Concerning Christianity and Politics

[Lemur]

I find this essay (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html) outstanding, but I'm curious how it will be received by the Org:

Sunday, May 7, 2006
My Problem with Christianism
A believer spells out the difference between faith and a political agenda
By ANDREW SULLIVAN

Are you a Christian who doesn't feel represented by the religious right? I know the feeling. When the discourse about faith is dominated by political fundamentalists and social conservatives, many others begin to feel as if their religion has been taken away from them.

The number of Christians misrepresented by the Christian right is many. There are evangelical Protestants who believe strongly that Christianity should not get too close to the corrupting allure of government power. There are lay Catholics who, while personally devout, are socially liberal on issues like contraception, gay rights, women's equality and a multi-faith society. There are very orthodox believers who nonetheless respect the freedom and conscience of others as part of their core understanding of what being a Christian is. They have no problem living next to an atheist or a gay couple or a single mother or people whose views on the meaning of life are utterly alien to them--and respecting their neighbors' choices. That doesn't threaten their faith. Sometimes the contrast helps them understand their own faith better.

And there are those who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls. If God is ultimately unknowable, then how can we be so certain of what God's real position is on, say, the fate of Terri Schiavo? Or the morality of contraception? Or the role of women? Or the love of a gay couple? Also, faith for many of us is interwoven with doubt, a doubt that can strengthen faith and give it perspective and shadow. That doubt means having great humility in the face of God and an enormous reluctance to impose one's beliefs, through civil law, on anyone else.

I would say a clear majority of Christians in the U.S. fall into one or many of those camps. Yet the term "people of faith" has been co-opted almost entirely in our discourse by those who see Christianity as compatible with only one political party, the Republicans, and believe that their religious doctrines should determine public policy for everyone. "Sides are being chosen," Tom DeLay recently told his supporters, "and the future of man hangs in the balance! The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will." So Christ is a conservative Republican?

Rush Limbaugh recently called the Democrats the "party of death" because of many Democrats' view that some moral decisions, like the choice to have a first-trimester abortion, should be left to the individual, not the cops. Ann Coulter, with her usual subtlety, simply calls her political opponents "godless," the title of her new book. And the largely nonreligious media have taken the bait. The "Christian" vote has become shorthand in journalism for the Republican base.

What to do about it? The worst response, I think, would be to construct something called the religious left. Many of us who are Christians and not supportive of the religious right are not on the left either. In fact, we are opposed to any politicization of the Gospels by any party, Democratic or Republican, by partisan black churches or partisan white ones. "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus insisted. What part of that do we not understand?

So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.

That's what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn't. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. It's time the quiet majority of believers took it back.

[Xiahou]

There are lay Catholics who, while personally devout, are socially liberal on issues like contraception, gay rights, women's equality and a multi-faith society.That always cracks me up. Im sorry, but if you believe in contraception, gay marriage, abortion, ect.- you, by definition, are not a devout Catholic. A devout Catholic (again, by definition) would believe that abortion is akin to murder and that gay sex is and will always be immoral.

Now, I too have a problem with the amount of religious pandering going on in politics- it seems many politicians use religious views as cover, while doing nothing worthwhile. However, the fact remains that the Democratic base rests on things that many/most practicing Christians are fundamentally opposed to. As long as their activist base is able to determine so much of the party platform, people will continue to run to the arms of Republicans who at least talk a good game, even if they don't really do much.


That doubt means having great humility in the face of God and an enormous reluctance to impose one's beliefs, through civil law, on anyone else.Yet another common, fallacious, argument by the left. If you believe abortion is murder, standing by and doing nothing to stop it would be morally reprehensible- it has nothing to do with 'imposing your beliefs'. If it is, people that want to ban the death penalty had also better shutup right quick, because they have no right to impose their views on others. And while we're at it, lets throw in the anti-war crowd- stop imposing your morality on us hypocrites. :wink:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

its definately close to the mark, people need to remember that christianity is a religion of forgivness, that we should not judge and that we should love our neighbours, god doesn't hate sinners he hates sin.
there are some issues where religion may come in and i don't think we should ignore the fact that religion may affect someones politics but i think that christians are being assumed to all hold the same view on certain issues when they shouldn't be.

[Kommodus]

As a Christian, I agree with a large part of the author's sentiments. I do not want the Church to be intertwined with any political party. There is indeed a great variety of views among genuine Christ-followers, and it bothers me to see them all lumped together into the same political mish-mash. It bothers me even more to think that many unscrupulous politicians think nothing of exploiting people's faith for their own personal benefit, pretending to be devout but secretly doing unconscionable things.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to define what we mean when we accuse religion of becoming intertwined with politics. If we simply mean that people vote a certain way because of their faith, then I profoundly disagree. As Xihou said, to vote (or act in any way whatsoever) as a result of faith has nothing to do with imposing one's beliefs on others - it has everything to do with doing what one feels is right.

