Nice work. The history of Christianity doesn't matter to me. All I know is that there are many people who self-identify as Christians and who do not believe in the resurrection or miracle stories. Some of them are clerics. This answers the OP's quesion. :wink:

On the broader question as to who should qualify as Christian, there is no certain answer since Christianity maintains beliefs and practices that often (as Bishop John Shelby Spong points out) support violence and bigotry and are antithetical to Christian teaching. Christianity is not monolithic or consistent or reasonable. Like most human enterprises.

I came of age in the 60's as I often mention and the way I used to view Jesus then was as a peripatetic teacher of spiritual enlightenment. The Kingdom of Heaven was the state of Self Realisation as described by Indian gurus such as Yogananda and Sri Ramana. The latter's teachings supported this view as Ramana had been educated briefly at Christian schools and would frequently quote Biblical aphorisms to illustrate convergence between his teaching and the Bible (typically, 'I AM THAT I AM' Ex 3:14 which Ramana said is the Self, the I AM of all beings.)

Of course this reading tends to infuriate doctrinal Christians as Hindu teachers are by definition not 'saved', not having 'kissed the ring', but there were always a few maverick Christians who managed to straddle both cultures. One was Venerable Bede Griffith who lived most of his adult life in a Christian~Hindu Ashram and whom I saw at one of his last public lectures, in Sydney in the early 1990's. One might also mention Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge which made quite an impression in the 1950's and which he wrote after a pilgrimage to Ramana's Southern Indian hermitage (subject of an atrocious film starring Bill Murray in 1984). Another influential book from that period was Alduous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy.

Then there was the entire Zen-Christian subculture which was inaugurated by Thomas Merton (one of my mother's favourites, as his autobiography Seven Story Mountain was very popular in the 60's). There was thereafter an entire cadre of Catholic Zen teachers who blended elements of Zen Buddhist liturgy and practice with their own (Hugo Enomiya-Lassalle, Ama Samy, Reuben Habito, William Johnston among others.) Raimon Panikkar is another name worth knowing, a Jesuit of Spanish and Indian descent, who divided his time between India and Europe.

Salutations to all of these wisdom teachers. :pray:

In any case, the universalist theme always made perfect sense to me, as it situated Jesus in a broader context, as an epitome of a kind of higher consciousness which described in many cultures outside the Middle Eastern. It is of course open to all kinds of criticisms and I wouldn't die on a hill defending it, but it makes sense from an anthropological perspective, aside from anything else.
-----

(Perusing the Wikipedia on Panikkar 'He earned a third doctorate in theology at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome in 1961, in which he compared St. Thomas Aquinas's philosophy with the 8th-century Hindu philosopher Ādi Śańkara's interpretation of the Brahma Sutras.[3] Just the kind of thing that interests me.)

This answers the OP's quesion. — Tom Storm

I claim to be Christian. Never read the bible.

Answers the OP?

I claim to be an astronomer. I don;'t know what a tensor equation is. Answers the OP?

I claim to be an adherent Buddhist, but I compete in Jiu jitsu, having broken several limbs and am somewhat proud of that fact. Answers the OP?

Self identification must be the weakest defence for someone meeting a criteria which others must share.

claim to be an astronomer. I don;'t know what a tensor equation is. Answers the OP?

I claim to be an adherent Buddhist, but I compete in Jiu jitsu, having broken several limbs and am somewhat proud of that fact. Answers the OP?

Self identification must be the weakest defence for someone meeting a criteria which others must share. — AmadeusD

I see why you might argue this but I disagree with aspects of your approach. I'm also not making that argument and I said many not 'all'.

If you say you are an astronomer or a doctor (something highly technical and measurable) then self-identification alone is clearly inadequate. Not all identities are built on the same foundational footing.

But the issue with a religious belief is that there is no clear way to identify what's valid and what's not. Who wants to get into the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' here?

Besides, the people I referred to were theologians and Christian thinkers, not just some dead shit who likes the sound of a particular word.

I hear you when you say only those who believe JC was a real person who was resurrected after execution can call themselves Christians. I just don't agree with you.

