NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Dear Rod, How are you doing? I wanted to write a reply to That Ole Devil Christianity, and I think that Ill give it a try now. Image Steve Blatt a copy of your reply Ill have to wait to see what he thinks. As a preface, I asked you if you were trying to show that my interpretation of Christianity was wrong, or merely one-sided. That is, were your counter-examples supposed toyshop that Christianity is actually the opposite of how I characterized it, or do you concede that the elements I citrate present, but balanced by other elements that you cite? 1. Athens vs.
Jerusalem. Ill happily agree with you that theGraeco-Roman tradition is, as you put it, radically non-monolithic. One need not be as well-versed in ancient philosophy as you clearly are to know about the radical differences between Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Epicureans, Status Empiricus, Protagoras, etc. To stand upon Athens would indeed be pretty silly, since one would be standing up for a host of inconsistent views. In contrast, I think that the Judeo-Christian tradition, while diverse, does indeed have a strong continuity to it.
And while you are quite correct to point out differences -especially in minor, relatively un hierarchical offshoots like Gnostics, Quakers, etc. I dont see how we can avoid noticing the similarities in the mainstream. How should we measure the degree of homogeneousness? Well, I think that my case is hands down for at least three measures: a. What most ordinary Christians throughout history have believed. b.
What most Christian intellectuals throughout history have believed. c. What most Christian power structures throughout history have supported. Would you at least agree that my charges hold up by these three measures? You seem to want to place a huge amount of emphasis onthe four Gospels; for you, even the rest of New Testament is suspect. Now this might make sense if the Gospels writhe systematic thought of a single mind.
In that case, weight reasonably study the texts and conclude: Most alleged followers of X-ism were wrong, and this deviation from there meaning explains all of the harm that historical X-ists have caused. But it seems to me that the Gospels are the opposite of the systematic thought of a single mind. Rather, they are accumulated oral traditions that contain the seeds for many different (and usually inconsistent) interpretations. Having no univocal meaning in themselves (Perhaps similar the way that, as you suggested, other group documents like George Masons Bill of Rights have no univocal meaning? ), I dont see how they could be taken as the defining documents of Christianity, against which all historical Christianity must be weighed.
Rather, my view istat only when you wed historical Christianity to its founding documents do you get a coherent body of thought. In this way I think Christianity is very different from, to use your example, the Objectivist movement. Rands views oost topics are fairly clear, well-defined, systematic. There room for interpretation on little questions, but not bones.
Moreover, her system did not contain a lot of contradictory elements, whose respective weightings would have to be worked out by history. Given this, the dogmatism, conformity, intolerance, and repression that Objectivism sometimes promoted could hardly be held to represent Rands philosophy. But suppose that Rand was avenue and enigmatic thinker; or better yet, she was quasi-mythical, and her thought sprang out of diverse bodies oral traditions. Suppose further that the interpretation that won out over the others, achieving a monopoly status, did indeed stand for dogmatism, conformity, intolerance, and repression. Could that reasonably then be considered the essence or dominant thrust of Objectivism? You bet it could!
Where the defining documents dont add up to a definition, then later tradition does the defining. And like Island, whether we consider sheer numbers of ordinary Christians, numbers of Christian intellectuals, or Christian power structures, we get the same negative picture of Christianity that I painted in my letter. With regards to Pauls role: Since historical Christianity has almost always included the Pauline and other texts alongwith the Gospels, I think that it would be difficult to justify excluding them from Christianity. Pauls interpretation mohave been controversial with other early Christians; but init at least one of the legitimate interpretations of the ill-defined thought of Jesus? And if all of the deviant branches were historical dead-ends, dying off during early church history, why give them more than minor weight in our evaluation of the Christian tradition? 2. The origins of the Enlightenment.
Do you really think thatthe Enlightenment sprang out of the intellectual time bombs of Christianity? I can imagine it, but it seems highly unlikely and inconsistent with all of the history that Ive read. Most sources attribute the Enlightenment to the revival of classical authors, and more importantly, the questioning, rationalistic mood that they sparked. If you are referring exclusively to the development of individualism, you may bright. Even Peikoff (see Religion vs. America in The Voice Reason) credits Christianity with the idea of the supreme worth of the individual soul.
