The liberator of India, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, was asked once what he thought of Western civilization. His reply was that he thought it would be a good idea for the West to become civilized. Another question inquired of his opinion of Christianity. "I like your Christ," he responded. "I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
The history of Christianity is rife with examples of why someone would think so, and it is no different today. All one has to do is peruse the rantings of McCain supporters like John Hagee or Rod Parsley. Anti-Catholic homophobe Hagee's Zionist rantings have his erstwhile Hebrew allies asking themselves, "O, What A Friend We Have In Hagee?" while Parsley's blood lust for a modern Crusade against the Islamic infidels can hardly be contained.
One has to ask when Jesus ever expressed such hatred as spews from the mouths of his self-proclaimed adherents.
If one reads the Gospels, the only incidence of violence Jesus performs that I am aware of is when he evicts the money changers from the temple, and there is no report of physical injury to anyone. He was also known to openly visit with those social outcasts the rest of society scrupulously avoided: the lepers and whores, the criminals, and — gasp! — even the recently deceased! Why, what would Pat Robertson say about that?
One thing that I've noticed about today's so-called Christians that confirms Gandhi's assessment of them is that they thrive on division and hatred. I've noticed an increase in the expression of a desire to avoid things that they dislike or deem un-Godly. One good Christian was complaining to me just the other day about the public schools and "the crap they are putting in my kids' heads". The only "crap" I can think of that justifies the complaint are the diversity programs, specifically - but not exclusively - those aimed at fostering acceptance of homosexuals.
We are now in the time of Easter, the reason for Christianity to exist as a religion. One has to wonder why, if the followers of Christ truly have faith, the thought that gays can marry and be as accepted as anyone else fills the faithful with fear and loathing. Are they not, according to their own beliefs, allied with the ultimate power of all creation? Have they forgotten the tales of Daniel in the lions den? Have they forgotten the faith held by the early Christians in Rome for whom belief likely meant a horrible death?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I'm certainly as eager to revile the godfloggers as anyone else, but your article's valid points is seriously weakened by your pathetic and predictable attempt to lay their bigotry at the feet of McCain who has little or nothing to do with them.
McCain's association with Hagee is pretty superficial. Hagee endorsed McCain and McCain effectively said 'that's nice'. It's the same kind of thing with Parsley. He endorsed McCain and McCain said some nice things about him while making clear he didn't agree with all of Parsley's ideas. I suppose that people won't be satisfied unless when McCain is endorsed by a crazed fundy preacher he immediately kicks the guy in the balls and then stomps his face.
Dave
2 - Clavos
If one defines as "Christians" all those who believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, then I think your article paints with too broad a brush.
If by "Christians," you mean only the fundamentalists to whom Hagee and Parsley are appealing, then I would agree with much of your premise, except, as Dave said, the attempt to paint McCain with that same brush.
Not all who worship Christ are extremists; not even a plurality are.
I reject the Obama-bashing frenzy in re Jerry Wright going on here and elsewhere for the same reason.
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Realist,
When Jews let themselves be influenced by Jew-hating (you do not need new glasses - that's what I wrote) scum like Eric Yoffe, they indeed flush themselves down the toilet. Follow scum like Eric Yoffe, and you deserve to be in the toilet. And scumbags like Olmert and Peres are doing just that.
I don't really give a damn about what "Reverend" Hagee says or doesn't say - he's just another goy who wants to get us Jews to convert and buy his particular brand of Dr. Good. But the facts are that no matter who "endorses" McCain, he is still beholden to Jim "fuck the Jews Baker and other Jew-hating assholes for his "advice" on how to deal with the Middle East.
So, I'll repeat what I've written elsewhere.
You can vote for a white man with black skin who is hostile to Jews living in Judea and Samaria; or
You can vote for a woman with the reputation for being a lesbian who is hostile to Jews living in Judea and Samaria; or
You can vote for an old man who has advisors who are hostile to Jews living in Judea and Samaria.
