Is Europe on its way to a major religious resurgence?

[Traitorfish]

They're already trying to (and succeeding at) removing "In God We Trust" from our currency.

You mean the "God We Trust" that was added in the 1957 as part of a anti-communist propaganda program? Well, to be fair, that was the paper money; it's been on coins since 1909. Although, if I recall, your nation was founded in neither 1957 nor 1909, but dates back to 1776. They never had "In God We Trust" on the money back then....
Do some research on your own history. Your country was founded secularist and many of the Founding Fathers were deists with something of a distrust of organised religion. They founded the US as a secular state for a reason.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

In the words of Patrick Milton, learn things. Learn things.

p.s. I like the way that yo say "they" are removing the phrase from "our" currency, as if secularists are something other than American citizens. It's interesting how the careful placement of pronouns can carry this implication, isn't it? Very subtle, very Orwellian.
Of course, there's also the possibility that you didn't even realise that it could be read like that, and it just represents some subconscious belief that, again, secularists are "un-American", which is interesting in it's own right...

 

[Plotinus]

Yes but its logic, if you have things to surround you and make you "happy" and coontent with all things why on earth would you look to a god, unless you were completely unhappy with it.

It's not logic at all. You might just as well say that if you are poor and unhappy, you are less likely to believe in God because you'd be angry with him for giving you a miserable station in life. If that's the only reason you have for saying that richer people are necessarily less religious then it's not a very good reason. You're assuming that people only believe in God because they hope to get something material from him. But that's a very contentious assumption, and one which is not borne out by the evidence.

Obviously religion tends to vary depending on whether people are rich or poor; it will take different forms and stress different things. But that is an entirely different matter.

Those are what you call hypocrites.

They're only hypocrites if they believe (or say that they believe) it's wrong to be wealthy. But the whole point of the prosperity gospel is that it denies that, and tends to equate spiritual and material wellbeing. You may think this a perversion of Christianity (and rightly, in my opinion) but it's not hypocrisy.

[Traitorfish] If Jefferson really thought that, then more fool him. It really shows how prejudiced the "enlightened" figures of the time could be - one of the many reasons for the backlash against the Enlightenment which would gather pace in the subsequent decades.

 

[C~G]

No. From what I've seen people who choose not to be religious do not want to be bothered with all the limitations on life that being religious preaches."

No?
Well, OK, we atheists are immoral beasts that don't think anything but our own instant gratification and try to lure all the people from the church in this mission given by Satan.
Now you know the truth.

They want to be free to have abortions, promiscuous sex, pursue great wealth, remain selfish, not have to go to church or temple on weekends, divorce freely, have affairs etc.

Oh my god! The freedom is killing us!
Don't want to go church or temple on weekends? Even have sex without condemnation? Be productive and earn money? Choose a partner freely to live with?
Have you maybe thought that these things you mentioned are for some people "God given rights" or aspects and expressions of "natural freedom of men" rather than "broken rules that God made".
But then again you probably would set stern laws against which you see as immoral acts so you should maybe also understand why other people see this kind of moral sermon being against their own free will.
And that free will gives them to choose also God and religion too if they like.
There's contradiction (and possible hypocrisy?) in your thoughts which in turn affects the chance someone getting more interested about religion. But then again why complain? Rest of the people go to hell when religious people go to heaven...
At least personally I understand the risk taken.

When people have enough information about religion they will do their own choice but it seems some people would like to even take that chance from them so they would appear moral in the eyes of religious people. People reflect on this and choose otherwise.

You can use recommendation, negotiation and even bribing in order to make people interest about religion, take step closer to church and possibly follow it's moral rules but forced conversion through moralist order won't get people do damn thing, unless you really try to use force to make people do it.

These people see religion as a burden and cannot understand why God commands us to live with these rules. It's easier and more earthly rewarding to live a non-religious life. I hear it all the time: "I'm not religious because I don't want to put up with those stupid rules" or "I'm not religious because they don't accept my lifestyle"

You hear that all the time?
Of course. That is self-explanatory after you have just set yourself all these rules that should be followed.
You see, if you could explain how these rules affect people positively than just "make God happy" or that because "they are from God" I bet you would convince more people to be interest about the message of religion.

So if person is first free to do whatever he likes and suddenly some person comes to tell him that he isn't allowed to do something "just because" without giving further reason for it, surely it's considered nothing but burden.

I'll address this again: Displaying moral superiority will make many people turn away from church and probably not walking but running.

You cannot deny God simply because it would be an inconvenience to you. It doesn't work that way.

Oh, it must be true when you, religious person and deeply voted to God, say that.

Again, I really think you should concentrate more on the positive aspects of choosing God rather than negative of not choosing.

People listen then much better.
Displaying moral superiority as religious person over others who aren't won't convince anyone about anything except that religious person are ignorant and arrogant (like you appear to be now). So why to choose religion and God if it turns person into arrogant ignoramus?
And I'm not saying religious people from deep down are like that. It just appears to be so, which makes whole lot of difference to those people who are choosing between one religion over another or non-religiousness.

