Did I hear correctly on he news this morning that Led Zeppelin have been put in charge of university admissions?
Apropos Sunday's post about outrage over something trivial becoming the new black for tossers; I note that the media watchdog, Ofcom, has said Jeremy Clarkson's tongue-in-cheek comment that striking public sector workers "should be shot" was not in breach of broadcasting rules. Public sector union
tossers bosses had complained to the BBC that his comments were offensive. Thank God - sanity has prevailed!
Talking of God (again - but at least it generates comments); yesterday,
Ermintrude suggested I was being somewhat presumptuous in assuming what Christians believe (the bit about the sins of the father being visited on the sons).
This argument assumes the atheist has no knowledge of Christianity; however, the vast majority of atheists were;
a) raised in one of the many Christian traditions, and
b) invariably attained enlightenment through critical analysis of religions - not just Christianity.
They therefore arguably have a deeper knowledge of religions in general – and Christianity in particular - than the average practising Christian, who has probably never read the bible from cover to cover and has no idea what the Nicene Creed is, let alone recite it.
Christianity contains within its mansion a plethora of rooms (to quote a 1st century itinerant sage) and it is impossible to develop a single list of dogmas on which all sects are agreed.
During the early stages of Christianity there were long-running battles over such diverse matters as the divinity of Jesus (early Christians didn’t actually believe he was divine), the Trinity (an accretion brought about by the synthesis of Judaism and Greek philosophy) and whether X-Factor was better than Pop Idol, etc., resulting in almost daily mutual anathematisations and excommunications of various church fathers by other church fathers on an epic scale. To say the embryonic church was fragmented is an understatement, and it was precisely so because the Christ didn't leave any written records - after all, he didn't intend to found a new religion as he was a dedicated and practising Jew who preached nothing but compassionate Judaism.
This anarchy continued until Constantine, who saw in Christianity the potential for a state religion that reinforced the concept of the Imperium (it had an entire language for articulating the relationship of government and piety), thought enough was enough and instigated the Council of Nicea, where he got the competing beardies to agree on a single creed. Any sect not agreeing was declared heretic and bonfire fodder.
The next schism divided the church into Western and Eastern orthodoxy, from which many competing sects shot off at a tangent at light speed. Then came had the myriad strands of Protestantism, a number of which became as right-wing as orthodox Catholicism.
Today there are over 22,000 Christian denominations with another 5 being added each week. No wonder it’s impossible to define what a Christian actually believes!
If one were to take all the professed Christians in the world and delete from the dogma each and every belief that the various churches choose to reject, and yet still call themselves Christian, you’d have no religion at all - or as we experts call it, Anglicanism.
The range of beliefs extends from those who profess biblical inerrancy (despite the many biblical paradoxes) to those who deny Christ’s divinity and resurrection, yet believe Christ had some important messages to give humanity (a bit like a 1st century hippy, man).
Thus to claim someone doesn't know what Christians believe is entirely true, as no-one knows without knowledge of the particular sect, or sub-sect, that a believer belongs to. To say you are a Christian is a bit like saying you’re a socialist – which means you could be a middle of the road democratic socialist (Anglican), or a communist (Catholic), or indeed a national socialist (Creationist).
I would posit that if Christians actually compared the dogmas of their espoused church with their own deeply held beliefs, it would dawn on at least half of them that they're actually in the wrong church. This is down to the fact you are in the church (or religion) you're in due to no other reason than the simple fact your parents were in it, and neither they nor you engaged in any critical thinking. You adopt the religion of your tribe and it's called cultural relativism.
Point out some logical fallacy or paradox in the dogma of a professed Christian and you'll immediately get the response that the person you're debating with naturally doesn't believe that particular dogma anymore. Another tactic is to declare than the NT trumps the OT; well, if that's the case, why have the OT as a sacred text at all? When all is said and done, the Torah was Christ's only reference and it's what he preached. His crime was to dis the Sanhedrin, who had become corrupt and drunk with spiritual power.
As I said yesterday, like a seasoned politician, the Christian will tend to move the cross (aka goalpost) as the case suits.