Thanks for the background. I knew, of course, that there was a background to the quotes I picked out, but I left the context out in the interest of brevity.
But you could apply this logic to all of Jesus’ words in the Gospels since he’s always talking to other characters within the text. All of his words are embedded inside story narratives.
The Sermon on the Mount? He wasn’t speaking to the 2 billion Christians living today in the year 2009! He was actually speaking to those folks sitting there on a hill in the Middle East — what does that have to do with us here in North America!!! What does that ancient sermon for an audience of Roman citizens have to do with USA citizens today!!!
When you try to apply some type of systematic textual categorization as you’ve done, it just adds fuel to the fire that Christians cherry-pick whatever parables & sayings align conveniently with their situation.
The only belief that comes closest to universal acceptance among Christians is the belief in Christ’s resurrection. Any subgroup of Christians are certainly free to go beyond that and include Jesus’ teachings but if they advertise it, they are setting themselves up for accusations of hypocrisy. If they try to defend their “apparent” hypocrisy by textual analysis of the Gospels, they will be accused of cherry-picking.
That’s a good description.
To be fair, Jesus wasn’t completely against self-defense & he never condemned defense of others. I think he’d draw a distinction between accepting insult (“If a man strikes you on the cheek…”) & accepting mass slaughter. He was quite condemnatory of the unrighteous.
I think the issue is in what one sees as righteous & unrighteous. Many have a worldview which draws these lines in a particular way & then adds the legendary prophet to it. I see this on the both left & right, sometimes comically. The teachings of the “founding prophet” are less significant to the mind of some “religious conservatives” than the actual ethic of asceticism or cultural conservatism or property rights or whatever.
That seems to be going a bit too far the other way, in my eyes. Yes, there is a command to a particular person, but Jesus doesn’t then turn round and say “How hard it will be for that dude to get into heaven” - he widens his scope to “the rich” in general. I’d agree with you that it’s far from obvious how Jesus would intend that idea to apply, but it seems pretty clear that it should apply to others.
The OP makes the mistake of thinking that five phrases out of the NT define Christianity.
They are, certitainly, things Christians should do, but it’s like saying “evolution is about replication mistakes”, it is true, but much much more.
Hypocrisy is a giantic sin many of us Christians carry with us and we will be judged accordingly.
On what authority do you say this?
Some context here:
- Judge not, lest ye be judged.
- Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
This is about meeting the standards, and when you judge, to expected to meet the same standards.
- Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me.
This is indeed JC mandating charity and compassion, something that is indeed sadly lacking in some religious conservative movements.
1-3 are not about relinquishing any sort of advocacy about religious core beliefs, however.
- If your enemy strikes your cheek, turn the other cheek and let him strike that one too.
If I recall correctly, this was actually a subversive act, forcing the offender to use his left hand on you.
- Love your neighbor as yourself.
This is one of those “Happy Volvo Jesus” bits that imply that Christianity is all smurfy and has no standards.
If you’re intellectually honest about Christianity, you’ll see that it’s an extension of Judaism, sharing much of the same core values and morals.
People recall selectively the bit about Jesus forgiving the much-married woman, she of the no-casting-stones bit, but remember that he told her to “sin no more…”
Christianity isn’t about a blank check for forgiving every bit of sin - it requires the embrace of the core Judaism bits, and otherwise it’s just “Super Happy Jesus is my Super Friend and Everything’s Cool with Jesus.”
One can certainly debate exactly which bits Jesus was keeping, but his remarks about fulfilling the law imply that not all of the old bets were off.
Having said that, it seems clear that modern Christianity is more about Paul or Peter than it is about Christ.
But the true Christ is somewhere between Judaism and Super Happy Volvo Jesus.
No authority. I’m not a priest.
However, if you can cite a respected theologian or priest that says that Jesus’ living ministry defines Christianity, I’d like to read it. If there’s a document that says the 5 examples of behavior cited by OP define Christianity, I’d like to see that. The OP is implying those 5 examples are the “whole point” of Christianity — not just a part of Christianity. He was saying if Christians live in contradiction of those 5 items, they miss the Whole Point.
I was taught that Jesus’ ministry on Earth was not and is not Christianity. My understanding of how 2 billion people on planet Earth practice “Christianity” seems to jive with this.
One of the key differences between Christianity and Judaism is its “faith” based belief. Judaism stresses following certain laws. Christianity stresses faith. This was one of those ideas that was a Big Stumbling Block for Jews.
Let’s ask another way: if someone believes that Jesus Christ died for his sins but is unaware of the 5 sayings mentioned by OP, is he still a Christian? What if he doesn’t remember any specific teaching by Jesus? What if he’s never read the Gospels? Still a Christian? Yes? No? What about all those illiterate Christians during the Middle Ages when they heard services given in Latin that they couldn’t even understand? Were they Christians?
I translate “whole point of their religion” to be “whole point of Christianity”. So, what exactly is the whole point of Christianity?
I’d have to see a cite on that.