Current religions and churches face the challenge of competition from other things in society and thinking you can somehow pressurize person to join or not to leave church based into moral superiority is rather hilarious thought. But that's what religions do in western countries since they are desperate. They got marketing problem but like it comes to all the other marketing, trying to put competition down with such lame portrayal of their service offered just makes people that might be interest wince to the idea of listening to religious folks.

This is how the world works and religion should get used to it.
It ain't going anywhere and we aren't going back to Middle Ages where people were forced to be part of religion and go to church every sunday. Just because someone person happened to tell "it should be so".

My point being, that choosing religion isn't bad thing (it could be even helluva good thing) but I'm explaining why it isn't happening and why I see this kind of religious resurgence more than doubtful from happening or merging into reality.

 

[Traitorfish]

[Traitorfish] If Jefferson really thought that, then more fool him. It really shows how prejudiced the "enlightened" figures of the time could be - one of the many reasons for the backlash against the Enlightenment which would gather pace in the subsequent decades.

Maybe so, but my point was that this American delusion that they were founded as a "Christian nation" is at best wishful nonsense, at worst an Orwellian attempt to re-write history.
I'm not saying I agree with Jerfferson, just Jefferson wouldn't agree with Holycannoli.

 

[Plotinus]

That's certainly right. Although it's worth pointing out that most English-speaking deists (in contrast to the French ones) regarded themselves as reforming Christians.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It is true that many of the Founding Fathers weren't Christian, and this fact does help give an idea of how far religious tolerance needs to extend. I don't know why more Christians aren't willing to understand this, it isn't exactly like it actually denigrates Christianity in any way. At least, none of the forms I like . . .

 

[Mott1]

Maybe so, but my point was that this American delusion that they were founded as a "Christian nation" is at best wishful nonsense, at worst an Orwellian attempt to re-write history.
I'm not saying I agree with Jerfferson, just Jefferson wouldn't agree with Holycannoli.

Honestly, I don't see nothing Orwellian or delusional in saying that America was founded as a Christian nation. America, aswell as any other soverienty, is structured on common values expressed through law. Aristotle said that law stands upon the necessary foundation of morality, U.S. law is coincidentally in congruity with Christian values.
Is U.S. law rooted in Christian values? Jefferson would argue that common law superceded Christianity and originated from the lex non scripta of the Saxons. Now there may or may not be some truth to that, however to outright reject the notion that Christianity (i.e. Biblical morality) had fostered the development of Western jurispudence and the subsequent introduction of the doctrine of liberalism is a much greater Orwellian offence.

 

[Plotinus]

If you're trying to say that a nation that is founded on values that derive from Christianity is, in virtue of that fact, a Christian nation, then I think that's pretty disingenuous. Many of the values expressed in the EU's declaration of human rights derive from Christianity or at least highly influenced by it, but that doesn't make the EU Christian - on the contrary, it strives to be completely secular. Many of the values and ideals of communism were inspired by Christian values, but it doesn't follow from that that the USSR was a Christian nation. It would be better to recognise that Christianity has had an enormous influence over western values, ideals, ideas, and thought in general, whilst also recognising that these values etc have now become largely independent of that influence: that is, one can hold traditional Christian values without being a Christian oneself, and that goes for countries just as it does for individuals.

 

[Mott1]

If you're trying to say that a nation that is founded on values that derive from Christianity is, in virtue of that fact, a Christian nation, then I think that's pretty disingenuous. Many of the values expressed in the EU's declaration of human rights derive from Christianity or at least highly influenced by it, but that doesn't make the EU Christian - on the contrary, it strives to be completely secular. Many of the values and ideals of communism were inspired by Christian values, but it doesn't follow from that that the USSR was a Christian nation. It would be better to recognise that Christianity has had an enormous influence over western values, ideals, ideas, and thought in general, whilst also recognising that these values etc have now become largely independent of that influence: that is, one can hold traditional Christian values without being a Christian oneself, and that goes for countries just as it does for individuals.

What makes a nation Christian if not for its values? What defines a
Christian state? the institution of the Church? You suggest that values have now become largely independant of Christian influence in the West, I assume you mean that secular nations are no longer considered Christian? Going by that criterion: when has any soverienty, past and persent, been a Christian nation? The values of medieval Europe, which are refered to as 'Christian,' were not dependant on Christian values. Does secularism nullify a State from being 'Christian'? Did not the ideals of Christianity promote, if not empower the institution of secularism?

 

[Plotinus]

To call a country "a Christian nation" could have many meanings. It could mean that Christianity is the official religion of that country. In that sense, Britain is a Christian nation and the US is not. It could mean that a majority of the population is Christian. In that sense, the US is a Christian nation (probably) and Britain is not (probably). It could mean that Christianity plays a prominent role in the public life of the nation. In that sense, the US is a Christian nation (certainly) and Britain is not (certainly).

