Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She was president of CTS from 1998-2008. Her area of expertise is contextual theologies of liberation, specializing in issues of violence and violation. An ordained minister of the United Church of Christ since 1974, the “On Faith” panelist is the author or editor of thirteen books and has been a translator for two translations of the Bible. Her works include Casting Stones: Prostitution and Liberation in Asia and the United States (1996) and The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Translation (1995). She edited and contributed to Adam, Eve and the Genome: Theology in Dialogue with the Human Genome Project (2003).
Close.
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
Professor, Chicago Theological Seminary
Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She was president of CTS from 1998-2008.
more »
Thank you for your prophetic gift. I get it... Some folks never make it past the "forms of godliness" to a real relationship with their Creator. They settle for membership in a religion/denomination as "good enough." It's not.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-23)
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)
Thank you for your prophetic gift. I get it... Some folks never make it past the "forms of godliness" to a real relationship with their Creator. They settle for membership in a religion/denomination as "good enough." It's not.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-23)
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)
The solitary hired man on a farm in the outskirts of Concord, who has had his second birth and peculiar religious experience, and is driven as he believes into the silent gravity and exclusiveness by his faith, may think it is not true; but Zoroaster, thousands of years ago, travelled the same road and had the same experience; but he, being wise, knew it to be universal, and treated his neighbors accordingly, and is even said to have invented and established worship among men. Let him humbly commune with Zoroaster then, and through the liberalizing influence of all the worthies, with Jesus Christ himself, and let "our church" go by the board.
David and Thinking Out Loud --I get my information directly from the Holy Spirit of Christ in the Eucharist celebrated daily in the Catholic Church. My experience of this holy presence in said celebration confirms what Jesus told Peter. Otherwise said experience would not be possible in the Catholic Church. Absent this experience no biblical text would be suficient to convince me.
Rergarding the sins of Catholics, of Christians, of Peter, what can I tell you? Yes, we are sinners, no less than anyone else. Let he or she who is sinless cast the first stone.
"Actually your facts aren't correct. There was one Christian group that refused to go along with Hitler and was incarcerated along with the jews as a result. They could have walked out, if they signed one document renouncing their faith. As a group - they didn't. At the same time they were tarred and feathered in the US for refusing to participate in the War. I'll let you investigate and figure out who that was."
My ANSWER:
"The number of Jehovah's Witnesses who died in concentration camps and prisons during the Nazi era is estimated at 1,000 Germans and 400 from other countries, including about 90 Austrians and 120 Dutch. (The non-German Jehovah's Witnesses suffered a considerably higher percentage of deaths than their German co-religionists.)
"In addition, about 250 German Jehovah's Witnesses were executed (some by guillotine and some very young) -- mostly after being tried and convicted by military tribunals -- for refusing to serve in the German military."
Regarding the term "Religionless Christianity", I think it misses the mark. I think a better catchphrase might be "Christless Christianity". There are plenty of Religions practicing what they have been taught as Christianity, but the problem is, it's not what Jesus taught, in a complete sense. Sure they take passages, out of context to make a point, but it misses the mark.
"Christless Christainity" would go too far. Jesus' followers wrote the holy books, both in the bible and the gnostic texts. Jesus wrote nothing. Yet I think we can glimpse from these texts the incredible man he must of been. It is a matter of being a literalist and choicing one side of an age-old arguement. We should be able to admire both sides of the beautiful whole that is Christianity.
And why do all your examples site violence? The author cleary is not a violent person. The Christian world if full of non-violent people who hear and try to live the words of the Sermon on the Mount and whose interpretation of the text land on both sides the literalist arguement.
"David --What does Matthew 16:18 (quoted below) mean to you?
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
I do believe "Thinking out loud" summed it up pretty good, but I would like to add to that as well. By the way, thanks "thinking out loud", GREAT response!
To get a proper understanding of this verse we must use scripture to back up scripture. Indeed, nothing in the Bible can be contradictory if it is the true inerrant Word of God. So, first of all let's examine Peter. The catholics believe that Peter was this "rock" and that he was the first "pope" in which they justify saying that the roman catholic church is the only true church of God. So was Peter really this rock?
Matthew 16:23, Jesus called Peter Satan.
Matthew 26:69-75, Peter denies Jesus three times.
Galatians 2:11-21, Paul rebukes Peter because of his hipocracy, and rightfully so at that.
So if Peter was this "rock", then his faith would show it. Not only was he less faithful during Jesus' time than this "rock" should be, but also during his preaching years after Jesus' death. He definately was no "rock" that Jesus could rely on for an infallible church.
Here's a bunch of verses that say God is the "Rock".
3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
Even Peter himself called Jesus the "Rock" in 1 Peter 2:4-8
And more proof that Jesus is that "rock" is that He holds the keys to Hades which concludes that verse.
Rev 1:18
18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
The catholic church uses Matthew 16:18 as justification for them being able to hand out salvation to those who join their cult. Because if Peter is that Rock then he hold the keys to Hades and therefore through Peter can one be saved. Being that the popes were a succession from Peter they think that it is through the pope that salvation comes. The Bible obviously shows that Jesus is the ONLY way for salvation through faith alone, and not works. The catholic church will have you thinking otherwise. This one misinterpretaion has misled millions into believing that this catholic church is the one "true" church. But Paul specifically says that Christ's body is the true church. Col 1:24. And to be members all we have to do is have faith in Him who died for our sins and resurrected on the third day. That's it! Its not a man-made organization that is the true church. Simply, just our faiths in the true Jesus that we become members of His body (the church).
I hope that "thinking out loud" and I have answered your question, whoever you may be "Anonymous". I would hope that maybe you could study Revelations 17 as well for more biblical informatin about the catholic church. It really is quite striking how the catholic church is the only church that fits the profile of the "woman who rides the beast". How could God's words overlook such a powerful enterprise that decieved and still decieves so many people and an organization responsible for the deaths of so many TRUE Christians historically? I do believe that catholic church plays a big role in the end times as predicted in the Bible as the one who sides with the beast (satan). Good luck on finding the truth. It's right there in the Bible though, so you don't have to go too far.
I'll take a swing at this one since it's a clearly a soft pitch.
Regarding Matthew 16:18, what was the context being discussed. That's the answer to your question.
Matthew 16:13-20, Jesus was talking about who he was - the Christ. When he spoke Matt 16:18, he was recognizing Peter, not saying he was the foundation cornerstone of Christianty.
Look at Vs 23 - He called Pater Satan. Christ is going to build his church on one guy he calls Satan. N-IMHO
Consider
(1 Corinthians 3:11) For no man can lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Why is another foundation needed?
(1 Corinthians 10:4) and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.
Didn't say Christ and Peter. Wouldn't it have if he was key to establishing the first century christianity.
(Ephesians 2:20) and YOU have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone.
Again, Peter is not called out.
Also remember, Peter is the one Paul had to publicly reprove because of showing favoritism to the disciples from Jerusalem. Right??
Besides the fact that spreading the word was much more actively done by Paul.
Oh and on your next comment, let me anticipate -
Peter wasn't catholic. He would have never agreed with the doctrines. He knew who Jesus was, the son of god, not some triune diety. If Jesus was part of a triune diety, how in the world would Matthew 4 make any sense?
Also, suggest you do some historic fact checking, for example, Tertulien, who came up with the idea of Trinity left the catholic church because as he said, "It was a church of Bishops, rather than a Church of God". That's a pretty telling comment.
In my opinion, it was an accident of history that Alexander was bishop in Rome during Constantines reign when the Arian controversy came up. If Arius had been bishop in Rome, I suspect you would not the Trinity doctrine.
Constantine wanted a single "religion" he could control. No way was he Christian, remember he boiled his wife alive in oil AFTER the council of Nicea. He didn't care what the belief was as long as he could control the church at that time. And Catholicism was born.
Last comment, can you imagine Jesus in the papal regalia with a coat of arms and a fish hat. I can't.
Jesus went to the people to shepherd them, he didn't set himself apart. He condemned the Jewish authorities for making the word of god invalid because of their traditions. Check out Mark 7 sometime.
Just so you know, similiar comments apply to almost every protestant religion as well.
Actually your facts aren't correct. There was one Christian group that refused to go along with Hitler and was incarcerated along with the jews as a result. They could have walked out, if they signed one document renouncing their faith. As a group - they didn't. At the same time they were tarred and feathered in the US for refusing to participate in the War. I'll let you investigate and figure out who that was.
Regarding the term "Religionless Christianity", I think it misses the mark. I think a better catchphrase might be "Christless Christianity". There are plenty of Religions practicing what they have been taught as Christianity, but the problem is, it's not what Jesus taught, in a complete sense. Sure they take passages, out of context to make a point, but it misses the mark.
Consider History - The death and destruction done in the name of Christianity would have never been done by Christ. It’s been done by groups of power hungry individuals and organizations bent on imposing their will on the people.
Some examples, William Tyndale was put to death by the catholic church for producing a bible in english. How is that Christian?
Michael Servetus was put to death by Calvinists, for pointing out the non-biblical beliefs of the Calvinists and the Catholics. The only reason the catholics didn’t kill him was Calvin got to him first. He was one of the only people who was tried and convicted by both the protestants and catholics. At the same time he was a brilliant doctor. On the order of Michaelangelo in his field. How is that Christian?
Imprisoning Galileo (because they could) - Christian?
The Inquisition - Christian?
You get the point.
In a curious twist, the Muslims are right on target when it comes to most “Christians”. They believe most of the beliefs of Christianity today were inserted by men into the message of Jesus long after his departure.
Ghandi noted about Christianity “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Also interestingly - I don't see the seminaries teaching anything except how to run a social networking business, called a church.
Thanks for your response, but I think you have the wrong idea about me. I do not think of Christianity as either Catholic or Protestant. Even Marin Luther was kind of crazy himself. He thought he was demon-possesed because of some ailment he had.
So, what is TRUE Christianity then?
The Bible says there is only one true church. That would be the body of Christ. Eph 1:22-23. Eph 4:4 says that there is only ONE body, therefore only one true Church. How do we become members of the church? By faith in Christ alone. Christians were first called "Christians in Antioch according to Acts 11:26. These men who were the early Christians did not have temples or building whre they met. They simply met in their own homes to worship. They traveled around preaching the Word to all nations. These early Christians were TRUE Christians and what Christians should be today. Too many people look for the right "church" but do not look for the right God. Little do they know that they can find the right God in studying the Bible. You do not need man to interpret it, because if someone truly studies the Bible, the right meaning is easier than most think.
