When I read this tale of woe, I have to admit I had a hard time feeling much sympathy for the victim.
The message flickered into Cindy Fleenor’s living room each night: Be faithful in how you live and how you give, the television preachers said, and God will shower you with material riches.
And so the 53-year-old accountant from the Tampa, Florida, area pledged $500 a year to Joyce Meyer, the evangelist whose frank talk about recovering from childhood sexual abuse was so inspirational. She wrote checks to flamboyant faith healer Benny Hinn and a local preacher-made-good, Paula White.
Only the blessings didn’t come. Fleenor ended up borrowing money from friends and payday loan companies just to buy groceries. At first she believed the explanation given on television: Her faith wasn’t strong enough.
But then again, she was probably brought up to trust her preacher, and she was promised all sorts of amazing things like immortality and paradise, and no one ever raised a question about those promises — and she was probably also told that to doubt was a sin. Who do you blame for deeply inculcated gullibility?
The story does go on to say that Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa (and a Republican! Hallelujah, it’s a miracle!) is investigating a half dozen of these holy parasites, including the odious Benny Hinn, and there is the threat of removing their tax exempt status. There is also the usual collection of theologians making excuses, claiming that this is not True™ Christianity.
Bunk. This is the heart of all religions: make the priesthood fat and happy by extorting money from the sheep with threats of hellfire and promises of paradise, promises that they never have to fulfill. If you’re going to go after Hinn and Copeland and Roberts, you have to go after every little preacher who passes the collection plate on Sunday — they’re all in the same game. The only difference is that the promoters of the prosperity gospel make promises that can be assessed. They broke the rule that the good stuff always has to be nebulous and untestable.
Well, to be fair, the religions have until recently been the havens of learning and scholarship; it was Irish monks who kept the British Isles from utterly sinking into total knuckledraggery after the Romans left. (Then again, it was the Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril (now St. Cyril) who had the great female scholar Hypatia murdered for being too uppity. So love of scholarship had its limits.) And the first schools, hospitals and poorhouses were set up by religious enterprises; they didn’t even start to become secular enterprises until the Renaissance, at least not in Europe anyway.
I was listening to NPR a couple weeks ago and they were talking about the rise of the priesthood (excuse me, “mullahood”) in Iran. The guy who was talking said that there are something like 1 mullah for every 75 people. Can that be true??? At a certain point doesn’t the number of parasites overcome the host’s ability to support them all???
And then I was talking with a buddy the other night about the rise of the lamaseries in Tibet. Most people think the Dala Lama is “cute” but doesn’t realize that he’s just A Pope like the other popes: the head of a massive and wealthy organization of parasites. Apparently at its peak some of the lamaseries would have 10,000+ of these parasites basically being fed by the remaining people who do all the actual work(tm) while the lamas polish their holiness. No wonder he’s pissed at the Chinese – they’re trying to wreck his racket and now he’s had to get an honest job (namely: going around saying platitudes and making idiots like Steve Seagal into saints)
Anyhow – the point of this digression – do any biological models of parasitism apply here? At what point does a host become so encrusted with parasites that it develops new ways of getting rid of them?
It is even worse. The Mullahs are a married preisthood. This means they can and do found clans and dynasties just like the mafia.
I’ve read that 50% of Iran’s oil revenues are siphoned off by the Mullahs. They are corrupt and not well liked within a lot of Iran.
Of course hes a Republican: This is an “Only Nixon could go to China” sort of thing. Any Democrat who tried to look into this sort of thing would be branded as Anti-Religious.
Here we go again. I know it’s tasty fodder for the masses to cavalierly dismiss Christian criticisms of charlatans co-opting Christianity for their own material benefit as a True-Scotsman fallacy, replete with the cutesy True™. It is itself, however, a fallacious argument. It is so obvious that at fraud like Benny Hinn can use the trappings of Christianity for illicit purposes and rightfully be labeled as not a true Christian by the bulk of Christendom that it shouldn’t require discussion. Nor, should anyone have to be reminded, that Christianity is not alone in having its mantle usurped in an abominable manner for some jackass’s gain. Evolution is another common victim in the tactic of misrepresentation for rationalization of atrocious acts or beliefs. But it is convenient to argue that Christians are peculiar in their preclusion from the right to assess who is an accurate representative of their beliefs.
Since {Benny Hinn, Fred Phelps, …} claim to be Christians, then they are “just as much” Christian as anyone else making the claim. We’ll ignore the fact that one’s Christianity is not to be judged on the basis of the claim, or even on the sincerity of the claim. Forget that there is only one way that scripture says to judge the credibility of someone claiming to be a Christian–by their works.
Arguing that other Christians cannot legitimately point out that Benny Hinn displays no evidence of being a True™ Christians is a cheap little ploy. It’s an easy argument to make, the unthinking choir accepts it uncritically, and it requires no intellectual effort.
Unless my understanding of the nature of the job is grossly misinformed, you need to have at least a few brain cells kicking around to be an accountant. This woman is either deeply distraut, ill, or traumatized that she could be so guliible. In that case I feel bad for her. In the case that shee is just utterly irrational, I don’t.
8=====D~~~~
This is precisely why Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons technology is little or nothing to do with any apocalyptic vision of Muslim Armageddon. The fat cat Mullahs in charge of Iran know when they’re on to a good thing and they’re hardly going to throw it all away for some vague vision of paradise many of them probably don’t fully believe in anyway.
heddle (#5): your argument makes sense at fist read, but ignores the complicity of “true” christians. Since precious few christians are denouncing these scumbags, who are clearly bearing false witness and committing numerous other sins against your prophet, the conclusion from your definition of “true” christian is that there are very few of these. Which, to me at least, sounds an awful lot like a very refined, exclusive True Scotsman’s club.
Ha! Benny Hinn. The used car salesman of faith healing.
Phoenix Woman writes:
Perhaps, but over time, humanity has extracted the useful metal of “learning and scholarship” from the burdensome aggregate of religion. We can now dispose of the impurities. These days, religion aims more at impairing learning, as with creationism, abstinence-only contraception and unquestioning faith, than promoting it.
Forget that there is only one way that scripture says to judge the credibility of someone claiming to be a Christian–by their works.
By that standard, the closest thing to a true Christian I know of is Fred Phelps, and even he’s not really there, since he doesn’t stone his children when they’re disobedient, and one can speculate that he’s probably worn garments of mixed fabrics.
I have a mixed reaction to people who act like this, having seen them act like this in my home town. I was estranged from this mentality, always questioning rather than accepting the authority of those who preached in churches, so I cannot identify with this woman, but I also feel that I really could have ended up like her, had I been more obedient. People who are obedient don’t know that they are followers – they think they are individuals, critical thinkers – and people who are genuinely critical thinkers don’t know exactly how they became that way, so I sympathize, but not exactly empathize, with this woman. I have gotten myself into stupid situations, too, by trusting people that I should not have – but I got out and learned from my mistakes. I think everyone can learn independence, but I don’t expect that everyone will.
Being an atheist so young and so alone, I learned to look at people from the point of view of the anthropologist, which causes a tension within me. I want people to act more rationally, to think, to reflect, and to change their behavior so that they are not their own worst enemies, and yet I know that most people are going to act according to predictable human patterns as they have for millennia, to have certain coping mechanisms, and to do stupid things. There is a point where my atheism, being an advocacy position, is in conflict with the (hopefully) dispassionate observer in me.
Americans personalize everything. People think in terms of personalities rather than systems. This woman is doing it – “That preacher took my money. He’s the bad guy.” Of course she won’t accept responsibility (response ability), because she can’t separate that from blame. Just because someone committed a wrong against you does not make you right. That’s a counter-intuitive reality.
Cbutterb,
OMG you are so right! The works of Phelps so resemble the behavior of Jesus he is a veritable WWJD poster child! And now that you mentioned it, I see that his deeds and ministry are also perfectly aligned with the kinds of works that, for example, James describes in his epistle! Come to think of it, who does Benny Hinn resemble if not the widow and her mite? Gadzooks, I simply do not see how I failed to notice the similarities. My bad.
To Marcus Ranum: William McNeill had an extended discussion of human social organizations as a form of parasitism in his book Plagues and Peoples. It is a bit dated (1976), and like much of his work it tends toward bold big pictures that don’t stand up well to detailed study, but you would find it an interesting read for a long winter’s night.
Gotta run to the vet with a cat, but I wanted to alert you that preachers ain’t the only ones.
Back when I drew the pay check from the dark side, I used to get the odd letters from Orrin Hatch’s office, the ones no one else knew anything about or where to start. I had a collection of the letters from children who had discovered that their aging parent had written a $10 check to a Richard Viguerie-backed politician, on a carefully-crafted fund-raising letter (“you’re contribution of $100 is necessary to save Social Security today! Of course, anything you contribute will slow the destruction of the system”). Tens of thousands of dollars, pension funds, Social Security checks, grandchildren’s college funds, money that should have gone to electricity, pharmaceuticals, mortgage . . .
There are connections there, but I’ll let you make them.
Fund raising, the boiler-room tactics, is to blame. Christians should recognize the problem and stop using the tactics as a function of their following the laws about widows, orphans, and parents. But so should everybody recognize the tactics, and not use them, and not feed them.
Some Hollywood people are smitten with the Kabbalah. This contemporary Kabbalah was started by a former insurance salesman Feival Gruberger, aka Philip Berg.
At least he is clever enough to go where the real money is.
I like the biblical way of telling a true believer:
Mark 16, Verse No.17 and 18.
Tell them to drink a bottle of cyanide after playing with a mamba, just like it says in their book.
Bill C. @ #7:
I disagree. I see this more as a classic con, where someone who is otherwise intelligent and rational is suckered by someone who knows how to push their buttons. That is, more a human failing than a symptom of major problems.
Eljay,
Gosh, you people are like comedians with no new material. I’ll point out that it is almost certain that Mark intended the text in what became designated as chapter 16 to stop at verse 8. Now allow me to paraphrase a rejoinder:
No, it is simply to inconvenient for us that Mark 16:9-20 is a redaction, because we so like challenging believers to drink poison. Therefore, in spite of considerable supporting scholarship, and notwithstanding the fact that the earliest manuscripts do in fact end at Mark 16:8, you may not claim even the possibility that it doesn’t belong in the canon, or we’ll argue this way: “see, you bumpkins, most of you with three rows of buck teeth, simply pick and choose what is in scripture as it suits you.” It doesn’t matter that this is only one of a handful of passages for which there is good evidence of a redaction, because this is one we like to quote, so we’ll argue in gross generalities and wild extrapolations. To reiterate: I don’t want to hear about scholarship pointing to a likely redaction. If you dare question the authenticity of this passage I’ll claim you willy-nilly come to your own holy book as if it were to be taken a la carte.
No, the only real way to judge the credibility of someone claiming to be a Christian is if God judges that they are a Christian. He’s the standard which eliminates the need to “interpret.” One would not argue exegesis with God. So let’s wait and see what He says directly — when He’s not simply acting through human spokespeople and media.
That said, I’ll agree with heddle that there are obviously con artists who cynically use and manipulate people who have been taught that faith in the unbelievable is a virtue, and they are not Christians, true or otherwise.
Heddle (#5) spake thusly: We’ll ignore the fact that one’s Christianity is not to be judged on the basis of the claim, or even on the sincerity of the claim.
Er, no. As non-Christians the only determination we can make about a person’s belief system is that person’s claims. If they say they are Christians, I take them at their word. The only exception is religious organizations with formal membership rules, ie Catholics. If a person claiming to be Catholic has been formerly excommunicated then the ruling of the organization is taken to be binding.
Sastra, OM,
You make a fair point. And no Christian would disagree that it is God who is the final and only binding judge. However, scripture definitely teaches that Christians should judge others who claim to be Christians. Your point may be taken this way: this human judgment is fallible. No doubt it is, but nevertheless we are instructed to do so (see Matt. 7 and Matt 18.) You are aware, I suspect, that the NT clearly condones the practice of excommunication–which presupposes some sort of judgment, subject to error–by humans.