Environmentalists vote a certain way because they want sound environmental policies. Socialists vote a certain way because they want more socialist policies. Peace activists vote a certain way because they oppose war. So why should I be ridiculed for voting for a pro-life candidate because I oppose abortion (whatever my reasons)?

One of the great fallacies of Western culture is that we can and should "compartmentalize" our ideas. Everything faith-related gets placed in one box (and generally hidden under the bed), never to influence the remaining, "secular" parts of life. What, I ask you, is the point of that? It's one step away from dispensing with faith altogether. This division is artificial and even harmful. I am a whole person, not several unrelated fragments.

Now let me say that I do respect the views and rights of others, whether they agree or disagree with me. No one has the right to infringe upon the rights of others, no matter what their belief. However, (as an example) I am much more likely to vote for a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice one, because it's the right thing to do. The fact that this candidate happens to be more often Republican than Democrat is incidental and irrelevant. I won't butcher my conscience simply because my motivation is viewed by some as "politically incorrect."

[A.Saturnus]

That always cracks me up. Im sorry, but if you believe in contraception, gay marriage, abortion, ect.- you, by definition, are not a devout Catholic. A devout Catholic (again, by definition) would believe that abortion is akin to murder and that gay sex is and will always be immoral.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Please read the sentence that cracks you up again:
There are lay Catholics who, while personally devout, are socially liberal on issues like contraception, gay rights, women's equality and a multi-faith society.

The defintions of devout catholic certainly doesn't contradict this. Can a devout catholic accept a multi-faith society? If yes, than he or she can also accept contraception and gay rights. Of course, he or she will maintain that contraception and gay sex are sins (in the case of contraception not much longer btw, my old neighbour Ratzinger is going to allow it), but that doesn't mean he can't accept that people do these things. After all, he knows that he's a sinner too and unable to throw the first stone. The rights that you have in society are independent from what is a sin and what not, including - and maybe especially - to devout catholics. Jesus didn't talk about how society should look like, he said how you should live.

[Kralizec]

It all boils down to the disadvantages of a two party system. It's why you don't have a secularist libertarian party, and why you don't have a religious leftist (on mainly economic issues) party. The political spectrum is far to elaborate to be condensed in only two parties, and people will end up always chosing for what they view as "the lesser evil".

[doc_bean]

A devout Catholic (again, by definition) would believe that abortion is akin to murder

Where does it say so in the Bible, when did jesus talk about the unborn ? Or are you referring to devout as in believing everything the papacy decides ? Because then nobody would be devout...



and that gay sex is and will always be immoral.


So is getting a divorce, I know devout Catholics that got one. Lots of things are immoral, doesn't mean we have to forbid them completely, a certain level of immorality is tolerable. Accepting that is part of being Catholic imho.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think there is confusion between a devout Catholic who is tolerant of other faiths and homsexuals (which is good) and a 'devout Catholic' who is "socially liberal".

Liberals in the US are not libertarians, but (warning: incoming generalization) lefties who support gay marriage, abortion, etc.

As for the article, I must agree with the X-man. It appears to me to be written by a more liberal Christian who tries to use our inability to fully comprehend God as an excuse to weaken any moral guidelines. And while I would not Catholicism to be tied down to any one party, I do not think a party with one religion as its centerpoint is any worse than a party that does not use religious morals as a guideline, assuming they don't try to force people to go to thier church.

All the people wailing against religious parties need to remember that in politics, religion is just the source of the morals, the party platform. All parties have a platform based on what they believe, and the platform coming from religion does not make it inherently worse.

Crazed Rabbit

[Ser Clegane]

Where does it say so in the Bible, when did jesus talk about the unborn ? Or are you referring to devout as in believing everything the papacy decides ? Because then nobody would be devout...

Indeed ... I asked Navaros the same question a while ago - unfortunately he did not bother to answer.
The same goes BTW for contraception.

[Lemur]

One form of contraception is forbidden in the story of Onan. God doesn't like it when you interrupt the, uh, climactic moment. The Old Testament has nothing to say about the pill or condoms, however.

A question: A couple of people have asserted that religion is the foundation of morality. The implication being, naturally, that without religious systems, everyone would do what they like, and the world would look something like The Road Warrior, but with more sex and drugs.

Is it not possible that morality exists as a beneficial system with or without religion? In much the same way that the value of Pi doesn't change whether you're a Hindu or Mormon, doesn't "be decent to the people around you" exist as a universal truth whether or not it's backed up by the Divine?

I believe in the Judeo-Christian theology as our cultural heritage, but it's facile to declare that all morality flows from that tradition. If I've got the time, I'll see if I can find a link, but there have been studies that show moral systems developing in troops of chimps. Seems as though being decent to one another is a real survival characteristic for social animals like us.

[Kralizec]

Lemur: I take it that you are not a christian, in the sense that you believe in the divinity of christ, correct?

