Azure on "Coming To Terms With Christianity"

[CognitiveDistoibance]

I made several points in this respect. First, history shows that in practice Christian ethics are dualistic. That much is established fact. I think it is worth mentioning , but there isn't much of a discussion to be had beyond that.

In practice, ostensible "Christian" ethics are dualistic. As a matter of practice, much of what is ostensibly "Christian," simply isn't. In any event, Christian Scripture does not support a dualistic system. In other words, whatever dual ethical practice was, it wasn't "Christian" per Christian Scripture. If some clowns want to call themselves Christian, then start jumping off tall buildings and splat themselves all over the pavement, it doesn't mean jumping off tall buildings is "Christian."

Second, I described the Biblical examples of dual ethics for Jews and non-Jews, which goes beyond mere historical incident because the Bible itself describes these events, along with the divine sanction for them. Unless a Christian is willing to repudiate the Old Testament, and few are, then there exists within Christian scripture a precedent for treating unbelievers with different ethics than believers. Israel was not only permitted but instructed to slay and enslave members of other tribes at various times. Christians are, through miraculous means, members of the people of Israel. So it is not such a leap to create Christian justifications for dual ethics.

I'm afraid that is a bit of a stretch. I don't have the example list in my head, but I cannot imagine any sane Christian would not be willing to figuratively take a big red magic marker and mark off said passages as being not applicable to Christians now, nor in the future. That is true on lots of levels, but especially the whole "members of Israel" thing. I can break that down into more detail if you want*, but it doesn't mean Christians are going to replicate the children of Israel entering the promised land.

So, having a history that shows dual ethics in practice,

I'd reject that...

and have a set of scriptures that provide at least precedents if not justifications for dual ethics, I think it can safely be said that Christianity has dual ethics, or at the very least the potential for dual ethics.

can't accept that either.

* The biggest element is that Israel had government/military/territory components that "spiritual Israel" will never have--Jesus eschewed such.

[Richard Greene]

Ibrahim,

It surely is the case that Judaism and Christianity are not "theologically compatible" -- God forbid we should worship anything in human form! But there nonetheless is a fundamental commonality of attitude between Jews and Christians, which can be summarized in Heschel's phrase, "divine humility." The Jewish God is a God of covenants: he descends from heaven to Mount Sinai and establishes a partnership with mankind (in which man is the junior partner, of course). God's self-limitation by covenant also is the fundamental concept of Christianity which believes that God's self-sacrifice on the cross extends the covenant to all who believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

You really should read Rabbi Soloveichik's article before throwing around theological vagaries. In form, Judaism more closely resembles Islam (strict monotheism, dietary laws, daily prayer) and there are many Jews who see a greater affinity with Islam. In content, Judaism is much closer to Christianity with whom, after all, we share sacred texts (although the way in which the two faith-communities read these texts are of course different).

Spengler,

What about the fact that only Islam, of all the world religions, explictly rejects the Judeo-Christian ethical code, which in turn is based on the Golden Rule, the sum and substance of Torah per Rabbi Hillel? Aren't Jewish ethics 95%+ the same as Christian ethics? Isn't this (Islam's rejection of the ethic of reciprocity) an all-important insight which, if correct, is easily understood by most every kafir on the planet?>

...in Islam there is no equivalent of the Golden Rule, as articulated by Jesus: “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12). The closest Islamic tradition comes to this is one hadith in which Muhammad says, “None of you will have faith till he likes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself.” The parenthetical “Muslim” in that sentence was added by the Saudi translator, and does not appear in the original Arabic; however, “brother” is generally not used in Islamic tradition to refer to anyone but fellow Muslims. Also mitigating against a universal interpretation of this maxim is the sharp distinction between believers and unbelievers that runs through all of Islam. The Qur’an says that the followers of Muhammad are “ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another” (48:29), and that the unbelievers are the “worst of created beings” (98:6). One may exercise the Golden Rule in relation to a fellow Muslim, but according to the worldview presented by such verses and others like them, the same courtesy is not properly to be extended to unbelievers.
—Robert Spencer, "Slavery, Christianity, and Islam", Feb 4, 2008, First Things

[G.B. Vico]

Sorry, you are wrong. Having a history that shows violence and sin is not a history that shows dualistic ethics in practice. Christian ethics is a set of teaching and values, and is what it is regardless of what percentage of people put it into practice. If tomorrow all Muslims in the world started drinkink whiskey with their breakfast, having alcool would still be against Islamic ethics.

