I would suggest that Christianity puts a greater than normal focus on community. Interacting with those around you and attempting to have a positive impact on your community are key values in the church. Granted the average Christian’s motivations may not be entirely unintentional.
Church is about community. It’s about different people being forced to live together. It doesn’t always work out, but we are purposeful about trying. If someone has cut themselves off from others or is stuck in a secluded situation like a hospital or old-folks-home then the church is fairly good about attempting to reach them.
We need to pursue relationships with other and I believe that Christianity does a good job of emphasizing this.
22 comments:
I agree with everything you wrote accept this:
"I would suggest that Christianity puts a greater than normal focus on community."
Yes, this is a key value to the church...
But, what exactly do you mean when you write "greater than normal..."? Give some examples here please.
I am convinced that many groups emphasize community and relationships. Why is Christianity's community driven mission greater than normal?
-Benjamin
Okay, I boil your post to the following. Please add missing items if you think I overlooked something.
Argument 1: Community is important for a healthy and complete human experience.
Argument 2: High-paced, technological culture makes it easy to avoid community.
Argument 3:
Premise 1: Communal interaction and positive community impact are key values in the church.
Premise 2: Church is about different people being forced to live together.
Premise 3: The church is good at trying to reach people who are secluded (purposefully or not).
Conclusion: Christianity puts a greater than normal focus on community.
-----------------------------------------
I doubt anyone is going to disagree with the first two arguments. Let us take them for granted. Let us move to the meat of the matter - argument 3.
To premises 1 and 2: The same values are key in other religions, such as the obvious Abrahamic ones and spin-offs such as LDS, but also in Baha'i faith and others. The same goes for people forced to live together. In fact, native culture and spiritualism arguably does this better, since the people literally lived together (pre-colonialism) and in many areas of reservations still do.
To Premise 3: I agree, and cannot speak for the other religions here. I know the media definitely does not show many other religions doing the same sort of outreach as christianity, but this does not mean it is not there. However, other groups do indeed reach out (for example, the Kiwanis clubs or the Shriners, who are Masons), and can be as good or better.
My argument would then be that if by normal you mean normal for religions, I disagree. If you mean normal for humanity, I would still disagree. I think christianity does put a GREAT focus on community, but not so much as to make it stand out. I am sure you are making this post to claim that because christianity outshines other groups in the area of community, it should be considered valuable in today's society (since that seems to be the ultimate point of all the posts, unless I am missing something). As such, I don't think this argument works to that end. It isn't a bad thing, it just isn't enough to push your point.
-------------
As an aside,
Technology does make it easier to avoid community, but it also makes it easier for some people to have community. Some people who are normally socially awkward are more easily able to connect through online groups and in chat rooms, which can remain completely online but also lead to offline social situations. (Example would be meeting people in a RPG game online, and then getting together at a later date to play a pen-and-paper RPG at someone's house from that game.)
Again, I'm trying to be as point-by-poiint as possible, so as to speed along things and avoid misunderstandings.
-----------
My word was enestol. That would be the name of the drug I would sell if I was trying to gain chemical control of the population. I think I will use it in a book.
I'm biting on this one.
Obviously community is something many people value highly. Obviously church can be a great source of community. Obviously some churches are also horrible communities. We all know this.
So, what's your point?
In other words: I'm with Ben.
Community is one of those things it sounds strange to purport that someone or some group promotes more or better than another. Does one community really purport more of a good thing? I don’t really think so, what I think Gordon is talking about is seriousness: and IF so, then I would say yes, Christians do take community more serious than other groups. But is that such a good thing? (NB Christianity does not take community more serious nor promote it more than any other religion).
Gordon said:
“I would suggest that Christianity puts a greater than normal focus on community.”
This, I would disagree, but I do think Christianity takes community more serious than other groups (when compared with other religions they come across quite similar I think).
But Christianity holds the community as a sacred place, and as to who is welcome and on what terms; I think Christianity fails quite clearly. Christianity does not promote the idea of community; so much as they promote a very specific definition of what they think a community ought to be.
This is the critique I wanted to put on the focus of Charity, but it is much clearer on this topic. It is also here that the ‘us vs. them’ is greatly applied; for being accepted to the Christian community is to be part of ‘us’ and then the line is drawn as to ‘them’ (the ‘them’ in this case is pejoratively described and the ‘us’ positively described as the body of Christ).