Eh, we all engage in this sort of thing to one extent or another. If someone tries to connect Mao or Stalin or even Ayn Rand to one’s own brand of atheism, some version of the “True Scottsman” fallacy is often trotted out in reply. Arseholes is arseholes, and while I believe that all Christians, all religionists, are equally mistaken, they are not all equally WRONG. The shit these Chaucerian bloodsuckers pull goes way beyond ordinary delusional wish-fulfillment into truly rapacious swindle. I realize that I’m opening myself up to inhuman rippage by saying this, but when I was studying to be a pastor, most of classmates were really good people, humble, not greedy. Now, if you trace back the origins of religion far enough, no doubt you do find a priestly class getting fat off the fear and ignorance of worshippers. I’m far from defending priestcraft. But the fact remains, many clerics are merely mistaken in the same way as their followers. They can be accused of ignorance, of course, but only by the grossest stretch of greed.
@21, ahh your ‘true original’ bible crap again.
Heddle, re-read what I said again, I never said its TRUE, I said I LIKED it.
The whole book is a pile of made up superstitious nonsense, one version is as bad as another.
While it is in the current bible get used to seeing it quoted.
Oops, I meant “formally” in #22, above.
I am all for checks and balances in any ministry or charitable organization. I think Senator Grassley is right to investigate. I also think the woman in the article should be responsible for her own actions after all she is an accountant! Maybe something positive will come from the investigation. From the article:
“The checks and balances central to Christian denominations are largely lacking in prosperity churches.”
“Meyer, who has promised to cooperate fully with Grassley, issued a statement emphasizing that a prosperity gospel “that solely equates blessing with financial gain is out of balance and could damage a person’s walk with God.””
Bureaucratus Minimis
Are you that generous in accepting all claims? I’m not. I’m a non-Buddhist, but if tomorrow Benny Hinn or Fred Phelps claimed he was no longer a Christian but a Buddhist, and his behavior remained the same, I’d no more believe he was a True™ Buddhist than a True™ Christian.
And you say “we” but some others here certainly disagree with you. Eljay (#18) is arguing just the opposite. He is not claiming that as a non-Christian he is obligated to take Phelps at his word, but claims that Phelps is actually acting in a manner consistent with Christianity.
Correction,
the reference above should be to chutterb in #12, not Eljay in #18.
How does one explain to an Ol’ lady that see is a twit without making her feel she is a twit? The reason I ask is, I had this girlfriend that had a kindly Grandmother. She told us how proud she was, as she sent money to this preacher on TV, and he sent back a personal letter and a picture of his family, that was supposedly hand-written, to thank her. It was filled with all his hardships and explanations on how her donation was going to help his family preach the word of God, and how he does not normally write but her letter he received with the donation had moved him into writing to her personally.
The confusing part for her was, even though this was supposed to be a unique letter written especially to her as the letter had said, her friend, who had also donated money got the same exact letter telling her how her letter was unique and inspired him to write yadda yadda yadda. She was actually puzzled by this and was looking for me to explain.
I am not sure how to say, “You’re a twit” without offending her…
I’ll never understand why these so-called “true” Christians are so wretchedly apathetic when it comes to these so-called “frauds” who bastardize and embarrass their religion.
I suppose, regardless of right or wrong, they would rather defend any form of Christianity than speak out or take action against those who pervert it.
To them, it’s a show of faith. To most rational folks, it’s called “aiding and abetting.”
Heddle argues (#5) we must judge who’s Christian based on their works. Other Christians, of course, point to Ephesians 2:8-10 in disparaging works. (Or is that one of those passages that True Scholars would omit from the Bible, heddle?)
Dennett points out in Breaking the Spell:
Dennett points out that the vigor of a religion (including Christianity) doesn’t depend on everyone believing the same thing, or even believing anything at all, but merely on their saying they believe.
In contrast, evolution’s robustness rests entirely on the evidence. When an evolution supporter is wrong, it doesn’t raise an endless argument that no one definitively wins, it’s settled by the evidence.
By the way, PZ, why are my comments chucked in the moderation queue while things such as the above are obviously, umm, not?
Don’t worry. I know it’s probably all automated and whatnots, and you probably have little to no control over such matters. It’s just kind of bothersome, and I have had comments of mine just flat out disappear and never get posted.
Sadly, it’s not just this blog either, but it seems to be all science blogs, and it’s puzzling as to why. I can’t imagine any rules which I may have fractured anywhere along the lines.
No, they are not all in the same game. At the Mennonite church where I am a member of, I know exactly how much our pastor gets paid (which is not that much, he has to have a second job as a marriage & family counsellor to make ends meet), I know where every cent collected in the offering plate goes to (be it building maintenance, Sunday School supplies, charity work at home and abroad) because all congregation members have open access to the financial books. While only members may vote on the yearly budgets, those meetings are open to anybody who wishes to attend. We have a number of non-members who attend regularly and add to the collection plate and their inputs during the business meetings as to the church’s financial direction are valued, even though they don’t vote. All finances at my church are completely transparent.
From personal experience, I know that many other Mennonite churches run their finances with this openness and transparency as well as such regional conferences as Mennonite Church Canada, Mennonite Church USA, and Mennonite Church of Eastern Canada and organizations like Ten Thousand Villages, Mennonite Central Committee, Mennonite Coalition for Refugee Support, and many others.
Neither my church nor any of the other churches whose workings I know nor any of the organizations I mentioned extort money from their congregations or supporters in order to keep the priesthood fat and happy.
Of course, for militant atheists religion is all bad, in spite of example organizations like Habitat for Humanity, Christian Peacemaker Teams and Ten Thousand Villages.
In many ways, I find that militant atheists act just like creationists when it comes to slamming their favorite bugbear.
Wicked Lad,
No, Eph 28:10 points out that nobody is saved by works but by faith, a favorite passage for Christians everywhere. What I have been discussing is that the evidence that a Christian has actually been saved is by his deeds. Works are an effect, not a cause. The difference is night and day, and there is no inconsistency.
Heddle,
Try to understand the non-believer’s viewpoint: There is a substantial controversy between recognized Christian denominations whether faith alone is sufficient to be a Christian or if works are necessary. As a non-believer, I have no dog in that hunt, so I accept both schools of thought as Christians. There are dozens of apparent contradictions in the bible. And while I have no doubt that they may be resolved through appropriate exegesis, I do note that differing denominations resolve those contradictions differently. And for the most part, those differing denominations do not deny the mantle of Christianity to each other over this (although they do claim the others are theologically in error.) So as one who doesnt consider the bible a particularly privileged text, and sees “Christianity” as a cultural tradition rather than a path of the Truth, I accept the big-tent approach that I see most Christians use most of the time, which appears to be accepting one as Christian so long as they claim to be and make some semblance of worshiping JC as deity/son of deity. After all, who am I, one who doesnt believe, to determine who is right and who is wrong? From my perspective, most of the time, Christians’ themselves use this big-tent approach. It is only when presented with an embarrassment, such as this case, that they pull in the ropes and claim that that individual wasnt really a Christian.
@heddle (#5):
I’ll grant you, for the sake of argument, the distinction between “frauds” and “true Christians”. Even so, the frauds can only go about their business because “true Christians” have been taught by other “true Christians” to accept make-believe from authority figures uncritically and without evidence.
Heddle, then how does that preclude Phelps from being a True Christian, since he very well may be the most faithful man alive (and how would anybody else know?) As Cory Albrecht notes above, his church (and the other examples he points out) are arguably doing good works, yet no one else can assess their level of faith. Mother Theresa’s personal journal indicates that she’d lost hers, yet she continued her good works. Which of all of these can be said to be True Christians?
There’s the inconsistency.
It seems to me that the category of True Christian is an elastic and fuzzy one, and most of us here (Christian and non-Christian alike) could probably identify individuals who are more or less like the prototypical True Christian based on their works or attitudes, but as you point out, faith (which cannot be assessed by anyone else) is the real kicker.
It’s not as clear cut as you (or I did, when I still considered myself a Catholic and a Christian) make it out to be.
Poor heddle, “However, scripture definitely teaches that Christians should judge others who claim to be Christians.”
Scripture teaches exactly NOTHING. They are just the writings of anonymous fools who knew nothing.
Am I the only one really bothered by this investegastion? A US Senator is going to investigate and possibly act against a ministry because he doesn’t like their religious opinions for Christ’s sake! I think Benny Hinn and his ilk are awful and Chuck Grassley is perfectly free to say so as a private individual, but Senator Grassley no farging right to make legal calls on which religious ministries are good or bad.
PZ’s last paragraph applies here, but I disagree the prosperity claims can be assessed. For all you or I or Grassley know the prosperity claims are generally correct and God just has a plan that requires her specifically to be poor, or He just hasn’t gotten around to making her rich yet, or she has no faith at all and just hatched a plan to get a senator help her get a settlement out of Benny Hinn. Grassley can’t possibly disprove the prosperity claims so he has no more power to take away their tax exempt status than he can take it away from another ministry because it denies the divinity of Christ.
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” — Matthew 7:15. The words of Jesus himself. Something to point out if you know someone in the grip of one of these hucksters.
Lago, the way to explain to someone that they have beena twit is to point out the fallacy in reasoning without resorting to name-calling. Name-calling is unclassy and accomplishes exactly nothing.
Any decent church (yes, Virginia, there really are decent churches) will have a budget with the same transparency as the Mennonite poster was just describing. This is one instance where differences between religious sects becomes important. Some sects do teach blind obedience to the folks in charge, but other sects teach participation, and part of that participation involves asking questions when something seems fishy. After all, a church that is keeping its priests fat and happy is probably not doing much in the way of helping the poor, which is a central tenet of Christianity that all Christians have to at least pay lip service to.
Back to the original article.
The woman providing the personal angst for the story also provided a quote that intrigued me, “I’m angry and bitter about it. Right now, I don’t watch anyone on TV hardly.”
Anyone and hardly. Couple ways I could read this, but the way I rate most probable is that this woman is still watching televangelists now and then. I would love to get some data from her cable provider and quantify ‘hardly’. Tracking the rate of change of ‘hardly’ over the next year or so would also amuse me.
The cynical me has five bucks that says she is a contributing regular viewer of another teevee preacher by the end of 2008.
That said, I’ll agree with heddle that there are obviously con artists who cynically use and manipulate people who have been taught that faith in the unbelievable is a virtue, and they are not Christians, true or otherwise.
I have an aversion to saying “They are not Christians” because I’ve heard it so often, in two general situations:
1. A Christian is not being nice.
2. A Christian belongs to the “wrong” version of Christianity (Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholicism, blah, blah).
I don’t like to play these games. As far as I’m concerned, a Christian is one if he or she claims to be one. A good person who is a Christian understands that by “with what judgement ye judge, shall ye be judged, and by what measurement ye mete, it shall be meted to you.” You can be a Christian and forget this. It happens all the time. You can be a Christian and do anything.
There is really nothing, aside from claiming to be a Christian, that separates Christians from any other group – and the same goes for all other groups. I think the whole “is this transgressor a Christian or not” debate is a waste of time. How one personally manifests one’s faith or the lack of it reflects the individual’s personality, not the other way around.
Dave,
Actually, not much that I am aware of. There are, however, numerous charges from one denomination that another denomination practices salvation by works. For example, some of my fellow Protestants will argue (incorrectly, in my opinion) that Catholicism teaches salvation by works. But Catholics are adamant that they do not. All mainstream denominations that I’m aware of claim that they do not teach salvation by works.
Frank,
I agree–the single largest cause of misguided Christians emptying their wallets to charlatans is poor education in Christian doctrine.
Brownian, OM,
Here is the thing–what I have been saying is that Phelps may be utterly sincere in his belief that he is a Christian and in his belief that Jesus is Lord, but that doesn’t make him a Christian–the bible has famous (and unnecessarily frightening for believers) accounts of people who sincerely believed but are ultimately lost (Away, I never knew you.) It is beyond the scope of these comments, but in a nutshell it has long been recognized that sincere intellectual assent is (normatively) necessary but not sufficient (even the demons believe, James wrote.) On the other hand, maybe Phelps is a Christian but has gone off the deep end. I couldn’t say–I can only say that according to the bible I am supposed to judge him, and when I do I find him lacking.
And how is he supposed to be judged? By his fruits (avoid the simple joke) as we are told in Matt. 7. What are these fruits–generally I would say they are attempts to imitate Christ. Specifically some are listed as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (see Gal. 5.)
