Oh god, this might hurt a few people’s feelings. Whatever, I don’t need your prayers, I can pray for myself. I need a rational argument in response though. This morning, I realized something important. So important, and so seemingly paradoxical I just had to go back to sleep before waking up again to type this out. I know, once a saint always a saint, yadda yadda but what? That gives you the ability to completely ignore biblical teachings in favor of acting how you want to act simply because of “grace and mercy?” You can’t possibly call yourself a follower of christianity if you are one of those types of people who go in direct opposition to God’s teachings.
So, here’s my thesis: the fundamental platforms of the right are in such dialectical contrast to Christian teachings that no true republican can really call themself a “Christian.”
i. Gun Control- Turn the other cheek, right? So much so that Jesus let a group of Jews tie him up on a few pieces of wood. You think he didn’t wanna smack them back? You didn’t think he thought about how easily it would be to get the crime pinned on “self defense?” It doesn’t matter, Jesus taught RADICAL NONVIOLENCE, a path of nonresistence that believes that it was wrong to injure another human being, no matter what the circumstances. (Matt 5:38-48) Therefore, it would follow, that keeping a gun in house for self defense, is in direct opposition to what Jesus taught? Is it not? Okay, next point.
ii. The Beatitudes – Granted, I’m not exactly sure how many of you who claim to be “christians” have read the gospels, but I’m pretty familiar with the a little section in Matthew where Jesus drops some knowledge bombs on how to be blessed:
(Matt 5:3) Blessed are the—
the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:3)
those who mourn: for they will be comforted. (5:4)
the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (5:5)
they who hunger and thirst for righteousness: for they will be satisfied. (5:6)
the merciful: for they will be shown mercy. (5:7)
the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (5:8)
the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. (5:9)
those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:10)
Sooooo…. Let’s see… I’ll start with an easy one, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” In general, it’s pretty hard to say that either the dems or reps show qualities of meekness, that is – quiet, gentle etc. But, for you awful “God Centered” folk, I shouldn’t have to compare you as sharing qualities with us “satan worshipping, hippy, buttsexing(not I), fairy, libtards.” Anyways I don’t have time to go through all your fuck ups in the beatitudes but I’ll just say that Jesus says you’re supposed to be peacemakers, and.. well.. Uh.. George W. Bush ringing any bells? Okay, last point…
iii. This is by far my favorite point to refute; it’s the argument that the Bible is a “living document” which is to be interpreted by man. It usually goes like this: “Waahhh the bible says you should stone adulturers, you wouldn’t want us practicing barbaric practices like that would you?”
And my answer: Well duh, I’m not the one who said we should be basing a legal system on a two thousand year old book, that was you. Try to keep up. But anyways, the Bible has this weird “infallibility black hole paradox” (yeah I just made that up and it sounds pretty sweet so I’ll go with it) Where, Christians say the bible is infallible, because the bible says it’s infallible. I covered the fallacious nature in this argument previously, but… Let’s just say, if you are interpreting the bible to mean whatever the fuck you want it, then I’m going to do the same, and say that I’m allowed to take a shit in your cornflakes every morning because that’s what I read out of the whole “One must work to eat” thing. Anyways, Have fun being frustrated that a twenty one year old Existentialist is more versed in your so called religion than you are.
-Cheers!
lp
Very well said! Couldn’t have said it better myself
Interesting comments. That being said, allow me to seek to answer your concerns.
1. Regarding radical non-violence – Jesus at one time counseled His followers to sell their cloaks to buy a sword. (Luke 22:36) Why? I don’t know. But I don’t think Jesus was showing radical non-violence when He cleared the Temple either. There is a problem any time we try to put Jesus in a box with our definitions of Him. I believe that Jesus counseled His disciples to buy the swords for self-defense. Turning the other cheek had more to do with the system of honor at that time than it did with a violent attack. I would also guess that Jesus would not be opposed to defending someone who was defenseless. If I saw a man attacking a woman I would not be telling her that I was praying for her and suggest she turn the other cheek. I would seek to defend her.
