[Serious] Over the top

[Belacqua]

A recent post from this forum:

Exhibit one of the sickening misanthropy without which there can be no Christianity.

Is this over the top? Does everyone here (except me) agree that the existence of Christianity demands "sickening misanthropy"?

[The Valkyrie]

A recent post from this forum:

Exhibit one of the sickening misanthropy without which there can be no Christianity.

Is this over the top? Does everyone here (except me) agree that the existence of Christianity demands "sickening misanthropy"?

Many forms of Christianity do.

For some it’s like an abusive relationship.

“He does all these things to me but he loves me really. He beats me but it’s my own fault. I shouldn’t disagree with him!”

[Fake Messiah]

A recent post from this forum:

Exhibit one of the sickening misanthropy without which there can be no Christianity.

Is this over the top? Does everyone here (except me) agree that the existence of Christianity demands "sickening misanthropy"?

It does and you know that Christians generally hate gays and Jews. Even St. Thomas Aquinas who you venerate and find inspirational concluded that heretics should be outright killed.
Oh, but maybe you want now to switch to St. Augustine? Too bad. He called for heretics to be tortured.
And what about Martin Luther and John Calvin? They advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches.

Teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for centuries.

[GrandizerII]

A recent post from this forum:

Exhibit one of the sickening misanthropy without which there can be no Christianity.

Is this over the top? Does everyone here (except me) agree that the existence of Christianity demands "sickening misanthropy"?

Sickening is a judgment word but the misanthropy bit is line with the whole part about human nature being sinful and how even our good deeds are like filthy rags to God.

[Belacqua]

A recent post from this forum:


Is this over the top? Does everyone here (except me) agree that the existence of Christianity demands "sickening misanthropy"?

Many forms of Christianity do.

For some it’s like an abusive relationship.

“He does all these things to me but he loves me really.  He beats me but it’s my own fault.  I shouldn’t disagree with him!”

OK, that's fair. 

"Many forms include it" is different from "all forms must include it as an essential element; it could not exist without it." 

So your statement seems reasonable to me, while the one I quoted seems over the top.

---

It does and you know that Christians generally hate gays and Jews. Even St. Thomas Aquinas who you venerate and find inspirational concluded that heretics should be outright killed.
Oh, but maybe you want now to switch to St. Augustine? Too bad. He called for heretics to be tortured.
And what about Martin Luther and John Calvin? They advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches.

Teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for centuries.

OK, so you think the statement is reasonable.

---

Sickening is a judgment word but the misanthropy bit is line with the whole part about human nature being sinful and how even our good deeds are like filthy rags to God.

Well, let's look at some people who self-identified as believing in the Christian God, who didn't agree that human nature is sinful, or that "even our good deeds are like filthy rages to God." 

Just some of my usual suspects: Blake, Weil, many others. Even Dante thought that human nature is good, though corrupted by misguided love. He makes it clear that once we're able to see things more clearly, our nature is entirely good. 

As for our deeds being like filthy rags -- I don't know that quote, but anyone who thinks of God as the Platonic Good will say that our good deeds, although wonderful and entirely to be admired, necessarily can't live up to the Good itself. (I'm not arguing that this is true, only that this would be a typical way for Neoplatonic Christians to see things.) 

I think that if we can point to people who are Christian, and whose beliefs are demonstrably not misanthropic, then we have disproved the over-the-top claim. Some Christians may deserve that criticism, but it is not impossible to have Christianity without hating people.

[Athene]

A recent post from this forum:

Exhibit one of the sickening misanthropy without which there can be no Christianity.

Is this over the top? Does everyone here (except me) agree that the existence of Christianity demands "sickening misanthropy"?

Well the crux of Christianity IS that all humans are BORN dirty and wrong, somehow. Unclean and deserving of eternal torment by virtue of simply being, irrespective of their acts.

That could definitely be interpreted as misanthropic don't you think? Lol

Now I would consider the quote to be a bit over-the-top if the author had castigated all Christians as misanthropic, yes. 
But as far as Christianity's premise is concerned, no. 

I mean, sure the story goes that God loved us so much that he was willing to have his Son murdered just so he tolerate looking at our our fugly, sinful mugs...But that still doesn't change the fact that the Yahweh character does indeed regard humans to be utter fucking garbage no matter what they actually do, until they ADMIT IT.

[GrandizerII]

@Belaqua, William Blake and the Neo Scholastics came centuries after Christianity was born. Their views may be improvements over the original thesis, but can we not forget how Christianity started out doctrinally? You only need to read the Epistles to see where the whole thing about misanthropy is coming from.

[Belacqua]

Well the crux of Christianity IS that all humans are BORN dirty and wrong, somehow. Unclean and deserving of eternal torment by virtue of simply being, irrespective of their acts.

That could definitely be interpreted as misanthropic don't you think? Lol

That's not a characterization that all Christians would agree with, but I see what you mean.

I mean, sure the story goes that God loved us so much that he was willing to have his Son murdered just so he tolerate looking at our our fugly, sinful mugs...But that still doesn't change the fact that the Yahweh character does indeed regard humans to be utter fucking garbage no matter what they actually do, until they ADMIT IT.

Again, you're describing YOUR view of Christian theology. 

But let's take your description here as true: it still leaves things a little ambiguous. It seems to be saying that while Christians inherently and essentially view people as bad, nonetheless they think it is inherently and essentially good to save them. Is that hating people (misanthropic) or loving people despite all their flaws? 

(Misanthropy is defined as a dislike of people, not a judgment that they are bad and could be better. The first is a matter of taste, the second is pretty undeniable. If you like -- even love -- people while admitting they are bad and could be better, I don't think that qualifies as misanthropic. 

I mean, think about your own taste -- you strike me as someone who would be bored by someone who is always good, and someone who likes people who are a mix of good and bad. But please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

---

@Belaqua, William Blake and the Neo Scholastics came centuries after Christianity was born. Their views may be improvements over the original thesis, but can we not forget how Christianity started out doctrinally? You only need to read the Epistles to see where the whole thing about misanthropy is coming from.

I have worked very hard to see where Blake got his theology from. It is deeply rooted in (though different from) Neoplatonism. If you want to understand Blake, read Plotinus. 

Anyway, you've changed the claim somewhat. We could make historical claims that the earliest Christians were misanthropic. (I doubt it, but historical evidence might be presented.) This is still different from claiming that misanthropy is a non-detachable essential part of the Christianity that exists. 

If Christianity without misanthropy can exist, then the quoted claim is false. 

I suppose someone could do a No True Scotsman argument here: all those versions of Christianity without misanthropy aren't really Christianity. But I am not in a position to judge who is a True Christian.

[GrandizerII]

@Belaqua:
The quote is about Christianity, and implicitly about how it started out. You could have a "clean" version of Christianity without the whole human nature is bad thing, but it would still be based on a Christianity that was about that thing.

Furthermore, there's context. The guy who said that quote was responding to a Catholic person who was going on about how sinful we are, how there's no such thing as a good Christian. And this is a Catholic saying this, not a Calvinist or a Protestant of some other type.

[Fake Messiah]

Anyway, you've changed the claim somewhat. We could make historical claims that the earliest Christians were misanthropic. (I doubt it, but historical evidence might be presented.) This is still different from claiming that misanthropy is a non-detachable essential part of the Christianity that exists. 

If Christianity without misanthropy can exist, then the quoted claim is false. 

You are, of course, free to interpret the Bible/ Christianity differently and more peaceful than the saints and patriarchs I mentioned in previous post, but isn't it amazing that you have succeeded in discerning the true teachings of Christianity, while the most influential thinkers in the history of your faith failed?