I agree with you that there is a small, yet fundamental core of morality that is present regardless of the faith of people. We're social beings, afterall.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Lemur - I've heard of the story of Onan, and I'd like to point out that there is another interpretation. God had commanded Onan to have a child with his wife or something and he decided to, ah, shy away - it wasn't the action so much as the disobedience. Sorry for OT.

About the article, yes, perhaps Christianity has been unfairly associated with the Republican party. But that is at least somewhat the Democrat's fault for supporting traditionally anti-religious stances and groups.

[Lemur]

Actually, I am a Christian. We've been over this before. One of the ironies of the debate in the backroom is that many of the folks who take the hardline about all morality being derived from the Bible are not practicing Christians. I think they take very un-humble views on the subject.

It's true, I don't believe in the literal divinity of Jesus. (Whose real name would have been Joshua -- so why do we always refer to him by the Greek translation of his name? I never understood that.) Nevertheless, I am a church-going Christian.

I guess the foundation of my belief is that God is unknowable. If you can concieve it, or understand it, by definition it isn't God. God is bigger than our little minds can comprehend. So for this lemur, humility is probably the most important virtue.

[Xiahou]

Where does it say so in the Bible, when did jesus talk about the unborn ? Or are you referring to devout as in believing everything the papacy decides ? Because then nobody would be devout...This is another fundamental misunderstanding repeated often in this thread. There is more to Catholicism than what's in the Bible. I think people must be getting Catholics confused with other sects.


So is getting a divorce, I know devout Catholics that got one. Lots of things are immoral, doesn't mean we have to forbid them completely, a certain level of immorality is tolerable. Accepting that is part of being Catholic imho.More apparent misunderstanding. Legal divorce is sometimes an unfortunate necessity- however, this does not terminate the Catholic marriage. Therefore they cannot remarry in the Catholic church unless they can prove grounds for an anullment.

So, if you know a Catholic that got divorced and remarried they are not "devout" since it clearly goes against Church teaching.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually, I am a Christian...

It's true, I don't believe in the literal divinity of Jesus. (Whose real name would have been Joshua -- so why do we always refer to him by the Greek translation of his name? I never understood that.) Nevertheless, I am a church-going Christian.

I guess the foundation of my belief is that God is unknowable. If you can concieve it, or understand it, by definition it isn't God. God is bigger than our little minds can comprehend. So for this lemur, humility is probably the most important virtue.

what makes you any more of a christian than a Muslim? they believe that jesus was a good teacher and a prophet. the belief that Jesus is divine is a central tenent of being called a christian. if you do not believe this then you believe in a man's message; a man that you have never met and whose story was written by people who had also never met him almost 2000 years ago.

i love watching people try to rationalize the irrational. ie: "I believe that jesus is god, but not that he walked on water or performed all of those miracles" or "i dont believe that jesus was god, but i do believe in god" - this makes sense. if you are going to disbelieve based on reason, disbelieve it all; dont just keep the parts that make you comfortable because you cant deal with the loneliness of reason.

[Ironside]

what makes you any more of a christian than a Muslim? they believe that jesus was a good teacher and a prophet. the belief that Jesus is divine is a central tenent of being called a christian. if you do not believe this then you believe in a man's message; a man that you have never met and whose story was written by people who had also never met him almost 2000 years ago.


A minor note, the exact form of the divinity of Jesus, has been up to quite a bit of armed discussion and the only reason that we have the trinity nowadays is that that side won.

[doc_bean]

This is another fundamental misunderstanding repeated often in this thread. There is more to Catholicism than what's in the Bible. I think people must be getting Catholics confused with other sects.

Of course, tradition is of equal importance to the Bible (unless that dogma has been revoked...), I did include a second part :

Or are you referring to devout as in believing everything the papacy decides ? Because then nobody would be devout...

The Pope and the church are our supposed moral and spiritual guides, but nobody follows their teachings to the letter and without question. They regulary change things too, and they tend to ignore some dogma's (the non-virgin Mary, for instance), every Catholic knows the church is not perfect and run by humans, not God. At least every Catholic I know has that much sense. It's the most common fundamental misunderstanding repeated often that Catholics are blind followers of the church.



More apparent misunderstanding. Legal divorce is sometimes an unfortunate necessity- however, this does not terminate the Catholic marriage. Therefore they cannot remarry in the Catholic church unless they can prove grounds for an annulment.

Like, if you're a celebrity ? :inquisitive: :dizzy2:

It's pretty common here for priest to 'bless' a second marriage. I know priests who've explicitly stated that divorced people can and should still go to communion. I've never known one that didn't give communion to a divorced person. Divorce is accepted as a necessary evil here by the Catholic Church. They don't like it, but they've accepted it is somethimes needed.


So, if you know a Catholic that got divorced and remarried they are not "devout" since it clearly goes against Church teaching.

Eh, you're insulting some of my family here...

While divorce goes against the teachings of the Church, forgiveness is also an important part of the Church. It is human to 'sin', that's why we (used to) have confessions. God is merciful, and so is his Church.

And just in case someone wants to point out that in order to repent from the 'sin' of divorce, you have to get back together: several sins have no turning back (say, murder), yet can also be forgiven and I'm not aware of the Church ever demanding a thief to give what was stolen back.

[Lemur]

what makes you any more of a christian than a Muslim?
Little things: I don't read the Koran, I don't pray five times daily toward Mecca, I have no intention of making the hajj, and I don't believe Mohammed was the final and greatest prophet. Quibbles, really.

As for the esact nature of Jesus, there has been debate for about 2000 years about it. Don't cast me out of my church just because I'm not buying the most popular current theology.

[Xiahou]

While divorce goes against the teachings of the Church, forgiveness is also an important part of the Church. It is human to 'sin', that's why we (used to) have confessions. God is merciful, and so is his Church.

And just in case someone wants to point out that in order to repent from the 'sin' of divorce, you have to get back together: several sins have no turning back (say, murder), yet can also be forgiven and I'm not aware of the Church ever demanding a thief to give what was stolen back.So wait, you're saying the people who actively go against the teachings of the Church are actually devout followers? Forgive me if I dont subscribe to that definition....maybe the author of the article might agree with you though.

You're muddying the waters about divorce. No one would say that a person who had a legal divorce should be denied communion. For example, if a woman leaves an abusive husband- no one is going to fault her. However, unless there are grounds for annulment she would still be married in the eyes of the Church- therefore, remarriage would not be condoned since her first marriage is still valid.

Someone can get married again, however, with an annulment. An annulment basically means that the marriage never took place (so its not a divorce), because one or both of the married couple was not able to make an informed decision when they made their vows. A theoretical example would be if a woman's husband was a rampant drug abuser and he somehow managed to hide that from her prior to their marriage- when she said "I do" she didn't know what she was agreeing to.


As for the esact nature of Jesus, there has been debate for about 2000 years about it. Don't cast me out of my church just because I'm not buying the most popular current theology.Ive gotta admit, Im a little confused by that one too. Why do you call yourself "Christian" when you don't believe the divinity of Christ? Surely whatever church you attend is based on that belief. Feel free to call yourself whatever you want, but the divinity of Christ has been pretty well settled in Christianity for at least the last 1000yrs.

[rotorgun]

I would say a clear majority of Christians in the U.S. fall into one or many of those camps. Yet the term "people of faith" has been co-opted almost entirely in our discourse by those who see Christianity as compatible with only one political party, the Republicans, and believe that their religious doctrines should determine public policy for everyone. "Sides are being chosen," Tom DeLay recently told his supporters, "and the future of man hangs in the balance! The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will." So Christ is a conservative Republican?

Amazing! As if Tom Delay should talk. Perhaps he might take a good long look in the mirror before he calls anyone else an enemy of virtue....but, then again, is lying a virtue for a polotician? I say "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) While I do not agree with all of the statements in the essay, the basic tenets ring true. For awhile, I felt as if I dare not reveal my political party affilliation in Sunday school during the last election. Indeed I was afraid that I might be run out on a rail for commiting the unpardonable sin of not worshipping George W. Bush and the Republican party.

I am definately in favor of the continued separation of church and state. "Render to God what is God's and to Ceaser what is Ceaser's" Jesus said to the Pharasees, another group of religous fanatics that were in favor of theocracy. :saint: ~:wacko:

[Don Corleone]

I think Lemur is making the point that Christian not only means worshiper of Christ, but also follower of Christ's teachings. In that sense of the defintion, he is of course correct. Personally, I have to disagree with him, but that's not what this thread is really about anyway.

I agree in the separation of Church and State in the sense that there should be no established religion. The problem I have with it is that the Left uses this principle to declare that only atheists and agnostics are allowed to have a place at the table in public policy debates, something I strenuously disagree with.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that "If you have any beliefs in the supernatural or divine, you are unfit to participate in our represetative Democracy", and nowhere in the Bible does it say "If you vote, you're no follower of Christ".

People say things such as "Well, you're opposed to abortion because of your religion, so your opposition isn't valid". First, there are pro-life atheists, but second, at the end of the day, ALL of my moral code comes from my belief in Christ. Does that mean that murder and theft should be allowable too? After all, how dare you lay your "Thou shalt not steal" on me. Keep your religious principles to yourself.

Okay, next round is "well, murder and theft are wrong in the non-religious sense". Says who? By what authority? I've never heard anyone posit a moral argument against theft without referencing some belief system (and a belief in the universal spirit of goodwill or goodwill among men are both belief systems). Why should these, which are equally unprovable, be any more valid?

The problem I have with 'separation of Church and state', is that when I hear it, it gets translated into my mind as "Leftist rant that Christians shouldn't be allowed to participlate in public policy", and frankly, I have plenty of evidence to back that assertion.

[Ser Clegane]

It's actually a bit tricky to differentiate between religeous and non-religeous moral beliefs of a person.

I have a hard time believing, Don, that your rejection of theft murder and abortion is exclusively based on your religion (I am aware that you did not want to imply this - I am just (ab)using you as an example ~:) ).
I guess it's save to say that with regard to murder and theft the basis of your views is probably very similar to that of an atheist.

Actually most moral components of religions probably rather reflect basic human moral standards than the other way around.

The problem a lot of people (including me) have, when moral believes based on religion creep into legislation, starts when the debate is not based anymore on discussing the benefits/harm for society but on divine infallability that basically suffocates any discourse (e.g., when Navaros would say "God said it should be that way - end of story, nothing more to discuss").
Of course this argumentation purely based on "the word of God" is a rather rare case, as most Christians (or members of other religions) also argue along the lines of benefits for society, so the "keep Christians out of politics" rant would indeed be over the top.

[Don Corleone]

Ser C, I think you are confusing the religious with the fundamentally relgious. The 'because it is so' mentality is not all that prevalent, even among us whacked out Christian folks. Most of us do not believe that Christ commands us to ignore common sense. That being said, if I deeply, truly, honestly believed that Christ was commanding me to steal something, yes, as a matter of fact, I would do it. I would SERIOUSLY investegate whether I might be suffering from some sort of mental illness, as that would not be congruent with other teachings of Christ that I already knew... there would be no consistency, but for the hypothetical situation where God commanded me to do something I felt morally opposed to, yes, I would do it.

Sideline, my original note wasn't very clear. I disagree with Lemur about whether or not Christ was divine, not his right to call himself a Christian based on the fact that he follows Christ's teachings even though he doesn't hold Christ's divinity.

What's more, Lemur, as Christ himself at various points claims divinity, he wasn't a 'good man'. He couldn't have been. He would have been a very bad man, misleading people to lead them astray, as a false messiah. Nothing particularly noble or honorable in misrepresenting yourself to be the fulfilment of somebody's deeply held religious convictions. Don't forget, the Jews believed the Messiah was going to restore the entire relationship between the nation of Israel and God... namely booting Rome out and restablishing their place as His most favored people. For Christ to claim that, falsely, makes him a charlatan. For Christ to have claimed that mistakenly makes him a fool, possibly mentally ill. None of this amounts to 'great, great man, but only a man'.

[Ser Clegane]

Ser C, I think you are confusing the religious with the fundamentally relgious. The 'because it is so' mentality is not all that prevalent, even among us whacked out Christian folks.

I agree - that's why

Of course this argumentation purely based on "the word of God" is a rather rare case, as most Christians (or members of other religions) also argue along the lines of benefits for society, so the "keep Christians out of politics" rant would indeed be over the top.


but for the hypothetical situation where God commanded me to do something I felt morally opposed to, yes, I would do it.
And that's exactly where some of us start to have problems with the effects of religion on public life - as, unfortunately, some people (currently not primarily Christians) go far beyond stealing based on this line of argument. :no:

[Don Corleone]

You did happen to note the whole concept of 'consistency with existing teachings' line I put in there, right? :book: We're talking about a hypothetical situation here. Let me ask you this... hypothetically speaking, let's say you had a time machine, but that your travels only lasted for 5 minutes, maximum. You travel back to 1928 and meet a young trouble maker by the name of Adolph. Knowing what he would wind up doing to millions of innocent people, and that he was actually already on that road, would you kill him? Now mind you, you only have 5 minutes. Would you kill him, for what he 'would do', to save the lives of millions, or would you just let him go, condeming those millions to death?

It is in THIS light that I consider the question of becoming a 'thief for God', as frankly, it's a nonsense question... He would never ask me to do such a thing.

The problem with religious fundamentalists is that they don't stop and ask themselves where this 'voice of God' is coming from. Scripture, in any form, can be tweaked, contorted and twisted to accomplish any aim. This is just based on the subjective nature of human understanding. I could, theoretically, use A Brief History of Time to claim that Stephen Hawking in fact DOES NOT believe in Black Holes. Clearly, to any objective reading, as he is postulating them, he does. I hope you see where I'm going and I'm not just on a 'need more coffee after lunch' ramble here. My point is, we must always question not the Will of God, but those who would present it to us. We must remember that at the end of the day, it will be us ourselves that will be called to task, by Him, for allowing ourselves to be misused, even if it was in His name. God gave us our senses and our ability to reason to use them, not to prove our obediance by ignoring them. In my mind, it is this fundamental divide that separates cults from faiths, regardless of how the rest of society classifies them.

[Don Corleone]

OOPS. Talking about being in love with the sound of your own voice... (double post).

