Talk:Judeo-Christian
The text reads:
- The New Testament teaches that if someone comes to harm you, then one must turn the other cheek. This has led many Christians to develop a theology of pacifism, the avoidance of force and violence at all times. In practice, this has not often been followed (i.e. the many crusades, pogroms in Russia, Martin Luther's exhortions to burn down synagogues with Jews still in them) when applied towards gentiles; it is most often applied towards inter-Christian disputes.
I think this text is one-sided, if not biased towards Christian practice of non-violence. The examples of violence by Christians are true, but grotesque and absurd to the everyday Christian today. They do not represent the teachings of Christ (love your enemy), nor of his own example, nor of the numerous examples in history which have not been written down in history text books, nor of the daily life of many Christians, nor of the experiences of millions of Christian martyrs, in history and today. Jesus' exhortations have often been followed. Most Christians I know do put this in practice, though we are fallible as anyone else. This part of the text deserves a more balanced approach--TK
- Well, as one who comes from the Quaker tradition, I could not disagree more with the assertion that most or even many Christians believe in turning the other cheek or loving one's enemy, or even apply it in their everyday lives. How many Christians own guns or believe in capital punishment? Most Christians do not believe in loving their enemy or turning the other cheek, no matter how much they might pay lip service to the notion.
- The article was about real-world Christians, not about Jesus's personal behaviour. In any case, your rebuttal is invalid. It is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, and fails in all cases. I personally have rebutted this argument when it was used to attempt to defend the actions of Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish extremists, I have rebutted it when I saw it applied to Islam, and for the sake of logical consistency, I must rebut it here as well. RK The "No true Scotsman" is a logical fallacy described in a Wikipedia entry. It is an argument of the form:
- Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Atrocities of religions are often discussed away using this fallacy.
You must speak from an American point of view? As far as I know in Western-European countries we know no death penalty and are generally not permitted to walking around with a gun, so that's no issue here. Anyway, I know you're right that many people who call themselves Christian act in ways that are contrairy to Jesus' teachings. However, what Jesus said has everything to do with faith and love; it is not an isolated rule, it is a heart-issue and cannot be seen, nor practised apart from the rest of his message. And again, many Christians have followed Christ's words in these, believe it or not. That's why the wording of the passage should be less rigourously negative about the matter. "This has not often been followed" simply is not true! Please do not only look to major political events, grave enough as they have been.
- Again, you are claiming that millions of Christians throughout history were not really Chrisitians, but that only you and the people that you like are the real Christians. Again, this argument is just the same old "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy. It is invalid. Your argument may, of course, be used to describe how you believe a given faith system should choose to act in the future, but it cannot white-wash the existence of members of any given faith system for their actions in the past. RK
"Its origins are in American politics"? Really? I'd like to see some evidence of that. --LMS
Re: "Christianity teaches that the purpose of Jesus's message in the [[New Testament] is to show that beliefs (such as belief in Jesus as the son of God) held by a person are considered by God to be more important than one's actions." I think that might be more particularly true of Protestantism, but I don't know how true that is of all variants of Christianity. Also, it is worth nothing that the epistle of James in the New Testament argues very much in favor of the importance of works. I think it is true that Christianity places great emphasis on faith, but like so many theological points within that religion, there are disagreements and probaby just enough ambiguity in the New Testament on the subject to support a variety of Christian interpretations.