4 ms·

Aside from being true, Christianity is basically the only way to inoculate yourself against mimetic violence spirals. Which is missed here.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
vkou 1y ago
Many modern supply-side Christians don't believe in any of those parts of the Bible. Turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, etc, etc, are not something they are keen on.
- rattlesnakedave 1y ago
  Yeah, that’s the problem. In my estimation a large part of it is because Christianity, especially as practiced in the United States, is a cultural phenomenon. Evangelicalism has won the popularity contest, and it’s not moored by anything. There’s an uptick in new Catholics and Orthodox converts though, which are more “moored” if you will by tradition and at least some kind of doctrinal constraint.
  - vkou 1y ago
    So, since Evangelicals don't meet the bar, but Catholics do, it's not Christianity (the belief in Christ/a singular Judean God) that is the relevant demarcation, it's adherence to canon. This undermines your thesis, because it's not the mystic woo about virgin birth and transubstantiation and resurrection (which they all profess to believe in) that's important - it's the canon - adherence to which is entirely orthogonal to faith.
    - rattlesnakedave 1y ago
      No, it is just Christianity that is the demarcation. I’m saying that when you have American evangelicalism (which functions as a social club, and is not moored by anything other than “get people in the door”) as your delivery mechanism, you’re less likely to get solid catechisis. This is of course not impossible, I know many bad catholic Christian’s and many good Protestant Christians, but your odds of getting the good news delivered correctly are higher in more orthodox settings.
      - vkou 1y ago
        How does Catholicism not function as the village social club in its DNA? It can't in large parts of the US because it's a fringe minority, but doesn't it behave in the exact same way in an area where it is the dominant social affiliation? Its rituals are just as odd and esoteric as the practices of the stranger evangelical churches.
        rattlesnakedave 1y ago
        It does, but the distinction I’m making is that is not its primary function, unlike many evangelical churches in the United States. Because this is the case, and because of the hierarchy in place for interpreting scripture and handing down sacred tradition, it becomes less likely that there will be problematic theological dilution or drift.
  - tastyface 1y ago
    I worry the new converts will make Catholicism and Orthodoxy more Evangelical, not the other way around. Just look at the current crop of American Catholics like Thiel and Vance and the vile rhetoric they spit out about their fellow human beings. Biden was closest to a traditional Catholic and they *loathed* him.
c0balt 1y ago
Why in a particular do you believe that Christianity is the only religion and/or belief fit for this purpose? It seems like a very bold statement given the overlapping and diverse nature of religious beliefs.
- rattlesnakedave 1y ago
  The sermon on the mount was a moral quantum leap at the time it was delivered. “Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.” You aren’t getting that anywhere else. Additionally, the entire narrative around the crucifixion of a perfectly innocent victim is designed to put the “what if I’m wrong” voice in the back of your head when you’re engaging in mob or retributive violence.
  - vunderba 1y ago
    Do you have a lot of experience and knowledge around other non-Abrahamic world religions to make such a bold claim? Because I can think of at least a few (Jainism, various Chinese schools of thought, etc) that capture the spirit if not the exact message of "love your enemy". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism
    - rattlesnakedave 1y ago
      Yeah, the Buddhist or Jain approach is more about detachment and non-harm. It feels almost clinical in its universality. “Love your enemies” is much more personal and emotionally demanding. It’s not just “don’t hurt people” or “be compassionate to all beings,” it’s specifically telling you to have positive feelings toward people who are actively trying to harm you. Combine with the innocent victim motif and you get something really unique.
      - 1659447091 1y ago
        > It feels almost clinical in its universality. “Love your enemies” is much more personal and emotionally demanding. To me, “Love your enemies”, feels abusive -- or being groomed for abuse. Love those who hurt you. I agree that is more emotionally demanding, mostly in a personally harmful way. I'll take Buddha's approach to Devadatta over the Jesus "love your enemy". I can have compassion and understanding for an enemy, I would even say it's vital to preventing further harm -- understanding them, their motives and having compassion with that understanding. But loving them? That feels more like inviting violence while pleading with them to stop while handing them a stick. Of course there is a fine line of overlap and in the end both can be taken the same way. I simply believe compassion and understanding is more meaningful and less likely to be used to keep one in an abusive situation.
krapp 1y ago
Christianity has been awash in "mimetic violence spirals" for a thousand years, and some of those memes come right out of the Bible. WTF are you even talking about?
- rattlesnakedave 1y ago
  People have free will and make poor decisions, but on whole it has pulled society in the right direction over the long arc of history.
  - krapp 1y ago
    I would argue that on the whole post-Enlightenment secularism has pulled Christianity in the right direction over the long arc of history.
    - rattlesnakedave 1y ago
      The enlightenment wouldn’t have happened without Christianity. universal human dignity, individual rights, the concept that reason can discern moral truth, the university system where Enlightenment thinking developed all grew from Christian soil
      - krapp 1y ago
        But the Church didn't believe in the universality of anything other than their own authority and correctness. Jews, Muslims, and "pagans" (even Protestants and other heretical Christians) were routinely harassed and killed, women were essentially the property of men, slavery was ubiquitous and kings ruled by divine right, all justified by Christian dogma. And they didn't believe in reasoning outside of an explicitly Christian framework or discerning any moral truth not grounded in Biblical doctrine. Christianity may have inspired the Enlightenment, but the Enlightenment succeeded because it was able to separate philosophy, ethics, law and science (such as it was, "natural philosophy") from Biblical dogma and the Church.
        1y ago
UtopiaPunk 1y ago
I'm sympathetic to your take, but I disagree. I personally find a powerful call for non-violence in Christianity, specifically in the Gospels. But there are at least a few other worldviews out there that result in a life dedicated to peace and love. And I think this is tangential to your point, but it has to be said that there are many different approaches to Christianity, many of which have lead (and are actively leading) to terrible violence.
tim333 1y ago
Christians have done a good bit of violence, including the crusades and Hitler and Putin calling themselves Christian. I think Jainism might be the least violent of the major religions.
- daymanstep 1y ago
  Classic guilt by association. By the same logic you can argue that vegetarianism has murdered millions because Hitler was a vegetarian.
  - seec 1y ago
    The ideology of vegetarianism is extremely destructive. Particularly for humans. It is no coincidence that Hitler was a vegetarian. The roots are extremely similar: a deep hatred for humans, to the point that animals are declared not only equals but even better than humans. Hitler loved his dog more than any human; it just reveals a deep truth about his motivations and behavior. You may not have researched or thought about it a lot but I can assure you this is a very valid observation.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