But even on the historical record your are superficial and biased. Compare, say, the Spanish conquest of South America with the Moghul conquest of India. In both case you had war, enslavement and imperialism. In the first case you also had Bernardino de Minaya, Las Casas, Peter Clavier, the Reducciones in Paraguay and so on and so on. In other word, a massive backlash of ethical criticism which is why people like you can moralize about it today. In the case of the great islamic conquests, we had.... what? Where was the Ottoman Las Casas while the Turks devastated the Balkans?

[Pastaneta]

What about the fact that only Islam, of all the world religions, explictly rejects the Judeo-Christian ethical code, which in turn is based on the Golden Rule,

This is what I call the tribal aspect of Islam... Christianity and Judaism in their ethical part transcend the tribe, but Islam embodies the tribe, creating a super tribe...

[Pastaneta]

That is not apparent in either their historical conduct or in the Bible. Could you possibly base this statement on something?

Rabbi Hillel saying which was taken over by Jesus... Historical conduct has nothing to do with it...

[Ibrahim]

I made several points in this respect. First, history shows that in practice Christian ethics are dualistic. That much is established fact. I think it is worth mentioning , but there isn't much of a discussion to be had beyond that.

In practice, ostensible "Christian" ethics are dualistic. As a matter of practice, much of what is ostensibly "Christian," simply isn't. In any event, Christian Scripture does not support a dualistic system. In other words, whatever dual ethical practice was, it wasn't "Christian" per Christian Scripture. If some clowns want to call themselves Christian, then start jumping off tall buildings and splat themselves all over the pavement, it doesn't mean jumping off tall buildings is "Christian."

I am talking about a pattern of behavior that Western Europeans followed up until the 20th century, and I am often told that Western civilization is "based on Judeo-Christian values" and is in fact "a Judeo-Christian civilization."

If we say that Western civilization is Christian, but that all of it's actions throughout history are not Christian then we set up a convenient model whereby everything good about Western civ is automatically assigned to Christianity, and everything "bad" is just dismissed as not really Christian. It's nothing more than the "true Scotsman" fallacy.

If you understand and agree with that, forgive me--I do not mean for this to sound condescending at all, but I find that amazing. There are lots of ostensible "Christians" that don't get that one.

Perhaps it was the types of Christianity I was most familiar with growing up, but this has always been my conception of it. The difference between (some) Christians on one hand, and Muslims and Jews on the other, is whether or not this is a desirable system. But that's why we have all these different religions.

[Ibrahim]

Sorry, you are wrong. Having a history that shows violence and sin is not a history that shows dualistic ethics in practice. Christian ethics is a set of teaching and values, and is what it is regardless of what percentage of people put it into practice.

The problem for your argument is that at the time Christians and Christian clergy and leadership state that these actions against non-Christians were justified, Christian, and even acts that contributed to salvation.

But even on the historical record your are superficial and biased. Compare, say, the Spanish conquest of South America with the Moghul conquest of India.

I am not "superficial and biased" because we are not talking about the Mughals. I did not say that only Christians behaved in this way, or that they were worse than anybody else. By bringing up other civilizations that had dual ethics you are not showing that Christianity does not have dual ethics, you only pointing out that others did as well.

In other word, a massive backlash of ethical criticism which is why people like you can moralize about it today.

I'm not "moralizing." I'm simply stating historical fact.

