[Discussion] Religion and Morality

Discussion on the difference in morality/ethics of different types and subtypes of religion, including agnositic/atheism. This includes both the literal teachings of that religion, and the general culture that persists because of/inspite of those teachings.

Robear wrote:

Christianity depends on "we will teach you to be good, and keep you that way" for part of its rationale for why it should control elements of society, so it is vested in not admitting that many more people behave altruistically as a function of their basic social role and cognitive makeup. That truth is one way that would let Christianity move from insisting on promoting oppressive policies, laws and social behaviors to a more spiritual practice focused on improving individuals lives.

How about: "Inasmuch as a Christian element claims that the Church could and should control elements of society, that claim depends on ..."?

I don't want to necessarily #notAll this, but we are talking about billions of people over millennia. There's some pretty serious diversity of belief and politics.

Wembley wrote:

Being a none?

Where's an eyebrow raise emoji when you need one?

As OG explained, it's a term used by pollsters; in British polls, I believe they're "Jedi."

And yet, the majority of Christianity's history since the 4th century has been a story of gaining and holding political and social power. Arguably, Christianity is the dominant social force in the US, if not the entire West, to this day.

Also, what we learn about altruism is borne out by fact that societies *survive* through cooperation. "Every man a king" is a recipe for disaster. Don't take the fact of leadership (abusive or benign) for evidence that everyone is selfish. It's a different dynamic; in every successful society, even the leaders have to work to get others to work together, even if they are selfish megalomaniacs. They are forced to resort to a cooperative system even if they themselves don't honor its restrictions.

Humans, as individuals, have acted selfishly and hatefully towards others for all of our known history and well beyond, judging by the evidence (some of which, like what looks like ritual cannibalism, is quite likely also tied to religion). But think about this - societies which permit arbitrary evil acts don't exist. They can't survive; there's a reason anarchy is viewed fearfully, while *any* form of social structure is viewed as an improvement and indeed, a necessity. The first things humans do when thrown into anarchy is to try to organize a social structure, to protect themselves (and, yes, to possibly protect the humans who they may possess, but they are still protected). It is instinctive because by working together, we can enjoy better chances of survival and reproduction. The people who did that had more children than the ones who did not. It's as simple as that, over about a million years or even much longer, since our ancestors presumably shared the same cooperative natures. ("Nature red in tooth and claw" describes inter-species predator prey relations, but intra-species relations are far more cooperative than selfish; you can see examples all the way down to clumps of bacteria who gain advantages by sticking to each other.) We have evolved to be generally cooperative rather than generally selfish, as a survival mechanism, like untold numbers of other species. Within species, and often between them, the natural world is cooperative rather than murderous.

What that means is that, at its best, religion *reinforces* our natural inclinations as societies. My contention, though, is that the mechanisms of control and belief inherent in many religions also have significant downsides that can lead believers to actively seek to destroy other groups, and that those mechanisms and justifications are preserved in the Bronze Age "wisdom" that is attached to otherwise beneficial ritual and "spiritual" behaviors. And this means that religions must eventually face up to the fact that their basic understandings of human nature are flawed, and that they must be corrected and the dangers deliberately mitigated. And indeed, we have done that already; Jesus was fine with slavery, after all, it was the norm in all the societies he came into contact with, and indeed, Christians did not organize against it until the 18th century. And yet today, we hold that Christianity *rejects* slavery. That's progress. But we need to ensure that the next big change in Christianity does not come after another 1800 years of religious wars and social disruptions or even tyranny imposed by fanatical believers justifying their actions by thumping modern translations of medieval translations of ancient interpretations of edited accounts not even written by people who knew a radical Jew who died without even having a *hint* of what the religion he didn't found would look like. (After all this, remember, Jesus thought his followers would be Jews until the End of Days.)

Food for thought, based on research, not folk wisdom.

Again, I'm not claiming that humans can't be altruistic or that societies don't survive through cooperation. I'm largely in agreement with you. Where I may differ in agreement is that while these things are all intellectually true, humans just don't *do* them, at least not consistently. Even the most altruistic of societies have ultimately come to ruin because of all those pesky and corrupted individual humans living in them. If multiple parts of a body are diseased, then the body as a whole isn't healthy and may die.

And yes, the institutions of religions can either help or hinder these societies.

I would argue though that Jesus was not fine with slavery, but that it wasn't his purpose to get all political and tear down the government structures that existed at the time, but instead for the purpose of atonement and salvation.

I also disagree with the idea of Jesus thinking his followers would be Jews until the End of Days. It was more a matter of the order of presentation, Jews first, but his message was intended to be preached to all nation.