Christians certainly take care of their own, and every community will employ some kind of distinction (if not only the who’s in and who’s not) but not every group/community will hold a pejorative intrinsic connotation towards ‘outsiders’ but I think most faith based communities do, and Christianity is quite guilty of it.
I know Christianity holds that outsiders are sinners (and this applies to those inside the Church as well) but within the community you are to be a Christian first and then everything else second and the following people are not welcome unless they first acknowledge they are what the Christian faith condemns them to be: homosexuals, people from other religious groups and people from other Christian denominations to name a few.
If you are not welcome in a community UNLESS you profess a certain faith, creed or worldview, then I am not comfortable hearing Christianity praise itself for their value of community: because they do not value community so much as their own kind, and that is not really a value or special thing is it?
Yeah, I've been in some pretty shallow, and to my eyes even brutal, Christian communities. But I highly doubt such places are confined to Christianity (or religions in general).
But are good communities more common in Christianity (or in religion)? It would be tough to know. I'm not even sure the answer would lie in finding 10 Christian communities and comparing them with 10 other kinds of communities. The answer would probably lie in comparing 10 Christian communities to what they would have been otherwise, and vice versa. But this would be tough to know.
I appreciate Donkey's point, though. We hear often enough that religion is bad for the world. I don't think it is any worse for the world than humanity in general, as is. In fact, I think that Christian community (not to speak of other religious communities) in many cases actually has had a positive effect. So I agree with the basic thrust of Donkey's comment, though it would be tough to defend all Christian communities as something inherently good. Many are pretty brutal.
But this raises the questions: What makes community good? Can one kind be better than another? Are there different degrees of goodness when it comes to community? Are there certain principles that, when held to or hoped for, create better community?
For instance, is the idea that "Community is important for a healthy and complete human experience" a strong or good enough idea to sustain the very health of the thing it praises?
If we engage in community for health and complete human experience, are we doing so for ours or everyone elses? What happens when my experience is diminished or detracted from by others? Do I choose my own health and experience or theirs? On one hand I could choose community's good, but is it still good when one or some of its members do not get to experience the goodness? On the other hand I could choose my own good, but then the community either ceases to exist for me or it becomes more of a collection of individuals tolerating one another in the same location than an actual community.
At the end of the day I think the belief that community is good for me leads to a consumerist's community. A place where we can dabble and shop and drop-in for community as it pleases us, but drop-out when it gets uncomfortable or unpleasing.
I'm not saying such a place can't be community, but it reaches a certain point. And if it is built on what is for my own good, it is in the end selfish.
But if it is only for the group-good, doesn't it in the end lose the very individualities and differentiations that makes community valuable? 1984 was scary because it was community without the individualities.
I'm not sure if the atheist would expand on Leif's briefly expressed conviction regarding the value of community, and I don't mean to make that short statement more than it was meant to be, but I would be interested to know if a comparable "rallying cry" exists in atheism or other religions as exists in Christianity.
For example, can real community really happen without a conviction in the equal value of each individual? Christianity has a belief in our creation in the image of God. I'd like to know what equal human rights are built on otherwise. Even taking social darwinism into consideration, I'm not sure how a belief in evolution-proper co-exists with a conviction in the equal value of each and every human.
To take one more example, I'd say that real community needs people to be committed to give for the sake of the other, not out of compulsion, but of love. I know that in Christianity one finds this compulsion from a belief in the human story as part of a larger Christ-event. I'm not sure where the self-giving impetus would come from or be sustained otherwise. I also think that Christ's command that we love our neighbour as ourselves keeps us from the community-stilting error of giving of self to the complete
negation of self.
This is a rich discussion, not only within Christian theology, but anywhere, and could go on, but these above questions and illustrations serve to highlight why I do think Donkey has a good point, even though I will be the first to admit that MANY many Chrisitans and churches have settled for something far short of the community they were created for.
Thus I might be prepared to argue with Donkey that "Christianity puts a greater than normal focus on community", IF we take "greater" in its qualitative sense rather than quantitative.
But I am greatly intrigued by this discussion. Its one of the things I think about a lot.
We all agree community is important: great.
Then I said:
"I would suggest that Christianity puts a greater than normal focus on community."
Let me re-phrase:
I would suggest that the Christian sub-culture puts a greater emphasis on community than the greater whole of western culture does.
(I say western because that is what we are all most familiar with without doing some research.)
