I wouldn’t be a Christian

[Belacqua]

Double post

If I'm reading you right, it seems to me that you're saying there is a core or essence of what Christianity really is. And that you know what that is, and that it's bad. 

And that the good parts of Christian thinkers are good because they come from non-Christian sources. 

So Aquinas labored mightily to fold Aristotelian thought into Christian theology. He changed Christian thinking and (after much debate) made Thomism pretty much the basis of Catholic thinking since that time. But according to your approach... you're saying that Aquinas isn't really Christian? 

(Also to avoid trouble later on, I was maybe unclear when I mentioned Wittgenstein earlier. I didn't mean to say that he is a Christian thinker. Only that his use of the term "family resemblance" is useful when we talk about different kinds of Christianity. It is a way to avoid essentialism.)

[vulcanlogician]

If I'm reading you right, it seems to me that you're saying there is a core or essence of what Christianity really is. And that you know what that is, and that it's bad. 

No. I'm saying that myself and other people are referring to a specific thing when we use the term "Christianity." And we know what that thing is. And we know that it's bad.


I guess another way of putting it would be: If someone says, "Germany needs to be stopped," his statement ought to be understood in context. If someone said this in 1939, it would be rather impudent to claim that his statement lacked insight and then to go on explaining the virtues of German culture. The thing to do would be to step back and realize that you and this other person weren't referring to precisely the same thing.

And that the good parts of Christian thinkers are good because they come from non-Christian sources. 

I'm saying Christianity can be part of a nutritious diet... so long as it is balanced with other types of nourishment.

[Belacqua]

If someone says, "Germany needs to be stopped," his statement ought to be understood in context. If someone said this in 1939, it would be rather impudent to claim that his statement lacked insight and then to go on explaining the virtues of German culture.

There's nothing wrong with a little synecdoche. 

But if you say "Germany is Bavaria," you're leaving out large parts of the traditional definition of Germany. And that's not a trope, it's just a falsehood. 

Likewise, if you say "Christianity is X," and X is a portion that ignores large important aspects of the tradition, that's not accurate.

I'm saying that myself and other people are referring to a specific thing when we use the term "Christianity."

What are you referring to exactly?

[Belacqua]

See, if someone said to me, "literature is banal," I would respond, sure, some of it is banal, but some of it isn't. 

If that person said, "when I say the word 'literature' I am only referring to the work of Dan Brown," I would find that odd. Because "literature" in fact refers to more than that. That person has intentionally limited his definition to the most banal writer, in order to make his judgment. 

So if someone is using the word "Christianity" to refer only to some small subset of the total tradition, it doesn't seem fair to me. If you are using "Christianity" to refer, for example, only to modern American sola scriptura literalists (as some people seem to do) that would be arbitrarily expelling from Christianity all of Renaissance Neoplatonism, British antinomianism, the apophatic Cappadocians, the whole mystical tradition of Mister Eckhart, et.al., the physics-related theology of the Oxford Calculators, and many more fascinating and historically influential, and very real, parts of Christianity. And that's not fair.

Some immigrants are rapists. But when Donald Trump says that immigrants are rapists, that's not fair.

[vulcanlogician]

There's nothing wrong with a little synecdoche. 

I learned a new word today. Thanks.

But if you say "Germany is Bavaria," you're leaving out large parts of the traditional definition of Germany. And that's not a trope, it's just a falsehood. 

Likewise, if you say "Christianity is X," and X is a portion that ignores large important aspects of the tradition, that's not accurate.

When I say Christianity is X, it isn't to much of a stretch to assume I mean the modern state of Christianity in most (but not all) contexts. It is possible to refer to Italy and make statements that (while true) do not apply to the Roman Empire. Am I saying that Italy isn't influenced by its Roman history? No. But I can make judgements about Italy's political activities without mentioning Marcus Aurelius (especially if it's 1939). Taken as a whole, to mention Italy whilst ignoring its Roman influences "ignores large important aspects" of its history. It really depends on what you consider "important" too. 

The issue is further confused by the fact that sometimes people use the same word to refer to the historical essence of something and also to refer to its current state. I have said both of these sentences:

1) America is a republic of free people, not a world power.

2) America is a capitalist empire.

Statement 1 refers to the America's historical traditions and political philosophy. Statement 2 refers to the current state of America. The context in which I made each of the statements reveals more about what I am referring to than forcing me to say "America is X" and then pointing out how much of a generalization X is.

[brewer]

If I'm reading you right, it seems to me that you're saying there is a core or essence of what Christianity really is. And that you know what that is, and that it's bad. 

And that the good parts of Christian thinkers are good because they come from non-Christian sources. 

