I was explaining how Shariah law was incompatible with White nations. Their only answer was that to prove God's kindness, my only choice is to sit there, and wait to get killed, so i can show the love of Jesus to others. I tried explaining there wont be any Christianity to spread if all those Christians are dead. Instead I was told that the only way to stop this is to placate and enable muslims, giving them the religious tolerance they need to practice. See Jesus is coming back soon, and since well all be dead soon, who gives a shit? (paraphrasing their words, not mine). As far as they're concerned, even bringing it up is too much. But if those same ass fucks criticize us? Well the onus is now on me to show the kindness of Christ by placating them. So let me get this straight, all i can do is sit there and get fucked by islam, whilst those same assholes can force demands on me and i have to listen? They can kill me, my family, and my entire neighborhood. But if i bring it up, im the bad guy?
The death of Jesus understood as some highfalutin event of theological significance was invented by what would have been scholars at the time
That's speculation of course. It would require 1) an extremely in depth understanding of OT scripture and contemporary Jewish culture, 2) an extremely in depth understanding of Greco-Roman culture and philosophy in order to provide compatibility and the opportunity for integration.
by syncretizing ideas from Persian and Greco-Roman cults devoted to savior deities.
I'll take my Catholic hat off for a second and talk from a secular perspective.
I always enjoy our chats, but I'll bring it up again in case an onlooker has thoughts or comments. I think I already understand your position on the topic, but I think there's value added bring it up again now and then.
Plato's the Republic offers a societal model that relies on the concept of a Philosopher King, which concept is fulfilled in Christ. It also relied on a concept of a motivating mysticism that compels people onto the ideal lifestyle. The motivating mysticism would be fulfilled in religious Christianity.
Because the philosophical following of Socrates/Plato was not a cult and that branch of Greek philosophy pointed towards the existence of a monotheistic all-God, it follows that the best fitting model for your theory was that the necessity for the coming of the Jewish Messiah during Jesus' time based on Jewish prophecies was the perfect motivating mysticism that Platonic philosophy needed. If the story of Jesus was simply a needed mystic motivator, it follows that the logic and structure of the Republic's society and its inherent aspects of Stoicism still merits attention and consideration (the motivating mysticism was explained as more or less just an onramp).
The motivating mysticism was explained in the chapter that deals with the Noble Lie. At the end of the book, there is a Noble Lie proposed, but it is easily substituted by something better fitting and adapted to the times.
It would make sense that an opportunity presented itself and the story of Jesus became the optimized version of the Noble Lie for the purpose of a motivating mysticism.
If that is the case, it would make sense to then evaluate Christianity merely as a means to getting to the point of a population adopting Socratic/Platonic principles. We should then be assessing whether those principles are good value.
Putting my Christian hat back on, the logic in the Republic was also that a truth is superior to a lie, therefore the perfect form of the Noble Lie is actually a Noble Truth. And by that, Greek philosophy was actually pointing towards a truth that was not fully known at the time. In the Bible, Paul acknowledges this concept in the verse referencing the "Altar of the unknown God". It's spelled out in Catholic doctrine that Jews came to understand Christ was coming by signs given to them, while Greeks came to understand Christ was coming by logic that was inuited by them.
Whether we take a religious or secular approach, we still need to evaluate the pros and cons of different models therein and how they inform societal behaviour.
Some of the values you can abstract from this milieu are useful and good, like sacrifice for the sake of your people. But applied in broad strokes to every threat you face in the world, it is suicide.
Worse than suicidal on an individual scale, some schools of thought can be self-destructive/suicidal for the society itself. You can have strong Christian schools of thought that aren't suicidal from a societal perspective. It's important to emphasize the fact that changes and adaptations can happen within the Church in response to threats. Threat response requires a drive for self-preservation, which is something the Catholic Church has. Not all forms of Christianity would necessarily have that.
God is very clearly an advocate of conflict for some higher purpose, or the world simply wouldn't be this brutal.