vkou 1y ago

Many modern supply-side Christians don't believe in any of those parts of the Bible. Turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, etc, etc, are not something they are keen on.

rattlesnakedave 1y ago
Yeah, that’s the problem. In my estimation a large part of it is because Christianity, especially as practiced in the United States, is a cultural phenomenon. Evangelicalism has won the popularity contest, and it’s not moored by anything. There’s an uptick in new Catholics and Orthodox converts though, which are more “moored” if you will by tradition and at least some kind of doctrinal constraint.
- vkou 1y ago
  So, since Evangelicals don't meet the bar, but Catholics do, it's not Christianity (the belief in Christ/a singular Judean God) that is the relevant demarcation, it's adherence to canon. This undermines your thesis, because it's not the mystic woo about virgin birth and transubstantiation and resurrection (which they all profess to believe in) that's important - it's the canon - adherence to which is entirely orthogonal to faith.
  - rattlesnakedave 1y ago
    No, it is just Christianity that is the demarcation. I’m saying that when you have American evangelicalism (which functions as a social club, and is not moored by anything other than “get people in the door”) as your delivery mechanism, you’re less likely to get solid catechisis. This is of course not impossible, I know many bad catholic Christian’s and many good Protestant Christians, but your odds of getting the good news delivered correctly are higher in more orthodox settings.
    - vkou 1y ago
      How does Catholicism not function as the village social club in its DNA? It can't in large parts of the US because it's a fringe minority, but doesn't it behave in the exact same way in an area where it is the dominant social affiliation? Its rituals are just as odd and esoteric as the practices of the stranger evangelical churches.
      - rattlesnakedave 1y ago
        It does, but the distinction I’m making is that is not its primary function, unlike many evangelical churches in the United States. Because this is the case, and because of the hierarchy in place for interpreting scripture and handing down sacred tradition, it becomes less likely that there will be problematic theological dilution or drift.
- tastyface 1y ago
  I worry the new converts will make Catholicism and Orthodoxy more Evangelical, not the other way around. Just look at the current crop of American Catholics like Thiel and Vance and the vile rhetoric they spit out about their fellow human beings. Biden was closest to a traditional Catholic and they *loathed* him.

