All Comments (23)

Ms. Pagels,

You are a lightweight.

Faith? In what? Faith in your fellow human beings? How long have people been on this planet as a species? Certainly longer than Abrahamic monotheism has been here trying to center-stage itself. Don't you people feel any awareness of how arrogant it is of you to sit and divide up "the cake of moral righteousness" between Judaism, Christianity and Islam as if no one else mattered? How many religious systems have existed and fallen over the hundreds of thousands of years of our evolution? Which one of the three monotheist religions has the most violent history? Which one is the most violent now? It's like Coke and Pespi claiming they are the only things humanity has ever had to drink and then patting each other on the back for having refundable bottles! Well, guess what...there is a whole world of water out there and none of you own the patent on it!

Tonio, I fully agree. People need to understand that not all violence is physical. There is a measure of spiritual violence in fundamentalist dogma, and that violence is often excruciatingly painful and disabling.

When people use fundamentalist dogma to label those who disagree with them as "other" irreparable harm can result. Fundamentalist Christians seem to forget that Christ preferred to spend His time among the undesirables of His day.

Thanks, Kathy. My larger point is that any fundamentalist dogma in any religion can lead to violence and repression. When people are convinced that they are acting in God's name, they become convinced they can do anything they want to other people.

Matthew 5:11 ¶ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Jesus is Lord !

"It is not Christ's teaching, nor true Christian practice, nor the histoiry of the true Christian Church."

Who decides what is the "true Christian Church," Theo. This one statement illustrates quite well the discussion Tonio and I have been sharing.

If your "true Christian Church" meets your needs, good for you. Enjoy your worship and practice your dogma. It is not for you, nor anyone else, to say that your church is "true" and all others are lacking.

Ms. Pagels commentary wronfully assumes that violence in the name of Christianity is a common Christian heritage. This is not factual. Early Christians, through the time of the schism of 1054, and continuing on in Orthodox Christianity, have no history of spreading the faith by the sword. They do have one of spreading the faith by peaceful means. The Crusades and later, the wars amond the Protestans, were led by Western religious leaders that we Orthodox consider to have been heretics. It is not Christ's teaching, nor true Christian practice, nor the histoiry of the true Christian Church.

Tonio:

"Yes, Christians are often unfairly dumped into one dogmatic group. Do you think part of that comes from the fundamentalist tactic of claiming to speak for "true" Christianity?"

Yes, I do. This is a subset of Christian faith that is loud, well-financed and highly organized. I deeply object to their claim of being the one, true representative of Christian faith. I think their actions come perilously close to those of the Pharisees, whom Jesus unequivocally shunned.

"And I'm not sure that even qualifies as Biblical literalism, since they claim that Jesus superseded the Old Testament laws."

Well, Tonio, they make that claim unless referring to Old Testament laws enables them to harshly judge others, especially people who are homosexual.

Kathy,

You're exactly right when you say that "Some of us also reject the assertion that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God. It is not factual to place all followers of Christ into one large group that marches in lockstep." That was part of my point. I disagree with fundamentalism in all religions.

Yes, Christians are often unfairly dumped into one dogmatic group. Do you think part of that comes from the fundamentalist tactic of claiming to speak for "true" Christianity? I find it ironic that these fundamentalists use a literal reading of the Koran to attack Islam but use a literal reading of the Bible to praise Christianity. And I'm not sure that even qualifies as Biblical literalism, since they claim that Jesus superseded the Old Testament laws.

Andy, you said, "If we see Jesus as the only true Word of God, then we have to pick and choose what else we will deem as worthy of being "the words of God." Who do we place as the final authority for this?"

I believe each of us must find that answer within our own relationships with God. I have absolutely no faith in the ability of human beings to interpret the will of God. I think human fallibility has resulted in a scriptural canon that reflects the societal customs, intellectual development and, yes, superstitions of the times in which the books were compiled.

I also think that if one believes the Christian Bible to be the literal word of God, then one must also believe that God stopped talking to us thousands of years ago.

