Constantinian Christianity vs. Prophetic Christianity

[s0crates]

My 2 cents.

I think there are two types of Christians, but not exactly in the way that West sees it.

I see one type of Christian that tries to live their life as they believe Christ intended. They may be conservative like Zguy28, they may be liberal like ASF, they may be Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox, but they are sincere and they are thoughtful and they are doing their best to do right as they see it.

The other type of Christian is not really religious. He or she is tribalist. They are Christians because it is what they were raised by their parents, or what church they joined when they moved somewhere, but they don't think about the words of the bible except to the extent that some of the the words when cherry picked can be used to support the social views and prejudices that they already carry. They don't hate gay people or support wars or fear Muslims or whatever because they genuinely believe that is what Jesus taught. They don't think about what Jesus taught. They do it because they oppose everyone and everything that is not a part of their tribe or that has values different than their tribe currently has. Christianity to them is no different than politics, or rooting for a sports team, or any other form of self identification.

Virtually every single person on FreeRepublic claims to be a devout Christian, but they are not devout. They are committed to the cause and they are fervent, but they are not devout. Because they don't think. They just react.

I could get behind this distinction. I take it part of the point is that Christians should be following Christ's teachings, and many of them are following something else entirely. I think you put the point well.

[Mad Mike]

This has been a regular topic for me lately. Count me among those who believe Christians should be following the word of Christ and when His words are contradicted in the bible, His words always win.

[s0crates]

This is your official Jumbo "don't read this; it's long, the product of a damn outlier, and who cares" PSA.

Silly me, I went ahead and read it.

While of varying intensity in place and time (interesting vagaries, considering), it's been really vital to many of the Christian faith that you put the right thingy (penis) in the right place (vagina) and only the right thingy (penis) in the right place (vagina), and (at least it used to be) "only for the right reason" (reproduction). It's wisdom beyond your understanding.

For how central this is to some people's faith, you'd expect more clear mentions of it in the text. Jesus said what the most important commandment was, and it was not "thou shall put the right thingy in the right place for the right reasons."

Some of the time, I just "stand way back", very detached, and "look at it all" (the religious construct of Christianity). And for all its many important positives I also see what seems to me as such a huge circus of nonsense that I tend to thinking it's just part of what/where we are in development as a species. And strive though I may, it's not always a fair or balanced representation on my end.

It's similar to me to our major political parties' characteristics: full of both crap dogma and excellent dogma. Just like people. The Christian bible may not offer much truly original and exclusive (there's many believers who claim otherwise on a number of things) in thought, but it takes a lot of really good notions, gathers them nicely together in a teaching manner (just as innumerable other religious and secular structures have done before and since) and dumps an arkload of dysfunctional and nonsensical crap all over it. But that's a common human tendency if I'm any example.

I think that's fair, and it gets to the point about Christianity's identity crisis. My basic question here is: What is Christianity really all about?

I contend that it is (or at least should be) about those "excellent dogmas," not about putting the right thingy in the right place, and certainly not about wealth and power.

I also must admit that I'm borrowing West here because of pragmatic reasons (the ability of religion to teach, as you put it).

I do think Christianity likely incurred one serious long-term (think a few more centuries) crippling effect when "they" made too much of this sex stuff (inevitable) such an ingrained part of itself from the beginning--well, along with the obligatory need to claim it's The Only Truth on such things while appearing so clearly so full of "it" on a variety of matters to so many other intelligent and decent people.

I'm in agreement that the tendency of religion to see itself as the exclusive purveyor of truth is distasteful. I'm quite fond of the perennial philosophy myself:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

Part of my motivation here is to meet people where they are. If they begin with a Christian belief system, then let's confront them with what that belief system entails.

Admittedly my own lack of Christian faith works against my credibility, which is why I rely on a deeply faithful Christian in Dr. West to make the case.

The unavoidable (as well as chosen) ignorance of the times affecting thought on many matters prior to subsequent advances in knowledge is glaringly human and seems hardly divine (a theme that seems to me to run through the bible like....well, bible stuff).

No doubt there are mountains of superstitious magical thinking in religion, and those are detrimental. This is tangential to the thread, but I would say we need to distill religions down to their essential insight, ridding them of the silliness. I think we would do well to preserve what Huston Smith calls the "wisdom traditions," let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

The topic title is a good focus, yet there are so many areas of discussion within it.

I'm finding it is good for my class (a community college class in a very conservative area).

With this homosexual sex is fundamentally sinful stuff, the other silly sex stuff you can blast it for, the competing political camps with the faith using their same biblical scripture and their same story of a god to support often conflicting and opposing values, the ongoing fractures of non-Catholic Christians v Catholic, and the other battles and variations within "the message" being delivered from pulpits across the land in a multitude of denominations, I could imagine Christianity organizing for a Nicaea sequel at some point (The Greatest Makeover Ever Told, PT II).

