Christianity had many overhauls and I still believe that each christian has their very own personal Jesus, one that is generally universal but in detail, personally designed.
Instead of tracing the source to a passage, parable, etc., most seem to just run with what they think it means. My devout acquaintances have no problem in telling me exactly what Jesus thinks about things like gay marriage, politics, American justice…
The Religious Right seems to be only political, using a religion as a justification to their actions. I’ve always considered that Constantine and many political rulers (Pharaohs, Kings, Queens, Presidents…) are the true writers of religion. Kind of like, “We want our land, we want our own way of living, we will kill you if you disagree, and besides, god/Jesus/ backs us on this. It is written!”
Until we recognize that politics and religion are synonymous, freedom and progress will remain at a slow pace, surrendering at a halt.
I get a little annoyed when people seem to think that the peculiarities of American Christian traditions, which in most cases date back only a couple hundred years at the most, in fact compose some kind of historical orthodoxy. As if because everyone in that crappy little town in Kansas you grew up in believed something, and called themselves Christians, that they get to define a 2000 year old global tradition.
So, people assume that salvation by faith alone (or some sort of perverted version of that doctrine) is the “true” Christianity, or, that the Rapture is a core Christian belief, or that a literal reading of scripture is somehow the default and allegories are just modern rationalizations.
Christians argued extensively against Jewish traditions until maybe the middle of the 2nd Century (Read Barnabus, he’s funny) until they shifted their focus to Greeks and began to incorporate Christianity into the Greek philosophical framework.
As to the OP, I agree, and also would add that many of these issues have been made so poisoned today because of years of incitement by certain religious and political authorities. They are worried that if they admit fault for their side, they will be discredited, so, they shore up the defenses and get all crazy. Like American Stalinists before it just became to obvious (for most people) what the USSR was doing, or Catholic Bishops with the sex-abuse scandal, etc. etc. etc. There is a good motivation underneath it all, but it is clouded by madness and paranoia into something flat out wrong.
ETA: Ruminator, while I understand where you are coming from, I still feel that you are making an ahistorical judgement of early Christian beliefs. But maybe I’m wrong. What historians are you talking about? Also, have you read the works of Clement, Justin Martyr or any other early Christians? Do you feel they support your stance?
The problem is not misinterpretation of the religion, but in relying on religion in the first place. Religion is a lie from start to finish, and as such, it is unsuitable as the basis for any kind of argument on any kind of topic.
It’s not the importance of the crucifixion that I’m quibbling with, it’s the part I’ve underlined below:
There’s been long debate on that point and you can’t simply declare your side the winner of that debate. Feel free to believe as you wish, but don’t try to tell other Christians what their own tenets are.
Go back to the overview I cited and read the passages section. You’ll see that the works side of the debate has many points to it, even in the Gospels. My favorite is in the Sermon of the Mount: Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” How much more plainly to you want Jesus to say “faith alone is not sufficient”?
I don’t want to make this into a theological debate because there is no actual proof of any of this anyway, but I find the interpretation that Ruminator is arguing for particularly illogical (which, when dealing with religion, says a lot).
For it to be correct, one would have to accept the premise that God incarnate came down to earth and spent a bunch of time telling people about how they should live, but most of it didn’t really matter. If I was going to believe any of it, I’d certainly give primacy to what was said by the guy who was omnipotent, omniscient, and created the universe and everything in it - not what some dude who went blind for a day thought.
If those of us in the Christian right followed your presuppositions then there would be no police, no army, no courts, no taxation, in short no government. Christians know that what applies for people does not apply for governments and vice versa. Christianity is about man’s relationship to God, not his relationship to the state. According to the new testament, government is appointed by God to punish the guilty and reward the innocent. This is the purpose of government, and it is permissable for Christians to act as members of government in ways it would not be for individuals.
As a general rule, the idea that you know more about something than those who spend their lives doing it, is generally false.
In my understanding, this quote deals with Jesus (as a Jew) reaffirming the Old Testament laws. This seems to make sense since Gospel of Matthew is widely understood to be directed toward a Jewish audience. Does the “faith alone is not sufficient” actually go beyond the law of Moses and refer to the faith in Jesus’ own death? I suppose that is open to interpretation.
