5 ms·

Put in other terms, the Western world in 2020 likes to act as if it reinvented itself afresh in the 1700-1800-1900s, but in reality, everything about "secular"

Put in other terms, the Western world in 2020 likes to act as if it reinvented itself afresh in the 1700-1800-1900s, but in reality, everything about "secular" knowledge has been formed in thousands of years of Christian culture. That makes sense only if you redefine "Christianity" to mean "respect for universal human rights". By that logic most everyone is a Christian. Most Hindus and Buddhists would be Christian too. The problem is that changing the definition of a word does not change boundaries in reality. I can call my automobile a "Leaf", but that doesn't mean my car does photosynthesis. Similarly, you can say that Christianity just means "respect for human rights", but that doesn't mean that everyone accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ.

keiferski 6y ago
That's not what I claimed at all. I simply said the values were formed in a Christian context. Today, in our global world, the same values absolutely have changed previously different cultures. Japan prior to 1946 doesn't have a universalist (formed in Christianity) democratic tradition, which was forced upon it by the West. India has a similar story with the caste system. It doesn't mean that they are Christians, but simply that ideas strongly formed by Christianity are now extremely powerful there.
- acqq 6y ago
  But you wrote: "The idea being that defining it as inherently supernatural is impossible and simply a linguistic reshuffling, when it's really more like "you've simply started calling your belief system something else, but it's actually still just Christian."" Where you effectively claim that "Christian religion" can be one where somebody is even one who doesn't believe in supernatural. Because... some other values count too? Can really somebody who doesn't believe that Jesus is a "Christ" (the anointed one, a "Messiah", it's not a surname but the specific role in the universe of believers) be a Christian? And somebody who doesn't believe in any supernatural deity at all? I for example admit I grew up in the area where traditionally most of the inhabitants were real Christian believers, but I surely am not a Christian. The Church would surely not accept that claim. Edit: user keiferski answers below that to him "it's unclear what "supernatural" means in this context." Let me write that even more clearly: I don't believe in the existence of any supernatural deity, i.e. one which can influence the events on Earth that occur among humans or one which can "change the rules" how the universe functions, as established by the scientific experiments and research. I also define the belief in life after death as a belief in supernatural, and I assert that I don't have that belief. Also, the area I grew up was never inhabited by majority of "protestants." I was also never in life an object of any religious ceremony (and I consider myself lucky for growing up in such an environment, learning how most of people in the U.S. live). Most of the people I know who were baptized as children later officially renounced the Church, and the Church wiped them out of its records. All of them never went to any religious school, just state schools (some of them had a subject where they explicitly learned about religion though). People I knew who already died don't have any religious sign on their graves, and didn't believe they will "live" after their death. People who live together with their partners and even have children didn't even officially register in the state institutions, and they even less had any ceremony in any church. It's not "complicated" at all. And I'm not even some special exception -- exactly because not every area in the western world functions like an average "contemporary American" would expect. What is that that those people in my environment and I "do" which you believe could make us "Christians" then? (I also admit I know a few people in the circle of people around me, a very small minority, who do say they believe in Jesus Christ and that they have Christian morale, and attempt to behave according to that, while also not being consistent though their life. But they are a minority, and like I've said, even they don't "do" consistently what "the religion" would "expect" from them).
  - free_rms 6y ago
    Consider the "protestant work ethic". Most of the northeast is now either Catholic or Agnostic/Atheist, yet it persists, and all sorts of moral judgments are colored by it.
    - acqq 6y ago
      A big part of western world was never "protestant" and wouldn't say it has that "ethic." Nevertheless, even having that "ethic" doesn't make one a believer in supernatural "messiah" properties of a person called Jesus or in the afterlife or expected punishment or reward then or in the mere existence of some almighty supernatural entity with any capability which conflicts with scientific knowledge. To quote user keiferski from another post: "to say that the contemporary American definition is all that counts is a bit historically ignorant."
      - free_rms 6y ago
        It was an example. There are a thousand more. We're trying to explain that coming from an entire culture and moral tradition means that you can decide God isn't real and you're still mostly flavored by that culture and moral tradition. The real-ness of God is just a little detail. One can see this in the many analogues from specifically Christian traditions like repentance, confession and original sin to the current Social Justice movement. God not required.
  - keiferski 6y ago
    As I said before, it is a complex topic and there are many difficult questions to answer. But, I think it's more helpful to understand religions as entire ways of life rather than simple affirmations of belief. My observation is that people today define much of their identity by what they say and not necessarily by how they act or what they value. Whether that is what they truly are is again, a complex question. With Christianity, for example, the history there is immensely complicated. There are perhaps an infinite number of interpretations of Jesus' teachings and actions, many of which place far less focus on belief than on works (actions.) Other groups don't care whatsoever what any organized church says and base their beliefs and actions on traditions or on the Bible itself. Paul, the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, and innumerable others have shaped "Christianity" over the last two thousand years, so to say that the contemporary American definition is all that counts is a bit historically ignorant. Beyond that, it's also unclear precisely what "supernatural" means in this context. In sum: it's complicated.
free_rms 6y ago
The flavor and style of respect is what makes it Christian. Most who claim "respect for universal human rights" as their motto actually have a belief system that's heavily influenced by specifically Western sources. When the rubber meets the road, their biases, blind spots and points of emphasis will reveal this. Someone from a different cultural tradition will have a different set of biases while still believing in "universal human rights". Up to and including which rights are more important when they come into conflict.