In Matthew 21:43 when Jesus spoke to the priests and Pharisees, he states, "Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom."

Jesus knew beforehand.

God knew even back in the days of Abraham that the promise to Abraham wasn't just to those who practiced Judaism. "And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Genesis 12:3b)

After Jesus' ascension, he instruct Ananias concerning Saul/Paul, "Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel." (Acts 9:15)

Jesus' followers compose a "spiritual Israel" that is composed of both Jews and Gentiles who accept his message.

Of course, you're not going to see any of this as proof if you don't believe what is written in the scriptures in the first place, or believe in the divinity of Jesus, but my point in arguing these things from scripture is that it is not God's or Jesus' doing if humans implement evil systems such as slavery, or twisting his message to promote racial bigotry against Jews or anyone else.

But then it all leads back to my primary point that humans are corrupt by nature. It's not God's fault that we typically screw up everything that's good.

bekkilyn wrote:

But then it all leads back to my primary point that humans are corrupt by nature. It's not God's fault that we typically screw up everything that's good.

Didn't God create man in its image? Or create everything in general? Seems like it kinda is God's fault.

Mathematically, though, if we were *all* selfish, or even a plurality of us, we'd literally not have any sort of cooperative societies at all. Maybe at the level of a few dozen people, but that's it. The narrative that we are so corrupt that we destroy our societies inevitably is just wrong.

Also, Jesus's followers were all Jews, born or converted. It was the controversy over this, after his death, that led to the Church removing that requirement, and directly led to the formation of Christianity. You cited some indirect evidence; here's some that are more direct. (Note that Matthew 21:43 is a condemnation of the Pharisees, not a prediction that Judaism was to evolve into something else.)

Matthew 17-48:
" “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus viewed himself and his followers as Jews. He did have legalistic arguments with the priests and his followers about various things - hand-washing, Temple sanctity, etc. - but he always came down as something of a perfectionist as regards ethical behavior within the Jewish law. He operated for his entire life as a Jew, being rather strict on the Sabbath, rather less so on esoteric restrictions, like when he decided that all foods are clean. But he was a Jew. It took several decades for his followers to accept the presence of non-converted Jews (initially they were allowed in the sanctuary, but not in the Holy of Holies, a distinction that still exists today in the oldest form of Christianity). And that was done under Paul's guidance specifically because the sect seemed to be hitting a limit in bringing in Jews, but did have more success among gentiles. Christianity was built on Jesus' teachings, but not *by* Jesus. He lived and died a Jew.

Here's a discussion on discoveries in the last few decades of research that suggest that fairness and related concepts - "altruism" - are inherent in most children, just as selfishness is, and that most children tend to behave fairly rather than selfishly when given the choice. This kind of evidence is the basis for a new understanding that humans tend towards cooperation rather than selfishness; another basic concept that Bronze Age thinkers got wrong, at least the ones who created Judaism and Christianity.

Sometimes received wisdom, no matter how much we respect the source, is simply wrong. What would Christianity look like, if it's basic tenet was "most humans are basically good, when you get down to it"? I'm willing to bet a lot of the us vs. them stuff would never come up in that paradigm.

Mixolyde wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:

But then it all leads back to my primary point that humans are corrupt by nature. It's not God's fault that we typically screw up everything that's good.

Didn't God create man in its image? Or create everything in general? Seems like it kinda is God's fault.

God created humankind in his image and proclaimed it good, along with all of the rest of his creation, but as part of that creation, humans were granted free will, and so when humans *chose* to disobey God, that good nature became corrupted (sin) and God, being pure and holy, could no longer abide them to live in his presence and they were no longer "clean" and thus able to withstand his perfect holiness. Yet, God did not destroy them as might seem most logical (like when some of us suddenly see a huge, nasty cockroach in our house and start freaking out and stomp it to pieces), but they became separated from him.

One might look at the Old and New testaments as God's acts of reconciliation so that humans can yet again become righteous and holy and thus able to live with him once again. The Old testament helped to demonstrate that we weren't able to achieve it by our own efforts and the New provided a solution through Jesus that he, being both God and human, would take all that sin and corruption upon himself as the ultimate sacrificial lamb that would cleanse and atone us.

Now Robear might be arguing that if we just got rid of all the religious stuff and it was no longer infecting our minds in any concrete way, outside of perhaps the purely spiritual, then maybe we could form more altruistic societies on our own.

I just personally don't have that sort of faith in basic human nature to agree, even if I agree that separating the institution of religion from politics would be a very blessed thing indeed! I absolutely do NOT want to live under a human-created theocracy. Faith should not be something that is forced or coerced onto other people.

