I asked previously if it is intolerance to be intolerant of the intolerant. In the same vein, I asked if it is violent to oppose the violent with violence. My answer to both questions is ‘no’.
Christianity has certainly been interpreted to give the answer ‘yes’ to both questions. There were and are Christian groups who do not condone violence for any reason. There are also very socially tolerant Christian groups, to the point of getting blurry about what they actually do believe. There are, however, more groups which are judgmental and intolerant to others. Is it wrong to be intolerant of them?
It is significant that the basis of Christianity, the teachings of Jesus and the elaboration of Paul, both were to limited audiences. Christians are urged to separate themselves from the culture surrounding them. This would not have been difficult, as Christians were a small proportion of the population, and had no power or open societal outlet for their values. Beliefs were expressed amongst themselves, but were irrelevant in the broader operation of society. In such a setting, it is entirely possible to not oppose violence with violence, to passively accept intolerance from others.
Christian history is full of such behavior from its early adherents. Even when faced with death, Christians refused to act violently. In the face of ostracism, Christians did not condone the social behavior around them, but they did not condemn it either, making different choices for themselves, not others.
This becomes more complicated the further Christianity penetrates within societal structure. Many others have comments on the unsuitability of Christian values for broader societal application. Machiavelli of course famously went through an impressive and tortuous explanation of how a prince could murder, lie and wage war while not only being a Christian but fulfilling his duty as a Christian.
If we apply Christian non-violence throughout society as it is, society rapidly breaks down and even ceases to exist. This is not so if everyone is a Christian AND if everyone applies Christian values equally and well. Of course, these two conditions have never been met on a societal level (as opposed to a church level).
The only conditions where tolerance and non-violence can apply without societal breakdown are if everyone accepts and applies Christian values. Since this is clearly not the case either within a Christian nation or the world, we can not make this the starting point for any practical application of values.
Several examples are obvious. Consider a violent criminal. This person does not accept Christian or biblical values of any kind, but is willing to rob, rape and kill for sustenance and pleasure. Such a person would damage and terrorize a non-violent society. To maintain order and safety, there must be a person with authority to stop this individual, with force if needed.
Intolerance of Jews, or blacks, or homosexuals can not be accepted under the rubric of tolerance. Tolerance of intolerance leads to damage of the society and the individual. It is thus not intolerant to be intolerant of the intolerant. Defining tolerance as acceptance of all and anything is the sort of overly liberal values that hurt people, just as conservatively based intolerance does.
There is the example of Jesus willingly going to death without providing either physical resistance or even answers to questions. Some have emulated this, being willing to be killed or imprisoned for their beliefs. I don’t think this can apply at a broad level for any society or population, simply because that population or society ceases to exist immediately when threatened, either externally or internally. Unless we are willing to accept the overrunning of society by the violent and intolerant, we must meet these behaviors in their own terms.
Further, while it is unusual to find a person so spiritually attuned as to be uncaring about what happens to their body, this cannot be applied broadly, not should it be. We were not created spiritual beings. We were created spirit within fleshly beings. Unless we assume the fleshly existence is of no relevance to the soul, it strikes me as sacrilegious to deny the value of the flesh. It is not fleshly indulgence to acknowledge the importance of the flesh. It seems contrary to the creation of God to abnegate the flesh in the name of spiritual values.
If our fleshly life is irrelevant, then why does it exist at all? Some argue this world is Hell, or fleshly existence the penance of the soul. This seems completely contrary to any scientific examination of the living world, as well as contrary to either interpretative or literal reading of the Bible. The inevitable conclusion is our fleshly life is of meaning and value, both on a fleshly plane and a spiritual one. That this meaning may be obscure to us does not deny it meaning, since the converse is philosophical and scientific nonsense.
Fleshly life is relevant in the same way that a placenta is relevant to a fetus. While the placenta gets discarded, it is vitally important to the fetus in utero. Our bodies get discarded as well, but they are vitally important to our souls. We can see the consequences to a fetus of loss of placental function. We cannot see the result to the spirit of bodily dysfunction or death, but there is no reason to assume there is none. To assume such is to give no spiritual meaning to our existence, and I don’t believe that is the case.
Oddly, then, the societal application of the strictest Christian values results in chaos and philosophical nonsense. Much like the paradoxes of Jesus’ nature and Christian dogma, the looser application of Christian values on a societal level results in a more Christian society. We cannot live lives of service, tolerance and peace without a willingness to be intolerant of the judgmental and violent to the violent.
Ted
Christianity has certainly been interpreted to give the answer ‘yes’ to both questions. There were and are Christian groups who do not condone violence for any reason. There are also very socially tolerant Christian groups, to the point of getting blurry about what they actually do believe. There are, however, more groups which are judgmental and intolerant to others. Is it wrong to be intolerant of them?
It is significant that the basis of Christianity, the teachings of Jesus and the elaboration of Paul, both were to limited audiences. Christians are urged to separate themselves from the culture surrounding them. This would not have been difficult, as Christians were a small proportion of the population, and had no power or open societal outlet for their values. Beliefs were expressed amongst themselves, but were irrelevant in the broader operation of society. In such a setting, it is entirely possible to not oppose violence with violence, to passively accept intolerance from others.
Christian history is full of such behavior from its early adherents. Even when faced with death, Christians refused to act violently. In the face of ostracism, Christians did not condone the social behavior around them, but they did not condemn it either, making different choices for themselves, not others.
This becomes more complicated the further Christianity penetrates within societal structure. Many others have comments on the unsuitability of Christian values for broader societal application. Machiavelli of course famously went through an impressive and tortuous explanation of how a prince could murder, lie and wage war while not only being a Christian but fulfilling his duty as a Christian.
If we apply Christian non-violence throughout society as it is, society rapidly breaks down and even ceases to exist. This is not so if everyone is a Christian AND if everyone applies Christian values equally and well. Of course, these two conditions have never been met on a societal level (as opposed to a church level).
The only conditions where tolerance and non-violence can apply without societal breakdown are if everyone accepts and applies Christian values. Since this is clearly not the case either within a Christian nation or the world, we can not make this the starting point for any practical application of values.
Several examples are obvious. Consider a violent criminal. This person does not accept Christian or biblical values of any kind, but is willing to rob, rape and kill for sustenance and pleasure. Such a person would damage and terrorize a non-violent society. To maintain order and safety, there must be a person with authority to stop this individual, with force if needed.
Intolerance of Jews, or blacks, or homosexuals can not be accepted under the rubric of tolerance. Tolerance of intolerance leads to damage of the society and the individual. It is thus not intolerant to be intolerant of the intolerant. Defining tolerance as acceptance of all and anything is the sort of overly liberal values that hurt people, just as conservatively based intolerance does.
There is the example of Jesus willingly going to death without providing either physical resistance or even answers to questions. Some have emulated this, being willing to be killed or imprisoned for their beliefs. I don’t think this can apply at a broad level for any society or population, simply because that population or society ceases to exist immediately when threatened, either externally or internally. Unless we are willing to accept the overrunning of society by the violent and intolerant, we must meet these behaviors in their own terms.
Further, while it is unusual to find a person so spiritually attuned as to be uncaring about what happens to their body, this cannot be applied broadly, not should it be. We were not created spiritual beings. We were created spirit within fleshly beings. Unless we assume the fleshly existence is of no relevance to the soul, it strikes me as sacrilegious to deny the value of the flesh. It is not fleshly indulgence to acknowledge the importance of the flesh. It seems contrary to the creation of God to abnegate the flesh in the name of spiritual values.
If our fleshly life is irrelevant, then why does it exist at all? Some argue this world is Hell, or fleshly existence the penance of the soul. This seems completely contrary to any scientific examination of the living world, as well as contrary to either interpretative or literal reading of the Bible. The inevitable conclusion is our fleshly life is of meaning and value, both on a fleshly plane and a spiritual one. That this meaning may be obscure to us does not deny it meaning, since the converse is philosophical and scientific nonsense.
Fleshly life is relevant in the same way that a placenta is relevant to a fetus. While the placenta gets discarded, it is vitally important to the fetus in utero. Our bodies get discarded as well, but they are vitally important to our souls. We can see the consequences to a fetus of loss of placental function. We cannot see the result to the spirit of bodily dysfunction or death, but there is no reason to assume there is none. To assume such is to give no spiritual meaning to our existence, and I don’t believe that is the case.
Oddly, then, the societal application of the strictest Christian values results in chaos and philosophical nonsense. Much like the paradoxes of Jesus’ nature and Christian dogma, the looser application of Christian values on a societal level results in a more Christian society. We cannot live lives of service, tolerance and peace without a willingness to be intolerant of the judgmental and violent to the violent.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment