Perhaps, but I did read the article. I think "demonising" is a fairly accurate characterisation. Generally, in my examination of any religious tradition, i like to back to the founder's words rather than those of later functionaries of the bureaucracy. — unenlightened

What use is that?

That way, you usually get an abstract, theoretical, bookish version of a religion that nobody lives and nobody actually wants to live. Such a version of a religion is so abstract that it is indistinguishable from fiction.

And there is no shortage through the millennia, but it is a continuous betrayal of Christianity as characterised by the words and deeds of Jesus.

When the time came, Jesus didn't turn the other cheek. And he brought the sword, not peace. So, strictly speaking, Christians aren't actually far from Jesus, not at all.

In question is the judgement of those who think an evil god worthy of worship. — Banno

They don't think he's an evil god. They don't feel addressed by your criticism.

There is no Christian monopoly on virtue. — Banno

Actually, I have found Christians believe precisely that.

For example, a Christian "friend" insisted that the fact that I try to be honest in my dealings with others and some other virtues that he saw in me was evidence of having accepted Jesus into my heart (or some such). For him, it was inconceivable why else would I try to be honest.

(He was actually using this as a springboard for accusing me of refusing to "fully" give myself to Jesus and getting baptized.)


A religion's claim to monopoly on salvation is the justification for choosing said religion. A religion has no selling point unless it claims to have monopoly on salvation.

What are we to make of an insuperable entity that insists on being worshiped and thanked in perpetuity? Set the punishment aside for a moment. What's up with the perpetual need for devotion and praise? This creature knocks out a cosmos and then require endless thanks? — Tom Storm

Like I said, if we start with the premise that Jehovah is a demigod, then it all makes sense. Jehovah occupies the position of a creator* deity. In Dharmic religions, this position is called "Brahma". Brahma can get quite full of himself, the power that he has can go to his head, thinking he's the first and most powerful being, confusing himself with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vishnu/Krishna.
It's the demigods who are eager to be worshipped, while Vishnu is quite relaxed, knowing that nothing happens without his will.


*The destroyer deity being Shiva. Vishnu kind of outsources his activities that pertain to the day-to-day operations of the universe to demigods.

Modern people of the West, and this is particularly true of the English diaspora, have simply lost a mode of cognition that pre-modern people had, and so can't make sense of the morality contained, let's say, in Proverbs that leads to these sorts of conclusions. And so it strikes such people as ridiculous.
— Snakes Alive

...or perhaps "Modern people of the West" have reached a point of not accepting conclusions based on insufficient and contradictory accounts. — Banno

I don't think it's that, I think what you're saying is a rationalization.


There is an instructive scene in DeMille's Ten Commandments where one of the Israelites (Datan, IIRC), asks Moses in roundabout this: How do we know that God has indeed spoken to you? How do we know that what you're telling us is indeed what God has said?
And in reply Moses is furious.

There is an unspoken premise that we're not supposed to doubt the claims of those who claim to be messengers for God.
But since all kinds of people claim to be messengers for God, claiming all kinds of things, how are we to know who is a genuine one and who isn't?

This is a question that is tabooed in religion when it's asked by outsiders. I think it's because of this taboo that people aren't drawn to religion anymore.

But since all kinds of people claim to be messengers for God, claiming all kinds of things, how are we to know who is a genuine one and who isn't? — baker

That really is one of the most sensible questions one can ask of these claims.

If Christians believe that the Biblical Yahweh/Jesus has set out what they should think and do or what's in/correct, then interpretation becomes a risky game, doesn't it, whatever their personal preferences are irrelevant?

So who decides who is a real Christian? You? — baker

Answer me this, yes or no: is a person a Christian (or anything else) just because they say they are? And if no, why not?

So who decides who is a real Christian? You?
— baker
Answer me this, yes or no: is a person a Christian (or anything else) just because they say they are? And if no, why not? — tim wood

And into Humpty Dumpty Land ...
Words should mean something, and they cannot simply mean whatever anyone wants them to mean.

It's one extreme to say that a Christian is whatever anyone who considers themselves a Christian says that a Christian is.
It's another extreme to say that a Christian is whatever anyone who doesn't consider themselves a Christian says that a Christian is.

Terms denoting political, religious, national, racial identity are usually difficult to pin down. People often fight about them.


I think terms denoting political, religious, national, racial identity should be used spitefully by outsiders/non-members, in order to force those who take pride in their political, religious, national, racial identity to clarify the definitions of those terms and to take up the fight amongst themselves, as opposed to with outsiders/non-members.

In other words, it's not mine to discern or define what is a Christian, but people using the term to describe themselves should work it out amongst themselves. My only potential task is to encourage them to do so.

In other words, it's not mine to discern or define what is a Christian, but people using the term to describe themselves should work it out amongst themselves. — baker

This level of accommodation only comes from a person who has learned the hard way not to concern himself with anything at all except that which concerns himself directly, and that only with circumspection. After all, what is a bicycle but at the least a conveyance with two wheels - it's there in the word - but best to be agnostic on bicycles and let any who claim to know work out for themselves what a bicycle is.

agnostic — tim wood

Not agnosticism, but spite.

And nothing to do with bicycles.

And nothing to do with bicycles. — baker

Are you sure? Nothing about the Christ-ian that might correspond to the two wheels of the bi-cycle?

You've lost me again, as you're wont to do.

A bicycle is a more-or-less well-defined thing with mainly two wheels: the "bi" "cycle." And no need at all to own or ride one to understand, use, or appreciate the meaning.

A Christian is a more-or-less well defined thing characterized mainly by a belief in Christ, and certain things about him. And no need at all to be one to understand, use, or appreciate the term.

