*I do think that, in practice, the Christian worldview is that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell, even though I know this isn't theologically accurate.*
No, it's more or less theologically accurate, at least for Catholics and those Protestants who believe in free will. It's a very broad-strokes way of saying it, and it excludes the fact that none of us are good except insofar as God gives us the grace to be good, but it's more or less right.
Wrinkle is that we are all good (insofar as we are made in the image and likeness of God) and we are all bad (all of us do evil things and are stained by sin) but people who choose to co-operate with God's grace and live virtuously will go to heaven, and people who choose bad things will go to hell, unless they change their ways.
Specifically, Lutherans and Calvinists (but not Methodists) agree that justification is *sola fide*, by faith alone, so that in principle no particular holy behavior is necessary for salvation. That said, the saved generally behave in a holy manner in these sects--sanctification has holiness as an epiphenomenon, more or less. So it's still more or less true that good people go to heaven even for these guys, just that they don't agree that being good is what *causes* them to go to heaven.
“The contemporary Christian worldview involves original sin, which means there's no such thing as a good person, so if by 'good things' I mean 'Heaven', then actually your actions have nothing to do with it. What matters is Christ's intercession for you.” It sounds like you’ve gotten your information from a Protestant, which is not synonymous with a “contemporary Christian worldview” (because there is no single Christian worldview).
I come at this as someone raised evangelical who became Catholic in college and is now that rare breed of Catholic who believes that all humans and angels will be saved in the end (after long ages of purification, which might map onto Hindu reincarnation in some ways).
Yeah, this can be a tough one if you identify with the Mahabharata and/or something you call Hindu. It's easier for us Buddhists - there is some casteism in Indian Buddhism but a lot of criticism of caste too; it's not part of the system in the same way. Cool coincidence that you're reading Annihilation of Caste too - I'll be posting about it on Sunday.
Hey Naomi, I think your original comment about Christianity might actually have been off base in another way.
The Christian message is that Jesus took the death and punishment that we deserved so that we would receive his life and forgiveness. Since the message is that the best person ever suffered the worst possible fate so that bad people could be redeemed and receive the best possible fate, I think it's pretty much the *exact opposite* of "good things happen to good people".
I hope this doesn't come across harsh, and in fairness to you, a lot of Christians do act like the message is that good things happen to good people. It is true that living a wise life often leads to good outcomes. But if people are making a spiritual/cosmic statement that good things happen to good people without quickly clarifying what they mean, then they are probably butchering the actual teaching and life of Jesus. It's one of the main threats to genuine Christianity around the world (and sadly this warped version of Christianity is a huge export from the US overseas, especially to African countries).
Look, fair enough - it is quite similar to your revision. I guess it's just an extension of it to say not only does christianity not teach that good people get good things; it's actually in a sense a complete reversal of that (which I think is unique among world religions when properly spelled out).
I mean, Jesus died on the cross but then was literally bodily resurrected and raised to sit forever in glory at the right hand of the Father. "Worst possible fate" is not exactly an incontrovertible reading of this. And the fate of Jesus is, of course, and by the definition of the very religion, not one from which to generalize about the fate of Christians.
I tried to edit my last comment, but it's not letting me. It's worth noting that the original claim was "good things happen to good people", so the Christian story of God coming to earth and being rejected, tortured, abandoned, mocked and killed seems relevant.
It's a matter of Christian doctrine that Jesus suffered the wrath which was the destiny of every sinner. John Stott is good on this if you're interested.
And yes, I didn't generalise from Jesus to other Christians - I said the exact opposite. Jesus took on the sins of the world so that those who believe in him would gain the greatest possible future.
As a religious-but-obviously-queer Jew (I wear a septum ring and a kippah daily), I brush up against this regularly, esp. in regards to the obvious geopolitical question. I often ask myself why I don't just make it easier for myself -- pick queerness or Jewishness, but certainly not both, or at least not both so loudly.
I was reminded of the answer while reading your post. In my view, being religious is being part of a civilization-wide hi/story (to me a story is something very serious) which anyone may partake in, given that they're within the bounds of play. Abandoning a religion because it doesn't jive well with the Western hi/story of progress doesn't make it go away. Actually, all that's been accomplished is one less thoughtful person in the problematic paradigm, whose absence makes it a bit more full of unabashed extremists.
