Question about modern day Christians...

[truthpusher]

I have read the new testament, the beatitudes, and other Jesus related writings. I walk away from it seeing a man who stood alone against a lot of bullshit and power to help shine a little love on the poor, shamed and helpless.

Now here is my question: What in the world does modern day Christianity have to do with Jesus' actions and words?

Is the modern day Christian movement nothing more than "A Cult of Acceptance"? Does it exists solely on the pretense of one being accepted by those who have accepted 'Christ' only after you accept 'Christ'?

I am sorry, but I don't think that this is what Jesus had in mind.

[rogerashton]

1. In many ways, modern American Christianity

has more in common with Islam than with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Not that I think that is a bad thing. I think.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Interesting interpretation

in what way do you see modern American Christianity having more in common with Islam?

(My personal belief is that the basic teachings of all religions have things in common, namely a concern with others as espoused in the Goldern Rule)

[rogerashton]

6. Two things.

One, as one of my students said to me when religion came up unavoidably in our last discussion session -- she is a Christian -- "If people would just accept the will of God instead of insisting on their own will, there would be no conflict." This is pure Islam. Islam=submission to the will of God = house of peace as against the house of war. Of course, one can read that into the Gospels, too, but I don't see it as being nearly as central as it is for Islam and for 2004 American "Christians."

Two, Mohammed having been a merchant, the Koran is very much in favor of capitalism (except for moneylenders). Jesus, best I recall, was pretty much of a communist (small c!).

[mitchum]

19. Seems that your Christian student has a hard time grasping that...

FREE WILL is central to Christianity.
Why are they so damn stupid?

[rogerashton]

24. Is Free Will central to Christianity?

The Christians sat together on one side of the room, the atheists on the other side, and the muddled in the middle. Both my Christians were quick to assert the perfection and unchanging nature of God. But if God is unchanging, how can God respond to our acts of free will, either by damning us, blessing us, or answering our prayers? The only possible answer (as Calvinists understand, though it is muddled by other sects) is that our acts are predestined for all time. What then of free will? and indeed what of the moral perfection of God, a point made nicely by a Robert Burns poem against Calvinism?

"O Thou, that in the heavens does dwell,
"Wha, as it pleases best Thysel',
"Sends ane to heaven an' ten to hell,
        "A' for Thy glory,
"And no for onie guid or ill
        They've done afore Thee! "

http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/robertburns.html

It would appear to a freethinker like me that these two features of orthodox Christian theology contradict not only free will but one another. But that's just me talkin'.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I started a similar thread

but you stated my feelings more eloquently. Thank you.

[NMDemDist2]

3. Jesus was an radical

who never EVER preached a word of dogma.....

Emmett Fox Sermon on the Mount

just read the forward to that book, it changed everything I ever "knew" about Christianity

[Turn CO Blue]

5. I've read several websites that mention that most modern

fundamentalist "Christians" should actually be referred to as "Paulists", because their dogma falls more in line with the teachings of St. Paul than those of Jesus.

And to your point, recall that Jesus argued with the teachers and Pharisees every day in the temple...and chased the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip.

Here's a place to start:
Liberals Like Christ
<http://liberalslikechrist.org/index.htm>

[truthpusher]

7. Paulists, I would have to agree...

[Johonny]

8. Paul

I certainly comes from the Christianity of Paul. Who believed strongly in Jesus as a spiritual sense and not a livng being sense. Those that accepted Jesus could thus cross over into the world of God. You have to understand the Hellenistic view of the world to understand why this would be important. In America that message that is certainly in the bible (what message isn't) is a favorite to pick up on because...

Religions generally reflect the desires of there society's. It should be no surprise American Jesus seems to reflect the ideal of Americans. Societal values wag religion and not the other way around. When society wanted slavery they had no trouble finding out Jesus wanted it too. When society wanted to end slavery they had no trouble finding out Jesus didn't want it too.

[MatrixEscape]

9. You might find this enlightening:

THE POLITICS OF CHRISTIANITY: A TALK WITH ELAINE PAGELS
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pagels03/pagels_index.html

Only a careful inspection into the religion can give you a clear contrast between the current, popular dogma and sects, and the early essence and actual practice. Bastardization of original messages has been a common factor throughout time. We are witnessing a modern version of that phenomena.

What we are seen is an "in the name of" outlet for the, (potentially inherit) Fascist impulse emerging in the mainstream. It has far more political implications and goals than spiritual ones.

It is easier to manipulate people who suspend reason and want to believe, (especially with mass media) than to convince them with rationale. The Neocons figured this out a while back and so they are in bed with an element that often is quite morally opposite to their underlying, corporate profit goals.

The mass-manipulation is facile to a regime, no matter what form it takes. That is how one can feel okay, even inspired and rightous, about what would normally be morally reprehensible, otherwise. It takes some real soul-searching, and metaphorical blood, sweat, and tears to really "practice" traditional Christianity, as per the Lives of the Saints. You don't get that that kind of deep and sincere spirtuality in a superficial, mass-consumption, materialistic, greed-centered culture -- but you can pretend you do! They are supposed to be at odds with each other.

Clearly it is difficult to separate the chaff from the wheat in today's complex, technological, and rapidly transformative society. However, I do have issues with those who don't even attempt to do so.

[hollowdweller]

21. Elaine Pagels Rocks!

I'm sure the fundamentalists hate her, but she has given me so much understanding of the history of Christianity over time that I owe her a tremendous debt.

One thing that changed Christianity was Constantine. Once it became a state religion it became worldly. If you look at Islam it was worldly from the beginning. So was Judaisim. But Christianity was meant to be above all that. Unfortunately it has been perverted by "the need of men to be led" and strays from it's source. I think that's why Jesus said a lot of people in the final days are going to think they are down with him and he is not going to recognize them.

[xray s]

10. Modern day Christianity is split

There are those that believe Christianity should be "inclusive", open to and embracing all people, and those that believe it should be "exclusive", dividing the world into US and THEM.

There are those that see the core of Jesus's message as the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule, and those that focus on the Bible verse where Jesus says "no one can come to God except through me" and read into that there is some magical power in the very name Jesus.

There are those that would never presume to know the limits of God's grace, and believe that God's grace is open to all, and those that would put very narrow tests on God's grace; IE if you don't believe the earth is 7,000 years old and a great flood wiped out all but a single mating pair of each species 5,000 years ago, then you will be denied the grace God bestowed with Jesus blood on the cross.

There are those that interpret Revelation as a story of the battle between good and evil, offering hope that good will ultimately triumph in the end, and those that have taken that story and developed a rapture mythology to fuel their desire to judge others and justify military crusades, all the while believing God will spare them the suffering that a worldwide conflagration would bring on the entire planet.

To me, it is pretty obvious that some Christians are faithfully trying to understand the message of Christ, and some are on the wrong path, whom we should pray for.

Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. So then, you will know them by their fruits.” Matthew 7:15-18, 20

[truthpusher]

12. I liked everything you said...

Thanks

[DrWeird]

11. When the Passion came out...

I heard people arguing that the movie only portrayed his death and not his teachings.

Many Christian fans of the movie said, "it doesn't matter what he taught, only how He died."

Several of those people were in this forum.

So there you have it.

[truthpusher]

14. The passion...

fervor seems a bit 'death cultish' to me and your quote only supports the idea.

[Calvinist Basset]

17. And then you have Christians like me.

The teachings and death were important--but all relatively meaningless without the resurrection.

The biggest problem with that movie was its "death cultish" obsession--and only 20 seconds devoted to resurrection. Gibson could have cut 80% of his movie out and paid more attention to the resurrection--and it would have been a good movie. As it was, it was just gross.

[hvn_nbr_2]

13. You've hit one nail on the head

Ever notice how they always ask, "What WOULD Jesus do?" instead of "What DID Jesus do?" Using "would" in their question allows them to imagine that Jesus would agree with their hate, perpetual war, class war, and so on. If they asked what he DID do, they'd have to acknowledge that he hung out with prostitutes and sinners, refused to condemn them, helped the poor, healed the sick, and refused to participate in armed war against Rome. He WAS a peaceful, radical-liberal friend of the downtrodden, but they can imagine he WOULD be a war-mongering, hateful corporate stooge.

[truthpusher]

15. Never thought about it that way n/t

[Calvinist Basset]

18. Amen.

[Calvinist Basset]

16. How do I begin to respond to this post?

I could go on and on for days and days, so finding a few short words here will be difficult. I'll make my stab, though.

Some have indicated that all religions concern themselves with the "Golden Rule." To a degree, this is true. But I think that for many religions, the emphasis on God or gods being a part of things cannot be overlooked. I felt I needed to add that piece after reading one of the other posts.

But specifically, what does modern Christianity have to do with Jesus (or Paul, for that matter)? In a nutshell, I think we have this progression:

1. Jesus lives and "does his thing"

2. He has followers who commit to living in his example.

3. Now, many dispute the validity of the resurrection. It's not plausible, they say. But at the risk of sounding like a lunatic, I believe in the resurrection. The universe is full of things we do not understand, and though "details" may vary in the different accounts (just like when two people witness a car accident), the resurrection was regarded as real. And I just can't imagine people being willing to endure prison, torture and death for a myth they knew they made up. But I've digressed.

4. Paul is one of the first "theologians" to ponder the meaning of Christ's life, death and resurrection, and the early Christians incorporated his thoughts.

The problem, believe it or not, doesn't lie with Jesus, his first followers or Paul. If you read the Greek and study the socio-historical context in which Paul wrote, you'll discover that he was quite a radical for his day--just like Jesus and his disciples. For further info on this topic, read John Temple Bristow's "What Paul Really Said About Women."

The ones to blame for deviating are those who "interpreted the interpreter," i.e., revised Paul's words into new meanings. Sometimes, this has been positive, sometimes it has not.

I come from something called the "Reformed Tradition," which means that we believe the Holy Spirit continues to speak to us through the generations, providing more insight over time. And so, the difference between many modern Christians is whether they choose an individual's reading of Scripture or a corporate reading (like we espouse in my tradition).

The individual's reading is okay, so long as it is informed by the witness of the larger body and the teachings of previous generations. In fact, the individual's reading can sometimes correct the body of believers. The truth is ultimately discovered in time and through the tension within the larger body and between the body and individual. This whole process is called the corporate reading--it involves prayer, study, discussion, etc. among all the persons involved.

But the individual's reading by itself is prone to error--gross errors. And this is the type of Christianity I see in those like Bush. Now, I know what you might say here--that there are "so many" who believe like Bush, how can this be the "individual's reading?" My response:

1. The individual is likely to err in the way he/she is led by culture and such.

2. The problem is that in some other traditions there are a very few, powerful people calling the shots, as it were, and a lot more folks looking for simple answers. This group of people swallows what the individual has read and interpreted--rather than debating and thinking within the body of believers. And what we may perceive as a corporate thinking of certain Christians is nothing more than repetition of the leader's opinions.

Put all of what I've said together, and I think you find out how Christianity came to be what it is versus where it began.

[truthpusher]

20. And our culture is err'ng in a big way.

[hollowdweller]

22. Excellent Post!!!!

[rogerashton]

25. I don't think anyone

can make any better sense of it than this post has done.

But why try to make sense of the nonsensical? That's what I dunnunnerstan.

[berni_mccoy]

23. There is a difference between spirituality and religion

I believe Jesus was pointing that out. He railed against the religion of the time and tried to show that the law of the church should be the law of the spirit. Participating in organized religion has little to do with following the ways of Christ. It is a medium for those who need to experience spirituality as a social expression. It is not a requirement to being a good Christian.

If no other laws you obey, obey this: love thy neighbor.