Christianity in a Nutshell

Anonymous Guest's picture
Submitted by Anonymous Guest on Wed, 2011-02-23 19:37

( categories: )

Ayn Rand on religion

Leonid's picture

Leonid

seddon's picture

"Christian will tell you that one can eat his Christ and keep him the same time."

To be precise you have to change "Christian" to "Roman Catholic." The Protestants believe that the Host is merely symbolic.

Fred

Leonid, you can't question the judgement...

Marcus's picture

...of the pope.

He's Christ's representative on earth.

He's down with God and knows his shit better than any other holy motherfucker on this planet.

You dig?

"And here is the Pope’s

Leonid's picture

"And here is the Pope’s explanation for the troubling passage in Matthew’s Gospel in which the Jews say: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

Another ample demonstration that religion is an interpretation of scriptures according to the political needs of the moment and the fact that any scriptures can support any claim whatsoever. BTW, Protestants and Orthodoxes disagree. With them it's OK to hate Jews. For the Catholics it's also difficult to kick out the 2000 years old habit, no matter what the Holy See postulates.

Seddon

Leonid's picture

"And even thought the Catholic believes that bread is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, Christ's body is never consumed even though he is eaten millions of times every week."

That what you, an infidel, say. Christian will tell you that one can eat his Christ and keep him the same time.

Apropos

Marcus's picture

Jews not to blame for death of Christ, says Pope

"Pope Benedict XVI has unambiguously stated that the Jewish people were not – and therefore are not – responsible for the death of Jesus. The relevant extract from his book Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week was released today...

And here is the Pope’s explanation for the troubling passage in Matthew’s Gospel in which the Jews say: “His blood be on us and on our children.” Benedict writes:

When in Matthew’s account the “whole people” say: “His blood be on us and on our children” (27:25), the Christian will remember that Jesus’ blood speaks a different language from the blood of Abel (Heb 12:24): it does not cry out for vengeance and punishment; it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone; it is poured out for many, for all. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . . God put [ Jesus] forward as an expiation by his blood” (Rom 3:23, 25). Just as Caiaphas’ words about the need for Jesus’ death have to be read in an entirely new light from the perspective of faith, the same applies to Matthew’s reference to blood: read in the light of faith, it means that we all stand in need of the purifying power of love which is his blood. These words are not a curse, but rather redemption, salvation. Only when understood in terms of the theology of the Last Supper and the Cross, drawn from the whole of the New Testament, does this verse from Matthew’s Gospel take on its correct meaning."

Therefore Jesus's blood is meant for cleaning?

Leonid and Kyrel

seddon's picture

I can't argue with your negative characterizations of Christianity--it has a lot of sins on its conscience. But I did find the source of my thought. It occurs in 100 VOICES on p. 572 and the speaker is Steven Jolivett and he got his Ph. D. in Amerian History. He said, in answer to the question "Was there any discussion of ancient history?, "She said, if I remember correctly, that the classical civilization did not have any real respect for the individual. It was Christianity that introduced the sanctity of the individual. And she used infanticide as an example of this disrespect in the ancient world."

And Leonid, eating a piece of bread is a bit different from "literal cannibalism." And even thought the Catholic believes that bread is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, Christ's body is never consumed even though he is eaten millions of times every week.

Fred

Seddon

Leonid's picture

I actually referred to your notion about cannibalism. It's just great to embrace Aristotle from Monday to Saturday and by Sunday to engage in the literal cannibalism.

Greeks vs. Christians

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Seddon notes:

"Rand credits Christianity (and not the Greeks) with its emphasis on the value of the individual in the eyes of God for what eventually became the concept of individual rights."

I think Rand was very mistaken here. I think her knowledge of, and respect for, the Greeks -- and history in general -- was somewhat low. The Christians believed in self-sacrifice to an unprecedented and essentially limitless extent. They said the Sacred Self was born with "original sin;" and that He was permanently "utterly depraved." Noble Prize winner and classical liberal genius Friedrich Hayek credits the Greeks with being highly and unprecedentedly individualistic in ethics and politics. So do I.

Leonid

seddon's picture

"These billion Christians are even worse."

I disagree. The Catholics have Aquinas and that buys them a lot of cred. And recall what the Protestants were protesting--the church was becoming lax and Rome looked to Luther to be more of a capitalist (he didn't have the word) city than the seat of Christianlity. He hated Aquinas and Aristotle. But your foucs may be on other things.

Fred

"You mean you take it on your

Leonid's picture

"You mean you take it on your definition and meaning of freedom, as you always do. You are in for a shock when you find out that what they mean by freedom and what you mean are two entirely different things."

Could well be. If we want to prevent it maybe we should teach them what "freedom" means. The problem is that we also forgot and forfeited it . We discard in in the sight of the slightest provocation.

Islamic culture of that time

Richard Wiig's picture

Islamic culture of that time was a culture of science, philosophy, architecture, art.

All those things were the remnants of the civilisation that Islam was destroying.

but I hear people are shouting " We want freedom" and I take it as face value.

You mean you take it on your definition and meaning of freedom, as you always do. You are in for a shock when you find out that what they mean by freedom and what you mean are two entirely different things.

Doug

Leonid's picture

"It is by no means certain that the rioting throughout the Muslim world is due to pro-liberty sentiments...This has set off discontent in the Islamic world. What the Muslims are likely to get is a series of Sharia states; ie Islamic theocracies. ."

That we simply don't know. Obviously economic factors play role, but I hear people are shouting " We want freedom" and I take it as face value. I also don't think that over thousand Libyans got killed simply over food prices. Whether or not the revolution will end up in Sharia states is difficult to say at present moment, but it's obviously not the intention of the rioters. Nowhere they presented claims to establish Sharia states. Moreover, riots included well established Sharia states like Bahrain and Yemen. I only can hope that these people, who demand freedom now will not allow to change one dictatorship to another in the future. Maybe the West also can contribute something in order to prevent such an eventuality. Although abandon of Islam is wishful thinking, its moderation could definitely be an option in the new political dispensation.

Leonid

Doug Bandler's picture

Islam in 12th century, before it had been defeated by barbaric fundamentalists, was better than Christianity.

I tend to agree in that pure Islam, as violent as it was, was less philosophically corrosive than Augustinian Christianity which was a wholesale rejection of this world.

I mean the rise of the Christian fundamentalism and collectivism in the West

I think that the greater danger is from the rise of the post-modern Left. They are a greater danger than Christian fundamentalists (many of which tend to be economic Leftists anyway).

and the wakening of the Muslim world, who is rioting in order to achieve such a recognition.

Here is where we part company. It is by no means certain that the rioting throughout the Muslim world is due to pro-liberty sentiments. The chief reason for the riots is because America and other Western governments have exported their inflation to the entire world. Food prices (and commodities in general) have sky rocketed. This has set off discontent in the Islamic world. What the Muslims are likely to get is a series of Sharia states; ie Islamic theocracies. Egypt is one step away from being run by the Muslim Brotherhood; Syaid Qutub's brainchild. We are looking at the rise of a Pan-Islamic movement; a potential de facto Caliphate.

The problem with the Middle & Near East is and always will be Islam. I can't see any genuine pro-liberty movement taking root there until Islam is either abandoned or moderated. That won't happen with the West in the state its in.

Doug

Leonid's picture

" But I wonder about something. Is it the right approach to argue that Christianity is totally evil? Does Christianity have no redeeming attributes? I really don't know. Europe did rise under Christianity. Compare that to the Islamic world that declined after the 11th century when literalist Islam took control... can imagine a worse religion than Christianity; ie Islam."

You are right. Religion is primary a cultural, social and political phenomenon, its dogmas notwithstanding. Islam in 12th century, before it had been defeated by barbaric fundamentalists, was better than Christianity. Islamic culture of that time was a culture of science, philosophy, architecture, art. Europe started to rise when Christianity became less fundamentalist and Christian dogmas had been interpreted in such a way that they could accommodate a man as a rational being-mainly due to efforts of Thomas Aquinas who introduced into Christianity elements of Aristotelian philosophy which had been preserved and developed by Muslims.
It is sadly to observe how the things are changing again in our times. I mean the rise of the Christian fundamentalism and collectivism in the West, which willingly forfeits the 300 years old tradition of recognition of man as an individual by his own right-from one hand, and the wakening of the Muslim world, who is rioting in order to achieve such a recognition. Are we heading back to the 12th century?

Seddon

Leonid's picture

"How can this be a definition of Christianity if it excludes over 1,000,000,000 Christians?"

You are right. This fact has been pointed out on the original site. These billion Christians are even worse.

Ding an Sich

seddon's picture

"But that just might be me."

Actually you in excellent company, and I mean on the Christian side. Consider Aquinas, who with Aristotle at his side could go far with reason alone, (he thought faith was a MERE supplement to reason) had to admit that the Trinity can only be got by faith. See ST, II, II Q. 1, A 5.

Fred

Even though...

ding_an_sich's picture

it is implicitly stated, I think the concept of the Trinity should be explicated; I find it to be the most absurd of all the ideas Christianity has to offer. But that just might be me. Talk about a flawed epistemology. :-/

Doug

seddon's picture

“Interesting subject, no?”

You are right -- it is an interesting subject. If you are interested you might check Charles Murray on this very topic. See pp. 402-05 of his HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT. Also Rand credits Christianity (and not the Greeks) with its emphasis on the value of the individual in the eyes of God for what eventually became the concept of individual rights. And Aquinas was her second favorite philosopher and word around the campfire has it that he was a Christian.

Fred

Leonid

seddon's picture

How can this be a definition of Christianity if it excludes over 1,000,000,000 Christians? I am of course referring to Roman Catholics who do not believe that they “symbolically eat his [Christ’s] flesh,” but "actually" eat his flesh. The definition is really about Protestants.

Fred

Question regarding Goblianity

Doug Bandler's picture

Yes, this picture captures Christian mythology. But I wonder about something. Is it the right approach to argue that Christianity is totally evil? Does Christianity have no redeeming attributes? I really don't know. Europe did rise under Christianity. Compare that to the Islamic world that declined after the 11th century when literalist Islam took control. And think of the great music and art that Christianity inspired. Lindsay himself has taken note of this (see the "Why Christianity is Kicking Objectivism's Ass thread). The answer that Objectivists give is that the rise of the West was because of the reintroduction of Greek thought. Ok. But did Christianity contribute nothing? The reason I ask is that no matter how anti-religious I am, I want to be fair.

My not-so-thought-out view is that it was inevitable that civilization was going to advance under the influence of some religious worldview. It was unavoidable that philosophy was going to go through a religious phase. That is what Christian theology represents. If we judge Christianity, should we keep that in mind? I can imagine a worse religion than Christianity; ie Islam. But I can also imagine a better religion that could have captured the soul of Europe; say some ancient cult that didn't stress altruism and suffering so god-damn much. Imagine if a cult of Zeus worship had been the dominant religion for a thousand years leading up to the Enlightenment. How much better would we all be right now?

Interesting subject, no?

Very good Leonid

gregster's picture

I cannot refute any of those statements of fact. Perhaps the newbie know-it-all Dazzler could though. Very accurate.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.