Robear wrote:

Here's a discussion on discoveries in the last few decades of research that suggest that fairness and related concepts - "altruism" - are inherent in most children, just as selfishness is, and that most children tend to behave fairly rather than selfishly when given the choice. This kind of evidence is the basis for a new understanding that humans tend towards cooperation rather than selfishness; another basic concept that Bronze Age thinkers got wrong, at least the ones who created Judaism and Christianity.

Sometimes received wisdom, no matter how much we respect the source, is simply wrong. What would Christianity look like, if it's basic tenet was "most humans are basically good, when you get down to it"? I'm willing to bet a lot of the us vs. them stuff would never come up in that paradigm.

Well John Locke was a bit ahead of the game on that one.

While I agree that many children children have a "sense of fairness" and am not disagreeing with the article as it stands, I've also known (even through personal experience) that children can be exceptionally cruel to one another as well.

The article doesn't state that fairness doesn't need to be learned. It just says that fairness doesn't take a long time for children to learn. And that it was particularly older children who frequently rejected the unfair advantage. This implies that fairness still needs to be taught to some degree and isn't something that's already there by nature.

Also, I just want to state that I'm *not* suggesting some idea that we should go about assuming the worst out of people and live in some paranoid state that people are always out to get us because everybody is just bad. I think most people *want* to do good and altruistic things, even if we often fall short, and we do much better to support and encourage each other in positive ways. It's just that we *do* often fall short, and so we don't always do the good things we want to do, and aren't always able to even discern what is good.

Edit: Reconsidering my thoughts.

Robear wrote:

Also, Jesus's followers were all Jews, born or converted. It was the controversy over this, after his death, that led to the Church removing that requirement, and directly led to the formation of Christianity. You cited some indirect evidence; here's some that are more direct. (Note that Matthew 21:43 is a condemnation of the Pharisees, not a prediction that Judaism was to evolve into something else.)

Matthew 17-48:
" “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus viewed himself and his followers as Jews. He did have legalistic arguments with the priests and his followers about various things - hand-washing, Temple sanctity, etc. - but he always came down as something of a perfectionist as regards ethical behavior within the Jewish law. He operated for his entire life as a Jew, being rather strict on the Sabbath, rather less so on esoteric restrictions, like when he decided that all foods are clean. But he was a Jew. It took several decades for his followers to accept the presence of non-converted Jews (initially they were allowed in the sanctuary, but not in the Holy of Holies, a distinction that still exists today in the oldest form of Christianity). And that was done under Paul's guidance specifically because the sect seemed to be hitting a limit in bringing in Jews, but did have more success among gentiles. Christianity was built on Jesus' teachings, but not *by* Jesus. He lived and died a Jew.

I wasn't arguing that Jesus wasn't a Jew. Not to mention that it was an important part of prophecy that he be from the house of Judah, and his observations of the customs and laws was also a part of his fulfillment of the purpose of the law, which was used to mirror and point out the sinfulness of humanity, and why a savior was necessary. Believers in Jesus were simply no longer under the covenant of that law after Jesus' ascension because the law was fulfilled in Jesus. Before Jesus' death, this work was not yet complete though.

And yes, there were quite a number of arguments over whether Gentiles needed to follow restrictions in the Mosaic laws, particularly regarding circumcision. The book of Acts goes through some of these things. Also, the pagan Roman authorities tended to view Christianity as simply another sect of Judaism for a while. (There were a number of Judaic sects...Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, etc. who all held different views regarding things like life after death, supernatural beings such as angels.)

However, none of this means that Jesus himself believed that all of his followers would be Jews until the End of the Age, or that he expected that all the Mosaic laws and restrictions would still be practiced after his earthly ministry was complete. Also, his sacrifice as the ultimate sacrificial lamb removed the requirement for animal sacrifices, so there was no further need for an earthly temple for such purposes, or for the holy of holies.

As the Messiah, Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant law and the prophecies, which was what everything in the Old Testament was leading up to. But Jesus had to die and ascend, so he couldn't have started the church during his pre-death ministry because it wasn't finished yet.

Jesus was very clear on the fact that he wasn't interested in politics or political power, much to the chagrin of His followers. Over the last 2000 years great suffering has occurred when ambitious men twisted the gospel to their own ends for the sake of political and personal gain.

I'm having a hard time keeping up with the line of discussion here. Part of that's just the speed of comments, but can I ask folks to be a little more formal in terms of their argumentation, in terms of what point they're trying to make or rebut? There have been a couple moments where it's clear someone is responding to something, but I'm not always certain to what or whom, or if perhaps they're responding to something that hasn't been said.

Bekkilyn wrote:

The article doesn't state that fairness doesn't need to be learned. It just says that fairness doesn't take a long time for children to learn. And that it was particularly older children who frequently rejected the unfair advantage. This implies that fairness still needs to be taught to some degree and isn't something that's already there by nature.

More recently, many developmental psychologists, including our team, have begun studying these behaviors across different cultures, asking whether children everywhere show a similar developmental pattern. What we have found is that certain aspects of fairness appear to be universal. For example, children everywhere seem to dislike getting less than a peer. Other forms of fairness, however, appear to be more culturally variable, perhaps shaped by local customs.

If it were learned behavior, it would be different in different cultures. It's not. Part of this behavior, therefore, is inherited. Fairness and therefore cooperation are human nature at a very basic level, and we have evolved it for very utilitarian reasons.

We are now sitting on a mountain of evidence from our studies as well as those conducted by others that suggests fair behavior has deep roots in development. Infants as young as 12 months expect resources to be divided equally between two characters in a scene. By preschool, children will protest getting less than peers, even paying to prevent the peer from getting more. As children get older, they are willing to punish those who have been unfair both when they are the victims of unfairness as well as when they witness someone else being treated unfairly. Older still, children show what we described above: They would rather receive nothing than receive more than a peer.

The bottom line here is that children, even young ones, show remarkable sophistication not just in their understanding of and conformity to norms of fairness but also in their ability to enforce fairness in others and to flexibly tune fairness to different situations. These exciting developments dovetail beautifully with work showing that adults are often fair even when they could be selfish, and suggest we need to overhaul the notion that humans are fundamentally out for themselves at the expense of others. Instead, we should adopt the idea that fairness is a key part of our developing minds from as early as they can be studied.

My bold. There are elements of fairness which do not have to be taught to even infants, although of course they can be modified through later observation and teaching. The idea that explicit moral instruction is the *sole* source of human goodness - that people are always selfish unless taught otherwise - is what's incorrect here. But that's what the Bible tells us.

Bekkilyn wrote:

However, none of this means that Jesus himself believed that all of his followers would be Jews until the End of the Age, or that he expected that all the Mosaic laws and restrictions would still be practiced after his earthly ministry was complete. Also, his sacrifice as the ultimate sacrificial lamb removed the requirement for animal sacrifices, so there was no further need for an earthly temple for such purposes, or for the holy of holies.

Rather than replicate arguments made elsewhere, and in respect of the complexity of this question, I will instead point you to a very interesting summary of the topic.

(It also discusses the fact that some of the sects utterly rejected the idea that the God of Christ was the God of the Jews. They rejected *all* sacrifice. You'll be surprised to learn, though, that they also rejected the idea of Jesus being a substitutional sacrifice.)

It's not simple. If, however, you want simple... Paul makes sacrifice in the Temple to prove he's still following the Mosaic Law. Acts 21...

17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

And in Acts 24, Paul defends himself by noting his adherence to Temple law, and references his being "ceremonially clean", which in those days involved sacrifice. (And this was of course years after Jesus' death, so we have a putative Christian arguing that's actually a Jew, and conducting sacrifice *after* Jesus' death... Around AD 52, I've seen cited.) He also asserts that he worships the Jewish god, and follows a *sect* of Judaism. In his own words...

5 “We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect 6 and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him. [7] [a] 8 By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him.”

9 The other Jews joined in the accusation, asserting that these things were true.

10 When the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul replied: “I know that for a number of years you have been a judge over this nation; so I gladly make my defense. 11 You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city. 13 And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. 14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15 and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16 So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.

17 “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings. 18 I was ceremonially clean when they found me in the temple courts doing this.

So, again, the "canonical" explanation you cited has serious issues. And this all reinforces my point. Christianity took *centuries* to be changed from Judaism; the last sect of Christ-worshipping Jews disappeared about 250AD, if I remember correctly. And finally, note that Paul is *against* non-Jewish sacrifices, but performs the required Jewish ones himself, even though he is at the time one of the leaders of the Christians. 50 years after Jesus death, Paul and his followers still followed Jewish laws and rituals, by their own testimony.

The Acts 21 passage can be a little tricky, but it is a clear example of Paul's willingness to "be all things to all men" that he writes of in 1 Cor. 9:22. The early church was struggling at the time with a huge influx of new believers, both Jewish and non-Jewish. The key verse in the passage you posted is verse 21.

"They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs."

The early believers were grappling with the concepts of what was necessary to follow Christ, a topic that Paul covers in many of his epistles, especially Galatians. The specific purification rites referred to in this passage are Nazarite vows, not run-of-the-mill Judaism. Paul was happy to go along with cultural purification rituals, as these were not seen as imparting "salvation".

Later, Paul does not assert that he believes in a "Jewish God", but that the God of the Jews is still the same God that sent his Son to ransom the world. He does not identify himself as part of a Jewish sect. The text you posted refutes this by reading "which they call a sect". Belief in the Messiah and the work of Christ as atonement for the world is in accordance with everything written in the law and the prophets. His being ceremonially clean when visiting the temple was a huge cultural custom, not a reversion to his old belief system.

I have been reading a great book on early church history that talks about some of these issues. Check it out.

Robear wrote:
Bekkilyn wrote:

However, none of this means that Jesus himself believed that all of his followers would be Jews until the End of the Age, or that he expected that all the Mosaic laws and restrictions would still be practiced after his earthly ministry was complete. Also, his sacrifice as the ultimate sacrificial lamb removed the requirement for animal sacrifices, so there was no further need for an earthly temple for such purposes, or for the holy of holies.

Rather than replicate arguments made elsewhere, and in respect of the complexity of this question, I will instead point you to a very interesting summary of the topic.

(It also discusses the fact that some of the sects utterly rejected the idea that the God of Christ was the God of the Jews. They rejected *all* sacrifice. You'll be surprised to learn, though, that they also rejected the idea of Jesus being a substitutional sacrifice.)

Not really surprising. The original apostles and Paul and others spent lots of effort attempting to solve numerous problems and what they considered false doctrines within the growing churches. They even had some disagreements with each other.

Also, a lot of tension was continuing to grow between the more traditional Jewish sects which resulted in producing more and more anti-Jewish thinking, so yes, some Christian groups were denying that the OT and NT God was the same. (Doesn't take long at all for humans to corrupt things!)

Robear wrote:

It's not simple. If, however, you want simple... Paul makes sacrifice in the Temple to prove he's still following the Mosaic Law. Acts 21...

Paul had a tendency to consider his audience when proselytizing his message, and he was also a circumcised Jew and a Pharisee. Paul would usually visit the local Jewish population at the synagogue first. The big argument about following the Mosaic laws at the time concerned the Gentile converts and not so focused on the practicing Jews.

While I would agree that everyone didn't just suddenly drop the Mosaic laws the very moment that Jesus completed his earthly ministry, and it took time to reach that point, Paul was also making the point throughout his ministry that people were no longer under the bondage of the old law, though his focus and greatest success was among the Gentiles.

Also Romans 14:19-20

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Paul's mission was to spread the gospel, and everything else was secondary, so even if he didn't personally believe he (or anyone) needed to observe all the old customs in the synagogue as a matter of *salvation*, I could see him doing so as a matter of diplomacy in order to be allowed to speak there. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been allowed in.

Robear wrote:

And in Acts 24, Paul defends himself by noting his adherence to Temple law, and references his being "ceremonially clean", which in those days involved sacrifice. (And this was of course years after Jesus' death, so we have a putative Christian arguing that's actually a Jew, and conducting sacrifice *after* Jesus' death... Around AD 52, I've seen cited.) He also asserts that he worships the Jewish god, and follows a *sect* of Judaism. In his own words...

Paul was a circumcised Jew and a Pharisee with the famed Gamaliel as his teacher and mentor. No arguments there. However, after his conversion, his message and mission was different. (Edit: Having read Nomads post after posting this one made me want to emphasize here that Paul never believed that there were two different gods between Jews and Christians. They are the same God and Jesus is God made flesh as foretold by the OT scriptures...the highly anticipated Messiah. Doesn't mean everyone accepted this view, but it's what Paul and Jesus's apostles were teaching and believed.)

Robear wrote:

So, again, the "canonical" explanation you cited has serious issues. And this all reinforces my point. Christianity took *centuries* to be changed from Judaism; the last sect of Christ-worshipping Jews disappeared about 250AD, if I remember correctly. And finally, note that Paul is *against* non-Jewish sacrifices, but performs the required Jewish ones himself, even though he is at the time one of the leaders of the Christians. 50 years after Jesus death, Paul and his followers still followed Jewish laws and rituals, by their own testimony.

I'm pretty sure that would only apply to any of his number who were also circumcised Jews, and the Jewish apostles in Jerusalem were Jesus's original disciples and not Paul's followers, and only came to an agreement with Paul concerning the Gentiles after he met them in Jerusalem, and even then he later rebuked Peter for saying one thing and later acting in a different way.

I am of the opinion though that Paul (and the apostles and early church) was not originally trying to separate from Judaism because Christianity wasn't supposed to be a new religion. It was still supposed to be Judaism with Jesus being the prophesied Messiah. Yes, the old covenant from Sinai would be fulfilled through Jesus as Messiah and be replaced by the new covenant, but the Jews largely rejected that Jesus was their Messiah, and Christianity moved more and more towards being a separate, Gentile religion.

I'm not sure we're really in much disagreement historically, even if we're stating things in different ways, but just coming into the discussion from different directions so it may seem so.

Robear wrote:

If it were learned behavior, it would be different in different cultures. It's not. Part of this behavior, therefore, is inherited. Fairness and therefore cooperation are human nature at a very basic level, and we have evolved it for very utilitarian reasons.

Many bad behaviors are also universal between cultures. Despite cultural differences, people are still people.

Robear wrote:

My bold. There are elements of fairness which do not have to be taught to even infants, although of course they can be modified through later observation and teaching. The idea that explicit moral instruction is the *sole* source of human goodness - that people are always selfish unless taught otherwise - is what's incorrect here. But that's what the Bible tells us.

Or perhaps it's simply a universal desire for goodness rather than goodness itself. (I might even suggest a universal longing for God's goodness, even in our naturally corrupt state. )

Nomad wrote:

I have been reading a great book on early church history that talks about some of these issues. Check it out.

Thanks Nomad! It looks like it contains some things that aren't typically in many "History of the Christian" church type of books.

Bekkilyn wrote:

I am of the opinion though that Paul (and the apostles and early church) was not originally trying to separate from Judaism because Christianity wasn't supposed to be a new religion. It was still supposed to be Judaism with Jesus being the prophesied Messiah. Yes, the old covenant from Sinai would be fulfilled through Jesus as Messiah and be replaced by the new covenant, but the Jews largely rejected that Jesus was their Messiah, and Christianity moved more and more towards being a separate, Gentile religion.

Nomad's fine post set aside - I have issues with the idea that a High Temple purification could be in any way "cultural" as opposed to religious - this is also the point that I'm making. The development of Christianity as a religion occurred entirely after Jesus' death. This understanding is vastly different from the traditional Wesleyan Calvinism in which I was raised. It shows that we have very selectively preserved a few traditions, and invented many, many more, with uncountable different interpretations of texts, opinions and statements over the millennia. I'm nearly certain that I could take any definition of Christianity as a religion and contradict it with another sect's doctrine.

So why do we preserve it all? Easy. The spiritual and community aspects give practical comfort to people. Why are leery about changing it? The same reason, with political and secular power also throwing in on that level. But by not changing it over time, we run the risk that the dangerous memes will get loose again, as they have in this country, and start screwing over people in the name of God. And I wish we could avoid that.

Robear wrote:

Nomad's fine post set aside - I have issues with the idea that a High Temple purification could be in any way "cultural" as opposed to religious - this is also the point that I'm making. The development of Christianity as a religion occurred entirely after Jesus' death. This understanding is vastly different from the traditional Wesleyan Calvinism in which I was raised. It shows that we have very selectively preserved a few traditions, and invented many, many more, with uncountable different interpretations of texts, opinions and statements over the millennia. I'm nearly certain that I could take any definition of Christianity as a religion and contradict it with another sect's doctrine. :-)

I would agree that Christianity as a recognized, established religion happened after Jesus' death, but that wouldn't mean that it wasn't already occurring within another established religion....Judaism...beforehand. Jesus was making disciples during his earthly ministry, and not just the original 12, and there were numerous apostles and converts being made after his death and resurrection before Christianity was recognized as separate from Judaism.

As to your second statement, there is always at least one in every group.

But I think when I think of "Christianity" and how to define it, there are some basic beliefs that the vast majority of Christian denominations would agree to. If you look at some of the variations of the Apostles Creed, most Christian denominations would agree to most of the statements in it, even if they don't use the creed in their tradition.

Most would agree that baptism and some form of communion/Eucharist is important, though will disagree on details of when, how, and why it is done, and some variations on what they mean.

There is a quote that I like that states, "In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity." It kind of wraps up my view of the different denominations and sects we have out there. There will always be a few outliers in any religion, especially in places where there is religious freedom.

I could declare that the Buddha and Jesus Christ is the same person, create a few doctrines surrounding the idea, gather a few followers who like the idea, either seriously or as a joke, implement a sacrament of the "Lord's supper" that uses Buddha animal crackers as the body of Christ and all sorts of other crazy things, and claim to be a Christian sect and there we would have it. Who could legally deny my claim as long as I mention Jesus a lot. I would still be an outlier though and no serious Christian denomination would recognize my little sect as Christian. What most Christian groups would recognize as basic essentials of the faith just wouldn't be there or be recognizable.

Robear wrote:

So why do we preserve it all? Easy. The spiritual and community aspects give practical comfort to people. Why are leery about changing it? The same reason, with political and secular power also throwing in on that level. But by not changing it over time, we run the risk that the dangerous memes will get loose again, as they have in this country, and start screwing over people in the name of God. And I wish we could avoid that.

I share your concerns here and would also wish to avoid it, which is why I so strongly support the separation of church and state. And faith is meaningless if it's forced anyway.

Very thoughtful ideas, and I mostly agree with them.

Docjoe wrote:

Back when I used to believe that salvation was only possible through human sacrifice, my understanding was that it wasn't really necessary to even do "good" as long as you believed that said human sacrifice washed away all your sins. Of course once you gave in to possession by the good spirits you would naturally want to do good things. Like tell gays they are going to hell.

And I recognize that not all Christians believe this. Just most of the ones that I know.

Apropos of nothing, I started reading this thread and got to this comment. I had to think for a moment, huh, we still have Aztecs around? After a second or two I started thinking like a normal person again and not an idiot.

For what it's worth on the Paul stuff, I tend to view him of doing a lot of ecumenical work to try and keep the different churches/factions from splitting entirely. I also think he has in a fair amount of early stoicism in his perspectives ... it's not my favorite.

bekkilyn wrote:

There is a quote that I like that states, "In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity."

Usually attributed to Augustine, in case you were wondering.

Robear wrote:
Bekkilyn wrote:

I am of the opinion though that Paul (and the apostles and early church) was not originally trying to separate from Judaism because Christianity wasn't supposed to be a new religion. It was still supposed to be Judaism with Jesus being the prophesied Messiah. Yes, the old covenant from Sinai would be fulfilled through Jesus as Messiah and be replaced by the new covenant, but the Jews largely rejected that Jesus was their Messiah, and Christianity moved more and more towards being a separate, Gentile religion.

Nomad's fine post set aside - I have issues with the idea that a High Temple purification could be in any way "cultural" as opposed to religious - this is also the point that I'm making. The development of Christianity as a religion occurred entirely after Jesus' death. This understanding is vastly different from the traditional Wesleyan Calvinism in which I was raised. It shows that we have very selectively preserved a few traditions, and invented many, many more, with uncountable different interpretations of texts, opinions and statements over the millennia. I'm nearly certain that I could take any definition of Christianity as a religion and contradict it with another sect's doctrine.

So why do we preserve it all? Easy. The spiritual and community aspects give practical comfort to people. Why are leery about changing it? The same reason, with political and secular power also throwing in on that level. But by not changing it over time, we run the risk that the dangerous memes will get loose again, as they have in this country, and start screwing over people in the name of God. And I wish we could avoid that.

This might be a quibble, but since we're talking about something (Christianity) that coevolved with Western culture and did, as you've mentioned, spend a lot of the last two millennia either truly running the West or being claimed by those who ran the West, culturally as well as politically and militarily. I think we're doing a good job of remembering that Christianity isn't a monolith, but I think it's important to also remember that the coevolution of culture and religion has only sometimes been a human-directed process. I think you get that, Robear, but I wanted to have it explicit, just in case.

wordsmythe wrote:

I also think he has in a fair amount of early stoicism in his perspectives ... it's not my favorite.

Huh. Given my Calvinist upbringing, even though we were "liberal" United Methodists, Stoicism is appealing to me in many regards. "Meditations" has gotten me through some hard times.

Wordsmythe wrote:

This might be a quibble, but since we're talking about something (Christianity) that coevolved with Western culture and did, as you've mentioned, spend a lot of the last two millennia either truly running the West or being claimed by those who ran the West, culturally as well as politically and militarily. I think we're doing a good job of remembering that Christianity isn't a monolith, but I think it's important to also remember that the coevolution of culture and religion has only sometimes been a human-directed process. I think you get that, Robear, but I wanted to have it explicit, just in case.

Yes. Religions, cultures, societies, all evolve over time. Humans attempt to influence them, and sometimes succeed. But ideas are subject to the principles of evolution over time, so I view that as the stronger driver.

Robear wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

I also think he has in a fair amount of early stoicism in his perspectives ... it's not my favorite.

Huh. Given my Calvinist upbringing, even though we were "liberal" United Methodists, Stoicism is appealing to me in many regards. "Meditations" has gotten me through some hard times.

The statement has a touch of irony to me since I partially blame Stoicism for many of the misogynistic interpretations of Paul's letters, and that have helped to cause a great deal of harm to women over the centuries. Not that Stoicism doesn't have it's good points, but I'm not too fond of its view of women.