I hope you're right about the coming makeover. For now I think it is important that the Christ-like Christians make their voices be heard over the deafening noise the fundies are making.

[s0crates]

This has been a regular topic for me lately. Count me among those who believe Christians should be following the word of Christ and when His words are contradicted in the bible, His words always win.

It seems so obvious when you put it like that.

[JMS]

I'm not wed to the word "correct." My main point is that Christians ought to prefer the New Testament to the Old in cases where they conflict (and Jesus' own words in cases where they conflict with other parts of the New Testament). No?

It's as good a word as any... It kind of reminds me of Ann Coulter who talked about correcting the jewish people or some such nonsense... But here St. Paul did basically replace / correct the old covenant for new Christians, with a new covenant. This was a very important step in early christianity, as it allowed / enabled christianity to move beyond a sect of judaism.

[Zguy28]

This has been a regular topic for me lately. Count me among those who believe Christians should be following the word of Christ and when His words are contradicted in the bible, His words always win.

except his words are not contradicted in the bible. The whole bible is a progressive revelation with Christ as the climax and he inaugurated a new covenant (this is prophecied in Jeremiah) in his blood by which God's law (see 10 commandments) would be written on the hearts of God's people. You should give the letters of 1 John and 1 Peter a read. They talk all about values and what love is.

[JMS]

You keep saying this, but it is nothing but a mob appeal. The truth is not decided by consensus or majority. Saying people disagree proves nothing.

Don't tell me what most Christians, some Christians, or all Christians think. Tell me who is right and why.

My contention is the more Christ-like you are, the more Christian you are. I think that is a defensible position, although I welcome your continued assault on it.

S0crates... this is a 2000 year old question... it's had some of the smartest fellows in antiquity working on it.. There is no single answer, and that's by design. Jesus didn't come down and hand folks a list of merit badges to collect, nor did he say, do this, live this way, follow this formula, and your in the big house when you die...

Folks are left to ponder that out for themselves.. And basically a lot of smart people, with good intent, have come to different answers. That is christianity today. It's no a monolithic idea which can easily be summed up in order to make your 101 class easier to teach.... You don't care about the details... The entire discussion is about the details. Rather than try to dismiss those folks, you should be trying to understand them..

Frankly, nobody get's to say who is right and who is wrong, everybody get's to say who is right for themselves.

 

No I'm trying to distinguish Christians who heed the gospels from those who don't. I'm taking the WWJD slogan seriously.

Ahh, you want to know which group of christians live their lives entirely based upon the second third and forth hand musing of a two thousand year old iron age, religious figure? NONE of them.. Everybody interprets the bible, even fundamentalists. The bible is written in such a way you must interpret it and make sense of it. How do you live your life based upon a parable without interpreting it? You can't. You absolutely have to make judgement on what is more important and what is less important to glean any wisdom from that book.   Jesus was clever like that.

The bible stories are also repeated throughout the bible... Like the sermon on the mount in ( Matthew ) where jesus feeds thousands repeated next to a lake in Luke where Jesus feeds only a few hundred.. Why the contradiction? Some think it's not a contradiction it occurred twice... Others think the endless theme of repetition in the bible is meant to tell the reader what is important... the two stories overlap, where they don't contradict that's where the real message is.   So by that standard the authors didn't think it was important how many Jesus fed,  or who much was left over,  or how much they started with...  or even if it occurred on a mountain or  next to a lake.  But christians disagree on this interpretation too.

 

The idea of ignoring the world sounds to me like apathy at best, and maybe even outright nihilism. I'm not putting my eggs in that basket.

I don't think scripture commits you to that interpretation though. In fact I think the repeated mentions of charity and reaping what you sow flat out contradict the idea of neglecting the world.

Inward looking christians don't ignore the world.. They just don't judge what they find there. They do the best they can and they trust everybody else is doing the best they can. They save your moral outrage and consternation for your own shortcomings... Key to this is having a personal relationship with God, who you speak to ( prayers )... and see yourself as being guided by.. These are the folks who don't need to drop a tseylem every time they score a touch down. Faith is a more personal thing than something to be shared or displayed.

There is nothing about this belief system which discourages charity or good works, actually quite the opposite. I would say these are the guys who most closely resemble who you are calling prophetic Christians.

 

I find it is plainly obvious that they are (generally speaking) far from being Christ-like (look how many of them oppose the poor and favor war, for two of numerous examples). I do not hesitate to call them hypocrites.

Again I would say that it's easy to be hypocritical when you set your bar high and also believe in publically displaying your faith, your passion, your righteousness as an example to others. I think it would be a mistake to suggest all or even most of these people are hypocritical even if we do watch so many fail spectacularly. I would tell you there was only one person who ever lived who was devoid of sin and he died two thousand years ago. I think personally this outward display of righteousness and the need to try to help everybody even those who don't want your help would be a great burden. A great trial... But going back to how Christ lived, Isn't that how he lived. Isn't their desire to help everybody believers or not and be an example to everybody how christ lived... see where I'm going with this.