[Ibrahim]

What about the fact that only Islam, of all the world religions, explictly rejects the Judeo-Christian ethical code, which in turn is based on the Golden Rule, the sum and substance of Torah per Rabbi Hillel? Aren't Jewish ethics 95%+ the same as Christian ethics? Isn't this (Islam's rejection of the ethic of reciprocity) an all-important insight which, if correct, is easily understood by most every kafir on the planet?>

...in Islam there is no equivalent of the Golden Rule, as articulated by Jesus: “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12). The closest Islamic tradition comes to this is one hadith in which Muhammad says, “None of you will have faith till he likes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself.” The parenthetical “Muslim” in that sentence was added by the Saudi translator, and does not appear in the original Arabic; however, “brother” is generally not used in Islamic tradition to refer to anyone but fellow Muslims. Also mitigating against a universal interpretation of this maxim is the sharp distinction between believers and unbelievers that runs through all of Islam. The Qur’an says that the followers of Muhammad are “ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another” (48:29), and that the unbelievers are the “worst of created beings” (98:6). One may exercise the Golden Rule in relation to a fellow Muslim, but according to the worldview presented by such verses and others like them, the same courtesy is not properly to be extended to unbelievers.
—Robert Spencer, "Slavery, Christianity, and Islam", Feb 4, 2008, First Things

This is not accurate. For example, in the Quran there is the statement that: "Woe betide the the unjust, who when others measure for them exact in full, but when they measure or weigh for others defraud them." (83:1) More on the theme of weights and measures, "[God] raised Heaven on high and set the balance of all things. Give just weight and full measure." (55:2).

Regarding Christians, after the rejection of the idea of God have a son in chapter 18, "Yet, if they deny this revelation, you may destroy yourself with grief, sorrowing over them." (18:6) Lamenting over religious differences, not violence against them.

[charleston]

one questionable statement among thousands

[Spengler]

Richard Greene,

The "golden rule" is found in one form or another in many cultures, as you may read in the Wikipedia entry on the term. It is not unique to Judaism and Christianity, nor is it quite absent from Islam. There are rabbinic sources (and some haredi authorities today) who insist that it applies only to Jews--although the Torah explicit forbids vexing the stranger, "for you were strangers in the Land of Egypt."

Lev 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

The application of the same law to the homeborn and the stranger is indeed unique to ancient Israel; Joseph Hertz makes this point in his Pentateuch commentary, and I never have seen it refuted. That universalist feature of Judaism is a far better hook on which to hang your hat (black fedora or round felt, as the case may be).

[Spengler]

Azeri,

You really should read a bit before writing a lot. Christianity is NOT Mithra, and is certainly not 100% spirituality. I suggest you start with Madison and Levenson, Resurrection, which I reviewed a couple of years ago. Or find online Ratzinger's first encylical "Deus Caritas Est." You really do not have the slightest clue about these issues.

[AzariLoveIran]

Richard Greene,

The "golden rule" is found in one form or another in many cultures, as you may read in the Wikipedia entry on the term. It is not unique to Judaism and Christianity, nor is it quite absent from Islam. There are rabbinic sources (and some haredi authorities today) who insist that it applies only to Jews--although the Torah explicit forbids vexing the stranger, "for you were strangers in the Land of Egypt."

Lev 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

The application of the same law to the homeborn and the stranger is indeed unique to ancient Israel; Joseph Hertz makes this point in his Pentateuch commentary, and I never have seen it refuted. That universalist feature of Judaism is a far better hook on which to hang your hat (black fedora or round felt, as the case may be).

Richard Greene,

Judeo-Christian ethical code ? ? Franz Rosenzweig would disagree . . he rather Judeo-Islam ethical code.

Golden Rule ? from India to Persia and later universal. No mathematic formula, just common sense for civilized people.

Let go this Jews & Judaism something special, let go. Acid test for being something special is "setting sample in history" so that OTHERS consider you as special. Now, after 2500 yrs, all world looks up to Cyrus, that means something special.

That is why, all Jews must be very careful what happens in Israeli saga right now, history will judge whether Jews special. We all wish a home for Jewish people and happiness in their home, but things must be JUST for all. If succeeded, than in 1000 yrs history will praise Jewish nation, otherwise there will be a curs.
.

[Ibrahim]

The application of the same law to the homeborn and the stranger is indeed unique to ancient Israel; Joseph Hertz makes this point in his Pentateuch commentary, and I never have seen it refuted. That universalist feature of Judaism is a far better hook on which to hang your hat (black fedora or round felt, as the case may be).

