Before looking for the right answers, look for the right questions
Thanks for a great post, Noah.
I would make a few points, however.
First of all, Noah you’re right that my distinction probably doesn’t apply to some Oriental religions. Confucianism and some strains of Buddhism do indeed define themselves at least as much as ways of life as religious beliefs. I thought about adding a disclaimer to that effect to my original post but thought that was a bit lawyerly. Also I’m sure some faiths explicitly say “If you do this, you cannot be a Zoroastrist/Jainist/whatever.” (And with regard to Judaism, “Who is a Jew?” is a Pandora’s box I don’t want to touch right now.) This isn’t what this is about.
Second of all, you are right that I’m talking about religious belief not sociology. Obviously from a sociological perspective the only way you can determine religious belief through “external” factors. But if you want to learn about more than sociology, it’s a pretty limited approach.
Though, I’m curious, what would you think of a sociological study that said “We’re not counting the adulterers in this society as Christians”? (Let’s assume that this is a society for which we have detailed, Kinsley-type data, on who tends to be an adulterer or not.)
Third of all, I really wanted to make a narrower point, which is to attack the (in my view) unfounded axiom that some actions are automatically incompatible with (most) religious belief. I have little quarrel with the question “Why do you as a X, do Y?” That’s a good question. And I might be getting into a tizzy over semantics; people might mean “Why do you” when they say “How can you”, and in some cases that’s indeed the case. But I don’t think that’s always, or even the majority of cases.
And in any case, when I am given that question, I don’t jump on a high horse and say “How dare you give me that baffling question!” I interpret it as “Why do you”, and I do give one of these answers:
He could say: some Christians may consider X a sin, but I don’t, and I according to my faith I have the competency to make that judgement, so I see no contradiction. He could say: yes, it is a sin, and I struggle against it because I do believe it is a sin, but I am weak, and it is precisely because I know that I am weak that I am a Christian – so, again, there is no contradiction.
But let’s try to take your points and work through them.
First, your example of two men, one of whom acts like a Christian but does not believe the central tenet of the Christian faith, and the other who attacks Christianity but believes that the Apostles’ Creed is true. You’re right, I don’t think the first man is a Christian.
As for the second man, your literary reference gives up the game: it is precisely because Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor is a Christian, and not in the sense of belonging to an established church but in the sense of believing that Jesus is the son of God, that the story is so profound and real.
Let me take a perhaps imperfect analogy: what about a man who has a family life, a wife, and children, and regularly has sex with his wife. Maybe he even flirts with his secretary. But he is only sexually and romantically attracted to other men, and that has been the case since puberty, even though he has not so much as kissed another man. He bears his secret in silence. To borrow your phrase, we know that man exists.
Is that man straight, or is he gay? I think most people would say he is gay, even though without knowing his heart it would be impossible to say so.
Let me take a more provocative example. What about a man who loves his wife passionately, more than anything. And yet he drinks, he cheats on his wife, and he even occasionally beats her and his children. Does such a man exist? I think a lot of people would say, “No, a man who beats his wife cannot possibly love her.” And yet I think we both know from literature and from the incredible complexity of human nature, that this man does exist. And, of course, his love for his wife excuses none of his actions. It doesn’t mean that the guy isn’t a terrible person. But it doesn’t mean that his love doesn’t exist.
What about a man who greatly loves his wife but, wrongly thinking she has a relationship with another man, kills her, Noah? Do we find an example of something like that in history or literature? Is the murder incompatible with love?
And that’s kind of the point I was trying to make. The CW on domestic violence is that it’s impossible to love your wife and simultaneously beat her. And to descend in the murky waters of sociology and public policy for a second, the CW leads to bad outcomes. Because while many battered women stay because of fear or emotional blackmail or other coercive reasons, many of them do stay because of (requited) love, which makes it harder to fight domestic violence because people will say “Just leave that horrible man!” and then throw up their hands when they don’t, where a more nuanced approach would have a greater chance of success.
And so, let’s take the case of the pedophile-covering-up bishop.
You write:
If someone asked “How could bishop so-and-so do that, if he really is a Christian,” I should hope the answer would be, “indeed, his actions were gravely sinful, and if he doesn’t understand that then I, too, question the sincerity of his profession of faith.”
A tentative answer that probably won’t satisfy you and that I’m not sure satisfies me: That would indeed be my answer. But while I would certainly question the sincerity of that man’s profession of faith, I would not either categorically deny it.
Just like, upon learning that a man cheats on his wife and beats her, I would certainly question whether he does love her, but I would not discount the possibility either.
You write:
Because if that isn’t the answer, then on what basis can anyone ever question the authenticity of someone else’s professed faith?
Well, exactly. You say: “How can anyone question…” I say: “Why would anyone…”? What does that teach us?
It certainly doesn’t tell us anything about whether someone’s actions are morally right or not, except to say “And he’s a hypocrite, to boot!”
And, I think it doesn’t really tell us about whether someone is a Christian.
I guess it might tell us something about whether someone is a “good” Christian, but I don’t think the category “good Christian” means much of anything and, oh look, it just happens that we have reams and reams of writing about what it means to be a “good” Christian! Starting with the Bible, and, in the case of my denomination, the doctrinal writings of the Church and the lives of saints. If there’s one thing the Catholic Church is good at, it’s producing documentation on the Catholic religion. (And funny hats, amirite?)
And that was the point of my post. If we want to learn some things about religion, what are some good questions to ask?
To go back to my post, I think the question to ask is what does it teach us to ask the religion/action compatibility question? And my answer is: nothing at all.
A more valuable question is “Why would someone who professes religion X do action Y?” — but, and there lies the rub, once you’ve gotten past the non-contradictory answers you point out, this is a question about human nature, not religion. Which is fine, I guess. But, at the risk of sounding tautological, if you’re curious about religion, asking questions whose answers won’t teach you about religion isn’t going to teach you much about religion. Which was my point.
But here’s the thing: the subtext to this entire debate is really the question: “Does (my particular) religious belief make people a better people?” “And if so, to what extent, and how, and why?”
To the first question, my answer is a resounding yes.
But, out of the crooked timber of humanity, etc. I don’t think being Catholic makes people better every time and in a straight line. (Read Graham Greene, etc.) I think it is more likely, on the whole and over time, to make people better persons.
And maybe I’m wrong! And we can debate that! It’s an interesting debate!
But again, “How is person X doing action Y compatible with professing faith Z?” doesn’t teach us anything about that. Or anything else.
The fact that almost everybody tries to get their religion to answer the question “how am I to live?” can’t simply be hand-waved away, PEG. And religions are typically very happy to answer that question.
Religion is not only a private matter of faith, it’s also a public matter of creed, which explains the popular perception of atheists as lacking morality – lacking a religion, they’re viewed as lacking any public affiliation with the known moral creeds.
So very clearly “some actions are automatically incompatible with (most) religious belief” to the extent that religions are in the “telling people how they should live” business, which all of them are without exception. If your religion tells you that you should live one way, and you announce that you follow a religion that tells you to live that way and yet you don’t, people have a reasonable basis upon which to ask you how you square that circle. Membership in a community is typically voluntary in both directions – the community of your co-believers has an interest in determining if you “really” belong. Maybe they shouldn’t, but they perceive that they do.
— Ch3t · Aug 20, 01:36 PM · #
You say: “”“A more valuable question is “Why would someone who professes religion X do action Y?” — but, and there lies the rub, once you’ve gotten past the non-contradictory answers you point out, this is a question about human nature, not religion. “”“
This is so long as you think religions should be effective guides to human action. In which case a religion becomes better whenever it improves the actions of it’s devotees. Some religions certainly are guides of this kind; but I can vaguely see arguments both for and against thinking of Christianity this way.
— Adrian Ratnapala · Aug 20, 02:13 PM · #
“if you’re curious about religion, asking questions whose answers won’t teach you about religion isn’t going to teach you much about religion.”
These words will be worth remembering. I think they apply to more than just religion, but they especially apply to religion. Thanks.
— The Reticulator · Aug 20, 02:45 PM · #
Ch3t:
I agree.
— PEG · Aug 20, 02:58 PM · #
Well, if I wasn’t clear, it’s my belief, and I assume Noah’s as well, that when people say “how can you believe in X and do Y?” that’s what they’re asking. Implicit in that question is the assumption that beliefs have to be more-or-less consistent with actions. I understand you to be attacking that assumption, but it’s pretty clearly folded into basically all religions. That’s why we have the word “hypocrisy.” Being a hypocrite is supposed to bother you. It is, in fact, supposed to bother you so much that you stop the offending behavior. When it doesn’t seem to, that’s when people ask “how can you believe X and do Y?”
— Ch3t · Aug 20, 07:51 PM · #
“Go forth and sin no more” was Jesus’s instruction to the harlot. Christianity is clearly meant to be transformitive and participatory. You know, at least if you follow Jesus. I understand that relatively few Christians feel they have to.
— Ch3t · Aug 20, 07:54 PM · #
It is, in fact, supposed to bother you so much that you stop the offending behavior. When it doesn’t seem to, that’s when people ask “how can you believe X and do Y?”
Do you think they ask in order to gain information, or because it bothers them that people aren’t bothered as much as they would like?
— The Reticulator · Aug 20, 08:08 PM · #
Ch3t,
You say, “Christianity is clearly meant to be transformitive and participatory. You know, at least if you follow Jesus. I understand that relatively few Christians feel they have to.”
I say, only those liberal unorthodox Christians who think Hell doesn’t exist, it’s O.K. to fornicate or have gay sex, or kill the unborn or dying elderly. For us orthodox, it is a daily struggle to follow Christ.
— Fake Herzog · Aug 20, 10:00 PM · #
Re: When it doesn’t seem to, that’s when people ask “how can you believe X and do Y?”
I’d say the question ‘How can you be a Christian, and do Y’ can be more or less meaningful depending on what Y is, and how routinely and/or unrepentantly the person engages in that sin. If ‘Y’ is a sin on the order of wh*cking off, or coming in late to work, or gossiping about people, then while those are all serious sins, they’re also very easy ones to fall into, they’re the result of fairly common temptations that afflict all of us, and they don’t (necessarily) evince the kind of active malice towards God and one’s neighbour that some other sins do. With those sins, I think it’s a silly question: of course we need to try and avoid them, but we are going to inevitably fail (hopefully less and less often as time goes on) and that’s what the confessional is for. By contrast, I believe the original discussion was about priests molesting children, and that’s a very different sort of sin. It’s a much more serious kind of evil, one which does display active malice towards the world’s most vulnerable people, and I think it’s a fair question how someone can be a Christian and molest children (or repeatedly fail to prevent others from molesting children).
Re: it is precisely because Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor is a Christian, and not in the sense of belonging to an established church but in the sense of believing that Jesus is the son of God, that the story is so profound and real.
Having read ‘The Brothers Karamazov’ about four times, I’d say that Dostoyevsky is deliberately unclear and ambiguous about whether the Grand Inquisitor (and, for that matter, Ivan Karamazov at the end of the book) really believes in God and/or in the divinity of Christ, in his heart of hearts. He didn’t want to make things easy for us (though I think he does suggest that both of them do believe, one can certainly make arguments the other day, as Alexey does).
Re: I say, only those liberal unorthodox Christians who think Hell doesn’t exist, it’s O.K. to fornicate or have gay sex, or kill the unborn or dying elderly.
Yes, because clearly having gay sex is as bad as killing the unborn. Do you folks even listen to yourselves?
(FTR, I believe in Hell, I don’t think that gay and/or premarital sex are necessarily always sinful, and I believe that abortion is always a grave sin, and ought to be a crime, except when there are serious threats to the mother’s health. Orthodox and unorthodox aren’t a binary choice, and by the standards of the Seven Ecumenical Councils most of today’s evangelicals are pretty unorthodox as well).
Re: I think a lot of people would say, “No, a man who beats his wife cannot possibly love her
Well, I think we can certainly say that he doesn’t love her in the Christian sense. He might have an affection for her, but that’s not really the same thing.
— Hector_St_Clare · Aug 20, 11:08 PM · #
PEG: I think I understand what you were getting at better now. And if you agree with Ch3t’s point, as you appear to do, then any remaining argument we have is off to the side of your original point, or is sematic in nature.
But I want to call out one point you make in this reply. You say:
Is it? I wasn’t aware that was the subtext. But it seems to me that if that is the underlying question, then you would need to be more, not less, attentive to the actual behavior of people who profess a religious belief.
Personally, I think there are far too many confounding variables to seriously entertain questions about whether religion makes people “better” – assuming we’d all agree on what “better” even means.
— Noah Millman · Aug 20, 11:29 PM · #
Noah:
Probably.
Well, it’s a subtext, that commenters seem very interested in discussing so I thought I’d address it.
My only point is that a question based on an assumption that some actions are automatically incompatible with religious belief is incorrect, at least when it comes to Christianity and many other religions, and doesn’t teach you much about religion, or really anything else.
— PEG · Aug 21, 07:26 AM · #
My only point is that a question based on an assumption that some actions are automatically incompatible with religious belief is incorrect
Yes, I agree. In fact, the Bible only tells of one sin that is unpardonable. It’s called the sin against the Holy Spirit. I’ve never heard anyone explain it to my satisfaction.
It’s interesting that the critics here have missed an overarching point of all this: Christianity is the most inclusive of all religions. It says come as you are, you are forgiven if you believe and confess, no matter if you killed your mother or exterminated the Jews. (Yes, I would be surprised if Hitler was forgiven.)
We Christians might fail every day, as St. Paul admitted he did, but at least we admit we’re capable of hypocrisy. Most commenters here would say they don’t participate in that sin and that in fact only us Christians can. Kind of like only white conservatives can be racist.
— jd · Aug 21, 12:24 PM · #
A non-religious person in a highly Christian country hears her own branch of baffling questions from theists— for instance, “How can you not believe in God when you look on the wonders/complexities of the world around us?” or the far more patronizing, “How can you know what’s right/good/moral without God?”
Obviously, some doubters suspect Christians of hypocrisy and inconsistency, and that’s not very nice. But, surely the far more pervasive and arrogant suspicion is the one held by believers that they have a special understanding of good and evil.
— RPH · Aug 21, 02:31 PM · #
jd, I have great respect for Christians, have attended many services of many stripes in my life, and attend church close to weekly with my Christian wife and our family. But there is a bit of a tendency to say, from a position of ignorance, that “Christianity is the only religion which ____,” which I find immensely annoying, and you’re doing it. I trained for the “Hindu” preisthood and became, under the tutelage of Catholic priests and Sufi imams, at least a little familiar with other ideas in the process.
Christianity is emphatically not the most inclusive of relgions in the way you describe. Islam and Baha’i have the exact same mentality of, anyone regardless of past can submit to the Lord and be saved. Buddhism will accept all comers, and most forms will even accept them while they have not renounced other faiths, which you do not, so that pretty much beats Christianity on that metric. And “Hinduism” doesn’t even divide the world into “Hindus” and “non-Hindus” so we don’t accept that you aren’t already one of us — my wife can receive any service at the temple that I can (whereas I can’t, for example, take communion in most Christian churches, having been neither baptized nor confirmed). I don’t mean to get in a pissing match, this isn’t about what’s better (although, I think it’s us), but it’s certainly not true that Christianity is more “inclusive.”
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 21, 05:01 PM · #
In fact, to append, that inclusivity is written into Islam’s founding, and is something I have always loved about the Muslims: Muhammed starts as something of a screwup. He is not like Jesus or Moses: he’s not born the Prophet at all, but achieves it, somewhat unwillingly — which jibes well with how I understand the world to work. In that realization and a couple others I think the founders of Islam really transcended the stuff from which it grew.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 21, 05:56 PM · #
Hector,
Based on your response to me, I would also characterize you as “unorthodox”, although confused would also work.
Kieselguhr Kid,
You say “Muhammed starts as something of a screwup.” I’d just add that then he becomes a ruthless warlord, madman, and total and complete screwup given the legacy he left behind…but I have zero respect for Islam as a religion. See you at the next ecumenical meeting ;-)
— Fake Herozg · Aug 21, 07:26 PM · #
Re: I’d just add that then he becomes a ruthless warlord, madman, and total and complete screwup given the legacy he left behind…but I have zero respect for Islam as a religion.
Don’t forget his 9-year-old “wife”. Ugh.
— Hector_St_Clare · Aug 21, 08:17 PM · #
Re: my wife can receive any service at the temple that I can (whereas I can’t, for example, take communion in most Christian churches, having been neither baptized nor confirmed).
That’s not necessarily true as a general rule. I’ve seen plenty of Hindu temples in India where non-Hindus are not allowed inside, or not allowed into certain portions of the building. In contrast, I don’t know of any Christian churches (with the possible exception of Mormons) that don’t allow non-Christians to attend services in the building.
— Hector_St_Clare · Aug 21, 08:45 PM · #
Hector,
I’ve been to India many times, and to many many many temples, with mixed religion groups. I am unaware of this phenomenon, and question your statement. I don’t know how you’d determine who’s “Hindu.” Certainly I’ve seen non-Huindus at some of the most significant tirthas, and I’ve taken my Christian in-laws to a couple.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 21, 10:18 PM · #
And, there are definitely no places in any temple you can’t go once you’re in the front door, that I can. You can’t go in what I’ll call the sanctum, but only the temple’s priests do that — I can’t, other priest from other places can’t.
That said now that I think on it I have heard of a temple in Nepal which is closed to outsiders. Mind you I heard about it from an Indian Brahmin relative who was not allowed in… so there are some oddball cases, but they are of specialized sects offshot from “Hinduism.” There is no way of specifying in Sanksrit that “non-Hindus” are barred.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 21, 10:29 PM · #
PEG,
An answer that I’m pretty sure you could not justify with evidence. But then, you are a “person of faith.”
— Joey L · Aug 21, 11:46 PM · #
Re: I am unaware of this phenomenon, and question your statement. I don’t know how you’d determine who’s “Hindu.”
The Tirupathi pilgrimage site in southern Andhra Pradesh is one (IIRC), the Meenakshi temple in Madurai is another, and there’s also a temple in Tanjore that I don’t remember the name of, where were told that non-Hindus weren’t allowed in. Much of my family is Hindu, which is why I’ve been to these places, but I generally don’t go inside if I’m told that it’s for Hindus only, since I’m Christian. Of course the irony is my agnostic mother and brother walked right in.
My examples are all from the South b/c that’s the only part of the country I’m familiar with: things might be different in the North.
As for ‘how you determine’: well, they don’t, really, any more, any more than Roman Catholic churches have a good way of determining who’s RC. From what I’ve heard they count on you to respect their rules, which most people do. Apparently for people that look ‘white’ they actually do try to verify that you’re Hindu.
— Hector_St_Clare · Aug 22, 12:10 AM · #
K Kid wrote:
And “Hinduism” doesn’t even divide the world into “Hindus” and “non-Hindus” so we don’t accept that you aren’t already one of us…this isn’t about what’s better (although, I think it’s us)
Now, wait just a minute, if I’m one of you already, then I’m better than I think I am because while I believe I’m Christian, I’m actually Hindu and Hindus are better than Christians. It’s a little confusing, but I like it. I can continue to cling bitterly to my God and my guns, but still be a Hindu and know that I am better than I am.
— jd · Aug 22, 01:38 AM · #
Hey, Hector, it souds like we’re from the same geographic background — cool! And, happy Sri Jayanthi to your relatives.
As it happens Tirupathi (of course!) and Meenakshi Kovil were the places I was thinking of; I’ve taken American Christian and Jewish relatives to Tirupathi, and college buddies to Meenaksi Kovil (so at least back in the ’80’s some tourist guidebook told Americans they could just walk in and check it out.) I grant that following a guy with a naamum probably helps at Tirupathi (but at Meenaksi Kovil? By your description that should get me barred, and I assure you it does not). One reason I think you ought to reconsider, is that there always seem to be fakirs at Tirupathi, and I can’t imagine anybody throwing them out, or even treating them differently from the sadhus (and, honestly: can you imagine someone throwing a holy man, of whatever stripe, out of Tirupathi?)
