According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

Nonsense, the more theological hoops you have to jump through the more vulnerable the possition is. Further, there are at least as many examples of Christianity being used to figh oppression. The best example being Slavery, where blacks had to be re-classified as sub-human in order for it to acceptable to enslave them in Christian states. The Moors just enslaved whoever they wanted.

[The Wizard]

What do (theo-)logical acrobatics have to do with anything at the business end of a gun barrel? And again, the same can be said of any ideology, with the possible exception of Nazism.

EDIT: As for slavery, hoho. Bad choice: it wasn't very long before it was sanctioned and theologically defended by churches all over.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What do (theo-)logical acrobatics have to do with anything at the business end of a gun barrel? And again, the same can be said of any ideology, with the possible exception of Nazism.

EDIT: As for slavery, hoho. Bad choice: it wasn't very long before it was sanctioned and theologically defended by churches all over.

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.

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.

France used France to control people. Anyway, it was the Catholic King that restored democracy. So, obviously monarchies and religion are a good thing, right?

[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.

[HoreTore]

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.



France used France to control people. Anyway, it was the Catholic King that restored democracy. So, obviously monarchies and religion are a good thing, right?

The Catholic King also established the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, and the only reason why the Spanish King didn't take power after that was because he was a complete idiot and had no hope of retaining power.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Catholic King also established the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, and the only reason why the Spanish King didn't take power after that was because he was a complete idiot and had no hope of retaining power.

The Spanish King Juan Carlos I is famous for not only restoring, but maintaining, democracy.

Get a grip.

Wiki is quite comprehensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_of_Spain. Just because you hate your King doesn't mean the Spaniads hate theirs.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

Not really, it's not oppressive or progressive, simply because it doesn't deal with wordly things such as political rights etc.

As I said earlier, Jesus didn't cry out against slavery, he simply tried to comfort the victims of it.

[HoreTore]

The Spanish King Juan Carlos I is famous for not only restoring, but maintaining, democracy.

Get a grip.

Wiki is quite comprehensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_of_Spain. Just because you hate your King doesn't mean the Spaniads hate theirs.

Irrelevant. One semi-good king does not excuse the idiots before, Alfonso XIII who like I said before, instituted the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera and was unable to take power himself because he was an incompetent inbred.

And it should be noted that the Carlist Requetés were Franco's 3rd best troops, after the Condor Legion and Yaque's Moroccans, and certainly a key factor in his victory and subsequent dictatorship.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Irrelevant. One semi-good king does not excuse the idiots before, Alfonso XIII who like I said before, instituted the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera and was unable to take power himself because he was an incompetent inbred.

And it should be noted that the Carlist Requetés were Franco's 3rd best troops, after the Condor Legion and Yaque's Moroccans, and certainly a key factor in his victory and subsequent dictatorship.

"Semi-good"? Spain is a Constitutional democracy because of King Juan, not because of Liberals or Socialists, but because of the King!

[HoreTore]

"Semi-good"? Spain is a Constitutional democracy because of King Juan, not because of Liberals or Socialists, but because of the King!

Right.

And his grandfather instituted a dictatorship. What was your point again?

[The Wizard]

"Semi-good"? Spain is a Constitutional democracy because of King Juan, not because of Liberals or Socialists, but because of the King!

I'm sure the Spanish people had no role in this

[HoreTore]

I'm sure the Spanish people had no role in this

Of course not. You see, The Wizard, those of lower birth, the commoners, are irrelevant in the world, their only role is to obey their betters and God.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Right.

And his grandfather instituted a dictatorship. What was your point again?

Show me a bad King; I'll show you a good one. Show me a monster; I'll show you a hero.

[HoreTore]

Show me a bad King; I'll show you a good one. Show me a monster; I'll show you a hero.

Yes, and again, your point was?

The good ones can get elected in a democracy anyway, but the bad ones won't. And even if they do get elected somehow, they won't rule for more than a few years, compared to the decades a bad king can rule.

This is why sensible people prefer a republic. That, and of course the idea that we are all equal at birth, that it is our merits, abilities and achievements that should decide our place in life, not who our mother was pounded by.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is why sensible people prefer a republic. That, and of course the idea that we are all equal at birth, that it is our merits, abilities and achievements that should decide our place in life, not who our mother was pounded by.

Well, they are pretty much determined by whoever your mother got pounded by. You can get political equality, but nature doesn't care about our egalitarian views.

In any case, monarchy had its role in the development of society, and was probably the best form of government once upon a time. Although, I agree it has few merits nowadays.

[HoreTore]

Well, they are pretty much determined by whoever your mother got pounded by.

That's very deterministic of you....

Anyway, while nature does not care about our egalitarian views, it doesn't care about our titles either. If an Einstein is born in a democracy he can become the leader even if his parents are working class, in a monarchy, the village idiot will become the leader if his father is the king.