Seven Christian Concepts

Arts & Sciences Religion & Spirituality
1


Character for “Rén” in Simplified Chinese

I have a set of seven concepts that I’m working, slowly but surely, into a book on Christianity. It’s kind of like the seven virtues from past Christian theology but a bit more topical in nature. I thought I would blog them up for some possible feedback.

First: Christianity isn’t about fighting capitalism, it’s about fighting economicism; that being the application of economic concepts to society in a manner that subsumes the fundamental value people have.

Second: The interaction between power and responsibility. Power without responsibility is tyranny; responsibility without power is scapegoating. It’s anti-social and unreasonable to expect that no one should ever have any power over you. The proper course for an individual is to determine whether those who have power over you have responsibility that’s consummate with their power. If they do then there should be no problem when you agree with their cause. This applies to people who are leaders as well; they should strive to be responsible in proper scope to whatever their powers are. This idea obviously has some political ramifications as well as religious ones.

Third: The spiritual world should be presumed to follow different rules than the physical world. Certain things “belong to God” and are off-limits to otherwise normal, economicism-oriented interpretations. An example of this is the argument that receiving a good feeling in return for being charitable actually makes charity selfish because the giver seeks the good feeling as their reward. Besides being the kind of thing a real hater would say, this idea is wrong because the good feeling from being charitable (called Rén in Confucianism) is something that exists within the spiritual world; i.e. it doesn’t follow principles of economicism. Also, charity should be anonymous when possible because that limits the economic benefits received by the giver.

Fourth: The terms of forgiveness. Some people want to be forgiven just so that they can get some leeway to hurt you again. It’s sad but true. In applying economic concepts to forgiveness, we’ve forgotten that forgiveness belongs to the one who forgives. We sometimes treat forgiveness like a currency which is received by the forgiven. That is the wrong idea. Just what forgiveness entails and what its terms are belong to the forgiver, not to the forgiven. It’s possible to forgive someone without giving them an opportunity to hurt you again.

Fifth: God’s Unconditional Love does not mean freedom from judgement; if it did, there would be no commandments in the Bible. God’s love may unconditional (I haven’t come to my own interpretation on that yet) but like a parent to a child, sometimes you need to judge someone you love harshly. It’s been popular to say that God loves everyone no matter what because then you can seem nice and popular, that was never God’s intended message.

Sixth: Honor means following a rule which benefits the community even when you would be better off individually in not following it. An honorable rule can’t be petty because pettiness isn’t in the community’s best interests. This means that there is no honor in following laws that severely micro-manage people since those laws are petty in nature.

Seventh: Charity is for your neighbors and your brothers, or for people who have honor; it’s not something you are supposed to give to everyone unconditionally. If there are no conditions at all attached to charity then your charity is inviting people to break Christ’s covenant and that is not what he intended when he told people to be charitable to their neighbors and brothers. As far as honor goes, people who have honor will respect your charity and might be able to become your brothers, so charity towards them is optional.

2

tommy’s simplified concepts on Christianity:

  1. You suck, and even if you didn’t suck you still fall short of the glory of God (thanks Adam).
  2. You need Christ as your lawyer with God because otherwise see point 1.
  3. Best to sin as little as possible (I know , its tough MAN) because there could be some embarashing moments , or worse at YOUR BIG TRIAL.

other points coming…

3

Subtext: There is a religion called Christianity, to which you apparently adhere (more specifically, you seem to be some sort of evangelical Protestant) and wish others to adhere as well, hence your book. Furthermore, it is possible to make grand, essentializing statements about this religion, nothwithstanding the diversity within it.

  1. This seems to be about respecting the inherent worth of others, and not reducing them to mere economic units (whether under capitalism or ancient slavery). It presupposes a certain problem which may not be universal.

  2. Spider-Man’s uncle’s dictum + obey those in authority. The selection of concepts seems fairly random, and doesn’t go very far in telling us how to live our lives or order society.

  3. Cue woo. Christianity does not speak with one voice about the spirit world. Anyway, what does this have to do with being charitable or “humane”? (Introducing Confucian language does little to clarify your meaning.)

  4. Some sort of unholy union of Protestant theology with pop psychology.

  5. Ditto.

  6. Is this Kantian or Utilitarian? “Honor” is not very often thought of as a Christian concept.

  7. Now I’m just bewildered. I realize that you are trying to integrate the other points, but…is your main point really that not everyone deserves caritas ? I admit that Jesus is not very practical on this point, but you seem to have ridden roughshod over him.

4

Who needs Christianity (or religion, for that matter)?