c0balt 1y ago

Why in a particular do you believe that Christianity is the only religion and/or belief fit for this purpose? It seems like a very bold statement given the overlapping and diverse nature of religious beliefs.

rattlesnakedave 1y ago
The sermon on the mount was a moral quantum leap at the time it was delivered. “Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.” You aren’t getting that anywhere else. Additionally, the entire narrative around the crucifixion of a perfectly innocent victim is designed to put the “what if I’m wrong” voice in the back of your head when you’re engaging in mob or retributive violence.
- vunderba 1y ago
  Do you have a lot of experience and knowledge around other non-Abrahamic world religions to make such a bold claim? Because I can think of at least a few (Jainism, various Chinese schools of thought, etc) that capture the spirit if not the exact message of "love your enemy". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism
  - rattlesnakedave 1y ago
    Yeah, the Buddhist or Jain approach is more about detachment and non-harm. It feels almost clinical in its universality. “Love your enemies” is much more personal and emotionally demanding. It’s not just “don’t hurt people” or “be compassionate to all beings,” it’s specifically telling you to have positive feelings toward people who are actively trying to harm you. Combine with the innocent victim motif and you get something really unique.
    - 1659447091 1y ago
      > It feels almost clinical in its universality. “Love your enemies” is much more personal and emotionally demanding. To me, “Love your enemies”, feels abusive -- or being groomed for abuse. Love those who hurt you. I agree that is more emotionally demanding, mostly in a personally harmful way. I'll take Buddha's approach to Devadatta over the Jesus "love your enemy". I can have compassion and understanding for an enemy, I would even say it's vital to preventing further harm -- understanding them, their motives and having compassion with that understanding. But loving them? That feels more like inviting violence while pleading with them to stop while handing them a stick. Of course there is a fine line of overlap and in the end both can be taken the same way. I simply believe compassion and understanding is more meaningful and less likely to be used to keep one in an abusive situation.

krapp 1y ago

Christianity has been awash in "mimetic violence spirals" for a thousand years, and some of those memes come right out of the Bible. WTF are you even talking about?

rattlesnakedave 1y ago
People have free will and make poor decisions, but on whole it has pulled society in the right direction over the long arc of history.
- krapp 1y ago
  I would argue that on the whole post-Enlightenment secularism has pulled Christianity in the right direction over the long arc of history.
  - rattlesnakedave 1y ago
    The enlightenment wouldn’t have happened without Christianity. universal human dignity, individual rights, the concept that reason can discern moral truth, the university system where Enlightenment thinking developed all grew from Christian soil
    - krapp 1y ago
      But the Church didn't believe in the universality of anything other than their own authority and correctness. Jews, Muslims, and "pagans" (even Protestants and other heretical Christians) were routinely harassed and killed, women were essentially the property of men, slavery was ubiquitous and kings ruled by divine right, all justified by Christian dogma. And they didn't believe in reasoning outside of an explicitly Christian framework or discerning any moral truth not grounded in Biblical doctrine. Christianity may have inspired the Enlightenment, but the Enlightenment succeeded because it was able to separate philosophy, ethics, law and science (such as it was, "natural philosophy") from Biblical dogma and the Church.
      - 1y ago

UtopiaPunk 1y ago

I'm sympathetic to your take, but I disagree. I personally find a powerful call for non-violence in Christianity, specifically in the Gospels. But there are at least a few other worldviews out there that result in a life dedicated to peace and love. And I think this is tangential to your point, but it has to be said that there are many different approaches to Christianity, many of which have lead (and are actively leading) to terrible violence.

tim333 1y ago

Christians have done a good bit of violence, including the crusades and Hitler and Putin calling themselves Christian. I think Jainism might be the least violent of the major religions.

daymanstep 1y ago
Classic guilt by association. By the same logic you can argue that vegetarianism has murdered millions because Hitler was a vegetarian.
- seec 1y ago
  The ideology of vegetarianism is extremely destructive. Particularly for humans. It is no coincidence that Hitler was a vegetarian. The roots are extremely similar: a deep hatred for humans, to the point that animals are declared not only equals but even better than humans. Hitler loved his dog more than any human; it just reveals a deep truth about his motivations and behavior. You may not have researched or thought about it a lot but I can assure you this is a very valid observation.