Hobbes & Darwin Vs. Kant & St. Paul- the Christianity Debate

In the Philosophy "case" of Hobbes & Darwin Vs. Kant & St. Paul, it was conveyed at the Heidegger conference in Chicago that most thinkers in the Hobbes & Darwin camp believed that the Philosophy of Christian forgiveness is not functional at all in reality as an operative system, and could not be functional in reality as an operative system.

It was conveyed that these Philosophers think that without the enforcement of Law, Christ's Philosophy of forgiveness could not possibly function as a working system on it's own because the deterrent aspects of punishment would not be present to respond and curb the behavior of offenders, and thus would not allow repeated violation, but would encourage it and cause an increase in the violation of law.

They are opposed in this view by some Pauline Philosophers who contend that this position misses how the philosophy of forgiveness actually functions. These philosophers think that the real exposition of Christian forgiveness that is functional, that actually works, is centered in St. Paul's theological formulation of the combination/partition of "Law and Grace".

These Pauline Philosophers of Christian forgiveness contend that the Philosophy of individual forgiveness not only makes functional sense in a system where the enforcement aspects of law and justice are removed from the sphere of the individual's direct power, but that it makes the best sense. In such a system, these proponents contend that forgiveness not only functions, but is the best possible operating guideline and mechanism for the lives of the individual crime victim and his or her relatives, by removing the all-consuming, and prolonged focus by the victim on the vengeance/punishment aspects of retributive justice. In this view, it is the law that provides this opening for this functioning.

In this view forgiveness provides a functional mechanism that allows the victim to make the best use of their present and future in their lives, in their work, and in their time with loved ones. In the view of these Philosophers it makes no functional sense to be angry and remain angry when living under a system of the protection of law. It is in this sense that the law AND the grace of the power of forgiveness work together, hand in hand.

The Hobbes & Darwin retort to this was that the operative Philosophy of Christianity was thus not purely following the Christian dictums of "turning the other cheek" and "love your neighbor as thyself", and therefore was more accurately the religion of St. Paul than of Christ.

Christian theologians and leaders in the various Christian religions of course give a variety of different answers, some centering on "theology of the cross", others on theologies that describe different orders of logic in "logics of faith". Others would argue a wider view of their faith utilizing the entire text of the bible.

In this area of research I am not well versed, and I am not: a religious leader, a leader of any religion, a bible expert, an expert on the specifics of the various Christian theologies, or an expositor of any systematic theology.

My own sense of where I stand on the subject, consistent with the stance developed in the pieces on Natural Law and on Kant's construction of respect, would probably best be described simply as: "turn the other cheek, but first block the punches and stop the attack".

Addendum: Philosophy of Religion Response on Soundness of the Structure of Christianity as a Theology

From the standpoint of the Philosophy of Relgion, the problem isn't in the structure of forgiveness as an operative philosophy, per the contention of the Hobbes/Darwin Philosophers, seen within the context and age of the operation of Roman law, and within the context of modern law.

From the viewpoint of a modern day Philosopher of Religion, the problem is that the entire christology isn't ALL properly theological. The central message of the Gospels is primarily egocentric and based on the human hierarchy of subordination, and therefore NOT properly a theology of god, but a message of salvation through the church of the man.

"I am the way, truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through ME". John 14:6

For any modern day realistically rooted individual this language is MORE than just a little vain, and not at all about god. It is an announcement that: 1)a human individual, he himself, the person speaking, is Saviour, 2) that subordination to him- following him- is the path to spiritual Salvation after death, and that 3) there is no other path that achieves this.

Given that there's been no walking on water, multiplication of fishes or raising of the dead for 2000 years, a message of these words today from a tradesman or small businessman would be met with more than a little skepticism.

The problem of this passage for the structural integrity of Christianity as a theology should have been addressed publicly by Philosophers of religion after 'The Interpretation of Dreams' gained traction. Oddly, it has not not been. Most of the focus has been on the myth and superstitious aspects of religion.

***Obviously the espousal of violence, vengeance and hatred spread throughout the Koran makes it clearly false as a religious document. Paul Ricoeur and I were in agreement on this in a discussion on the subject in his seminar in 1990
. At that time he also voiced suspicions on the authenticity of editions of the Koran after 1949, but had no interest in addressing the subject in any of his writing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmoE8_U-JTw

&

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLgUuHl2xJo&feature=related