The whole point of my argument is that it is reasonable (and from our viewpoint, demanded) for Christians to judge Phelps on the basis of displayed love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. When I do that, I find that his ministry preaches hate, not love; meanness, not kindness; harshness, not gentleness, reckless abandon, not self-control; confrontation, not peace–and all these things he preaches by large measure. Maybe I’ll turn out to be wrong, but in the meantime I will treat him as either a fraud or self-deluded, but not a Christian. If other Christians find that Phelps measures up, then they should treat him as a Christian.
So there is a lesson for unbelievers who say “who are we to say who is a Christian?” You can judge for yourself whether Phelps exceeds or falls below any reasonably placed threshold short of the biblical standard–even if you discount the bible as garbage. By the same token, Christians can also judge Phelps, Hinn, etc. without committing a True Scotsman fallacy.
“There is also the usual collection of theologians making excuses, claiming that this is not True™ Christianity.”
So when the next Social Darwinist comes along, I should take him at his word too? I wouldn’t want to make excuses….
“Bunk. This is the heart of all religions: make the priesthood fat and happy by extorting money from the sheep with threats of hellfire and promises of paradise, promises that they never have to fulfill. If you’re going to go after Hinn and Copeland and Roberts, you have to go after every little preacher who passes the collection plate on Sunday — they’re all in the same game.”
Bunk backatcha. You must not know many pastors. I know a lot of them and none of them are “fat and happy.” Most make a meagre living trying to serve their congregations as best they can. Census and Barna data I’ve seen place the median pastoral salary here in the USA in the $35-40,000 range. According to the AAUP, Associate Professors at the University of Minnesota-Morris are still dramatically underpaid at half-again as much (around $60,000). If $40,000 per year is “fat and happy” you might want to re-think your standards.
“The only difference is that the promoters of the prosperity gospel make promises that can be assessed. They broke the rule that the good stuff always has to be nebulous and untestable.”
Double bunk. In the city where I live, the vast majority of support services for the poor above the pittance provided by the state (soup kitchens, homeless shelters, homework clubs, job placement and support, etc.) as well as a large percentage of community services (e.g. pre-schools) come from churches and other religious organizations. Pastors marry and bury every day along with visiting the ill and infirm and simply caring for people.
500 homes burned down in my town alone during the recent wildfires. Churches took the lead and are still working to provide financial and other support as well as still providing crews of volunteers to clear homesites, try to find personal effects thought lost and provide replacements as needed. My church is still sending teams of workers to do Katrina clean-up work on a regular basis (in the areas they’re working, only churches are still involved) and some folks from a Mississippi church we helped came here to help us clean-up after the fires. There’s lots of “good stuff” being done that’s anything but nebulous.
Actually, not much that I am aware of.
heddle finally says something accurate about himself.
there is indeed, not much that you are aware of, being a Calvinist and all. You project so much it’s remarkable.
In fact, I often use you as another example of a semi-intelligent person whose religious predilections have forced their mind into projection as defense mode.
Christians can also judge Phelps, Hinn, etc. without committing a True Scotsman fallacy.
One wonders if you can judge yourself without committing the same fallacy.
I’m a non-Buddhist, but if tomorrow Benny Hinn or Fred Phelps claimed he was no longer a Christian but a Buddhist, and his behavior remained the same, I’d no more believe he was a True™ Buddhist than a True™ Christian. – Heddle
But if they professed tomorrow to be True™ atheists would you be as discerning?
Heddle (#28): I accept people’s claims as to their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) at face value not out of generosity, but out of pragmatism. I feel that it serves no useful purpose for Atheists to judge who is a Buddhist, Christian, etc.
Obviously I don’t speak for all here. Eljay and others are welcome to debate Atheist strategy with me. Atheists are not afraid to duke it out with one another online. But thanks for trying the old wedge strategy. Let me know how that works out for you.
Ichthyic,
I actually don’t know what you are saying. I know you have been seriously pissed at me for a long time, I believe for using one of your comments on Pharyngula in one of my posts–and I am truly sorry about that and would undo it if I could.
Eric Paulsen,
Yes I would. I believe atheists have a moral compass, and have said so many times. Search my blog–you won’t find any “atheists are responsible for the world’s evil” threads.
Heddle wrote: (in #5)
Really? I’m sure it has been used, but probably not as extensively as you imagine. Let’s take a look at the common anti-evolution rants in this area:
» Hitler? – No, he based it on God. A Christian God.
» Stalin? – No, he believed Lysenko who, while not directly religious, was rabidly anti-Darwin.
» Pol Pot? – No, his regime claimed divine right and divine inspiration.
» Eugenics? – No, that was the lovely Christian God again.
So the question is, just what cases are you referring? Again, almost any rationalization will be used if the person using it thinks that it’s enough to get them out of trouble. I’m confident that Evolution has been used to those ends, but overall it’s got a pretty good track record compared to any major religion. I won’t claim our side hasn’t been a “victim” (as you put it) in such a ruse; I just dispute the context of it being common.
I believe for using one of your comments on Pharyngula in one of my posts
hardly. you quotemining me (and it was a quotemine, of course) on your blog means about as much to me as a dog pissing on my shoe. remember how many visitors you get to your blog?
and I’m NOT “pissed” at you, I rather find you humorous when you try to speak for “all christians” as you so often do, when it’s so obvious you’re just projecting. I just enjoy pointing it out to you.
in fact, along the same lines I rather think you are projecting your own anger on to me, likely for being called out on your BS so consistently.
@heddle (#45):
But that is not what I said.
The single largest cause of misguided Christians emptying their wallets to charlatans is that they have been taught to accept ideas for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence (such as the existence of supernatural beings). In fact, they have been taught to believe that the absence of evidence somehow ennobles the ideas in question.
The reason that there is no such thing as “true” atheism is because atheism is NOT a belief system. There’s only one belief relevant to one’s atheism: Either one believes in supernatural agents or one does not. This is the basis on which we qualify as atheists or non-atheists. Nice and simple, isn’t it?
Sorry Heddle, but when we judge people on some, “reasonably placed threshold short of biblical standard”, we do so with the assumption that the later part of that sentence is nonsensical bullshit. Why? Because every single congregation has some minor variation as to what the hell the “biblical standard” is, making it damn hard to judge what standards are either above or below it. And your scholars are not much help, since most of them have shown, whenever they discuss what they think the religion says, that they have no fracking clue what the people who actually attend churches think, do, say, or how they act. We judge people’s moral based on the best foundation that one can build, while building it on an incomplete understanding of ourselves, human nature, etc. You people reject that standard as being invalid, then try to replace it with one of 100,000 variations of stuff that contain stuff you insist is uniquely Christian, but isn’t, stuff that is more or less uniquely Christian, but which probably shouldn’t be, and your own personal collection of stuff and ideas that are **not** described or even hinted at in the Bible, but which you will bend its words into a pretzel, to try to convince us it does talk about. We reject that standard, but since you insist on using it to determine what a “True Christian” is, we don’t have any choice but to assume, short of you people excommunicating each other until only the one “true” faith is left (like that is going to work), but to presume that *every* definition of Christianity must be considered generally valid, and that thus you have no leg to stand on when claiming that those other groups are not acting as true Christians.
I do however think that the over-separation that happens between the church and state is dangerous, since it shields people that the majority, Christian or not, wouldn’t give the time of day to, if they *could* be charged with some sort of crime, including false advertising, slander, libel, theft, mail fraud, wire fraud, etc., etc., etc… The only way I could possibly think of to solve the problem would be to have religions define what the baseline should be for acceptable behavior, then have each congregation submit, as part of the paperwork to be recognized, a clear and precise statement about what their **actual** beliefs are, and how their organization will run, so that when they turn around and cheat some 80 year old priest out of his pention, after he gets sick, or **worse** offenses, the state has a clear stance it can work from, which judges that church by **its own** rules. As it is, the state can’t judge if the rules are valid, even if its @%#@$#$#@ illegal to do it outside the church, so when ever a case of abuse by clergy comes up, the state has to reject the case, on the grounds that the current priest(s) in charge can maker up any damn excuse, rule, declaration or misquote of scripture to justify what they do to someone, or who and/or how badly they cheat them, and the state is not allowed to judge if they are being true Christians, or complete assholes.
Sure, we can judge people like Phelps by our standards, but when it comes to court (or just the opinion of about 60% of the Christians in the US who only care that he is a preacher, and don’t have a clue about, or believe that he did anything), only ***his*** standards count, not yours, not other Christians, not mine, not the secular state’s, not even fracking Jesus’ standards, if one could get in touch with imaginary beings to get an opinion on the subject. The only standard that counts in court, and thus the only standard that any priest must, in the US, ever be held to, is ***their own***. Thus, it doesn’t matter one bit what you think makes someone a true Christian. You are one tiny voice in a sea of billions, and in the end Phelps, and others like them, are always the final arbiters, because *they* are the ones making the rules for their version of Christianity. Mind you, we do make exception, for stuff like murders, rapes, parking tickets, etc, but not if it has anything to do with what, how, when, where, and in what magnitude they lie to their parishioners.
Of course.. What happens if the separation is lost? You get blasphemy laws, similar to the “defense of marriage” law, but more absurd. One day, it might even become a punishable offense (after all even Europe is willing to kiss the ass of Islam over this one) to write an article, publish a cartoon, or say something that offends some random, far right, religious institution, who will demand that you respect them, no matter how evil they act, solely on the basis of claiming to follow Jesus, or be… boiled in oil, or something. Well, at least jailed for life. Christians after all aren’t violent people. They wouldn’t simply kill you for it, they will torture you by robbing you of your hopes, dreams, future, privacy, freedom, etc. That is **so much better** than a quick death in front of a firing squad…
And you know damn well that the same people ranting about the US being a Christian nation and Biblical literalism **will** try to jail people for not being Christian enough if they ever got what they want.
Dan @31:
I’ll never understand why these so-called “true” Christians are so wretchedly apathetic when it comes to these so-called “frauds” who bastardize and embarrass their religion
In broad terms, of course, you’re right. Though I no longer regard myself as Christian, I cherish a lot of my former co-religionists. But not enough of them speak out against these charlatans, loudly or even at all.
But there are plenty of exceptions. Google “Ole Anthony”, for example. Even David Heddle, who has so often had his ass handed to him round here (and was almost always asking for it) is an honourable exception on this count. Check out his website some time. Tons of stuff that almost everybody here would agree is high-end whackjobbery; but he absolutely hates the “prosperity gospel” and its salesmen.
I’ll never understand why these so-called “true” Christians are so wretchedly apathetic when it comes to these so-called “frauds” who bastardize and embarrass their religion
I think they adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” position long, long ago.
besides which, IIRC, wouldn’t the flight of “puritans” to the “new world” indicate that there indeed, historically, has been at least some pressure on these morons?
It depends on what action he takes. If Grassley sponsors legislation attempting to specify what is an isnt a legitimate ministry, that would be wrong, but unlikely to pass constitutional muster, so Im not overly bothered by the prospect. If, as I expect he will, sponsors legislation requiring greater transparency and reporting from tax-exempt charities, so that Hinn and his ilk must report the use of funds in much the same way Cory at #34’s church does, then Im all for it. Then no one is saying what a true christian is only that a tax-exempt ministry must report on how it uses the money donated to it, giving us all more information to make our own decisions if they are frauds or not.
RJM,
Oh brother, the royal flush: Nazism, Stalinism, Pol Pot, Eugenics–but what about Mao? What about Microsoft? Isn’t religion responsible for those abominations, as well?
Nazism, by the way, co-opted both Christianity and evolution–but I refuse to reproduce those tiresome quotes and start down that worn path again. You do know, by the way, that the Nazis had a plan to persecute the Christian churches? Look up the Nuremberg Project at that center of fundamentalist thought: the Law School at Rutgers University. You can find some excerpts here, although the links to the papers at Rutgers are broken–but I’m sure a bit of Googling will find them.
Ichthyic,
OK, so your answer is that I project everything, including my anger onto you. Whatever. I doubt if anyone actually cares, but here is the post in question in which you claimed I quote-mined you–people can judge for themselves. Although, as you point out, almsost nobody reads my blog (this is true)–somehow you read it and remember it, although you are not upset about it; it’s just me projecting my anger on you for your thorough job of pointing out how everything I write is crap.
