Since interest in this topic keeps popping up, I offer to anyone interested in such discussion, a portion of a radio broadcast ministry which addressed, in part, historical Judeo-Christian traditions vs individual personal salvation:

"It's easy to see why people think the Judeo-Christian tradition breeds intolerance. When the Israelites invaded Canaan, they were under orders to kill its inhabitants mercilessly. Later, but without the same divine sanction, "Christian" conquerors ruthlessly fashioned Christian religion into a cultural weapon that they combined with military force. Much of the "Christianization" of the West was accomplished at the edge of the sword, and the motives of "Christian" warlords were mixed at best.

Compared superficially with Christianity and Judaism, paganism seems tolerant. Under paganism everyone has his own gods (and values), and in theory everyone is willing to let other people believe, worship, and act as they wish. Everyone tolerates everybody else's gods, and everybody gets along.

In actuality things don't work out so amicably. Different gods represent different moral and cultural values. Inevitably the gods (and values) of pagan groups clash. In paganism the stronger groups eventually overwhelm the weaker ones and impose their gods on them with no pretense of concern for justice. If we observe parts of the world still controlled by pagan religious and cultural values we will gain a more realistic view of pagan "tolerance." Pagan cultures are characterized by tribalism, witchcraft, superstition, and fear. In fact, such was the state of pagan Europe before the introduction of the gospel.

It's true that Christian faith was exploited by kings, crusaders, and inquisitors. In depressing regularity, cunning, worldly kings cynically led their "Christian" armies against other "Christian" (as well as pagan and Muslim) foes. In spite of this, the Christian gospel and the influence of the Holy Spirit was at work within the imperfect vessel of Western culture, asserting the infinite worth of each individual to a loving God. As a result, even though the Judeo-Christian religious tradition continues to be labeled "intolerant" by its enemies, the influence of biblical religion has made the Western world by far the most humane, enlightened, tolerant, and diverse society that has ever existed.

Much of the intolerance within Western, Judeo-Christian tradition has been indefensible. But in spite of serious flaws, some of the intolerance of this tradition was aimed against real falsehood, injustice, superstition, and evil. Why? Because biblical religion alone is based upon a view of God that gives both tolerance and intolerance a reasonable basis.

The Canaanites were probably surprised that the Israelites looked with horror on the human sacrifices and other kinds of inhuman depravity that they carried out in the names of their gods. They were convinced that if they didn't perform their horrible rituals, their gods would be angered and they would be punished.

Similarly, the Aztecs (who sacrificed thousands of victims each year to their sun god and cannibalized their bodies) were shocked and amazed that the Spaniards looked upon their sacred religious duties with revulsion.

The Church today is clearly not in the position of Israel. In fact, whenever the Church has sought to directly assume the reins of governmental authority, she has lost her love for her Lord and has become cruel and corrupt. But God has placed the Church where she can do His work. She can (and should) influence culture and government by setting an example of purity and love. She is also in a position to make an appeal to culture and government upon the basis of reason and natural law.

In spite of glaring failures, it was the presence of the Church and its witness that nurtured the ethical and humanitarian vision of the West. Only when people believe in the biblical God -- a Holy Creator who has established real moral law and demands allegiance to truth and justice -- are they willing to trust the process of law and justice. There can be no civility without confidence in law and justice.

But just as important as the influence of the Church in establishing the worth of the individual and promoting faith and justice was the biblical call for the transformation of the individual heart.

At the heart of both the Old and New Testaments is a declaration that the most essential thing for the human soul is individual conversion, being "born again" in response to the call of the Holy Spirit. This individual response is all-important, the one thing that determines each person's eternal destiny. This biblical emphasis upon personal conversion confirms the awesome worth and dignity of the individual. Each person is responsible for his own spiritual destiny. The biblical call for personal conversion underlies the emphasis upon individual freedom and dignity that are coming to fruition in the West (and in other societies that are adopting Western values). It was biblical respect for the individual conscience that led to the development of the Western political concept of "freedom of religion." Even today in modern Islamic countries, converts to Christianity and critics of Islam are being put to death.