Still, I think that all of these accounts underestimate the newness of individualism; I tend to think that while it handsome parentage, it was chiefly an invention of the Enlightenment. As for the mutual influence of Christianity and Aristotelianism, you dont seem to mention Christiancorruptions of the Aristotle's rationalism, secularism, andeudaimonism. Im no expert, but reading the medieval volumes of Frederick Coplestons History of Philosophygave me the impression that the Christian Aristotelianstossed out a lot of the best parts of Aristotle to make him fit their dogmas better. Your market socialism analogy says all: compare it with Sokrates startling claim in Theaetetusthat he must expose defective ideas. (Come then to me, who am a midwifes son and myself a midwife, and do your best to answer the questions which I will ask you. And i I abstract and expose your first-born because I discover upon inspection that the conception which you have formed is an shadow, do not quarrel with me on that account. ) Christian Aristotelianism from my admittedly cursory study it usually used reason as a fig leaf for their unrepetantdogmatism. 3. Does the New Testament assert that Jesus is God?
I was shocked by your claim that the New Testament never unequivocally asserts that Jesus was God. Im not nearly the textual expert that you are, but isnt that idea clear atleast in all of the Pauline texts? Even if not specifically stated, isnt it understood? As far as I read, that was one major points of difference between the Jerusalem Christiansand Pauls sect. Even you mention that John describes Jesus as the only-begotten son of God. In Greek mythology at least, that makes you (at minimum) a demi-god.
Throughout, Jesus gets a lot more honor than any of the Old Testamentprophets. Some other random texts supporting the Jesus = God interpretation: In the Gospels, John the Baptists stories of the stronger one who will follow him is clearly meant to refer to Jesus (in Matthew, Jesus shows up immediately after Johns not fit to carry his shoes spiel). In the conclusion of Matthew, Jesus instructs his followers to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all of the commands that Image given you. Here is Jesus, mentioning himself in these breath with Jehovah! And on top of it, he tells them token his commands, not Gods commands. Throughout the texts, the Lord seems to variously refer to Jesus and Jehovah.
In the Acts of the Apostles (25: 24) among other places, it speaks of faith in Christ Jesus, not God. Does the Old Testament ever speak of anyone having faith in any of the Prophets? Romans 1: 1 begins with Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ. Sure sounds like a God-to-man relationship to me.
Well, I could keep flipping pages, but it seems pretty clear. Your interpretation, that we can all become children of Godin the same sense as Jesus, seems strained. I dont know what it takes to be unequivocal, but your interpretation seems to give a lot of weight to a few short lines of text. Ofcourse, if you were around at the time and defeated all ofthe rival interpretations, Id concede your ability to define the tradition as you liked. But to look back now and argue thatcham was the basic message of Christianity is pretty implausible. 4. Faith.
I am familiar with the nuanced definitions of faith offered by Aquinas and other Christian thinkers. But first of all, the definition of faith as belief in the absence of any and all evidence goes back early even among intellectuals. Tertullian is surely the classic example. Augustine too said, What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldst say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend Him as thouthinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself.
Thisthen is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou hast not comprehended it. (Sermon LII, vi. 16) I suppose that the issues of the incomprehensibility of Grand the nature of faith are separate, but I dont see how you could hold the former without the any and all evidence interpretation of faith. Anyway, it seems clear that regular Christians have always held the strong irrationality view of faith. Locke's sign of intellectual honesty is relevant here: Namely, the intellectually honest persons confidence is proportional tothe evidence available to him; greater confidence stems from irrational faith, or as Locke terms it, enthusiasm. The attitudes of not only Paul and the other apostles, but also of Jesus himself, fit in well.
The absence of a rational, critical spirit of mind pervades the whole Bible. And I think that this spirit descended perfectly upon the rank-and-file. Even Aquinas made the argument for faith that it made impossible for less intelligent people to accept Christianity. Some couldnt be whole serious about his theory of faith abstruse in authority, since presumably less intelligent people cant grasp the proofs of Gods existence ay better tenanting else. (Hence, in Catholic terms, they dont have the prior knowledge of the existence of God that permits us thane faith in Him. ) I guess that I think we should read between the lines to seethe appallingly dogmatism in the Bible that makes irrational faith necessary. Perhaps comparing Jesus with Sokrates would make things clearer. Sokrates wants others to grasp the truth with their own minds; in his felicitous term, he is a midwife to the knowledge of others.
Jesus and the apostles, on the other hand, want obedient minds who accept what theyre told. This is the practical origin of faith; and you would be hard-pressed to argue that early Christians (or anyone else for that matter) acquired their belief in any other way. To make the point more concrete, imagine Sokratesquestioning Jesus. I am sure that Sokrates could quickly squeeze a Tertullian-like definition of faith out of him. Sokrates: What is faith? Jesus: It is trust in God.
Sokrates: So how is the existence of God known? Jesus: It is known from the Scriptures. Sokrates: And are not the Scriptures the Word of God? Jesus: Yes, Sokrates, quite right. Sokrates: And they could not have been written without God?
Jesus: It would be monstrous to suppose so, Sokrates. Sokrates: So if one did not know that God existed, one couldnt know that there were any Scriptures in this sense. Jesus: So it would seem. Sokrates: But then how could God be proved from the Scriptures, when knowing that they are Scripturespresupposes our knowledge of God? Jesus: I feel forced to the conclusion that we could not, Sokrates. Sokrates: So then the existence of God is not known fromthe Scriptures?
Jesus: I think not. Sokrates: How then is God known? Jesus: It would seem to be by faith. Sokrates: But if faith is trust in God, then is not knowing God by faith no better than knowing him by Scripture? Jesus: I do not follow you, Sokrates. Sokrates: Since Scriptures are the Word of God, before would know there were Scriptures, we would first have tokyo God existed.
Jesus: That, I think, is what we concluded. Sokrates: Must we not then also say that since faith is trust God, before we could use faith, we would first have tokyo God existed? Jesus: So it seems to be for the moment. Sokrates: So if God is known by faith, faith could not be trust God? Jesus: Your argument forces me to think so.
Sokrates: What then is faith? Jesus: [After many other failed definitions] Faith is the belief the absence of any and all evidence; or in any case, it is belief held out as knowledge, which does not meet the ordinary standards of knowledge. Sokrates: [Appalled] But why should we hold a belief acknowledge, which does not meet the ordinary standards of knowledge? Now most Christians, Im sure, didnt need Sokrates to show them their real beliefs. Faith appears to be an almost instinctive attitude of mind, correctable only by diligent training. (Of course, this sort of argues against my case against Christianity, since if most people are dogmatic and accept beliefs on blind faith, Christianity couldnt be the cause. But I would reply that Christianity makes a bad tendency worse by elevating it to a virtue. ) 5.
Evidence. Let us go down the kinds of evidence you say Jesus uses. a. Scripture.
It is interesting that you cite this as making good coherent ist sense. For this seems to highlight the great danger of coherent ism: Most of your beliefs might bearing! A foundation alist would demand a justification of Scripture before accepting it (its validity is certainly not self-evident or known directly in any way). But the coherentistcan just start midstream and argue from any old thing most people accept.
Im sure your coherent ism is much more sophisticated than all that, but this seems like a difficult objection to meet. Comparing Jesus interpretations of Scripture to those of Spooner or Macedo is particularly apt. It also concedes that Jesus, like (I am afraid) Spooner and Macedo, puts his own views into the mouth of written documents, rather than searching out its actual meaning. Or as Nietzsche puts it, The way in which a theologian, no matter whether in Berlin in Rome, interprets a word of the Scriptures, or an experience, a victory of his countrys army for example, under the higher illumination of the psalms of David, is always so audacious as to make a philologist run up every wall in sight. The Antichrist sec. 52. b.
Miracles. Well, they arent very good evidence for anyone but eyewitnesses to believe. Unless, of course, had travelled to Rome and done some impressive stuff infront of a bunch of pagans. (And it would have to be pretty impressive lifting the Colloseum a hundred feet off the ground, maybe? ) Incidentally, this is why (as you correctly guess) I never gave parapsychology a second thought. Youre right that psychokinesis is necessary for free will, spheres no logical impossibility here.
But any psychokinesis of external objects would be absurdly easy to verify I And whenever one of these psychics is put to the test, they always flop. c. Jesus arguments. Well, theyre not too impressive, and theyre few and far between. Otherwise, point taken. d.
Parables. I think that you seriously exaggerate the degree to which Jesus parables qualify as evidence. How convincing do you find the following: Everyone, therefore, who listens to this teaching of mainland acts upon it, will be like a sensible man who built hothouse on rock. And the rain fell, and the rivers rose, andthe winds blew, and beat about that house, and it did not godown, for its foundations were on rock.
And anyone who listens to this teaching of mine and does not act upon it, will like a foolish man who built his house on sandI Matthew 7: 24 - 27 [Explaining the parable of the sower] The seed is Gods message. The ones by the path are those who hear, another the devil comes and carries off the message from their hearts, so that they may not believe it and be saved. Themes on the rock are those who receive the message joyfully when they first hear it, but it takes no real root. Luke 8: 10 - 16. Think of the crows! They do not sow or reap, and they have no storehouses or barns, ad God feeds them.
How much more are you worth than the birds! Luke 12: 24 - 25 Salt is good; but if salt loses its strength, what can it be seasoned with? It is fit neither for the ground nor for the manure heap; people throw it away. Luke 14: 34 - 35 Admittedly, some of the parables, like the Good Samaritan, are of intellectual substance.
But most of them seem purelystipulative. They are not of the form (as you say) 1. X is a good thing when humans do it. 2. God is good. 3. It is reasonable to suppose God does X too. Instead, they follow the far less rational pattern: 1.
Lets take it for granted that X is like Y (to which it bears necessary relation). 2. Ys have property A. 3. Therefore Xs have property A too. a.
Against Pride. If anyone comes to me without hating his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, andes very life too, he cannot be a disciple of mine. For no one who does not take up his own cross and come after me can a disciple of mine. Luke 14: 26 - 27 I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven at all. Anyone, therefore, who is as unassuming as this child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, and anyone who welcomes one child like this on my account welcomes me. But whoever hinders one of these little ones who believe in me might better have a great millstone hung around his neck and begun into the open sea.
Matthew 18: 4 - 7 b. Against self-interest and money-making See Luke 14: 26 - 27 above on self-interest. But alas for you who are rich, for you have had your comfort! Alas for you who have plenty to eat now, for you will go hungry! Alas for you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep! Alas for you when everyone speaks well of you, for that issue way their forefathers treated the false prophets!
But I tell you who hear me, love your enemies, treat those who hate you well, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you Luke 6: 24 - 29 As for the eye of the camel speech, it is not the case that they says hes tried everything and nothing works. Rather: Good master, what must I do to make sure of eternal life? Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one inwood but God himself. You know the commandments[] And he said, I have obeyed all these commandments ever since I was a child.
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, There is one thing that you still lack. Sell all that you have, and divide the money among the poor, and then you will have riches in heaven; and comeback and be a follower of mine. But when he heard that, he was very much cast down, for was very rich. And when Jesus saw it, he said, Howard it will be for those who have money to get into the Kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to get through they of a needle than for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of God!' Luke 18: 18 - 26 If that isnt a blanket attack on money-making as such (andnot just pathological Scrooges) I dont know what is. Now you might say that in Jesus time, all wealth was earned by force and fraud, so hes just attacking unjust riches, notices as such.
But if thats the case, why didnt he say so? Anyway, Rome was a trading empire, and surely much wealth was honestly produced. As for Christians merely having the wrong conception oneself-interest rather than opposing self-interest as such: Now I think youre relying on historical Christianity. The Paulinetexts place a lot more emphasis on salvation and hell, and ofcourse organized Christianity made it into a big deal. c. Deserving and undeserving.
All this stuff about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek and not judging seems to flout the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. As far as I can tell, the only people where going to get punished are doubters and unbelievers. The Sodom and Gomorrah line, he might better have a millstone hung around his beck, and be thrown into the sea, and a number of other places prescribe nasty suffering for reprobates. d. Your point that Jesus produced more food is quite entertaining, but misses the practical message. Since most us cant work miracles, how are we supposed to interpret all these passages about depending on others for sustenance, not reaping / sowing , etc. ?