But the issue with a religious belief is that there is no clear way to identify what's valid and what's not. — Tom Storm

I disagree with this, but it is fact-specific to any particular claim so probably not worth following up in this context. Appreciate it :)

not just some dead shit who likes the sound of a particular word — Tom Storm

Are you entirely sure these are mutually exclusive? hehe.

:up:

nevermind

If you want to use words the way that other people use them, then I think you have to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to be a Christian, because that's what other Christians believe.

I personally love the teachings of Jesus and find them to be applicable in life, and this does not directly depend on what happened 2000 years ago. So, I could say that I try to follow Jesus, even if I don't have strong faith about the supernatural aspects.

"Christ" has a specific religious meaning. I think it means something like "savior". So, if you don't believe that Jesus saved you from something, then it makes no sense to call one's self a "Christian".

- I would certainly think he followed kosher, etc.

... you have to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to be a Christian, because that's what other Christians believe. — Brendan Golledge

What do you think this means? As has been said several times in this thread by different posters, there has never been an agreed upon belief in what resurrection means. This is what Paul said:

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
(1 Corinthians 15:42-44) — Fooloso4

The physical or natural body, including the physical body of Jesus, is perishable. It is not what is resurrected. Jesus, according to Paul, is of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans, 1:3-4) That is, his physical body is human. That body is perishable and so is not what is resurrected.

Contrary to what some self-appointed gate-keepers here claim, the "good news" has nothing to do with resurrection.

...According to Mark:

This is the Good News about Jesus the Messiah. It began just as the prophet Isaiah had written:

“Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
and he will prepare your way.
He is a voice shouting in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord’s coming!
Clear the road for him!’”

This messenger was John the Baptist.
(1:1-4)

Later on, after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galilee, where he preached God’s Good News.“The time promised by God has come at last!” he announced. “The Kingdom of God is near! Repent of your sins and believe the Good News!”
(1:14-15)

The good news is that the kingdom of God is near. It is the beginning of a new beginning. Those who heard the good news did not know that Jesus would be crucified. That could have nothing to do with the good news according to Mark.

In addition, according to Mark, forgiveness of sin came with repentance:

He was in the wilderness and preached that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.
(1:4)

Forgiveness of sin is not part of the good news and does not require the death of Jesus. — Fooloso4

The general consensus among Christians is that the resurrection is the good news. If that's not it, then most Christians are mistaken.

The immaculate conception is a (relatively quite recent) Catholic doctrine that stems from their particular understanding of Original Sin. So, while "most Christians," might tend to affirm it, because Catholics are still a majority of all Christians, there would be a great many who don't. And, at any rate, for most of Catholic history it was not an explicit doctrine. People, even people who went to Catholic school, also seem to often misunderstand it at any rate, sometimes even taking it to mean that Mary also lacked a human father (it's actually about her being conceived without Original Sin as inherited guilt, which the Orthodox deny, leaving them with no need to posit such a conception).

As for Mary's perpetual virginity, the Gospels are ambiguous on this, and the Church Fathers, reading them in their native language, did not think the text indicated in undeniable terms that Mary gave birth to more children. That Jesus tells his disciple John to take his mother on as an adopted mother and to care for her is often taken to indicate that she did not have other children to take on this responsibility. It's possible that Joseph had children from a prior marriage (nothing is said about this), and also the term for "brother" is used frequently in the NT for people who do not share a biological relationship.





As an aside, I had a few people, particularly middle aged Christians, talk up Peterson to me in glowing terms. I picked up his book and was quickly disappointed. It just seemed like fairly generic self-help literature framed in standard materialist terms—not explicitly reductionist, but certainly leaning that way. Far from being a "voice of wisdom for young men," the book seemed to be telling young men exactly what they do not need to hear.

For instance, he opens with a narrative about lobsters. Male lobsters who are big and strong have more "feel good chemicals," in their nervous systems. With more feel good chemicals, lobsters act more assertive and aggressive. By doing this they get to consume more resources and have more sexual partners. Therefore, we should act to boost our feel good chemical levels, that we might consume more and sleep with more women. Such wisdom...

Leaving aside the number of wealthy celebrities who end up in misery, commiting suicide or engaging in suicidal drug abuse, this seems to leave off anything like the classical connection between the virtues and happiness, or development of the virtues and real freedom. You don't see anything like Boethius, who finds himself to be more free in prison, having lived for justice, or Socrates who points out that the mob can do "nothing bad to a good man."