Golden Rule according to Bill and Ted: “Be excellent to each other.”
Silver Rule according to Bill and Ted: “Party on, dudes.”

Wil Wheaton’s Law (though expressed 5 years earlier by Vin Diesel’s character in XxX): “Don’t be a dick.”

The Wiccan Rede: “If it harms none, do what you please.”

Spider Man’s dictum: “With great power comes great responsibility.”

5

[quote=“Zla’od”]Subtext: There is a religion called Christianity, to which you apparently adhere (more specifically, you seem to be some sort of evangelical Protestant) and wish others to adhere as well, hence your book. Furthermore, it is possible to make grand, essentializing statements about this religion, nothwithstanding the diversity within it.

  1. This seems to be about respecting the inherent worth of others, and not reducing them to mere economic units (whether under capitalism or ancient slavery). It presupposes a certain problem which may not be universal.

  2. Spider-Man’s uncle’s dictum + obey those in authority. The selection of concepts seems fairly random, and doesn’t go very far in telling us how to live our lives or order society.

  3. Cue woo. Christianity does not speak with one voice about the spirit world. Anyway, what does this have to do with being charitable or “humane”? (Introducing Confucian language does little to clarify your meaning.)

  4. Some sort of unholy union of Protestant theology with pop psychology.

  5. Ditto.

  6. Is this Kantian or Utilitarian? “Honor” is not very often thought of as a Christian concept.

  7. Now I’m just bewildered. I realize that you are trying to integrate the other points, but…is your main point really that not everyone deserves caritas ? I admit that Jesus is not very practical on this point, but you seem to have ridden roughshod over him.[/quote]
    I can’t respond to all of these right now but if caritas is love for God made manifest in a love for others, I think the others should love God or at least have an apparent potential to love God (this is where honor and the covenant come in) before they can receive it. This makes sense if you consider that unconditional love doesn’t mean freedom from consequences as I said in the fifth point.

6

[quote=“Il Ðoge”]
I have a set of seven concepts that I’m working, slowly but surely, into a book on Christianity. It’s kind of like the seven virtues from past Christian theology but a bit more topical in nature. I thought I would blog them up for some possible feedback.

First: Christianity isn’t about fighting capitalism, it’s about fighting economicism; that being the application of economic concepts to society in a manner that subsumes the fundamental value people have.[/quote]

Agreed. Christianity can be combined with many different kinds of economic systems, from pure communism to the most ardent free enterprise- provided the former provides some pressure n people to work to prevent free-loading in this sinful fallen world, and the latter has enough charity installed in people’s hearts to make sure the poor and unfortunate are taken care of

While anarchists of the left and right may disagree, I can’t see how anybody else would, as it seems to be largely a platitude. You’d have to fill out the ramifications more.

I’d distinguish between the ‘physical world’ and the ‘social world’ here if you are talking about ‘economicism’ , which is purely human.

That concept is called egoism in the field of moral philosophy , and isn’t often encountered above a very low level of argument. It’s not that the good feeling exists in the "spiritual world’ ; it’s that the object of the giver is to relieve suffering rather than get a good feeling.

You keep using ‘economic’ and ‘economicism’ in idiosyncratic ways- these words are not normally used like this. The benefits received by the giver are not ’ economic’, they are emotional. I can see what you mean- “I give a poor person this much money and I receive this much satisfaction in return”- but it’s not really clearly expressed in these terms.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean people are pretending to change their attitude when they receive your forgiveness in order to fool you? Certainly forgiveness belongs to the forgiver; after all you can forgive somebody without them accepting it, appreciating it, or even knowing about it.

Most Christians believe this; believers in universal salvation are few, though increasing- I suppose some of the more liberal churches hold this idea. Even most of them believe in some kind of judgement where the sinner must face his sins. The question usually raised about God’s Judgement is how can Eternal Punishment be justified for temporal sins- in this way the Buddhist idea of temporary Hell or the Catholic concept of Purgatory seems more moral- “do the crime; do the time”.
But yeah, looking at the Bible shows God is not a particularly nice guy.

Okay, but again most people would just say ‘ethical’ rather than honorable. And it depends on which community you are part of- think of Robert E.Lee trying to decide between serving Virginia or serving the United States; or loyalty to China vs loyalty to Taiwan. Is it okay to steal to feed your hungry family?

Okay, this is totally opposed to everything Christianity teaches about Jesus. One of the main problems with Christianity is that Jesus appears to set impossibly high standards: turn the other cheek; give away your shirt as well; repay evil with good- but that’s what He said. If you want to reverse two millenia of Christian thought, you’re going to have to come up with some pretty hefty reasoning.