I wouldn't say that having "Christian values" is a very good criterion, partly because it is hard to tell precisely what counts as "Christian values". After all, many Christian values, such as the ideal of caring for the poor, were inherited from Judaism. Does it follow that any nation which provides for the poor is a Jewish nation? Moreover, if you think that having Christian values makes a country Christian, then you have no way of distinguishing between a country which has those values because Christianity is a majority faith or a major feature of national life and a country which has them because Christianity used to have such a role and now no longer does. In other words, you can't distinguish between a Christian nation and a post-Christian nation. And, yes, it was the adoption of Christian values and ways of thinking which helped to spur the development of secularism; but it's just sophistry to suggest that a secular country counts as Christian because of that. You might as well say that fear of communism was one of the factors behind the rise of the "religious right" in the US in the late 1970s and 1980s, therefore that was a communist movement.

 

[Mott1]

To call a country "a Christian nation" could have many meanings. It could mean that Christianity is the official religion of that country. In that sense, Britain is a Christian nation and the US is not. It could mean that a majority of the population is Christian. In that sense, the US is a Christian nation (probably) and Britain is not (probably). It could mean that Christianity plays a prominent role in the public life of the nation. In that sense, the US is a Christian nation (certainly) and Britain is not (certainly).

I wouldn't say that having "Christian values" is a very good criterion, partly because it is hard to tell precisely what counts as "Christian values". After all, many Christian values, such as the ideal of caring for the poor, were inherited from Judaism. Does it follow that any nation which provides for the poor is a Jewish nation?

Fair enough, would Judeo-Christian values suffice? As a Christian theologeon I assumed you could easily tell what counts as Christian values. I would think the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus would provide an accurate description of Christian values.

Moreover, if you think that having Christian values makes a country Christian, then you have no way of distinguishing between a country which has those values because Christianity is a majority faith or a major feature of national life and a country which has them because Christianity used to have such a role and now no longer does. In other words, you can't distinguish between a Christian nation and a post-Christian nation.

Well thats my point. Christianity is not a doctrine used to to govern a nation, a State cannot function on Christian scriptures. Christianity does not contain a developed economic or social system, it is absent of politics. Christianity never had such a role in any State. In the medieval period the Church took the role of the State institution, and for the most part operated independantly of Christian values. But again you made an important point, how can you distinguish between a Christian nation and a post-Christian nation? Are they distinguishable?

And, yes, it was the adoption of Christian values and ways of thinking which helped to spur the development of secularism; but it's just sophistry to suggest that a secular country counts as Christian because of that. You might as well say that fear of communism was one of the factors behind the rise of the "religious right" in the US in the late 1970s and 1980s, therefore that was a communist movement.

I really don't see a problem with all this, my post was phrased more as a ponderance or musing than a rebuttal. Actually, you provided the answer I was looking for: ""a Christian nation" could have many meanings." By this admission, I'm not sure why you would think it sophistic to count a secular country, whose laws stand upon Judeo-Christian values, as Christian.
But ultimately that is why I really don't see it as a dishonest attempt at re-writting history, or "Orwellian" to say that America was founded as a "Christian nation." In my estimation, Traitorfish's agitation was a bit exaggerated.

 

[Traitorfish]

But ultimately that is why I really don't see it as a dishonest attempt at re-writting history, or "Orwellian" to say that America was founded as a "Christian nation." In my estimation, Traitorfish's agitation was a bit exaggerated.

Well, I did say "at worst", it was never a definite assertion. Remember, I also said it could be "wishful nonsense", or anything in between the two. "Orwellian" was obviously an extreme description, which is why I prefixed it with "at worst".

 

[Plotinus]

Fair enough, would Judeo-Christian values suffice? As a Christian theologeon I assumed you could easily tell what counts as Christian values. I would think the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus would provide an accurate description of Christian values.

No, having knowledge of Christian theology means I know how difficult it is to define "Christian values". If by that one means "values that Christians have held" then it could be absolutely anything. There is no such thing as an identifiable set of Christian values. I don't see why one should assume that the values of Jesus are identifiable as Christian values, and even if one did assume that, we don't know what Jesus' values were anyway.

Well thats my point. Christianity is not a doctrine used to to govern a nation, a State cannot function on Christian scriptures. Christianity does not contain a developed economic or social system, it is absent of politics. Christianity never had such a role in any State. In the medieval period the Church took the role of the State institution, and for the most part operated independantly of Christian values. But again you made an important point, how can you distinguish between a Christian nation and a post-Christian nation? Are they distinguishable?

I don't see why you can't use Christianity to govern a nation. There have been developed Christian economic and social systems, and I certainly don't think Christianity lacks politics. Again, you forget that Christianity is not a monolithic structure. Perhaps a state can't function on the Christian scriptures, but then Christianity is not reducible to just its scriptures. In the Middle Ages the church didn't act as a state, it was quite distinct; and to say that it operated independently of Christian values seems to me tendentious, because that assumes that you can identify a set of "Christian values" and pronounce that the medieval church abandoned it. On the contrary, who are we to say that the values of the medieval church weren't Christian? Weren't medieval Christians Christian?

