"I will never stop reading children's books," really resonates with me. After 10 years in academia, I loved the freedom to read anything I wanted to, and now that I have a child in middle school, I find myself reading middle school fiction for the enjoyment of it.
Also, the "new atheist" Sam Harris agrees with the importance of "re-enchanting" and spirituality as a benefit for the human condition. He writes a lot about meditation and such. And Christopher Hitchens was an avid reader of the classics.
I'm an atheist, and I find all of the religions fascinating. The ancient religions in particular. I agree with "re-enchanting" being an important aspect of the human experience. But why restrict it to Christianity? Hinduism and Buddhism are far better at this. Taking Christianity as an authority, things like Harry Potter are treated heresy. Also, basic human love is demonized when it's between the same sex for example. When religion is not taken as just spirituality and for its enchanting qualities, it has the opposite effect. Religion can be appreciated without having to be taken as authoritative or even true. All the religions taken together paints a vivid story of humanity.
The problem with this view is that "Christianity" is not supposed to be a religion, whatever that word is supposed to mean. Jesus calls people to follow him and place their trust and hope in him because he has defeated death and will come back to be the King of the world. He will dispense with all powers and rulers and he wants people to be a part of that. We won't be living disembodied in "heaven" but bodily on a renewed earth.
I guess what could be proposed to you would be if indeed there is one true way and one true reality in the way the world is (despite people’s different perceptions of reality) then true re-enchantment would only occur deeply through that lens of life. Additionally, Buddhism and Hinduism as it has been re-packaged and cherry-picked within Western sensibilities may seem more “enchanting” but if you are discussing the perceived restrictiveness of Christianity, then it is only fair to acknowledge that they have their sense of perceived restrictiveness as well. Considering that Buddhism has the idea of renouncing attachment to all things/pleasures, I’d say that that is much more restrictive than the Christian tenants of engaging with the pleasures of the world through a lens of certain restraints but also wonder and acknowledgment of the intended beauty of what God created those attachments to be and to understand the purpose of re-attachment to it from a viewpoint of the intended state of how we as humans were initially meant to be attached to such pleasures… I don’t deny my bias, as I am Christian, however Christianity does seem more corrective than restrictive in comparison to Buddhism’s viewpoint of non-attachment…
Christianity treats Harry Potter like heresy? maybe by an incredibly small minority of American southern baptists; disingenuous to suggest that view broadly represented in the church, because it’s certainly not. Tolkien & CS Lewis were both prolific fantasy writers, the former practically creating the genre, and they were both devout Christians .
Because as a Jew. Our religions realize that true happiness is a byproduct, not the ultimate goal. Love is important. But I love many people I wouldn't marry. Marriage is supposed to be for more utilitarian purposes. Furthermore, the point of the Judaic and Christian sexual ethics is that you are a wholesome person. Modesty and a lack of hypersexualization in society will promote a society in which people focus on each other's personality and intelligence to a greater extent and objectivize people sexually to a lesser extent. Secular humanisms approach is whatever makes you happy. Ironically, the early communists believed that the class war would lead to a redemption of humanity and that we would find our true purposes within that setting. With the atrocities of communist regimes and their economic failure that became less feasible. Secular humanism can't really offer anything really fundamental on that front. So when judging Judaism and Christianity, you have to do it on their terms. The question should be why if we value with regard to physical forms of sexuality a (usually) monogamous relationship without adultery and chastity outside of marriage should we throw out the other traditional element which was between a man and a woman. The fact is that homosexual sexual relations weren't discussed in western society until such point as adultery, premarital sex and divorce were common. Those values came from the same Jewish and Christian traditions which bought the idea of intrinsic human values to life. Prior to Judaism, child sacrifice was common. In fact the Aztecs did it long afterwards. Marital rape was not a concept. Slaves fought in brutal mortal combat sports. The elderly were encouraged in many nordic societies to commit suicide. Rather the case should be made why it wouldn't undermine the orthodoxy of the whole rest of their messages if Judaism and Christianity were to allow for something as traditionally foreign to the sexual ethics of those faiths as sodomy. Secular humanism is nothing but an outgrowth that plagiarizes universal assumptions about humanity based on Judaism and Christianity without attributing them to their author (God). The abrahamitic response Judaism, Christianity and Islam should be that God created certain people with the challenge of attraction to the same sex. He gave us all challenges, some people are addicted to drugs and others alcohol. Sexual relations are holy however and therefore should only be done within a traditional marriage setting. We have compassion for people with challlenges and we have nothing against the fact that people will love who they love. But we don't change our views about how that love should be expressed in a sexual manner.
"I will never stop reading children's books," really resonates with me. After 10 years in academia, I loved the freedom to read anything I wanted to, and now that I have a child in middle school, I find myself reading middle school fiction for the enjoyment of it.
I just ordered the book. I'm eager to read it!
Also, the "new atheist" Sam Harris agrees with the importance of "re-enchanting" and spirituality as a benefit for the human condition. He writes a lot about meditation and such. And Christopher Hitchens was an avid reader of the classics.
I'm an atheist, and I find all of the religions fascinating. The ancient religions in particular. I agree with "re-enchanting" being an important aspect of the human experience. But why restrict it to Christianity? Hinduism and Buddhism are far better at this. Taking Christianity as an authority, things like Harry Potter are treated heresy. Also, basic human love is demonized when it's between the same sex for example. When religion is not taken as just spirituality and for its enchanting qualities, it has the opposite effect. Religion can be appreciated without having to be taken as authoritative or even true. All the religions taken together paints a vivid story of humanity.
The problem with this view is that "Christianity" is not supposed to be a religion, whatever that word is supposed to mean. Jesus calls people to follow him and place their trust and hope in him because he has defeated death and will come back to be the King of the world. He will dispense with all powers and rulers and he wants people to be a part of that. We won't be living disembodied in "heaven" but bodily on a renewed earth.
I guess what could be proposed to you would be if indeed there is one true way and one true reality in the way the world is (despite people’s different perceptions of reality) then true re-enchantment would only occur deeply through that lens of life.
Additionally, Buddhism and Hinduism as it has been re-packaged and cherry-picked within Western sensibilities may seem more “enchanting” but if you are discussing the perceived restrictiveness of Christianity, then it is only fair to acknowledge that they have their sense of perceived restrictiveness as well.
Considering that Buddhism has the idea of renouncing attachment to all things/pleasures, I’d say that that is much more restrictive than the Christian tenants of engaging with the pleasures of the world through a lens of certain restraints but also wonder and acknowledgment of the intended beauty of what God created those attachments to be and to understand the purpose of re-attachment to it from a viewpoint of the intended state of how we as humans were initially meant to be attached to such pleasures…
I don’t deny my bias, as I am Christian, however Christianity does seem more corrective than restrictive in comparison to Buddhism’s viewpoint of non-attachment…
Christianity treats Harry Potter like heresy? maybe by an incredibly small minority of American southern baptists; disingenuous to suggest that view broadly represented in the church, because it’s certainly not. Tolkien & CS Lewis were both prolific fantasy writers, the former practically creating the genre, and they were both devout Christians .
Because as a Jew. Our religions realize that true happiness is a byproduct, not the ultimate goal. Love is important. But I love many people I wouldn't marry. Marriage is supposed to be for more utilitarian purposes. Furthermore, the point of the Judaic and Christian sexual ethics is that you are a wholesome person. Modesty and a lack of hypersexualization in society will promote a society in which people focus on each other's personality and intelligence to a greater extent and objectivize people sexually to a lesser extent. Secular humanisms approach is whatever makes you happy. Ironically, the early communists believed that the class war would lead to a redemption of humanity and that we would find our true purposes within that setting. With the atrocities of communist regimes and their economic failure that became less feasible. Secular humanism can't really offer anything really fundamental on that front.
So when judging Judaism and Christianity, you have to do it on their terms. The question should be why if we value with regard to physical forms of sexuality a (usually) monogamous relationship without adultery and chastity outside of marriage should we throw out the other traditional element which was between a man and a woman. The fact is that homosexual sexual relations weren't discussed in western society until such point as adultery, premarital sex and divorce were common. Those values came from the same Jewish and Christian traditions which bought the idea of intrinsic human values to life. Prior to Judaism, child sacrifice was common. In fact the Aztecs did it long afterwards. Marital rape was not a concept. Slaves fought in brutal mortal combat sports. The elderly were encouraged in many nordic societies to commit suicide. Rather the case should be made why it wouldn't undermine the orthodoxy of the whole rest of their messages if Judaism and Christianity were to allow for something as traditionally foreign to the sexual ethics of those faiths as sodomy.
Secular humanism is nothing but an outgrowth that plagiarizes universal assumptions about humanity based on Judaism and Christianity without attributing them to their author (God).
The abrahamitic response Judaism, Christianity and Islam should be that God created certain people with the challenge of attraction to the same sex. He gave us all challenges, some people are addicted to drugs and others alcohol. Sexual relations are holy however and therefore should only be done within a traditional marriage setting. We have compassion for people with challlenges and we have nothing against the fact that people will love who they love. But we don't change our views about how that love should be expressed in a sexual manner.