In response, Ben said:
"I am convinced that many groups emphasize community and relationships. Why is Christianity's community driven mission greater than normal?"
Leif said:
"My argument would then be that if by normal you mean normal for religions, I disagree. If you mean normal for humanity, I would still disagree. I think christianity does put a GREAT focus on community, but not so much as to make it stand out."
When is the last time you heard a public speaker talk about the importance of community? When is the last time you went to a pot-luck? When is the last time you had a discussion with a group of other people on the topic of community? When is the last time an older couple you barely know invited you over for lunch?
These are all experiences that can be quite common in the Christian sub-culture. They are not exclusive to it, but they are more common.
I can't say as I have too much experience with how other religions behave communally, mostly because I grew up in small-town sask and there isn't much variety.
What I do claim is that we do it better than the meta-culture around us.
I realize your concerns Jon, and nowhere do I claim that our community is perfect. However, there are few instances in the meta-culture where community is such a focus.
If you disagree, give examples.
and Matt said:
"So, what's your point?"
My point is that we do a better job than most at focusing on a really important aspect of the human experience. If we are doing a service to humanity that is unparalleled elsewhere then I think atheists need to acknowledge that and admit that perhaps Christianity isn't all bad.
Is it the same for all religions. I don't know. Does anybody know some Hindus or Muslims they could ask? I would be interested to know. That doesn't really affect my argument. I suppose I could be arguing for the validity of religion here instead, but unfortunately at present I only know Christianity well enough to speak with some authority.
Joel said:
"But Christianity holds the community as a sacred place, and as to who is welcome and on what terms; I think Christianity fails quite clearly. Christianity does not promote the idea of community; so much as they promote a very specific definition of what they think a community ought to be."
I wonder how many people have become Christians as a result the Christian community reaching beyond itself and welcoming outsiders?
Doesn't the Christian endeavor towards loving unconditionally and welcoming strangers as brothers?
We don't always do it perfectly, but we have that goal in mind and focus on it more than others.
Donkey, I'm quite baffled. You sound very stubborn on this point, and I don't understand. It is quite unlike you to write so completely blindly to what has been written.
---------------------
"When is the last time you heard a public speaker talk about the importance of community?"
-At my first day of university. The president of the university spoke on it.
"When is the last time you went to a pot-luck?"
-There was a sharing of food at the above event. Same sort of interaction.
"When is the last time you had a discussion with a group of other people on the topic of community?"
-Two weeks ago, in my sociology class.
"When is the last time an older couple you barely know invited you over for lunch?"
-I've never had this happen. EVER. Not in or out of the church. What I have had in the church, however, were people deliberately snubbing me or treating me poorly for being a "different sort of christian."
--------------------
"My point is that we do a better job than most at focusing on a really important aspect of the human experience. If we are doing a service to humanity that is unparalleled elsewhere then I think atheists need to acknowledge that and admit that perhaps Christianity isn't all bad."
You're right. IF christianity were doing so, I would acknowledge it. However, I don't think Christianity is doing so, and in my first reply I gave examples of other groups which you clearly have ignored.
It sounds very much to me like you are getting angry about this. I mean, saying we need to admit "christianity isn't all bad" implies that we have said it IS all bad.
I would really like to know what, EXACTLY, is your goal for this discussion, because right now it feels like you've jumped into the middle of a debate, but haven't really told the rest of us what the goal is for either side.
Jon said:
“I'm not sure if the atheist would expand on Leif's briefly expressed conviction regarding the value of community, and I don't mean to make that short statement more than it was meant to be, but I would be interested to know if a comparable "rallying cry" exists in atheism or other religions as exists in Christianity.”
Yes, of course it does.
Jon said:
“Christianity has a belief in our creation in the image of God. I'd like to know what equal human rights are built on otherwise. Even taking social darwinism into consideration, I'm not sure how a belief in evolution-proper co-exists with a conviction in the equal value of each and every human.”
If you honestly think that social darwinsim is the only other option to Christian morality (or is the only option for an atheist) then I think you are in need of some intellectual exploration.
Jon, you keep coming back to this comparison; how you can’t seem to understand how someone can be good or moral outside of Christian thought. Have you ever considered that you can’t understand it, you find it strange and you find it amazing because you really do not know anything about ethics outside of your religious view?