keiferski 6y ago

That's not what I claimed at all. I simply said the values were formed in a Christian context. Today, in our global world, the same values absolutely have changed previously different cultures. Japan prior to 1946 doesn't have a universalist (formed in Christianity) democratic tradition, which was forced upon it by the West. India has a similar story with the caste system. It doesn't mean that they are Christians, but simply that ideas strongly formed by Christianity are now extremely powerful there.

acqq 6y ago
But you wrote: "The idea being that defining it as inherently supernatural is impossible and simply a linguistic reshuffling, when it's really more like "you've simply started calling your belief system something else, but it's actually still just Christian."" Where you effectively claim that "Christian religion" can be one where somebody is even one who doesn't believe in supernatural. Because... some other values count too? Can really somebody who doesn't believe that Jesus is a "Christ" (the anointed one, a "Messiah", it's not a surname but the specific role in the universe of believers) be a Christian? And somebody who doesn't believe in any supernatural deity at all? I for example admit I grew up in the area where traditionally most of the inhabitants were real Christian believers, but I surely am not a Christian. The Church would surely not accept that claim. Edit: user keiferski answers below that to him "it's unclear what "supernatural" means in this context." Let me write that even more clearly: I don't believe in the existence of any supernatural deity, i.e. one which can influence the events on Earth that occur among humans or one which can "change the rules" how the universe functions, as established by the scientific experiments and research. I also define the belief in life after death as a belief in supernatural, and I assert that I don't have that belief. Also, the area I grew up was never inhabited by majority of "protestants." I was also never in life an object of any religious ceremony (and I consider myself lucky for growing up in such an environment, learning how most of people in the U.S. live). Most of the people I know who were baptized as children later officially renounced the Church, and the Church wiped them out of its records. All of them never went to any religious school, just state schools (some of them had a subject where they explicitly learned about religion though). People I knew who already died don't have any religious sign on their graves, and didn't believe they will "live" after their death. People who live together with their partners and even have children didn't even officially register in the state institutions, and they even less had any ceremony in any church. It's not "complicated" at all. And I'm not even some special exception -- exactly because not every area in the western world functions like an average "contemporary American" would expect. What is that that those people in my environment and I "do" which you believe could make us "Christians" then? (I also admit I know a few people in the circle of people around me, a very small minority, who do say they believe in Jesus Christ and that they have Christian morale, and attempt to behave according to that, while also not being consistent though their life. But they are a minority, and like I've said, even they don't "do" consistently what "the religion" would "expect" from them).
- free_rms 6y ago
  Consider the "protestant work ethic". Most of the northeast is now either Catholic or Agnostic/Atheist, yet it persists, and all sorts of moral judgments are colored by it.
  - acqq 6y ago
    A big part of western world was never "protestant" and wouldn't say it has that "ethic." Nevertheless, even having that "ethic" doesn't make one a believer in supernatural "messiah" properties of a person called Jesus or in the afterlife or expected punishment or reward then or in the mere existence of some almighty supernatural entity with any capability which conflicts with scientific knowledge. To quote user keiferski from another post: "to say that the contemporary American definition is all that counts is a bit historically ignorant."
    - free_rms 6y ago
      It was an example. There are a thousand more. We're trying to explain that coming from an entire culture and moral tradition means that you can decide God isn't real and you're still mostly flavored by that culture and moral tradition. The real-ness of God is just a little detail. One can see this in the many analogues from specifically Christian traditions like repentance, confession and original sin to the current Social Justice movement. God not required.
- keiferski 6y ago
  As I said before, it is a complex topic and there are many difficult questions to answer. But, I think it's more helpful to understand religions as entire ways of life rather than simple affirmations of belief. My observation is that people today define much of their identity by what they say and not necessarily by how they act or what they value. Whether that is what they truly are is again, a complex question. With Christianity, for example, the history there is immensely complicated. There are perhaps an infinite number of interpretations of Jesus' teachings and actions, many of which place far less focus on belief than on works (actions.) Other groups don't care whatsoever what any organized church says and base their beliefs and actions on traditions or on the Bible itself. Paul, the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, and innumerable others have shaped "Christianity" over the last two thousand years, so to say that the contemporary American definition is all that counts is a bit historically ignorant. Beyond that, it's also unclear precisely what "supernatural" means in this context. In sum: it's complicated.

free_rms 6y ago

The flavor and style of respect is what makes it Christian. Most who claim "respect for universal human rights" as their motto actually have a belief system that's heavily influenced by specifically Western sources. When the rubber meets the road, their biases, blind spots and points of emphasis will reveal this. Someone from a different cultural tradition will have a different set of biases while still believing in "universal human rights". Up to and including which rights are more important when they come into conflict.