Christian Culture (Jehovah's Witnesses, church, priest, Islamic)

[mordant]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

One might as well talk of atheist culture or scientific culture or communist culture.It may have some effect on the western or chinese culture (communism particularly) but to talkof Christian culture is giving Christianity a cultural importance it does not merit, and may contribute to the woefully prevalent idea that, without Christianity, Western civilization would collapse.

I would add that it's not as if Christianity has not influenced culture, particularly art and architecture. The arts reflect the preoccupations and beliefs of their times. And art has to sell; it has to appeal to the sensibilities of buyers and patrons.

When the separation of church and state was an unthinkable concept, the church's largesse was great and it constructed huge monuments to itself (cathedrals). This moved architecture and construction techniques forward, but if some other entity had corralled the money, different projects would have been undertaken to the same ends.

And look at what has happened to explicitly Christian art, particularly since the start of the 20th century. Christian painting has descended to Thomas Kinkade's schlock; architecture of churches less than 100 years old here in America can best be described, in the main, as nouveau pole-barn; Christian film is an eye-rolling "me too" effort that does not see funding or distribution through normal channels; Christian TV is pretty much the broadcasting of the harangues of televangelists and talk shows even more vapid than secular ones. Now that Christian art doesn't benefit from a monopoly, its quality as deteriorated accordingly.

Christianity would point to its influence on art and, tick-like as you say, fastens itself to that art and claims credit for its invention and encouragement and its very survival. When, in fact, you can't help but be struck by the vast amount of art in the Vatican Museum as co-opted Greek and Roman statuary which the church then attached fig leaves to in order to hide *gasp* genitals.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That's religion, not culture.

You see it's like the idea of Christian morality. It's back to front. It fastens onto human morality like a tick and then claims it invented it.

Similarly, Western culture was pagan in origins. When Christianity became the state religion it simply used what was already there. It had no culture, it was a religion.

One might as well talk of atheist culture or scientific culture or communist culture.It may have some effect on the western or chinese culture (communism particularly) but to talkof Christian culture is giving Christianity a cultural importance it does not merit, and may contribute to the woefully prevalent idea that, without Christianity, Western civilization would collapse.

Sorry, got off topic there.

Yeah, this is kinda where I was going with my original question.

All too often I see Christianity taking credit for things that aren't Christian in origin. Marriage, for instance, or laws against murder, theft, etc., and certainly our holidays.

I just don't see a "Christian culture," just a Western culture that happens to be predominantly Christian. As mordant said, yes, Christianity certainly influenced aspects of Western culture, but I think it's an awfully big leap for anyone to claim Christianity created our culture.

[McDweller]

Originally Posted by Shirina

Yeah, this is kinda where I was going with my original question.

All too often I see Christianity taking credit for things that aren't Christian in origin. Marriage, for instance, or laws against murder, theft, etc., and certainly our holidays.

I just don't see a "Christian culture," just a Western culture that happens to be predominantly Christian. As mordant said, yes, Christianity certainly influenced aspects of Western culture, but I think it's an awfully big leap for anyone to claim Christianity created our culture.

So... what do you think about the term "Jewish culture"? The Jews are an ethnoreligious people. What does the term "Jewish ethics" mean to you?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by McDweller

Actually, if we were discussing traditional Chinese culture and others in the Sinitic sphere, then I might use "Confucian culture". My intention is not to say that Confucianism makes up a whole culture by itself; it is to refer to the fact that Confucianism has made a large impact on society, so the society is described as "Confucian". That's why I kick in the adjective. Furthermore, it may be difficult to separate what was "originally" Confucianism, as Confucius himself did not live in a box and was influenced by the society in which he lived. His ideas contribute to society, but it's not like he's the founder of all ethics and anything like that to the extent that there were no ethics before his time.

To talk of 'Confucian culture' would also be wrong. Chinese culture was pretty much established when Kung -fu-Tze was peddling his social ideas around the states. It was grafted onto Chinese culture as was Buddhism in its turn (1), and also Taoism, Christianity (under the Tai-ping ruler) and indeed marxism and now capitalism in their turns - all adapting to the eternal tradition of Chinese culture.

Since your talk of 'Confucian' culture is wrong your argument is otiose (though you appear to agree that he was just building on the society that was already there). It is also wrong to talk of Christian culture. 'Roman' or more accurately Hellenistic culture is what we have, except of course that the northern and Eastern tribes brought their own culture and there has been a sort of cultural struggle between Gothic and palladian ever since.