If you look historically, you will see all the early Christians being persecuted and murdered until the reign of Constantine. Then the establishment of the "woman on the beast" Rev 17, or the catholic church as you call it, then were those who truly understood the Bible were killed by this catholic regime for knowing the truth and their influences on those to oppose this false representation of God. And yes, all those protestant events of equal evil did happen as well. So, what does that tell me? To not trust in religion! It is man-made. But spirituality is not. I will go to a non-denominational church to worship God and congregate amongst other believers, but I will never claim a certain denomination. I do believe that this is what Christ intended. We are members of His body, not members of an organization created by men.
To me, this is being a true Christian. To have faith in Christ, follow His ways and teach His Word. Not going every Sunday to a building and then the rest of the week ignoring Him! I live my life every day for Him who saved me.
So concluding this, I should say that catholicism and protestants are both created by man. They will have their faults. I choose to believe and follow Christ, who is infallible. Does that make me infallible? No way! I am a sinner and always will be. But I know that I am forgiven. Please remember Analyst that Christianity isn't an organization of men, it's a faith in Christ by any individual. I'm sorry for "cherry picking" about the historical accounts of catholisicm, but I agree with you about every other denomination that uses the word "Christian" as a claim. Many have done some terrible things in history, not just catholics either, even though catholics do have to worst historical evilness around. I hope I made myself clear about what "True" Christianity really is and historically the "true" Christians were those who were persecuted beyond belief.
anybody who has time to philosophize and rationalize
what they THINK christianity or any other religion
"is" is obviously NOT out in the world doing the kinds
of things the very same religious values call for!
Hi David, I'm afraid you need to read up on your history if you think only Catholics were involved in witchcraft, massacres, and other violence.
Need examples?
#1 Martin Luther's writings on the Bible became entwined with economic and social unrest in Germany—that erupted in a large peasant revolt. Luther sided with the German princes against the peasants, stating in AGAINST THE MURDERING, THIEVING HORDES OF PEASANTS, that the peasants “should be knocked to pieces, strangled and stabbed, secretly and openly, by everyone who can do it, just as one must kill a mad dog". The revolt was harshly put down, with some fifty thousand people killed
#2 Luther’s solution to the "Jewish problem" was to drive them out of Germany, for "They are a heavy burden like a plague, pestilence, misfortune...". As for those that refused, Luther recommended, "that their synagogues or schools be set on fire... that their houses be broken up and destroyed... and they be put under a roof or stable, like the gypsies...in misery and captivity as they incessantly lament and complain to God about us."
#3 Both Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in the existence of witches. Luther boasted: "I would have no compassion on the witches; I would burn them all." He had four of them burned to the stake in Wittenburg. Calvinism's extremist views on authoritarianism and damnation, led to more witch burnings than any other protestant sect.Both Luther and Calvin liked to quote Exodus 22:18, which states, "Thou
shalt not suffer a witch to live".
#4 In 1769, John Wesley, founder of Methodism wrote in his JOURNAL:
"It is true, likewise, that the English in general, and indeed most of the men of learning in Europe, have given up all accounts of witches and apparitions as mere old wives' fables. I am sorry for it, and I willingly take this opportunity of entering my solemn protest against this violent compliment which so many that believe the Bible pay to those who do not believe it. I owe them no such service. I take knowledge that these are at the bottom of the outcry which has been raised, and with such insolence spread through the land, in direct opposition, not only to the Bible, but to the suffrage of the wisest and best of men in all ages and nations. They well know (whether Christians know it or not) that the giving up of witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible."
#5 In the 1600s, Puritan Protestant leader John Winthrop argued that smallpox epidemic was God's way of thinning out" the heathen Indian population to make way for English migration. “the natives are neare all dead of the small Poxe, so as the Lord hathe cleared out title to what we possess."
Puritans saw the extermination of Indians as part of God's mandate on the new land. That is, just as God had driven out the peoples in Canaan to make way for the ancient hebrews, he was now doing the same thing with the Puritans and the Indians.
This continued over the next centuries-- ever hear of the Trail of Tears of the Cherokees?
You must look at ALL the facts-- rather than cherry picking, David. This is what I have told Susan Brooks to do too -- to be credible.
So many people here say that "Christians" were the causes for things such as the crusades, inquisition, witch trials, etc.. But please understand that it wasn't the Christians that did these things. It was the catholic church. Catholicism and Christianity are two different things. Maybe you can do the research and learn that the REAL Christians were those who opposed the false teachings of the catholic church and of course were persecuted and murdered for not following the catholic system and following the teachings of Christ. I'm sort of getting tired of the catholic system causing this bad name to Christianity.
For you Analyst, I recommend studying who the true Christians were instead of settling on those who call themselves Christians (catholics) but teach a different message other than in the Bible. They use the Bible as a means for empowerment and money. If you knew who the true historical Christians were, then maybe you can understand that they were not the cause for all the death and persecution. And your right, Nazis (especially Hitler) used the catholic church as a means for power as well. The catholic church supported Hitler. Doesn't that tell you something? So, please seperate Christianity from catholicism. They both have two different histories and two different teachings. But both would like to be referred as "Christians" when only one can be called true Christians.