Kagehi
I don’t buy it. You can read as well as I can–you can read the passage I quoted from Gal. 5 about the fruits of the spirit, there is no ambiguity about the biblical standard, and you can judge whether Phelps measures up. It is straightforward to ask yourself, does Phelps resemble that, even approximately? The disagreement would only be on where to set the threshold–but the standard is clear.
Actually, I don’t. I know a lot of Christians. I even frequent the circles where theonomy, at least intellectual theonomy, is at its strongest–Reformed postmillennials, and even then I encounter very few reconstructionists. It is an extreme minority position. It is wishful thinking, in a John Birch Society there’s-a-commie-under-every-bed sense, that the majority of Christians want to establish a Christian state. I’m a Baptist, and we lay claim to inventing Separation of Church and State. The last thing I would advocate is a Christian state–we didn’t fare too well under Rome or Geneva–but the main reason is the NT makes no call for Christians to assume poltical power.
[NOTE: reposting because the original post went into the moderation queue, probably because I had made the links below explicit.]
RJM,
Oh brother, the royal flush: Nazism, Stalinism, Pol Pot, Eugenics–but what about Mao? What about Microsoft? Isn’t religion responsible for those abominations, as well?
Nazism, by the way, co-opted both Christianity and evolution–but I refuse to reproduce those tiresome quotes and start down that worn path again. You do know, by the way, that the Nazis had a plan to persecute the Christian churches? Look up the Nuremberg Project at that center of fundamentalist thought: the Law School at Rutgers University. You can find some excerpts here:
helives.blogspot.com/2006/03/were-nazis-christian.html
although the links to the papers at Rutgers are broken–but I’m sure a bit of Googling will find them.
Ichthyic,
OK, so your answer is that I project everything, including my anger onto you. Whatever. I doubt if anyone actually cares, but here is the post in question:
helives.blogspot.com/2007/03/mobilize.html
in which you claimed I quote-mined you–people can judge for themselves. Although, as you point out, almsost nobody reads my blog (this is true)–somehow you read it and remember it, although you are not upset about it; it’s just me projecting my anger on you for your thorough job of pointing out how everything I write is crap.
Kagehi
I don’t buy it. You can read as well as I can–you can read the passage I quoted from Gal. 5 about the fruits of the spirit, there is no ambiguity about the biblical standard, and you can judge whether Phelps measures up. It is straightforward to ask yourself, does Phelps resemble that, even approximately? The disagreement would only be on where to set the threshold–but the standard is clear.
Actually, I don’t. I know a lot of Christians. I even frequent the circles where theonomy, at least intellectual theonomy, is at its strongest–the relatively small group of Reformed postmillennials, and even then I encounter very few reconstructionists. It is a minority position within a minority position. It is wishful thinking, in a John Birch Society there’s-a-commie-under-every-bed sense, to believe that a majority of Christians want to establish a Christian state. The problem is (as with other groups) radicals write books and give interviews giving the illusion that they are representative, while those in the mainstream are not newsworthy. In the very same sense I suspect (but have no data) that, say, Sam Harris is not representative of your garden variety atheist.
I’m a Baptist, and we lay claim to inventing Separation of Church and State. The last thing I would advocate is a Christian state–we didn’t fare too well under Rome or Geneva–but the main reason is the NT makes no call for Christians to assume poltical power.
“By their works shall ye know them.” Do not disparage their good works, even if done from wrong reasons, for I think it preferable to do good out of mistaken beliefs than to do wrong out of the correct. That is to say, the good trumps the true; and mercy, justice; and compassion, all.
Assuming, of course, that all of the actors in a human drama are acting from good will. Equally, of course, that is frequently not the case. There have been confidence tricksters since forever, who use the social means at their disposal to practice upon the unwary. The 20th century’s gallery of scam artists has been riding on the gullibility of semi-literate N.American peasants using Christianinity as the vehicle to fleece their flocks. Theirs’ is not a debate as to the constitution and functioning of the cosmos (as is ours’), but a blatantly hypocritical practice of works that is calculated to reduce the desperate to penury.
I will welcome the day when these monsters are finally brought to light
DR
in which you claimed I quote-mined you–people can judge for themselves.
indeed they can.
that you are unable to admit you did so speaks volumes. it wasn’t even myself that originally noticed you had done so, btw.
somehow you read it and remember it
uh, you were the one who brought it up, fucknuts.
but then, as far as anybody caring…
have you looked at your visitor stats lately?
I know the only reason you come here is just to try and draw people to your blog.
how’s that working out for you?
LOL
Heddle, then how does that preclude Phelps from being a True Christian, since he very well may be the most faithful man alive (and how would anybody else know?) As Cory Albrecht notes above, his church (and the other examples he points out) are arguably doing good works, yet no one else can assess their level of faith. Mother Theresa’s personal journal indicates that she’d lost hers, yet she continued her good works. Which of all of these can be said to be True Christians?
Brownian OM, Mother Teresa was just as much a lying money-grubber as Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff – she merely had a better PR machine (which included most of the West’s supposedly secular press). For decades her Order, which never administered more than a few dirty, ill-equipped orphanages and clinics, was inundated with money by her Western admirers whilst Teresa claimed to be running India’s largest school and feeding thousands of starving people in Calcutta every day. The little matter of what happened to this vast sum of money interests me far more than Teresa’s crisis of faith – was it used to pay for her numerous stays in American private hospitals or fund her lengthy stays in Rome?
David @59,
first, I blush to confess that I’m surprised to learn you are baptist. I had thought you were of my own (former) presbyterian tradition. I have always been quick to scold those who confuse questions of governance with questions of theology, and am now chagrined to find I have done just that myself. I mention this because I think it important for all of us, and perhaps especially nonbelievers, to know that the anabaptist tradition has, historically, been largely on the side of the angels. (American readers might scoff, and understandably so given the hijinks of the current major American baptist denomination, established in defence of slavery; but then, dear American readers, consider Roger Williams.) After all, your tradition includes Fred Clark, a Christian of whom only seriously bigoted non-Christians (and perhaps there are some) could disapprove.
But I fear that on the question of dominionism, you are missing the forest for the trees. Yes, dominionists sensu stricto are probably relatively few in number. But (and just look around you any given Sunday, and you will know this to be true) there are are many, many Christians who — without being full-fledged dominionists, though most likely because they haven’t bothered thinking their position through — want very earnestly to see their beliefs enshrined as culturally dominant. I thought that needed opposing even when I was a Christian, and (not surprisingly) think it needs opposing still. (And, if you are genuinely advocating an absolute separation of church and state, I daresay you will find that almost every Pharyngular atheist is your willing ally on that issue, however much they might disagree with you on the whole God thing.)
Look, this isn’t a problem only in God-bothered America. Even here in godless bolshevik Europe there is a strong political strain that seeks to make deference to witch-doctors a central plank of policy. (I will give you more credit than I give them. If nothing else you appear sincere in your beliefs. Most of Europe’s “Christian Democrats”, by contrast, have no interest in letting the thoughts of an itinerant first-century Palestinian rabbi influence their lives, they simply think religion useful for keeping the proles docile.)
Ichthyic,
Yes I brought it up on this occasion to extend an olive branch, because the last time we engaged on this blog you brought it up. That was here:
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/we_amoral_atheists.php#comment-581384
It was you who first suggested that readers judge for themselves if I quote-mined. I have now complied and provided the link. As I said, since you brought it up, unsolicited, in that comment (from the above link) I assumed you were upset about it–but of course you have set me straight–that’s just me projecting my anger on you for your demolition of all my arguments, all over the internet.
Do you really believe I come here to draw people to my blog–that I would sense that an untapped audience for my blog with a name like He Lives with posts on subjects like dispensationalism exists among the readership of Pharyngula? I must be the same marketing genius who thought of New Coke.
Kristine #44 wrote:
I agree, but with the stipulation that it’s possible to “claim to be a Christian” and not mean it — in which case, they’re not Christian. I was putting con artists in this category; not because they’re not nice, but because they’re not sincere. I’m not sure — but I suspect — that at least some of the televangelists are playing pretend and not fooling themselves.
heddle #45 wrote:
Ok, from your perspective. But unfortunately, from within the framework of a theological system (including Phelps’), they would argue that all those qualities are being displayed — in the measure they should be displayed. And, where God wants righteousness, sorrow, fortitude, judgment, and warriors against sin, they do this, too, as well as they can. The men who flew into the World Trade Center saw themselves as martyrs, not villains. Grant all their beliefs as fact, and they’re right.
You seem to think that non-theists and non-christians can judge the virtue of Christians by secular standards, and then use this to decide who is, and who is not, a Christian. But if all that’s needed for this are secular standards, then Christian morality is indistinguishable from humanist morality. In some sects, it may be — but as far as I know there is nothing in any religion (including Christianity) which requires that it has to meet the standards of the world, and look good and make sense even to an atheist. When and where it does, I think it’s now called “philosophy.” Or “ethics.” And it can be divorced from any religion it’s tacked on to.
“Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” are values found in most religions and philosophies, including secular humanism. See Paul Kurtz. I don’t think judging whether someone lives according to this is going to be the cut-off for who is Christian, and who is not. It will still come down to
1.) having a halfway defendable theology based on something in the Bible, so that the result meets the loosest definition of “Christian” that still has some specific content
2.) sincerity and commitment
Which Muslims are theologically correct, the Sunnis or the Shiites? Having one of them thumb through holy texts for you, an outsider, isn’t going to solve the issue, or there probably wouldn’t have been a split in the first place.
Mrs Tilton,
I will confess that while I attend a (Reformed) Baptist church and am on the roles as a Baptist, I am indeed (theologically) a Presbyterian at heart. Your intuition was correct.
As for meddling in politics, I will also concede as self-evident that modern Baptists have largely forgotten their proud tradition of strict separation of church and state. I know, because when I speak for the separation I am often greeted with surprised and sometimes antagonistic looks.
However, I would stand by the claim that to call the many church goers who desire to, say, ban gay marriage or outlaw abortion “theonomists” or “dominionists” or “reconstructionists” is to misuse the word(s). All groups, as far as I know, seek to have laws passed that are in harmony with their beliefs. I wish Christians would see that the NT does not call for us to elevate politics to a priority that is anywhere close to the priority of spreading the gospel. And in fact there are some recent encouraging trends in that regard. But back to the point: In my opinion calling Christians who want to, as an example, ban gay marriage “theonomists” and claiming that they want to establish a Christian state is like calling those in favor of universal health care “communists.” The words are supposed to mean something more than a tendency toward some of the same positions. Ask evangelical Christians how many would like to reinstitute Mosaic law, complete with stonings, and very few will raise their hands.
8=======D~~~~~~~
Sastra OM,
You are right. Phelps, we will grant, would judge himself a True Christian, and perhaps judge me as an apostate. The doesn’t change the fact that I am supposed to judge Phelps. Nor does it change the fact than unbelievers can also use the same standards–that is they can see if those who claim to be Christians measure up to their own standards. Yes, it is subjective to a degree. But ask yourself: using those standards, would the majority of Christians–or the majority of unbelievers–find that it is Phelps who doesn’t measure up? Would most unbelievers, given an honest assessment, decide that while no Christian seems to meets Christianity’s own standards, Phelps fails by a considerably larger margin than the average devout Christian? I think they would. Maybe I’m wrong.
As for the standards being the same in name as other schools of ethics, including secular humanism, I see no problem with that. Keep in mind however that the standards are not a sufficient indicator of Christianity–within Christianity they are simply prescribed to judge those who claim to be Christians. Your point, if I read correctly, means that you could word it something like this: If you claim to be a Christian, you ought to at least display the same ethical behavior as many self-professed unbelievers and I would say that that was reasonable. So if the secular world can judge Phelps as a scoundrel, why is that courtesy not extended to the Christian world, without the “True Scotsman” charge?