Reminds me of the friend who told me that the whole camel through the eye of a needle thing was a reference to a narrow gate at the entrance to a city, and the gate was called “the needle,” and was somewhat difficult for a camel to pass through. So Jesus meant that the rich would just have to watch their Ps and Qs. That one didn’t check out.
So much for the “not” part of “judge not.”
You’d think Jesus could have preached it all in clearer English. Sheesh.
Advice to an individual is different from advice to a crowd of people. I see it differently and it would not matter who was speaking. That is more logical to me whether it is a lawyer, a doctor, a mechanic or a carpenter.
I think what we have in common with those Middle Easterners from 2,000 years ago is much greater than our differences. And I think that’s true from culture to culture today.
I don’t think that the Christians I know mind all that much what others say about cherry-picking. We realize that others may not understand how the Bible was put together by fellow human beings – many of them. Yes, I look for the best fruit on the tree.
I don’t think that Christianity is so simple as to be summed up in a point. If “salvation” is the most important consideration, then John 3:16 summarizes three or four points in very few words. But so much of value is beyond that.
Wishful thinking, or wishful dreaming. I’ll be sure to ask the beaten women covered in clothes from hair to toe while they give birth to 27 kids in a cave what we have in common. Or maybe we could ask all the gay Iranians-- whooops, I forgot there aren’t any. Okay, we can ask all the American businessmen who don’t get beheaded while trying to earn a living— whoooops, not too many of them either… Maybe all the working women-- whooops…
And a blatant, self-serving one that bears no resemblance at all to anything Jesus would be onside about.
Christianity is self-selecting. There are no standardised tests. You become a Christian by believing yourself to be one.
Any self-selected Christian is entirely capable of saying “I believe X, therefore X is Christian.” It’s not like anyone has to run all their ideas past the local church council to qualify as Christian. Most Christians simply consider whatever nonsense they happen to personally believe in is Christian because, well, they’re Christian. That’s how it works.
You can’t argue logic with people who don’t follow the rules of logic.
I doubt many Christians would agree with you on this. While it’s true that belief in Jesus as the son of God who died for our sins equals salvation, they do not believe you can do anything you want after that and it’s just fine. Most Christians believe they are supposed to practice forgiveness and charity as Jesus taught.
They also believe that being human they will still sin occasionally and when they do they can ask for forgiveness but that doesn’t translate into sinning doesn’t matter.
Incorrect.
True to an extent. I think Paul and others misinterpreted and misunderstood what Jesus taught and their interpretation became Christianity.
Incomplete and inaccurate.
They conflate the two concepts because both the death and resurrection of Jesus and his teachings while he was alive matter.
Most Christians would say Jesus taught us to behave in a certain way and probably acknowledge that they fail to follow all his teachings all the time but they continue to try.
To be honest, I’m really not clear on how letting your son die and then be resurrecting solves anything to do with our sins. And that’s after a completely Catholic upbringing including six years at a school run by priests.
It is difficult to reconcile beliefs with actions. I wondered how someone who claims to be pro life could support a president who lied to start a war. After the religious right got so much press another group formed to point out that there are other issues that are important besides gay marriage and abortion.
If a person believes being gay is a sin then they won’t support gay marriage because in their mind that equates to approving of a sin and saying it’s really okay.
I tend to think most Christians agree that the principles you mention should be practiced as much as possible. As** ITR** mentioned , the same groups that campaign against gay marriage and abortion also do a lot of charitable work and help a lot of needy people. The principles that Jesus taught are the ideals we are to strive for, or be led into by the Holy Spirit. Lot’s of Christians would tell you that’s an ongoing process, or a lifetime’s work. What I think has developed among many Christians is an acceptance of “we’re only human so we can’t really live up to those things” which translates into an excuse or justification for bad behaviors and attitudes.
While I think **Ruminator ** has grossly overstated the position there is an element of truth in his point. I think the focus is . in many cases, belief in Jesus as Saviour, and the teachings you mention are secondary. So, it’s okay if you’re not perfect and occasionally don’t follow Jesus example of love and compassion. As long as you believe in Jesus your sins are forgiven. At least you’re saved and you’re still trying.
Other than that I think it’s a matter of personalities. Some people have a need to be right and to know what the rules are, where the lines are clearly drawn. I think that shapes their religion as well.
There are a couple hundred branches of Christianity, it is a matter of how one interpets the Bible. Even people in the same church disagree on many things.
Religion is a personal thing and people tend to use what helps them to keep the beliefs they have, (or change them, such as Martin Luther did when reading Faith alone saves you).
Some believe the bread and wine are really the body and blood of Jesus, some symbolic. I believe that Jesus did not consider Himself as God any more than the early Jews fathers did, because of the psalmist saying" I say you are Gods, sons of the most high." The Bible was written by humans and is open to interpretations. Humans also decided what was of God and what was not.
Some use religion for good some for their own justification of their actions,just as some Muslims do. The Crusades are an example of that. Now the Religious right want to use their beliefs to force others to follow what they believe when no one is forcing them not to believe. I wonder if it is because they have doubts and need enforcement.
I have a good friend that is afraid that their religion is being taken away from her. No one can take my beliefs away unless I could believe differently.