel much better, I'm sure.

Hebrew's used to have slaves in the Old Testament, look at Abraham, for incidence. Also, the Christian Roman Empire also instituted Serfdom and had no qualms with slavery either.

In short: Slavery isn't against the bible.

it is really a oppressive piece of work, in many respects.