That is, words either mean something, or they themselves mean nothing at all. After all, if one person, or two or more persons, claim that to be a Christina is to have and enjoy a croissant in the morning, and nothing more, does that make them Christians?

A Christian is a more-or-less well defined thing characterized mainly by a belief in Christ, and certain things about him. And no need at all to be one to understand, use, or appreciate the term. — tim wood

So who or what is Christ? The Son of God? One who brought the sword, not peace? One who taught to turn the other cheek, but when the time came for him to do so, he didn't? One who bemoaned his fate on the cross? A magician, able to turn water into wine and such? A necessary intermediate between us and God? An ancient itinerary preacher? An allegory? ???

That is, words either mean something, or they themselves mean nothing at all.

Like I said.

After all, if one person, or two or more persons, claim that to be a Christina is to have and enjoy a croissant in the morning, and nothing more, does that make them Christians?

Oh, those who call themselves Christians should put their money where their mouth is and fight it out amongst themselves. It shouldn't be too hard, since they believe they have the most powerful entity in the universe exclusively on their side.

We outsiders should not allow ourselves to be dragged into this fight any longer.

So who or what is Christ? — baker

And just here is where you set yourself out to stumble over your own self. The Christian creed is believe. Thus in their wisdom not troubled by who or what. And you, having presupposed what it must be - about a who or a what - obstruct yourself from the possibility of even thinking about it correctly. This in a sense straw-manning your own self. But perhaps it keeps you safe in being manifestly concerned with and battling nothings - what danger could such a person be?

And just here is where you set yourself out to stumble over your own self. The Christian creed is believe. Thus in their wisdom not troubled by who or what. And you, having presupposed what it must be - about a who or a what - obstruct yourself from the possibility of even thinking about it correctly. This in a sense straw-manning your own self. But perhaps it keeps you safe in being manifestly concerned with and battling nothings - what danger could such a person be? — tim wood

Doing advanced math is easier than talking to you.

What on earth are you talking about??

That being a Christian is all about believing, that cognitive-emotive activity the main point of which is a certain feel-good feeling in one's heart?

But perhaps it keeps you safe in being manifestly concerned with and battling nothings - what danger could such a person be?

Which person? The believer?

Do you want to argue that beliefs have no implications for actions?

So do you deny that there are christians who believe in hell? Of course not. It is these folk that the article concerns.

And of course you may change the narrative, deciding that Jesus was sent not to save us from hell, making up something else from which we require redemption. Perhaps you could re-invent the christian narrative so that it did not involve redemption at all.

Those views would remain uncommon amongst those who call themselves christian.

Nothing you have said impacts on Lewis' critique. Those Christians who chose to worship a god they believe will damn fol for eternity remain morally reprehensible.

What on earth are you talking about?? — baker

Simply that you appear to hold that what a Christian is, is what people who call themselves Christians say it is, period. And I disagree. What a Christian is, is more-or-less well-defined; and by those established understandings anyone may judge, and sometimes ought to judge, whether such claims are legitimate. By more-or-less I mean well-defined at the core, though allowing for some wiggle-room at the edges.

And what is of some interest is that your approach does not merely deny knowledge, which of course implies knowledge, but denies the possibility of knowledge. Why would anyone do that? I conjecture it is a defense mechanism for people who live in societies where truth and knowledge are by threat and force made plastic and subject to an authoritarian will. From remarks you have made elsewhere, I infer you live in such an environment.

In failing to affirm that being a Christian just might have something to do with a Christ, and by supposing the issue joined on who or what he is - or was: his existence/being in question, you adroitly side-step the question and significance of the belief that is the creed of Christians, "We beleve." And in presenting yourself in this way you most resemble a man in a dark corner muttering to himself and fighting with shadows, no one to pay any attention to. And while in Homeric terms this not exactly heroic, it is certainly Odyssian.

I think you have a perverse notion of happiness. Anyone who equates socioeconomic status with happiness is a slave to conditions; and that cannot be what happiness consists in.

So do you deny that there are christians who believe in hell? — Banno

Yes and no. There are certainly people who call themselves Christians who believe in hell. As to what Christians themselves believe, that not-so-simple. And if you get close to it, not simple at all. Notwithstanding your efforts otherwise.

Those Christians who chose to worship a god they believe will damn fol for eternity remain morally reprehensible. — Banno

Perhaps an argument can be made that they acted under duress. Convinced that they must be Christians and believe Christian doctrine to avoid eternal punishment and be saved, they're compelled to accept both--hell and the Christian God who created and tolerates hell. If they worship because they fear eternal punishment, can they be said to be morally reprehensible?

I can't remember if this was addressed in the article, but I don't think it was. Believe in hell or go to it, saith the Lord, or at least his Church.

and that cannot be what happiness consists in. — Janus

To follow a tangent. Epicurus, e.g., might say happiness attainable in spite of conditions. Aristotle on the other hand as determined by conditions over the course of a life. And no doubt some in between.

I think Aristotle's notion of happiness as eudamonia, commonly translated as "flourishing" is tied to the idea of 'arete' or excellence. We flourish to the degree that we actualize our potential, We cannot do this if we are enslaved by thoughts about our socioeconomic status. Flourishing does not consist in being famous, even if a flourishing individual may be famous, that would be incidental to their flourishing..

I accept, though in my translations it was "happiness." And his ideas of excellence including things like height, health, a large family with handsome children, and so forth.

:up:

Well, in so far as the article's intent was to show that god is not a nice fellow, it was perhaps not worth addressing that possibility.

Even if Mother Theresa was a slug as you suggest, there's nothing you can do about it. You're outnumbered.

Frankly, it's not a popularity contest.

What is it then?

What do you want, Frank?

This is a discussion of an article by a prominent philosopher.

It's what we do.