So Aquinas labored mightily to fold Aristotelian thought into Christian theology. He changed Christian thinking and (after much debate) made Thomism pretty much the basis of Catholic thinking since that time. But according to your approach... you're saying that Aquinas isn't really Christian? 

(Also to avoid trouble later on, I was maybe unclear when I mentioned Wittgenstein earlier. I didn't mean to say that he is a Christian thinker. Only that his use of the term "family resemblance" is useful when we talk about different kinds of Christianity. It is a way to avoid essentialism.)

Your putting forward that Catholicism as an example of good religion/christianity?

It's one of the best examples of what's wrong with religion/god(s).

[vulcanlogician]

See, if someone said to me, "literature is banal," I would respond, sure, some of it is banal, but some of it isn't. 

If that person said, "when I say the word 'literature' I am only referring to the work of Dan Brown," I would find that odd. Because "literature" in fact refers to more than that. That person has intentionally limited his definition to the most banal writer, in order to make his judgment. 

I feel like our conversation is going more like this-

vulcanlogician: Dan Brown is banal.

Belaqua: What are you referring to when you say "Dan Brown"?

vulcanlogician: I mean the stuff Dan Brown writes. He is a shitty writer.

Belaqua: Really? What have you read by Dan Brown?

vulcanlogician: I read The Da Vinci Code and the other two books after that that he wrote in the series. I think they are uninspired drivel.

Belaqua: And you make sweeping judgements about him based on that? He wrote other books that you haven't even read! Furthermore, he wrote a speech in his sophomore year of college that was quite inspiring! He wrote a cheesy love poem to his high school sweetheart that playfully exposes his tender heart! Why aren't you taking any of that into account?

vulcanlogician: When I say Dan Brown, I'm talking about his published novels. When most people talk about Dan Brown's prowess as an author, that is what they are referring to. That other stuff you mentioned seems out of the way. Even Dan Brown enthusiasts are generally unfamiliar with the stuff you are talking about.

Belaqua: It's not Dan Brown's fault that his fans are to foolish to read his cheesy love poem! Your criticism of Dan Brown is a generalization. I need you to frame your statement like this: "Dan Brown is X." Now tell me what X is.

vulcanlogician: X= a shitty writer.

Belaqua: But Dan Brown is more than that. He was born in such-a-such town, he did charitable work for various organizations. To simply call him "a shitty writer" ignores all of those other things. Why are you not taking that other stuff into account?

vulcanlogician: I dunno... synecdoche?

[Drich]

wow... do you guys do anything other than pat yourselves on each other b-holes and tell each other how smart you all are compare to christians???
You all seem so refined and practiced, no wonder you all tend to cringe when you see your quote next to my sunflower...

So anyway without calling anyone out this time (as it is a share... lack of understanding) Here a little bit of info that seem to have stumped the great minds of this thread...

That thing that determine a ' real christian?'

It called agape'

Now granted 'we' personally have no say on who is and who is not 'christian' but the one who does judges us so by the "Agape' we do have and share.

1for God we must Agape' God with all of our being eg.. heart mind strength spirit and 2 agape our neighbor as our selves.

If you still haven't figured it out agape' is a form of love. I did not use the word because 'love' is a cheap word use to manipulate or control. Agape' is not about controlling others or being controlled it not if you agape me you will do this this or this... nor is it a form of love that requires me to treat you how you want to be treated. Agape is about the giver and the level strength and intensity they can sustain this gift at.. it's like thor in avengers 4 holding the star forge door open when storm breaker is being forged.. it not about how long but his willingness to be destroyed by the cosmic radiation before he let the doors close....

or that movie where starlord and catness everdine were on a space ship and woke up too early and they had to vent that ships core but star lord also had to stand in the door way to hold the door open while being bombarded with fire radiation and pain.. it again is about not how long the door was open or what the other people wanted it was about the love star lord had for this person to stand at the gates of hell and allowing the fire to consume you.

We must have that devotion to God and to our neighbors. because he first showed this devotion to us!

[vulcanlogician]

wow... do you guys do anything other than pat yourselves on each other b-holes and tell each other how smart you all are compare to christians???
You all seem so refined and practiced, no wonder you all tend to cringe when you see your quote next to my sunflower...

So anyway without calling anyone out this time (as it is a share... lack of understanding) Here a little bit of info that seem to have stumped the great minds of this thread...

That thing that determine a ' real christian?'

It called agape'

So somebody who worships the Hindu god Vishnu counts as a Christian, so long as he has agape?

Good to know...

[Belacqua]

I mean the modern state of Christianity in most (but not all) contexts.

This answers my question. Thanks.