How do we distinguish between a Christian nation and a post-Christian nation? Simple - a post-Christian nation is a nation that used to be Christian (by whatever definition you're using) but isn't any more.

Actually, you provided the answer I was looking for: ""a Christian nation" could have many meanings." By this admission, I'm not sure why you would think it sophistic to count a secular country, whose laws stand upon Judeo-Christian values, as Christian.

Because it just seems to be stretching the term too far. Would you say that an individual, who is a professed atheist but who believes in moral values which are ultimately influenced by Christianity, is a Christian? Surely not! So why say the same thing about a nation? I think most people would say that, however you define "Christian nation", it must involve more than just having laws that reflect Christian values, otherwise you are using the term in such a watered down way it's practically meaningless.

 

[Mott1]

No, having knowledge of Christian theology means I know how difficult it is to define "Christian values". If by that one means "values that Christians have held" then it could be absolutely anything. There is no such thing as an identifiable set of Christian values. I don't see why one should assume that the values of Jesus are identifiable as Christian values, and even if one did assume that, we don't know what Jesus' values were anyway.

What else constitutes Christian values if not referenced to the teachings of Jesus! is this not the consensus of the term? I must admit I am rather taken aback at your argument here. Equally surprising is your assertion that even if Christian values are identified by the teachings of Jesus, you indicate that they are unknown or obscure. This may sound absurd coming from someone who is far less erudite in Christian theology, but I strongly disagree with you on this issue.

Your argument seems to entail that there are different perspectives with regards to Jesus or any other prophetical figure which to me is quite obvious, but the right perspective is easily attainable by researching the primary source documents that give the information about those people and their teachings. I recall you saying that there is sound scholarship that demonstrate that the Gospels were written early, not late. The Gospels represent eyewitness reports that give us a reasonably accurate account of what Jesus said and what he did, so I can't understand how you can claim that Jesus' values are unknown. Just because people may have differences of opinion about it, doesn't mean that nobody can possibley know. Now from a deconstructionist point of veiw (which it seems you adhere to), one can argue: "whose to say which is the correct perspective" or "Jesus' teachings are subject to interpretation." Well quite simply the erudite people with the best reasons "get to say," i.e. solid scholarship. You examine the writings and see if someone has accurately represented them.
For example I can take some of the things you said on your most recent posts, isolate them and then characterize you as some fundamnetalist Christian. If I were to do that you would most assuredly consider yourself ill abused, and rightly so! But you think nothing of it when people do the same thing to the teachings of Jesus (or the other prominent prophetical figures) by isolating his teachings and making them fit into there own world views and make Jesus into something which is not represented in the primary source documents. Literature does not decay over time.

I don't see why you can't use Christianity to govern a nation. There have been developed Christian economic and social systems, and I certainly don't think Christianity lacks politics. Again, you forget that Christianity is not a monolithic structure. Perhaps a state can't function on the Christian scriptures, but then Christianity is not reducible to just its scriptures. In the Middle Ages the church didn't act as a state, it was quite distinct; and to say that it operated independently of Christian values seems to me tendentious, because that assumes that you can identify a set of "Christian values" and pronounce that the medieval church abandoned it. On the contrary, who are we to say that the values of the medieval church weren't Christian? Weren't medieval Christians Christian?

How do we distinguish between a Christian nation and a post-Christian nation? Simple - a post-Christian nation is a nation that used to be Christian (by whatever definition you're using) but isn't any more.

We are obviously approaching this subject from two different perspectives. I am refering to Christianity in its static manifestation, i.e. Biblical doctrine. I am sure there has been various forms of defined economic or social systems that were influenced by Christian scripture, I mean the Church is the classic example of "Christian politics." If it didn't act as a state, it certainly was an institution that had a developed governmental system which dictated politics to all states in its sphere of influence. But the Biblical doctrine itself does not contain a developed system of governance. Am I incorrect in stating that the Bible has no governmental or political framework to run a state? The Church did not always operate in accordance to the teachings of Jesus, and I don't see how you can even suggest that it is biased or jaundiced to say that. I recall you saying the same thing on several occasions.

Whereas in your previous post you have asserted that a Christian nation and a post-Christian nation is indistinguishable, you now claim it is a simple matter to make the distinction. Perhaps you are losing patience with me and overlooked this dichotomy. Assuming you have intentionally abrogated your former assertion, I still don't consider the distinction to be simple. It is the context in which you apply "Christian nation" that makes it a complex matter. As you stated in your previous post, the term can have different meanings. The distinction may be resolved by assessing the definition first.

Because it just seems to be stretching the term too far. Would you say that an individual, who is a professed atheist but who believes in moral values which are ultimately influenced by Christianity, is a Christian? Surely not! So why say the same thing about a nation? I think most people would say that, however you define "Christian nation", it must involve more than just having laws that reflect Christian values, otherwise you are using the term in such a watered down way it's practically meaningless.