Wow, that is some choice, ain't it?
For my money, all these crapheads, Oybama, Billary and McCain, can go in the same trash bag, and be dumped into the same garbage dumpster....
Now, maybe you can ask some editor to fix your miserable spelling? It is Gandhi, not Ghandi.
And it would be nice if Christians tried practicing Christianity instead of the barbarism they have tried to shove down the world's throats for seventeen centuries....
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
And it would be nice if Christians tried practicing Christianity instead of the barbarism they have tried to shove down the world's throats for seventeen centuries....
I don't always agree with her, but at least Irene Wagner tries....
5 - Dr Dreadful
Ruvy, why does everything have to be about Israel?
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
DD,
The point I'm making is that where Israel is concerned (the Realist linked to an article in the Daily Forward, a left-wing Jewish newspaper in America, where Eric Yoffie talks about Hagee and Israel), there is no real choice at all. If he hadn't linked to this, I never would have seen fit to make the point.
Having dragged us into his mess of pottage (Anti-Catholic Homophobe Hagee's Zionist rantings have his erstwhile Hebrew allies asking themselves, "O, What? A Friend We Have In Hagee?"), I couldn't help pointing out that from the point of view of a Jew living in Samaria, all the American candidates amount to the same pile of trash.
There are, of course, other differences and other issues. But the Realist chose to focus on Israel.
Actually, the big issue in this election is the economy and the fact that American involvement in Iraq is making your country bankrupt; the problem is not their positions on Israel, which differ only in rhetorical flourishes, but rather the fact that none of these non-entities have a solution for keeping your adopted country from sinking into penury before 2013.
7 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
By the way, DD, given that you are an editor, maybe you should go in and fix the spelling of "Gandhi" in the article. It makes the magazine look bad when obvious spelling errors are left in an article. Also note that I gave Irene Wagner a plug. At least she calls for introspection and thought, rather than just screaming either doctrine or dogma....
8 - Yehoshua Baptista
You, like all non-christians and many professed Christians, do not understand that YHWH of the OT and Jesus Christ of the NT are one and the same. Jesus Christ's earthly message of "love" was "timely" and "context-dependent". JC also taught conditional love, as well as the unconditional type love for which YOU do not understand the context. NT "love" must be understood in the context of being consistant with the OT incidents of what YOU perceive to be "non-love". The Father and the Son "love" all humans, thus have provided a way of salvation for all. Ignore such, but don't expect to receive His "unconditional love". The same JC that preached the Sermon of the Mount is the exact same JC whose next visible appearance will be as the General of a heavenly Army coming to render justice to all humans who have rejected Him as their Savior. YOU have the choice to continue taking pop-shots at Jesus Christ based on the lame, unacceptable excuse that His sinful followers are unable to match Christ's exemplary perfect life, or YOU can wise up now, and bow down at Christ's feet as your LORD and SAVIOR.
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
@ comment #8
Whatever your name really is: shove your shit where the sun don't shine. The flames of whatever lake of fire that scares you will reach you eventually for idolatry and taking G-d's name in vain. But that ain't my problem. Your threats don't impress me at all.
You're just another goy spouting hellfire and bullshit, and I've heard too many of you in my lifetime.
Feh!
You demean the Hebrew you abuse in your screen name.
Haféf HazÃr!!
P.S.
If YOU are lucky and truly receiving of G-d's grace, you MAY be lucky to LIVE to see the Statue of Liberty fall - signifying the fall of the spiritual descendants of the ancient Romans - the scum who murdered my people in the first recorded genocide - nailing them up on crosses, one by one, in their thousands and millions over six centuries, making the Land run red with blood.
10 - Whymrhymer
Ruvy,
You certainly have a talent for turning every post into a 'hate America' diatribe!
Your last "P.S." . . .