[Byzantine Mercenary]

so lemur, what presisely do you believe jesus was, and why? (just wonderin)

[Byzantine Prince]

Jesus was a hippie, at a time when being a hippie was a VERY bad thing to be. :help:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Little things: I don't read the Koran, I don't pray five times daily toward Mecca, I have no intention of making the hajj, and I don't believe Mohammed was the final and greatest prophet. Quibbles, really.

As for the esact nature of Jesus, there has been debate for about 2000 years about it. Don't cast me out of my church just because I'm not buying the most popular current theology.


i should make myself clearer; what makes you more of a christian than a muslim is a christian?

[Lemur]

Tuff and Byz, are you really interested in my personal beliefs? Well, I'll make it quick as I possibly can, and I'll try not to be tedious.

Most of the common beliefs of Christianity as it is practiced today were codified at the Council of Nicea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea). Up until that date, Christianity flourished in many different forms, including the gnostics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm), the Arianists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) and many, many others. Over the course of the last seventeen hundred years, almost every form of Christianity that doesn't conform with the Nicene Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) has been eliminated. Ancient texts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_gospels) turn up from time to time, and we're learning daily about the pre-Nicene Christians.

Trust me, this is actually important if you want to understand where I'm coming from.

After copious reading, my hypotheses concerning Joshua ben Joseph (or as the Greeks would say, "Jesus") are as follows: (And please remember, these are just my best guesses. I'm not saying they are correct, or that anybody else on God's green earth needs to believe them.)


He was a real man, and not a fictional creation.
Large parts of the Gospels are historically accurate.
Jesus was believed to be a royal offspring by some of his contemporaries. (Technically, they believed he was a royal bastard.)
When Jesus rose to prominence, his people expected him to lead a political revolution, and felt both shocked and betrayed when he proposed to lead a spiritual revolution instead. (If you really want to get into why I believe this, I can give you a reading list. I'm not going to go into it here -- too much of the discussion is in books. Actual books. That I can't link to. And I'm both too lazy and too suspicious of whether or not anybody cares to type passages into the Org.)
Jesus' execution came as a culmination of both losing support from the Zealots who wanted a Son of David as a figurehead, and the notable bloody-mindedness of the governor, Pontius Pilate. (All of those reports about how Pilate didn't want to execute Jesus are most likely bunk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Pilate_according_to_early_secular_accounts). Check out Josephus or Philo of Alexandria for further details. The man was recalled to Rome from his governorship of Syria for being too brutal. Can you imagine how nasty a Roman provincial governor had to be to get nailed for brutality?)
Accounts of Jesus doing miracles are probably accurate. I'm not going to even try to explain what I mean by this.
Accounts of Jesus rising from the dead are probably bunk. Moreover, the entire "dying for our sins" theme has suspicious mirrorings of human sacrifice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice) and the scapegoat ritual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat). I suspect that the death-to-cleanse-the-community theme is pagan in both inspiration and intent.

A couple of final points. I believe in Almighty God. I believe that Jesus was a real person with an astonishing message that still hasn't really sunk in after two thousand years. I believe that if Jesus had not lived and preached, the Christian Church would not have needed to invent him, since Jesus is a very inconvenient person to a religious bureaucracy. He talked way too much about the poor, said some wildly counter-intuitive things, and encouraged people to disobey their religious leaders when those leaders were behaving hypocritically. And then he'd turn around and encourage people to pay their taxes on time. Jesus was far too complex to be comfortable for people who want order and obedience.

There, I've laid out factors more than you really wanted to know about my personal beliefs. And for what it's worth, my priest is fully aware of my oddball views, and hasn't thrown me out yet.

If I have to accept a label (and I'm not sure I do) I'm probably be a pre-Nicean Christian. There would have been plenty of people at or before 325 AD who would have known exactly where I'm coming from.

[edit]

Just to respond quickly to another point someone raised:


What's more, Lemur, as Christ himself at various points claims divinity, he wasn't a 'good man'. He couldn't have been. He would have been a very bad man, misleading people to lead them astray, as a false messiah.
Actually, it's not clear that Jesus claimed divinity. Don't make me break out my concordance to find the exact passages, but several times the "I am the son of God" is followed by "as are you all sons of God." And his discussion of his royal heritage, and "being on my father's business" has an alternative explanation, having to do with the sorts of situations temple women could get into with footloose royal sons. Philo of Alexandria believed that Jesus was literally royal, not spiritually, and his texts were written about a hundred years before the four Gospels.

References to Jesus' royal status are most abundant in the Gospel of Matthew. The statement "son of David" is used seven times in the Matthew (1:1, 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30, 21:9, 22:42). Only in Matthew does Jesus speak of "The throne of his glory" (19:28, 25:31). Matthew also spends a great deal of time trying to convince the Jewish people that Jesus was indeed the "King of the Jews" (27:29, 27:37).

[edit of the edit]

Apparently my oddball belief was not uncommon around the time of the founding of our nation. Avery Cardinal Dulles (bigwig Catholic theologian) wrote the following about Thomas Jefferson:

"In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day."