The Bible's intolerance for falsehood and evil is the basis for any genuine tolerance. Although much evil has been done in the name of biblical religion, only the unwise would deny the importance of the biblical principles that nurture and uphold our most essential cultural values.

truestory,

Mind if I take a few shots? Of course you don't.



Much of the "Christianization" of the West was accomplished at the edge of the sword, and the motives of "Christian" warlords were mixed at best.
...
In paganism the stronger groups eventually overwhelm the weaker ones and impose their gods on them with no pretense of concern for justice.


So, Christianity has been different from paganism, how exactly?



If we observe parts of the world still controlled by pagan religious and cultural values we will gain a more realistic view of pagan "tolerance." Pagan cultures are characterized by tribalism, witchcraft, superstition, and fear.


Right. And Christianity doesn't involve superstition. Or fear. Or witchcraft. And it somehow managed to eliminate tribalism, too? Where had this person (whoever they are) been for the last millennium???? Heck, where have they been for the last couple of centuries? Where are they right now?



Different gods represent different moral and cultural values.


But whatever happened to the shared moral values across all religions? Surely, the author had devoted some time researching the subject, and didn't just go blindly dismissing any moralistic commonalities across distinct religions and cultures?



the influence of biblical religion has made the Western world by far the most humane, enlightened, tolerant, and diverse society that has ever existed.


Remember Germany, circa 1937? Remember the Balkans? Remember Ireland? Remember colonialism? Remember Vietnam? Remember the Cosa Nostra? Remember KKK? Remember anti-abortion terrorism? Remember Israel?

Now, was it really religion responsible for the betterment of the Western world, or was it the emergence of Capitalism -- a decidedly non-Christian social philosophy? Just because Christians were the major players, doesn't mean the result is due to their religion. It just means that Europe was already subjugated and dominated by the Church by the time Capitalism emerged.



Much of the intolerance within Western, Judeo-Christian tradition has been indefensible. But in spite of serious flaws, some of the intolerance of this tradition was aimed against real falsehood, injustice, superstition, and evil.


I was really hoping for a few more examples here. Because for the life of me, I can't fathom all that many cases of such "real" bad things, which would have been tolerated if it wasn't for Christianity. And as for falsehood, injustice, superstition, and evil -- I'd say that the Church has earned a big scarlet letter of distinction in every single one of these disciplines.

Human sacrifice seems to be the only thing the author(s?) cites as an example. Though may I remind some people that the Church used to perform its own share of "sacrifices" -- in the interests of battling the Devil? Or am I wrong in observing that modern Pagans are no more likely to perform human sacrifice than modern Christians? (we aren't trying to play that "satanists kill children" card again, are we?)



But God has placed the Church where she can do His work. She can (and should) influence culture and government by setting an example of purity and love. She is also in a position to make an appeal to culture and government upon the basis of reason and natural law.


Oh, you've got to admire that play on words. "reason and natural law". If only! Too bad the church actively opposes reasoning based on natural law and knowledge, and keeps trying to impose its unnatural doctrines over secular enterprises! And, I'd say, the Church is really showing some concern for demonstration of purity and love, by backing in U.S. a party that advocates slashing of social programs, and has no problem with the gaping and widening divide between the rich and the poor.



Only when people believe in the biblical God -- a Holy Creator who has established real moral law and demands allegiance to truth and justice -- are they willing to trust the process of law and justice.


And what are the justifications behind such a claim?! Or are we to conclude that countries dominated by non-Judaic religions are incapable of upholding truth, law, or justice?!!



There can be no civility without confidence in law and justice.


Sure. But who says, and on what grounds, that such confidence cannot be present in absence of the "biblical God", or the biblical religion altogether?



It was biblical respect for the individual conscience that led to the development of the Western political concept of "freedom of religion."


Oh gee, and I thought it was a Protestant rebellion against the Catholic Church? But never mind the truth, we'll just assume whatever is convenient, and rewrite the history books later.



Even today in modern Islamic countries, converts to Christianity and critics of Islam are being put to death.