That said I was curious enough about what you said to ask a relative, and he tells me the priests at Jagannath have, over the past decade, gotten pissy about who “gets in,” which sucks. And I recognize that in post-BJP India people have developed all kinds of ways to make Indian Christians and Muslims unhappy, which I don’t see as clearly; I’ve heard young folks talking repulsively about Muslims (and stood up for them of course), and some years back we were walking with a Chinese-American friend in jeans in Bombay, and she was harassed and had stones tossed at her, which is something that would not have happened a decade ago: not there. So I’ll concede that there’s a lot of new bigotry walking around and God knows what random boob might try keeping you out of a kovil (on the other hand, I can’t believe it’s the swamy — what’s he going to do, stop the homa and get up to push you out?) I won’t concede that there’s anywhere you can’t go once in the kovil, except for the moola vigrahas, where I can’t go either. And I think we’re agreed that any temple jd might drive to, they’ll treat him like every other devotee.
jd, you know what I mean. But I think the point is clear — it’s just silly to laud Christianity for its “inclusivity”; it is at best unexceptional (and in fact from my outsider’s perspective seems sort of exclusive. My wife picks our church — not my business, really — and always has to ask the minister if he’s OK with my coming and sitting with the family, our sponsoring post-service coffees and altar flowers and the like, and typically it’s two or three churches after a move before she finds a minster who’s on board. Similarly she’s left churches because they explicitly didn’t allow gay congregationists, which she finds unacceptable. Getting our kids baptized was also an incredible bitch, but mostly I put that down to the general niceness of the ministers, who didn’t want me to sit it out (I was willing to) but couldn’t figure out how I could play the parent role in their BCPs, and so just said, “we can’t do that.”) I don’t think that’s a particular critique of Christianity since I don’t quite understand why a religion needs to be “inclusive.” “Hinduism” and Buddhism are, because there’s no barrier articulated. Christianity is, because of course it is, it proselytizes (and folks like me, or the openly gay, are excluded for the perfectly understandable reason that we’re not shopping.) No big deal. On the other hand, I would suggest that if you got one thing about religion profoundly wrong through ignorance of other traditions, it’s very worth considering what else you may have wrong, no? Especially in the world in which we now live?
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 22, 10:28 AM · #
KK:
No, I don’t know what you meant when you said I’m already one of you.
However, I think you know what I meant when I said Christianity was the most inclusive. It was not to imply that other religions aren’t, just to push back against the notion of Christianity being intolerant and hypocritical. Those two things are the cudgel the left uses against us all the time. Since the invitation is open to anyone, is it surprising that there are hypocrites and bigots in the church? We don’t become perfect at conversion.
And to push back against the notion that Christianity doesn’t make people “better”: it is just simply evident every day that when people profess faith, something about them improves. In many cases, it’s almost miraculous. As C.S. Lewis said (paraphrase): if you think I’m bad now, you should have seen me before.
— jd · Aug 22, 12:12 PM · #
jd, then perhaps you ought not to use words comparing Christianity to other religions, and simply say it is inclusive. Although, fairly, it should be clear why from my perspective, it is not!
After all, making the comparison flat-out wrongly — what devotees will you proseltyze, that Islam will not? — doesn’t exactly refute a charge of willful ignorance.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 22, 12:55 PM · #
jd, then perhaps you ought not to use words comparing Christianity to other religions, and simply say it is inclusive.
OK.
Although, fairly, it should be clear why from my perspective, it is not!
No, not really. Only if, as in your case, you can feel excluded from a club for which you have no desire to be a member.
— jd · Aug 22, 02:15 PM · #
PEG,
I tried to get you and Noah to bite on this argument before, but let me try one more time. You say,
“As for the second man, your literary reference gives up the game: it is precisely because Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor is a Christian, and not in the sense of belonging to an established church but in the sense of believing that Jesus is the son of God, that the story is so profound and real.”
And this is in reference to Noah’s example of “a man, in his heart, believes that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, died for the world’s sins, and was resurrected to life eternal. Someone who believes this is some kind of Christian, yes?
Now consider that this man takes the following actions: to denounce Christianity as false and evil, publicly desecrate the host, and persecute Christians even to death.”
My contention remains that if this man takes the actions that Noah describes (or Dostoevsky) we can no longer meaningfully call him a Christian. Why? Well, think of Satan. Satan doesn’t just_believe_that “Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God”, etc. He_knows_these facts to be true. But would you call Satan a Christian? Remember, James 2:19: “You believe that [a] God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” But just because the demons believe, we don’t think of them as Christian. The reason, I maintain, is that they have consciously choosen to reject Christ and His message — just as one who knows the Gospel is true but chooses to persecute Christians or denounce Christianity. In other words, unlike your garden-variety sinner (who struggles against sin) someone who choose evil has rejected Christianity and can no longer be considered Christian.
I suppose this idea might be somewhat controversial theologically, although my guess is that if a Pope knew of a Catholic doing what Noah describes they would move to excommunicate the individual, affirming what I argue here.
— Fake Herzog · Aug 22, 04:38 PM · #
Well, right. I mean, the logical backbends you have to do to read the ministry of Jesus as being one about opposing gay sex and abortion must cause a fortune in oxycontin bills alone.
— Ch3t · Aug 23, 03:52 PM · #
Funny – in my experience, when people profess their atheism for the first time, it is “just simply evident” that something about them has improved; and that something is that they are no longer living a lie. When people come out of closets – any kind of closet – it’s a beautiful thing to behold.
Another TAS dispatch from an alternate universe, I guess – jd’s certainty that “something about them improves” is exactly the opposite of what everybody knows is true.
— Ch3t · Aug 23, 03:56 PM · #
Re: I mean, the logical backbends you have to do to read the ministry of Jesus as being one about opposing gay sex and abortion must cause a fortune in oxycontin bills alone.
I agree with you about gay sex (which I don’t believe is a sin) but I cannot conceive of Jesus being okay with abortion. “Do not kill the innocent” seems to cover it pretty well, and consistent church teaching since the first century holds that abortion is a form of homicide. Abortion, unlike gay sex, has a clear and well defined victim.
— Hector_St_Clare · Aug 23, 09:50 PM · #
Despite the fact that the Bible contains a recipe for an abortifacient for administration by priests? Well, you wouldn’t be the first Christian to be reading the Bible selectively, I suppose. Anyway you and Fake Herzog will have to work out for yourselves which one of you is the real Christian.
And where does Jesus say that, exactly? I think you’re thinking of Exodus or Jeremiah.
— Ch3t · Aug 23, 10:08 PM · #
Hector and Ch3t,
Have either of you cracked open a Bible recently? Sure, I can understand that you might feel uncomfortable with some of God’s commands, but remember how Christ taught us to pray, “Thy will, not mine, be done.” We can’t ignore the parts of the Bible that make us uncomfortable.
Anyway, there really is no good case to be made that the Bible endorses any form of sex outside of marriage that isn’t sinful. The go to guy on these issues is Robert Gagnon: http://www.robgagnon.net/
You will have no good answers to his analysis because there are none (well, none that won’t have you doing “logical backbends”).
— Jeff Singer · Aug 23, 10:15 PM · #
Yes, who needs actual, you know, e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e when there’s jd to assure us that it’s “just simply evident.”
— Joey L · Aug 23, 11:35 PM · #
We’re talking about Jesus, specifically. You know, that guy you’re supposed to follow when you become a Christian. There’s really no evidence that Jesus was in the “endorsing kinds of sex” business in any degree.
I don’t know if that’s a “backbend” or not, and I don’t give a damn – I’m not Christian, so it doesn’t matter to me what the Bible says. But here’s a hint – if the Bible somehow coincidentally does nothing but affirm your pre-existing prejudices, my guess is that you’re reading it wrong. I mean, really – what are the odds that God would wind up hating all the things you yourself think are gross?
— Ch3t · Aug 24, 03:57 AM · #
“But here’s a hint – if the Bible somehow coincidentally does nothing but affirm your pre-existing prejudices, my guess is that you’re reading it wrong. I mean, really – what are the odds that God would wind up hating all the things you yourself think are gross?”
You have no idea what my “pre-existing prejudices” might be, but to give you a hint, Saint Augustine’s prayer comes to mind, “Lord make me chaste…but not yet.”
— Fake Herzog · Aug 24, 02:21 PM · #
I was mostly talking to Jeff Singer, but I can certainly make some guesses about your pre-existing prejudices. It’s astounding how rarely transformative religious faith is; what attracts people to one church or another is that the church is already declaiming the things they’re against.
— Ch3t · Aug 24, 02:52 PM · #
Ch3t,
I wonder whether or not the data backs you up w/r/t your claim that “what attracts people to one church or another is that the church is already declaiming the things they’re against.”
In my case, which I guess you didn’t pick up from Augustine’s quote, the opposite was true — I think I avoided facing the truth claims of Christianity because I didn’t like their implications and the transformation they would demand of me. Here is a great quote from the philosopher Mortimer Adler that gets at this idea (Adler eventually converted to Catholicism):
“I think I now know the answer to that crucial question, though I did not grasp it at the time. It lies in the state of one’s will, not in the state of one’s mind. The individual who is born a Jew or a Christian, a Catholic or a Protestant, can know himself to be such, however loosely or feebly, without having to live as a truly religious Jew or Christian should live. But the case of the convert to Judaism or Christianity is quite different. The only reason to adopt a religion is that one wishes and intends to live henceforth in accordance with its precepts, forswearing conduct and habits that are incompatible. For me to become a Roman Catholic—or, for that matter, an Anglo-Catholic or Episcopalian—would require a radical change in my way of life, a basic alteration in the direction of my day-to-day choices as well as in the ultimate objectives to be sought or hoped for. I have too clear and too detailed an understanding of moral theology to fool myself on that score. The simple truth of the matter is that I did not wish to live up to being a genuinely religious person. I could not bring myself to will what I ought to will for my whole future if I were to resolve my will, at a particular moment, with regard to religious conversion.”
— Mortimer Adler, Philosopher at Large: An Intellectual Autobiography (New York: Macmillan, 1977), p. 316.
— Fake Herzog · Aug 24, 07:49 PM · #
I don’t know what you meant when you said I’m already one of you.lol
— nfl jerseys · Aug 25, 02:04 AM · #
That’s sort of what I’m getting at. By definition you can’t want to do something you don’t want to do. It’s not “transformitive” to stop smoking when you wanted to stop smoking anyway, or whatever.
But let’s be honest – what people mean when they suggest that living the faith is “hard” is that Bible study is boring and they’d rather sleep in on Sunday than drop some cash in the collection plate. They don’t mean that they have all this sinful and unrighteous tolerance in their hearts for gay people and abortionists, but that they struggle every day to get out there and call them “perverts” and “baby-killers” like Jesus expects. That’s just not anybody’s experience of faith. Christians who are fine with gay people find (or start) a church that is fine with gay people. When your pastor wakes up one morning and decides he’s not going to preach about Hell anymore, in fact he’s going to tell people there’s no such thing, his congregation doesn’t follow suit: it’s musical chairs until his congregation has replaced itself with people who already didn’t believe in Hell.
— Ch3t · Aug 25, 03:55 AM · #
Ch3t,
Jesus specifically endorses sex within the context of marriage as the only form of sex acceptable. In fact he goes so far as to preach a more restrictive requirement for divorce, that esssentially makes anyone divorcing for reasons otehr than infidelity an adulterer. Finally if Jesus equates lust with adultrey, the implication that sex outside of marriage is sinful is pretty clear.— BrianF · Aug 25, 03:09 PM · #
Cite?
— Chet · Aug 25, 03:50 PM · #
Re: Finally if Jesus equates lust with adultrey, the implication that sex outside of marriage is sinful is pretty clear.
Huh? I don’t see that at all. Adultery is a crime against the spouse/partner of the person you’re cheating with, while a sexual relationship between two people, neither of which is married/involved with anyone else, doesn’t have a ‘victim’ at all. Aquinas held (against the opinion of certain Spanish heretics) that unmarried sex was still a sin because it risks bringing a fatherless child into the world, which is certainly quite true, but now that we have fairly reliable and non-abortive contraceptive methods, we need to think about that more carefully and assess whether it’s still true or not, and to what extent. For something like the same reasons, it’s eminently reasonable to re-assess the traditional prohibition against gay sex, because they rested on the premise that homosexuality was unnatural. If it isn’t unnatural, then there’s little reason to think it’s a sin. The prohibition against abortion is quite different, because 1) it has a clear victim, 2) it’s an objectively unloving act towards the unborn child, 3) there’s an actual church council condemning it explicitly, and 4) we have no logical reason to believe that the Fathers were wrong in claiming that ensoulment happens at conception (to the extent that modern biology tells us anything, it tells us that conception is a much more important event than we used to think).
The head of my church, Rowan Williams, doesn’t believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I rather think that (as a bishop in the apostolic succession) he has a bit more authority to speak on the matter than me, you, or Rob Gagnon.
Incidentally, Jesus didn’t make an exception for ‘infidelity’, there are good reasons (both textual and historical) to believe that so-called exception in Matthew was probably either made up by a later glossator, or else refers to invalid marriages. The closest you can get to Jesus talking about pre-marital sex is the episode with St. Photina at the well in John 4, which an interesting (and ambiguous) passage- we can get into interpreting that passage if you want, but I’m not sure it makes an easy case either way.
— Hector_St_Clare · Aug 25, 04:53 PM · #
Hector,
I was drinking when I read your comment and I almost spit up all over my papers ;-) I didn’t know you wrote jokes for a living:
“The head of my church, Rowan Williams, doesn’t believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I rather think that (as a bishop in the apostolic succession) he has a bit more authority to speak on the matter than me, you, or Rob Gagnon.”
Really? Apostolic succession? Really? There is much to admire about Lord Cranmer and the church he basically created from scratch, but let’s not fool ourselves — he was making a radical break from Rome and therefore a break from the line of apostolic succession. Plus the fact that Williams is a complete goofball, and that is the theological technical term.
And one more thing — you have no idea what you are talking about when you say, “For something like the same reasons, it’s eminently reasonable to re-assess the traditional prohibition against gay sex, because they rested on the premise that homosexuality was unnatural.” No. Idea. At. All. I suggest you click on over to Amazon and buy either of Professor Feser’s books on natural law philosophy that deal with these issues, The Last Superstition or Aquinas.
Ch3t,
Much you say in your 11:55PM comment is wise and I would agree with, except for this: “They don’t mean that they have all this sinful and unrighteous tolerance in their hearts for gay people and abortionists, but that they struggle every day to get out there and call them “perverts” and “baby-killers” like Jesus expects.”
Check out this woman’s book for one counter-example:
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=41430
— Fake Herzog · Aug 25, 06:41 PM · #
Er, no. To the extent that modern biology tells us anything, it tells us that conception is a much less important event than you think, since it happens far in excess of birth and proceeds to actual pregnancy only in a statistically insignificant number of cases. Implantation is somewhat more important; the second or third birthday, far more so.
@Herzog:
I don’t see how this is a counterexample of anything. You’re aware that Abby Johnson’s account is a lie, right? That she, in fact, made up the entire thing, was never called in to assist on any ultrasound abortion according to three different sets of medical records, and rather than resigning due to conscience, was actually in the process of being fired for theft and violations of HIPPA?
— Ch3t · Aug 25, 09:49 PM · #
Ch3t,
You are a tough nut to crack ;-) Now I’ll be forced to read various articles about Abby Johnson, which I really didn’t want to do, but so be it.
Meanwhile, how about Doctor Nathanson, mentioned in that same article I linked to? Again, I basically agree with you that most people don’t think of religion in the way I think of religion (or Adler thought of religion) but clearly there are some of us out there who used to think X about moral matters and X fit comfortably into our lives and now we think Y, and Y is not as comfortable, but we think Y is the TRUTH, so we try and follow Y.
— Fake Herzog · Aug 25, 11:41 PM · #
Clearly? The only examples you’re providing are of people who change their minds and then change their churches, not the reverse. Obviously people revise their stances on moral issues. But that’s a process that drives a religious change, not a process driven by it. Religion is primarily a consumer activity and being “comfortable” in church is exactly what people look for.