That concept of “only Nixon could go to China,” aka “Nixon kowtows to the Chinese emperor” seems to work with other recent American political events: Clinton balanced the budget, after the Rethuglicans had been bloviating about it for decades, and reformed welfare…
Well, maybe that’s it. Otherwise the parties seem stuck at Tweedledum and Tweedledee. One could speculate that a President Kerry or Gore would have engaged in a competent battle with the real terrorists, and not started a war on false pretences, but we’ll never know.
Meanwhile, Happy Vermin Hunting to Sen. Grassley.
Didn’t Luther have the likes of Hinn and this woman pegged ages ago? Which does not necessarily mean I lay any greater credence to Luther’s propositions, but it does demonstrate that if you build belief in a Church with money the only thing that will keep it standing is more money.
Count me out. I want laws that keep order and permit people with very different beliefs- including beliefs very different from mine- to peacefully coexist while pursuing their own different versions of the good life. I personally have no use whatsoever for religion, but I consider laws that interfere with religious practices that do not harm others- for example, bans on Islamic headscarves in France and Turkey- to be infamous violations of human rights.
heddle #67 wrote:
Well, no, not exactly my point.
My point was that I can judge people as good people on the basis of whether or not they display “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” — but I can’t say this therefore makes them a proper Christian according to their own theology. Yes, these are values which Christians — and people of many religions — strive for. I don’t disagree. But religion adds in facts not available to the world, and this can change how we frame moral situations. Good people can then do bad things, by striving to do good.
For example, by my secular standards, it is morally wrong to single out gay people and not allow them to legally marry, just as it’s similarly wrong to forbid interracial marriages. So would you have me say that those Christians who worked to pass “Marriage Amendments” were not good Christians? Or not real Christians? Or acting against Christian principles and values? Lacking in “love?” Personally falling down on their obligations?
No, their theology is the problem, their interpretation of scripture — not their individual ability to live up to their commitment to be fair, loving, and kind. Given their assumptions, their actions make sense. They’re not like the Good Christian who secretly beats his kids (which apparently applies to Phelps, by the way, so he gets in on the Bad Christian for this before I start critiquing his rather heavy-handed Biblical exegesis).
It’s more like “If you claim to be a Christian, you can justify a lot of things that make no sense to the world — so I really hope you use secular standards when you interpret the Bible.” In other words, I’m less concerned about them being Good Christians, and more concerned with them being good inhabitants of this world, regardless of their religion.
They also need to do something about those other parasites that feed on a lot of the same people, the yellow journalists at Fox, et al who go as far as making stuff up to sell books and get ratings. Yes, there are people who take the War on Christmas very seriously, no matter how much and how loudly they are laughed at, for example.
“So if the secular world can judge Phelps as a scoundrel, why is that courtesy not extended to the Christian world, without the “True Scotsman” charge?”
But would today’s secular world judge say, Martin Luther and John Calvin, as scoundrels? They were capable of espousing beliefs and engaging in behavior that many would consider just as repellent. At least Phelps hasn’t burned anyone at the stake–yet.
If we are judging by their behavior or “works,” I would consider both of these founders of Protestantism as being far inferior to someone like Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
The phrase “shearing the sheep” just keeps coming back to me. Crooked preachers are as old as religion, and is one of many reasons I have nothing to do with it. Since I was brought up in a totally secular household. I have had no need for faith, and utter devotion to something of as doubtful provenance as Christianity has always puzzled me. The people I have known who professed such faith have either been rather nice people who have a strange gap in their thinking, or have had agendas that made me think them less than honest. That one group takes advantage of the other is not at all surprising, in fact it’s inevitable.
Steve LaBonne: “I want laws that keep order and permit people with very different beliefs- including beliefs very different from mine- to peacefully coexist while pursuing their own different versions of the good life.”
“Beliefs” need not be religious; they can be ethical, political, and humanist. The belief you talk about in post #71 has historically been one of the identifying characteristics of Baptists — which might be surprising to many, given how far the Southern Baptists have strayed from their denomination’s core values.
A devotion to human rights, personal and religious freedom, and democratic principles of government is shared by a great many Americans, including a great many Christian Americans who are appalled by Christianists.
Judging a person’s membership to a religion based on their own pronouncements isn’t truly valid – if I claim to be Chrstian tomorrow, it doesn’t make me so, as I’m sure Christians will agree. And they would be right this would be no True Scotsman fallacy.
In my opinion, the only reasonable way to judge whether someone is truly a member of a faith, is to see how other members of the faith perceive that person. In the case of Benny Hinn for example, it is only too clear that there are a large number of Christians that consider him to be a Christian too. At that point, any claim that he is not a true Christian falls directly into the True Scotsman fallacy.
Some witch-doctors aren’t content to fleece their small flock and go for the big market. Unfortunately it’s no surprise to me. I support Grassley’s move to investigate the top-dog witchdoctors but I don’t expect anything to come of it.
Leigh- I completely agree with you. I am also well aware of the proud history of the Southern Baptist Convention in fighting for church – state separation. It is a real tragedy that this legacy has been destroyed by know-nothings.
The prosperity gospel preachers ignore the true precept of success for the religious long con: pay-offs deferred to a life in the hereafter are non-falsifiable.
demallion #78 wrote:
This seems reasonable, but a better test case than Hinn might be Bishop John Shelby Spong — and I don’t think it’s as clear now.
Spong is a popular Anglican minister (Canadian?) who has written several books attacking fundamentalism, which he feels distorts a more authentic Christianity. He is well-loved by many liberal Christians. However, his rather rarified theology really pushes the envelope on what it means to be a “Christian.” He does not believe in the virgin birth, Hell, or the Trinity — okay. He also (as I recall) rejects the resurrection of Jesus, sin, prayer, the atonement, Jesus as God, and — the existence of the “theistic” God. What’s left is, he claims, a purer, better, and truer understanding of Christianity. Then he gets all mystical and vague and Tillich-y.
As you see, this isn’t a problem with behavior. The guy is really, really nice. I’ve read some of his books. He’s a bishop in a Christian denomination. But I do have some sympathy for more traditional Christians who say he’s “no Christian.” They have a point.
Oh I see heddle is on here trying to say phelps is no Christian and now has upped the anty to Hinn and others.
What I don’t see in his consistently inconsistent position is that no one Christian or otherwise who is honest doesn’t cringe at the actions of many of these bozo’s. What makes heddle blind is that he can’t see that if they believe in Jesus and simply interpret what he would do differently than he does that doesn’t place them on the outside of the bubble and him on the inside or vice versa.
Phelps can be a bible thumping believer AND sincerely feel he needs to call homosexuals to repent in the strongest possible way. One could argue if hell actually existed(it doesn’t) he is showing far more love than hate based on his actions and those who don’t likewise do the same are letting the souls perish.
Also even if you view this act of his as a ‘sin’ it would be no different than any of the sins heddle himself commits daily and as such wouldn’t discount his Christianity either. He is no more a sinner than a guy who runs a website with, at their core, dishonest apologetics which really is tantamount to bearing false witness every single day and having a billboard for it in addition to often snarky behaviour he exhibits here. I don’t think heddle is very representative of the religion either though.
In the case of Meyer, Copeland, Osteen, Hinn, Hagee, and on and on there is no doubt they are considered Christians. And frankly the only reason Phelps bothers you is he is an embarrasssmant that has more to do with the secular values that are interanal values inherent to your person than any religious pedisposition. The religious angle of Phelps is consistent with his theology and on that ground he is only equal footing to whatever tripe heddle and any other trot out there.
Sastra,
FAIK Spong might have come form Canada originally, but IIRC he was bishop of someplace in New Jersey.
I have a vague recollection of him as a decent egg, but never read anything of his. Interesting — given all the things you say he doesn’t believe in, his religion sounds pretty much like mine. Except that I no longer call my religion “Christianity”, or even “religion”. But then, I am not a bishop; Spong is, and I imagine it’s frowned upon for bishops to say that they are irreligious non-Christians.
Seriously, though, I have little sympathy for Christians (of whatever sort) who would say that Spong isn’t Christian. I just don’t care whether he measures up to their (to me, perfectly arbitrary) standards.
I mean, it’s perfectly OK for them to say so among themselves. And, if one is a Christian who thinks that believing X is essential to Christianity, then one can very legitimately assert within the context of Christianity that another person who instead believes Y is not really Christian. (Is Mitt Romney, for example, really a Christian? By the standards of “classical” Christianity, certainly not.)
But if one stands outside the tradition, I think it is both inappropriate to judge which Christians are “really” Christian, and inappropriate for Christians to expect us to do so. If a person claims they are Christian, then OK, for me they are Christian, even if Ratzinger or Robertson or Phelps (or Spong) would disagree. (Once again, is Mitt Romney really a Christian? If it pleases him to say so, then fine, he is a Christian. All I see is that he claims to believe some ludicrous things. If other people calling themselves Christians disavow him because their own cherished set of ludicrous beliefs only partly overlaps Romney’s, let them all settle the matter among themselves and leave me out of it.)
Mrs. Tilton #84 wrote:
On the whole, I agree with you, and usually include Spong’s type of theology as one of the variations of Christianity. As you say, outsiders can’t judge which sect is more “correct” than others. But I think that there are certain limits when it comes to definitions, and it’s not illegitimate to invoke them. When Spong gives up the resurrection, atonement, and God in order to get to what’s authentic in Christianity, what’s left may no longer fit into the most basic description. I don’t know.
Let me pick a more extreme example. I’ve met a few people who have told me they believe in “all the religions.” They are a Christian — and a Buddhist — and a Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu, Jew, Bahai, Zororastian, pagan — you name it. They believe it. They favor none. Accept it all. Just like Jesus. Who loves Buddah and Mohammead and, presumably, Thor. The Different Paths to the Same Truth School of Theology.
Now it’s pretty damn clear to me that these folks are nice but confused, care nothing about any of the beliefs, and are really just trying to express a tolerant, live and let live, universalist it’s-all-about-how-you-feel-and-treat-others approach to religion. Methinks there’s also a bit of play-acting involved, especially if they’re dressing the part(s). However, I’ve actually had other (liberal) Christians tell me that no, this is no problem. These people are indeed Christians, because they have the right Christian attitude. Love towards all.
I call shenanigans. What say you?
@40: A US Senator is going to investigate and possibly act against a ministry because he doesn’t like their religious opinions for Christ’s sake!
I don’t think that’s quite it. IIUC, they’re being investigated to see if they deserve their status as tax-exempt charities, or if they’re really get-filthy-rich schemes for the principals, illegitimately hiding under the non-profit banner. Non-profit charities have to, well, avoid making a consistent profit, by expending their revenue on the Good Works they claim to be engaged in. Obviously, they can have employees with salaries and expense accounts — but just as obviously, there have to be limits to that (and proper public accounting to ensure the limits are observed).
Note: the above is entirely separate from the question of whether religious teaching is ever a legitimate “Good Work”.
But if one stands outside the tradition, I think it is both inappropriate to judge which Christians are “really” Christian, and inappropriate for Christians to expect us to do so.
Christians generally cite [a] bible as the basis for their beliefs, and yet the spectrum of conflicting meanings, interpretations and conclusions they derive from it is so mind-numbingly diverse that if any group of people can agree, they probably already belong to a group that nobody else will have as members. A declaration of Christianity offers too little information on which to base an accurate prediction of the specifics of belief. I agree that I have no standing to judge, and submit that there is no rational basis for me to judge who is or isn’t a Christian when they claim it, particularly when rationality has so little to do with any of it.
As for heddle espousing the Establishment Clause, good on him for that. It is too often news to those who are here to show atheists the error of our ways that the First Amendment protects religion from the State as much as the State from the encroachments of religion. Double good for heddle for recognizing where Jefferson got the phrase: from Roger Williams, banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony at 32 for advocating religious tolerance and separation of Church and State, who chartered the colony of Rhode Island. Quoth Williams:
Where I part company with Williams should be obvious. He regards the world as wilderness and the church as garden, which I think is exactly backwards. The garden of the world is what there is, and it requires no end of tending and weeding; on the other side of the wall is where the wilderness is to be found, where, in the words of Terry Pratchett, “It’s a god-eat-god world.”
Cory Albrecht said
“No, they are not all in the same game. At the Mennonite church where I am a member of….”