Funny. I thought Islam espoused the same biblical God as does Christianity. Though, being the tolerant Christians that we are, we just can't resist putting down Islam at every opportunity. After all, we wouldn't want to lose our constituency to other religions; we are even willing to be hypocrits and demogogues -- we'll do anything to keep our grip on the world.

Is it really the fault of Islam that its dominant countries are not democratic and do not possess the free press and the checks and balances that the western world has? In fact, aren't Islamic countries a prime example of why Christianity cannot claim credit for the well-being of the West? Fundamentally, Islam is hardly different from Christianity. Yet, in itself it is obviously not sufficient to generate or support the ideals we westerners hold so dear.



The Bible's intolerance for falsehood and evil is the basis for any genuine tolerance.


And silly me, I thought that tolerance is defined by lack of bias. But, I guess if we all thumped the Bible with equal devotion, then there wouldn't be any conflicts, would there? Perhaps, this is Christianity's "solution" to the problems of the world. Total hegemony and perfect stagnation.



...only the unwise would deny the importance of the biblical principles that nurture and uphold our most essential cultural values.


Christian tolerance and open-mindedness at its best.

<hr>

Love and kisses to all the media preachers out there. You people really warm my heart. :p

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 12, 2000).]

Boris,

You are right. I don't mind how many shots you take at the social tradition.

The main point of the post, however, was to contrast the tradition (of the body social) vs personal salvation (of the body spiritual). I believe that accepting the great gift of salvation through Jesus Christ - is true "Christianity"... As I have explained many times previously, to me, personal salvation is what "Christianity" is all about. Personally, I do not identify with the body social and its tradition, much to the dismay of many - Christians and non-Christians alike.

If I'm not mistaken, your comments seemed to focus on the author's discussion of Judeo-Christian tradition only, so I will repost the portion concerning personal salvation and ask for your comments about how you see this in contrast to tradition.


At the heart of both the Old and New Testaments is a declaration that the most essential thing for the human soul is individual conversion, being "born again" in response to the call of the Holy Spirit. This individual response is all-important, the one thing that determines each person's eternal destiny. This biblical emphasis upon personal conversion confirms the awesome worth and dignity of the individual. Each person is responsible for his own spiritual destiny. The biblical call for personal conversion underlies the emphasis upon individual freedom and dignity that are coming to fruition in the West (and in other societies that are adopting Western values).

truestory,

You correctly note that my "comments seemed to focus on the author's discussion of Judeo-Christian tradition only." After all, what would you expect when that is mostly what the text you quoted is all about? I mean, if you were interested in juxtaposing 'Christian Tradition' to 'Individual Salvation', how come your post only devoted one little paragraph to the latter? But anyway, I didn't want to mix too many topics into a single post. I was just responding to the sheer mental atrocities committed in expounding the former.

As to your question:

I do have a problem with this idealism of "personal salvation". The problem is not focused solely in the effects of such "salvation" on individuals (although I don't like the effects either, more on that in a bit.) An important part of the problem lies in the very fact that this is idealism.

The Judeo-Christian institution we all so love to hate did not arise out of nothing; arguably it would have never existed if it wasn't for the biblical teachings to begin with. This is yet another case in the reliable pattern of idealism and good intentions breeding tyranny and atrocity. Trust me, being a former citizen of the Soviet Union, I have developed an especially keen sense for this issue. The point is that Judaism brain-washes people in a rather special way, enabling unsavoury individuals, under an appropriate guise, to take control with little or no resistance from those being subjugated. Any type of utopianism has historically proven disastrous for that reason, and the Christian form of utopianism is no exception.

As for the personal state of "salvation", I don't like it either. It is one thing to cling to the right principles. However, I have a problem when such principles are not being justified or established in the right way. Establishing laws and guidelines based on authority of religion and mysticism is not the way to go. A rational society should establish laws and guidelines upon principles of justice, fairness, equality and reciprocity -- all of which are independent of religion and should not be tied to any "tradition". In fact, appeal to tradition or some mythical divine authority actually undermines the credibility of any principles to be established; principles have much more force to them when they are derived from and backed with sheer reason and practicality under a social contract.