But good luck!

7

[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“Il Ðoge”]
I have a set of seven concepts that I’m working, slowly but surely, into a book on Christianity. It’s kind of like the seven virtues from past Christian theology but a bit more topical in nature. I thought I would blog them up for some possible feedback.

First: Christianity isn’t about fighting capitalism, it’s about fighting economicism; that being the application of economic concepts to society in a manner that subsumes the fundamental value people have.[/quote]

Agreed. Christianity can be combined with many different kinds of economic systems, from pure communism to the most ardent free enterprise- provided the former provides some pressure n people to work to prevent free-loading in this sinful fallen world, and the latter has enough charity installed in people’s hearts to make sure the poor and unfortunate are taken care of

While anarchists of the left and right may disagree, I can’t see how anybody else would, as it seems to be largely a platitude. You’d have to fill out the ramifications more.

I’d distinguish between the ‘physical world’ and the ‘social world’ here if you are talking about ‘economicism’ , which is purely human.

That concept is called egoism in the field of moral philosophy , and isn’t often encountered above a very low level of argument. It’s not that the good feeling exists in the "spiritual world’ ; it’s that the object of the giver is to relieve suffering rather than get a good feeling.

You keep using ‘economic’ and ‘economicism’ in idiosyncratic ways- these words are not normally used like this. The benefits received by the giver are not ’ economic’, they are emotional. I can see what you mean- “I give a poor person this much money and I receive this much satisfaction in return”- but it’s not really clearly expressed in these terms.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean people are pretending to change their attitude when they receive your forgiveness in order to fool you? Certainly forgiveness belongs to the forgiver; after all you can forgive somebody without them accepting it, appreciating it, or even knowing about it.

Most Christians believe this; believers in universal salvation are few, though increasing- I suppose some of the more liberal churches hold this idea. Even most of them believe in some kind of judgement where the sinner must face his sins. The question usually raised about God’s Judgement is how can Eternal Punishment be justified for temporal sins- in this way the Buddhist idea of temporary Hell or the Catholic concept of Purgatory seems more moral- “do the crime; do the time”.
But yeah, looking at the Bible shows God is not a particularly nice guy.

Okay, but again most people would just say ‘ethical’ rather than honorable. And it depends on which community you are part of- think of Robert E.Lee trying to decide between serving Virginia or serving the United States; or loyalty to China vs loyalty to Taiwan. Is it okay to steal to feed your hungry family?

Okay, this is totally opposed to everything Christianity teaches about Jesus. One of the main problems with Christianity is that Jesus appears to set impossibly high standards: turn the other cheek; give away your shirt as well; repay evil with good- but that’s what He said. If you want to reverse two millenia of Christian thought, you’re going to have to come up with some pretty hefty reasoning.

But good luck![/quote]
I’m glad you agree with most of what I’ve said :slight_smile: Unfortunately, much of it does not seem to be obvious to many people even though it has been for you.

As for the last point, all of the former points tie together to support an as yet not fully formed conclusion. For example, when do forgiveness and charity overlap when the forgiven wants something from you? A shallow “red letter” reading of the bible says that a Christian should always forgive, a deeper reading tells us that a Christian can defend himself (including physically), take revenge (for others) and flee from persecution. This is all to say that forgiveness can be internal and its terms are controlled by the one who forgives; it does not necessarily provide any economic boon to the one who is forgiven.

In the passage on forgiving someone “seventy-seven times”, Jesus says that a Christian should always forgive and uses a debtor as an example. Does he say though that you must give the debtor another loan once you’ve forgiven him? No, he doesn’t. The king in his example also imprisons the debtor for not doing the same, e.g. he takes revenge for another. All of these things combined show the internal or spiritual nature of forgiveness and indicate that the forgiver can control its terms beyond the point of not seeking personal revenge.

8

But isn’t this really it in a nutshell:

[quote]Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]

40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”[/quote]

And I would say that the second necessarily follows from the first. In other words, “[a]nd the second is like it” isn’t just a throwaway line like how many read it, but it can be argued that it’s letting the reader know that the second is just another way of stating the first (my only real epiphany- so far- when reading the Bible and I’m proud of it!). Check out the “parable” of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25 (parable in quotes because it’s not really a parable but prophesy).

9

Much highfallutin theology places the Greatest Commandment / New Commandment (“A new commandment I give unto you…”) at the center of Jesus’s message, beginning with St. Paul’s Hymn to Love from I. Cor. 13. A cursory reading of the gospels reveals a number of related passages such as “Love your enemies” from the Sermon on the Mount (note that this and surrounding verses seem to contradict Il Doge’s reading), the Parable of the Good Samaritan (which elaborates on Luke’s version of the Greatest Commandment), and the Six Corporeal Works of Mercy (feeding the hungry, etc.). Other prominent themes include not judging, and not being a hypocrite. And then there is the apocalyptic dimension, in which all of this is situated.

10

One thing about not judging unless you are ready to be judged, is that everyone is supposed to be judged at the end anyway.

11

Yes, the concept of the deserving vs. undeserving poor. You know the ridicule you’ll get for even bringing up the subject but it’s a good distinction to make and depends on wisdom. Pretty much in line with Matthew 25:14-30. “Even that which you have will be taken away.” biblegateway.com/passage/?s … 2025:14-30

Sounds like an interesting book. I hope you write it.

12

Yes, the concept of the deserving vs. undeserving poor. You know the ridicule you’ll get for even bringing up the subject but it’s a good distinction to make and depends on wisdom. Pretty much in line with Matthew 25:14-30. “Even that which you have will be taken away.” biblegateway.com/passage/?s … 2025:14-30

Sounds like an interesting book. I hope you write it.[/quote]

I think I may agree with both of you- at least I seem to practice what both of you are saying when it comes to my charity work. But I don’t believe it’s Biblical. I think The Parable of the Good Samaritan is very instructive when it comes to this issue of charity.

[quote]Luke 10:25-37New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”[/quote]

From this short story, there’s every indication that the Samaritan didn’t know the man he helped (Samaritan and Jews and all that). There’s no indication that the man who got mugged deserved any kind of help, and certainly no indication that the Samaritan even received a “thank you” for all that work (and danger- imagine an Indian carrying a sickly cowboy on his horse in earlier days).

Haddon Robinson, in his typical working class New Yorker style, put it like this (roughly):

13

Thanks guys!

I also found another passage that supports my interpretation of forgiveness. I would add that I think the entire point of Jesus Christ dying to forgive our sins is to say that forgiveness can have a price and a cost, it’s not something that’s meant to be free.

Specifically I’d add this, from Numbers 19 on:

[quote]19 In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now.”

20 The Lord replied, “I have forgiven them, as you asked. 21 Nevertheless, as surely as I live and as surely as the glory of the Lord fills the whole earth, 22 not one of those who saw my glory and the signs I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times— 23 not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their ancestors. No one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it. 24 But because my servant Caleb has a different spirit and follows me wholeheartedly, I will bring him into the land he went to, and his descendants will inherit it. 25 Since the Amalekites and the Canaanites are living in the valleys, turn back tomorrow and set out toward the desert along the route to the Red Sea.[a]”[/quote]

This is to say that God forgives but still punishes, and controls the terms of forgiveness. Being forgiven isn’t necessarily a blank slate, it just means that no spite is born towards the one who’s forgiven. This is spite or malice in the spiritual sense, you can still be forced to pay a consequent materially or physically even though you’ve been forgiven.

14

[quote=“Il Ðoge”]Thanks guys!

I also found another passage that supports my interpretation of forgiveness. I would add that I think the entire point of Jesus Christ dying to forgive our sins is to say that forgiveness can have a price and a cost, it’s not something that’s meant to be free.

Specifically I’d add this, from Numbers 19 on:

[quote]19 In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now.”

20 The Lord replied, “I have forgiven them, as you asked. 21 Nevertheless, as surely as I live and as surely as the glory of the Lord fills the whole earth, 22 not one of those who saw my glory and the signs I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times— 23 not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their ancestors. No one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it. 24 But because my servant Caleb has a different spirit and follows me wholeheartedly, I will bring him into the land he went to, and his descendants will inherit it. 25 Since the Amalekites and the Canaanites are living in the valleys, turn back tomorrow and set out toward the desert along the route to the Red Sea.[a]”[/quote]

This is to say that God forgives but still punishes, and controls the terms of forgiveness. Being forgiven isn’t necessarily a blank slate, it just means that no spite is born towards the one who’s forgiven. This is spite or malice in the spiritual sense, you can still be forced to pay a consequent materially or physically even though you’ve been forgiven.[/quote]

Materially or physically, yes. Spiritually, it depends on the sect. Catholics have Purgatory, many Protestants believe in salvation through faith. Once you’ve accepted Jesus, everything previous is forgiven. As a sign of sincerity you should try to make up for your past sins, but it’s certainly not a requirement.

But that is a different issue from what you were claiming:

I’m assuming by “charity” you are using the modern definition of actually helping people rather than just loving them in your heart. And in that case your belief is definitely unChristian, going by the standard interpretation for the last two thousand years.