The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"

[trish]

Girard’s interpretation of the social function of Christianity is certainly a charitable one. Jesus’s sacrifice, in his view, breaks the violent sacrificial cycle that arises out of our mimetic desire to do what others do, have what others have, be treated as others are treated and apparently expel, kill or sacrifice those who, for one reason or another, do not properly express, as judged by the norms of their society, this allegedly universal human trait.

Unfortunately Christianity inherited the notion of sin, a concept foreign to most religions outside the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Guilt is one thing. Sin is another. Guilt is a psychological phenomenon. Sin is metaphysical. The Christian God, in the name of His Son, will forgive a repentant sinner; but He will wreak vengeance upon any family, village or town that harbors (even if unknowingly) an unrepentant sinner or worse, a pagan or a nonbeliever whose souls are black with Sin. So even if there were such a thing as a mimetic tendency toward sacrificial violence and even if belief in the sacrifice of Jesus acts to mitigate that tendency, the very reason Jesus had to sacrifice Himself, namely Sin, remains and acts to compound the urge to expel and harm those whose beliefs, lifestyles and appearances don’t fit with the Christian norm.

Nevertheless, it may be the case that the benefit to society of the proffered escape from the cycle of sacrificial violence had been a factor in the spread of Christianity over Europe. Still, I would think missionary zeal and the biblical command to be “fishermen of men” and to broadcast the “good news” played a larger role. Christianity’s combination of proselytization, and enforced monotheism drove more pagan beliefs and practices to extinction than any religion that came before it. Whatever happened to all the local religions and spiritual practices that existed in Europe before the invasion of Christianity?


Back to the issue of Starbuck’s choice of seasonal cups: we modern non-Christians are happy to let Christians take the Solstice out of Winter; but for them to pretend that there’s a liberal movement to take the Christ out of Christmas is just an absurd irony. Christian monotheism, almost by definition, has no tolerance for a diversity of gods, or a diversity of religious beliefs, spiritual beliefs or even non-belief.

[Stavros]

Unfortunately Christianity inherited the notion of sin, a concept foreign to most religions outside the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Guilt is one thing. Sin is another. Guilt is a psychological phenomenon. Sin is metaphysical. The Christian God, in the name of His Son, will forgive a repentant sinner; but He will wreak vengeance upon any family, village or town that harbors (even if unknowingly) an unrepentant sinner or worse, a pagan or a nonbeliever whose souls are black with Sin. So even if there were such a thing as a mimetic tendency toward sacrificial violence and even if belief in the sacrifice of Jesus acts to mitigate that tendency, the very reason Jesus had to sacrifice Himself, namely Sin, remains and acts to compound the urge to expel and harm those whose beliefs, lifestyles and appearances don’t fit with the Christian norm.

Nevertheless, it may be the case that the benefit to society of the proffered escape from the cycle of sacrificial violence had been a factor in the spread of Christianity over Europe. Still, I would think missionary zeal and the biblical command to be “fishermen of men” and to broadcast the “good news” played a larger role. Christianity’s combination of proselytization, and enforced monotheism drove more pagan beliefs and practices to extinction than any religion that came before it. Whatever happened to all the local religions and spiritual practices that existed in Europe before the invasion of Christianity?
.

I think you are confused by the concept of sin which in practice exists in most religions, either as an explicit denial of the commands of God which in practical terms means a violation of social norms or laws; or exists as part of the relationship of the person with life here or in another time, as with the concept of Karma in Hindu and Buddhist religions -Karma may have positive and negative consequences, but the point is that a person's actions have consequences, whether or not guilt is part of the emotional content of sin.

The more complex problem in Christianity lies more in the (political) development of Christianity as a system of belief and behaviour than in the gospels themselves. In some places pagan rituals were not crushed by Christianity but absorbed into the faith, such as the 'Christianizing' of the Solstice and harvest festivals. Islam incorporated pre-existing rituals into its faith -the Hajj and Ramadan being two, whereas after the Hijra to Medina Muslims who used to turn toward Jerusalem to pray turned instead to Mecca.