I'm kind of curious about your combination of Calvin and Wesley though. Wesley was very much opposed to the doctrine of pre-destination and thus had something of a schism with Calvinists because of it and so Methodism today is pretty much in the Arminian camp. I suppose there could be some groups still around, perhaps originating from George Whitefield's ministry? I thought they eventually merged in with the Presbyterians though.

I did find a wiki article on Calvinistic Methodists in Wales.

John Wesley was, yes, and I'd say he was my father's guiding light. Methodism is Arminian and still holds to the circuit-riding tradition in some ways. What I was referring to is that Arminians did not reject *all* of Calvin's teachings; my father, trained in the United Methodist tradition, still drew on Calvin for some of his themes, like Justification being dependent on the *choice* to follow Jesus, and a similar doctrine that makes Preservation not permanent, but dependent on faith at all times. Those are less directly opposed to Calvin's positions, and more modifications of it. To me, Methodism is a direct descendant of Calvinism, tweaked and modified. (I think the social history of Calvinist sects versus Methodist sects shows that this was a good choice, as Methodism is more accepting, while Calvinism is of necessity more given to rejecting all but the Elect.)

Social doctrines like the necessity of work for good character, strong self-control, the rejection of pleasure for its own sake, strict punishment to enforce the internal adoption of behavioral codes, those sorts of things I associate with Calvinism as well. They are more or less congruent with Stoicism, as well.

Thinking about it, that may have to do with the family being Presbyterian until the mid-18th century. They were prominent at the turn of the 18th century in Philadelphia Presbyterian circles, and by the 1740's some of the men were Presbyters of their church in Western North Carolina. Some time after that, though, they became Methodists; I think it was the entire congregation that left, rather than just my family. But if the Presbyterian ethos stayed in the family, I can see that my experience would have been "confessed Arminian, practicing Calvinist", and that may be the source of my perception. My grandfather was exceedingly old school in his views on life, having been brought up in a long-lived family with living relatives who were born in the 1840's and earlier, so it's not hard to imagine that Calvinist beliefs lingered long after the change in professed faiths was accomplished. It's an interesting consideration, anyway. I wonder if my father even realized he was in some ways mixing the two traditions. Or if, as I think, they are compatible because one descended from the other.

Robear, that's super interesting and makes a great deal of sense, both how you explained in general and the specifics pertaining to your family. Makes me wonder what sort of conflict or disagreement may have happened that the entire congregation would switch to a new denomination.

I would certainly agree that Methodism would have kept at least some of Calvin's teachings. Back during Wesley's time when Methodism was a revival movement within the Anglican church, it was split between the Wesleyans (I don't remember exactly which term they used if they used one) and the Calvinists that the fiery George Whitefield represented.

Whitefield had been part of Wesley's Holy Club in Oxford and they were very good friends. Whitefield had been responsible for encouraging Wesley to preach outside of the buildings of the churches like he had been doing. Also, they both went to Georgia in the American colonies to preach (though at different times) and while Wesley didn't have a large amount of success there, relatively speaking, Whitefield with his Calvinist views, became something of a phenomenon.

The disagreement between Wesley and Whitefield severely affected their friendship for a time, largely over pre-destination, though they later reconciled that friendship if not their theological differences.

Just because Wesley's faction came to ultimately represent most of Methodism as a whole, and certainly United Methodists, wouldn't mean that it was *anti*-Calvin or didn't share a lot of the same theology outside of pre-destination.

I was still curious as to what you meant by it though, so thank you! I loved hearing it.

Your father and family's experience makes a lot of sense to me on a personal level too. Though I'm United Methodist now, I grew up as a Southern Baptist and went to a Southern Baptist university for one of my degrees, so I still have a few influences from there that probably will never go away no matter what other denomination I'm in. For example, though I'm not *anti*-infant baptism, and consider it to be a valid sacrament as described in United Methodist doctrine, when it comes down to it, I still prefer baptism by immersion once a person is old enough to understand what it means and make their own decision. (And United Methodists do also baptize by immersion....it's not like the organization *insists* on sprinkling just because it's the default.) It bugs the heck out of my mom though, as she is still Southern Baptist, and she's always bringing up the whole sprinkling thing.

I think there is still disagreement over pre-destination within the Southern Baptist denomination, so I don't remember the topic ever really coming up as I was growing up. The altar call would go out to everyone. Most probably didn't really get that deeply into theology anyway.

The one clue to what might have happened is that all of my North Carolina family, especially the old old ones when I was a child, *hated* Baptists. So I'm guessing a doctrinal split in the congregation.

Pre-Destination is a big issue, but not one you'd hear about in Sunday School. In fact, if the minister was not sophisticated, you might not hear it discussed at all, if he could avoid it. It's a hard topic for people to hear.