Christianity as a Tool of Oppression (new essay)

Post Reply New Topic

Well, the theory just seems incorrect to an extreme extent.


A rather poor theory that seems to implicitly take on elements of a worldview that do not seem likely to be in the Bible or in other cultural fixtures of the time.


Calling your theory wrongheaded isn't an ad hominem. Basically, what I mean is that the foundations of your argument seem utterly wrong to an extreme extent. Often times it is a quoting of a scripture then most of it is a rather odd personal interpretation that wouldn't be likely from either a theologian or an early church figure. As such, your theory, one that uses these arguments as it's foundation thus seems wrong-headed. It *could* be right, but it is based upon doing everything wrong.

Now, you could consider this unhelpful, but there isn't much more I can reasonably say other than just go through the essay pointing out things that come to mind at a glance, because I think I've addressed your points on this matter before. (you still wrote the essay though) And also because to me the failures are relatively obvious, because all you are doing is quote mining and not doing any substantive research into theologians or attitudes of the early church or even reading the book in a manner that seems most straight forward. As I said before, the word that comes to mind is "eisegesis" where a person reads something into a text, as opposed to exegesis, where a person tries to derive their interpretation from that text. The fact that this might be an eisegesis also seems pretty likely given that all of the problems you see in Christianity are problems that you personally are very interested in. Not only that, but you have in the past seemed problematic in interpreting other texts, as most people thought that you had just interpreted Nietzsche incorrectly and just viewed him in the wrong fashion.

You are right though, I can't really refute your statements, simply because they are interpretations put onto a text rather than issues with the text itself, and because the whole thing is inductive and hermeneutic.

In any case, I've probably shown you this before, however, some Christians think that Isaiah 53 is a messianic prophecy and one that says that Jesus is ugly.
Isaiah 53:2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.

This is sufficient to show that your interpretation of the fish parable is probably ridiculous, not only that, but I doubt that any theologian has ever taken your view on this, which further makes it seem somewhat ridiculous.

As for your interpretation that people are meant to be sad within Christianity, this seems more false than true. There is a movement in theology called Christian hedonism which flatly rejects your interpretation by claiming that happiness is better and is the aim of Christianity. Their claim can be seen in the Bible as well:
Acts 13:52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 1:8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory,

1 Thessalonians 1:6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit,

Romans 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.

Now all of those verses seem stronger than your 2, and seem to openly uphold joy for individuals. You might say that these just apply to the "Christian enjoyer" but that category is one you invented, so I don't need to accept your distinction as really existing.

Your entire analysis of sin and causation is just too rigid. The Bible isn't an analytical philosophy textbook, and some would argue that the Bible is not seeking rigidness. In fact, your entire issue of the "rigid definition of sin" could even be taken as trying to take a stand that is diametrically opposed to the position taken by the Bible itself, as a matter of philosophy. This can be seen in a paper by rabbi Chaim Saimon where he compares Judaism, a more legal faith, with Christianity. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=992280 Where the rabbi argues that this rejection of a strict meaning is not only there, but also it is purposefully there to reflect a different perspective on reality. The rejection of strict rules also is found in the philosophical theory of virtue ethics, which isn't Kantian or utilitarian(not that both of those aren't a mindscrew either) but rather is based upon intention. This does not demand a desire to cripple someone either, but these philosophies can readily be interpreted as liberating, and are arguably interpreted in this manner by Paul.

2 Corinthians 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

As such, I would think you are interpreting the religion rather uncharitably to focus upon this issue of a strict definition of sin as a major problem, and that you are likely pushing your own rigidness onto the philosophy of the Bible, as your questions, fears, and skepticisms aren't ones that most people likely have. Cause is usually considered basic. Good intention is usually considered a straight-forward matter. Loving another being is also not considered a big quandry. Not only that, but even looking for the rigidness is wrong, as the Bible is meant to be a matter of continual improvement as the mind is meant to be transformed so it can know the will of God, rather than having strict rules for discerning this:

Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

As for the matter of Matthew 6:1-4, you are almost deliberately ignoring the meaning of the text. Here's what you aren't highlighting that most people will highlight: "in order to be seen by them", "as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others", "Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward" as the intention is basically so that a being does this for goodness, for God, rather than just being selfish. This does not mean that if other people are around, nothing good can be done, rather, it just means don't be a braggart and don't deliberately draw attention to your good deeds so that way you are doing this for pure intentions. This kind of idea is found in Kant as well, so it cannot just be "the Bible is evil".

In any case, your case basically boils down to this:
A man died on the cross, his disciples spread his word despite opposition and even death, just to hate ugly people and to oppress them, while allowing good-looking people to be happy. This is despite the fact that the early church had the most appeal to the lower classes and almost no appeal to the upper classes.

So... yeah, it just doesn't seem to be a reasonable interpretation that a person is said to die on a freaking cross for something so course. You would almost need a god of evil urging on wicked acts to even allow your interpretation to make any sense.


So, yeah, that's why you are getting all of the simple answers, limited responses, and even claims of the theory being insulting. Because the idea is just BS and there is little else to be said beyond that.

I was going to write a post in response to Awesomelyglorious, but it somehow got deleted. I'll just leave you all to come to your own conclusions.