Additionally, religious indoctrination of values inevitably extends itself beyond said values and into other areas altogether unrelated to "personal salvation". The religious opposition to certain scientific theories is one clear demonstration of an overreaching doctrine. As another example, take the claim that pre-conscious faetuses are equivalent to conscious babies in their status as human beings -- which goes against scientific wisdom or common sense, and is based solely upon a doctrine of "souls". This claim has already caused much misery, and will continue to do so in the future.

It's nice for people to be able to reach states of high personal happiness and comfort, and of course the Christian "salvation" is one way to do that. However, the price paid for such well-being is, in my opinion, too high. The price is a surrender of rationality and mental independence at a deepest level. The price is submission to doctrine. I argue that equivalent, if not superior, states of well-being are possible without help from religion or any type of "salvation". A grounding in reason and practicality can provide an even more solid foundation than the Commandments of some Faith. (And such principles wouldn't need to be "interpreted" either! They would be concrete and fully justified, and unambiguous by their very origin and nature. An such an approach would allow extension of moral frameworks to accomodate changes in the world and society, or new developments in technology, science, or philosophy.) And, an appreciation of the joy of life can be achieved through art, recreation, meditation, family, and self-expression -- with no need for prayer or church services.

I do not argue for a mere dismantling of the religious establishment, since such an act would indeed leave the world in disarray. Whenever you tear down, you must compensate by building. I argue for a replacement of religion by a rational ideology and philosophy. I really do believe that such a replacement would result in a healthier world.

P.S. I've noticed that sometimes my contributions are too extensive and frequent, and tend to discourage other people from participating in the debate (perhaps they don't want to expend the effort trying to keep up...) So, I'll stop posting here for a day or two, to allow others to speak their minds.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 12, 2000).]

This is an interesting article. It provides a reasonable look at some of the logical structures used to justify the Christian function in the world. Accepting that this largely regards institutional ideas, I would offer the following commentary:

* (Article): "Different gods represent different moral and cultural values. Inevitably the gods (and values) of pagan groups clash. In paganism the stronger groups eventually overwhelm the weaker ones and impose their gods on them with no pretense of concern for justice. If we observe parts of the world still controlled by pagan religious and cultural values we will gain a more realistic view of pagan "tolerance." Pagan cultures are characterized by tribalism, witchcraft, superstition, and fear. In fact, such was the state of pagan Europe before the introduction of the gospel."

I agree that such was the state of paganism before the introduction of the Gospels. However, I see it in a little different light.

--Father commits what child perceives as a wrong.
--Father explains, "That's just the way it is. That's how it was when my dad did it, and when his dad did it ...."

We see "the way things are" or "the way it is" repeating cycles of alcoholic, abusive, and hostile behavior. Is the way things were the right way to be?

Here is where it is very important to mark the relationship between a faith and its adherents. Modern-day paganism, at least, looks different in its more common form. While Barker-esque villains chase lustful dreams across pagan vistas, most pagans see the unsettled heritage as a means to a more transitory faith, one that grows and learns with the practicioner.

* (Article): "Similarly, the Aztecs (who sacrificed thousands of victims each year to their sun god and cannibalized their bodies) were shocked and amazed that the Spaniards looked upon their sacred religious duties with revulsion."

Why is Christ "the lamb of God"? Was not his wound that of the scapegoat? Was not his passion and death an allegory of Jewish rite? Is he not a human sacrifice? And what of the debate which persists--to this day--regarding whether the communion gives the faithful a representation of flesh and blood, or whether they consume the actual flesh and blood of Christ? This is an institutional tradition, though I'm quite sure that the conquistadores were well aware that they were consuming the flesh and blood of Christ. In this sense, it really does seem that it's all in how you look at it.

* (Article) "She is also in a position to make an appeal to culture and government upon the basis of reason and natural law."