Reading the Christian Bible from a scholarly perspective, keeping in mind the customs, traditions and societal developments of those eras in history, can provide an eye-opening pursuit. In order to do that, though, one must be willing to question the "truth" we have been spoon-fed and to study with an open mind. That's not for everyone to do, but I was able to more fully develop and appreciate my own relationship with God and to rid myself of human-created dogma because I did follow that pursuit.

I've heard excuse after excuse from Biblical literalists about why some Old Testament law can be ignored at one's choosing. In those excuses what I really hear is that the laws that can be ignored are the ones that are inconvenient to those who wish to eat shellfish, shave or trim their beards, wear polyester/cotton fabric, or allow their disobedient or disrespectful children to live. Need I go on?

The Old Testament laws used as a weapon against people who are different, and the stories that allegedly support those laws, are far more convenient for people who are not confronted with a natural and perfectly legitimate, but different, way of loving and sharing intimacy.

We are a more sophisticated and learned people now. We understand more completely the fullness of human diversity and the absolute treasure that diversity offers to all people. Levitical law and Old Testament allegory just does not have relevance to today's world.

So, Jesus said love God, and love each other. I think that's really all we need to know in our quest to live as followers of Christ.

Those of us that wear the title of evangelical do so sometimes with a deal of shame, because of what is sometimes done and said in "our name." I want peace, and I want to work towards peace; in everything I do and say I try to do it in humility, gentleness, and with the rememberance that I am merely a sinner saved by grace. I am sure that all evangelicals started from these premises, but once you get a taste of power, and you get used to having the microphone in front of your face, you begin to enjoy these things and no longer hold to that which you used to and maybe still do believe. Republicans and evangelicals are often strange bedfellows, and I am uncomfortable with evangelicalism in the political sphere, though I want evangelicals involved in politics (on the surface it seems like a contradiction, but I believe (maybe foolishly and idealistically) that one can serve within politics without becoming corrupt). I pray daily I will not fall to the temptations of power that some of my brothers have. I offer a few of these points quickly:

-If we can "give" on God actually working in some historic events, like the words of Jesus, why can we not "give" on God working supernaturally to put together a canon of Scripture? Further, many church fathers held to the canon as we have it (see Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, and Jerome), before we received the actual Canon from the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) which were guided by Augustine.

-The Greatest Commandment can be seen throughout the OT, inclduing but not limited to Deut. 6:5; 10:12; Joshua 22:5. The Second Commandment, likewise, can be seen in the OT in places like: Lev. 19:18 and Deut. 10:18-19. Let's not treat these ideas like they are unique to Jesus.

-The OT Law can be seen as a shadow of things to come (the New Covenant of Jesus Christ) that are used as both civil and religious law of the people of Israel. Some of this shadow stands with the illumination of Christ, though some of it falls away as unnecessary.

-If we see Jesus as the only true Word of God, then we have to pick and choose what else we will deem as worthy of being "the words of God." Who do we place as the final authority for this?

I know these come off as ramblings, and I apologize, but in a hurry and wanted to place one more post before a new question arrives. Enjoying the conversation!

Soli Deo Gloria.

Faith is a very glorified word for believing things that have no or little basis in reality. Believing things on faith would be fine if we didn't believe our faith was absolute truth and then fight with others about who's right and who's wrong. Faith might give us some reassurance about life after death, or that someone is watching out for us, but for the most part it plays out violently on the world stage and the victims are always the women, children and animals.

It is better for people with different beliefs to take steps to get along and I applaud the Pope and everyone else willing to take steps outside their comfort zones and beyond the boundaries of their imagined self concepts. Yet the results of our belief systems have consistently deteriorated into war and I think that it is time to seriously question the efficacy of the very process of faith, take a quiet and long look at the falseness of belief and the importance of facing physical and elemental reality and lay our belief systems to rest. Perhaps we could have ritual funerals for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. and let Jesus, Mohammed, Moses and the rest of them finally rest in peace. Then we can get on with the real work of being our brothers' and sisters' keepers, take care of our Mother Earth and finally stop pretending to be something we are not.

