Another one of my Modern Philosophy posts. I hope I speak with some authority on this one, having been brought up in an Evangelical Christian home, attended church regularly for eighteen years, and familiarised myself with the key tenets of Christian doctrine. Having already written about Islam, I hope to complete an analysis of the three monotheisms with a post of Judaism, so look out for that over the coming months.
On a metaphysical level, Epicureanism and Christianity fundamentally contravene each other. The former is a materialist philosophy, claiming that nothing exists beyond the empirical realm that humans can know about. There may be gods, but their activities are inconsequential to life here on earth. On the other hand, Christianity is essentially about mankind’s redemption from sin through the resurrection of Jesus, so that we may enjoy a direct relationship with God. In the ancient world, Epicureans and Christians often clashed because they disagreed on so much.
Despite their contradictory claims, both Epicureans and Christians would profess to adhere to the same standards of behaviour: compassion, forgiveness, generosity, inclusion, hospitality, love, as well as an aversion to excess. Some Christians would claim that Christianity, or at the very least formalised religion, is a pre-requisite for living a truly moral life, though that isn’t a view held by all. Epicureanism certainly never made a claim to a monopoly on morality. As an Epicurean, I think people of all religions are capable of living highly fulfilling lives. A late Christian friend of mine spends her life looking after children, volunteering to help the elderly, and participating in the church choir and band. I may not agree with her metaphysics, epistemology or ethics, but I can certainly appreciate the difference she made to the lives of those around her. Equally, the Islamic Society at Exeter University raises a lot of money for charity. So I’m afraid ascribing truthfulness to a doctrine based on the good works of its adherents is a rudimentary fallacy because virtually every doctrine can claim to have had good effects.
Therefore, it’s important to establish what sets Christianity apart. I won’t get into any obscure verses in the Old Testament; the Christian community is divided as to how to interpret those verses and their relevance for the modern day- a debate that ought to be resolved amongst Christians. As I said before, Christianity is fundamentally about the death and resurrection of Jesus. This was to satisfy an all-powerful God who cannot abide sin. But thanks to sinful human nature caused by Adam and Eve (see the first few books of Genesis to find out how this happened), people are incapable of living perfect lives, requiring God to come down in human form to die as a blood sacrifice for human redemption.
This is a totally immoral and depraved doctrine. The notion of blood sacrifice is a barbaric idea, invented when man was in a far more primitive state. It’s little different from the polytheisms that preceded Christianity, killing animals as sacrifices to vengeful Gods. The fear of divine punishment has permeated human behaviour for thousands of years. It’s largely a result of our innate sense of guilt. In the case of Christianity, you have a god that demands perfection, knowing that humans are now incapable of obeying his every whim. He then states that all of the world’s people are damned to an eternity in hell unless they accept his blood sacrifice. It’s a frightening belief, one that perpetuates constant guilt and feelings of inadequacy. Christians are forever apologising for themselves, even as they know full well they are trying to live to an impossible standard.
The truth is, humans are not in need of redemption. We are certainly highly flawed, and Christians have done an excellent job of pointing out that despite our advances in science and technology, we are not necessarily becoming more moral. We can never expect to be perfect, so there’s no point in apologising every time we aren’t. Christianity claims to absolve its believers from sin, yet Christians behave as if they are just as guilty as before, because Christianity demands absolute obedience to God, even after having believed in the resurrection.
As a result, I’ve noticed that Christianity attracts people who express a high degree of regret at how they use to live. Maybe they had a problem with alcohol or drugs. Maybe they were ill-tempered, or even violent. Perhaps they lived lives deemed to be sexually promiscuous by society, and so feel inadequate due to a new sense of shame. Christianity entices such people with the promise of absolution. But even after confession, Christians strive to improve to what are unrealistic standards, that ought never to be said if people are to live truly fulfilling lives. Christianity fails to offer a point in which the believer can be satisfied with themselves, apart from a vague promise of eternal life- a derivative notion that satisfies the base human greed and selfish desire to live forever.