". . . you MAY be lucky to LIVE to see the Statue of Liberty fall - signifying the fall of the spiritual descendants of the ancient Romans - the scum who murdered my people in the first recorded genocide - nailing them up on crosses, one by one, in their thousands and millions over six centuries, making the Land run red with blood.
. . . makes as much sense as the descendants of slaves asking for retribution from 21st Century Americans. Them people who did that ain't around anymore!
11 - MAOZ
#10 Them people who did that ain't around anymore!
Well, with the US Administration pushing to carve up our Land to hand even more of it over to those whose goal is to murder Jews, and with the CIA training snipers for the "good terrorists" of Abu Mamzer [and who seriously thinks they won't use/haven't used that training to target Jews?], it seems more a matter of "them people" farming out the hands-on nitty-gritty to surrogates.
Ruvy, Purim [Meshulash] Same'aH!
12 - ostrova
You can vote for a woman with the reputation for being a lesbian
Awww, c'mon, Ruvy. That's not fair. Say you don't like her politics, but this is about what some idiots are writing on the bathroom walls.
13 - Tony
The real problem here is that we keep having these religious debates in the political section of this magazine.
What sets us apart from the Muslim theocracies polluting the middle east when we scream about the teachings of Jesus and the bible in relation to political issues?
Sure McCain has tried his hardest to turn himself into a stooge for the Christian Right -- what else was he trying to accomplish by speaking at Bob Jones University? But the reason he feels the need to do such is because of a moronic voting base that, for some sick reason, still thinks that is a Christian nation, run by their narrow ideas of biblical law.
THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION! Sure the majority of us may be Christians but this is a constitutional and secular nation in which ALL people are afforded the NATURAL RIGHTS outline by the literature that actually did inspire the constitution: John Locke, Thomas Paine, the French enlightenment writers.
Having strong religious conviction is fine but trying to infuse them into our government is not. The non-Christians all pay taxes and all contribute to the economy. Proclaiming ourselves a Christian nation is unfair to those who also contribute to make us a great nation.
Maybe the solution is to cut the country in half and give the south to the fantatical Christian Right. Then they can write their own Constitution that really is based on the bible (as many of them claim the current one is), outlaw being gay and learning about science, and just live their lives literally reading, baddly interpretating, and always cherry picking, a centuries old book of ancient man's best attempt to explain phenomina they didnt understand.
Seriously people, when are the citizens in this country going to catch up with the rest of world when it comes to understanding reality? Its good to believe in God, Jesus, and religion but do we really need to be quoting scripture to justify bigotry against gays? If you're a bigot and you hate gays that be who you are. Don't hide behind God said this or cast that stone - just put on your little white hood and take your rightful place in society.
I know arguing against the theocratic rule of this nation is pointless but here's a tip for your way of thought crazy christian fanatics. Change the priorities concerning how you cherry pick your favorite book. Here's an example:
You already ignore the polygamy thing so why not try ignoring the gay thing too? Instead the thou shall not kill thing might be better to focus on. You know what I mean fundimentalists! That President you elected because he promised to defend marriage. He's killed a lot of people. In fact, thousand of people have been sent to their deaths based on (what you even know deep down) were his lies. Now if you would have focused more on thou shall not kill over don't be gay, maybe we wouldn't need to build another wall next to that big, ineffective reminder, already built in Washington.
Just some food for thought Christian Right. If you truely believe in all you say you do, and you really want to elect a president who legislates based on your beliefs, find one who has his priorities straight next time. I can roll with the whole love thy neightbor thing -- it's the whole Crusades style, damn the gays, down with science, convert the middle east thing, that really makes me nervous, especially when you're always talking about the Apocolypse.
14 - Lee Richards
#8 really can hardly wait to be a holy gun-slinging soldier in General Jesus Christ's army of damnation; he's already started verbally sniping at "all non-Christians, and many professed Christians", that he(and HIS Jesus)just can't stand.
He better learn to follow his commanding officer's orders, though: "Judge not..."