I don't know Plotinus, you have already asserted that Christian values have no definitive meaning. According to your assertion, having laws that reflect Christian values would be a meaningless proposition in itself. But doesn't the fact that you and I and countless others that have debated this topic suggest that making the distinction is not as clear cut as you think?

 

[MadScotsMan]

someone said earlier that he wishes catholicism would grow more in the US. Well it is, but it is migrating down south. South Carolina has a strong catholic population, and heck knoxville has 4( i think) churches with another being built, all of them filled mostly full on sunday mornings. And lots of the the founding fathers were deists, none were atheist or THAT secular. Please correct me if wrong.

 

[Traitorfish]

And lots of the the founding fathers were deists, none were atheist or THAT secular. Please correct me if wrong.

Well, firstly, in a political context, aetheism and deism amount to much the same thing- both reject active, creator gods, and in doing so reject organised religion.
Secondly, the somewhat imprecise assertion that the Founding Father's were not "that" secular is highly debatable. They ensured the separation of Church and State under US law, and that is secular enough to place them firmly under the secularist banner.

 

[Plotinus]

What else constitutes Christian values if not referenced to the teachings of Jesus! is this not the consensus of the term? I must admit I am rather taken aback at your argument here.

Jesus was the founder of Christianity, and Christians seek to follow him. But it doesn't follow from that that Christian values simply are, or are wholly determined by, the teachings of Jesus. Apart from anything else, Jesus seems not to have been primarily an ethical teacher (contrary to what Jefferson thought!) and his pronouncements on ethical subjects are pretty gnomic. This is why different Christians have come up with vastly differing ethical systems that they have still claimed to derive ultimately from him. It's not simply the case that some of them have remained true to Jesus while others have diverged: rather, the source material just isn't that explicit or systematic to start with.

Equally surprising is your assertion that even if Christian values are identified by the teachings of Jesus, you indicate that they are unknown or obscure. This may sound absurd coming from someone who is far less erudite in Christian theology, but I strongly disagree with you on this issue.

Your argument seems to entail that there are different perspectives with regards to Jesus or any other prophetical figure which to me is quite obvious, but the right perspective is easily attainable by researching the primary source documents that give the information about those people and their teachings. I recall you saying that there is sound scholarship that demonstrate that the Gospels were written early, not late. The Gospels represent eyewitness reports that give us a reasonably accurate account of what Jesus said and what he did, so I can't understand how you can claim that Jesus' values are unknown. Just because people may have differences of opinion about it, doesn't mean that nobody can possibley know. Now from a deconstructionist point of veiw (which it seems you adhere to), one can argue: "whose to say which is the correct perspective" or "Jesus' teachings are subject to interpretation." Well quite simply the erudite people with the best reasons "get to say," i.e. solid scholarship. You examine the writings and see if someone has accurately represented them.

I said that the canonical Gospels were (mostly) written earlier than the non-canonical ones, and that they are far more historical. But it doesn't follow from that that they are unproblematic sources. Every good historian knows that an earlier source is not necessarily to be preferred to a later one simply in virtue of its earliness. And it certainly doesn't follow that the Gospels represent "eyewitness reports" - they do no such thing - or that they present a "reasonably accurate" view of the historical Jesus. If you want to know about the historical Jesus, your only sources are the canonical Gospels, but there is a vast heap of problems involved in interpreting them.

Now you can't just defer the question to New Testament scholars because there's no consensus. On one end of the spectrum you have those who think that the Gospels are terribly reliable and on the other you have those who think there's virtually nothing in them of historical value. I remember going to lectures on Mark by one of the most prominent scholars of John, when I was an undergraduate, and only once in the whole series did he touch upon the question whether the material was an accurate account of the historical Jesus; he said that in his view, the most one could say about any part of it was that it might reflect the sort of thing that the real Jesus might have said or done. Which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Now I'd be inclined to take a more positive view of it than that, at least to some degree, as I've argued before. However, the point is that even if I'm right to do so, there isn't any consensus in these notoriously difficult matters, and no-one really knows one way or the other.

For example I can take some of the things you said on your most recent posts, isolate them and then characterize you as some fundamnetalist Christian. If I were to do that you would most assuredly consider yourself ill abused, and rightly so! But you think nothing of it when people do the same thing to the teachings of Jesus (or the other prominent prophetical figures) by isolating his teachings and making them fit into there own world views and make Jesus into something which is not represented in the primary source documents. Literature does not decay over time.

But you have no reason to doubt that I am really the author of all the posts that appear here in my name, whereas we do have good reason to doubt that Jesus really said everything attributed to him. Furthermore, as I said, the material attributed to Jesus is fragmentary and unsystematic. Those who have tried to appeal to some parts but not others aren't necessarily distorting what he said by partiality, or at least not deliberately. It may make Jesus into something not represented by the primary sources, but how are you so certain that those primary sources don't misrepresent him to start with?