Let the Pope and the head honcho of the Eastern Church and all the Ayatollahs and all the Rabbis and all the heads of state take their clothes off (their signs of high office), take a sweat together and realize they are humans who do not have any better grasp on the truth than the easter bunny and probably less than their pets.

I am currently doing some writing on these subjects and invite you to visit my website at www.professorpurplepants.com

Jesus told us,

"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

These two commandments are the essence of Christianity. All else, IMO, is commentary.

Matt, you're absolutely right about the distinction between fundamentals and fundamentalism in Christianity. As I see it, part of the problem is that the fundamentalists object to a focus on fundamentals. They condemn to hell even those Christians who view the Bible as anything but the inerrant word of God.

Sam Harris is probably not in your theological wheelhouse. I offer this quote from him anyway:

"The problem with religion is that it is the only type of us/them thinking in which we posit a transcendental difference between the in-group and out-group. So the difference between yourself and your neighbor is not just the color of your skin or your political affiliation. It's that your neighbor believes something that is so metaphysically incorrect, he's going to spend eternity in hell for it."

I appreciated this statement from you: "I think it isn't a far stretch to consider Adam and Eve a parable in view of the spectrum of human diversity we see now." I go further than that. I see the creation stories in Genesis as metaphors for the development of human sentience and agrarian civilization.

Here's an idea - what if Christianity leaves behind the Old Testament, the deutero-Pauline epistles and Revelations? Those New Testament books seem to be more Old Testament in tone than the Gospels and the epistles that Paul actually wrote. Would that make Christianity more about Christ and his teachings?

Christian Fundamentalists vs Christian fundamentals.

I think that the term "Christian Fundamentalist" is a bit misleading. It is often used to refer to people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and anyone else that thinks the earth is less than 100,000 years old and that evolution is a direct affront to God. By definition, a "Christian fundamentalist" is a person who adheres to the fundamentals of Christianity. So who has the authority to say what material in the Bible is fundamental? Here is what Jesus had to say:

"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

You can't get more fundamental than that. From a Christian's standpoint, this comes straight from the mouth of God; I think it is safe to assume that it trumps any obscure piece of Levitical law that would prescribe unloving actions as punishment for transgressions. Especially when you condsider the nature of the Deuteronomy and Leviticus. In those days there was no distinction made between secular and religous law-- it was all written down in the same place. As for Genesis and the creation debate, Christ himself spoke in parables. I think it isn't a far stretch to consider Adam and Eve a parable in view of the spectrum of human diversity we see now.

I think there are ample examples in the Old Testament as to why literal interpretation will not jive with 1) Christ's own teachings and 2)sound reason. I consider myself to be a Chrisitian fundamentalist, but I still beleive in carbon-dating, the fossil record, and evolutionaty theory. For those reasons and because I have actually read Deuteronomy and Leviticus in their entirety, I am compelled to beleive that not everything in the Old Testament is verbatim the word of God. Rather, I am more inclined to get the word of God directly from its source, the living Word of God, Christ.

This may seem like a digression from the topic of this forum, but I think a major issue that must be addressed when examining Christianity's stance on violence is the "...but what about the Old Testament" retort.

If we are going to evaluate Chrisitianity, lets stick to Christ. He is unequivocal about his stance on violence. Its fundamentally wrong.

- Matt

Andy,

I try to always be respectful to others, especially when I strongly disagree with their opinions or beliefs. My experience teaches me that we learn more from respectful discussion than from antagonistic rhetoric.

You are correct when you state that, "this forum is not ideal when having a give-and-take discussion..." but I must be honest with you and tell you that I have neither the time nor the interest in pursuit of an ongoing scriptural exegesis.

I respect your belief in scriptural infallibility and inerrancy, but I completely disgree with you. The Council of Nicea summarily dismissed the ancient texts that contradicted their beliefs, and that resulted in a Christian Bible that was assembled by fallible human beings, not by an infallible God. IMO, to believe the Christian Bible to be the literal and inerrant word of God is folly.

I think it is easy to quote scripture and use that as a weapon to diminish those with whom one disagrees. I think it is quite difficult, however, to actively live in obedience to Jesus' commandments to love God and love one another. And, I stand behind my statement that if Christ were to offer the Sermon on the Mount today He would be dismissed by fundamentalist Christians as a liberal socialist, what with all that talk about the meek inheriting the earth, and peace-makers being blessed.

Peace be with you.

Kathy,

I appreciate your candor and honesty, and I like your independent spirit and your desire to be intellectually honest. However, I do not like being called a "fundamentalist" just because I hold to the inerrancy of the Bible. I do not use the means of legalism to "damn people to Hell," but rather I hold to the simple tenant of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. Now, to discuss your arguments, I think it is unfair to make a statement like, "Fundamentalist Christianity embraces the God of the Old Testament as fervently as it embraces the God of the New Testament, regardless of the inconsistencies and outright contradictions that are readily apparent." First, you cannot claim the banner of Christ and discuss two different "gods" of the two testaments, because that would be Marcionism, and even the earliest of the Church fathers would dismiss your views as coming from outside of the Church. Second, you cannot make a blanket statement about the Bible like you did without any examples. I realize that this forum is not ideal when having a give-and-take discussion, so if you would like to exchange emails to discuss this further, I would be open to that. Finally, I do hope that I am not so Pharisaical that if Jesus were here now, today, I would recognize Him with a humble heart and a fervent spirit. However, I do not think Jesus' Sermon on the Mount can be shrugged off as a socialist manifesto of any sort. These are just a few quotes from that very Sermon that would push me to disagree:

"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you, for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." (MT 5.29)

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction; and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (MT 7:13-14)

Those words seem a little more divisive than a liberal, tree-hugging socialist would say. Anyways, these are just some ideas to think about. Keep searching and listening. Dialogue is good when respect is given.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Andy

Tonio:

You said, "A casual reader of the Bible is likely to conclude that the Old Testament is just as much a part of Christian doctrine as the New Testament."

This statement is true, however, it does not apply only to casual readers of the Bible. The essence of fundamentalist Christianity is that the Bible, as a whole, is the literal, inspired, inerrant word of God. Fundamentalist Christianity embraces the God of the Old Testament as fervently as it embraces the God of the New Testament, regardless of the inconsistencies and outright contradictions that are readily apparent.

The hypocrisy, however, is in the fundamentalist Christian's selective application of Old Testament prohibitions when addressing their core "issues of morality." For example, their interpretation of prohibitions of sexual behavior are to be strictly obeyed, but the prohibitions against divorce, wearing fabric of mixed threads and consumption of shellfish are deemed to be inconsequential even though the Bible says these practices are also forbidden.

Some of us who are followers of Christ reject the fundamentalist interpretation of the scriptures. Some of us also reject the assertion that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God. It is not factual to place all followers of Christ into one large group that marches in lockstep. Even the Baptists are split into several separate entities, including the Southern Baptists, Regular Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Missionary Baptists, etc.

Sadly, the teachings and example of Christ are difficult to find in today's extreme fundamentalist denominations. In fact, I strongly believe that if Christ were to preach His sermon on the mount today he would be dismissed as a liberal, tree-hugging socialist.

Matt Angle, while it's true that Christ forbade violence under any circumstance, there are verses in the Old Testament that advocate death for unbelievers and for sexual transgressors. A casual reader of the Bible is likely to conclude that the Old Testament is just as much a part of Christian doctrine as the New Testament.

John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan in hopes of impressing Jodie Foster. Perhaps Jodie Foster fans should look into their own ranks before criticizing violent practices of others.

Let's first agree that the misguided actions of individuals does not provide a very good basis for judging the entire group. I will go further though, because even if Jodie Foster fans around the world had grabbed revolvers and headed for the Hilton, it still would have failed to gain favor with Jodie Foster. As not to belabor the analogy, I will state my point plainly: the only way to legitimately evaulate a religion's proprensity toward violence is to go straight to the source. What are the teachings of _________ with respect to violence. According to ________, how does God feel when a violent act is commited.

There is a fundamental distinction between violence committed in the name of Christianity versus violence committed in the name of Islam. violence under any circumstance is expressly forbidden by Christ. Two specific instances that come to mind: 1) he stops the legal execution of an adultress and 2)during his arrest, one of his followers pulls a sword in order to defend him to which Christ admonishes "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

In constrast, Islam still prescribes the death penalty for adultery, and Muhammad himself led an army to take the city of Mecca. It is true, that the vast majority of violence commited in the name of Islam is inconsistent with the teachings of Muhammad, but it would be a mistake to say that Islam condemns all acts of violence.

If the Pope himself announced tommorrow that all God-fearing Catholics should purchase a firearm and retake East Jerusalem, he would clearly be contradicting the teachings of Christ. If every Catholic with a TV went to war, they would still be doing it against the most fundamental tenants of Christian teaching.

When I see radical clerics calling young men to become soldiers in their war on Israel and the United States, I cannot help but be reminded of Muhammad's own campaign in Arabia, which according to all forms of practiced Islam, was a divinely-sanctioned military action.

Has anyone at Princeton done an anayysis of violence and it's association with a place called hell? Give it a go.

Suppose, as religion says people die but do not stay dead. They go on to some other world. Now consider the case of murder, just one of many "sins" that need forgivness. Will the murder victim be waiting for the murderer in the next world? Is the notion of a savior born of sweetness and light or the dark side that says I want to take that which belongs to others and get away with it? Life is the first thing we take from each other in many ways. We went to Iraq willing to kill to get what we want.

The problem is complicated by evolution. When we take the concept of forgivness back to it's origin we find that it was the murderer and not the victim that invented the place called hell. He wasnted his victims to stay dead while he enjoyed eternal life, a life of luxury via the fruits ot the labors of others. The concept of hell evolved just like everything evolves in one way or the other. Today, hell is a set of hopes to get rid of the unwanted for a variety of reasons, larceny being just one but all come from the dark side of human thought.

The first thing children are taught at most Sunday schools, after Jesus loves them is that those who are not there getting indictrinated into religion are going to hell. Hell is the great divider of people and it's roots are in the lie, a lie told at least 5,000 years ago for the first time and repeated many times in a multitude of forms since. http://www.hoax-buster.org/gov101 is the story of the first government on earth and the creation of hell. I think you will be able to improve your knowledge of religion from it. At least you will know who invented hell and why it was invented as well as how.

Your wish and admonition are undoubtedly devoutly made, but those you wish to reach are, experience suggests, devoutly deaf. They, and thus the rest of us, need to hear the message from an ever louder and ever growing chorus. The Pope has the position, but not the disposition, to heed or lead.

What Benedict XVI should but won't say is this:

1 . Admit that the Catholic view of Jesus is totally wrong, since Jesus was an apolcalyptic prophet who led a band of men who challenged Roman rule and were arrested and he was crucified.

2. The earliest Jewish Christians led by James, the brother of Jesus, believed he was the prophet to lead the Jews to freedom. This of course did not happen and Jesus died. Period. No resurrection.

3. Islam inherited the beliefs of the Jewish Christians about Jesus as the True Prophet. They hailed Mohammed as the same one. They looked forward to the intervention of God/Allah. While none of this happened, it makes the Muslims the nearest followers of Jesus, more than the Christians or the Jews.

4. Of course, Benedict cannot and will not say any of this, but this is the truth.

5. The Jewish apocalyptic beliefs led to the destruction of the Jews. It can also lead to the destruction of the Christians, leaving everything to the Muslims. What a tragedy.