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Tuff and Byz, are you really interested in my personal beliefs? Well, I'll make it quick as I possibly can, and I'll try not to be tedious.

Most of the common beliefs of Christianity as it is practiced today were codified at the Council of Nicea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea). Up until that date, Christianity flourished in many different forms, including the gnostics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm), the Arianists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) and many, many others. Over the course of the last seventeen hundred years, almost every form of Christianity that doesn't conform with the Nicene Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) has been eliminated. Ancient texts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_gospels) turn up from time to time, and we're learning daily about the pre-Nicene Christians.

Trust me, this is actually important if you want to understand where I'm coming from.

After copious reading, my hypotheses concerning Joshua ben Joseph (or as the Greeks would say, "Jesus") are as follows: (And please remember, these are just my best guesses. I'm not saying they are correct, or that anybody else on God's green earth needs to believe them.)


He was a real man, and not a fictional creation.
Large parts of the Gospels are historically accurate.
Jesus was believed to be a royal offspring by some of his contemporaries. (Technically, they believed he was a royal bastard.)
When Jesus rose to prominence, his people expected him to lead a political revolution, and felt both shocked and betrayed when he proposed to lead a spiritual revolution instead. (If you really want to get into why I believe this, I can give you a reading list. I'm not going to go into it here -- too much of the discussion is in books. Actual books. That I can't link to. And I'm both too lazy and too suspicious of whether or not anybody cares to type passages into the Org.)
Jesus' execution came as a culmination of both losing support from the Zealots who wanted a Son of David as a figurehead, and the notable bloody-mindedness of the governor, Pontius Pilate. (All of those reports about how Pilate didn't want to execute Jesus are most likely bunk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Pilate_according_to_early_secular_accounts). Check out Josephus or Philo of Alexandria for further details. The man was recalled to Rome from his governorship of Syria for being too brutal. Can you imagine how nasty a Roman provincial governor had to be to get nailed for brutality?)
Accounts of Jesus doing miracles are probably accurate. I'm not going to even try to explain what I mean by this.
Accounts of Jesus rising from the dead are probably bunk. Moreover, the entire "dying for our sins" theme has suspicious mirrorings of human sacrifice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice) and the scapegoat ritual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat). I suspect that the death-to-cleanse-the-community theme is pagan in both inspiration and intent.

A couple of final points. I believe in Almighty God. I believe that Jesus was a real person with an astonishing message that still hasn't really sunk in after two thousand years. I believe that if Jesus had not lived and preached, the Christian Church would not have needed to invent him, since Jesus is a very inconvenient person to a religious bureaucracy. He talked way too much about the poor, said some wildly counter-intuitive things, and encouraged people to disobey their religious leaders when those leaders were behaving hypocritically. And then he'd turn around and encourage people to pay their taxes on time. Jesus was far too complex to be comfortable for people who want order and obedience.

There, I've laid out factors more than you really wanted to know about my personal beliefs. And for what it's worth, my priest is fully aware of my oddball views, and hasn't thrown me out yet.

If I have to accept a label (and I'm not sure I do) I'm probably be a pre-Nicean Christian. There would have been plenty of people at or before 325 AD who would have known exactly where I'm coming from.

[edit]

Just to respond quickly to another point someone raised:


Actually, it's not clear that Jesus claimed divinity. Don't make me break out my concordance to find the exact passages, but several times the "I am the son of God" is followed by "as are you all sons of God." And his discussion of his royal heritage, and "being on my father's business" has an alternative explanation, having to do with the sorts of situations temple women could get into with footloose royal sons. Philo of Alexandria believed that Jesus was literally royal, not spiritually, and his texts were written about a hundred years before the four Gospels.

References to Jesus' royal status are most abundant in the Gospel of Matthew. The statement "son of David" is used seven times in the Matthew (1:1, 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30, 21:9, 22:42). Only in Matthew does Jesus speak of "The throne of his glory" (19:28, 25:31). Matthew also spends a great deal of time trying to convince the Jewish people that Jesus was indeed the "King of the Jews" (27:29, 27:37).

[edit of the edit]

Apparently my oddball belief was not uncommon around the time of the founding of our nation. Avery Cardinal Dulles (bigwig Catholic theologian) wrote the following about Thomas Jefferson:

"In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day."

i was definately very interested, this is an area im very keen on looking into myself, one question though, what about the prophecys for a messiah? do you still believe that jesus was the messiah?

[Lemur]

Wow Byz, you really want the whole enchilada. Okay, Lemur's nutball theology, part deux.

For some reason people find the idea of the end of the world comforting. I don't know why, but it's true. So in every culture and every religion, you get these doomsday prophecies, and they turn up regular as clockwork. Maybe folks just don't like to concieve of the world going on without them. Or maybe it's that people get flummoxed by everything wrong in the world and want to blow it all up. Whatever the reason, it seems to this lemur that almost all of the apocalyptic and millennial prophecies come out of this tendency to wish the world would end.