It's particularly sad because I think our culture could certainly benefit from a modern Boethius or C.S. Lewis. There is certainly an interest in "tradition," particularly amongst young men, but unfortunately this tends to manifest as little more than watching films like 300, and reading garbage like "Bronze Age Mindset."

The general consensus among Christians is that the resurrection is the good news. If that's not it, then most Christians are mistaken. — Brendan Golledge

If the general consensus does not take Mark into consideration then the general consensus as you rely on it needs revision. I think that part of the general consensus is to put more weight on the Gospels than on the consensus.

If Jesus did keep kosher, then presumably statements like Matt.15:11 are early Christian beliefs retrojected back to Jesus. After all, why would Peter need his revelation in Acts where all foods are declared clean if Jesus had originally taught it? I initially took a more historical-critical approach to the gospels but apparently this approach has to an extent fallen out of favor in modern academic Christian scholarship.

That's not an accurate statement of the matter. It's extremely complex, because it's hard to say if even the Jewish beliefs of the Torah were completely "in force" until around the time of the Maccabees (160s BCE).. But AT LEAST since the Maccabees, the Torah was "in force" in Judea and presumably for Jews around the Mediterranean/Babylonia. — schopenhauer1

2 Maccabees recounts an old Jewish man choosing death rather than eating pork during the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Hard to imagine he choose death over a tradition which had just now become "in force" in the 160s BC.

And then of course there was the martyrdom of the seven sons and Hannah.

As an aside, I had a few people, particularly middle aged Christians, talk up Peterson to me in glowing terms. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I enjoy Peterson and see him as a force for good, but I don't agree with him on everything, and I often find his delivery unhelpful. I grant that he is a bit materialistic, and especially Jungian.

For instance, he opens with a narrative about lobsters. Male lobsters who are big and strong have more "feel good chemicals," in their nervous systems. With more feel good chemicals, lobsters act more assertive and aggressive. By doing this they get to consume more resources and have more sexual partners. Therefore, we should act to boost our feel good chemical levels, that we might consume more and sleep with more women. Such wisdom... — Count Timothy von Icarus

I saw you say that in a different thread. I think you are misreading it. Peterson is not promoting sexual promiscuity or machismo. He explicitly opposes figures like Andrew Tate. See, for example, this clip (as well as the longer interview of which it is a part).

I didn't find that book overly interesting, either, but what he is doing at the beginning is trying to establish the primordial nature of dominance hierarchies (which he will later relabel as "competence hierarchies"). The idea is that hierarchical competence generates self-confidence and health (which at that lobster-level is seen primarily through serotonin). A large part of his point is that, pace Feminism, hierarchical orderings have been around as long as lobsters, and are not going away anytime soon. I see Peterson as correcting important cultural errors, but at a relatively superficial level. "Make your bed, do the right thing, be an effective communicator, do not fall into feminist traps, etc."

But I find the whole topic of "Christianism" interesting (a term that some use for cultural Christianity). Roger Scruton, Jordan Peterson, and even Richard Dawkins to a minor extent hold up Christian culture as an important value, yet without professing Christianity.

Edit: In general, I like the thrust and intention of everything Peterson does, and for everything he does, I think someone else does it much better than him. Nevertheless, he is reaching an audience that these others can never reach.

It's possible that Joseph had children from a prior marriage (nothing is said about this), and also the term for "brother" is used frequently in the NT for people who do not share a biological relationship. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Actually recent scholarship from Christiaan Kappes has shown that the NT is explicit that they are not Jesus' siblings. There have always been very good arguments for that position (even apart from tradition), but Kappes co-authored a book in which he shows that the syngeneusin of texts like Mark 6:4 literally means "relatives of some other womb" (link). In any case, the Magisterial Reformers are all in agreement that Mary was ever-virgin (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli).

There were so many problems with 's post that I just ignored it. I didn't expect that someone claiming that Mary was born of Elizabeth would be persuasively misleading. :grin:

If Jesus did keep kosher, then presumably statements like Matt.15:11 are early Christian beliefs retrojected back to Jesus. — BitconnectCarlos

The answer is simple. Paul on his own authority, and over the objections of Jesus' disciples declared it so. Paul gives an account of this.