We cannot agree entirely what comprises natural law. Furthermore, she [the church institutions] might be able to "appeal to culture and government", but that is a far term from the sense of political involvement we experience in the United States, at least. Contemporary American relations between the church and state demonstrate a constant appeal, which I do think is among the church's duties, but also a consistent need to subvert the very principles of government which allow said church to operate in its present form. Often, it reads, "I demand my First Amendment right to free speech to tell you to shut up." Or I could cite an Oregon case in which an individual mother petitioned the school board to remove a novel from the high school library on the grounds that its presence, and the word "demon" in the title, violated the First Amendment rights of her children and herself, because they deserve a diverse library that is free from what they interpret as a demonic influence. As to reason ... any logical system works if we all agree on the presupposed conclusions. Any logical form will work within the Christian reference if well-applied; that is, insofar as subjective religious truths are the governing authority of the alleged logic, one can make almost any argument reflect the truth of that religious truth.

* (Article) "Even today in modern Islamic countries, converts to Christianity and critics of Islam are being put to death."

Yes, and in modern Islam countries, Muslims are being put to death, too, for the simple crime of owning musical instruments. It's a problem I have yet to see solved demonstratively within the Muslim structure.

* (Article): "The biblical call for personal conversion underlies the emphasis upon individual freedom and dignity that are coming to fruition in the West (and in other societies that are adopting Western values)."

And that individual freedom and dignity remains the sole motivation? Part of what we clash about here in this board is that we can't identify the transition between the individual experience and the Christian community. The two seem to be utterly separate creatures.

* (Article): "It was biblical respect for the individual conscience that led to the development of the Western political concept of "freedom of religion."

I might rewrite this: "It was biblical respect for individual Judeo-Christian conscience ...."

Watch what happened in Maryland ... Catholic colony, tolerance laws, and then suddenly a Protestant majority and anti-Catholic codes. Beyond that, though, we see non-Christian religions made the subject of governmental worry by individuals who made these ideas the subject of governmental worry because their individual Christian conscience drove them to. I would stop at the Salem Witch Trials except that nobody else did. I've already mentioned, at this forum, that in Kansas or thereabout, in the 1850's, local residents hanged a cow for the crime of sorcery. Or the rise of Z. Budapest after her arrest in the 1970's, charged in California with criminal witchcraft. And the public demonization of ideas--what would the reaction be if I asserted that someone came to be a pedophile because of gospel music? Do we ever hear about it when kids leave poignant quotations from Stryper albums in their suicide notes?

* (Boris; 2/12/2000): "Now, was it really religion responsible for the betterment of the Western world, or was it the emergence of Capitalism -- a decidedly non-Christian social philosophy? Just because Christians were the major players, doesn't mean the result is due to their religion. It just means that Europe was already subjugated and dominated by the Church by the time Capitalism emerged."

The only note I wanted to make here is that Max Weber would take slight issue with that. (Big deal.) But I do think it relevant to mention that Weber devoted an entire volume to the idea in Protestantism and the Rise of Capitalism, in an effort to document the rise of modern capitalism from the British-Protestant structure.

Also, Boris ... I, too, have the problem from time to time that my posts become thick and long. It's ok, really. For my part, at least. I know I'm enjoying your posts. Cerebral Corn Flakes, or something. :)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:


------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited February 14, 2000).]

Boris~

Great job! As Tiassa said, don't worry about the length of your posts. You do go over my head sometimes with the scientific stuff, but I can usually get a grip on what you're saying. :)

True'- this quote from your original post:
"Only when people believe in the biblical God -- a Holy Creator who has established real moral law and demands allegiance to truth and justice -- are they willing to trust the process of law and justice. "

I have 2 things for ya' on that one - you believe in the biblical God, can you honestly say you trust the process of law and justice? Do you suppose the family of Ron Goldman and Nicole Smith feel the same way? (Assuming they're Christian)

The other thing I want to point out is that most Pagans have quite a bit of faith in justice - it's called karma. Granted, it's not the justice handed down by officials, but it's there just the same, and the general belief is that eventually, all harm will be punished and all good will be rewarded.

Also: "Although much evil has been done in the name of biblical religion, only the unwise would deny the importance of the biblical principles that nurture and uphold our most essential cultural values. "

I've said it before, I'll say it again - most of these cultural values are not exclusive to Christianity. Most of these values will be found in any modern religion - for example the most popular and probably best known (at least in America) pagan religion Wicca.