The Abrahamic traditions are ridiculus religions based on war stories for agressive desert nomadic tribes warring to steal land, slaughter competing tribes to the last infant, and offering sacrifices to appease their imaginary Gods. Christianity is worse by far being an combination of these tribal stories wedded with Greek and Roman stories with snippets of "pagan" seasonal rituals thrown in for spice. Add in a endless parade of charletans peddling relics, crosses, and other "blessed" articles and you get the endless parade of "Elmer Gantry's" doing the fire and brimstone thing to an endless stream of ignorant savages. These people have so lost their humanity that they envourage and condone savage murder, torture, and worse for those labeled non-Christians! The few words in their "Holy" book by their God are largely ignored in favor of the whory rants from Paul, Peter, and other men disappointed by their leader. There is no God in any of the Abrahamic traditions, only the deluded embrace of death!
Muhammadans aka Muslims have stolen land from non-Muslims ever since Muhammad claimed to be the prophet of the Arabic god Allah and then started his campaign of robbing. He stole all the lands that the Jews owned, perhaps half of Saudi Arabia. His followers followed his example stole more land. Sikhs and Hindus owned huge tracts of land in what is now Pakistan and were more than 40% of the population in the provinces of Sindh and Punjab. Today Sikhs and Hindus are less than 1% of the population in Pakistan. In Bangladesh Hindus were over 35% at Partition in 1947. Today they are 12 to 15% and most of their land stolen by Muslims. Muslims have been the biggest land thieves in history. You are the pot calling the kettle black.
"This is what Christopher Hitchens and others who write about religion being “man-made” never get. They attack the forms of religion as being fragile and finite and clearly generated by human beings. This is all too true. But you can’t explain a Dietrich Bonhoeffer from the forms of finite religion—and that they never address. Religion isn’t reducible to its forms. That’s like explaining a baby’s first smile as “gas”. Any mother knows when it’s a smile—it’s the relationship of love of parent and child that is mirrored in that infinite connection."
Except it doesn't matter what the mother thinks, the child is smiling instinctually to survive as quickly as possible in an alien world. Religion, in this analogy, is the method by which the fearful unknown is rendered "less fearful" through story telling. And, over time, it became the institutionalized method through the otherwise useless modern cleric finds gainful employment.
Analyst --You've hit the nail dead center. The Old Testament is as much evidence of God's presence as it is of the human-barbarians he reached out to. The Catholic Church refers to its revelation as 'imperfect and transitory'.
I believe that the intent behind the first coming of Christ was to rectify this, to help us evolve out the barbarian state, but many still don't seem to get it. They are indeed Old Testament Christians and Catholics...as if Christ had never really spoken and acted quite intentionally in contradiction of the OT.
There is a major flaw in your thesis, Susan. A major reason for the popularity of the Bible over the millennium is precisely because it has verses that promotes BOTH warmongering/ violence AND peace/loving actions. Plus the whole Bible is bogged down with detailed trivia, so one has to pick out selected verses just to get through it.
You are really proposing to selectively "pick and choose" yourself --ignoring the warlike/aggressive verses in the Bible and emphasizing the peaceful, loving verses.
Need examples of the former verses? Early Christian settlers to the Americas had no problem finding biblical verses to justify (i) slaughtering Indians for their land (the Israelites in Canaan), (ii) enslaving blacks (the Ham story), or (iii) burning women at the stake for witchcraft. Even Jesus curses Pharisees and hypocrites, uses a whip to cleanse the Temple, and looks forward to the day when the world will be destroyed for its wickedness and lack of faith. ( Nazis knew which verses to emphasize.)
So how can you prove the Nazis were not really following the Bible? You have to pick and choose your verses, Susan (ignoring what you don’t like)-- same as what the Nazis did (no doubt in reverse of you). And no, you cannot follow ALL the verses -- because many of the morals behind the verses are diametrically opposed/contradictory to each other. You might find yourself acting like a Nazi at times.
"if we separate Christianity from its trappings of ritual, dogma and institutions."
These rituals are not the problem; there are benifits to rituals and traditions and they can be found in all cultures and groups.
The problem was the connection between power and religion and, while it was a painful seperation, Europe and the church we seperated in the last two centuries.
Politics and faith do not mix and, thanks to the enlightenment and other revolutions, the church can focus on its real mission in the modern world.
As an feminist and moral relativist (perhaps a gnostic), Mrs. Brooks reviles the traditions of the Catholic church and consistent moral teachings in regards to human life as a threat and she talks down and bashes these traditions in subtle ways any chance she gets.
When she says "dogma" this and "dogma" that read "those damn, backward Catholics!" As she refused to accept the fact that reforms and historial changes have been made and that it is not a static faith or unthinking faith - just look at the scholars throughout the centries and at philosophers like Charles Taylor today.
I can say my parents were raised in a Catholic orphanage and I am thankful for the love they were given there. The rationalist don't realize that we are also emotional beings. This is reflected in our religious texts. Science is now only starting to swim in these waters.
Ms. Brooks, like in all of her pieces, likes to express anti-Catholic tirades.
"That’s often why humans invent the soft and pretty trappings of religion like banners and robes and buildings with colored glass. That’s why the outwardly religious go along with massive social evil—too must trouble to confront it. And besides, the Nazis might kill you."
Funny, that the mainline Protestant denominations were the most friendly to Hitler's movement...politically adapable as they were.
And the Nazi's must have enjoyed Martin Luther's anti-semitic rambelings.
