In explaining my precise position on this, accurately and vividly, I am sure to offend you or another reader. I'm not sure if the burden to apologize for this in advance should properly lie with me -- though I'm offering the reasons behind my personal beliefs, those beliefs are not free from inherent criticisms of others for "accepting Jesus" nor do they have a benign stance toward organized religion as a whole.
Let me just state my malice is toward certain ideas and aspects of them and in my heart I hold nothing but compassion and concern for the holders of the ideologies I criticize.
That done, I will be blunt...
It took a long time to come to any rational opinion on this matter. I was not raised religious, and because of that my initial views were held without real foundation and on an admitted ignorance.
A statistical type of cost/benifit analysis of religion, or arguments along those lines are ludicrous from the start, you can never delinate what-is-what, but a type of defense of religion is made on the basis of the same type of argument: the baby and the bathwater.
Its seems only religion is allowed this type of cohesion, this all-or-nothingness where hopefully the sum result to mankind is positive -- even if not achieved in your personal lifetime.
Even now you can find people who will claim religion hasn't caused anything detrimental whatsoever -- and that all the things you show them are just "misuse" of religion or "growing pains" of mankind. To them I guess, the baby is worth whatever bathwater it requires. Bloodbaths even.
Criticism of aspects-of religion usually falls on deaf ears, the reasoning being "it is what it is" -- that religion reflects a REALITY and we must take it or leave it.
Let me digress a moment to explain something that is applicable here, it comes from a study of behavior in nature by ethologists, my source is the author Richard Dawkins -- a name that will make the creationist bristle because he has taken the scholarly aspects of evolution and 'popularized' them, making the topic suitable for mass consumption. I have read three books of his, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Extended Phenotype. I recommend his works highly for skeptics and non-skeptics alike.
An idea referenced in one of his books is that of an "evolutionary stable strategy" for survival, or ESS. This idea owes a lot to game theory in that it dictates the principle that "the best strategy for you is dependent on what strategy is supported by group consensus".
To illustrate it, the evolutionary ethologist is faced with a dilemma in nature:
The subject is the behavior of a certain specie of spider. This spider, when confronted by a member of his species invading his lair, will immediately abandon his lair to seek another instead of defending his interests and assets toward survival. It is a problem for the evolutionist to explain how such selflessness could evolve because those who had such nature would experience a net loss and hence the behavior would die out.
This behavior is indeed rare, but there are other simular behaviors that ESS explains to an extent also. The spider in our story goes on to 'evict' another spider with no effort or risk to himself. The reason this whole behavior is profitable, ESS explains, is because the majority practice it: If a mutant 'liar defender' arises in the gene pool, he would suffer because he would be overwhelmed by invaders (who are not disposed by nature to be passive when they are invading as they are when being invaded).
Now, back to Christianity, religion, right and wrong and human ethics...
Christianity is much like the ESS of those spiders. It would be 'great' and profitable if the whole world, or most of it, would adhere to its principles. But, on the other hand, taken to extreme, those ideas are much like a self-imposed communism. It is an appeasement of agressors.
Please understand I am only highlighting aspects in a grey topic, I am not saying Christianity is absolute passivity nor the irreligious absolute immoralists.
I do think however that Christianity is/was an attempt to achieve an ESS that failed.
Let me break down how I see Jesus first: There is the man-Jesus, the myth-Jesus, and the man-God-Jesus.
The first, and even the second of these I can a do respect for what they are and/or have become to a large extent. But here is what I think happened to the Church, the initial story-of Jesus was an inspiring one, it had marketing-potential in the religious context, but -- just as it is detrimental in the end to use steroids, the Church has a price to pay. That price is that it is now effectively rotten at its core because it is founded on an idea that is good for PR but makes for a weak religion.
Heres where I get blunt.
Christianity, (as well as other religions), are infected with death worship and fatalism. This is illustrated by the heaven-and-hell obsession, the end-times fatalism, and makes Christianity a dead-guy-on-a-stick religion.
This is the virus. Just as "Choice" proponents in the abortion debate have become infected by cult-of-death-ism, so has religion.
And thus our culture follows. We are mesmerized by victimhood, especially if it involves death. From abortion to Holocaust to Oklahoma City to 9-11.
They are all the-new-dead-guy-on-a-stick, but it is really hard to see the degree that is true because we are so immersed in the cult-ure.
It's like a fish trying to 'discover' the ocean. It's like before there was no environmental movement, we weren't concious of a thing called 'the environment'.
It didn't exist.
I'm sure "what I see" is contrary to what most people see. Democratic principles mandate I am in error. People will say -- "you cannot judge what goes on in others minds, if they say it doesn't, it doesn't".
It's a lot like "if its not on TV is isn't real".
It's just someones opinion.
Fortunately, I do not need the consent of my fellows before I formulate my beliefs, and more importantly I am not obligated to accept beliefs they wish upon me.
There is a saying -- "Everything is true in a sense, false in a sense, and meaningless in a sense".
I have no expectation that the things I say will be heard in any particular one of those senses. It is dependent on the listener and where they are standing.