And his 'context-dependent' love sounds like a crock of crypto-Inquisition crap to me, an attempt to bully others in Jesus' name.
***
Politicians who preach and preachers who politic are wolves just waiting for a chance to devour the flock.
15 - Whymrhymer
Tony,
Bravo! Well said!
16 - Whymrhymer
"The real problem here is that we keep having these religious debates in the political section of this magazine."
Point 1: Well religion is not one of the categories at BC
Point 2: Since the Christian Right is, as you pointed out, so determined to infuse religious thought and practice into politics, perhaps religion belongs here.
17 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
You certainly have a talent for turning every post into a 'hate America' diatribe!
Not this time.
This links to the prophecy of NáHman Katufá, who died a little over 1500 years ago.
His precise words in the Aramaic:
Tzulmá d’Rodós, Kad Ityahaiv l’gros, KarÃv Egrós, Romà l’harós, and translates accordingly: The idol of Rhodes, when it will be destroyed, it will be close to destruction, Rome will be destroyed.
Now, go read the link and learn what I'm referring to.
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Try this link to Google Videos to see a film about the subject of the fall of the Statue of Liberty as a sign of the Redemption about to occur. The film is in Hebrew with English sub-titles. The very final clips at the end are taken from the movies and Planet of the Apes to illustrate the point.
But as is mentioned in the film, the exact method of the destruction of the New Colossus has not yet been revealed by m'kubalÃm - masters of Kabbala.
Observations on comment #16. It is the general western point of view to separate things out by subject, and Blogcritics has not yet created a Religion department. This follows the Greek paradigm of dividing knowledge. This false paradigm also divides the mind from the body, to the detriment of the health of many of us. I hope that the publisher and editors of this magazine never do establish a Religion department. The truth of the matter is that religion is bound up with politics, whether we like it or not. The philosophies of gaining and using power (politics) are closely interwound and interwoven with the wise and good use of that power (ethics). The source of the principles of ethics are usually religion, and when you look at varying religions, you see a certain amount of commonality in their prophecies.
Prophecy is not the exclusive possession of the Children of Israel. Prophecy is found among many peoples. But the proof of prophecy is not whether it comports with our understanding of the world, but rather whether it comes to pass.
Mother Shipton, a seeress who lived in the late 1400's and early 1500's warned of events that have occurred. as well as some that appeared not have occurred yet. Unlike Nostradamus, she wrote in reasonably clear English.
Some of the events she predicted that have occurred are the accession to power of Benjamin d'Israeli in Great Britain; of automobiles, steamships, airplanes, submarines, tanks, and of the terrible destruction that weapons based on these have brought to the world.
She writes of the spread of literacy in England; she writes of the terrible wars that the French would suffer and of the European Union that followed the last of them; she writes of discovering gold in a land that she knows not - this could either be the Spanish in Latin America or the Americans in California; she wrote of many things, and it appears that many of them have already come to pass.
It is for this reason that it is worthwhile to lend what she writes ear; the proof of prophecy is not whether it comports with our understanding of the world, but rather whether it comes to pass.
19 - JustOneMan
Ruvy why dont you use a crazy 8 Ball?
Kabala---LOL LOL
20 - Leslie Bohn
So let's talk about religion. The poster asks:
Do show me where Jesus rejected anyone for religious beliefs or personal behaviors - please.
Sure. Jesus rejects folks all the time throughout the Bible for their religious beliefs and personal behaviors, condemning them to death and casting them into eternal fire. A cursory look at the Gospels shows this.
Among many other passages, Jesus condemns entire cities to Hell because they rejected his teachings in Matthew 11:20-28.
In Matthew 10:20, etc., he calls for family members to kill each other if they don't believe in him.
I believe that some fundamentalist Christians hate others because Jesus tells them to in their holy book. And, yes, I know that in other places Jesus tells them not to.
21 - Jordan Richardson
I swore off getting involved in too many discussions of this type around here, but I just MUST respond to what Leslie had to say.