The belief in blood sacrifice for the redeeming of sin has grave consequences for the modern world. Christians largely regard the non-Christian world as ‘fallen’, and therefore inherently corrupting. I’ve met Christians who have shut themselves away from the world, because they regard it as morally poisonous. In some cases, this has led to segregation, with Christians choosing to live apart from others, instead of trying to improve the world in which they live. I appreciate most Christians aren’t that extreme. But the casual dismissal of the non-Christian world is insulting to the followers of other belief systems who are only trying their best.
The worst aspect of the blood sacrifice doctrine is its effects on children. As a child, I was taught that I could never be perfect (or even good enough since God’s standard is perfection.) My only hope was to believe in Jesus and follow whatever the Bible says, or else be guilty of disobeying God. The image of hell was frightening for a child, who like most, had a vivid imagination. Christianity kept me afraid and anxious for many years. There was even one point when I cried when I couldn’t find my family, because I believed they had been taken to heaven and I was left to go to hell. In my view, instilling that sort of fear into children ought to condemned by wider society, though sadly it goes barely noticed.
A Christian upbringing was also damaging in other ways. Particularly when I was young, I wasn’t allowed to learn about other religions properly. I was never taught the arguments in favour of other religions, or even atheism. I wasn’t even allowed to find out bad things about Christmas. Even at A level, my mum was sceptical of me taking a philosophy course because it may cause me to ‘turn away’ from God. My parents also had a very authoritarian parenting style, demanding my absolute obedience and not allowing me to question them. Other Christian parents I knew were far worse, banning their children from anything they claimed portrayed Christianity badly, be it Harry Potter for its ‘Satanic’ influences or The Simpsons due to Ned Flanders’ ineptitude as a prominently Christian character. Making fun at Christianity was deemed ‘blasphemous’ and resulted in severe punishment. This was a despicable way to raise children, one which I couldn’t possibly regret more. It is healthy for anyone to make fun at themselves and their beliefs, be they religious or otherwise.
Christianity still has an anti-scientific streak. Young-earth creationism, which denies biological evolution, natural selection, and the true age of the universe and the earth, is still a very prominent belief. Science denial was rife amongst the Christians I knew, even on issues like climate change that have nothing to do with Christian doctrine. I’m not at all surprised that American Evangelical Christians are more likely to be climate change deniers than the general population- the latter is at least somewhat related to the former in my view. Other conspiracies, like 9/11 being a hoax, or the Federal Reserve being owned by the Rothschilds, are disproportionately common amongst the Christian community.
At least by British standards, the Christianity I’m familiar with is quite extreme. But by world standards, it is the norm. International Christianity is fostering a culture of authoritarianism, patriarchal gender norms, heavy-handed parenting, instilling fear into people, demanding the morally impossible, total and unquestioning submission to God, and in some cases, conspiracy theories, science denial and segregated lifestyles. Even in the United Kingdom, where the Church of England is relatively benign, Christianity still affirms the doctrine of blood sacrifice because it is essential to the Christian message. Epicureans should holistically repudiate Christianity, for its practical effects as well as its beliefs.
This is a wonderful and heartfelt critique of Christianity. I feel so sad that it affected you so badly. Most religions have a lot to answer for. My own experience during schooldays was, in contrast, benign, but I still ended up a non- believer who thought for himself, as you have done and we all should do. But the human race is still tribal, and religion is the outward and visible sign of it.
Owen, I fully understand your point of view and how you arrived at it. As a
(social) scientist myself, I despair at climate change denial, and the literal interpretation of Genesis. Fundamentalism in any political or religious discourse seems to generate division and above all, fear. Maybe, the protagonists find it difficult to tolerate uncertainty and paradox. To them, the world is perceived as hostile, and their beliefs (which are, from their point of view,) the only riight beliefs. Maybe some Christians see their religion through the prism of fear, and therefore feel they have to obey all the rules and regulations or be damned.
The reason I was attracted to, rather than repulsed, by Christianity was Jesus himself who was a rebel. He only had two basic rules. Love God and your neighbour as yourself. He was always getting at the Pharisees who were keeping to the rules and rituals of their religion as if their lives with depended on it. Their religiosity was as “whited sepulchres”. Jesus would rather consort with tax collectors (major thieves of the day) and prostitutes than with the religious elite. No judgement was passed by him, only love and forgiveness. He will have restored their self-esteem. Experience of
genuine forgiveness is the point where self esteem is restored. (Born again), Seen
through the prism of love,rather than fear, there is love joy and peace as promised.
As for aspects that have turned you off, they have given me a lot of questions too, and I am still looking for answers. Blood sacrifice was the norm in those days, as was crucifixion, the most cruel of deaths. Also I have come to the conclusion that hell is a
pictorial way of saying life without God the love joy and peace He gives. However I am working on these various paradoxes, or is it paradoxem!
So sorry that you have arrived at such extreme conclusions about Christianity. I became a Christian at 40 years of age. I have never been so free of guilt and so full of life and love in all my life.
I have nothing against religion, nothing against Christianity; good luck to you, that’s fine, and I’m delighted to hear from you. I was brought up as a Christian and was taught that Christianity came with moral and ethical rules of conduct, kindness and generosity. The people I object to, who call themselves “Christians”, support without apparent comment or protest, the stream of lies, the bullying, the extramarital affairs, the unwinding of health and safety standards, the financial scams and what begins to look like cooperation in undermining our election system in cahoots with the bunch of criminals in the Kremlin. If this represents Christian behaviour, fine. But be prepared for blowback from the rest of us. My best guess is that God is unimpressed. I certainly am.
First of all I’m a Christian and the Cross has become to me the most beautiful reality in my life.Far from Barbaric and primitive but the greatest act of Love the world could ever conceive.First I came to a very simple conclusion, that everything came from nothing is quite absurd.Therefore there must be a First cause to all things.Which made sense to me when a read the Bible.In the beginning God Created!A being that is infinite,omnipotent,omniscience could be the only cause of all that we see.When I see all of the evil in the world,I understand empirically that something is not right with man or natural that the Fall makes complete sense.That God himself would sacrifice his only Son for humanity is the most unselfish act anyone could do.So that he could reconcile his creation back to himself is beautiful.So the Cross is the greatest act of Love mankind could know ever. So that I can have a relationship with my creator now and forever.Hope you come to know the full meaning and implications of the Cross of Jesus The Christ in your life.Amen Amen
I fully agree with what you say. Thanks for putting it so clear.
Yes. Christ was the final sacrifice for Yahweh. No more blood sacrifice after Him. Amen.
The Rothschild’s do own the Federal Reserve.
It’s unfortunate that someone with so little understanding about Jesus and the faith of HIS disciples offers so much about it. Like you really missed the mark.
Right!? “Christ demands perfection” he says. Lol
There not that extreme. Your opening statement created strong judgments towards his view.
It sounds like that Evangelical church put some certain ideas into your head or perhaps you just misunderstand. (I don’t know much about the Evangelical Church except for that Dallas Jenkins guy who produces/directs ‘The Chosen’ is a member of that church, and a lot of them seem to convert to Judaism for some reason.)
Anyways, Jesus summoned those disciples who were perfectly imperfect so that he could show them the way… and he still is doing this today. I’d suggest you become a Catholic, read the gospels again, and let the “magic” work through the Eucharist and Holy Communion. Then, you can really dive into the great Mysteries of the Rosary…
You’re trying to open your mind to other ways of thought as perhaps the Evangelical church nailed it into you too hard. This is a good thing(For instance, learning about Judaism is what first really brought me to Christ.), but you must remember to open your mind all the way as to at least include the possibility of Christianity being the way, the truth, and the light. Most importantly, remember to open your heart as well as your mind.
Me: goes to find an article focused on epicurean ethics and how it interacted with Christianity to create monasteries and other concepts of friendship within the Christian religion.
This article: one-two paragraphs of comparing epicurean ethics to Christianity, then just a huge bash to Christianity as a whole.
Like dude, if you’re gonna talk about Epicurus, talk about Epicurus. You barely even mention those ethics throughout this post.