No serious Christian could say, Well, that just applies to miracle-workers like Jesus. We ordinary folks have to produce the old-fashioned way? No, they have to find some practical message in it, and the obvious one is the zero-sum one that I cite. e.
Tolerance. Again, the tolerance Jesus shows seems togo only to certain groups: enemies, those who do us wrong, etc. But all of the violent punishment passages tend to refer unbelievers. 7. Totalitarianism.
a. Enforced belief. As I said, there are both violent and nonviolent passages; and the violent ones usually refer tothe sin of unbelief. In general, since Jesus society punished vice as well as crime, any enumeration of vices without an explicit disclaimer of intent to persecute was reasonably taken to imply the goodness of persecution. Isthere anything in Christianity making a vice / crime distinction ? If not, enforced belief would seem to be themes reasonable deduction.
b. Oligarchy. Well, Jesus seems to have had a pretty iron grip over his disciples, as did Paul. But youre right that this applies more to historical Christianity. c. Personal happiness.
See 6 b above. Jesus certainly attacked personal happiness, as the passages indicate. Illdefer to your authority on the Gnostics, Pelagius, Boethius, Aquinas, Ockham, and the Spanish Scholastics. But Issue you could produced a much longer list of Christians onthe other side. d.
Free scientific enquiry. Well, power structures certainly help promote repression; but so does a dogmatic spirit offend. And that can be found throughout the New Testament. e. Labor supply / feudalism .
You win this one. But I wasnt arguing that Christianity was the only cause of feudalism. Naturally, nobles greed alone could fuel it. Still, I think that is no accident that a feudal society would want a monolithic, dogmatic religion to give it ideological backing. f. Holy wars and repression.
Again, you win this. Wars and repression can surely exist without Christianity. Still, the dogmatic spirit of mind does tend to buttress such things. Christianity, as it were, gave a free bonus rationalization forward and repression against people with different beliefs. Summary: 1. A movement with vague and inconsistent texts can indeed be reasonably equated with its most common interpretation the masses of believers, intellectuals, and power structures.
And Christianity is such a movement. Historical Christianity wasnt the only possible interpretation of the Gospels, but it was at least one legitimate interpretation of avenue oral tradition. 2. Tertullian's characterization of faith is a least implicit in Christianity; and it is probably the interpretation that most believers took from the beginning of the movement, through the Dark Ages, and up to the present. 3. You seriously overstate the degree to which Jesus uses evidence to support his claims. 4. Leaving historical Christianity aside, my negative interpretation has a lot of textual support. You certainly bring up interesting Biblical counterexamples.
But the bad stuff is right in there and for some reason the bad stuff hash a lot more appeal to people who call themselves Christians than the warm and fuzzy parts you cite. 5. The totalitarianism of Christianity does indeed seemimplict in even the Gospels; as I said, there is no distinction between vice and crime drawn, so saying that something was bad basically implied that it should be punished. And inn case, historical Christianity certainly became totalitarians soon as it got the reins of power. Maybe an analogy would be good: Marx and Engels never explicitly call for a totalitarian state. But several of their key concepts, such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, the class war, and the attack on bourgeois freedom are pretty good sanctions for totalitarianism. It would go too far to say that Marxism implies totalitarianism; but it isnt hard to seether mutual affinity.
So too say I of Christianity and totalitarianism. Sincerely, Bryan P. S. I highly recommend all of George Walsh's lecture tapes on religion and Marxism; Id say he strongly influenced my thinking on some of these points. If youd like to borrow them, just give me the word.
Walsh's Marxism tapes are probably the best thing Ive ever heard or read on the subject; and his Role of Religion in History, the Judeo-Christian Tradition, and the enormously entertaining Protestant Fundamentalism are all first-rate. I think that Walsh is the only living Objectivist philosopher who commands my unqualified respect. Too bad he didnt publish more.
Free research essays on topics related to: judeo christian, oral traditions, early christians, power structures, personal happiness
Research essay sample on Oral Traditions Judeo Christian