 

And I would suggest folks who see themselves as their brothers keepers like this,  are probable responsible for most christian activism; including  abolition, woman's suffrage,  temperance movement and even the civil rights movements of the 1930's - late 1960's and the pro life movement today...   They're kinds of pains in the butts when they get it into their heads they got a better way of doing things...  They feel no hesitation telling folks how to live....     They aren't always right, but they have had some big successes.

 

This guy Dr. West is trying to address 2000 years of contentious history with the sophistication of pixie sticks and lincoln logs. It's really nonsensical.

 

Might as well throw in an ad hominem for good measure, huh?

 

When I said Dr. West is a moron... that was an ad hominem.. which I later went back and edited...

When I said Dr. West is trying to address 2000 years of hotly debated theological issues / history with the sophistication of pixie sticks and lincoln logs.. and it's nonsensical... That wasn't an example of ad hominem because the premise of the statement wasn't personal but based upon the merits of his argument. If you tie it to his statement, it's not ad hominem.

If I said, "He's nonsensical", maybe that would be an ad hominem.. only it's really still referring to his position.. so maybe not.

[s0crates]

S0crates... this is a 2000 year old question... it's had some of the smartest fellows in antiquity working on it.

And there have been very smart people manipulating the message for their own ends too, I suppose.

There is no single answer, and that's by design. Jesus didn't come down and hand folks a list of merit badges to collect, nor did he say, do this, live this way, follow this formula, and your in the big house when you die...

Jesus didn't instruct on how to live?

Folks are left to ponder that out for themselves.. And basically a lot of smart people, with good intent, have come to different answers. That is christianity today.

Again, a difference of opinion proves nothing except that somebody is wrong. The fact that opinions vary (even the opinions of smart people) doesn't mean that there is no truth of the matter.

It's no a monolithic idea which can easily be summed up in order to make your 101 class easier to teach...You don't care about the details... The entire discussion is about the details.

Of course Christian history and theology is nuanced and complex, but this isn't seminary, and it's absurd to suppose I need to treat Christianity with such thoroughness or else not discuss it at all.

You might call it an oversimplification, but when Jesus was asked for a concise explanation of his teaching he said the most important thing is to love God and each other. Call that a monolithic idea if you want, but it seems clear as crystal to me.

Frankly, nobody get's to say who is right and who is wrong, everybody get's to say who is right for themselves.

I suggest you consider the implications of that statement.

Ahh, you want to know which group of christians live their lives entirely based upon the second third and worth hand musing of a two thousand year old religious figure? NONE of them.. Everybody interprets the bible, even fundamentalists. The bible is written in such a way you must interpret it and make sense of it. How do you live your life based upon a parable without interpreting it? You can't.

Obviously scripture is meant to be interpreted, but that doesn't mean every interpretation has equal merit.

Inward looking christians don't ignore the world.. They just don't judge what they find there. They do the best they can and they trust everybody else is doing the best they can. You save your moral outrage and consternation for your own shortcomings... Key to this is having a personal relationship with God, who you speak to ( prayers )... and see yourself as being guided by him.. These are the folks who don't need to drop a tseylem every time they score a touch down. Faith is a more personal thing than something to be shared or displayed. There is nothing about this belief system which discourages charity or good works, actually quite the opposite.

That I can agree with, although that is different than what you said earlier.

Again I would say that it's easy to be hypocritical when you set your bar high and also believe in publically displaying your faith, your passion, your righteousness as an example to others.

Sure, Jesus sets a high bar for morality, I certainly don't claim to live up to his standards, but I don't go around calling myself a Christian either.

I think it would be a mistake to suggest all or even most of these people are hypocritical.

Let's take one example: Bush invoked the Christian God in his justification for bombing Baghdad, and Jesus was the prince of peace. If that isn't hypocrisy, what is?

Or another: Jesus said to sell all you have and give the money to the poor, the Christian Right says the poor should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. If that isn't hypocrisy, then it is at least irony.

When I said Dr. West is a moron... that was an ad hominem.. which I later went back and edited...

When I said Dr. West is trying to address 2000 years of hotly debated theological issues / history with the sophistication of pixie sticks and lincoln logs.. and it's nonsensical... That wasn't an example of ad hominem because the premise of the statement wasn't personal but based upon the merits of his argument. If you tie it to his statement, it's not ad hominem.

Fair enough. What you're saying now is West's argument fails because he summarizes the main message of the gospels. I don't find that persuasive.

Should we forbid summarizing complex ideas in academic discourse? I think not. In fact, I believe that a failure/inability to explain things in simple terms shows a lack of understanding, you seem to think that the opposite is true.

[JMS]

But is there room for we "inwardly looking Christians" who try not to judge, but yet care about our community's health & safety (not necessarily their "salvation")?  I have to hope that the guy on the street I give a couple bucks to will know who really shined on him...hint, it wasn't me.  Just through me.

 

Absolutely..  I think that is exactly how an inward looking Christian would present themselves and see their motivations.....

 

Rather than telling the guy on the street to repent, clean up his act, and turn to jesus;  and then kneel down and say a prayer on front of him / with him before leaving.....

 

I'm not saying which is right or wrong in this conversation..  I'm just saying they represent two very distinct ideas about what christianity is all about.

[JMS]

Fair enough. What you're saying now is West's argument fails because he summarizes the main message of the gospels. I don't find that persuasive.

 

I'm saying it fails because he picked nonsensical distinctions to hang his arguments on...   Constitinian Christians and Prophetic Christians..  

 

The reality is 95% of all christians subscribe to the nicene creed,  Constantine's major contribution to Christianity,  and those who don't are probable more closely related to what he's calling Constantinian than those who do..   So his distiction or classification of christians makes no sense.

 

Likewise he attributes social activism with the Prophetic Christians,  where as historically thinking it would be more accurate to ascribe social activism with those he's calling Constantinian Christians.   They are more the organizers and more the hard core in your face types...   Like the nice lady with the ax I previous referenced..

 

So his history is wrong,  his groupings are wrong,   his motivations of those groups are wrong...  it's all just a muddle.

 

Where he succeeds is in presenting a very simplified model which likely entirely supports his own prejudices without any real outside basis in reality.

[Zguy28]

But is there room for we "inwardly looking Christians" who try not to judge, but yet care about our community's health & safety (not necessarily their "salvation")?  I have to hope that the guy on the street I give a couple bucks to will know who really shined on him...hint, it wasn't me.  Just through me.

Jesus himself preached to people "on the street" in cities and told them to "repent! For the kingdom of heaven is near." When he met the woman at the well, he called out her 5 marriages and her co-habitation with a sixth man. And in the Great Commission (Matthew 28) he commands Christians to go and make disciples AND to teach them to obey his teachings. In his own words, Jesus said "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." So, as to your question, according to Jesus, there isn't a place for those who just do "good" things, but don't care about eternal matters. It has to be both. Faith in Christ, is always faith that works, both temporally and eternally.

[Zguy28]

I'm saying it fails because he picked nonsensical distinctions to hang his arguments on... Constitinian Christians and Prophetic Christians..

The reality is 95% of all christians subscribe to the nicene creed, Constantine's major contribution to Christianity, and those who don't are probable more closely related to what he's calling Constantinian than those who do.. So his distiction or classification of christians makes no sense.

Likewise he attributes social activism with the Prophetic Christians, where as historically thinking it would be more accurate to ascribe social activism with those he's calling Constantinian Christians. They are more the organizers and more the hard core in your face types... Like the nice lady with the ax I previous referenced..

So his history is wrong, his groupings are wrong, his motivations of those groups are wrong... it's all just a muddle.

Where he succeeds is in presenting a very simplified model which likely entirely supports his own prejudices without any real outside basis in reality.

I think he makes a variation on the error I talked about earlier, which ties the bible too much into the political spectrum. Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative politically, he was some of both. We should not shoehorn him in.

[JMS]

Jesus didn't instruct on how to live?

I think he gave us some pointers.. but he left out a lot of details.. He also gave us a book which can basically be used by anybody to prove anything. How you interpret the message is everything.. The book is not a blueprint, it's more of a treatus.

 

Again, a difference of opinion proves nothing except that somebody is wrong. The fact that opinions vary (even the opinions of smart people) doesn't mean that there is no truth of the matter.

Kind of an intolerant way of looking at it. That kind of thinking gave us 2000 years of religious wars, and counting... You don't think a God of infinite wisdom could provide different paths for different people all ending up in salvation? You think he gave us a book as cryptic and none straight forward as the bible because he wasn't interested in folks applying their own noggins on the problem?

And When Jesus said..

 

“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s[a] eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s[c] eye.

You think he wasn't speaking of personal theological decisions?

 

Of course Christian history and theology is nuanced and complex, but this isn't seminary, and it's absurd to suppose I need to treat Christianity with such thoroughness or else not discuss it at all.

Well I'm saying if you are going to try to identify a historic schism in Christianity and try to tie that to behaviors your observing in modern christianity; you ought to know a little bit about Christian history and the differences of modern Christian theology you are observing. I mean he's the one who brought up christian history right.. he should at least get his historical facts right.

 

You might call it an oversimplification, but when Jesus was asked for a concise explanation of his teaching he said the most important thing is to love God and each other. Call that a monolithic idea if you want, but it seems clear as crystal to me.

Really, love is crystal clear to you... what does that mean? you treat everybody like your daughter? your mother? your father? what? That's not exactly a foreign policy, or a domestic policy... It's not even a code of behavior if you are walking down to the pool hall and back.

 

Jesus said to sell all you have and give the money to the poor, the Christian Right says the poor should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. If that isn't hypocrisy, then it is at least irony.

When did Jesus say sell all you have and give the money to the poor? There are examples of Saints doing that I don't think Jesus recommended that as a model for ones life.

I think the bible shows Jesus wasn't against creature comforts and splurging a little.. John 12:1-8

 

Should we forbid summarizing complex ideas in academic discourse? I think not. In fact, I believe that a failure/inability to explain things in simple terms shows a lack of understanding, you seem to think that the opposite is true.

I agree that an inability to simplify things shows a lack of understanding.. But Dr. West isn't just simplifying things. He's making things up and attributing it to history... He's also attributing these false histories to behaviors he's witnessing today... which is just wrong and shows a lack of understanding of what he's observing...

Constantine didn't create the schism your Dr. West is observing... The protestant reformation did.. and most people would say the protestant reformation was a good thing..

Jesus himself preached to people "on the street" in cities and told them to "repent! For the kingdom of heaven is near." When he met the woman at the well, he called out her 5 marriages and her co-habitation with a sixth man. And in the Great Commission (Matthew 28) he commands Christians to go and make disciples AND to teach them to obey his teachings. In his own words, Jesus said "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." So, as to your question, according to Jesus, there isn't a place for those who just do "good" things, but don't care about eternal matters. It has to be both. Faith in Christ, is always faith that works, both temporally and eternally.

Exactly... an excellent representation of what I would call an outwardly focused Christian would say... That they are more closely following Jesus's example because Jesus taught in the streets.

Zguy28, tell me is their a concept in your theological belief of a common salvation. Where you are positively or negatively effected by the success or failure of your community? Or is being outward facing just seen as strengthening your community..

[s0crates]

I'm saying it fails because he picked nonsensical distinctions to hang his arguments on... Constitinian Christians and Prophetic Christians..

The reality is 95% of all christians subscribe to the nicene creed, Constantine's major contribution to Christianity, and those who don't are probable more closely related to what he's calling Constantinian than those who do.. So his distiction or classification of christians makes no sense.

Likewise he attributes social activism with the Prophetic Christians, where as historically thinking it would be more accurate to ascribe social activism with those he's calling Constantinian Christians. They are more the organizers and more the hard core in your face types... Like the nice lady with the ax I previous referenced..

So his history is wrong, his groupings are wrong, his motivations of those groups are wrong... it's all just a muddle.

Where he succeeds is in presenting a very simplified model which likely entirely supports his own prejudices without any real outside basis in reality.

I'm still not convinced you actually understand his position, because your objections seem to miss the point. It's probably my failure to explain. I'll try to clarify.

First of all West discusses this in the larger context of the two Americas. He says we have to keep two contrasting ideas of America in our head at the same time:

1. The democratic America ("All men are created equal," "We the people," social movements like civil rights and suffrage, the bill of rights, etc.).

2. The American empire (indigenous genocide, slavery, Monroe doctrine, manifest destiny, Jim Crow, sweatshops, poverty, militarism, etc.).

Now in that larger context, West devotes a chapter to Christianity in America. He says that the imperial agenda of America "is often justified by the religious rhetoric of Christian fundamentalism. And perhaps most ironically--and sadly--this fundamentalism is subverting the most profound seminal teachings of Christianity, those being that we should live with humility, love our neighbors, and do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

So here is where he first draws the distinction, saying fundamentalists are co-opted in support of the empire (what West calls Constintinian Christians), whereas other Christians care about the people and fuel democratic energy (what West calls prophetic Christians). I gave some of his examples of each in one of the first few posts. I'll go through more of his examples.

Constantinian (or imperial) Christianity:

-crusades

-the Inquisition

-biblical defenses of slavery and the indigenous genocide

-bigotry against women, people of color, and homosexuals

-antiabortion crusaders and homophobic crusaders

-opposition to welfare, public education, health care

-Jerry Falwell, moral majority , Christian coalition

-commodification/commercialization of Christianity

-Bush, DeLay, Ashcroft (this was 2006)

"In this version of Christianity the precious blood at the foot of the cross becomes mere Kool-Aid to refresh eager upwardly mobile aspirants in the nihilistic American game of power and might. And there is hardly a mumbling word about social justice, resistance to institutional evil, or courage to confront the powers that be--with the glaring exception of abortion."

Prophetic (or democratic) Christianity:

-religious freedom, opposition to the British empire

-social movements (abolitionist, women's, workers', and civil rights)

-public service

-care for the poor

-separation of church and state

-Social Gospel movement

-liberal theology

-King, Dorothy Day, William Sloan Coffin, etc.

-The Catholic Worker Movement

-SANE/FREEZE

-Frederick Douglas

"Prophetic Christianity is an ecumenical force for good, and if we are to revitalize the democratic energies if the country, we must reassert the vital legitimacy of this prophetic Christianity in our public life, such as the principles of public service and care for the poor."

"Christianity has lost its fervor for the suspicion of worldly authorities and for doing justice in service of the most vulnerable among is, which are central to the faith."

That was a bit of work, hope it clarifies West's position.

I think he makes a variation on the error I talked about earlier, which ties the bible too much into the political spectrum. Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative politically, he was some of both. We should not shoehorn him in.

I don't agree with your objection, but it is directly relevant at least.

[s0crates]

Kind of an intolerant way of looking at it. That kind of thinking gave us 2000 years of religious wars, and counting...

You said everybody decides for themselves what is good and bad, but now you tell me intolerance is bad? Is there a fact of the matter or isn't there?

I agree intolerance is bad incidentally, but I can make that claim because I believe good and bad is not merely a matter of opinion. If you think good and bad is only an opinion, then you really can't make moral claims.

You don't think a God of infinite wisdom could provide different paths for different people all ending up in salvation?

In fact I think exactly that (see my discussion with Jumbo about the perennial philosophy). However, the idea that there is more than one path to the truth is very different than your previous claim that there is no truth. Multiple paths is one thing, to each there own is something else entirely.

Really, love is crystal clear to you... what does that mean? you treat everybody like your daughter? your mother? your father? what? That's not exactly a foreign policy, or a domestic policy... It's not even a code of behavior if you are walking down to the pool hall and back.

Love your neighbor as yourself. Love one another (as Jesus did). Love your enemies. It's not vague, subtle, or complicated. I'm not sure what's unclear about it.

When did Jesus say sell all you have and give the money to the poor?

Where do you go to church again? This is repeated several times in the gospels.

Matthew 19:21

Mark 10:21

Luke 18:22

Luke 12:33

And these are buttressed by

Luke 6:30

Matthew 5:42

Mark 10:25

Matthew 19:24

It's a pretty clear message, as far as scriptural messages go.

[chipwhich]

This is your official Jumbo "don't read this; it's long, the product of a damn outlier, and who cares" PSA. 

 

 

And since god doesn't make mistakes (many men don't, or at lest don't admit it  ) "true" hermaphrodites (see "intersex") are likely the only ones allowed to engage in bisexual sexual acts without it being a sin according to the gospels. People keep getting that wrong.

 

Yeah, the main point which wont be discussed with ANYONE on either side of this argument.

 

Hermaphrodites are born and not addressed.  Yet someone can't have homosexual feelings if they weren't born with "options".

 

Seems silly to me.

[s0crates]

A strong statement that is based on a non sequitur is a lie.

I think it is reasonable to characterize American social movements as being not only influenced by Christianity but also inspired by it. This is a matter of historical record. I've given many examples of that in this thread. I'm not sure what kind of evidence you want.

I'm left guessing what you think I'm arguing for here that I haven't shown because you say so little. The claim I'm making is that Christianity can fuel democratic movements, I don't mean to prove that social progress necessarily requires Christianity, that would be silly.

I imagine you would agree Christianity is often a detriment to society. What better way to confront those forces than to show them their own hypocrisy based on the belief system they profess?

Are you claiming that all learning is indoctrination?

No. I do think we should make sure the doctrines we teach children are good though.

[skinsmarydu]

So, as to your question, according to Jesus, there isn't a place for those who just do "good" things, but don't care about eternal matters. It has to be both. Faith in Christ, is always faith that works, both temporally and eternally.

I'm not meaning to argue, really.

The last sermon I heard my dad preach was my very least favorite, "Faith without Works is Dead". It contradicts John 3:16...which doesn't exclude anyone, btw. We've had this discussion, and he can see my point of view.

But good works (to me) are always about eternal matters, and if "good" gets passed on, we're getting there. Baby steps.

add: "good" seems to be passed on quite frequently amongst the poor, they help each other, are willing to share bountiful blessings, I've seen it...with a little more from those of us with a little more, faith can be renewed.  

[alexey]

I think it is reasonable to characterize American social movements as being not only influenced by Christianity but also inspired by it. This is a matter of historical record. I've given many examples of that in this thread. I'm not sure what kind of evidence you want.

I'm left guessing what you think I'm arguing for here that I haven't shown because you say so little. The claim I'm making is that Christianity can fuel democratic movements, I don't mean to prove that social progress necessarily requires Christianity, that would be silly.

I imagine you would agree Christianity is often a detriment to society. What better way to confront those forces than to show them their own hypocrisy based on the belief system they profess?

I agree with most points that were made in this conversation. I see the discussion of the interplay between religion/Christianity and social movements as tangential. I would not focus on this point if we were having a one-on-one conversation. I would readily grant that "Christianity played a role," and propose to discuss specifics at a later point.

I am apprehensive about these things because they can be easily misunderstood. They easily find their way into "religion is necessary for morality" type nonsense.

No. I do think we should make sure the doctrines we teach children are good though.

I teach my children: "here is what I think and here is why"

I see a big difference between that, and: "here is the truth from god"

[Zguy28]

 

Or at least he equates Homosexuals with Tax collectors and  rich men who,  Jesus said won't inherit the kingdom of heaven either.  In fact Jesus says Matthew 5:3  "blessed are the poor in spirit,  they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven". so does that mean we should deny marriage and systemically discriminate against all but the poor in spirit?   Non "poor in spirit" behavior is "an example of sinful behavior" ?  Since only they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven?

..

 

 

So that's what I would call loosely...   because of these 10 categories of folks who "won't inherit the kingdom of God",  how many do we as a society deny the right to get married too?   None but homosexuals.....    How many face absolutely ZERO systemic condemnation,   about half ( #2, #3, #7, #9,  probable #4 )...   Hell Bill Clinton filled about half those catagories and we elected him President, Twice.

 

So that's not a condemnation of Homosexuality... That's saying God imposed homoseduality on heterosexual folks exhibiting Pagans,  Buddhists,  Hindus, and Agnostics tendencies as a punishment. God gave them up.... It wouldn't be much of a punishment if he imposed homosexual tendencies on homosexuals now would it?

 

 

Again not talking about Homosexuals here.. talking about  Pagans,  Buddhists,  Hindus, and Agnostics  The folks which god punished by giving them up to Homosexual tendencies.

 

 

Before that Jesus said,  let he who is without sin cast the first stone...   And nobody on the religious right is saying we should deny civil marriage to adulterers...   

 

Hell in Matthew 5 : 27   Jesus says anybody who looks lustfully has already committed Adultery......   So I would say a pretty broad segment of the population of earth are therefore adulterers...   and we don't deny any of them marriage.

God didn't impose homosexuality on anybody. It says He turned them loose to do shameful acts. He removed gracious restraint. As far as the rest, I have no idea what you are even talking about. It doesn't make sense.

[Mad Mike]

except his words are not contradicted in the bible. The whole bible is a progressive revelation with Christ as the climax and he inaugurated a new covenant (this is prophecied in Jeremiah) in his blood by which God's law (see 10 commandments) would be written on the hearts of God's people. You should give the letters of 1 John and 1 Peter a read. They talk all about values and what love is.

 

Oh really?

 

"Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."…

[s0crates]

I agree with most points that were made in this conversation. I see the discussion of the interplay between religion/Christianity and social movements as tangential. I would not focus on this point if we were having a one-on-one conversation. I would readily grant that "Christianity played a role," and propose to discuss specifics at a later point.

I am apprehensive about these things because they can be easily misunderstood. They easily find their way into "religion is necessary for morality" type nonsense.

Fair enough. What do you think of West's claim that "a purely secular fight won't be won"? This isn't saying religion is necessary for morality, but it does suggest American social progress won't happen without a Christian component.

I teach my children: "here is what I think and here is why"

I see a big difference between that, and: "here is the truth from god"

I think that is good parenting. My mom always gave me reasons for her rules, much like you do with your kids. I like that approach much better than the " because I said so" or "because God says so" approaches.

That said, I think you do have to teach young children simplified moral lessons before they can appreciate subtleties. There is a reason children's stories are so unambiguous in their moral lessons. For example, the boy who cried wolf teaches that lying is bad, it doesn't address white lies and cases where we might feel morality requires us to lie.

[JMS]

God didn't impose homosexuality on anybody. It says He turned them loose to do shameful acts. He removed gracious restraint. As far as the rest, I have no idea what you are even talking about. It doesn't make sense.

 

Zguy28, Romans 1:24-27 doesn't say... God saw a bunch of homosexuals and said, SINNERS, and then started imposing punishments on them.... What it says is God saw a bunch of sinners (idolaters) worshiping, "images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." and as punishment God made them homosexuals..  gave them over to it.

 

Homosexuality was the punishment,  not the sin in Romans 1:24-27

 

"gave them up to dishonorable passions."

- aka homosexual acts.

There sins had nothing to do with homosexuality. They were presumable "heterosexual", idolaters, and God turned them into homosexuals as a punishment.. Homosexuals something they were not prior to an action God took in response to their sins of being idolaters.  Which I suggest wouldn't be much of a punishment if they already were homosexuals.

Here is the complete verse...

 

Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

So I would still say in the entire bible (new testament) you are down to "1 Corinthians 6" where Paul loosely condemns homosexuality... says they won't "inherit the kingdom of heaven"... which is basically what Jesus said of rich men and tax collectors.

 

As for your Gracious Restraint statement.  

 

Are you saying we are all homosexuals without "gracious restraint"?   There but for the grace of god?  So atheists, agnostics, and non Christians are all homosexuals because they are not "restrained" by God's grace?   By your logic are we born homosexuals and then loose it at baptism?  I mean most Protestants baptize late in life don't they?   What are you saying here? 

 

Or are you saying.. homosexuality was always in these specific idolaters?  These specific idolaters who weren't exhibiting homosexual tendencies because of God's gracious restraint prior to being branded sinners by God..... and God yanked that restraint in response to their sin of idolatry...   Thus by your reasoning didn't actually make them homosexuals,  just allowed them to be homosexuals removing his anti homosexual mojo from their proximity?  as punishment....      

 

Not sure that interpretation  changes the meaning of the verses for me...   Homosexuality was the punishment,  not the sin in Romans 1.

[Zguy28]

Oh really?

 

"Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."…

What did the Old Covenant (Testament) Law demand for those caught in adultery?

 

What did the Old Covenant Law have the power to do?

 

What does the New Covenant Gospel have the power to do that the Law did not?

 

Oh, and who alone has the power to forgive sins and grant mercy to sinners?

 

Answer those and you'll be on the path to the answer and will begin to understand that Jesus's actions don't contradict.

[JMS]

I think I understand what your Dr. West's position is...   He's got it in his head that God agrees with him,  and then he's breaking out various Christian behavior on the merit of that conceit.   Only the Christian groups doing the things he agrees with and disagrees with are the same groups of Christians..

 

Constantinian (or imperial) Christianity:

-crusades     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------(- Pre Reformation Catholics)
-the Inquisition  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------(- Pre Reformation Catholics)
-biblical defenses of slavery and the indigenous genocide   ------------------------ (-  Everybody, slavory is condoned in the bible )
-bigotry against women, people of color, and homosexuals ------------------------ (-  Everybody,  lately more evangelicals on the homosexual thing,  but most of this has biblical coverage )
-antiabortion crusaders and homophobic crusaders --------------------------------- (- Everybody, but most strongly  Protestants,  evangelicals,  again there is biblical coverage for this )
-opposition to welfare, public education, health care---------------------------------- (-  Protestants,  evangelicals,   Catholics love welfare and public education and most social programs )
-Jerry Falwell, moral majority , Christian coalition-------------------------------------- (-  Protestants,  evangelicals )
-commodification/commercialization of Christianity ---------------------------------- (-  Everybody who celebrates christmas.. that's everybody )
-Bush, DeLay, Ashcroft (this was 2006)------------------------------------------------- (-  Conservative Republican, Protestants,  evangelicals )

"In this version of Christianity the precious blood at the foot of the cross becomes mere Kool-Aid to refresh eager upwardly mobile aspirants in the nihilistic American game of power and might. And there is hardly a mumbling word about social justice, resistance to institutional evil, or courage to confront the powers that be--with the glaring exception of abortion."

 

Ok you just created a list of things spanning from Dark Ages to modern times which can be associated with nearly every Christian group in the country... 95+ %..
 

Prophetic (or democratic) Christianity:

-religious freedom, opposition to the British empire  ------------------------- (-  Protestants,  evangelicals  -   ( Especially the Baptists )
-social movements (abolitionist, women's, workers', and civil rights)       (-  Protestants,  evangelicals )
-public service------------------------------------------------------------------------- (-  Everybody )
-care for the poor  -------------------------------------------------------------------- (-  Everybody )
-separation of church and state  ---------------------------------------------------(-  Protestants,  evangelicals  -   ( Especially the Baptists )
-Social Gospel movement-----------------------------------------------------------(-  Protestants,  evangelicals )
-liberal theology-------------------------------------------------------------------------(-  Probable more Catholic, but Everybody )
-King, Dorothy Day, William Sloan Coffin, etc.----------------------------------(-  Protestants,  evangelicals )
-The Catholic Worker Movement---------------------------------------------------(-  New Deal,  Social Justice program reflective of FDR's activism)
-SANE/FREEZE -----------------------------------------------------------------------(-  Think they were mostly secular )
-Frederick Douglas ------------------------------------------------------------------- (-  Protestants,  evangelicals )

"Prophetic Christianity is an ecumenical force for good, and if we are to revitalize the democratic energies if the country, we must reassert the vital legitimacy of this prophetic Christianity in our public life, such as the principles of public service and care for the poor."

 

And that's my problem with your groupings... The things you do like and the things you don't like, are basically having to do with the same groups of Christians...There is probable no more active or populous evangelical group in the country today than the Baptists.   A half dozen of your bad list the Baptists are probable at point for among protestant/evangelicals.  Yet we owe Baptists for creating our model for religious freedom and separation of church and state in the United States,  to say nothing of the civil rights and the abolition movements..    Somehow you divide Baptist positions across prophetic and constantinian dichotomy based upon a fictional historic schism which occurred 1000 years before the Baptist religion was founded;  worse for your point though Baptists would tell you there positions on these issues are entirely consistent..    

 

I would suggest most Baptists, Catholics, or Evangelicals don't recognize the schism you are trying to make which divides Christian behavior along issues you approve of, and issues you don't;  even if and most especially because you equate your approval with God's will.    Equate with God's will because you've got a verse in the bible which you think says that.    

 

There are lot's of actual schisms amongst Christians, historically speaking, doctrinally speaking.   there is just no reason to invent new and largely fictional ones,  which don't actually divide anybody or anything.....