I, too was raised Mennonite in a family that traced its origins and traditions way back to the region of Conrad Grebel’s home in canton Zürich, Switzerland, mentor of the Dutchman Menno Simon. You quite rightly point out that the Mennonites (at least most of them) along with the Amish, Quakers, Shakers, Dukabors, and various other Anabaptists sects are quite honest and scrupulous when accounting for their use of members’ moneys. Indeed, even their churches tend to be spartan (to various degrees): nothing but the minimum necessary for their purpose. Their cooperative enterprises like the Mennonite Central Committee, too, are fastidious in their use of donations and their works (missions) tend to be oriented towards the practical well being of those that they have chosen to serve. They have, in some ways stayed true to the relatively enlightened teachings of Conrad Grebel, objecting to infant baptism on the grounds that each individual must decide for him/her self before becoming Christian: insisting that all people must be taught to read so that they can read The Bible themselves before choosing, etc. Their teaching of humility and living a simple life – as my father put it metaphorically “to walk so softly on the earth that it does not know of your passing” – is perhaps more profound than any of their other teachings: had more ‘Christians’, and others, followed it we would not be in the environmental fix that we now find ourselves. (All of these comments could apply equally well too many groups of Buddhists.) Regardless of all of these exemplary behaviours of Mennonites, I am not Mennonite; nor Christian: nor theist.
Why? – Because Christians and other religions that adhere to some ‘divinely inspired text’ ultimately worship ignorance… The answer to all serious inquiry is “It’s in the Book!” None of the positive aspects of the Anabaptists is contingent upon a belief in the supernatural. If I were to give a tag to myself it would be something like Buddhish (Not Buddhist: that implies an adherence to some ‘interpretation’ of Siddhartha’s teachings). I respect (not worship) the ideas of a man Siddhartha Gautama, who claimed be nothing more or less that a man, and who seemed to have found a way (the eight fold path) of achieving great wisdom (enlightenment). No gods required, just human effort!
However I agree that; “…In many ways, I find that militant atheists act just like creationists when it comes to slamming their favourite bugbear.” Atheists are no more likely to convert rabid Theists than are rabid Theists likely to convert Atheists. It would be much more productive to address other questions like:
For example, let’s consider the differing empirically unknowable answers to the question: Is there life after death? The standard religious (and cultural) response is yes. The standard scientific (atheist) response is no. Now, let us restate the question (using Bob as a surrogate for every human being) as:
Assumptions:
1) It is, or will be, possible to build a machine sufficiently complex to perfectly replicate a human brain/mind.
2) Bob’s ‘brain state’ is ‘uploaded’ to the machine.
3) Bob’s body ceases to function and is ‘brain dead’.
Question:
Is Bob dead? Is life media dependent? If Bob’s wife erases the backup copy of Bob, is she guilty of murder? …
Other questions can be imagined, for example: Is there a valid, operational analogy between the cooperative society of disparate micro-organisms from which emerges the self aware entity that we call a human; and the cooperative society of disparate organisms from which emerges an entity (self aware?) that we call a planetary ecosystem? I.e. is James Lovelock’s controversial Gaia hypothesis valid, and if it is, is Gaia self aware and what are His/Her powers. In short, can this entity Gaia be defined as a God? Are there other ‘gods’; i.e. self aware planetary bio-systems? If Gaia is self aware, how should we, as a society respond?
Perhaps we should stop wasting time Atheist bashing or Religion bashing and, with increasing urgency for all parts of society, open our collective eyes, see what lies directly ahead, and begin to prepare (at least philosophically) for it!
Insiders can’t judge which are correct either.
Why are they more confused than someone who pretends to be correct about something they can’t possibly know? It seems to me this is in large part an extension of the ego. The people you mention as stated are live and let live types- mild and good. Others ‘need’ to be right for their own mental reasons.
That is the most accurate part of the entire thread. Anyone and everyone can claim it depending on which angle one wishes to claim their own ‘correct’ theology.
The certainty of some is simply amusing.
Sastra @85:
I call shenanigans. What say you?
I say that if all religious people were like the nice, accepting, tolerant pan-religious people you describe, or like Roger Williams (as per Ken @87), or like the Mennonites and other early anabaptists (as per timeby @88), then religion would be far less problematic, and the atheist/theist argument would be reduced to a polite disagreement as to whether theists had, in factual terms, any basis for their beliefs. Non-theists would then still be quite clear that the theists were wrong, of course; but if the theists didn’t hurt anybody, and if some of them were motivated to acts of unusual virtue by beliefs that other people thought delusions, well my goodness, we’d have little to complain about compared with the way things actually are.
Judging a person’s membership to a religion based on their own pronouncements isn’t truly valid – if I claim to be Chrstian tomorrow, it doesn’t make me so, as I’m sure Christians will agree. And they would be right this would be no True Scotsman fallacy.
In my opinion, the only reasonable way to judge whether someone is truly a member of a faith, is to see how other members of the faith perceive that person.
How do true Scotsmen feel about transpeople? Can they claim to be the opposite gender and have it be valid? A lot of Christianists think that they get to judge which gender those people are, just ask Matt Barber who is ironically a Concerned Women for America employee. Just curious about the logic…
Jim C #89:
Confused in a different way, perhaps. They’re claiming to believe in what appear to be mutually contradictory things.
Mrs Tilton #90
Ok, they’re nice and tolerant (though they still scorn atheism, I noted) — but you didn’t answer the question. Are these wildly ecumenical folk actually “Christian,” as they claim? Does the definition really stretch that far?
Sastra @92,
you didn’t answer the question. Are these wildly ecumenical folk actually “Christian,” …? Does the definition really stretch that far?
Sorry, I thought I had answered. And my answer was: let Christians debate amongst themselves how far the definition stretches.
I mean, let’s not get absurd here. If somebody starts a new church asserting that only Zeus is god and that Jesus never existed, but insists nonetheless it is Christian, well, yes, I think we’d all have to agree that this new church was operating with a very large value of “Christian”.
But here in the real world, we are faced with various Christians asserting various things as to which I can only say, as a no-longer-Christian, “Whatever”. (Within the Christian community, the analogous concept might be adiaphora.)
When I was a Christian, I might have said that I thought (for example) Mormons or Roman Catholics not “really Christian” (or at least, Christian with lots of non-Christian guff mixed in). (And catholics and LDS people, of course, might well have said the same about me, from their own respective viewpoints.) But if I no longer accept the basic tenets of Christian belief, the differences among the various brands of Christianity become of merely academic interest.
Intriguingly, I find that as a non-Christian, I am better able to appreciate the real (non-supernatural) worth of the various Christian traditions. My own tradition (Irish presbyterianism) is, emm, perhaps not exactly fun-loving. But it is is liberty-loving, and if you are American, you owe this tradition a bit of thanks, as it was an important stream flowing into your constitution. Similarly, and though I have always found catholicism distinctly uncongenial, now that I no longer have a dog in the catholic/protestant fight, I can much more easily acknowledge the absolutely massive contribution catholicism has made to our culture.
But I will no longer draw conclusions as to which Christians — protestant, catholic or more exotic sorts — are more or less worthy of that name, For me, the question quite literally no longer has any meaning.
The rivalry between religion and science that preoccupies both the religious and atheists concentrates on the irrelevant question of first cause and misses the most important debate. The root of the popular argument is that Religion (knowledge by revelation) and Science (knowledge by investigation) are competing theoretical paradigms; each of which has evolved a practical implementation and both paradigms currently serve to direct different aspects of our society. Technology is the practical application of the scientific method, evidenced by our medicine, agriculture and the electronic and mechanical devices that we use every day. A great deal of our culture (partly in the guise of politics) is the practical application of the religious method i.e. “argument from authority”, evidenced by our common morality, laws, much of our art, architecture, music and literature. Much of the current debate arises because of the attempt by one paradigm – religion – to disguise itself as the other – science. I think that this confusion of paradigms has arisen because we are rapidly approaching the singularity that will occur at the intersection of the Science/technology – Religions/culture paradigms.
Cloning, for example, challenges the creation myth and inevitably leads to hostility destined to be even greater than that we already have encountered with other medical procedures. Perhaps both sides need to acknowledge the validity of the others paradigm within its domain before we can ever hope to deal rationally with their imminent intersection!
I’ll note that it’s a lot easier to say if someone is a good Catholic Christian than to address the same issue for a member of one of the myriad Protestant denominations.
Are Fred Phelps’ kids good Protestants? I dunno. But they’re certainly the best Phelpsian Christians they can be. Since Protestants have a history of hundreds of years of fine-grained schisms, I’m not sure how one could say Phelpsian Christianity is illegitimate.
Mrs. Tilton #93 wrote:
I agree with that — I guess my question had to do with whether there are any “basic tenets of Christian belief” which one needs to accept other than stating “I am a Christian” in order to be a Christian.
Timeby #94 wrote:
Science, philosophy, ethics — all secular. What then is religion’s “domain?”
And what do you think it would it look like should they “intersect?”
Such as?
catholics are not the solid divisionless sect many believe. i have an interesting link on my other computer that illutrates this quite nicely.
Likwise division needs not be a bad thing as the Protestant reformation was a rational reformation away from the superstition that plaques catholisism.
Sastra, OM #96 wrote
“Science, philosophy, ethics — all secular. What then is religion’s ‘domain?'”
First religion (knowledge by revelation) and science (knowledge by investigation) are competing theoretical paradigms; science is obviously secular and its “domain” is natural philosophy (in fact that is what the name of this pursuit once was) and is defined as the study of natural objects and phenomena: i.e. the study of nature.
Philosophy, according to the definition given in the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, is “Love, study, or pursuit, of wisdom or knowledge, esp. that which deals with ultimate reality, or with the most general causes and principles of things; philosophical system; system for conduct of life;…” Thus, philosophy encompasses all possible studies, or pursuits of ‘wisdom’ or of ‘knowledge’ and is not restricted to either the secular, ‘spiritual’, fantastic, or whatever. Thus philosophy includes the secular but is not necessarily limited to the secular.
Wisdom, or being wise, implies soundness of judgment in matters relating to life and conduct. For example, we may have the knowledge to build a very big bomb but do we have the wisdom to know when to use it. It is entirely reasonable to pursue, and attain, wisdom by means which would not generally be considered to be secular; I would not consider Gandi’s method of attaining wisdom as entirely secular, although wisdom may also be pursued through secular studies.
Art and music both are things that cannot be defined strictly in secular terms – What, precisely, is the mathematical formula for inspiration? Precisely how do we define a ‘masterpiece’? What goes on in the mind of people like Blake, Keats, Biron, etc.
I submit that wisdom and art can have ‘spiritual’ dimensions and are legitimately in the domain of religion. Religion relies on “argument from authority”, as does our common morality and laws. (See for example the vast legal domain of ‘case law’ which comprises the bulk of the legal system in all English speaking countries.) The quibble here is simply one of ‘whose or what’s, authority’!
“And what do you think it would look like should they “intersect?” ” … See the example I gave in #88 which I repeat here:
Consider the differing empirically unknowable answers to the question: Is there life after death? The standard religious (and cultural) response is yes. The standard scientific (atheist) response is no. Now, let us restate the question (using Bob as a surrogate for every human being) as:
Assumptions:
1) It is, or will be, possible to build a machine sufficiently complex to perfectly replicate a human brain/mind.
2) Bob’s ‘brain state'(not just his memories: think Bob.exe) is ‘uploaded’ to the machine.
3) Bob’s body ceases to function and is ‘brain dead’.
Question:
Is Bob dead? Is life media dependent? If Bob’s wife erases the backup copy of Bob, is she guilty of murder? …
What is Bob?
We will, as a society, be confronted with a host of similar questions which once were restricted to the very narrow consideration of priests, monks, etc. but now will demand answers from all of us.
First religion (knowledge by revelation)
you mean making shit up?
#99
If you are in the right mood, the literary value of James Joyces “Ulysses” might be revealed to you by a good teacher. (By the way, if you find such a teacher let me know so that it might also be revealed to me!) Revealed implies, I think, ‘made aware of’; by any means.
Revelation is not necessarily making things up.
This is simply bullshit. Wisdom is best gained from experience and reasoning that come from within not without. Art is the domain of religion? No it’s the domain of humanity and as such is variable from person to person.