If Jesus did keep kosher, then presumably statements like Matt.15:11 are early Christian beliefs retrojected back to Jesus. — BitconnectCarlos

That's a good example. The ritual washing of Second Temple Judaism is not mandated by the Torah, and it is likely that the Pharisees held to an especially strict version of that ritual. Jesus is taking the extra-Biblical ritual regarding ritual cleanliness and placing it into the proper key. He is resituating a development. This is a classic case of the way that Jesus will reject certain interpretations or ways of developing the Law.

You asked if he disobeys the Law. Along these lines, he sort of does disobey the law with the "talitha cumi" of Mark 5. Hebrews are not allowed to touch a corpse on pain of uncleanness. The uncleanness would "spread" from the corpse to the one who touched it, making them unclean and subject to ritual cleansing. But Jesus does touch the corpse (here and elsewhere). Has he broken the Law? Sort of. But the text is showing us that Jesus is a wellspring of life and purity, and hence "reverses" the flow of death and uncleanness. In modern terms it would be like when we are not supposed to touch someone with Covid-19, and Jesus touches them anyway; nevertheless, instead of Jesus getting sick, the person he touches gets well. His life and power is "infectious" and overwhelms death. This is another manifestation of his conquering of death.

After all, why would Peter need his revelation in Acts where all foods are declared clean if Jesus had originally taught it? — BitconnectCarlos

Hand-washing and kosher are two different things.

Hand-washing and kosher are two different things. — Leontiskos

Yes. But when Jesus says "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person" he would seem to be saying that even if e.g. a Jew were to eat pig or shellfish he would not be defiled in clear contradiction to the Levitical laws. Then again maybe my analysis is superficial/I'm misinterpreting him.

EDIT: Apparently a Jew breaking dietary laws does not render him ritually impure, but it is breaking a law and leaves one spiritually defiled. It is different than physical ritual impurity.

The main issue for me is the food laws, not so much the hand washing. The Talmud does distinguish between Torah law and rabbinic law. Ritual handwashing is of the latter category.

Has he broken the Law? Sort of. — Leontiskos

Entering a state of ritual impurity is not the same thing as breaking the law. We will all be in states of ritual impurity at one point or another. Sometimes it's beyond our control/just nature taking its course.

The answer is simple. Paul on his own authority, and over the objections of Jesus' disciples declared it so. Paul gives an account of this. — Fooloso4

Do you consider Peter's revelation a lie/a Pauline invention then?

2 Maccabees recounts an old Jewish man choosing death rather than eating pork during the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Hard to imagine he choose death over a tradition which had just now become "in force" in the 160s BC.

And then of course there was the martyrdom of the seven sons and Hannah. — BitconnectCarlos

First off, historians don't take everything in religious texts at face value :roll:. Secondly, not eating pork and following (or even knowing about!) every tittle of the Torah that we know of today, isn't the same thing. It was probably quite true that there was a "traditionalist" camp as represented by the priest Onias III and the Maccabees, but what "tradition" meant, was probably not the full and complete Pentateuch as we know it (though retroactively, this can be imputed back into the history as if it was THIS which was the traditional- the whole kit-and-kaboodle, not just various oral traditions that have been around since at least Ezra or prior to the First Temple period).

Also, if I was to give some credence to the "conservative view", one can say that it wasn't that there was NO group that did not "know about" Torah, but that it was during the Maccabees that it became THE dominant form of Judaism (no longer Henotheistic like First Temple period, no longer heterodox, and with a formal written understanding of the ancestral "Law").

Do you consider Peter's revelation a lie/a Pauline invention then? — BitconnectCarlos

I do not consider it a lie. I think the gospels are a combination of stories that were in circulation, changing somewhat in the telling, and inspiration, understood as the indwelling of spirit. Rather than doctrine or dogma inspiration it is a report or witnessing of what is present or experienced. As such, it can vary widely.

For the Church Fathers who wanted to establish the teaching of the one true church this was intolerable. Others might regard it as the genius of Christianity in accord with Paul. But Paul was at odds with Jesus and the disciples who regarded themselves as observant Jews.