The condescending tone of your post aside; so when the government acts its ok for it to do things that Jesus said an individual shouldn’t, even though in a democratic-republic the government is really just an extension of the people? That makes zero sense. Besides, what about that whole “Render therefore to Cesar the things which are Cesar’s” thing, I thought that meant stay out of government?
I think he’s referring to faith in God rather than the Old Testament. In any case, I’m trying to convince you that both sides of “faith vs works” have merit, no matter which side any individual chooses.
“Render unto Ceasar” means it is ok to pay taxes, and fulfill other duties as citizens.
The government does not have a soul, so it is not a person and is therefore treated differently than a person. Government is not an extension of the people.
I follow your logic and I agree with it but I’m just reporting how Christianity is defined.
Ok everyone, let’s look at the following 2 statements. Explain to me which of them is more accurate:
[ul]
[li]There are 2 billion Christians in the world. Jesus said to “sell all your possessions.” Since most people did not adhere to that, there are 1.9999 billion frauds who call themselves “Christians.”[/li]
[li]There are 2 billion Christians in the world. These 2 billion Christians believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins.[/li][/ul]
You can insert any other Jesus parable besides “sell all your possessions” above in the first bullet point. I still think the 2nd statement more accurately defines “Christianity.” Please explain why it doesn’t without getting into specifics of any hyphenated-Christian beliefs.
Therefore, if “sell all your possessions” can’t be a common basis of behavior for 2 billion Christians, what’s the next Jesus saying or parable that would be a candidate for all those Christians? Or do we water down the “sell all your possessions” by making sure we drop off our unwanted toys at the local Goodwill instead of dumping them in the trash? If “works” are truly a defining feature of Christianity, how do we interpret it so that we don’t inadvertently create a statement saying there are 2 billion Christian hypocrites?
To your point MichaelQReilly, I believe you’re asking the question with a prior understanding that “good works” is an integral part of Christianity. I guess read too much into your OP and tried to provide a generic answer for 2 billion Christians. My angle is to emphasize the lowest common denominator for all Christians and therefore provide a more general reason for actions that might look like hypocrisy but actually are not.
I guess you meant to restrict your “religous right” to folks in the USA? A lot of the “religious right” are Protestants, so “faith alone” seems like plausible justification for not “missing the point of their religion.” They know what the point is – it is Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
Candidate x says in his platform that if elected he plans on murdering every person with brown eyes. He is elected by a majority of the population, many who are Christians. He subsequently carries through on his promise and murders everyone with brown eyes.
Using your construction of Christianity, every Christian who voted for the guy can wash their hands of any and all responsibility for the murders because it was the government that did it and not them. I’m sure you would agree with me that such a premise is absurd. Hence, in any modern western country, the government is, in fact, an extension of the people and it is therefore fair to ask why Christians would support the government doing things that go against Christ’s teaching.
That aside, none of the teachings that I cited in my OP, which you claim shouldn’t be applied to government and would render government impractical, provide any bar to successful government anyway.
Refers to moral judgment, we can (and have) craft a penal system which punishes people because they are dangerous, not because we find moral fault with them.
See #1
No bar to governance here. In fact, seems to be a good argument for government treating people justly, even if live their life in ways you disapprove of.
A little more problematic, but then again the Quakers participate in government and manage to remain pacifists.
Firstly, the Kosher laws were nixed because of a vision that St. Peter had. [Acts ch. 10]
More to the point, while I’d agree with some of your post’s spirit, it has to be acknowledge that religious conservatives in America do a great deal of good both at home and around the world. There are a great number of food banks, clinics, schools, shelters, and other good causes that only exist because of them. Further, they’ve done a substantial amount in defense of human rights as well. For example, you might look into all of the churches and missions that were established to help the people of Guatemala during the lengthy civil war there, and the groups that provide financing and assistance for Bishop Juan Gerardi Conedera during his struggle to expose the crimes of the right-wing government. Or similarly many groups provided medical care and legal help to the people of El Salvador during the 80’s and resist the right-wing death squads. Or in Honduras, where Christian groups attached to several major churches have played a vital role in fighting for workers’ rights and environmental protection.
I think what MQR is saying, ITR, is within the US and within politics. For instance, now we have an open seat on the Supreme Court. Many christians support the Religious Right (politics) and they would like someone who supports the Religious Right and their agenda on the Court. Or the gay marriage issue, or torture, etc.
I will point out that the charitable organizations you mention, although worthy of human praise, are liberal and not part of the conservative religious right. I don’t hear opinions from religious groups giving food to the starving harping about abortion and gay marriage and the whatnot.