To me, being a religious person means intertwining my moral faculties with those of the long-dead, some of whom I find objectionable. But they would exist anyway. To turn my back on Judaism because of Herzl wouldn't erase his influence on my world, or even on my life. It would just make me less capable of recognizing that influence for what it is, and undoing it.
in: re: Hinduism without caste: I am unqualified to speculate, but let me just say that a Judaism without animal sacrifices would have seemed positively unthinkable when the Temples were standing -- and yet, here we are. :)
A couple of things on the idea that Simon L. and Tom are equally likely to be saved.
Not merit, but grace, is a particularly Protestant standpoint. Catholics at various times have emphasized or deemphasized the importance of merit, and someone like Erasmus could say that merit was only a tiny part of salvation—but it was nevertheless a part. “Earning” salvation through good works was part of what Martin Luther was reacting against. I’m not a modern-day Catholic, but I’d wager few modern-day Catholics would look at Simon and Tom and say: even odds. (Although of course they would not assert that either was saved, this being the sin of Presumption.)
Now I AM a modern-day Presbyterian, and here again, although Simon and Tom COULD be saved, Calvinists have long had the idea that good works are a sign or indication of salvation (or of being elect). You may be able to spot someone going to heaven just as you can spot what kind of fruit a tree will bear, long before the tree fruits.
Stowe goes on about this in some of her religious writings, and IIRC in The Minister’s Wooing (a novel I like much better than Uncle Tom’s Cabin).
There's a difference of emphasis, but from my standpoint, as a non-Christian, the Catholic and Protestant worldviews are more similar than different. Both believe the ability to do good ultimately flows from God, and that a person's desire to do good also is ultimately a gift from God. Catholics seem to add in some intermediate steps, where a person can freely choose whether or not to use that gift, and I know those steps make a lot of sense to them and are very theologically meaningful, but...I don't know...if you're not Christian at all, the distinction feels less important.
That's fair. I guess my point was just that both these Christian franchises (and presumably the others) have a workaround that lets them avoid the "no more or less likely to go to heaven" pickle.
An honest question from someone who knows very little about this topic: even if caste is the natural consequence of Hindu Dharma, is it a natural consequence that human societies would be able to recognize caste and implement a "just" caste system? Or that caste is inherited from parents (that's how it works right?)
Just like the Wollen thought experiment, and just like a type of "sinner's welcome" Catholicism (as a banner on a church near me reads) is there a "we do our best, but we can't know the divine structure of justice, we should treat everyone the same since it's unknowable?"
I assume I'm missing something here about why that line of thought doesn't work, this is not a particularly original point, I'm just curious about why the caste as a human reality is a necessary consequence, not just the idea of caste as such?
(Also this is a very secular society train of thought, so maybe that's part of the problem)
Yes, caste is inherited and intermarriage is sanctioned (barring a few special cases). A materialist would say the social system, which is based on a division of labor, came first, and the religious understanding merely justifies it
forgive me for any ignorance as i don’t have much knowledge of this subject, but wasn’t ambedkar’s answer to the issue of caste rejecting hinduism entirely in favor of buddhism? it’s also a dharmic religion and the orthodox forms are either anti-caste or at the very least ambivalent so there’s that similar appeal? maybe some of the classic works or even ambedkar’s work on the religion could help you resolve any uncertainties you have (either as just extra knowledge for knowledge’s sake or something that affects you).
I’m no theologian, but that sermon excerpt is not reflective of what I believe, or what I hear in church, or my personal experience of God. God does not abhor us, we are loved extravagantly.
Certainly nobody talks like this anymore, but you must admit he seems to have been...rather upset about sin given that he sent his only son to die in agony in recompense for it.
The caste system seems, to me, a way to formalize class. Americans use the term "middle class" for an extremely broad range of people. So we try not to formalize class at all. Formalized or not, it exists everywhere.
The important thing to me is that everyone can have dignity. And I think that's true. I've had homeless people who were bitter and angry ask me for money, but I've also had people who managed to ask while keeping their dignity.
It's a fairly common bourgeois view that everyone should be bourgeois. But it's totally unworkable. Better to remember that poverty is not a sin, and it's only a bad thing when it's involuntary. I think most people where I live would be happier with less money.
I think the American left is going through a very extreme, unproductive phase where we pretend everyone has the same potential and talent. It isn't true at all, I do think it's fair to say it's based on resentment, on slave morality. Resentment is fine as a phase, but people shouldn't be resentful their whole lives. And I don't think master morality is necessarily bad either, I think it's just the other side of the coin.
I always remind myself that people with less talent are not equal to people with more talent, but they are equally integral. You can't have genius without a lot of ordinary people who can recognize genius. You can't have great writers without a lot of readers, great or otherwise. To a very real extent, readers who deeply appreciate a writer are as necessary as the writer in bringing the book to fruition.
I was wondering if you were going to bring up Isabel Wilkerson's book "Caste" in this essay: I didn't read it, because I found the premise that one could draw parallels between the oppression of Black people in the U.S. and the history of caste in India insane, given that chattel slavery lasted ~250 years and Jim Crow another ~75, and caste has been around for thousands of years? I also didn't read it because I wished she'd written another book like "The Warmth of Other Suns," which is probably one of my favorite narrative nonfiction books ever.
I was pleased to see this post, Naomi. This is an issue that’s important to me, as I once mentioned in a comment on an earlier piece. I’m glad you have given the question more thought and reached the conclusions you have
Interesting read, I think belief in any religion comes with compromises and acceptance of caste may be the compromise you have to make to call yourself Hindu. When I read articles like this one I wonder why we need to have to have a big stick or big carrot after death. My belief (yes, unsolicited but I feel the need to share it) is that we are too obsessed with the afterlife and actually there is only life, death and time so regardless of how you lived your life there is no reward or punishment waiting , life is enough reward and punishment for anyone.
*I do think that, in practice, the Christian worldview is that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell, even though I know this isn't theologically accurate.*
No, it's more or less theologically accurate, at least for Catholics and those Protestants who believe in free will. It's a very broad-strokes way of saying it, and it excludes the fact that none of us are good except insofar as God gives us the grace to be good, but it's more or less right.
Wrinkle is that we are all good (insofar as we are made in the image and likeness of God) and we are all bad (all of us do evil things and are stained by sin) but people who choose to co-operate with God's grace and live virtuously will go to heaven, and people who choose bad things will go to hell, unless they change their ways.
Specifically, Lutherans and Calvinists (but not Methodists) agree that justification is *sola fide*, by faith alone, so that in principle no particular holy behavior is necessary for salvation. That said, the saved generally behave in a holy manner in these sects--sanctification has holiness as an epiphenomenon, more or less. So it's still more or less true that good people go to heaven even for these guys, just that they don't agree that being good is what *causes* them to go to heaven.
“The contemporary Christian worldview involves original sin, which means there's no such thing as a good person, so if by 'good things' I mean 'Heaven', then actually your actions have nothing to do with it. What matters is Christ's intercession for you.” It sounds like you’ve gotten your information from a Protestant, which is not synonymous with a “contemporary Christian worldview” (because there is no single Christian worldview).
I come at this as someone raised evangelical who became Catholic in college and is now that rare breed of Catholic who believes that all humans and angels will be saved in the end (after long ages of purification, which might map onto Hindu reincarnation in some ways).
Amos is great. Glad you’re enjoying his work.
Yeah, this can be a tough one if you identify with the Mahabharata and/or something you call Hindu. It's easier for us Buddhists - there is some casteism in Indian Buddhism but a lot of criticism of caste too; it's not part of the system in the same way. Cool coincidence that you're reading Annihilation of Caste too - I'll be posting about it on Sunday.
Buddhism does seem better. I'll have to learn more about it someday
There's a nice passage on caste in the Dhammapāda, which I pointed out on Love of All Wisdom in another context: https://loveofallwisdom.com/blog/2014/05/the-no-true-fish-fallacy/
Hey Naomi, I think your original comment about Christianity might actually have been off base in another way.
The Christian message is that Jesus took the death and punishment that we deserved so that we would receive his life and forgiveness. Since the message is that the best person ever suffered the worst possible fate so that bad people could be redeemed and receive the best possible fate, I think it's pretty much the *exact opposite* of "good things happen to good people".
I hope this doesn't come across harsh, and in fairness to you, a lot of Christians do act like the message is that good things happen to good people. It is true that living a wise life often leads to good outcomes. But if people are making a spiritual/cosmic statement that good things happen to good people without quickly clarifying what they mean, then they are probably butchering the actual teaching and life of Jesus. It's one of the main threats to genuine Christianity around the world (and sadly this warped version of Christianity is a huge export from the US overseas, especially to African countries).
Is that not exactly what my clarification in this post is about?
Look, fair enough - it is quite similar to your revision. I guess it's just an extension of it to say not only does christianity not teach that good people get good things; it's actually in a sense a complete reversal of that (which I think is unique among world religions when properly spelled out).
I mean, Jesus died on the cross but then was literally bodily resurrected and raised to sit forever in glory at the right hand of the Father. "Worst possible fate" is not exactly an incontrovertible reading of this. And the fate of Jesus is, of course, and by the definition of the very religion, not one from which to generalize about the fate of Christians.
I tried to edit my last comment, but it's not letting me. It's worth noting that the original claim was "good things happen to good people", so the Christian story of God coming to earth and being rejected, tortured, abandoned, mocked and killed seems relevant.
It's a matter of Christian doctrine that Jesus suffered the wrath which was the destiny of every sinner. John Stott is good on this if you're interested.
And yes, I didn't generalise from Jesus to other Christians - I said the exact opposite. Jesus took on the sins of the world so that those who believe in him would gain the greatest possible future.
As a religious-but-obviously-queer Jew (I wear a septum ring and a kippah daily), I brush up against this regularly, esp. in regards to the obvious geopolitical question. I often ask myself why I don't just make it easier for myself -- pick queerness or Jewishness, but certainly not both, or at least not both so loudly.
I was reminded of the answer while reading your post. In my view, being religious is being part of a civilization-wide hi/story (to me a story is something very serious) which anyone may partake in, given that they're within the bounds of play. Abandoning a religion because it doesn't jive well with the Western hi/story of progress doesn't make it go away. Actually, all that's been accomplished is one less thoughtful person in the problematic paradigm, whose absence makes it a bit more full of unabashed extremists.
To me, being a religious person means intertwining my moral faculties with those of the long-dead, some of whom I find objectionable. But they would exist anyway. To turn my back on Judaism because of Herzl wouldn't erase his influence on my world, or even on my life. It would just make me less capable of recognizing that influence for what it is, and undoing it.
in: re: Hinduism without caste: I am unqualified to speculate, but let me just say that a Judaism without animal sacrifices would have seemed positively unthinkable when the Temples were standing -- and yet, here we are. :)
A couple of things on the idea that Simon L. and Tom are equally likely to be saved.
Not merit, but grace, is a particularly Protestant standpoint. Catholics at various times have emphasized or deemphasized the importance of merit, and someone like Erasmus could say that merit was only a tiny part of salvation—but it was nevertheless a part. “Earning” salvation through good works was part of what Martin Luther was reacting against. I’m not a modern-day Catholic, but I’d wager few modern-day Catholics would look at Simon and Tom and say: even odds. (Although of course they would not assert that either was saved, this being the sin of Presumption.)
Now I AM a modern-day Presbyterian, and here again, although Simon and Tom COULD be saved, Calvinists have long had the idea that good works are a sign or indication of salvation (or of being elect). You may be able to spot someone going to heaven just as you can spot what kind of fruit a tree will bear, long before the tree fruits.
Stowe goes on about this in some of her religious writings, and IIRC in The Minister’s Wooing (a novel I like much better than Uncle Tom’s Cabin).
There's a difference of emphasis, but from my standpoint, as a non-Christian, the Catholic and Protestant worldviews are more similar than different. Both believe the ability to do good ultimately flows from God, and that a person's desire to do good also is ultimately a gift from God. Catholics seem to add in some intermediate steps, where a person can freely choose whether or not to use that gift, and I know those steps make a lot of sense to them and are very theologically meaningful, but...I don't know...if you're not Christian at all, the distinction feels less important.
That's fair. I guess my point was just that both these Christian franchises (and presumably the others) have a workaround that lets them avoid the "no more or less likely to go to heaven" pickle.
(Universalists excluded.)
An honest question from someone who knows very little about this topic: even if caste is the natural consequence of Hindu Dharma, is it a natural consequence that human societies would be able to recognize caste and implement a "just" caste system? Or that caste is inherited from parents (that's how it works right?)
Just like the Wollen thought experiment, and just like a type of "sinner's welcome" Catholicism (as a banner on a church near me reads) is there a "we do our best, but we can't know the divine structure of justice, we should treat everyone the same since it's unknowable?"
I assume I'm missing something here about why that line of thought doesn't work, this is not a particularly original point, I'm just curious about why the caste as a human reality is a necessary consequence, not just the idea of caste as such?
(Also this is a very secular society train of thought, so maybe that's part of the problem)
Yes, caste is inherited and intermarriage is sanctioned (barring a few special cases). A materialist would say the social system, which is based on a division of labor, came first, and the religious understanding merely justifies it
No you don’t actually
Your thoughts on theology are very interesting.
forgive me for any ignorance as i don’t have much knowledge of this subject, but wasn’t ambedkar’s answer to the issue of caste rejecting hinduism entirely in favor of buddhism? it’s also a dharmic religion and the orthodox forms are either anti-caste or at the very least ambivalent so there’s that similar appeal? maybe some of the classic works or even ambedkar’s work on the religion could help you resolve any uncertainties you have (either as just extra knowledge for knowledge’s sake or something that affects you).
I’m no theologian, but that sermon excerpt is not reflective of what I believe, or what I hear in church, or my personal experience of God. God does not abhor us, we are loved extravagantly.
Certainly nobody talks like this anymore, but you must admit he seems to have been...rather upset about sin given that he sent his only son to die in agony in recompense for it.
Not every Christian believes in substitutional penal atonement.
The caste system seems, to me, a way to formalize class. Americans use the term "middle class" for an extremely broad range of people. So we try not to formalize class at all. Formalized or not, it exists everywhere.
The important thing to me is that everyone can have dignity. And I think that's true. I've had homeless people who were bitter and angry ask me for money, but I've also had people who managed to ask while keeping their dignity.
It's a fairly common bourgeois view that everyone should be bourgeois. But it's totally unworkable. Better to remember that poverty is not a sin, and it's only a bad thing when it's involuntary. I think most people where I live would be happier with less money.
I think the American left is going through a very extreme, unproductive phase where we pretend everyone has the same potential and talent. It isn't true at all, I do think it's fair to say it's based on resentment, on slave morality. Resentment is fine as a phase, but people shouldn't be resentful their whole lives. And I don't think master morality is necessarily bad either, I think it's just the other side of the coin.
I always remind myself that people with less talent are not equal to people with more talent, but they are equally integral. You can't have genius without a lot of ordinary people who can recognize genius. You can't have great writers without a lot of readers, great or otherwise. To a very real extent, readers who deeply appreciate a writer are as necessary as the writer in bringing the book to fruition.
I was wondering if you were going to bring up Isabel Wilkerson's book "Caste" in this essay: I didn't read it, because I found the premise that one could draw parallels between the oppression of Black people in the U.S. and the history of caste in India insane, given that chattel slavery lasted ~250 years and Jim Crow another ~75, and caste has been around for thousands of years? I also didn't read it because I wished she'd written another book like "The Warmth of Other Suns," which is probably one of my favorite narrative nonfiction books ever.
I was pleased to see this post, Naomi. This is an issue that’s important to me, as I once mentioned in a comment on an earlier piece. I’m glad you have given the question more thought and reached the conclusions you have
Interesting read, I think belief in any religion comes with compromises and acceptance of caste may be the compromise you have to make to call yourself Hindu. When I read articles like this one I wonder why we need to have to have a big stick or big carrot after death. My belief (yes, unsolicited but I feel the need to share it) is that we are too obsessed with the afterlife and actually there is only life, death and time so regardless of how you lived your life there is no reward or punishment waiting , life is enough reward and punishment for anyone.