Not biblical? These two principles are the central ethical and moral teaching of Jesus Christ!
Certainly love of God and others is a Biblical concept, and certainly it is the primary tenet of the Bible. I get the sense, however, that certain Christian groups state that while love is necessary, it is not wholly sufficient. To provide a highly simplistic parallel, it’s like the foundation of a house – it is necessary to have a strong foundation (love) to have a house (relationship/communion with God), but a strong foundation does not an entire house make.
A serious question, Roger - which Christian tradition were you brought up in? Your version of the Christian teachings seems dramatically outside that of mainstream Protestantism, which I had previously assumed you were.
Clarification - it’s the way that “love-God-and-love-your-neighbour” is divorced from context (the rest of the Bible, let alone the rest of Matthew) and the way that “love” appears to be interpreted as meaning something other than what it really means (a choice to do the best for others and to obey God) that is I believe un-Biblical.
My own background: christened into Church of England at 6 weeks by non-churchgoing parents; became a Christian at 10 (evangelical Protestant group that ran summer camps for privileged kids!); was baptised (full body immersion) at 19 (because I believe this is God’s preference) - this was at a “charismatic” house church; at Oxford, went to St Aldate’s Church (evangelical Anglican - informed the pastor Michael Green that I had been baptised by full immersion); at 20 went briefly to a Baptist Church (at home) that had left the Baptist Union (I was encouraged to leave when I declined to sign a 10-point document that all members were required to sign - the precise sticking point was “I believe in the eternal security of the believer” - which I couldn’t sign as I don’t believe that); later member of a house church that was founded by folk from Youth With a Mission (YWAM), and later still permanent voluntary worker with St Stephen’s Society in Hong Kong, working with drug addicts. Both the church founded by the ex-YWAM folk and the church at St Stephen’s Society were non-denominational “charismatic” operations.
I am not currently a member of a congregation. I call myself Christian - non-denominational, if people press me. My belief in God has never wavered, and has become stronger through various difficulties, such as being sacked and taking my ex-boss to court. She settled out of court on the seventh day of a High Court trial rather than take the stand and face cross-examination. Had I lost the case, which I conducted myself, as everyone said I would, I would have faced costs of over 1 million US dollars. My faith sustained me and I never contemplated defeat. I am very grateful to God and much in his debt for many things.
You certainly seem to have an interesting “spiritual history” there! Congratulations on your court case too!
Could you explain how the “Two Commandments” are divorced from context? What does the context of the passage, or the gospels as a whole, say to contradict them, to lead you to believe that they suggest something other than love for God (and implicit obedience, I suppose) and love for your fellow man (and implicit charity, in the broad sense)?
I wish it were more stable. But then perhaps I wouldn’t be the champion of nutty causes that I am. I resolved early never to say anything I didn’t believe.
The only thing in my life I’m truly proud of. I had prepared over a million words of cross-examination based on the written witness statements of my former colleagues who sided against me. Though I never got to ask them a single question (apart from the weasles who indicated their decision not to testify under oath in court ahead of the trial and were promptly subpoenaed by me), the detailed preparation and the discipline of that monumantal undertaking was probably what got me the result I obtained. Only a warning from the lawyer who assisted me “out of court” that the Judge hated me, and would find against me no matter what stopped me from continuing with the trial and getting the vindication against their lies that I wanted so badly.
A quick answer, if I may. First, by saying “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets”, Jesus is validating or endorsing “the law” (the Ten Commandments", for example). Obedience is central to the Biblical ethos. Second, the Pharisees’ mates, the Saducees, had just asked Jesus a trick question about marriage (if a bloke is married seven times, who will be his wife in the resurrection?).
It was in the context of the Saducees referring to the commandment for an unmarried man to marry his brother’s widow and raise their kids that the Pharisees had their pop at Jesus, asking him “What commandment is great in the Law?” (which can be taken to mean great compared to the one about the sister-in-law.)
I don’t know, but one interpretation would be that Jesus was sick of all the pathetic questions and the attempt to rank order these legalistic ordinances and so he hit them with something that would show what wankers they were really being.
That’s not to underestimate the importance of these two commandments. They distil the essence of Judeo-Christianity. But Jesus didn’t say “That’s it, mate. That’s all you need.” He had more depth about him than that.
That’s how I see it.
Just a quick “stand up and be counted” here.
Baptist Union of Western Canada. Assist Edge (gr 5,6,&7) classes, also on coffee team. Churchgoer since '95, never miss it. Will have to miss it for eight weeks for work reasons. Highly ticked off. Taking Wednesday night classes.
Well, Roger, I seem to be coming from almost the same angle as you, and I’m arriving at quite a different conclusion. My reading of the passage:
Smart-arse scholars are bugging Jesus. One steps up to ask what the greatest / most important part of the law is. Jesus replies that it’s fairly simple really - “love God” and “love thy neighbour”, and that all religious law is based on these simple yet critical precepts.
Certainly, he’s not explicitly advising his audience to dispose of the old commandments and so forth, but he is certainly providing an overriding concept of what God wants of humanity, an ethical framework on which the law is supposed to rest. While this doesn’t explicitly demolish all the law that has come before it, it would mitigate against supposed laws that do not fit these precepts - the various unpleasant stonings, mutilations ordained in the more obscure parts of the Old Testament.
Compare it to a set of constitutional principles, later made more precise and explicit legislation and common law. For example, in the US Constitution, the 14 and 15th Amendments lay out principles of equal protection, and non-denial of rights based on race (I’m certainly simplifying here, I know), but these are more explicitly codified in Brown v Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act. In this way, God provides that we should love Him and love our neighbours, and we may draw explicit codification of these fundamental principles from the rest of the Bible and the works of religious legal scholars, from St Augustine on.
Atticus, I don’t see what different conclusion we’re reaching, nor how! I’m not very qualified to speak of the work of religious legal scholars - not having studied this in any depth - but I certainly have my reservations about Augustine.
Anyway, regarding Jesus, we seem to be in broad agreement about his divinity, his teachings and the example of his life.
I seem to hold the two commandments in much higher store than you, or I regard them in a different way, anyway. You posted earlier that:
I disagree with this in these ways:
- I believe that people will essentially be okay if they follow these two commandments. I think that’s what God’s wanting us to do.
- I believe the essence of this is certainly Biblical.
- I do not believe “love” is demonstrated only through obedience to God’s commands. Perhaps for the “Love God” commandment, this is implicit, but I don’t think it’s a helpful way to read the “Love thy neighbour” commandment.
I hope we are in broad agreement. In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I’m not really a Christian - I was baptised and confirmed in the church (C of E to be precise), but am not sufficiently convinced of the existence of God to call myself a Christian. I suppose that makes me a weak athiest - anyone out there know which category I fall into? However, I believe that whether or not Jesus was divine or even whether or not he actually existed, his teachings and the example of his life form an excellent system of ethics. So I guess that while I’m not really a Christian, I do believe in and attempt to follow Christian ethics / values.
It’s important to note that Jesus refers to the first commandment as the “first and great one”. (The second is referred to as “the second”.)
My essence comment is aimed at the idea (not expressed by you, but evoked by some others) that love is a feeling (think Woodstock, Summer of Love, etc.) rather than agape/charity - a decision to do the best for others, and a decision to obey and honour God.
Apologies for putting words in your mouth re “divinity” - I think I vaguely recall you talking about your situation, but only now that you have mentioned it is the memory triggered. My wife is in the same sort of position as you (and was incidentally when I married her). She’s a much better person than me. That’s why I defer to God regarding our destinies. I also think that some people do love God without knowing it. The way they treat other people might be taken to indicate this?
First to the OP-
Christian, of evangelical-charismatic inclination, bleeding-heart Right-winger here-
probably the most theologically-socially liberal in my local Assembly of God, still a far-righty by SDMB standards.
What’s up with my C’tian life-
on the second month teaching Single Adults class on The Purpose Driven Apocalypse (our life’s purpose in the five-covenant aspects of Revelation- Christ is KingPriest- He challenges us as His Church, charges us with His Commands, confirms us in His Communion Meal, and commissions us for His Kingdom) which still gets bogged down in discussion on the End Times (I gotta do better in keeping it on track!)
looked into starting a charismatic student outreach at the local college, but put it on hold as there appears to be enough student C’tian groups
getting ready for whatever our new worship/music pastor has planned for our Christmas program (I’m part of the drama team, NOT the music team L).
What’s up at Church-
two guys there took it on themselves to take a load of supplies to Haiti to help with the hurricane victims;
the women’s ministries is sending school supplies to Bangladesh mission schools;
a group went to Alaska to help build a church;
we just got a new worship/music pastor;
tomorrow night will be a dinner to raise funds for missionary literature;
Harvest Party for the community kids at Halloween (I like Halloween with all its spookiness, but alas, this is not gonna have that L);
the usual local needs stuff, especially as we head into Thanksgiving and Christmas (we usually do stuff through the Salvation Army, another downtown “Mission” church, and Prison Fellowship).
And now for the “Jesus is the Only Way” and “All you need is Love” hijacks-
I still find it amusing how vanilla & I can be Left v Right politically while Right v Left theologically. Though the theological difference isn’t as big as the political one.
Ted’s HopefulUniversalist position-
-
Jesus is indeed the Only Way to God. His blood sacrifice atones for our sins. His bodily resurrection opens Eternal Life. Entrusting ourselves to Him is essential for reconciliation as children of God. Those who in this life are truly enabled to trust Christ & who turn from Him will find themselves in a sorry state in the Afterlife.
-
That said, many live & die without ever being Divinely called/enabled to trust Christ. They will have their opportunity in the Afterlife (whether that be immediately after death or in the End-Time Resurrection).
-
Thus, God’s World will be full of people who live & die as non-C’tians in this life, who in the next life will recognize & delight in Jesus as their Lord & Savior. All the
Hebrew Bible saints are there. I wouldn’t be surprised to find Siddartha & the original Vedic teachers & the Greco-Roman ethical philosophers among them. Finding Mohammed would be a pleasant surprise. I’d be very surprised to find some of the professing C’tians behind the Crusades & Inquisitions there. -
Of those who are called by God to Christ & refuse Him, they are not guaranteed Afterlife opportunities, but I can’t say there will be none. They do run the risk however of hardening themselves so permanently against God/Christ that they will be unable to embrace/surrender to Them, thus consigning themselves to eternal repulsion by the Light of God’s Love & Justice. That experience is Gehenna Fire/the Lake of Fire. It may well be in God’s mercy that those there will be allowed to fade out of existence. It’s remotely possible that people will be unable to so harden themselves against God/Christ & that eventually, they will come to throw themselves upon God’s Grace.
And now to the Whatever Love Means issue-
To me, this is almost inseperable from the Q “Am I a C’tian if I like Jesus but reject the OT & Paul & Apostles?”, to which my answer is “Not in the original Biblical sense. Maybe in a remote cultural sense.” The Love commanded by Jesus in the Big Two is more fully explained in the context of the Hebrew & Apostolic revelations (also known as the Bible). A “love” for God & others & self that rejects the teachings of the Hebrew Prophets & the Apostles (including Paul) is not the Love commanded by Jesus.
Polycarp, I’m copying your post in its entirety and saving it for future reference. You’ve explained very nicely the “feeling” I’ve always had about the exclusive claims of Christianity, but could never elucidate. Thanks for giving me the words!
Then why did Jesus die?
His death was atonement for OUR sins.
Just being good ignores that.
If one wants to be saved, one must accept His death on our behalf, believing Him to be God Himself.
Did Jesus’ death atone for only the sins of his followers or did it atone for the sins of the world?
the world, but only if every one in the world accepts and believes it.
Its a free gift but we can and do reject it.
Of course it’s not “better.” Because it’s completely insincere, and shows a complete unwillingness to try and understand of what other followers of Christ are saying.
When I say that Christ is the way for me, but that othe religions are equally valid, that’s not just my being politically correct, or telling lies so as not to offend anyone. And if I were to say that Christ is the only way and what everyone else believes is wrong and living a lie, that’s not being courageous or sticking to my beliefs at the risk no matter who it offends; that would just be blind following without much thought.
If God wanted blind, unthinking subservience, He wouldn’t have given us free will and brains with the capacity for rational thought. If He wanted only worship, He would make Himself more visible. And if He wanted only those who subscribe to one particular denomination of Christianity to be saved, then He wouldn’t have created a world with so many different cultures, a world in which the majority of souls are doomed never to know Him because they’re simply not Christian.
Anyone who claims that my world view is simplistic or the path of least resistance or simply boils down to “Anything goes on earth, and we all go to heaven! Yaaay!” is going to have a lot to answer for. It has taken an awful lot of pain, an awful lot of questioning, an awful lot of faith, and an awful lot of thinking for me to get to the point where I am now, and damn anyone who suggests or implies that my way isn’t valid. And I have no reason to believe that my friends who live good, righteous, loving, and respectful lives, but have chosen other ways to arrive there, went through any less effort than I did to find out what works.
But there IS only one way.
Thats not blind subserviance.
No, but remember-not everyone shares your beliefs, so naturally they will disagree.
And I firmly feel that people do NOT choose their beliefs. I can’t change mine, they’re just…what I believe.
Can you prove that? Can you show that Christianity is the only one, TRUE religion? That’s what I asked you before and you completely missed the point. (I assume that’s what you’re saying here, as a paraphrase of the famous quote attributed to Jesus that thru him is the only way to the God)
If that’s what you believe, then fine, no argument from me. But when you loudly proclaim it and expect the rest of us to believe it, then I call "bullshit* and demand a proof. By proof I mean some argument or evidence that does not rely on circular references to the authority of the Bible.
If you can’t, then please don’t look offended when I snicker and compare you to the type of people who loudly proclaim that white elephants with pink polka-dots dance the the fox-trot on some distant planet in the Andromeda galaxy and if I don’t believe in them (the white elephants), I’m going to go suffer eternal punishment for my disbelief.