From my youth I had an awareness of the divine. In the eyes of a child, until that glass shattering moment of doubt, we accept absolutely in the “rightness” of our authorities…. So as I was taught in school of God, so I believed.
The first confrontation I had on my Spiritual journey, was being faced with my own lack of goodness. why was I being mocked by my peers, what is this word; “gay” that they chant at me in cruel tones? But as they chanted so I believed.
For I reflected on this word, I enquired what it meant. Having decided that I did indeed like boys, and since their tones where cruel, I must be this bad thing. Ah, I thought, what if other people’s views are not true! eureka.
Immediately I searched to see if God said this gay thing was bad, because I trusted his goodness and maybe after all they where wrong? They had to be, right? I can’t be bad, I’m good. Yet their it was, an “abomination” in clear letters.
Later in life I would connect the dots, that maybe if these children where wrong, maybe so to where the teachers who spoke about God? This il leave for another time.
The struggle in faith is this and this alone, if I am lacking and in need, do I believe God is able to help me? Or do I claim either that; firstly I need no help , or secondly perhaps I can help myself.
At first I blamed God, “how dare you make me gay, I don’t need your help because you must be evil, why else did you make me this way.” And so the first denial. Later when I was willing to accept maybe I had chosen to be gay not made, I would use the other form of denying God; “I am to corrupted and far gone, my evil is to strong for you God to overcome, go help them others but leave me, you can’t help me.”
So the first step of faith then is the denial of pride for heavenly aid. inevitably one faces the question, am I deserving of love? I am not inherently good so am I worthy? Well i came to love myself not because I sore in myself necessarily something lovable, but because God is love and loves the unlovable. Making perfect the corrupted.I
I couldn’t love my self knowing how imperfect I was, but I could love the perfect God. Yet when I sore all around me the imperfect others, my family and what not, I could now love them also for God, taking mercy on me, I too took mercy on them.
If anyone is reading this, do not hold to false ideas that God, who is all powerful can not help you. God makes perfect even you. The fight is not complex but simple, can you accept your need for help, can you trust God can help, do you want to be helped? Lastly, why does He help?
I had expected more from the article, at least the core values of the Epicurean philosophy and that of Christianity, and possibly their similarities and differences. I only read an attack on Christianity. Meanwhile, I have these few submissions:
The article lacks a scholarly framework to discuss the issues raised therein.
The issues of faith has never been accomplished on the altar of human reasoning. Any attempt made throughout history to understand the deity of God has been as limited and inadequate as man himself. Faith in God is one pathway which has provided me with answers to the recklessness of man in the sociological context we are found, under the watchful eye of a loving and caring God, whose heart is grieved by such recklessness but His arms are still wide open to love this reckless man. Truly, I have no better definition of love than the Cross of Christ; it says it all for me.
Finally, I have known, being a Christian, that the safest path I have ever known in my life journey is that path of willing obedience to God. Infact, nothing is as safe as that. I have never judged or measured my obedience with the human lens of pragmatism or conventional evidence. Rather, It has been a trek of faith in Him who so loves me that I am fully convinced He can not lead me astray. Man must learn, in humility, not to query God for concerns too high for him to understand, for no man has absolute knowledge of this world (science has shown that). God alone does; He is absolutely absolute.
I’d submit that unquestioning acceptance of climate “science” is in itself a form of religion, illustrated here by the pejorative term “science deniers”. The word “denier” has links to Holocaust denial. Anyone who questions the climate “science” is labelled a blasphemer and an idiot. Yet the terminology continues to change so it sounds ever more scary. Global warming gave way to climate change: now we have a “climate emergency” with imminent “ecological disaster” necessitating a swift decapitation of Western economies whilst China continues on its merry way. All nonsense, as typified by an advertisement in Tasmania where the building of dams is seen as very nasty while at the end a bloke drives through a landscape littered with bird-chipping windmills with a big grin on his stupid face.
For the record I worked in weather for 40 years and am an atheist. Working in weather has shown me how the criminals that are entrusted with weather data manipulate that data to suit their agendas. Plus, forecasters struggle to get the weather forecast for 48 hours hence right, yet tell us we’re doomed in 50-100 years.