I didn't expect that someone claiming that Mary was born of Elizabeth would be persuasively misleading — Leontiskos

Thank you for pointing out my error. Oh, God forbid! I confused St. Anne and St. Elizabeth. Mea culpa maxima culpa!!! The shame.

Being ambivalent at best, and ever prone to error, I should leave theological topics alone.

First off, historians don't take everything in religious texts at face value — schopenhauer1

If we acknowledge that Antiochus IV engaged in a repressive Hellenization program and that the Jews violently resisted it is it crazy to think that there were martyrs? Or did it only start in Roman times? Do you believe there were martyrs then or is that also not historical?

Secondly, not eating pork and following (or even knowing about!) every tittle of the Torah that we know of today, isn't the same thing. — schopenhauer1

My concern is more whether they kept the basic elements. Whatever exact form it took, I do believe Jews were willing to die to preserve their ancestral customs at this point in the mid 2nd century BC.

was probably not the full and complete Pentateuch as we know it — schopenhauer1

I'd figure by this point the Torah was quite stabilized. It had already been translated into Greek a century earlier.

Also, if I was to give some credence to the "conservative view", one can say that it wasn't that there was NO group that did not "know about" Torah, but that it was during the Maccabees that it became THE dominant form of Judaism (no longer Henotheistic like First Temple period, no longer heterodox, and with a formal written understanding of the ancestral "Law"). — schopenhauer1

Maybe. Most of the First Temple era kings and Israelites come out looking pretty bad except Josiah and Hezekiah. It's hard to get solid info about the life of the average Israelite from this era. But yes, Judaism as we know it really forms in the 2nd temple period.

If we acknowledge that Antiochus IV engaged in a repressive Hellenization program and that the Jews violently resisted it is it crazy to think that there were martyrs? Or did it only start in Roman times? Do you believe there were martyrs then or is that also not historical? — BitconnectCarlos

It isn’t crazy, but it isn’t unreasonable to believe (and with good reason) that ancient writers embellished history to make a point or a point of view starker, etc., in their stories. Ancient authors had a propensity to make history fit a particular perspective, to embellish, redact, or write idealized versions of events, and so on. They weren’t bound by any reporter’s oath or similar obligation. Even Josephus likely had a point of view, probably hid things, and made events appear a certain way for various personal or stylistic reasons tailored to his audience.

My concern is more whether they kept the basic elements. Whatever exact form it took, I do believe Jews were willing to die to preserve their ancestral customs at this point in the mid 2nd century BC. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, that's what I was saying. I see nothing ahistorical about this statement. There were ancestral customs, people wanted to defend it. Yep.

I'd figure by this point the Torah was quite stabilized. It had already been translated into Greek a century earlier. — BitconnectCarlos

The legend holds that the Septuagint was commissioned around 260 BCE by Ptolemy II Philadelphus for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria. The stabilization of the text doesn’t contradict my earlier point that it was a small cadre of elites or priests who curated this stricter interpretation and compendium of Hebrew history and mythology. While some of these writings likely date back to Ezra’s time—and perhaps even to the reigns of Kings Josiah or Hezekiah—they hadn’t been widely popularized or fully implemented until the Maccabees' victory.

It’s during the Hasmonean period that we see much stronger evidence of the Torah’s laws being regarded as authoritative and holy for the broader population, not just for a small priestly elite. Yonatan Adler, among other recent historians, delves into this subject, and I can provide sources if you'd like.

For a concise overview, this video: (https://www.youtube.com/live/vD5VmGkqfAg?si=rDm6acqkXqMIo_ss) is worth watching. However, I want to stress something Adler doesn't emphasize enough: while he suggests that the widespread influence of the Biblical writings didn’t emerge until the Hellenistic period, he doesn’t claim that the writings themselves didn’t exist earlier. His argument is more about their limited reach and impact on the general Judean population until the Hasmonean/Maccabean dynasty expanded their influence.

Maybe. Most of the First Temple era kings and Israelites come out looking pretty bad except Josiah and Hezekiah. It's hard to get solid info about the life of the average Israelite from this era. But yes, Judaism as we know it really forms in the 2nd temple period. — BitconnectCarlos

The writings intentionally chosen by the scribes that compiled the Hebrew Scriptures reflect the worldview of the "Yahweh Only!" group, which was quite small (even then probably more henotheistic until Second Isaiah, which more prominently put forth a monotheistic vision). This group, during the Babylonian Exile, compiled and redacted various writings to fit their view of idealized history. It's like watching Fox News and saying, THIS is the only objective news. Clearly, they have a spin!

Actually recent scholarship from Christiaan Kappes has shown that the NT is explicit that they are not Jesus' siblings. There have always been very good arguments for that position (even apart from tradition), but Kappes co-authored a book in which he shows that the syngeneusin of texts like Mark 6:4 literally means "relatives of some other womb" (link). In any case, the Magisterial Reformers are all in agreement that Mary was ever-virgin (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli).

Thanks for this. I suppose this might explain why the Greek Fathers tended to write off Mary having had other children.

I didn't find that book overly interesting, either, but what he is doing at the beginning is trying to establish the primordial nature of dominance hierarchies (which he will later relabel as "competence hierarchies"). The idea is that hierarchical competence generates self-confidence and health (which at that lobster-level is seen primarily through serotonin). A large part of his point is that, pace Feminism, hierarchical orderings have been around as long as lobsters, and are not going away anytime soon. I see Peterson as correcting important cultural errors, but at a relatively superficial level. "Make your bed, do the right thing, be an effective communicator, do not fall into feminist traps, etc."

Sure, brutes have their hierarchies. Man can form his hierarchies much as the beasts do, or he can order them according to proper authority, in accordance with what is "truly good for the whole." We need authority and social structures, and we need those structures to be engineered in line with a realistic picture of human nature, while nonetheless enabling us to transcend that nature, what we already are ("the given") for what is "truly best." This is the idea of authority in Plato for instance, why he elevates the authority of reason (only logos can unify a person, just as it is the Logos who resurrects St. Paul from a death of personhood and autonomy, lost to a "civil war in the soul" in Romans 7). I think a similar notion can be found in St. Augustine, Aristotle, St. Thomas, or even Kierkegaard and Hegel.

I suppose what bothers me is the general tendency of naturalistic explanations of human hierarchies to lose sight of the role of the transcedent in human freedom. A naturalistic understanding of man—man as the rational/political animal—need not supplant the role of the transcedent, but it often does without careful attention.

The "competence hierarchy" sort of captures this, but not really. And anyhow I think historically, it's hardly chiefly feminism that has allowed for incompetence at the top. This has been a pernicious problem throughout human history, Marcus Aurelius elevating his incompetent son to the purple and ending the era of the "Five Good Emperors," for instance, or Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero taking Octavian's place through inheritance and sheer inertia. Or there is Tsar Nicholas II or Hitler's disastrous interventions in military affairs, and the great multitudes of men with good names who have "failed upwards" through history. The current state of the Russian military is another example.

At any rate, the dominant form of feminism (and much "anti-racism") seems to be largely comfortable with current hierarchies and disparities, so long as more diversity is seen at the top.

However, I will add that much criticism of Peterson, "how dare anyone assert that hard work and discipline might be good," is entirely off base.

But I find the whole topic of "Christianism" interesting (a term that some use for cultural Christianity). Roger Scruton, Jordan Peterson, and even Richard Dawkins to a minor extent hold up Christian culture as an important value, yet without professing Christianity.

IDK, it seems very much in the mold of the "post-modernism" advocates of "cultural Christianity" tend to rail against. Its focus on instrumentalism (a sort of outgrowth of the Protestant "prosperity gospel" perhaps?) seems to put it further outside the realm of Christian belief than belief in the "God of the philosophers" of antiquity (seemingly returning to some degree). I don't see how a family hewing to "Christianity as principles for success in modern life," wouldn't want to have Saint Francis committed to a psychiatric institution, or how Saint Augustine giving up his promising career and dispensing with all his family's wealth wouldn't be seen as "taking things a bit too far." The definition of human flourishing that makes Boethius or St. Maximus torture/mutilation and death (or most of the Apostles') "worthwhile" and even "choiceworthy" needs to be dramatically different.

Now, Charles Taylor does paint a more sympathetic picture of people who might consider themselves to be "cultural Christians," as those who admire and sometimes desire to pursue spiritual goals, but find themselves too drawn in and busy with the world. So I suppose my objection is more to the narrower range of cases where "Christianity" is advanced as a sort of set of principles for temporal success, as generally defined by secular culture.

The general consensus among Christians is that the resurrection is the good news. If that's not it, then most Christians are mistaken. — Brendan Golledge

Most Christians believe that most Christians are mistaken*. So what?

* There are thousands of Christian denominations in the world. The largest of them - Catholic - accounts for less than half of the total number of members.

the idea of authority in Plato for instance, why he elevates the authority of reason — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, and I always think Peterson would benefit from reading Plato. He is something like a wayward Platonist, and his open-mindedness often causes him to embrace anti-Platonic ideas which are contrary to his basic disposition, ideas which he then slowly ends up expelling. This failure to take Platonism seriously is most clearly present in his conversations with John Vervaeke. But from Peterson's perspective, he is more Platonic and spiritual than most of his natural interlocutors, so it presents a blind spot. I really hope he sits down with D. C. Schindler someday.

And anyhow I think historically, it's hardly chiefly feminism that has allowed for incompetence at the top. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not incompetence at the top, but a subversion of hierarchy qua hierarchy. For many feminists, hierarchy = patriarchy = bad.

However, I will add that much criticism of Peterson, "how dare anyone assert that hard work and discipline might be good," is entirely off base. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Peterson is a fighter, but he's not a dogmatist, and his posture will differ considerably depending on who he is talking with.

The definition of human flourishing that makes Boethius or St. Maximus torture/mutilation and death (or most of the Apostles') "worthwhile" and even "choiceworthy" needs to be dramatically different. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Granted, but the Christianists exist, and in fairly large numbers. Even mainline Protestants and Anglicans often tend in that direction. They therefore present an odd tertium quid between secularism and Christianity that must be reckoned with.

So I suppose my objection is more to the narrower range of cases where "Christianity" is advanced as a sort of set of principles for temporal success, as generally defined by secular culture. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I understand it, Peterson's most recent book (Those Who Wrestle with God) is effectively an attack on morality as a set of hypothetical imperatives, or a liberal value-neutral political philosophy, but from a psychological angle. That's a good and standard example of the way that "Christianism" need not be secularism redux. These thinkers end up offering partial repudiations of the secular status quo. But the fact that their thought has so much of modernity mixed up in it is largely what makes it potent to the modern ear. In a related vein is a very good recent piece in First Things, "The End of the Age of Hitler." I thought about posting it in Baden's thread on methodological naturalism given that it is a kind of moral parallel to the fact that a metaphysical vacuum is ineluctably filled.

Yes. But when Jesus says "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person" he would seem to be saying that even if e.g. a Jew were to eat pig or shellfish he would not be defiled in clear contradiction to the Levitical laws. Then again maybe my analysis is superficial/I'm misinterpreting him. — BitconnectCarlos

Okay, but the context here is handwashing:

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." — Matthew 15:1-2

(Note too that the Pharisees recognize that what is at stake is the "tradition of the elders." Jesus' response begins by distinguishing the commandment of God from the tradition of the elders.)

The pericope that concerns you even ends, "These are what defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man" (Matthew 15:20).

So this is at best a preliminary set-up for a change to kosher, not a direct attack on kosher. It is explicitly about tradition and handwashing.

Entering a state of ritual impurity is not the same thing as breaking the law. We will all be in states of ritual impurity at one point or another. Sometimes it's beyond our control/just nature taking its course. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, but it's not beyond his control here, is it? And the implication of the text is that no ritual impurity has affected Jesus.

(That is, I don't think you can say that it is not against the Law to touch a dead body, even if the Law does not mandate that no one is ever permitted to touch a dead body, or that there is no recourse for someone who does. It's perfectly easy to argue that the way Jesus touches the dead body is contrary to the Law. At stake here are spirit/letter distinctions.)

Do you consider Peter's revelation a lie/a Pauline invention then? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, a good question. Fooloso is not aware of Peter's revelation, nor does he know where it takes place (he says it is in the gospels). Yet he continues to hold forth.