Okay, I have to comment on this because this misinterpretation really bothers me.
[quote=“MichaelQReilly, post:1, topic:495296”]
[li]Judge not, lest ye be judged.[/li][/quote]
This has a completely different meaning when taken fully in context, let’s look at Matthew 7:1-6:
To me, that doesn’t mean don’t make judgments, it looks to me like it’s saying that whatever standards you use to judge others, you will be judged by the same standards. It also basically says “don’t be a hypocrite”. Who am I to condemn my brothers for a sin when I am guilty as well?
It doesn’t mean I shouldn’t make judgments, but that I will be held to those same standards. To that extent, I can agree that it isn’t held by many Christians with, for instance, the whole issue over homosexuality. That is, if you believe it to be a sin, fine, whatever, but to judge them as necessarily immoral and damned for a single sin, then I am being a hypocrite.
[quote]
[li]Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.[/li][/quote]
This one bothers me as well because it is also often taken out of context. John 8:1-12:
That is, it isn’t exactly a commandment, it’s part of a parable. The Pharisees were trying to put him in a “gotcha” scenario. Had Jesus condemned the woman, they would have berated him for not being merciful and forgiving like he had taught. If Jesus had forgiven her, they would have berated him for not upholding the law.
That is, it seems to me to have much the same lesson as the previous example. All of these people were so eager to condemn her for a sin and yet they were all sinners themselves.
[quote]
[li]Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me.[/li][li]If your enemy strikes your cheek, turn the other cheek and let him strike that one too.[/li][li]Love your neighbor as yourself.[/li][/quote]
The rest of these I do agree with just fine.
Anyway, to address the point brought up in your OP, as a couple others touched on, I think you’re going a bit extreme here for two reasons. First, not all religious right-wingers miss these points, you’re seeing a few loud ones who miss them, I really have no idea what percentage of people actually hold a lot of those positions for those reasons.
Second, also as someone else said, those aren’t exactly the “whole point” of Christianity. Yes, they’re not exactly a small part either, but the “whole point” of Christianity is that Jesus died for our sins. So, I don’t think they’re missing the whole point, perhaps they’re missing some important lessons and perhaps sinning as a result.
I have heard your reasoning for the nixing of the kosher laws from some people. I have also heard MichaelQReilly’s explanation, where they say that the visions that Peter said were not a nixing of the food laws at all. Of course, I’m not exactly a biblical scholar, nor do I know exactly what denominations believe what, so it’s basically just anecdotal, but I just wanted it to be out there that there isn’t “one reason” why the kosher laws are no longer followed by most Christians.
Personally, my interpretation isn’t in line with either of those more common ones, but that’s neither here nor there.
Arguably, the churches provided a conduit and structure for good people to do good works. That’s about all you can really claim. What evidence is there that this goodness is directly related to the belief system of the religious conservatives?
Our local Episcopal cathedral is an oasis congregation, meaning it welcomes and supports GLBT members. Our gay friends got married there. They aren’t what you would call religious conservatives. Yet, the cathedral also runs a large soup kitchen. Similarly, there is a food outreach program locally that has no religious affiliation at all. The local ethical society, also not religious, does good works in the area of social justice.
All of these groups do good works. I don’t see anything you can point to that makes the belief system of religious conservatives particularly special, noteworthy, or praiseworthy with regard to the “fruits of the spirit.”
Thank you, Blaster Master, for your Post #37; those were bothering me a bit, too. And while we’re providing context for things Jesus said, here is the context for Ruminator’s “sell all your possessions”:
In other words, this was something that Jesus told a specific person in a specific situation to do. It is far from obvious how or whether Jesus intended them to apply universally to all of his followers. It’s almost, but not quite, as silly to say that all Christians are commanded to “fill jars with water” (John 2:7).
Regardless of what Christianity really “is,” it is a fact that some, at least, of the Religious Right that the OP talks about at least claim to take the teachings of Jesus seriously; that at least some of them consider Jesus to be their lord and master—but that some of the ways they act and the positions they support seem to be at odds with the apparently clear meaning of some of Jesus’s teachings.
If I was going to believe any of it, I’d certainly give primacy to what was said by the guy who was omnipotent, omniscient, and created the universe and everything in it - not what some dude who went blind for a day thought.