What would the World be like if JESUS had never been Born?

Interestingly enough, now that we come to discuss explicitly the hitherto competing absolutist ideologies of Christianity and Communism - ( I know that you do not accept Christianity as an ideology, Bib, but since you cannot prove it isn't, you have to accept that I think it is!) - the fruits of Communism - which are seen by the currently dominant economic rationalist theology as Sodom apples, solely and indeed - are often used to discount the whole ideology.

This fruits argument is one I have been using above with Bib - although I have also posited the possibility of good fruit - and the response has been the same as used by a good Marxist - "You cannot judge the theory by the results you cite, since this is the work of bad, or improperly realised Marxism".

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Now a question for you Bib. Let us assume, for argument's sake, that your definition of Christianity is correct. Acknowledging that, do you think that the institutionalized churches, of any Christian denomination, conduct their business in a Christian manner?

Can you re-state the "absolute authority" question you want to debate, Bib?

Welcome CI.

Mother Nature! Who would she be? Have you met her?

DL: if I debate you, I might debase you!

What subject do you have in mind?

Why would debate debase? Huh?

How about the mass wars and killings thing?

Or the if you embrace good things that appear to emanate from Chritianity amd own them, can you slough off the bad, and say that has nothing to do with real Christianity?

Welcome Phoenix.

You asked, "do you think that the institutionalized churches, of any Christian denomination, conduct their business in a Christian manner?"

Political response: I cannot speak for other professing Christians or their denominations because I am not aware of their day-to-day actions.

Bib response: I know from my own experience as an Administrator of many churches here in Ireland, that we DO conduct our "business" in a Christian manner.

DL: you asked, "How about the mass wars and killings thing?"

What do you mean?

DL: here is the restating of my question about ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY:

If the actions, thoughts and beliefs of Humanity can be what ever anyone wants, then who is to say, or decide, what any of us do is right, moral, or just?

DL: you also asked, "Or the if you embrace good things that appear to emanate from Chritianity amd own them, can you slough off the bad, and say that has nothing to do with real Christianity?"

A true follower, or disciple of Jesus Christ, and thus Christianity, will NOT pick and choose those aspects which they themselves deem to be appropriate to Christianity - that's cherry-picking, and by definition, Pseudo-Christianity.

Bib- But what about the huge cover up of pedophile priests in the Catholic Church? Hey, there are deviates in every sector of society, and they need to be dealt with harshly.

What enrages me is the cavalier manner that the officials of the church took with regards to these priests. Apparently, there was a greater interest on the part of the church officials in protecting their own reputations, and the reputation of the church, than the protection of the abused children.

Phoenix: I couldn't agree with you more.

Pedophilia, or any kind of human abuse is NOT Christian, and anyone who holds ecclesiastical office and condones, shields or denies such repugnant activity, is in my humble opinion, based on the life and works of Jesus Christ, a charlatan, and a disgrace to their clerical calling.

Bib- So by your own definition, the Catholic Church, all the way to the Vatican, has not related to its parishoners in a Christian manner.



This is the link to the whole story:

Link to The Vatican's Part in The Pedophile Scandal

Apparently, it seems that the entire world, including the two of us, know of the church's daily activities in this area.


And how about this example of Christianity in action:
Link to 60 Minutes II story of the "Lost Children"

Phoenix: in relation to how the Catholic Church heirarchy and certain of its lower clergy have responded to their parishoners and the media in general , on the matter of pedophilia, then yes, they have behaved in a non-Christian manner.

Bib- So, the conclusion that I can draw from all of this is that the best way for a person to behave in a Christian manner is to avoid the institutional churches, and practice their faith on their own.

(Please check my earlier post. I have added a link to the "Lost Children" story)

Phoenix: I can see how you arrived at your conclusion, however, it is a rash conclusion, and for the following reasons:

The Catholic Church, and certain of its pedophile priests, in no way can be said to be reflecting the teachings of Jesus Christ, based on recent evidences and court testimonies.

There are MANY other "institutions" as you describe them, which hold firm Christian values, several of whom I have had the privilege of ministering in myself over the past twenty years, and who are shining lights for true Christianity.

In other words: because one denomination has rotten apples in it, it doesn't mean that the rest are rotten!

Bib said:
"If the actions, thoughts and beliefs of Humanity can be what ever anyone wants, then who is to say, or decide, what any of us do is right, moral, or just?"

BIB, If I properly understand your question about authority, and if I may rephrase it as a simple declarative sentence, you are, I think, saying that if there is no absolute authority, then there is no absolute morality, and this implies that people are free to do as they like, which will result in chaos.

Proponents of this argument usually go on to say, and it is unthinkable that moral chaos should reign, therefore it is unthinkable that there is no absolute authority.

Bib, I'd like to point out that the threat of chaos is no proof of the existence of an absolute moral code.

IMO the only moral code we have is the one that has evolved in our society, which is the one that society enforces in many ways, and it is the one that Christianity has taken over, in a sometimes convoluted way, and claimed to have originated with it's god. Other religions have done the same.

No one has any knowledge of an absolute moral code. Christians argue its points all the time. They also differ in their beliefs from other religious authorities who also claim a special revelation straight from god. Human beings are constantly struggling with an ever evolving morality, and we carry on that struggle in the midst of much doubt and darkness. Somehow we make it work well enough so that society keeps going, by fits and starts to be sure, but we make things work because we must.

The church is sometimes a help, and sometimes it just makes a muddle of things. It is exactly like any other human organization, because that's what it is. A human organization and nothing else.

One of the other problems with Absolute Morality, and its attendant theologies, is the question of who gets to be the Authority. Is it the government? In this case we have to deal with the Hitlers, Stalins, and Sadams of the world. Is it the Church? If so, then we have to deal with the inquisition (and the armys of pedophiles). Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once the church or the government thinks it has the one and only formula for paradise on earth, it is but a short step to realizing that in order to bring in the paradise, we are going to have to kill off a few million people who have funny ideas and who are standing in the way of the one true truth.

From a purely practical point of view, what works is to let everyone decide for himself what is right and we all adjust to each other somewhat democratically. That's pretty much what we do anyway, the claims of the authoritarians notwithstanding.

Chaos we always have with us. It is one of the conditions of life. As each of us asserts hiser own right to choose and act as he/she pleases, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others to do likewise, we work to decrease the chaos.

Boy, I leave for a while and all heck breaks loose.

First off, Husker, I did not mean any disrespect for you or your beliefs. I feel awful that you would think so. In fact, I respect you very much for making them known and being a good example for the rest of us. What I was referring to in my earlier response was Christianity's active and extraordinary proselytizing and its strong and vehement denial that any but those who follow their ways, as Bibliophile suggests, will be worthy of whatever life after death, if any, may be offered to us all. That exs out a lot of people who have a strong and valid argument of their own for their beliefs. Many of them, for example, the Hindus and the Native Americans, are quite willing to accept the Christian ideas and incorporate them into their own deeply felt and traditional beliefs. According to standard Christian thought, that isn't good enough. And that is what I meant by bullying.

Bibliophile's quoting of II Peter was aimed at making me feel guilty that I could have been part of the church and then backed away. It was a thinly disguised suggestion that I was going to hell. I resent that, as you might imagine. I have studied religion and religious thought most of my life. I feel I've managed to integrate the best of it all. I therefore don't call myself a Christian, because as Bibliophile says, that would be a pseudo-Christianity.

I have always stated (when asked) that I am a Roman Catholic Daoist Pagan. I've integrated those beliefs and feel more comfortable with that than anything else. I'd rather believe a lot of things than believe nothing. Obviously it is the church of Piffka, but as an individual I believe I have that right.

Saying that one cannot pick and choose what to believe is a specious argument, however, since Christians do it all the time. How many, for example, quote large portions of the Old Testament that "fit" their beliefs, and ignore the much larger portions that surely (and hopefully) don't?

Deb brings up excellent points, though it is quite true that non-Christians, like the early Greeks and Romans had slaves, they were, in the main, treated with respect and, in some cases, great
honor. And for those who have read the Bhagadvita, which begins on a battlefield, it is also pretty obvious that Christians have no more exclusive claim to religious warfare than any other. Surely though, the horrifying actions of our Christian "civilization" lead one to wonder how much of the Sunday homily remains with the congregation for the rest of the week.

It is difficult to discuss this question with real feeling when it appears we are just supposed to answer, "We'd all be in a deep pickle jar if it weren't for the historical facts of the virgin birth of a Jesus." and then have done with it. In fact, I still think my original response, that fewer of us would be reading and writing, is the most likely and I could probably do a little research and find some historians who would agree.

Hazlitt -- Your chaos theory has a lot to offer and has, as far as I can see, seamless logic. I wish you'd jumped in earlier.

Piffka: nice to see you back again. You said:

"Bibliophile's quoting of II Peter was aimed at making me feel guilty that I could have been part of the church and then backed away. It was a thinly disguised suggestion that I was going to hell. "

The scripture I quoted was merely in response to your question about the case for salvation for those who lived before Christ. The suggestion of "guilt" or "hell" is entirely your own - the thought never entered my mind, neither was it implied in my comments.