I am honestly asking here, because ethical questions have been thought about discussed and attempted to be answered long before Christianity came on the scene. Even things Jesus said can be dated back to older cultures and other philosophies; I tend to get the feeling that you draw a much-too-thick line in-between what you consider Christian and what you seem to consider everything else.
I can certainly tell you that being once a Christian myself, there is a lot more ethical philosophy outside of the Christian worldview than within; way more! It interesting and uber exciting; it was one of the major steps which led to me losing my faith: just seeing how much larger the intellectual world was and only in the topic of Ethics.
Have you ever considered taking an Ethics class from a secular University? I think you might find it powerfully enlightening; you would certainly find many answers to your questions concerning how one defines morality, lives well and forms a community outside of the Christian worldview.
Gordon said:
“I can't say as I have too much experience with how other religions behave communally, mostly because I grew up in small-town sask and there isn't much variety.”
And
“Is it the same for all religions. I don't know. Does anybody know some Hindus or Muslims they could ask? I would be interested to know. That doesn't really affect my argument.”
You just said, before this that “the Christian sub-culture puts a greater emphasis on community than the greater whole of western culture does.”
And
“We don't always do it perfectly, but we have that goal in mind and focus on it more than others.”
How is it no totally clear that most of your argumentative clout comes from your lack of intellectual exploration on the subject?
I know I get offensive and curt sometimes, but I am not being insulting here: can’t you (Gordon and Jon) not see that your stance on these subjects is greatly informed by the lack of information you are considering?
You say you are not speaking for or against other religions, but then you say you do it best when compared to Western Culture, and ‘others’ (I am assuming you are here, again referring to Western Culture). Surely you do not think you can divide the situation into three groups: Christians, Western Culture and the other religions?
I agree with you that you cannot speak for other religions and I also now think that you ought not to speak for atheists or for those in Western Culture; who else are you comparing yourself too, to which you DO consider yourself to be able to speak for in this comparison?
And if you are not versed in knowledge of these groups you are comparing your own toward, how do you feel justified in such a comparison?
I am not trying to be mean or offensive or score some points here.
But all I see when I read your posts on these topics is your lack of understanding, your lack of exploration and your resistance to admit these ‘lacking’ as problematic.
This is the same critique I gave to Jon when he said that he believed “Christianity is more reasonable than other religious views.”
How can such a view be justified when the very reasons which led you to think, feel and believe what you believe are based in the status that you really just do not know a lot of what you need to know to make such a judgement?
I do recognize both Gordon and Jon as authorities for Christianity, and sure we can talk intelligently on subjects without knowing everything or even most things about them.
But I feel like you have crossed a major line here, in your comparison.
As to the rest of your post, I think I agree with Leif in his response.
Can anyone else see what I am talking about here, or am I just sounding like a jerk here? I am not trying to, nor am I attempting to attack your person- I am really asking.
I can see where Joel is coming from, and agree for the most part.
I would like to add something though (even though Joel did raise this issue in different words):
Why do you (Gordon) use the term "meta-culture"? This makes no sense to me. What is meta culture made up of? Sub Cultures....just like Christianity. And many of these sub-cultures don't even title themselves with anything! If a group of skateboarders (subculture) focus/share a worldview (maybe even focusing on community)...are they expected to shout out to the world "community community community" ? Why should atheism?
-Benjamin
Hmmm... coming across badly.
Leif, you said:
"I would really like to know what, EXACTLY, is your goal for this discussion, because right now it feels like you've jumped into the middle of a debate, but haven't really told the rest of us what the goal is for either side."
My goal, as I thought I stated in my first article, was to discuss the validity of religion (and more specifically, Christianity) to the rest of society. They way I chose to to this was to present argumentative articles with the hopes of encouraging discussion. Part of this is a thought process for myself. I haven't got all this figured out and this helps me to form opinions. I don't live and die by all of the opinions I share here, but rather use them as a means to reach a greater understanding.
This brings me back to this present issue. I put forth an argument and it is being refuted. I am attempting to give it the best shot I can to defend it, but I may very well 'loose.' And that's fine. I am not angry and if I seem stubborn it's because I'm trying to hit every angle of the arguments.
Don't see this discussion as me having a conversation with you about this topic. See it as me putting arguments forward for the critique and analysis of our little 'community.'
Hope that clarifies things.