But I don't think the theory is BS at all.

from my personal experiance, I can say it is, its simply bigots hiding behind the cross, and the fact said cross has excellent tools to keep people down helps bunches!
Second, I have never had a Buddhist say I am an evil person for being gay, he might say he wishes me luck on my journey through life and to mind the 4 noble truths and maybe consider the 8 fold path

A taoist never told me I am going to hell for being Gay, he might debate if my gayness is the true essence of Yin or Yang, depending on my level of effimaniteness.

I have never had a Unitarian Univeralist say God hates me and gays are responsible for 9/11, quite the opposite, one even flirted a bit!

An earth pagan never said being gay was a choice, he did say however I am witty and would I like to join in a game of making everything into a dirty joke
However, Christains have said those things to me.

from my personal experiance, I can say it is, its simply bigots hiding behind the cross, and the fact said cross has excellent tools to keep people down helps bunches!
Second, I have never had a Buddhist say I am an evil person for being gay, he might say he wishes me luck on my journey through life and to mind the 4 noble truths and maybe consider the 8 fold path

A taoist never told me I am going to hell for being Gay, he might debate if my gayness is the true essence of Yin or Yang, depending on my level of effimaniteness.

I have never had a Unitarian Univeralist say God hates me and gays are responsible for 9/11, quite the opposite, one even flirted a bit!

An earth pagan never said being gay was a choice, he did say however I am witty and would I like to join in a game of making everything into a dirty joke
However, Christains have said those things to me.

Really, you don't regard your own ideas as idiotic? Gee, that's unexpected.

The views I've seen you espouse on here have just been ridiculous to the point of mostly not being worth a response, and your reaction to any criticism of your ideas has bordered on psychotic, so you'll excuse PPR posters as a group for not giving a detailed point-by-point refutation of that pile of verbal diarrhea you call an essay. Whine about this being an "ad hominem" all you like, but you just don't post anything that can realistically be viewed or attacked analytically because your arguments tend to be filled with bizarre non sequiturs and claims that seem just to have entirely been pulled out of your ass. I mean, from the fruit conspiracy theory to the idea of Christianity being an elaborate plot to screw over ugly single people, there's just little point in actually responding to something that makes absolutely no sense, especially given the way you respond to someone questioning your nonsense.

Post something worthwhile that actually makes some sense, and you'll start getting more favorable responses. But if you keep posting drivel like this, expect to keep getting dismissive and occasionally insulting responses.

The actions of believers of a certain idea has nothing to do with the veracity of that idea.

I, for one, am only interested in the truth, so I don't really find that this essay contributes anything.

If their actions are a logical consequence of their beliefs and the actions lead to grief it is clearly a reflection upon the beliefs.

Best example currently available --- Islam.

Some of the consequences: fatwahs, beheadings, murder by suicide bomb, murder by crashing planes into tall buildings, ill treatment of women.

As was written in the Gospels --- by their fruits, ye shall know them.

ruveyn

Wait, are you saying that if muslims were more well-behaved, their religion would be more likely to be true?

That's not a fact, it's an ad hominem.






I've never said those things to you. The only thing that could be compatible with Christianity out of that list is the idea that being gay is a choice -- and even that one I disagree with.

Don't blame me for something someone else said that I disagree with.

Oh, and you spelled Christians wrong. Again.

^What he said.

Orwell, I can't believe you're doing this to me. We're supposed to be friends.

(In response to the slew of ad hominems)

We are?

Look, as I said, you can complain about ad hominems. But you haven't posted anything worth a serious, in-depth response, so very few people will want to bother giving one. AG already addressed some reasons why he considers your theory to be seriously flawed, and I have to agree with his charges of eisegesis. Your theory just doesn't make any sense.

All religions are false. If Muslims were more well behaved the world would be a more peaceful place and the WTC would still be standing.

From an epistemological point of view, Religion is not a mode of gaining or keeping knowledge of the world. It is a form of wishing. Islam's problem is that encourages violence in its adherents. Two nasty memes are imbedded in Islam - Martyrdom and Jihad. Most of the other mainline religions have detoxified themselves over the centuries, for example, Christianity and Judaism. Both these religions (for the most part) have accommodated themselves to the secular social order. Islam has not done so. It has not detoxified itself of its extreme attitudes. That is why you don't see mainline Christians and Jews hijacking airplanes and crashing them into tall buildings and you don't see mainline Christians and Jews strapping on the bomb and blowing themselves to smithereens just to kill unarmed folk.

Please don't misunderstand me. These religions are just as irrational as they ever were, but their practice does not encourage murder and bloodshed on a daily basis as they did at one time in the past.

Religion is nonsense. It is a crude way of reconciling to the physical world and it flourished during the childhood of Man. We have since grown up. What did Paul used to say? When I was a child I played with childish things. Now I am a man and have put those childish things away.

ruveyn

That's so easy to say about any theory.

Not good enough as a justification.

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -Carl Sagan

Until I see reason to do otherwise, I'm putting your bizarre theories firmly in the "Bozo the Clown" category.

That doesn't seem a terrible heuristic. If religions are supposed to cause moral improvement, and followers of religions are morally improved(and the more standard deviations away from the norm that they are), then their doctrine is more likely to be true. The reason being that these changes reflect the religion's truth-bearing capabilities.

It isn't proof, but it is not a bad induction. At the same time, one could use this same induction against religion as well, as ruveyn did.