I am not sure about Hindu culture. That may have a case, but Pre-Colombian culture - yes. That is very distinctive and common from Mexico to Peru.

(1) that has had a much bigger impact on Chinese culture, confucianism having survived mainly because of that being the mores of the Official system from the Ming onwards. Though a lot of Confucian customs remained in popular custom.

[McDweller]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that anytime you place a religious adjective in front of "culture", that would somehow mean that the culture was wholly made by that type of religious thought. Geez, that's not what I meant. When I use the term "Christian culture" or "Confucian culture", of course I don't mean that Christianity or Confucianism CREATED ("Created" in the sense that nothing came before it) those societies. I meant the present-day widespread influence of those belief systems in European and Sinitic societies. Therefore, I conclude that your labelling my comments as "wrong" is unjustified, because we appear to operate under different definitions when it comes to putting the adjective in front of "culture". I think it's a semantic issue, really.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by McDweller

You seem to be operating under the assumption that anytime you place a religious adjective in front of "culture", that would somehow mean that the culture was wholly made by that type of religious thought. Geez, that's not what I meant. When I use the term "Christian culture" or "Confucian culture", of course I don't mean that Christianity or Confucianism CREATED ("Created" in the sense that nothing came before it) those societies. I meant the present-day widespread influence of those belief systems in European and Sinitic societies. Therefore, I conclude that your labelling my comments as "wrong" is unjustified, because we appear to operate under different definitions when it comes to putting the adjective in front of "culture". I think it's a semantic issue, really.

Ok. But I think it's more than semantic. It is unconsciously polemic. It is giving religion an undue prominence and credit in a culture. Of course the influence of religions on cultures is large, but to say that this either makes the culture Christian or that Christianity has a culture of itself (as distinct from adopting the culture of whatever country it finds itself in) is allpart of the Big Lie.

An example popped into my head. 'Proto - hebrew'. This was raised on these werri boards some tome ago as evidence of the Exodus. Potsherds were found with what was called 'proto - hebrew' on them in Sinai. 'Proto - Hebrew' being proffered with the supposition that it was the language of the Israelites in an early form.

What it actually was was the scribblings of Caananite Emigrant workers in the Egyptian turquoise -mines. It is an early form of Hebrew and indeed Phoenecian. But to call it 'proto - Hebrew' is not so much wrong, much less a simple matter of semantics, but of putting the cart before the hoirse, having the tail wagging the dog and in fact giving some sort of credit -argument to Hebrew that it does not deserve, let alone providing opportunity for a semantic trick that was used as evidence for the Bible and thus Christianity.

That is why it is important to pick this stuff up and challenge it. It may be presented, as you have done as a mere semantic matter, not worth making a fuss about (these atheists...straining at gnats..) but at least it is all part of bolstering the supposed social importance of religion and at worst, propping up the prevalent delusion that civilization would collapse without it.

We hellbound pondslime (takes a bow ) have learned from bitter experience that you cannot give the theists an inch or they claim the mile.

[McDweller]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That is why it is important to pick this stuff up and challenge it. It may be presented, as you have done as a mere semantic matter, not worth making a fuss about (these atheists...straining at gnats..) but at least it is all part of bolstering the supposed social importance of religion and at worst, propping up the prevalent delusion that civilization would collapse without it.

I think a different way. Instead of trying pigeonholing religion into a tiny little box, I see it as a clump of molecules inside a tank that is open. Molecules can go in, molecules can go out. Similarly, I see religion as a set of memes that spreads across human culture. From this observational standpoint, the social importance of religion is irrelevant; the conjecture that civilization would somehow collapse without religion is meaningless. Seeing it as a collection of memes makes more sense to me, and when I see many people having this sort of thought process, I give it a name: "Christian", "Confucian", or whatever, because I perceive that people learn these ideas directly from their churches or their parents and grandparents. They don't learn morality from their long-dead ancestors who cannot communicate to them. :P

[TRANSPONDER]

yes....but again it is Culture -andean, Western or Chinese that these various memes are spreading through and so to have the culture called by the memes that pervade it rather than what the culture is, Is I argue, wrong.

As to the morality, it is rather our ancestors who pass it down. It is the culture and its social mores that provides our morals and religions fasten onto that- as it does everything else, and claims that it they originated it.

I want to stomp on any suggestion of talking about Christian culture as I do about Christian morality or indeed Christian science. I can strech a point about Christian art or music as they provide the subject matter, but here again, it is amazing how we pick particular musical styles-plainchant, polyphany and the Baroque of the Bach cantatas as being Christian, when they were merely the musical style of the time- applied to everything. (Don't get me on the subject of baroque church music where it has to be reverentially slowed down and everyone has a face like a wet weekend...'remember Christ died on the cross for you sins, so don't look so bloody happy...')

[McDweller]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

yes....but again it is Culture -andean, Western or Chinese that these various memes are spreading through and so to have the culture called by the memes that pervade it rather than what the culture is, Is I argue, wrong.

As to the morality, it is rather our ancestors who pass it down. It is the culture and its social mores that provides our morals and religions fasten onto that- as it does everything else, and claims that it they originated it.

I want to stomp on any suggestion of talking about Christian culture as I do about Christian morality or indeed Christian science. I can stretch a point about Christian art or music as they provide the subject matter, but here again, it is amazing how we pick particular musical styles-plainchant, polyphany and the Baroque of the Bach cantatas as being Christian, when they were merely the musical style of the time- applied to everything. (Don't get me on the subject of baroque church music where it has to be reverentially slowed down and everyone has a face like a wet weekend...'remember Christ died on the cross for you sins, so don't look so bloody happy...')

You lost me. I really need to understand the assumptions you're making before I can continue.

Please answer these questions:

1. What is your definition of "culture"?
2. What is your definition of "society"?
3. Are you suggesting that "culture" is distinctly separated from "religion" so that people can neatly categorize "religion" and "culture" into two separate boxes?
4. Are you suggesting that culture and religion can be categorized hierarchically, that somehow religion fits under this so-called "culture"?
5. Why are you so obsessed with the origin or creation of everything? Does this have to do with the discussion that some Christian evangelists like to insist that Christianity is the foundation of society and morality, and thus, people can't be moral without being Christian? Are you really attacking that conservative Christian position?
6. Can you explain what you mean by "wrong"? Are you saying it is linguistically/semantically wrong, morally/ethically wrong, historically wrong, or just inappropriate?
7. What do you think about the terms "Confucian ethics" and "Jewish ethics"?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by McDweller

You lost me. I really need to understand the assumptions you're making before I can continue.

Please answer these questions:

1. What is your definition of "culture"?
2. What is your definition of "society"?

Let's ask Webster

cul·ture
noun \ˈkəl-chər\

: the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time

: a particular society that has its own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc.

1so·ci·e·ty
noun \sə-ˈsī-ə-tē\

: people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

3. Are you suggesting that "culture" is distinctly separated from "religion" so that people can neatly categorize "religion" and "culture" into two separate boxes?
4. Are you suggesting that culture and religion can be categorized hierarchically, that somehow religion fits under this so-called "culture"?

Yes. A different religion can be introduced and the culture remains the same. Religion is a specific set of beliefs about gods (or quasi-gods, such a Karma) and they can modify a culture through some religious prohibitions or iconography, but they do not make the culture and they are not a culture in themselves, so you cannot speak of Christian culture but rather of western culture.

5. Why are you so obsessed with the origin or creation of everything?

If I see something that doesn't look right to me, I may well step in and challenge it. If a religion is suggested as the origins of a culture, I would of course try to determine whether there was some origin before that. It is called looking at the evidence.

Does this have to do with the discussion that some Christian evangelists like to insist that Christianity is the foundation of society and morality, and thus, people can't be moral without being Christian? Are you really attacking that conservative Christian position?

Not as such, but it is the same sort of idea of attributing the credit for some area of art or thought to a religion.

6. Can you explain what you mean by "wrong"? Are you saying it is linguistically/semantically wrong, morally/ethically wrong, historically wrong, or just inappropriate?

Incorrect. Overlooking the true state of affairs and implying a state of affairs that gives a false impression - e.g that Christianity can claim the credit for a national culture.

7. What do you think about the terms "Confucian ethics" and "Jewish ethics"?

Ok. Religion does specialize in giving particular instructions about behaviour. My beef there would be in the suggestion that, without Confucianism or Judaism, there can be no morality.