— Ch3t · Aug 26, 02:54 PM · #
Ch3t,
Here is your cite:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Divorce 31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
— BrianF · Aug 26, 03:06 PM · #
@BrianF
1) I wish you had provided chapter and verse.
2) I don’t see how the quoted material supports your interpretation of it. Where’s the part where Jesus says not to have gay sex?
— Ch3t · Aug 26, 09:28 PM · #
Ch3t
1. That passage is from Matthew Chapter 5
2. Well if even looking at someone lustfully without being married to them constitutes adultrey, you can’t posit that Jesus would allow for any form of sex outside of marriage. Gay or straight is irrelevant.
— BrianF · Aug 29, 04:21 PM · #
You assume too much and too broadly:
1) It says “woman”, not “someone.” So gay men can look at each other lustfully (I guess straight men can too, if they want.)
2) Jesus doesn’t “define marriage as between a man and a woman” to borrow the phraseology. This is a prohibition against being even mentally unfaithful to your partner, not a prohibition on having certain types of partners.
— Ch3t · Aug 30, 03:51 AM · #
Ch3t,
Given everthying else in Jesus’ teaching, and the Law and the culture he lived in, you can’t seriously believe that Jesus was proscribing anything other than sexual relations only within th econtext of marriage.And actually Jesus does define marrieage in Mark Chapter 10
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” So we have two instances of Christ’s words defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman into one flesh, and that the only form of sex acceptable to God must occur within the context of that relationship.— BrianF · Aug 30, 04:42 PM · #
I’m not. But nowhere in the Bible does Jesus prosribe marriage as only something one man and one woman can do. Why would he, when so many of his followers and ancestors were in polygamous marriage?
Not in Mark 10 or at any other time. He simply defines a man and woman being as one flesh as “married”, not the reverse. P->Q doesn’t imply Q->P.
Like I said – you’re making unjustified assumptions because you yourself oppose gay marriage. The problem for you is that Jesus, read closely, does not.
— Ch3t · Aug 30, 09:12 PM · #
I think my problem is mostly that I can’t do enough violence to the teachings of Jeseus or other texts to contort it in a way that makes sex outside of marriage relationship between a man and a woman acceptable from a Christian perspective.
It’s as if someone was teaching about the rules of driving and you assumed because they didn’t mention motorcycles, you assumed it gave you permission to run red lights as long as your were on a bike.
— BrianF · Aug 31, 04:36 PM · #
The teachings of Jesus are that we have enormous responsibilities to other people in our society that go above and beyond our own selfish pleasure or even our individual well-being. You’re right that it takes enormous violence to construe that as Jesus’s demand that men only marry women and vice-versa – something he doesn’t at any point state.
No, it’s more like you learning that cars in your state are required to maintain a certain pressure in all four tires, and from that you conclude that anyone who rides a bicycle must be stoned to death.
— Ch3t · Aug 31, 05:28 PM · #
Brian F,
If you think that Jesus said anything about 1) homosexuality or 2) premarital sex, then it’s interesting that as far as I know none of the apostolic, patristic or medieval sources who argued against these things ever cited Matthew 5:27-29 in that context.
The grounds they provided for opposing homosexuality, and for opposing premarital sex, were based on natural law, on the fact that sex outside marriage could , on the Epistles of Paul, and on the acts of the Council of Jerusalem, but as far as I know they never cited Matthew 5:27-29, or any other sayings of Jesus, in that context. It’s clear to most people who read the passage that the implication of the passage is that ‘the desire for illicit sex is a sin, not just the performance of illicit sex’, thus if you use pornographic images of a film star, then in a sense you’re cheating on your wife or girlfriend or whatever. But the passage doesn’t really address what illicit sex consists of. The closest you get to Jesus actually talking about sex between unmarried people (and in Christian eyes, that’s what gay sex is) is in the dialogue with Photina at the well in John 4. (Incidentally, the use of the word ‘adultery’, as opposed to ‘porneia’, implies that Jesus is talking specifically about people who are married, cheating on their spouses; that’s what ‘adultery’ (or ‘moicheia’) means).
Now, obviously, the fact that Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn homosexuality doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t a sin. (As it’s been often said, He didn’t condemn slavery either). I don’t personally think homosexuality is a sin, but I’d base that more on our evolving understanding of nature, more on scriptural arguments. You can certainly make a case that homosexuality and premarital sex are wrong, and you can actually do it without relying on scripture at all, but I think appealing to the words of Jesus (recorded or otherwise) is a stretch. Matthew 5:27-29 doesn’t really say what you claim it says.
— Hector_St_Clare · Aug 31, 08:40 PM · #
Hector,
But really there is no way to understand Jesus teaching without its context within the Jewish tradition and the Torah. Homosexuality as understood and practiced in the 20th and 21st centuries would have been foreign to not only Palestinian jews, but evey other culture in existence at the time. And if you take the sermon on the mount as a whole, the crux of Jesus’ teaching is to emphasize the fact God’s kingdom has arrived on earth, and that slavation comes not from acting like a Pharisee and keeping the letter of the law (because as the adultrey example and other’s points out the true intrepretation of the law is impossible for one to keep) instead true salvation comes from changing ones’s heart, being poor in spirit, meeek, a peacemaker etc.I didn’t bring in the epistilic teachings becasue I wanted to limit the discussion to Jesus’ teachings during his earthly ministry.
— BrianF · Sep 1, 04:34 PM · #