"Art is what happens in the space between the painting and the viewer" -- and TRUTH is not a location, it is a direction, it is a mind in motion, without fear, eternally.
I'm sorry I don't have time to read the entire post right now. I skimmed down to your recommending Richard Dawkins and realized we aren't going to see eye-to-eye. It is my impression that Dawkins' position is full of holes that can never be plugged.
But the thing I wanted to say right now in my brief visit to FR today was that you can't possibly come to a rational opinion that G-d does not exist. G-d does exist. Any process that takes you to any other conclusion can not be rational.
No offense meant. And none taken in what I read of your post, by the way.
Shalom.
Honesty is never offensive. Arrogance is, but not honesty.
A statistical type of cost/benifit analysis of religion, or arguments along those lines are ludicrous from the start, you can never delinate what-is-what, but a type of defense of religion is made on the basis of the same type of argument: the baby and the bathwater.
I'm not sure religion is based on any cost-benefit analysis, unless it's the cost and benefit to those who use religion to control people.
Its seems only religion is allowed this type of cohesion, this all-or-nothingness where hopefully the sum result to mankind is positive -- even if not achieved in your personal lifetime.
War comes to mind.
Even now you can find people who will claim religion hasn't caused anything detrimental whatsoever -- and that all the things you show them are just "misuse" of religion or "growing pains" of mankind. To them I guess, the baby is worth whatever bathwater it requires. Bloodbaths even.
Confusion of terms. Instutional religion causes lots of problems, mostly because it is managed by people who are notorious. Religion itself - i.e. the relelation of G-d to His people about His truth - is not responsible for anything detrimental to humanity as a whole. I will admit that those sentenced to death for murder might think religion is doing something detrimental, but not everyone would agree with him. That's a matter fo perspective.
Criticism of aspects-of religion usually falls on deaf ears, the reasoning being "it is what it is" -- that religion reflects a REALITY and we must take it or leave it.
This is true, just as physics reflects reality. But I must admit that we don't always interpret the religious "data" correctly just as we don't always interpret the physics data correctly. There are two parts, the message and the receivers. The message is perfect. The receivers are not. As such, we need to be sure not to become arrogant. We may be forced to re-evaluate our understanding at any time.
Christianity is much like the ESS of those spiders. It would be 'great' and profitable if the whole world, or most of it, would adhere to its principles. But, on the other hand, taken to extreme, those ideas are much like a self-imposed communism. It is an appeasement of agressors.
If Christianity is a lifestyle then you are correct. Christianity is not a lifestyle.
I notice that you have moved from a critique of "religion" to a critique of "Christianity." This is common. Most religions don't offer enough cohesion to require a serious rebuttal. Judaism and Christianity do.
Let me break down how I see Jesus first: There is the man-Jesus, the myth-Jesus, and the man-God-Jesus.
If you remember, you wrote all of this in response to my claim that you should evaluate Jesus based on who He claims to be. I am far less interested in your claims regarding Him than His claims regarding Himself.
The first, and even the second of these I can a do respect for what they are and/or have become to a large extent.
How can you respect them? Either one would be a lie.
But here is what I think happened to the Church, the initial story-of Jesus was an inspiring one, it had marketing-potential in the religious context, but -- just as it is detrimental in the end to use steroids, the Church has a price to pay. That price is that it is now effectively rotten at its core because it is founded on an idea that is good for PR but makes for a weak religion.
The reason that seems plausible to you is because today people make money by inventing religion. In the first century AD people who invented religion only made fertilizer (out of their own corpses). Yours is a very old theory that doesn't hold water in light of the facts of Church history.
Christianity, (as well as other religions), are infected with death worship and fatalism. This is illustrated by the heaven-and-hell obsession, the end-times fatalism, and makes Christianity a dead-guy-on-a-stick religion.
You are right. Many Christians have not understood how the Gospel is a Gospel of life. However, most of us now understand this. You are not only working with secondary data (how Christians behave vs. what Christ taught) but old secondary data at that.
It's like a fish trying to 'discover' the ocean. It's like before there was no environmental movement, we weren't concious of a thing called 'the environment'.
Christians were, because G-d told them about it. Of course, there were times in history when Christians forgot.
Fortunately, I do not need the consent of my fellows before I formulate my beliefs, and more importantly I am not obligated to accept beliefs they wish upon me.
This is true, but I recommend you take your beliefs from source documents and truth, not erronious assumptions based on secondary sources. You aren't obligated to do this, of course, but life is much easer to take when based on truth rather than falsehood.
There is a saying -- "Everything is true in a sense, false in a sense, and meaningless in a sense".
That saying is meaningless in every sense.
I have no expectation that the things I say will be heard in any particular one of those senses. It is dependent on the listener and where they are standing.
Translation: I don't have to actually review what I have said in light of any response you may write. I can blame you for standing in the wrong place while listening. The truth won't hurt you. If you have it, you shouldn't be afraid of any challenge you receive. If you don't have it, you should want it.
"Art is what happens in the space between the painting and the viewer" -- and TRUTH is not a location, it is a direction, it is a mind in motion, without fear, eternally.
Truth is what conforms to reality. Everything else is delusional thinking.
Shalom.