Common morality and law are not ‘arguments from authority’ and even if your analogy was correct the authority of laws are arrived at again by discussion and discource and are often self correcting.
How would one know the difference?
How would one know the difference?
just so.
the answer to that question makes the entire concept of “knowledge by revelation” moot.
and, btw, Timeby, your usage of the term “knowledge by revelation” is not the same as “knowledge gained by teaching”.
you do know the difference, yes?
how do you verify the things a teacher has taught you?
Uber @97:
“I can much more easily acknowledge the absolutely
massive contribution catholicism has made to our culture.”
Such as?
Such as several centuries worth of majestic art, music, literature, architecture. I have no use for the religion, but will happily concede its influence on El Greco, Palestrina, Dante, Borromini etc. etc. etc.
but will happily concede its influence on El Greco, Palestrina, Dante, Borromini etc. etc. etc.
and if the catholic church hadn’t paid for those pieces of work, but rather a secular entity had instead…
what then?
how is the production of the statue of David predicated by religion itself?
I mean, it’s just a statue, right?
many things can motivate an artist; historically religion is but one of them, and actually a rather small one at that, when you get down to the fact that much ‘religious’ art is made simply because someone paid the artist to do so.
Frankly, horses have inspired a lot of great art too, but you don’t see anybody talking about the importance of horses to art.
or seashores.
or boats.
etc.
My point is that I personally don’t concede the value of religion as a driving force in the history of art, when we look at the vast bulk of art produced, instead of selected pieces, or even when we look at the motivation for most individual artists in history.
it ranks no higher than any other secular motivation, and most often lower.
If you’re not a Christian, why in the world would you CARE if someone who professes the faith is a “good Christian”? Why not simply judge whether s/he is a good PERSON? Use those same ethical criteria you would use to evaluate the worth of any human being. Does s/he tell the truth? Help the poor and weak, and people very different from herself (and cherish them as neighbors)? Value freedom, yours as much as her own? Remain committed to social justice, even in the face of opposition from her in-group?
Does s/he take care of the planet, oppose war, greed, and killing? MIND HER OWN BUSINESS, AND LEAVE YOURS TO YOU? Is s/he a person of integrity, who you can trust to do the ethical thing, even to her own disadvantage? Somebody who is trying to emulate Christ should qualify as an ethical person. He didn’t give a damn who you slept with, as long as you weren’t fucking over the poor and vulnerable so you could accumulate more stuff. The only people he really despised were religious hypocrites.
I am myself a Christian, and for me, being a “good Christian” has nothing to do with theology, and everything to do with ethics. Phelps and Hinn CAN’T be good Christians, because they’re lying, thieving scum. If they prayed every damn minute they’d still just be trash.
Ichthyic @104:
and if the catholic church hadn’t paid for those pieces of work, but rather a secular entity had instead…
Yes, well, and if my grandmother had balls, she’d be my grandfather.
As a matter of history, the RC church did pay for them. And it wasn’t merely about money. Surely some portion of the great artists who served the church down the centuries were, privately, non-believers or apathetic, and did what they did for money, glory and/or simple artistic satisfaction. But just as surely, another portion of those artists were sincere in their beliefs, and those beliefs motivated them to produce great works.
Take Bach, for example. (Not RC, I know, but seen from the outside there’s not a great deal of difference between catholicism and Lutheranism, esp. German high-church Lutheranism.) In writing his sacred music, Bach clearly believed he was giving glory to his God. Now, my own feeling is that, if there is a God, she takes no interest in what Bach wrote (or in anything else). But for the sake of our ears, I’m glad Bach thought otherwise. His motivation might have been misplaced, but it did give us BWV 147.
Timeby #98 wrote:
I disagree that wisdom and art fall into the domain of religion, because I think you are equivocating in your definitions of both ‘religion” and ‘secular.’ It seems to me that what you’re calling the “spiritual” dimension slyly borrows attributes from each, in order to legitimize religion more than it should.
Let me set our definitions, then, to avoid this sort of confusion. I realize they’re a bit stipulative, but if we’re not using the same terms to mean the same thing discussions go nowhere.
Religion is a broad category which involves community, ethics, rituals, aesthetics, etc — but the claims which make it distinct and unique (and different than ‘the secular’) rest on the truth and existence of what’s called the supernatural. I will (broadly) define the supernatural here as a top-down reality in which pure mind or mental properties (such as values) somehow precede or ground nature, and are creative forces not reducible to matter. “Naturalism,” on the other hand, indicates a bottom-up view of reality where complex systems, including minds, have arisen from lifeless material processes.
As Jim C pointed out, aesthetics and inspiration fall into “the domain of humanity,” the secular. That they are natural is the default position. If you want to claim that no, they are evidence for the supernatural, you need to make some case other than just “submitting” that they are, with an implicit argument from incredulity.
Perhaps our disagreement is only on terms. My concern is that, if natural things are simply defined as being supernatural, this has now legitimized a category which is actually empty or wrong.
As for your example of the “intersection” of religion and science – eternal life through technology — I’m a bit puzzled. It doesn’t really seem like the two being brought together. It sounds more to me like science and naturalism once again encroaching into an area formerly labeled “religion.”
Leigh #105 wrote:
If, for you, being a Christian is only about ethics and has “nothing to do with theology,” then the stories in the New Testament are simply interesting myths which can be used to elevate or inspire your life for helping others — like Aesop’s fables or The Little Engine That Could — and you are more or less just an atheist using useful analogies and metaphors. “Christianity” becomes nothing more than shorthand for “be nice.”
But I don’t think you mean that when you talk about what it means to be a “good Christian.” You’re caring less about the Christian part here, and more about what it is to be good.
I think what you meant to say is that, for you, “being good” is a matter of how we treat others, how we live, and the standards and principles we hold. I agree with this — it’s called “humanist ethics,” and they are judged by the consequences and results in this world, that we can see. We can evaluate anyone — Christian, atheist, Muslim, or pagan — by these secular standards.
My point — and the point other atheists have been making here — is that, for people who are religious, religious ethics are not judged by secular standards, they are judged from within the framework of their beliefs. Sometimes this framework is exactly the same thing as a secular framework (as it appears to be for you). But it does not have to be.
If Phelps and Hinn don’t know they’re lying — in other words, if they are not insincere con artists, but have bought into their own theology — then they are trying to be “good Christians” by doing the sorts of things that make you and me consider them “bad people.” But unless we sort out which theology is correct, we can’t decide whether you — or they — are really truly “Christians” or really truly displaying “Christ-like behavior.”
All we can say is that, by humanist standards, they’re being jerks.
#101 JimC and #102 Ichthyic
“you do know the difference, yes?”
Having occasionally taught mathematics, physics and applied geophysics students at the undergraduate, graduate and internationally at the newly graduated level as part of various technical training programs for various International Aid projects, I do know the difference.
Returning to the question of revelation: Perhaps the earliest revelation I had occurred when, long after successfully completing my undergraduate study of Fourier Series, boundary value problems, and the Fourier and Laplace transform: (Meaning I had mechanically waded through the course material and managed to complete enough examination exercises correctly to obtain a respectable grade.) I was puzzling over a particularly intractable geophysical data analysis problem when I, quite suddenly, ‘out of the blue’, understood the ‘physical’ meaning of the Fourier transform and how I could use it (and its digital equivalent – (I was tempted to write ‘digital analogue’ but feared I might be arrested for metaphor abuse) – the ‘Z transform’. Quite suddenly, I could clearly see that not only could I solve the current intractable problem, but with a little work could solve many other difficult problems, if only I could successfully invent a computer algorithm that would run in a finite time within the 64k ram (then called core) memory and 500 k maximum disk space installed on the best computer available at the time. My understanding was inexplicably so complete that I had no difficulty quickly dashing off a short paper that was subsequently reviewed and published in JCAP. I have had other ‘moments of revelation’ since that time, like when I finally ‘got it’ and was able to apply tensor analysis to problems like analysing the stress tensors in brittle rock to interpret fault and joint development, and to understand the meaning of the Ricci and Weyl tensors in general relativity. Unfortunately, I guess I am not as lucky as some others seem to be; my revelations only occur after much arduous work that sometimes becomes the mental equivalent of masochistically bashing my head against a wall! I am hardly alone, however, nor have my own poor revelations been nearly as profound as those reported by such ‘minor’ figures as Archimedes (when it is said that, while bathing, he suddenly understood that the volume of an irregular object could be calculated by finding the volume of water displaced when the object was submerged in water.) N. Bohr, and others too many to list here.
It is not difficult for me to conceive that similar experiences could occur in other disciplines as well. (Revelation; disclosing of knowledge: nearly synonymous with inspiration; sudden happy idea.)
As for Art: I accept that Mrs Tilton #103 has adequately answered that.
“intersection”: the concept necessarily implies the (at least attempted) superposition of two orthogonal sets. (Occupy the same parameter space at the same time.) Precisely illustrating my position: there is little value in endlessly debating largely semantic issues when the real problem is to reach rational working models of the ethical, epistemological, and even ontological questions that will soon dominate all collective discourse and may lead to irrational decisions placing us at the mercy of irrational, supernaturally based imperatives imposed by such ‘wise’ leaders as a Bush or Harper.
Digressing for a moment, there is a great discussion of Stephen Jay Gould vs Conway Morris on evolution over at Laelaps – http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2007/12/evolutions_arrow.php.
Surely some portion of the great artists who served the church down the centuries were, privately, non-believers or apathetic, and did what they did for money, glory and/or simple artistic satisfaction. But just as surely, another portion of those artists were sincere in their beliefs, and those beliefs motivated them to produce great works.
you are failing to see how this does NOT support the idea that catholicism was important to art.
(Not RC, I know, but seen from the outside there’s not a great deal of difference between catholicism and Lutheranism, esp. German high-church Lutheranism.)
so why bring it in to support the idea that catholicism contributed to art?
you can bring up one example, I can bring up just as many, during the same time period, that did not do their works “for the greater glory of an imaginary creator”.
you seem to be missing my point, deliberately, in fact.
why?
Having occasionally taught mathematics, physics and applied geophysics students at the undergraduate, graduate and internationally at the newly graduated level as part of various technical training programs for various International Aid projects, I do know the difference.
then why did you insist on conflating the two, when you must know better (at least at some level) that they are not the same thing?
your example that follows only serves to prove my point.
Perhaps the earliest revelation I had occurred when, long after successfully completing my undergraduate study of Fourier Series, boundary value problems, and the Fourier and Laplace transform: (Meaning I had mechanically waded through the course material and managed to complete enough examination exercises correctly to obtain a respectable grade.) I was puzzling over a particularly intractable geophysical data analysis problem when I, quite suddenly, ‘out of the blue’, understood the ‘physical’ meaning of the Fourier transform
out of the blue, you say?
after studying the relevant maths for how long again? after going through exactly how much course material?
you sir, are evidently quite deluded as to what you consider “revelation”.
have you perchance ever heard of more apt terms, like deduction, inference, etc.?
Unfortunately, I guess I am not as lucky as some others seem to be; my revelations only occur after much arduous work that sometimes becomes the mental equivalent of masochistically bashing my head against a wall!
exactly. thus they are not revelations in the same sense as religious revelations are defined.
knowledge deduced or inferred from study is NOT the same thing as knowledge gained through divine revelation.
so, stop it already, you are just working hard to make yourself look foolish.
here is little value in endlessly debating largely semantic issues when the real problem is to reach rational working models of the ethical, epistemological, and even ontological questions that will soon dominate all collective discourse and may lead to irrational decisions placing us at the mercy of irrational, supernaturally based imperatives imposed by such ‘wise’ leaders as a Bush or Harper.
if you truly believe that to be the case, your best defense is, in fact, to make dead sure you be DEAD SPECIFIC when you try to make analogies between learning through education vs. divine revelation, or you will end up supporting the very thing you apparently decry.
so far, you seem to have failed miserably to grasp the difference.
try this question out to see if you can elucidate the correct difference:
The King James version of the bible is touted as divine revelation.
is it?
how do you know? what do you base your answer on?
Ichthyic
I repeat
Revelation; disclosing of knowledge: nearly synonymous with inspiration; sudden happy idea.
It is you who insists on using the word “divine” (whatever that is) in respect to ideas like revelation. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Timeby,
It sounds to me like you’re using the word in a way that obfuscates rather than clarifies. To use the word “revelation” and expect us all to immediately think ‘the way that people often sleep on a problem when, serendipitously, the solution presents itself,” would be unwarranted.
What are you trying to say?
It is you who insists on using the word “divine” (whatever that is) in respect to ideas like revelation
*ahem*
let’s go back to your initial premise, shall we?
First religion (knowledge by revelation) and science (knowledge by investigation) are competing theoretical paradigms;
it was YOU who tied the idea of revelation to that of religion.
that was your premise.
are you now trying to say that your ability to grasp various maths (your own example) were religious in nature?
i sure hope not.
I am merely pointing out that you are mistaken in your comparison, given the your definition highlighted above.
so far, your arguments are entirely without merit, and my only point in stressing it is hoping that you will scrap your current argument and review those who have gone before you for a clearer picture.
you mentioned Gould.
why don’t you review his ideas of NOMA, and then start again?
maybe you might see why NOMA is a failure?
at least you would be on the same page as the rest of us at that point, even if you disagree that NOMA is logically and practically unsound.
oh, btw, there is no need to think I will be impressed by your teaching credentials (go figure, most here have equivalent or better most likely, including myself), or think them relevant to the point you are trying to make.
#116
My indicating my teaching credentials was simply in response to your arrogant and snide remark:
“you do know the difference, yes?
how do you verify the things a teacher has taught you?”
Most of the world is capable of discussion without descending to that level. Perhaps you have spent too long in the company of YEC’s and their like. You will, I think find that you have more success in convincing the people that matter – i.e. the creationists, fundies, etc by reason rather then attack.
My indicating my teaching credentials was simply in response to your arrogant and snide remark:
“you do know the difference, yes?
how do you verify the things a teacher has taught you?”
and yet you offered credentials, which not only doesn’t answer the question, but offers authority in response instead. did I ever say: “I’ve taught biology for years”, and act as if that had anything to do with what I know of NOMA? besides which, you damn well know asking you how you verify knowledge imparted by an instructor is not only an honest question, but entirely relevant to your premise.
Most of the world is capable of discussion without descending to that level.
oh, boo hoo. are you sure you want to jump into a complex discussion of magisteria when you are going to cry at the slightest sarcastic remark (well deserved) directed at your person? If so, suggest you bail out of this particular topic before you get too deep and bruise your tender ego even more. You start to sound as if you prefer to play the victim card as a defense mechanism when you are in over your head.
Perhaps you have spent too long in the company of YEC’s and their like.
no doubt, but irrelevant in the current case.
you are doing fine all on your own in attracting sarcasm, and doing better with each successive response.
frankly, I have yet to see a substantive response from you, so it’s looking like a waste of my time to continue.
did you care to get back to your central premise and defend it, or do you prefer to play the victim card instead?
one I might be interested in debating further, the other is just pathetic.
Timeby, I don’t think those teaching credentials were very helpful, especially in the basic research department. A bit of investigation might have shown you that despite your erudition and civility, we who populate Pharyngula’s comments threads were not likely to be impressed by your crude approximation of NOMA.
If you’re going to try to assert that religion gets to claim credit for art, you’re going to have to make a better case than the Renaissance. How are you going to account for the profundity of Zap Comix #4, for example?
Ichthyic @110:
you are failing to see how this does NOT support the idea that catholicism was important to art.
That’s an, emm, interesting and original reading of what I wrote.
[Bach not RC] so why bring it in to support the idea that catholicism contributed to art?
Oh please. Do you really know as little of history as your words suggest? This issue as not limited to RCism, the question is whether religion has inspired any great cultural works. It’s simply that, for most of the period in question, RCism was the only established religion in the West. By Bach’s time, it no longer was. Really; you can look it up.
(In my earlier, more specific reference to RCism, BTW, the focus was me, not the RC church as such: that, no longer having a dog in the RC/prod theological fight, I was readier to concede RCism’s past cultural contributions. That might have been an interesting point for you to attack, but I guess you were reading too fast and thought I was making a different point — one that can only be attacked by being astonishingly ahistorical.)
you can bring up one example, I can bring up just as many, during the same time period, that did not do their works “for the greater glory of an imaginary creator”.
you seem to be missing my point, deliberately, in fact.
why?
Well, it’s hard to say this without seeming unfriendly, but the thing is, you don’t really have much of a point here. All you are saying, if you saying anything at all, is that some creators of ostensibly religious (or religion-inspired) art were in it only for the money, or some other non-religious motivation; as though anybody had ever called that into question. But even that misses the broader point, which is that, whether you like or not, religion (RCism first, then a broader spectrum of Christian denominations) was the cultural context in which a significant portion of our body of western art was created. (If that bothers you, feel free to invent a time machine to go back and change things.) I suppose good art can still be religiously inspired — Arvo Pärt is pretty good, you know — but it no longer has to be (and usually isn’t). I think that’s a good thing. But thinking so won’t change the fact that, a few centuries ago, western society was even more religion-steeped than it is today, and that religion permeated all aspects of life; including art.
This issue as not limited to RCism
uh, it was in your original statement.
if you wish to extend it out to religion in general, we can do that to.
I’d still hold it as no more remarkable or important an influence than many others.
I’m still wondering why you are persisting in this endeavor?
I don’t think you really feel that only religion has the ability to generate inspiration for art, so what is your point, exactly?
But even that misses the broader point, which is that, whether you like or not, religion (RCism first, then a broader spectrum of Christian denominations) was the cultural context in which a significant portion of our body of western art was created.
is this YOUR point?
then again, you missed mine, which was that it is not the RELIGION, but indeed, rather the culture, that was the inspiration.
you hold up very specific examples, and then choose to paint with a very broad brush.
i hold up general examples instead.
I’m thinking you have bought too much into the idea that Catholocism itself was central to the development and inspiration of art, and I’m positing that it is not so. If you look at ALL the art during the same time period, you will find at least equal measures of inspiration being derived from many other sources.
I hope that is clearer.
I suppose good art can still be religiously inspired — Arvo Pärt is pretty good, you know — but it no longer has to be (and usually isn’t).
my point, was, and is:
it never had to be. ever. and in reality it never was a sole or even primary influence on art in general, going all the way back to cave paintings.
Have you ever considered the fact that it was “advertising” by the church itself that made such an apparent influence on art seem more influential than it really was?
This is the heart of all religions: make the priesthood fat and happy by extorting money from the sheep with threats of hellfire and promises of paradise, promises that they never have to fulfill.
Word. For anyone seeking references, I submit the recorded history of virtually every civilization in the entire world, and I don’t doubt it was going on for millennia before they invented writing to record it.
“Well, it’s hard to say this without seeming unfriendly, but the thing is, you don’t really have much of a point here.”
You obviously missed the talking points memo, Mrs. T. Please stay on message. In every instance, irrespective of evidence, indeed, despite all evidence, religion is bad. Evil even. C’mon, get with the program.
“This is the heart of all religions: make the priesthood fat and happy by extorting money from the sheep with threats of hellfire and promises of paradise, promises that they never have to fulfill.”
ndt,
I advise against using absolutes. I am an athiest who deplores religion for all sorts of reasons. However, the particular church my wife goads me into attending on occasion is located in a poor neighborhood in Minneapolis. The priest draws no income, and spends most of his days serving soup to the poor and collecting items for goodwill. The meager collections that there are go to trying to heat the church, which brings in homeless to sleep on cold nights. In the services I’ve attended, they’ve never once solicited increased donation.
I realize that this is the exception rather than the rule, but not all churches seek to keep the priesthood “fat and happy.”
Since “standing” and credentials have come up more than once, I’ll mention that I’ve worked as a professional animator (a craft that involves art) since the seventies. I frequent museums in every city I’ve visited, and have even risked bursting into flames by taking tours in a few English cathedrals. Why, I’ve even attended classes in Western art history, having recently spent a couple of semesters surveying the period extending from cave paintings through the baroque era. I don’t think much of the argument that art owes its existence to religion. It’s entirely too facile and too readily contradicted by the facts. Do you suppose that when I draw Mickey Mouse for Disney, or Masters of the Universe for Filmation, that I am inspired by my passion for cartoon mice or musclemen? Rather, they are the opportunities that exist, such as they are, to work in my craft, to impress my peers, and to collect a paycheck.
For artists throughout history, religion has only ever been part of the market upon which an artist depended. Without rich, prosperous merchants who built successful nation states, the Church wouldn’t be be in a position to compete with secular patrons for the services of the artists. While the Medicis produced three popes, it was Lorenzo the Magnificent who was the secular patron of note in Florence during the early Italian Renaissance. It was called the Renaissance because it was a return to the classicism of Greece and Rome, the sculpted and painted male nude, the exultation in the discovery of the principles of monumental architecture and discovery of the science of representation employing perspective. The allegories and themes were every bit as likely to be Hellenistic or early Roman as Biblical. The subject matter was every bit as much about Donatello’s David (shown by appointment only) as Michelangelo’s. (Where Margaret Atwood used the word writer in her book Negotiating with the Dead, I have replaced it here with the word artist.)
Consider this painting by Artemisia Gentileschi, Judith Slaying Holofernes. Was the subject chosen because it was religious, or was its religious origin merely convenient? For one thing, women were not considered capable of mastering the complexities of religious themes, so she is showing that she can compete in that arena, highlighting her skills as a Caravaggisti. Why this theme? Wikipedia is more succinct than I have time to be:
Art history. You’re doing it wrong.
I still agree with Mrs. Tilton on the connection between art and religion, because I think she’s making a rather mundane statement regarding history, and it includes both patronage and inspiration and variations thereof.
Usually, though, when apologists say things like “you wouldn’t have art without religion” they mean something like “you wouldn’t have art without love, and you wouldn’t have a deep enough love to produce great art without religion.” Which is an entirely different kettle.
I hate to disagree with PZ, but that’s just too broad a statement. Which he’d probably admit, if we were getting all technical and accurate and everything.
I think she’s making a rather mundane statement
Which consists of entirely too little to bother to take exception to, were it not that the history of Western art is entirely about too many other things to allow the sentiment, accepted without examination by those who haven’t spent 5 seconds thinking about it, to go unchallenged.
People make art. The nature of its magic does not lie exclusively in its subject matter, nor in the supernatural.
Man. Got to love the argument that because the only fracking people with 90% of the money and an agenda fed artists that the *art* gets credited to them somehow… This is absurd. I happen to love the art in the Myst series of games. If I had the kind of money that Gates (or some churches) does, I would have my house built to mimic the design, I like the concept and feel of it so much. If I was a religious wack job, I would probably have my fracking church built that way, then claim that I was inspired by God to build in the theme of the games. The art itself was made to tell a completely fictitious story about people that don’t exist. So was 90% of the art and architecture in the ancient world, and a lot of it, like everything else, got stolen from **prior** groups, like the Greeks, Romans, Slavic people, etc. Most of it was just an embellishment of existing styles. The stories they told where, in some cases, likely also stolen from other cultures, or in the case of things like Dante’s Inferno, literally made up to embellish *existing* nonsense someone else made up, to embellish and enforce other stories. The day I see people walking around with copies of the Book of D’ni, instead of the Bible, I will consent that *maybe* the inspiration for the art means a damn thing, and isn’t just incidental to the fact that the people with the money had an itch to spread their mumbo jumbo in a way that they understood would inspire fear, awe and obedience (or at least hoped they would), while failing, by the same measure, to even guess that some loonies would look at a cardinals hat in some painting and insist it was evidence of UFOs…
The day I see people walking around with copies of the Book of D’ni, instead of the Bible, I will consent that *maybe* the inspiration for the art means a damn thing
Except that Rand and Robyn Miller credit Christianity as their inspiration:
Having also thoroughly enjoyed Myst and Riven, I’ve got to credit the brothers Miller for not making the content of the their beliefs the overt message of their games. If there was a religious message in those games it was way more subtle than anything by their purported storytelling hero, C. S. Lewis, and more in keeping with the attitude Tolkien had toward allegory, and world creation. They wanted story to be more important than body count in the world they created, and I also appreciate games like that, no matter what motivated them to pursue such a goal.