Job's suffering, as a means of proving the human spirit, is an example of this. From a secular perspective, that is just to say that your observation is consistent with the teachings of the doctrine.
The notion that one could simply hide beneath mom's skirt and hope for help to come along is so ignoble that to attach it to divinity should be considered the highest blasphemy.
I agree. And tying back into the Greek philosophy piece, I believe the stronger the reinforcement is to particular forms of Platonic philosophy mirroring the heart of Christianity, the more people will see the value in concepts that were laid out in those forms.
Some things call to action. I think it's a big piece many contemporary Christians lose perspective on. A failure to act and provide for your own is a bad thing in Christianity (cf 1 Tim 5:8) and Platonic philosophy.
Reunto 1 points 3 hours ago
That's speculation of course. It would require 1) an extremely in depth understanding of OT scripture and contemporary Jewish culture, 2) an extremely in depth understanding of Greco-Roman culture and philosophy in order to provide compatibility and the opportunity for integration.
I'll take my Catholic hat off for a second and talk from a secular perspective.
I always enjoy our chats, but I'll bring it up again in case an onlooker has thoughts or comments. I think I already understand your position on the topic, but I think there's value added bring it up again now and then.
Plato's the Republic offers a societal model that relies on the concept of a Philosopher King, which concept is fulfilled in Christ. It also relied on a concept of a motivating mysticism that compels people onto the ideal lifestyle. The motivating mysticism would be fulfilled in religious Christianity.
Because the philosophical following of Socrates/Plato was not a cult and that branch of Greek philosophy pointed towards the existence of a monotheistic all-God, it follows that the best fitting model for your theory was that the necessity for the coming of the Jewish Messiah during Jesus' time based on Jewish prophecies was the perfect motivating mysticism that Platonic philosophy needed. If the story of Jesus was simply a needed mystic motivator, it follows that the logic and structure of the Republic's society and its inherent aspects of Stoicism still merits attention and consideration (the motivating mysticism was explained as more or less just an onramp).
The motivating mysticism was explained in the chapter that deals with the Noble Lie. At the end of the book, there is a Noble Lie proposed, but it is easily substituted by something better fitting and adapted to the times.
It would make sense that an opportunity presented itself and the story of Jesus became the optimized version of the Noble Lie for the purpose of a motivating mysticism.
If that is the case, it would make sense to then evaluate Christianity merely as a means to getting to the point of a population adopting Socratic/Platonic principles. We should then be assessing whether those principles are good value.
Putting my Christian hat back on, the logic in the Republic was also that a truth is superior to a lie, therefore the perfect form of the Noble Lie is actually a Noble Truth. And by that, Greek philosophy was actually pointing towards a truth that was not fully known at the time. In the Bible, Paul acknowledges this concept in the verse referencing the "Altar of the unknown God". It's spelled out in Catholic doctrine that Jews came to understand Christ was coming by signs given to them, while Greeks came to understand Christ was coming by logic that was inuited by them.
Whether we take a religious or secular approach, we still need to evaluate the pros and cons of different models therein and how they inform societal behaviour.
Worse than suicidal on an individual scale, some schools of thought can be self-destructive/suicidal for the society itself. You can have strong Christian schools of thought that aren't suicidal from a societal perspective. It's important to emphasize the fact that changes and adaptations can happen within the Church in response to threats. Threat response requires a drive for self-preservation, which is something the Catholic Church has. Not all forms of Christianity would necessarily have that.
Job's suffering, as a means of proving the human spirit, is an example of this. From a secular perspective, that is just to say that your observation is consistent with the teachings of the doctrine.
I agree. And tying back into the Greek philosophy piece, I believe the stronger the reinforcement is to particular forms of Platonic philosophy mirroring the heart of Christianity, the more people will see the value in concepts that were laid out in those forms.
Some things call to action. I think it's a big piece many contemporary Christians lose perspective on. A failure to act and provide for your own is a bad thing in Christianity (cf 1 Tim 5:8) and Platonic philosophy.