relda wrote: Ironically, Niebuhr once said that only two ‘Christians’ lived in Detroit, and they were both Jews - he meant that Jews seemed to have developed a superior capacity for what he called 'civic virtue' than most Christians – probably because of their long experience as a minority in a Christian world, and partly because of Judaism itself, with its unique" Hebraic-prophetic passion for social justice."

Dear relda,

I regard the above as an example of Christian triumphalism. It would have been better, as far as I am concerned, if Niebuhr had said there are two good people in Detroit, and they are Jews. To say, if a Jew is a good person, he or she is really a Christian I regard as an insult. I would not say that a good person who is a Christian is really a Jew. That would imply that a good person who is a Christian would really be observing a non-Christian ethic and couldn't be a real Christian.

A Christian can be a good person, and a Jew can be a good person. They can be good people on their own terms.

Dear relda,

I would amplify my previous post. I find the locution, "That's a Christian act." meaning that's a good act offensive. It implies that everything a Christian does motivated by the Christian religion is good. Crusades and other slaughters have been motivated by Christianity. They were Christian acts.

I apply the same standard to Jews. It is a Jewish act to dispossess Palestinians of their land since some Jews believe that God is a real estate dealer. It is also a Jewish act to be charitable as that is also in our heritage.

It is said: Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. For good people to do bad things takes religion.

Dear David, it's rather like the relationship between the words 'human' and 'humane' isn't it.
Totally undeserved self adulation.

Relda,

So, you admire Tillich's approach to Christianity, rather than actually believing in the teachings of Christainity or the divinity of Jesus? You have time for the Tillich intellectual excerise presented by Tillich, without believing in the Christian God in fact.

Acccording to Mack, the institutionalisation of the Christian Cult at Nicaea allowed for upward social mobility previously unavailable to Christians. Earlier, the faith tended to spread through women, as for men, belief would have been a social liability. Men came to the faith via through their mothers, as Constantinian tradition alludes.

Scholars would agree that secularism became manifest with the Enlightenment and the Great Divergence, yet said manifestiation goes back to eleventh century liberalism and the desire of surfs to break from the yoke of Church and State under Feudalism. Perhaps, the transition process is not complete.Herein, we still have Constitutional Monarchs and, Churches still have many extra ordinary societal and economic privileges.

>> Western secular humanism ... came to grief in the debacle of Western civilization in the world wars ...

does anybody know what the hell this means? hitler and stalin someone prove that it's not a good idea to be nice to each other? or that we can't be nice to each other without making stuff up? or that the existence of genocidal monsters means we have to pretend morality is god-given? honestly, i have no clue what this is meant to mean.

Oliver,
With our many exchanges here, I find it rather surprising you make the assumptions you do, and appear to trek over old ground. You are undoubtedly aware of the numerous exchanges I’ve had with George, and david f etc., including those with Sells.

Tillich aside for a moment, I’ve mentioned in conversation with you the ‘quality’ of one’s belief: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8985#143480. We’ve spoken of the “so-called inequality within the godhead” : http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7190#111449. Our past conversations have included Karen Armstrong (someone whom I gather you admire): http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8985#144125. I could go on – perhaps you should revisit these exchanges, understanding also Michael Polanyi's concept of ‘tacit knowledge’.

Dear david f,
The idea of ‘Christian triumphalism’ is well indicated by a German Christian newsletter regarding the state (Nazi) policy of genocide: "There is no other solution to the Jewish problem than this: that one day the whole world will rise up and decide either for or against Judaism and will keep on struggling with each other until the world is totally Judaized or completely purged of Judaism. We can say with an honest, pure conscience that we did not want this war and did not start this war..” Today, those with a total antithesis to this approach would obviously include not only Niebuhr but countless others also. However, there is a logic, as expressed here, that perhaps a minority of Christian Fundamentalists today might embarrassingly, if not reluctantly acquiesce to, when pushed.

Reinhold Niebuhr was the only significant voice in American Christianity, including Catholics as well as Protestants, who wrote editorials and who preached and said again and again that the assault on the Jews was a very direct and serious challenge to Christian faith as such, and not just another example of “inhumanity.” His stance placed him at odds with many - his critics say his theology reflects the loss of truthful Christian speech and, hence, of faithful Christian practice. I might add, “How ironic.”