YouTube's TheoreticalBullshit

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "YouTube's TheoreticalBullshit" by theowarner.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/philosophy/youtubes-theoreticalbullshit/

 

[SamuelMcalpine]

Theo,

If your intent is to defend "Christianity" from undue criticism and ridicule, then tell me"¦ what exactly is it that you are defending? The label? The collection of institutions that take the label? The things that have been said under the banner "Christianity", that you agree with and that you deem good and consider as Truth? You declare that "the label "Christian" is one that (you) feel is wielded invariably with problems". Well, if it cannot be wielded without problem then what purpose does it serve? And how many more problems are inherent in its defense? You go to great length to describe the Ecclesiological problem of defining exactly what the institution Christianity is and what exactly it entails to declare oneself a believer in Christ, and then promptly cast shadow on both Paul Washer's and Theoretical Bullshit's claims to have some insight into that question, yet you offer no alternative view.

To criticize "a critic whose caricatures distort the truth" is to imply that you have some insight to what the undistorted truth looks like, else how do you determine what it is that is being distorted? I think that before taking at all seriously this charge of distortion it is fair to ask exactly what does the undistorted truth look like?

Are the writings of the bible to be taken as literally true or not? To what degree? 100% literal? 100% metaphor? Some mixture of literal truth and metaphor? Most importantly, how does one (and how do YOU) make the determination what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken as metaphor? Unless you can (and are willing to) answer these questions, your charge that TB's criticisms of Christianity were unwarranted seems to me without merit.

This may seem to be missing your point. After all, you were making the case that the views that TB and Paul Washer express, may not by typical of most Christians. But I submit that it doesn't matter. There either is a truth of the matter or there isn't and it doesn't matter what 'most Christians' think about it. In this respect I think it is a perfectly justified criticism of 'Christianity' to point out that a literal reading of its book of knowledge is foolish at best and downright wicked when we read about the supposed interactions between a chosen people and their deity, especially considering that the contents of this book are the only thing that can truly be said to be common among all "Christians". *edit* this is true even when you allow that some christians may not in fact be christians *edit* Let "Christians" explain what is wrong with a literalist view and justify a more metaphorical reading. Let "Christians" explain how it is that they determine which passages are to be taken as the plain truth and which are clothed in interpretive nuance. That is the charge that is laid, that is the gauntlet that has been thrown. It is no answer to say simply that the literalist view doesn't well represent christianity. You must say how it fails in that regard. *edit*And not just in a demographic sense. To make this criticism, you must put your own beliefs on the line and state clearly what approach (or at least what range of approaches) with regard to understanding biblical reference you believe to be correct. In short you must open yourself to the same criticism you are leveling...*edit*

But again, I may have completely missed the point. So I return to the question that I opened with. What is this thing called Christianity, that you think has been distorted? Of what does it consist. Is it an idea, an institution, a label, all or none of the above? And further, what is it that gives it value, that you deem it worthy of defense?

 

[johnhummel]

Theo,

I believe I have much the same question as Mr. Mcalpine - what is the point here?

The problem, as I see it, is you draw an objection to TheoreticalBullshit's definition of Christianity. Why? Well, he seems to be applying elements into a checklist that you feel do not represent Christianity.

Usually, most discussions about the beliefs with Christians go like this:

1. Belief in a divine being they base as being God.

2. Along with God there is Jesus (or, perhaps Jesus is God - it depends on the religion). Jesus is the son of God, born of a virgin, and sacrificed himself for the sins of mankind, and that sacrifice

Odds are, right now you'll be nodding your head going "Ok - yes, that defines a Christian." Then, we come to the point that TheoreticalBullshit I believe is trying to highlight:

3. Belief in God and Jesus rely on a document called the Bible, composed of the writings of Jewish scholars and later followers (aka "apostles") of Jesus who wrote down important messages.

Here's where TheoreticalBullsiht, and myself, have a problem. If the Bible is suppose to be the proof that a) Jesus existed, and b) that he is the son of God and c) that belief on him is necessary for the afterlife - then we should study the Bible to find out what this God and his son want.

And what we find there is a whole slew of horrible, terrible things. Genocide. Instructions to beat children. Misogyny against women. And even Jesus himself - who is described as being "sinless" and "perfect" certainly engages in behavior that's not rather polite to some people, and tells others that they are in for unending torment if they don't believe in him.

That's not even getting into the historical issues regarding the Bible - that's just the moral side.

So if TheoreticalBullshit made his list incorrectly - what should and should not be included to attribute to Christian beliefs? And who gets to judge?

If Christians want to use the Bible as their source of inspiration, morality, history, and what not - then they either need to own it, or reject it. Complaining that TheoreticalBullshit misrepresents a faith by pointing out the statements in the book that they base their beliefs upon strikes me as rather silly.

 

[deefsound]

I'm afraid I don't have anything to add to the two posts made to you Theo.

However, they have both done well at restating and expanding on a question I put to you a few weeks ago on stickam (I'm Dave Hastings if that helps recollection).

I hope you can provide reasonable, substantive answer to the questions above, particularly on the issue of what are we to take as literal account and what, as metaphor from the bible.

Perhaps a video on your YouTube channel would be a productive way to do so.


Cheers.

 

[borrofburi]

Can I get a short summary? Sometimes I enjoy a loquacious post, but now is not that time, and before I spend 20 minutes reading an essay that I might not find interesting, it'd be nice to get an abstract.