Joel said:
"can’t you (Gordon and Jon) not see that your stance on these subjects is greatly informed by the lack of information you are considering?"
yes, I don't know enough about the communities of other religions to comment on them, but do any of you? Leif brought that into the discussion saying that these other groups all have good communities as well. Yes, they all have congregational set-ups and a group consciousness, but neither of us is informed enough to say that they have a greater than 'normal' community focus because we haven't experienced them (I think).
'Normal' I use in reference to the meta-culture.
Ben said:
"Why do you (Gordon) use the term "meta-culture"? This makes no sense to me. What is meta culture made up of? Sub Cultures....just like Christianity. And many of these sub-cultures don't even title themselves with anything!"
What is the meta-culture? It is the greater culture that we all find ourselves in. Yes, the meta-culture is made up of sub-cultures, I did not claim otherwise. But there is a difference between the meta and the subs. It is possible for the meta to have different ideals than the subs within it.
Joel said:
"if you are not versed in knowledge of these groups you are comparing your own toward, how do you feel justified in such a comparison?"
Actually, Joel, both John and I are as qualified to speak on the meta-culture as any of you. We are a part of it just as much as we are a part of the Christian sub-culture.
The ideals of the meta-culture could perhaps be gleamed by watching hundreds of TV's set to different channels and paying attention to any common themes that crop up.
What I have been trying to argue is that if you were to watch a hundred TV's gathering information from the meta-culture and compare this to a hundred TV's doing the same for the Christian sub-culture that you would find that we put a greater focus on community.
Maybe we're not better at it than every other sub-culture. I wouldn't know, I haven't experienced all of them. However, I have experience the meta-culture. I watch TV and movies, I listen to the radio, I am involved in my community. I have experienced more of a focus on community withing the Christian sub-culture than I have within the meta-culture.
Leif have examples of a community focus outside of the Christian sub-culture. Good, I haven't had those experiences. Because of that I am not fit to comment on the meta-culture, Joel? Then maybe you should stop making every negative comment you make about Christianity because you haven't experience the real and good Christianity that I have experienced. Or perhaps we all make judgments based on our experiences and we can only learn the whole picture by sharing our experiences and listening to those of others.
I wasn't out to compare Chrisitanity to every other sub-culture and say that we are better (although, that is apparently how I came across). I wanted to argue, as my main focus has been, that the Christian sub-culture does more harm than good to the rest of society. If we add an aspect of community that stands out in comparison to the meta-culture then perhaps we add something important and are thus valuable.
I'm not trying to ignore arguments. I guess I was just trying to refocus and find the words to express my point more clearly. Hopefully, I have done that now.
I don't mind the counter-arguments, but you guys seem a tad touchy.
Feel free not to hate me or assume that I am trying to bash everyone but Christianity.
"To discuss the validity of religion (and more specifically, Christianity) to the rest of society."
Thanks. That clarifies things.
I'm with Donkey in his observation that "you guys seem a tad touchy."
-------------------------------
Donkey,
you wrote, "I think atheists need to acknowledge that ...perhaps Christianity isn't all bad."
I think I can speak for all the non-Christians on the site on this one: We don't think Christianity is ALL BAD. We're all ex-Christians, so we know it's got some genuine selling points.
Can we move on now, or broaden the discussion?
I appreciate the clarifying points Gordon. I don't know why you, or matthew see me as being "touchy."
I just want to note that i completely disagree with what you are saying about sub and meta-culture.
For example, you wrote: "It is possible for the meta to have different ideals than the subs within it."
A meta-ideal would have to span across all of the sub-cultures, or rather, be acceptable to all of them in order for it to really even be called an ideal of the meta-culture. If it is not agreeable to all people in a meta-culture, then it is not a meta-ideal, rather only a sub-ideal pushed out to other sub-cultures by another (obviously more powerful) sub-culture. This may not matter to you, or be central to your argument. Nonetheless, it is interesting to me, and I wouldn't mind talking about this again soon.
I am with Matthew btw. I know there is good in Christianity. It isn't All Bad.
lablymbi
Gordon said:
“Yes, they all have congregational set-ups and a group consciousness, but neither of us is informed enough to say that they have a greater than 'normal' community focus because we haven't experienced them (I think).”
That totally undermines your entire article.
Gordon said:
“Maybe we're not better at it than every other sub-culture. I wouldn't know, I haven't experienced all of them. However, I have experience the meta-culture. I watch TV and movies, I listen to the radio, I am involved in my community. I have experienced more of a focus on community within the Christian sub-culture than I have within the meta-culture.”