The Jewish prophecies of a messiah are various and varied, and I don't pay them much mind. I do not believe the historical Jesus was the messiah in any meaningful sense of the word. This does not make what he had to say any less important.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

im always interested in the reasons behind peoples beliefs, surely the messiah wasn't meant to end the world was he?

i agree with what you say about people being attracted to the whole doomsday idea and try and avoid putting to much weight on that stuff (i personnally think revalation was proably an alegory for the fall of rome rather then about the true end of the world) but the whole idea of the messiah wasn't that more about bringing freedom to the jews again?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow Byz, you really want the whole enchilada. Okay, Lemur's nutball theology, part deux.

For some reason people find the idea of the end of the world comforting. I don't know why, but it's true. So in every culture and every religion, you get these doomsday prophecies, and they turn up regular as clockwork. Maybe folks just don't like to concieve of the world going on without them. Or maybe it's that people get flummoxed by everything wrong in the world and want to blow it all up. Whatever the reason, it seems to this lemur that almost all of the apocalyptic and millennial prophecies come out of this tendency to wish the world would end.

The Jewish prophecies of a messiah are various and varied, and I don't pay them much mind. I do not believe the historical Jesus was the messiah in any meaningful sense of the word. This does not make what he had to say any less important.


I understand what pre-Nicene Christianity was and i understand what most people believe about Thomas Jefferson's personal beliefs to have been. In addition, i find that MANY intelligent people who call themselves christian (at least on long island) believe very similar things to you. I disbelieve that Jesus was literal royalty in any way other than thousands of his contemporaries could have been and, on occasion, i disbelieve in his historical existence at all as related to the gospels.

If you simply view him as a good teacher and a man like we all are, what gives his message any more clout 2000 years later? similar messages had been around before him and his life, if not for his divine sacrifice, was inconsequential. He was not needed if the church was going to re-vamp the entire message later anyway. Perhaps the church decided that if Jesus was simply a man, his message would have died out much sooner. They put a muzzle on any heresy that attempted to declaw the tenacious faith.

My quips are with people who cling to religion because they have nothing else, but do not recognize that they have simply eroded the underpinnings of their own faith in god by their disbelief in Jesus' divinity. When you use logic to understand faith, the only place you can get is further from faith. Still, others do this and totally ignore certain parts that don't add up logically, retaining the shell of a comforting religion, but with the guts completely pulled out (ie: a belief in a god or the importance of royal succession while disbelieving the things that are obviously untrue, such as Jesus' divinity)

Others believe that the catholic church today is the embodiment of what Christ would want on earth. They believe that the Church, as you believe Jesus was simply a man, is an organization of men with divine guidance who interprets God's (and the divine Jesus) message and holds the faith together.

I have issues with this as well, but i do not view their message as any less logical than your own. They, at least, are a community who comes to diplomatic conclusions about faith while you believe entirely what you'd like to believe by reading books on your own without, from what i understand, any sort of "peer review" (i mean that your conclusions are individual and at odds with the beliefs of those around you)

[Byzantine Mercenary]

faith is not always illogical, now i keep my faith for many reasons only one of which is the bible, a lot of the reason is when god has worked right here right now, the sort of evidence that only i can truly understand as only i have experienced it (don't go and write it of as my illogical perceptions i can assure you it is not) christianity is the only faith that says all you need to do for forgivness is ask the sort of rule that you would expect from a loving god.

I know your probably going to say, ''but what about the old testament?'', well isn't that part of why jesus came? to correct the pharsees interpretations of the old testament?

he also fulfills all that the messiah was meant to do

[Blodrast]

but second, at the end of the day, ALL of my moral code comes from my belief in Christ.


dammit, Don Corleone, where were you a couple of days ago when I was struggling to bring light to all these infidel unbelievers in the Church finds wonderful, terrible news (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=64421) thread ?:2thumbsup:

[doc_bean]

So wait, you're saying the people who actively go against the teachings of the Church are actually devout followers? Forgive me if I dont subscribe to that definition....maybe the author of the article might agree with you though.

The Chruch and the teachings of the Church represent an ideal, which we should strife to achieve, however it is not always possible to do so.


You're muddying the waters about divorce. No one would say that a person who had a legal divorce should be denied communion.

The Vatican does, I believe, othwise at least the belgian "branch" of the church does.

[rory_20_uk]

The Church represents a point of view, which of course is an ideal as it is what they espouse. Depending on the church people that fail to be all they should be are either killed, excommunicated, have to give money or merely have to repent.

Discussing Christ on the basis of what records we have based upon what was written hundreds of years later is shakey at best. Especially when so much has been removed from the bible (the Gospel according to Judas comes to mind).

DC, you ascribe all your morals to Christ, but odds are you'd be the same if you'd never heard of him.

~:smoking: