This is a fascinating and insightful argument, it definitely made me think. I am an atheist but have become far more sympathetic toward Christianity over the last 10 years or so. My main counter point here is that while it's possible that society is better off with Christianity as a dominant structure and ideology, people have to actuall…
This is a fascinating and insightful argument, it definitely made me think. I am an atheist but have become far more sympathetic toward Christianity over the last 10 years or so. My main counter point here is that while it's possible that society is better off with Christianity as a dominant structure and ideology, people have to actually believe it or it will fade out over the long term. There's no mechanism I can think of to reliably make people believe it. What you're saying might make sense in theory but I'm not sure there's any practical application for the idea that Christianity is beneficial.
Thank you for your comment. The practical application of a beneficent Christianity is what Mr. Mangalwadi's book is all about. The other two books show how a Zen Buddhist master (Mr. Potter) and an atheist scientist (Dr. Guillen) came to Christianity from two directions that could not have been further apart. And their observations are so interesting - really creative reasoning that I enjoyed and had not thought of before.
Society is better off with the truth as the dominant structure and ideology; I think that truth is Christ.
I disagree. I think one can believe in the philosophy of Christianity without having to accept the virgin birth and miracles. Do unto others as you would be done by and love thy neighbour as thyself are excellent precepts by which to live. And the physical churches often add beauty, calm and space for thought to our lives.
I think this can work on an individual basis, but for Christianity to work for an entire community or society I think you need a critical mass of people who genuinely believe it. For example, within a family you may have a situation where the grandparents are fundamentalists, the parents are culturally and philosophically Christian like you describe, the kids are C&E Christians who give occasional lip service to the faith, and next generation after them is completely secular. Without sincere belief the overall trend will be toward secularism.
The one caveat is that people do not have to be theologians, well-schooled and solid on every jot and title. The so-called Age of Faith featured innumerable illiterate people who had only a very top-level knowledge of Christian doctrine, and who often enough retained more than a few pre-Christian superstitions.
Thank you for seeing some helpful wisdom in Christianity. But you should read the short book by Ellis Potter. It only takes an hour or so. What is the meaning of life? If it is a variant of existentialism, then the problem I have with it is the same as described by James Sire: existentialism is nihilism wearing a mask called value that is stripped away at death.
This is a fascinating and insightful argument, it definitely made me think. I am an atheist but have become far more sympathetic toward Christianity over the last 10 years or so. My main counter point here is that while it's possible that society is better off with Christianity as a dominant structure and ideology, people have to actually believe it or it will fade out over the long term. There's no mechanism I can think of to reliably make people believe it. What you're saying might make sense in theory but I'm not sure there's any practical application for the idea that Christianity is beneficial.
Thank you for your comment. The practical application of a beneficent Christianity is what Mr. Mangalwadi's book is all about. The other two books show how a Zen Buddhist master (Mr. Potter) and an atheist scientist (Dr. Guillen) came to Christianity from two directions that could not have been further apart. And their observations are so interesting - really creative reasoning that I enjoyed and had not thought of before.
Society is better off with the truth as the dominant structure and ideology; I think that truth is Christ.
I disagree. I think one can believe in the philosophy of Christianity without having to accept the virgin birth and miracles. Do unto others as you would be done by and love thy neighbour as thyself are excellent precepts by which to live. And the physical churches often add beauty, calm and space for thought to our lives.
I think this can work on an individual basis, but for Christianity to work for an entire community or society I think you need a critical mass of people who genuinely believe it. For example, within a family you may have a situation where the grandparents are fundamentalists, the parents are culturally and philosophically Christian like you describe, the kids are C&E Christians who give occasional lip service to the faith, and next generation after them is completely secular. Without sincere belief the overall trend will be toward secularism.
The one caveat is that people do not have to be theologians, well-schooled and solid on every jot and title. The so-called Age of Faith featured innumerable illiterate people who had only a very top-level knowledge of Christian doctrine, and who often enough retained more than a few pre-Christian superstitions.
Thank you for seeing some helpful wisdom in Christianity. But you should read the short book by Ellis Potter. It only takes an hour or so. What is the meaning of life? If it is a variant of existentialism, then the problem I have with it is the same as described by James Sire: existentialism is nihilism wearing a mask called value that is stripped away at death.