Even more problematic for the Roman Catholic church as it converted its Pauline doctrines into the exclusive rites and beliefs we now associate with the Catholic Church, is that it treated alternative Christian practice and belief as heresy, which in the case of the Cathar communities in what is now south and south-western France became a campaign of mass murder, just as in later centuries Catholics and Protestants murdered each other as heretics. Along with this Pauline conversion many rites and beliefs which presented women both as priests and as examples of what it meant to be a good Christian were erased as much as possible -books extolling women were excluded from the Bible, icons and other visual representations destroyed. It is for this reason that some people reject the Roman Catholic 'version' of Christianity with its hierarchy, its rota of sin, guilt and redemption for a more 'anarchist' view of what it was Jesus intended. Crucially, perhaps, the concept of the 'Just War' which enabled Christians to don armour and equip themselves with swords to kill to their hearts content, is seen by some as a complete contradiction of what Christianity means.

None of this means anything to those people who do not believe in the soul, or in what might be called the 'spiritual life', yet it remains the case that all human societies have developed concepts of right and wrong and good and bad behaviour, and to whatever extent have built rule based behaviour around such morals to better organise social groups.

The key point is that there are ways in which anger can be managed, without it leading to human sacrifice and that human societies have been able to live without war.

[trish]

I think you are confused by the concept of sin which in practice exists in most religions, either as an explicit denial of the commands of God which in practical terms means a violation of social norms or laws; or exists as part of the relationship of the person with life here or in another time, as with the concept of Karma in Hindu and Buddhist religions -Karma may have positive and negative consequences, but the point is that a person's actions have consequences, whether or not guilt is part of the emotional content of sin.

I agree with the point that a person’s actions have consequences. However, Christians tell us that even newborn babes harbor original sin and should they die without the proper blessings they would spend eternity in limbo, whatever that is. Christian Sin is some serious metaphysical shit. It’s not just a regretful action with undesirable consequences. God had to sacrifice His Son just to make it possible for humankind to redeem itself of the magically everlasting sin of Adam and Eve which somehow still spoils all of our souls, whatever they are. The story of the crucifixion is not about breaking the cycle of sacrificial pogroms; its about establishing the notion of metaphysical sin from which you can only be cleansed by disavowing all your previous beliefs, your previous spiritual and healing practices and converting to Christianity. That’s the meaning of the redemption story. It’s bait. It’s an early version of spam. It’s a mind virus.

In some places pagan rituals were not crushed by Christianity but absorbed into the faith, such as the 'Christianizing' of the Solstice and harvest festivals.

Of course Christianizing a people is done without recourse to threats of violence (eternal or otherwise), and no one was ever expelled, tortured, burned or otherwise harmed in the Christianization of the Winter Solstice, nor any traditional spiritual practices outlawed and punished.

None of this means anything to those people who do not believe in the soul, or in what might be called the 'spiritual life', yet it remains the case that all human societies have developed concepts of right and wrong and good and bad behaviour, and to whatever extent have built rule based behaviour around such morals to better organise social groups.

One doesn’t have to lead a spiritual life or believe in a soul to behave ethically and morally. Nor is spirituality a requirement for the development of a secular democracy or a rule-based system of law. It might be claimed that the souls, holy spirits, and sins that are of concern to Christians don’t mean anything to those who do not believe, unless: you’re a poor woman who was hoping to get a mammogram at your nearest planned parenthood clinic but can’t because Christians are shutting them down, or a doctor who works there because Christians are threatening your life and the lives of your family, or a gay boy who was hoping to join the boy scouts (oh this one just got fixed!), or an atheist who wants to run for governor, or an Iman who was hoping to build a Islamic community center with a Mosque within three city blocks of the 9/11 memorial, or a high school biology teacher who just wants to introduce children to the excitement of science, or you’re a CEO for Starbucks who is just trying to find an appropriately seasonal paper cup for your lattes, or you want the currency you use on a daily basis not to carry an advertisement for monotheism...etc.

The key point is that there are ways in which anger can be managed, without it leading to human sacrifice ...

About that we we were never in contention, only the means were in question: empathy, caring and reason or spirituality, sin and redemption.

[buttslinger]

One doesn’t have to lead a spiritual life or believe in a soul to behave ethically and morally.

Amen to that, schoolmarm.

[sukumvit boy]

Agreed buttslinger .

[sukumvit boy]

Amen to that, schoolmarm.

And the "Golden Rule" is pretty much all the 'commandments ' we need to know.

Shit if were as simple as all that than we wouldn't have diddly squat to argue about ...

[Stavros]

I agree with the point that a person’s actions have consequences. However, Christians tell us that even newborn babes harbor original sin and should they die without the proper blessings they would spend eternity in limbo, whatever that is. Christian Sin is some serious metaphysical shit. It’s not just a regretful action with undesirable consequences. God had to sacrifice His Son just to make it possible for humankind to redeem itself of the magically everlasting sin of Adam and Eve which somehow still spoils all of our souls, whatever they are. The story of the crucifixion is not about breaking the cycle of sacrificial pogroms; its about establishing the notion of metaphysical sin from which you can only be cleansed by disavowing all your previous beliefs, your previous spiritual and healing practices and converting to Christianity. That’s the meaning of the redemption story. It’s bait. It’s an early version of spam. It’s a mind virus.
Of course Christianizing a people is done without recourse to threats of violence (eternal or otherwise), and no one was ever expelled, tortured, burned or otherwise harmed in the Christianization of the Winter Solstice, nor any traditional spiritual practices outlawed and punished.
One doesn’t have to lead a spiritual life or believe in a soul to behave ethically and morally. Nor is spirituality a requirement for the development of a secular democracy or a rule-based system of law. It might be claimed that the souls, holy spirits, and sins that are of concern to Christians don’t mean anything to those who do not believe, unless: you’re a poor woman who was hoping to get a mammogram at your nearest planned parenthood clinic but can’t because Christians are shutting them down, or a doctor who works there because Christians are threatening your life and the lives of your family, or a gay boy who was hoping to join the boy scouts (oh this one just got fixed!), or an atheist who wants to run for governor, or an Iman who was hoping to build a Islamic community center with a Mosque within three city blocks of the 9/11 memorial, or a high school biology teacher who just wants to introduce children to the excitement of science, or you’re a CEO for Starbucks who is just trying to find an appropriately seasonal paper cup for your lattes, or you want the currency you use on a daily basis not to carry an advertisement for monotheism...etc.
About that we we were never in contention, only the means were in question: empathy, caring and reason or spirituality, sin and redemption.

I think you have allowed yourself to relate to an agenda set by some Christians who others would criticize for the zealous imposition of practice and belief when there are other ways of living a Christian life which do not involve coercion, or discrimination or picketing abortion clinics.
There is a similar problem with Islam where critics take the 'radicals' at their own word and thus assume their interpretation of Islam is the right one even if it is rejected by most Muslims and can be shown to be theologically incorrect on a wide range of claims. It is thus absurd to believe that Christians condemn a new born baby as a sinner, the practice of baptism is an induction, it has more to do with belonging to a community than it does with faith itself, indeed this is one of the central problems of Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic church in particular with its bizarre sets of rituals and even its own furniture -who ever heard of the Confession Box in Roman Palestine?

The criticism is of a separation of Christianity as a set of established rituals with a catechism which must be administered by priests, from a personal form of spiritual belief and practice that can be done daily without causing harm to others and has no need of priests at all. I suspect that this is one of the most potent dangers in all religions, because the institution can, indeed in many cases has become more powerful than the message it is supposed to express. The problem of orthopraxy emerges here to illustrate how a religious sect evolving from a small space into a world wide religion organised from a centre can take hold of communities where the community dynamic makes free expression difficult if not impossible -at a time when most people lived in small village communities not appearing in church on a Sunday was a big deal, the Scarlet Letter in this context offers an entertaining if grim account of how such communities behaved. I was once told by a Muslim from Libya how at a prayer room in a university a Saudi approached him and asked him 'why do you pray like that?' because many North Africans do not cross their arms in prayer even though they are Sunni -it was common among the Maliki in North Africa even though it has now become an assumption that only the Shi'a stand with their arms by their side. To complicate matters most Arabs who cross their right over their left hand do it above the navel whereas in the Indian sub-continent and parts of Asia they do it below the navel. 'Did I do something wrong?' was the reply and 'No' came back yet one man was in effect forcing the other to feel that he had not behaved properly in a mosque and that is another example of how religion in a community setting can modify or coerce behaviour.


And while you are free to interpret the Crucifixion as you wish, I do believe you are wrong about it. Perhaps the most telling aspect of Christianity is that the simple message of love that Jesus says humans should always express appears to be the hardest for them to do. George W Bush, on the day after 9/11 probably should have told Osama bin Laden that as a Christian he loved him and forgave him for what he had done, but he chickened out on that one, choosing hatred and violent death instead.

The problem you have is that even without a processional view of the history of ideas, religion does appear in many cases to have been the portal through which secular morals and laws have emerged. I don't see how you can disentagle the relationship between punishment and reward as expressed in the moral cosmology that emerged in the Neolithic and the latter judgement of what is the right and wrong way to behave in society, that these ideas were presented in the language of religion is just the way it is, and you are free to reject it. But you can sense how Hobbes wanted to separate politics from religion but was not comfortable with that, least of all with Cromwell peering over his shoulder, just as it has been said Hegel could not have admitted he was an atheist as he would have lost his job in Berlin. We are often told that our values are part of a Judeo-Christian heritage, with the Greeks and the Romans mixed in there somewhere, but I find it a vague heritage and often one that seems to have opposed the development of reason and science rather than facilitating it. At an early phase in the history of science Thomas Aquinas was tasked with the demolition of scientific thought and the Summa Theologica was the turgid and unconvincing result even though it remains in the curriculum today and not always as an oddity.

As we have become more secular, the religious foundations of law have receded as the source of law, and I think that is a good thing, because it does express the fact that many people no longer live or even believe in a religious life. But many do, which is why there is no real contradiction between the two unless there is a clash between aspects of secular and religious law, as appears to be the case with, for example, divorce among Observant Jews, and Muslims, even though there are ways round it as is also the case with religious objections to same-sex marriage.

Thus, to say that One doesn't have to lead a spiritual life or believe in a soul to behave ethically and morally is an empty slogan if you have not identified what the ethics are or where they come from, or why we even think ethically.

You may not approve of what many religious people do; they do not approve of much of what secular society does, and yet on a wide range of issues there is common ground. The saddest aspect of all this is found in the arid imprecations and ideological attachments that have become embedded in the discourses, sometimes the 'dialogue of the deaf' that attend the endless debate over religious belief and practice in the context of social breakdown and war. Perhaps it is not God who is to be feared, but other people

[martin48]

Indeed


L'enfer, c'est les autres

[buttslinger]

Until God registers on Hungangels.com and start posting, I'm afraid we're destined to hearsay. heresy? If God notifies us, it will be on a personal line, and fear that, yeah, because if he does, the fuckin party is over, no more carefree existence. Time to pay the Piper. If that scares you, run, do not walk to the nearest exit. Jesus was young once.
Do we talk about God as we would talk to a child?

[buttslinger]

Evil is not the opposite of Religion, Sex and money are the opposites of religion. I would say Hell is incorporated into religion, and that religion is actually pretty scary stuff. Niceness is the PG-rated Disney version of religion, and it keeps lots of people out of prison and happy. Jesus got crucified, man.

upload gambar