We are obviously approaching this subject from two different perspectives. I am refering to Christianity in its static manifestation, i.e. Biblical doctrine.

But that's not right at all. There is no such thing as a "static manifestation" of Christianity. The Bible isn't some kind of manual of Christianity! Christianity has never been about just the Bible. The Bible is not the Christian equivalent of the Koran, however much some Christian groups wish it were. The New Testament is simply a collection of texts from the early years of Christianity - texts which come from different churches and different traditions as it is, showing that there was enormous diversity in Christianity even then. There is no such thing as "Biblical doctrine" if by that you mean some uncomplicated system that is expounded in the New Testament and which all Christians are supposed to adhere to. The views of James are quite different from the views of Paul, which are in turn quite different from the views of Luke. Of course they share views as well or they wouldn't all be Christian, but it's clear that Christianity in New Testament times was anything but static. And even if it had been - even if the New Testament painted a picture of a single church with a single body of doctrine - that still wouldn't be "the" "static manifestation" of Christianity, it would only be how it was at that point in time. Christianity didn't drop from heaven in a pure, complete form, only to become distorted by various churches over history; it's been constantly developing and changing in different directions, and no-one can say that one form is any more definitive than any other.

I am sure there has been various forms of defined economic or social systems that were influenced by Christian scripture, I mean the Church is the classic example of "Christian politics." If it didn't act as a state, it certainly was an institution that had a developed governmental system which dictated politics to all states in its sphere of influence. But the Biblical doctrine itself does not contain a developed system of governance. Am I incorrect in stating that the Bible has no governmental or political framework to run a state? The Church did not always operate in accordance to the teachings of Jesus, and I don't see how you can even suggest that it is biased or jaundiced to say that. I recall you saying the same thing on several occasions.

You're probably right that the Bible doesn't contain much politics, but as I tried to point out, that's not the point. Christianity is not limited to what's in the Bible. The Bible is just one of the sources of Christian theology and values, not the be-all and end-all.

Whereas in your previous post you have asserted that a Christian nation and a post-Christian nation is indistinguishable, you now claim it is a simple matter to make the distinction. Perhaps you are losing patience with me and overlooked this dichotomy. Assuming you have intentionally abrogated your former assertion, I still don't consider the distinction to be simple. It is the context in which you apply "Christian nation" that makes it a complex matter. As you stated in your previous post, the term can have different meanings. The distinction may be resolved by assessing the definition first.

I don't know Plotinus, you have already asserted that Christian values have no definitive meaning. According to your assertion, having laws that reflect Christian values would be a meaningless proposition in itself. But doesn't the fact that you and I and countless others that have debated this topic suggest that making the distinction is not as clear cut as you think?

What I was trying to say was this. There are different meanings of "Christian nation" depending upon what criterion you're using. However, whatever criterion you're using, it ought to be possible to distinguish between a Christian nation and a post-Christian nation, on the basis that the former currently meets the criterion, while the latter used to do so but doesn't any longer. I don't see anything problematic about that. One of the reasons why I don't think that appealing to "Christian values" as the criterion for Christian-ness is that on this view, there are currently no post-Christian nations (because all the nations where Christianity is no longer dominant still adhere, more or less, to values that are deeply influenced by Christianity, and probably will continue to do so for a long time yet). But that seems to me to be a counter-intuitive result, because I think that it does make sense to distinguish between countries that are Christian and those that are post-Christian right now. The Catholic Church does, at any rate, and identifies the latter as the field for what John Paul II called the "second evangelisation": bringing Christianity back to areas that have mostly forgotten it. It seems to me that lumping the whole of Europe and America together as "Christian nations" simply in virtue of the fact that their values are influenced by Christianity, irrespective of whether their populations actually believe in Christianity or not, ignores the enormous differences in religious outlook between them.

I mean, this thread is supposed to be about whether there will be a religious resurgence in Europe. If you define "Christian nation" in such a way that all of Europe counts as Christian, doesn't that rather deflate the question?

 

[ulsterman88]

We will send missionaries from Northern Ireland to spread our 16th century stile religious beleifs throughout Europe. Just kidding. I am an atheist but i beleive that NI being as religious as it is means our families, education and morals are a lot stronger than in the rest of UK and Europe. Therefore, a religious revival may be partly good for europe, but otherwise may lead to increased conflict, islam V christianity, Protestant V Catholic......?

 

[Traitorfish]

Just kidding. I am an atheist but i beleive that NI being as religious as it is means our families, education and morals are a lot stronger than in the rest of UK and Europe.

Yep, UVF, IRA, you guys are moral as hell.
Obviously, I'm not being entirely serious there- I know that those guys are an extreme minority- but if you're going to assert the positive influence of religion, don't base your evidence on a country so unfortunately prone to sectarian violence.
I mean, I come from the west of Scotland- Ulster away from Ulster- and I honestly can't say that religion has been a positive influence in the region.

 

[Mott1]

Before I launch into my reply let me clarify a few points. First I have absolutely no objection on the method in which you approach theology, you are impassive to dogma and scriptural ideology, and the method in which you approach your work is the same as the method a scientist approaches atomology. That is through objective reasoning based in the essential reality. These are ideal traits that are fundamental to the rectitude of scholarship, subjectiveness only serves to impair, and in many ways corrupts the quality. Second I have no intention of debating Biblical theology, this is your field of expertise and I stand more to gain by listening to you rather than debating on a subject that you are far more knowledgable, however it does not follow that I must place my active trust in what you say. If I have a vested interest in expounding my knowledge of Biblical theology, it is encumbent upon me to do the necessary research and ascertain whether or not your perspicacity is representative of standard scholarship.
Finally, I don't think we are in disagreement on the substance of this subject, what effectively places us on opposite ends of the debate is our philosophical differences. It seems to me that you view Christianity (or all religions?) in the relative, in that the understanding of the Bible is subject to the person assessing its text. People can perceive the text differently which results in various interpretations, therefore no single exegesis can gain a privileged status. The problem I have with this line of thought is twofold. First it encourages a constant unhealthy skepticism that we can never decern the truth, there is however a healthy skepicism that we should always question to see if we are right, but to say that in light of the various interpretations the correct answer can never be attained ultimately renders the written text meaningless, and deprives it of any value. This to me is an abusive form of literary criticism which rejects the idea that written words and language can accurately represent reality. Furthurmore adopting this philosophy in effect diminishes your estimable position as one who is learned in theology to that of the layman. Because if written text is reduced to however one interprets it, then my unversed conjectures on the Bible are equal to yours.

Jesus was the founder of Christianity, and Christians seek to follow him. But it doesn't follow from that that Christian values simply are, or are wholly determined by, the teachings of Jesus. Apart from anything else, Jesus seems not to have been primarily an ethical teacher (contrary to what Jefferson thought!) and his pronouncements on ethical subjects are pretty gnomic. This is why different Christians have come up with vastly differing ethical systems that they have still claimed to derive ultimately from him. It's not simply the case that some of them have remained true to Jesus while others have diverged: rather, the source material just isn't that explicit or systematic to start with.

I said that the canonical Gospels were (mostly) written earlier than the non-canonical ones, and that they are far more historical. But it doesn't follow from that that they are unproblematic sources. Every good historian knows that an earlier source is not necessarily to be preferred to a later one simply in virtue of its earliness. And it certainly doesn't follow that the Gospels represent "eyewitness reports" - they do no such thing - or that they present a "reasonably accurate" view of the historical Jesus. If you want to know about the historical Jesus, your only sources are the canonical Gospels, but there is a vast heap of problems involved in interpreting them.
Now you can't just defer the question to New Testament scholars because there's no consensus. On one end of the spectrum you have those who think that the Gospels are terribly reliable and on the other you have those who think there's virtually nothing in them of historical value. I remember going to lectures on Mark by one of the most prominent scholars of John, when I was an undergraduate, and only once in the whole series did he touch upon the question whether the material was an accurate account of the historical Jesus; he said that in his view, the most one could say about any part of it was that it might reflect the sort of thing that the real Jesus might have said or done. Which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

What you are saying here, atleast from how I understand it, is that there is dispute among scholars over the historical veracity of scripture which again I am not inclined to disagree, however historical speculations have had almost no effect on the Biblical principles or Christian practice. In evaluating 'Christian values,' its less important to know what the historical Jesus said and did or if he actually existed at all than what Christians have generally accepted of the Biblical Jesus, becuase its the Christian acceptence of the Biblical Jesus that forms the foundation of Christian beliefs, and moral standards. It is however important to investigate the Jesus of history, and perhaps even more important to know the Jesus who has shaped and continues to shape the lives of Christians worldwide. The popular picture of Jesus that is accepted by millions of Christians as the veritable standard of moral excellence and "Gods Moral Laws," has been elaborated from his words and deeds in the Gospel which Christian orthodoxy considers authentic. It is this picture of Jesus that inspires Christians worldwide, and that remains true whatever the actual historical accuracy of the primary source material. The Christian worldview is characterized in the scripture based on the words and deeds of Jesus, I can't see what other source Christian morals can derive from other than the Bible and the teachings and examples of Jesus. I am guessing that you are refering to the various Christian institutions, or community-cultural influence. Some Christian communities are entirely opposed to abortion where others believe it is permissable in some circumstances. Some believe war is always wrong, and others understand that it is necessary in some circumstances. These are two examples of the ethical ambiguities that exist among the Christian communities which I assume you are refering to that are not explicated in Biblical scripture. But note that these are moral dilemmas that are choosen as the "lesser of two evils." Christian orthodoxy is in consesus that war, violence or abortion is ultimately wrong. There is a unilateral consenus among Christians (and even non-Christians) on Jesus' moral standards that are true now as they were at the inception of Christainity. It is through the system of postmodern thought that we make the distinction between classical and modern Christian values based on the evolution or variation of Christian/Secular perspectives.

But you have no reason to doubt that I am really the author of all the posts that appear here in my name, whereas we do have good reason to doubt that Jesus really said everything attributed to him. Furthermore, as I said, the material attributed to Jesus is fragmentary and unsystematic. Those who have tried to appeal to some parts but not others aren't necessarily distorting what he said by partiality, or at least not deliberately. It may make Jesus into something not represented by the primary sources, but how are you so certain that those primary sources don't misrepresent him to start with?

Thats not the point. The problem is not whether the primary source misrepresents the author, its whether we misrepresent the text of the primary source. All we have is your written post that transmits your ideas which can be decerned and represented exactly how you the author intended. Now lets say in a hundred years from now people begin to analyse your post and come up with different perspectives. There is only one right take on it and its the one you originally intended. Just becuase there exists different perspectives on what you wrote does not mean your post can no longer be accurately represented. You say the source material that is "attributed to Jesus is fragmentary and unsystematic," but it does not follow that the authors meaning can not be accuratley represented. This line of thought only serves to sanitze or even capacitates all the absurd perspectives of Jesus that do not even closely resemble the literature of the primary source. Advancing the idea that scriptures are entirely opaque or inconclusive empowers the literary critics to deconstruct and reduct the written text and make it say whatever they want. Now I am not saying that the Gospels read like radio instructions, but the literature is coherent enough to decipher the authors meaning accurately. The lifestyle and teachings of Jesus are clearly depicted in these sources, despite the metaphorical language of the moral parables. If literary scholars can come to a unanimous consuses in deciphering poetic language such as the narrative poem "The Raven" by Poe, why is it so problematic for scholars when it comes to the straight forward language of scripture?

But that's not right at all. There is no such thing as a "static manifestation" of Christianity. The Bible isn't some kind of manual of Christianity! Christianity has never been about just the Bible. The Bible is not the Christian equivalent of the Koran, however much some Christian groups wish it were. The New Testament is simply a collection of texts from the early years of Christianity - texts which come from different churches and different traditions as it is, showing that there was enormous diversity in Christianity even then. There is no such thing as "Biblical doctrine" if by that you mean some uncomplicated system that is expounded in the New Testament and which all Christians are supposed to adhere to. The views of James are quite different from the views of Paul, which are in turn quite different from the views of Luke. Of course they share views as well or they wouldn't all be Christian, but it's clear that Christianity in New Testament times was anything but static. And even if it had been - even if the New Testament painted a picture of a single church with a single body of doctrine - that still wouldn't be "the" "static manifestation" of Christianity, it would only be how it was at that point in time. Christianity didn't drop from heaven in a pure, complete form, only to become distorted by various churches over history; it's been constantly developing and changing in different directions, and no-one can say that one form is any more definitive than any other.

By "static manifestation," I mean the written text. The words do not change even if different views of the text crop up over time. I understand that the Bible is not a manual of Christianity, but Christianity had developed from the text of the Bible. If I were to go back in time and alter the text of the Gospel to make Jesus' behaviour and teachings reflect that of Tamerlane, do you think that Christianity would have evolved into the Christianity of today? I think you are minimizing the tremendous role the Bible has in Christianity. Yes there are different perspectives of Christianity among the Christian fold, but they are restrained to the text in the Bible. I am in complete agreement with you that the Bible is in no way structured like the Quran, I make this argument all the time when people try to equate the two. Communism and Democracy have more in common than Islam and Christianity. However the text in those books present a clear system of principles or tenets that form the cornerstone of the ideology. This is what I refered to as doctrine.

What I was trying to say was this. There are different meanings of "Christian nation" depending upon what criterion you're using. However, whatever criterion you're using, it ought to be possible to distinguish between a Christian nation and a post-Christian nation, on the basis that the former currently meets the criterion, while the latter used to do so but doesn't any longer. I don't see anything problematic about that.One of the reasons why I don't think that appealing to "Christian values" as the criterion for Christian-ness is that on this view, there are currently no post-Christian nations (because all the nations where Christianity is no longer dominant still adhere, more or less, to values that are deeply influenced by Christianity, and probably will continue to do so for a long time yet). But that seems to me to be a counter-intuitive result, because I think that it does make sense to distinguish between countries that are Christian and those that are post-Christian right now.

But it doesn't make sense to distinguish between a Christian and post-Christian nation when you haven't identified what a Christian nation is.You set up a scale of contrast to define a post-Christian nation only. In your estimation, what country today represents a Christian nation and why? Personally I think culture, held together by the rule of law, bulit upon the foundation of morality defines a society. Consider that a country can be comprised of a majority of Christians living under Islamic governance and abiding by Islamic Common Law. Is the counrty Islamic or Christian? now consider the opposite, would the counrty even be able to function under the governance of the establishment?

I mean, this thread is supposed to be about whether there will be a religious resurgence in Europe. If you define "Christian nation" in such a way that all of Europe counts as Christian, doesn't that rather deflate the question?

I think the thread title is equivocal and needs elaboration.