Again, that undermines your desire to draw a comparison with your worldview to others.
Gordon said:
“Because of that I am not fit to comment on the meta-culture, Joel? Then maybe you should stop making every negative comment you make about Christianity because you haven't experience the real and good Christianity that I have experienced.”
I have experienced a really good Christian community; I have also experienced really good Hindu, Buddhist and secular (atheist) community. I have also studied other religions and I have read many of their Holy Books. To boot, I actually know many Hindu’s, Muslims, Christians and Homosexuals.
Also, I think we are mostly discussing ideas and philosophy here, so I would emphasize the intellectual exploration over the experiential component (though I have encountered many of both).
However, I do believe you, Gordon, are just as qualified to comment on meta-culture; but what do you have to say other than ‘our religion is the best and we do such-and-such better than the rest;’ which religion would actively NOT say such things? Non of them, they ALL profess such things.
I’m not trying to take away your desire to make comparisons, I am just trying to show you that your position’s strength is actually a weakness, if it is based more in what you do not know than it is based in what you DO know. I can accuse you on things till the cows come home, but at the end of the day you must look at yourself in the mirror and make your own decisions. I am just trying to push you around- to make you see it from my point of view, which I honestly believe you DO do and care about greatly.
Gordon said:
“I wanted to argue, as my main focus has been, that the Christian sub-culture does more [good] than [harm] to the rest of society.”
I see your position, but since we are mainly discussing religion vs. non-religion; and you compared your culture to ‘others’ the comparison is made.
Also my response to you is not entirely negative and deconstructive: I am not trying to defeat your argument by breaking it down, what I am arguing for is that your religion is more or less like every other religion, under the impression that they are very different than the rest and under the notion that they do things in the best way (whatever verbs you want to put in there).
I am fine with sub-groups thinking such things, but if they want to defend themselves on the larger context then they must become learned in that greater context but here is where religions plays a really sneaky trick: they (for the most part and for some religions) are not versed in anything but their own worldview, and what could make one’s own opinion seem the greatest when it is the only one being authentically considered?
But that is just a challenge, for you have to decide if it true or not, if you are guilty of it or not. That’s the power of a culture, it IS insulation if one wants it to be.
Gordon said:
“Feel free not to hate me or assume that I am trying to bash everyone but Christianity.”
I don’t think you are bashing everyone and I don’t hate you. I care about what you think, why else would I put so much time into responding to you every time?
Of course Christianity is not ALL BAD; no one thinks this. Religions are not all bad either- in fact if we take Jon on his point that atheism is just another religion, then we ARE doing religious comparison. From a phenomenological point of view everything is existentially qualified after we encounter it; and thus every belief is going to be just that: a belief.
So what are we really discussing here? Is it not the WAYS in which we respond to phenomena, the way we categorize and qualify statements of experience (faith) and what not? Gordon is coming at it from another way, he is starting in his own village and walking out, thinking and honestly feeling his people have it right, or at least have a lot (at the lest something) right.
His point of view is worth discussing, and please see my seriousness in my rigours counter response as proof of respect rather than insult.
Joel: You sound like me whenever I feel like Christianity is being caricatured! At those times I suppose I've said things similar to what you are saying here: "You aren't taking the best teaching into consideration," and so on.
But I'm honestly not trying to caricature other religions or atheism. I'm asking. And no, I don't think I'm completely ignorant of them or their various ethical systems. The point I'm making is that I have not heard of a worldview that gives as good of a foundation for deep and lasting community as does Christianity.
So, fine, call me ignorant, but I'm still asking the questions, and have not yet had any answers (from the atheist perspective):
1. If we engage in community for "health and complete human experience," are we doing so for ours or everyone elses? What happens when my experience is diminished or detracted from by others? Do I choose my own health and experience or theirs?
I suppose I'm asking you to walk the line between communist/socialist values and pluralist/individualist values. In neither extreme do I think you get real community. So how does the atheist negotiate this tension, and what principles or foundational tenets (I'm avoiding the word 'beliefs' for your sake) guide them?
2. I would be interested to know if a comparable "rallying cry" exists in atheism or other religions as exists in Christianity.
Okay, so, you say "Yes, of course there is one." But my question is, what is it? And how does it compare with the one that exists in Christianity? (Which I'll elaborate on if asked).
I do remember that back on the mythographer at some point the argument was made that humans have learned over time that it is better for us if we give of self for the sake of others (my paraphrase completely, so correct it if its wrong). I think this is very compelling. what mystifies me is what one does when self-giving COSTS someone. Why give for the other at great cost to self? Is the atheist's optimism for and belief in humanity THAT strong?
If so, fine, that's an answer. We could go from there and I'd question it. But I don't want to put words in your mouth.
3. Can real community really happen without a conviction in the equal value of each individual? Christianity has a belief in our creation in the image of God. I'd like to know what equal human rights are built on otherwise.
Maybe I look ignorant asking the questions, but seriously: In a system founded upon evolution and so on, where does this foundational belief in equality of all humans come from?
4. I'd say that real community needs people to be committed to give for the sake of the other, not out of compulsion, but of love. I know that in Christianity one finds this compulsion from a belief in the human story as part of a larger Christ-event. I'm not sure where the self-giving impetus would come from or be sustained otherwise.
Perhaps these questions get repetitive. If there is one answer that tackles them all, fine. I'm just thinking about this from a few angles where I feel pretty good about Christianity's approach but feel that other approaches are shaky. I'm happy to hear answers. I was really intrigued by where this went back on the mythographer site. I'm not trying to hijack this discussion. Surely Donkey's point has been made (even though the discussion of whether Christians are better than normal could probably go on forever). I just wish I could get a good answer to some of these questions. I'm really not convinced there is one.
It is easy to pick apart various Christian communities or to point to other examples of community in order to minimize Christianity, but when it comes to foundational ideals and hopes, I still think Christianity stands out.
Why dont we all just take a day and read the Humanist Manifesto....shall we?
Okay, I'll bite. But I am going to write a good response and you can tackle it however you wish. I will put it in my old site because it will be too long for these comment block.
Joel, your main point seems to be that since I am ignorant about most other religions (which I am for the most part but am researching, I had a wonderful conversation with a couple of Mormons last night) that I cannot argue what I am arguing.
I suppose where I am coming from is that I want to argue the validity of religion to society because many atheists see that there is none. Perhaps all of you already see that there is some value, but it stands to reason that some day I will chat with some who don't. This process is helpful for me to see what values I see in religion that an atheist can see value in as well.
However, as has been stated I don't know enough about other religions to convince you that Christianity is better than any other. The only reason I am focusing on it is because I know it best and am only in a position to speak authoritatively on it. So I am arguing why Christianity is valuable to the greater whole of society but that has been misinterpreted as me saying it is better than any other sub-culture or religion. I only want to compare it to the greater whole of western culture.
Ben said:
"A meta-ideal would have to span across all of the sub-cultures, or rather, be acceptable to all of them in order for it to really even be called an ideal of the meta-culture. If it is not agreeable to all people in a meta-culture, then it is not a meta-ideal, rather only a sub-ideal pushed out to other sub-cultures by another (obviously more powerful) sub-culture."
I agree. Community is a meta-culture ideal, obviously. I was just trying to put forth that the Christian sub-culture implements it better than the average portion of meta-culture does. (I keep accidentally typing meat-culture)
However, Matt has asked:
"Can we move on now, or broaden the discussion?"
Sorry, perhaps I have hijacked this conversation for my own ends: i.e. to develop my argument and thought processes.
I'll tel you what other points I was planning on hitting and then we can decide if we'd like to discuss any of those points or pick out some greater theme to discuss based on them or whether to switch directions entirely.
The remaining pros I had for Christianity:
-diminishing of self/selfishness
-value of forgiveness
-concept of remission of sins
-value and purpose of an individual's life
-religious experience
The remaining cons:
-bigotry (already covered that I think, thanks to Joel)
-value of ignorance of other views and beliefs
-Group think
-secluding selves from rest of society
-hypocracy
If you want to discuss any of these just say so but if we'd like to open it up we can do that too. I was just being methodical like this because we have a tendency to get off topic and I wanted to give each point ample consideration without getting lost on rabbit trails. Ahhh... I was so naive.
I am enjoying myself by the way. I just have issues with deriving my self-worth from the opinions of people I like so if I get defensive please forgive me. I do like being challenged in my views and being called on illogical arguments.
Yeah, keep it up.
good stuff man. sorry for the rabbit trails. i bite every time.
Are we waiting for anything?
...some are waiting for jesus to come back. I am waiting for the money to go to Lethbridge again.
Post a Comment