I wonder how much of this is truly religious and how much of it is traditional Middle Eastern hospitality that dates back to the beginning of recorded history. Tribes or ancient states may have killed each other all of the time, but in times of peace I can't imagine a traveler being denied hospitality from ancient Jews, Arabs, Egyptians or Babylonians.

[AzariLoveIran]

Azeri,

You really should read a bit before writing a lot. Christianity is NOT Mithra, and is certainly not 100% spirituality. I suggest you start with Madison and Levenson, Resurrection, which I reviewed a couple of years ago. Or find online Ratzinger's first encylical "Deus Caritas Est." You really do not have the slightest clue about these issues.

Spengler ,

You are right , I have read ZERO about this issues, about anything religion related . .

But . . do you think religion is for experts ? do you think one should read expert books and than make judgment about what to think of religion and what to follow ?

I think, contrary . .

Reading those experts, would distort commoners views . . and real experts (Mollana and ALL Persian Literates) turned their back to religion after getting expert in religion, all their writing attest this.

Religion is made for commoner and that is where the power of religion lies . .

Religion, 5% of it, is ritual etc, 95% is the civilization one lives in . . why can Christian civilization accept "gay marriage", but Judaism and Islam can not even imagine such a thing ? Reason is because Christianity in reality is Spirituality (in my definition) but Judaism and Islam lack of it. Spirituality is pragmatic, lack of it dogmatic.

Agree, Spengler, I should and will not comment on expert religious theories, neither my interest nor my knowledge, but my view should be appreciated how a religious commoner thinks about this things (that is what really counts in final analysis).

Christianity is NOT Mithra

Depends what you mean by "Christianity" & " IS "

But, that for another time .
.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

In practice, ostensible "Christian" ethics are dualistic. As a matter of practice, much of what is ostensibly "Christian," simply isn't. In any event, Christian Scripture does not support a dualistic system. In other words, whatever dual ethical practice was, it wasn't "Christian" per Christian Scripture. If some clowns want to call themselves Christian, then start jumping off tall buildings and splat themselves all over the pavement, it doesn't mean jumping off tall buildings is "Christian."

I am talking about a pattern of behavior that Western Europeans followed up until the 20th century, and I am often told that Western civilization is "based on Judeo-Christian values" and is in fact "a Judeo-Christian civilization."

If we say that Western civilization is Christian, but that all of it's actions throughout history are not Christian then we set up a convenient model whereby everything good about Western civ is automatically assigned to Christianity, and everything "bad" is just dismissed as not really Christian. It's nothing more than the "true Scotsman" fallacy.

Well, I'd say Western civilization is "Christian" in the "5 Minute University" sort of way. Sure, it got some impetus from Christian/Jewish thought, but all that has been conducted hardly qualifies as "Christian." In may respects, WesternCiv may nevertheless be superior civilization to anything prior, and part of that superiority may be derivative of Christianity, but it does not define Christianity. And I personally am disinterested in claiming "Christian" credit or blame for Western civilization by equating the two.

Ultimately, Christian is an adjectival form of Christ. A Christian is supposed to be "Christ-like." How much of that pattern of behavior can you or anyone envision Jesus conducting/condoning? If you can't, it isn't Christ-like, whatever else it might be, or whatever else it might want to label itself.

Your argument here is perilously close that which you abhor when Pasta uses it...

If you understand and agree with that, forgive me--I do not mean for this to sound condescending at all, but I find that amazing. There are lots of ostensible "Christians" that don't get that one.

Perhaps it was the types of Christianity I was most familiar with growing up, but this has always been my conception of it. The difference between (some) Christians on one hand, and Muslims and Jews on the other, is whether or not this is a desirable system. But that's why we have all these different religions.

For me, desirability has precious little to do with it. The concept has been developed in another thread, but I don't think I get to engineer my own religion, nor has God consulted me on Christianity, otherwise I would've made some suggestions. For example, there is nothing desireable at all to me that Jesus would've been brutally tortured and sacrificed in my stead. I'd much, much rather say, "Hold on, don't do that, let me earn my way instead." I believe the content despite the content, not because of it.