2. The Beatitudes. As of now, I would say that the number of people, other than Jesus, who have followed the Beatitudes fully is about zero. It is, in fact, a tenet of the Christian faith that all will fall short of the glory of God. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek to follow them, but, if your criteria for Christians is how well they follow the Beatitudes, that’s a mighty narrow field. No one has joined it so far which pretty much makes the death of Jesus on the Cross worthless. Christ Jesus came to save sinners. While Paul makes the claim that he was the chief of sinners, that is a claim that all Christians should make when they look inside themselves. (Of course, that isn’t very humble, no doubt, but we need to understand how great the forgiveness of God is.)
3. I never heard of this “Living Document” theory. I believe the major criterion for interpreting the Bible is Jesus Christ. You chose an excellent example of a sin and punishment that’s in the Old Testament: stoning an adulterer. While the Law hasn’t changed, Jesus showed us with an example from a woman caught in the act of adultery that He would judge by grace. (John 8: 1-11) So many of the Old Testament Laws, when looked at in light of the life, death, resurrection and teachings of Jesus need to be reinterpreted so that their enforcement fits in with how God, walking on earth, handled things. That being said, your style of serving breakfast would not fit in with the life and teachings of Jesus, so your argument doesn’t fit in with Biblical concepts. You are, of course, free to eat however you desire; just don’t seek to baptize it with faulty Biblical thinking.
Of course, I could be wrong in how I see things and God is always free to change me to His way of thinking.
Hey! Thanks for the reply, Always nice to see a reasoned response from a reasonable person, I’ll try and be quick and not too long winded here but,
I. Isn’t that very argument paradoxical? I know the belief is that God is allowed to change his mind on a whim, but why have rules – or rather- why teach one thing when he won’t lead by example? It just seems to me like man is supposed to read his own meaning into it more often than not.
II. And yes, however, just because nobody follows them does that give all christians a reason not to try? Jesus said in Luke i believe that “anyone who doesn’t hate his mother, father, wife and children- even himself- cannot be my disciple” (more or less, I’m not sure the actual wording but that’s the gist) isn’t THAT a direct paradox to the whole – love thy neighbor thing?
III. I guess I keep coming back to the fact that the paradoxical nature of the reinterpretation of God’s word for modern time doesnt make much sense to me. It seems that the more and more the bible gets “reinterpreted” the more it becomes man’s religion, and not God’s. And this is where different denominations see things differently, I suppose, But I just have a hard time seeing it as much more than “man’s religion” nowadays I suppose, anyways, thanks and cheers!
The Christian right is fundamentally (pun intended) hypocritical. At the very least, the whole “give to caesar what is due caesar” is ignored when they use “Christianity” to further a politcal agenda of hate. Thanks for this post!
I’m not sure what you are complaining about here. Your argument seems like a “straw man.” That is, you imagine a Christian who doesn’t exist -a whole community of them, in fact- and then complain about your own creation.
Christians don’t believe the Bible is the basis for a legal system. That’s Islam. Christianity teaches a distinction between morality and politics (Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s”.) Christians may, of course, believe that our politics should be informed by Christian morality. I don’t see why that is so terrible. It’s a democracy (somewhat). You’d probably like to see politicians who agree with you. Why shouldn’t Christians like the same?
As to your specific examples, gun control does not mean the elimination of guns. It just means a tighter control by the state over the means of violence. Since states are responsible for most (though not all) of the wars and genocides of history, I am not sure why that is so great. And if you’ve ever seen a cop ruthlessly beat a helpless person (and I have) you might want to consider carefully how they would behave toward a populace known to be unarmed. And then there’s the fact that criminals will still get guns, and will know that any home they choose to invade will be defended with no more than kitchen knives. A true Christian may choose to go unarmed and turn the other cheek. But I’m not sure why being opposed to having armed police take away other people’s guns makes one unchristian.
The beatitudes are plainly not the basis of a political system. To the contrary, the message would seem to be that those considered materially powerful will lose out in the end to the humble, meek and righteous. There are parts of the Bible with political implications. The beatitudes don’t happen to be one of those parts.
As for George W. Bush, well, let’s see. In the last century, there’s Woodrow Wilson (WW I and over 116,000 American deaths, not counting those we killed) (also invasions of Haiti and Siberia), FDR (WW II and over 400,000 American deaths and those we killed -including fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and atomic weapons, etc.), Harry S. Truman (Korean Conflict, over 36,000 American deaths and those we killed), the JFK/ Lyndon Johnson administration (increased American presence in Viet Nam for over 58,000 American deaths and those we killed, also invaded the Dominican Republic, and coups or assassinations in Viet Nam, the Congo, a few other places), Bill Clinton called for during his campaign and presided over military intervention in Somalia, invaded Haiti, and bombed the former Yugoslavia, among other things. In this century, Mr. Obama likes drone strikes. These are democrats all. And I might add that Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson were all elected with the help of the “solid South” system of Democratic politics which was based on Jim Crow. So, are you saying the Christians should vote for democrats because they are non-violent? Wha?
Lastly, let me just suggest that you do not appear to be well versed in Christianity: your paraphrases often distort the meaning. If you do consider yourself to be an existentialist, then shouldn’t you be at least respectful of a tradition that gave us Kierkegaard’s masterful riff on the Abraham story in “Fear and Trembling”? Is your existentialism an “in your face” smarter than the ignorant peasantry (like me) or a serious quest for truth?
Albert Camus is quoted as having said: “I shall not try to change anything that I think or anything that you think (insofar as I can judge of it) in order to reach a reconciliation that would be agreeable to all. On the contrary, what I feel like telling you today is that the world needs real dialogue, that falsehood is just as much the opposite of dialogue as is silence, and that the only possible dialogue is the kind between people who remain what they are and speak their minds. This is tantamount to saying that the world of today needs Christians who remain Christians…Hence I shall not, as far as I am concerned, try to pass myself off as a Christian in your presence. I share with you the same revulsion from evil. But I do not share your hope, and I continue to struggle against this universe in which children suffer and die.” Of course, whether Albert was an existentialist or not is still hotly debated….
If you think that judeo christian ethics are not the foundational platforms of the republican party then there is no reason even continuing this conversation because we are clearly not looking at the same american party system.
Some seemingly random comments on bits and pieces of different comments from commentators, including the original post and follow up:
As noted by one, Jesus did not teach radical non-violence when he made a whip of cords and drove the money-lenders from the temple. It is also not correct that “the belief is that God is allowed to change his mind on a whim…” this is a mistaken belief put forward when someone is not sure how to address contradictory teachings such as “turn the other cheek” and “sell your cloak and buy a sword”. Paradoxes are generally a clue that you are missing something important or that you are at the wrong level of abstraction. Most paradoxes resolve when properly considered. Usually what people point to as the changing mind of God is actually the changing understanding of what people think the mind of God is. Well, not usually – always, for God is immutable.
Regarding the stoning of adulteresses – the common referent here is when the Jews were testing Jesus to see what he would say when they brought this adulteress before him. This helps to illustrate my point about apparent paradox.
You know the story, the one where he bends down and starts writing in the dirt and one by one the accusers disappear. Please note the following points, some of which are generally assumed, the remainder of which are presumed or forgotten:
1. Everyone seems to believe that Jesus was writing the accuser’s sins in the dirt. However, we DON’T KNOW what he was writing, so lets all please stop pretending we understand what happened there. We can’t use what he was writing to draw any conclusions about what he was trying to accomplish, because we don’t know what it was.
2. Jesus never says “Don’t stone adulteresses.” Everyone assumes that is the message. “Judge not lest ye be judged” and the like. However, he didn’t say that, did he. He looks up from whatever he was doing in the dirt and asks the lady “Where are your accusers?” it may be instructive to note here that one of the Hebrew terms typically translated as Satan or the Devil actually means “the accuser”. Think about that the next time you are about to make an accusation. So, anyway, he asks, “Where are your accusers?” And she says, “They left.” Jesus does not say “Groovy! Since you don’t have to worry about being stoned anymore since I put that old silly law to rest, if it feels good do it!” Notice, he never commented on the validity or correctness of the law. Elsewhere he comments that he came not to end the law but to fulfill it. He says things like not one jot, not one tittle is to be changed. Just to be sure my point is made here, Jesus never said “Don’t stone adulteresses.” Why? Because he has something else in mind, something more important.
3. The story ends with Jesus telling that woman to “Sin no more.” Just in case you missed it, that’s the point – the whole reason for the story to be told. Sin no more. You will have accusers. And, they will be correct in their accusations and you will be guilty. But, Jesus will intervene (has intervened) in your just punishment. He asks one thing: Sin No More.
By the way, that’s the point of the driving out the money lenders, and the point of turning the other cheek, and yes, the dying on the cross. Sin no more.
Regarding gun control, if we will take note of a couple of facts then think about the paradox and then try to resolve that paradox, it may be instructive. Here are some facts: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
Basically, the most commonly used weapon in a gun crime is a handgun, and that, by the way is the most commonly stolen weapon, and most of the gun crime is done by a criminal with a stolen hand gun, not a legal assault rifle.
So, if handguns are what kill most people in the USA, why are hunting rifles the main focus? (Assault rifles are already illegal and have been since the 70′s, meaning that if an actual assault rifle was used in a mass killing, it was already illegal and demonstrates that making them illegal doesn’t prevent mass killings.) So, why are assault rifles the darling of the gun-control crowd? We should ask ourselves this question and try to figure out what is going on with this. Because removing assault weapons from the hands of people will not statistically reduce the number of gun deaths in our country any appreciable amount.
If Jesus was asked about gun control, what would he say? Turn the other cheek? Sell your cloak and buy an assault rifle? Would he make a whip of cords and drive the hypocrites from Congress?
But you’re reading way too much into what the bible is saying, transforming the literal translation into something that conforms to your views, which is exactly what I was talking about in the argument. It seems like christianity becomes a religion of man more and more every day, but by “sin no more” i assume that he was able to uphold the whole “thou shalt not kill” thing, or maybe not.
Well, I’m not sure what you mean. Seems that you are reading into the story “thou shalt not kill” (” but by “sin no more” i assume that he was able to uphold the whole “thou shalt not kill” thing”) because, again, he did not say that in that particular story, and he wasn’t talking to her would be stoners since they were gone. He spoke to her, about her sin. I don’t believe I transformed anything from the literal to “my views” – rather I specifically held my comments to what Jesus did say.
Pingback: Is religion child abuse? | hagiographic
After you’ve lived life for a while, one comes to the conclusion that these arguments have little value to one’s personal spiritual development (great material for philosophical discussion, however, but not much more). In the light of the individual’s relationship with God (and I say this with all the christian love I can muster at 2:00 am) who cares? Or to use the words of Ecclesiastes 1:2, “everything is meaningless.” When I was much younger, the supposed “Christian behavior” of others used to bother me, but in time, one learns to look inward and concern oneself with one’s own planked eye. Scripture teaches there are no perfect people (if there were, Jesus would not have needed to bother showing up), and if one tries to find perfection, or a strict adherence to perceived ideals amongst human beings of any religion, or political party, one will only discover disappointment. Everyone has their own faults, issues, and baggage that must be dealt with minute by minute and hour by hour in order for each to live peacefully with his neighbor, and humbly before his God. If each person made more of an effort to deepen their relationship with God (to actually get to know him as a friend), most of the ills of the world, and supposed discrepancies we find abhorant, would disappear. Could you imagine?
Pingback: A post that really gets the gist of everything I’ve been saying | Apostol 40 7