Matthew 10:20 sez: "For it is not you who speak, but (it is) the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." That's from the NASB translation because that's what I had handy.
Now, according to Leslie, this verse and its fellows implore "family members to kill each other" for not believing in Christ. In fact, what Christ is talking about is the other way around. "Brother will betray brother to death (emphasis mine), and a father (his) child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death." This verse, viewed in its correct context, is about the fallout of what could happen when people decide to leave their traditional faiths and follow Christ. It is most certainly NOT an exhortation to kill family members or anyone else who does not believe in Jesus Christ. Christ NEVER preached that message.
This is affirmed with the subsequent verses, which say: "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish (going through) the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes." That's Matthew 10:22 and 23.
Prior to that Matthew 10:20, Christ frames it further saying: "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. But beware of men, for they will hand you over to {the} courts and scourge you in their synagogues; and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles." Again, Leslie's ideology of Christ condemning and calling for murder is conspicuous by its absence.
Throughout the passage of Matthew 10:20-28, Christ never condemns ANY city to hell, nor does he reference anything closely resembling the idea that Leslie espoused. Instead, Christ tells his followers to proceed with caution.
Christ never advocated murder, but rather instructed and warned his followers that those who opposed him and condemned him (Christ) and his followers may be members of one's very own household. He never advocates the murder of those individuals, but rather advocates and gives detailed instructions on how to FLEE.
So dear Leslie, perhaps a more than cursory look at Scripture is required in order to make your point. Removing verses from context leads to misunderstanding which leads to ignorance which leads to fear. Fear is the path to the Dark Side.
:)
22 - Leslie Bohn
Mr Richardson:
Of course, that's a valid reading of the 10:20, etc. verses, too. This is one huge problem with Christianity â€" the Bible can and has been interpreted to mean almost literally anything.
Why would a god not be totally clear?
And Jesus certainly does condemn cites to hell in 11:20 etc.. You cited Chapter 10, so maybe that's the confusion. Here's the verses:
11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
23 - Dan Miller
All I should say, probably, is "Thank God I'm an Agnostic (or Atheist, depending on your definition.)"
However, I will go at least a little bit beyond that. Many of the posts on this thread are filled to the brim with hatred, and hate is bad. At the very least, it causes indigestion and high blood pressure. There is far too much of that already, and spewing more hatred makes matters worse.
Unfortunately, hatred is a big part of some religions, including but not by way of limitation the "Religion of peace."
Jesus,or those who wrote and revised the New Testament after his death, which is not the same thing at all, said lots of stuff, including the crap cited in Post #20. Most Christians now living tend to disregard that sort of bovine excrement, along with other nonsense such as "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." With the same caveat, Jesus also said some pretty good stuff, including that we should treat others as we would like to be treated -- hardly an original idea -- and that we should hate not the sinner but the sin. Even the principal article seems to forget this precept.
Getting back to Politics, perhaps someone can devise an electronic hate filter through which our candidates and their surrogates could pass their pronouncements. There might be very little left, but that in itself would be an improvement.
One last comment, to Ruvy in Jerusalem. I have always sided with Israel, and think that she faces very serious dangers. She is about the only "civilized" state in that part of the world, and helping her is good not only for the United States but for civilization. I agree that Olmert and Peres are weak willed jerks, and that you need more leaders with guts. So, obviously, does the U.S. They are in short supply. The U.S. seems to be trying to mediate a conflict which simply cannot be mediated. I can almost see Neville Chamberlain getting off the airplane after Munich and declaring "Peace in our time." I would, however, suggest that spewing hatred toward the U.S. is not the best way to change her position to one which both of us would prefer, assuming that such is your wish.
24 - Jordan Richardson
The Bible is unclear on a number of things because of the passage of time, a lack of understanding of the historical context, a lack of understanding of the Biblical authors, a lack of knowledge of WHO the Biblical authors are, and so on. Because of this lack of clarity, Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics can be valuable tools to understanding scripture in its original languages and contexts. It requires a study of history, language, people, places, and cultures. Just like any other historical work, study is required to grasp at the true meaning.
As for me citing chapter 10, actually you did. I merely responded to your post and corrected you. Now let's look at your verses in chapter 11 and work with a context and understanding of scriptural text. For starters, I'll supply you with my shortened rant on "hell" as found in the Bible.
In the New Testament, "hell" is referred to using the Greek word gehenna or, in some cases, tartarus. When the King James Version of the Bible was translated and put together, the words gehenna, tartarus, sheol, and hades in all of their separate instances (for the most part) were translated into "hell." Together with different conceptions, the idea for "hell" was rendered into a sort of "lake of fire" and so on. But what do the actual words mean when Christ spoke them? What IS "hell" in the context of what Christ said? Did Christ refer to hell as a place of eternal damnation and torment?
The verses you cite come from the King James Version, which, while beautiful and eloquent, is not often cited for its accuracy. In the "Woes" verses, Christ is rebuking cities that did not repent after they saw his miracles. This is often taken to mean that, due to the fact that those cities "saw a greater light," they had a greater responsibility to follow that light. They saw "proof" of Christ's "miracles," did not change their lifestyles and worshiped the old gods and goddesses and ways, and were victims of Christ's rebuke.
Christ then talks about the "day of judgment." In this verse (11:22), he implies that there are varying degrees of judgment and not a simply damnation concept that sends people to "hell." He also compares the faithfulness of the people in those cities to the faithfulness of those in other cities.
Verse 11:23 has Christ mention "hell." The Greek here is "hades," which is a well-known concept to refer to the "abode of the dead" or sometimes to something that is unseen. Hades was the NT translation of the word "sheol" which is often translated to mean "pit." Through the passage of time and with the amalgamation of various mythologies, Greek concepts melded with Christian concepts and with Catholic mythologies to formulate concepts of "hell." The King James Version of the Bible, eager to cement a solid doctrine (probably too eager) converted all of the various allusions to death, unseen places, and other aspects of common language of the day into a concept called "hell" and the Church preached it. But did Jesus condemn people to "hell" in the traditional sense? Most objective scholars reject that theory based on the pure meaning of the word. Was Christ rebuking those cities for their lack of faith? Most certainly. But he was not condemning them to a fiery doom in our modern conception of hellfire and brimstone. That mythological conception came much later than Christ's time.
So when Christ tells Capernaum that they will be brought down to hell, he refers to the notion that they will become desolate. The book of Matthew reports that Christ healed the servant of a Roman Centurion on Capernaum, yet the Centurion and the city's Roman population did not follow what Christ said about God and clung to Roman traditions. As Christ's ministry was set as a rebellion against the Roman Empire, these verses take on a bold meaning of rebuke of constructs of power, old dying religious traditions, idolatry, and more.
"Why would a god not be totally clear?"
I don't know that there can ever be an answer to such a hypothetical illusory question.
25 - Baronius
Realist and Leslie - You touch on similar ideas but draw (I think) opposite conclusions. One says that Jesus condemned no one for his beliefs or actions, the other says that Jesus condemned entire cities. The point is, Jesus didn't reject individuals. He rejected their beliefs and actions, yes. And he proclaimed judgement on the actions of entire groups, but always accepting members of those groups.
For example, Jesus condemned the chief priests for their lack of belief in Him. But we also read that some of them did follow Him. His broad condemnation didn't mean that salvation wasn't available to each of them. Likewise, Jesus condemned entire cities - but if you look at the context, Jesus never proclaimed salvation to peoples or towns. He had followers among the Samaritans and Romans. Both groups were committing grave offenses against Jewish worship.
That's what made the new covenant unique: it was open to all individuals. No one was guaranteed anything on the basis of their bloodline. Now, unquestionably, beliefs and actions count.