On the other hand, thousands of Catholic priests were sent to the camps.
Ms. Brooks, like in all of her pieces, likes to express anti-Catholic tirades.
"That’s often why humans invent the soft and pretty trappings of religion like banners and robes and buildings with colored glass. That’s why the outwardly religious go along with massive social evil—too must trouble to confront it. And besides, the Nazis might kill you."
Funny, that the mainline Protestant denominations were the most friendly to Hitler's movement...politically adapable as they were.
And the Nazi's must have enjoyed Martin Luther's anti-semitic rambelings.
On the other hand, thousands of Catholic priests were sent to the camps.
No really, Friend, I cannot; although they were not directed at you.
I am sick of atheists using selective bits of history or current events to advance their agenda and propaganda.
This is exactly what Hitchens does: claim the positive atributes of human nature and history for rationalism while assigning the negative aspects of human nature / history to religion and belief in God.
Fair enough. I'm sure you realize then that there are those of us that interpret that divinity as metaphorical. I can't speak for Rev. Thistlethwaite. I still admire people whose beliefs in the divinity of Christ are different than mine. I feel it is ok to use their lessons in discussions or writings even if I may not agree with them on everything.
Yes, the divinity of Christ is central to orthodox Christianity. For the record, it was core to Bonhoeffer's theology and dogma. Bonhoeffer's criticism was directed at the non-Biblical dogma that had been attached to the Gospel. Like barnacles on a ship's hull, they needed to be removed.
Derek, because she interprets the bible different from you, doesn't me that she, "rejects the divity and teachings of Jesus Christ". Certainly, the teachings of Jesus Christ are her motivation. There are many ways to interpret the divine.
We all struggle to loosen the grips of the dogma of our beliefs...you too. Is the divinity of Christ your dogma?
Thistlethwaite is as dogmatic as they come, in my view. Of course, her dogma differs substantially from Bonhoeffer's - that is, he believed that true justice & peace is not possible apart from Jesus Christ. Thistlethwaite, on the other hand, embraces dogma that rejects the divity and teachings of Jesus Christ. In point of fact, she teaches a dogma that differs substantially from the Apostle Paul and the New Testament.
In general, I guess I do agree with you. But with this author, her arguement and presentation are cohesive and well thought out. The content did answer the question asked and the notion of "Religionless Christianity". I do personally like the style of her writing.
I don't believe that it's acceptable for people like Susan to come up with their own definitions for words that having nothing at all to do with the long-accepted definition of said words, especially when Susan comes up with a definition that sits almost opposite from the accepted definition of the word."
I respectfully disagree...especially when dealing with metaphysics and ethics...I want definitions."
Dear Friend -
But the definitions you wish are of the "up is down and down is up" variety. How is that helpful to a cogent discussion? I, for one, don't wish to spend two-thirds of every post in some semantic black hole.
I don't see the religionists busy trying to redefine terminology that has a positive connotation. It's the negative connotations they're being footloose about. Why is that?
maybe i missed it but didn't the christian world go after hitler while the islamic world was blessed with the largest non arian ss division hitler could create in bosnia. remember bosnia - and all those poor peaceful islamics there?
and dont tell me the pope did not do anything - the pope did not have an army to do anything with.
Dr. Brooks --First time I agree a great deal with you. I am a practicing and committed Catholic and yet I find that my faith, my absolute certainty of Christ's divine presence in the Eucharist, contradicts a lot of what I see in the practice of the Catholic religion. I believe Gandhi once said that if Catholics believed what they taught they would be walking on their knees to the altar. Most do not. Indeed, not few seem altogether oblivious of whose presence they are in. Faith, like all experience, as Schillebeeckx pointed out is layed on the bed of culture, on cultural soil, and that soil is what it is transforming, even as it distorts it on receiving it.
She brings up an interesting question, which I don't have an answer for but I've thought a lot about, in recent days. I'd like to pose this to those here.
If Anti Semitism completely disappeared tomorrow, and the Jews were no longer stuck in perpetual victim mode, what then would it mean to be Jewish in modern times?
I was raised Jewish, before anyone accuses me of anti-Semitism. I don't hate myself or my family. It was partly (but only partly) because I couldn't answer this question satisfactorily for myself that I started looking around, and ultimately found my faith elsewhere.
I agree, I too have a hard time saying to someone, "It's your responsibility to fix for this problem".
But... we do what we can with the blessings we have been given. Mainline leaders have a unique responsibility and they carry a burden most of us will never carry. In any event, this is the path they follow.
I also agree that the resolution to the Sudan crisis is not just ours, it's a global concern but, just like our Mainline leaders, the US has a unique responsibility in the world as one of the few super powers.
The difference between "religion" and "faith" is so so important. But I wonder if Thistlethwaite would endorse the use of the word "spirituality" in place of "faith." After all, spirituality is associated with attempting to transcend, the same way she says faith is geared to that end. And I wonder if she would endorse the idea that the texts -- Torah, the New Testament, etc. -- are narratives that describe positive ways to express or experience faith or spirituality. She alludes to this concept in the last paragraph of her entry, i.e. faith being found in certain stories of the Bible. I am just positing the question: If God is a metaphor for love/one-ness/nature/creation/beauty/connectedness/peace, then faith/spirituality is the appreciation and experience of that oneness. When Job begs God to stop subjecting him to loss, he is begging to be included in the positive world, to benefit from the beauty of the world. When we pray to God, we are celebrating all that that word means and feeling a part of it and trying to become even more a part of it.
I can feel your passion and I'm thankful for your voice.
But I have a hard time saying to someone, "It's your responsibility to fix for this problem". Especially, as you say, that person is a pacifist and you're advocating violence.
I think as individuals, we should either "put up or shut up".
I'll write Congress but I'm not sure about the armed intervention unless other powerful and regional nations help.
Keep talking about it, but if you're being called, do all you can and don't let "transcendent faith should scare you to death".
You can't save the world, only yourself...but let's try to save the world anyway.
This isn't a matter of individuals... this is what the Mainline leaders (like Susan) can do (they have the pulpit, the credentials and the resources). We lend our collective ecumenical voices for so many issues but none, in my opinion, is as important or grave as the crisis in Sudan.
How shocked would D.C. be if Mainline leaders (and hopefully all major Christian leaders) made a statement that while we recognize that peace should be our first option, the crisis in Sudan now meets the criteria for armed intervention to stop the genocide (I would probably avoid "Just War" language although I think it meets that threshold as well)? How about generating popular support for an armed intervention? If there was ever a moral justification for an armed intervention, Sudan is it.
Would Bonhoeffer be proud of how little progress we've made on Sudan?
No individual can fight every fight, but she does seem to be working for some of the disadvantaged. I think some people are pacifist in their heart of hearts and will not fight anyone for any reason.
But, that wouldn't exempt you, or me.
Ok, your point is well taken...what should we as individuals do for Sudan (I have to provide for my wife and kids)?
I don't believe that it's acceptable for people like Susan to come up with their own definitions for words that having nothing at all to do with the long-accepted definition of said words, especially when Susan comes up with a definition that sits almost opposite from the accepted definition of the word.
I respectfully disagree...especially when dealing with metaphysics and ethics...I want definitions.
Some are thinkers, some are doers. The just causes of the world require both kinds of people. If Ms. Thistlethwaite is more of a thinker/student/synthesizer/teacher/message spreader, that's fine - she has served her purpose admirably by effectively exposing the works of a doer to a mass audience that includes many who were previously unaware of him, which may include other thinkers and doers, some of whom may actually make a physical difference in a place like Darfur because of what Ms. Thistlethwaite has revealed to them here. The world needs both kinds.
Some are thinkers, some are doers. The just causes of the world require both kinds of people. If Ms. Thistlethwaite is more of a thinker/student/synthesizer/teacher/message spreader, that's fine - she has served her purpose admirably by effectively exposing the works of a doer to a mass audience that includes many who were previously unaware of him, which may include other thinkers and doers, some of whom may actually make a physical difference in a place like Darfur because of what Ms. Thistlethwaite has revealed to them here. The world needs both kinds.
Thanks for pointing out Susan's personal definitions of what religion is and isn't. It still doesn't answer my question.
Part and parcel to having a dialogue is the necessity of agreeing on what words mean. It seems that every religionist I know runs away from the term "religion." I don't believe that it's acceptable for people like Susan to come up with their own definitions for words that having nothing at all to do with the long-accepted definition of said words, especially when Susan comes up with a definition that sits almost opposite from the accepted definition of the word.
I find myself agreeing with Susan more often than I agree with Cal Thomas, but at least Cal has the fortitude to embrace the horror of the language when it comes to the word "religion."
All Comments (59)
bgxlsc xhqi sezrkdf aomnhksq zflmprgd azityx vuiwqxe
October 3, 2007 1:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 3, 2007 13:52
bgxlsc xhqi sezrkdf aomnhksq zflmprgd azityx vuiwqxe
October 3, 2007 1:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 3, 2007 13:51
bgxlsc xhqi sezrkdf aomnhksq zflmprgd azityx vuiwqxe
October 3, 2007 1:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 3, 2007 13:50
Susan,
Thank you for your prophetic gift. I get it... Some folks never make it past the "forms of godliness" to a real relationship with their Creator. They settle for membership in a religion/denomination as "good enough." It's not.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-23)
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)
June 8, 2007 4:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 8, 2007 16:04
Susan,
Thank you for your prophetic gift. I get it... Some folks never make it past the "forms of godliness" to a real relationship with their Creator. They settle for membership in a religion/denomination as "good enough." It's not.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-23)
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)
June 8, 2007 4:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 8, 2007 16:04
I want to share the following quote.
From Walden, Henry David Thoreau:
The solitary hired man on a farm in the outskirts of Concord, who has had his second birth and peculiar religious experience, and is driven as he believes into the silent gravity and exclusiveness by his faith, may think it is not true; but Zoroaster, thousands of years ago, travelled the same road and had the same experience; but he, being wise, knew it to be universal, and treated his neighbors accordingly, and is even said to have invented and established worship among men. Let him humbly commune with Zoroaster then, and through the liberalizing influence of all the worthies, with Jesus Christ himself, and let "our church" go by the board.
May 29, 2007 10:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 10:02
David and Thinking Out Loud --I get my information directly from the Holy Spirit of Christ in the Eucharist celebrated daily in the Catholic Church. My experience of this holy presence in said celebration confirms what Jesus told Peter. Otherwise said experience would not be possible in the Catholic Church. Absent this experience no biblical text would be suficient to convince me.
Rergarding the sins of Catholics, of Christians, of Peter, what can I tell you? Yes, we are sinners, no less than anyone else. Let he or she who is sinless cast the first stone.
May 29, 2007 9:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 09:55
THINKING OUT LOUD,
You wrote (apparently to DAVID):
"Actually your facts aren't correct. There was one Christian group that refused to go along with Hitler and was incarcerated along with the jews as a result. They could have walked out, if they signed one document renouncing their faith. As a group - they didn't. At the same time they were tarred and feathered in the US for refusing to participate in the War. I'll let you investigate and figure out who that was."
My ANSWER:
"The number of Jehovah's Witnesses who died in concentration camps and prisons during the Nazi era is estimated at 1,000 Germans and 400 from other countries, including about 90 Austrians and 120 Dutch. (The non-German Jehovah's Witnesses suffered a considerably higher percentage of deaths than their German co-religionists.)
"In addition, about 250 German Jehovah's Witnesses were executed (some by guillotine and some very young) -- mostly after being tried and convicted by military tribunals -- for refusing to serve in the German military."
May 28, 2007 4:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2007 16:09
Thinking out Loud:
Regarding the term "Religionless Christianity", I think it misses the mark. I think a better catchphrase might be "Christless Christianity". There are plenty of Religions practicing what they have been taught as Christianity, but the problem is, it's not what Jesus taught, in a complete sense. Sure they take passages, out of context to make a point, but it misses the mark.
"Christless Christainity" would go too far. Jesus' followers wrote the holy books, both in the bible and the gnostic texts. Jesus wrote nothing. Yet I think we can glimpse from these texts the incredible man he must of been. It is a matter of being a literalist and choicing one side of an age-old arguement. We should be able to admire both sides of the beautiful whole that is Christianity.
And why do all your examples site violence? The author cleary is not a violent person. The Christian world if full of non-violent people who hear and try to live the words of the Sermon on the Mount and whose interpretation of the text land on both sides the literalist arguement.
May 28, 2007 8:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2007 08:12
Anonymous,
"David --What does Matthew 16:18 (quoted below) mean to you?
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
I do believe "Thinking out loud" summed it up pretty good, but I would like to add to that as well. By the way, thanks "thinking out loud", GREAT response!
To get a proper understanding of this verse we must use scripture to back up scripture. Indeed, nothing in the Bible can be contradictory if it is the true inerrant Word of God. So, first of all let's examine Peter. The catholics believe that Peter was this "rock" and that he was the first "pope" in which they justify saying that the roman catholic church is the only true church of God. So was Peter really this rock?
Matthew 16:23, Jesus called Peter Satan.
Matthew 26:69-75, Peter denies Jesus three times.
Galatians 2:11-21, Paul rebukes Peter because of his hipocracy, and rightfully so at that.
So if Peter was this "rock", then his faith would show it. Not only was he less faithful during Jesus' time than this "rock" should be, but also during his preaching years after Jesus' death. He definately was no "rock" that Jesus could rely on for an infallible church.
Here's a bunch of verses that say God is the "Rock".
(Ps.18:2,31, 19:14, 27:5, 28:1, 31:2, 61:2, 62:2, 71:3, 73:26, 89:26, 2S.22:2,32,47, Is.31:16, Mt.7:24, 16:18, Lk.6:48, 1Cor.10:4, 1P.2:8).
Paul calls Jesus the "Rock"
1 Corinthians 10:3-4
3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
Even Peter himself called Jesus the "Rock" in 1 Peter 2:4-8
And more proof that Jesus is that "rock" is that He holds the keys to Hades which concludes that verse.
Rev 1:18
18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
The catholic church uses Matthew 16:18 as justification for them being able to hand out salvation to those who join their cult. Because if Peter is that Rock then he hold the keys to Hades and therefore through Peter can one be saved. Being that the popes were a succession from Peter they think that it is through the pope that salvation comes. The Bible obviously shows that Jesus is the ONLY way for salvation through faith alone, and not works. The catholic church will have you thinking otherwise. This one misinterpretaion has misled millions into believing that this catholic church is the one "true" church. But Paul specifically says that Christ's body is the true church. Col 1:24. And to be members all we have to do is have faith in Him who died for our sins and resurrected on the third day. That's it! Its not a man-made organization that is the true church. Simply, just our faiths in the true Jesus that we become members of His body (the church).
I hope that "thinking out loud" and I have answered your question, whoever you may be "Anonymous". I would hope that maybe you could study Revelations 17 as well for more biblical informatin about the catholic church. It really is quite striking how the catholic church is the only church that fits the profile of the "woman who rides the beast". How could God's words overlook such a powerful enterprise that decieved and still decieves so many people and an organization responsible for the deaths of so many TRUE Christians historically? I do believe that catholic church plays a big role in the end times as predicted in the Bible as the one who sides with the beast (satan). Good luck on finding the truth. It's right there in the Bible though, so you don't have to go too far.
God bless you
May 28, 2007 3:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2007 03:17
Anonymous - This is too rich.
I'll take a swing at this one since it's a clearly a soft pitch.
Regarding Matthew 16:18, what was the context being discussed. That's the answer to your question.
Matthew 16:13-20, Jesus was talking about who he was - the Christ. When he spoke Matt 16:18, he was recognizing Peter, not saying he was the foundation cornerstone of Christianty.
Look at Vs 23 - He called Pater Satan. Christ is going to build his church on one guy he calls Satan. N-IMHO
Consider
(1 Corinthians 3:11) For no man can lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Why is another foundation needed?
(1 Corinthians 10:4) and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.
Didn't say Christ and Peter. Wouldn't it have if he was key to establishing the first century christianity.
(Ephesians 2:20) and YOU have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone.
Again, Peter is not called out.
Also remember, Peter is the one Paul had to publicly reprove because of showing favoritism to the disciples from Jerusalem. Right??
Besides the fact that spreading the word was much more actively done by Paul.
Oh and on your next comment, let me anticipate -
Peter wasn't catholic. He would have never agreed with the doctrines. He knew who Jesus was, the son of god, not some triune diety. If Jesus was part of a triune diety, how in the world would Matthew 4 make any sense?
Also, suggest you do some historic fact checking, for example, Tertulien, who came up with the idea of Trinity left the catholic church because as he said, "It was a church of Bishops, rather than a Church of God". That's a pretty telling comment.
In my opinion, it was an accident of history that Alexander was bishop in Rome during Constantines reign when the Arian controversy came up. If Arius had been bishop in Rome, I suspect you would not the Trinity doctrine.
Constantine wanted a single "religion" he could control. No way was he Christian, remember he boiled his wife alive in oil AFTER the council of Nicea. He didn't care what the belief was as long as he could control the church at that time. And Catholicism was born.
Last comment, can you imagine Jesus in the papal regalia with a coat of arms and a fish hat. I can't.
Jesus went to the people to shepherd them, he didn't set himself apart. He condemned the Jewish authorities for making the word of god invalid because of their traditions. Check out Mark 7 sometime.
Just so you know, similiar comments apply to almost every protestant religion as well.
I gotta stop, I could literally go on for days.
May 28, 2007 1:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2007 01:11
Actually your facts aren't correct. There was one Christian group that refused to go along with Hitler and was incarcerated along with the jews as a result. They could have walked out, if they signed one document renouncing their faith. As a group - they didn't. At the same time they were tarred and feathered in the US for refusing to participate in the War. I'll let you investigate and figure out who that was.
Regarding the term "Religionless Christianity", I think it misses the mark. I think a better catchphrase might be "Christless Christianity". There are plenty of Religions practicing what they have been taught as Christianity, but the problem is, it's not what Jesus taught, in a complete sense. Sure they take passages, out of context to make a point, but it misses the mark.
Consider History - The death and destruction done in the name of Christianity would have never been done by Christ. It’s been done by groups of power hungry individuals and organizations bent on imposing their will on the people.
Some examples, William Tyndale was put to death by the catholic church for producing a bible in english. How is that Christian?
Michael Servetus was put to death by Calvinists, for pointing out the non-biblical beliefs of the Calvinists and the Catholics. The only reason the catholics didn’t kill him was Calvin got to him first. He was one of the only people who was tried and convicted by both the protestants and catholics. At the same time he was a brilliant doctor. On the order of Michaelangelo in his field. How is that Christian?
Imprisoning Galileo (because they could) - Christian?
The Inquisition - Christian?
You get the point.
In a curious twist, the Muslims are right on target when it comes to most “Christians”. They believe most of the beliefs of Christianity today were inserted by men into the message of Jesus long after his departure.
Ghandi noted about Christianity “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Also interestingly - I don't see the seminaries teaching anything except how to run a social networking business, called a church.
May 28, 2007 12:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2007 00:24
David --What does Matthew 16:18 (quoted below) mean to you?
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
May 27, 2007 10:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 27, 2007 22:13
Analyst,
Thanks for your response, but I think you have the wrong idea about me. I do not think of Christianity as either Catholic or Protestant. Even Marin Luther was kind of crazy himself. He thought he was demon-possesed because of some ailment he had.
So, what is TRUE Christianity then?
The Bible says there is only one true church. That would be the body of Christ. Eph 1:22-23. Eph 4:4 says that there is only ONE body, therefore only one true Church. How do we become members of the church? By faith in Christ alone. Christians were first called "Christians in Antioch according to Acts 11:26. These men who were the early Christians did not have temples or building whre they met. They simply met in their own homes to worship. They traveled around preaching the Word to all nations. These early Christians were TRUE Christians and what Christians should be today. Too many people look for the right "church" but do not look for the right God. Little do they know that they can find the right God in studying the Bible. You do not need man to interpret it, because if someone truly studies the Bible, the right meaning is easier than most think.
If you look historically, you will see all the early Christians being persecuted and murdered until the reign of Constantine. Then the establishment of the "woman on the beast" Rev 17, or the catholic church as you call it, then were those who truly understood the Bible were killed by this catholic regime for knowing the truth and their influences on those to oppose this false representation of God. And yes, all those protestant events of equal evil did happen as well. So, what does that tell me? To not trust in religion! It is man-made. But spirituality is not. I will go to a non-denominational church to worship God and congregate amongst other believers, but I will never claim a certain denomination. I do believe that this is what Christ intended. We are members of His body, not members of an organization created by men.
To me, this is being a true Christian. To have faith in Christ, follow His ways and teach His Word. Not going every Sunday to a building and then the rest of the week ignoring Him! I live my life every day for Him who saved me.
So concluding this, I should say that catholicism and protestants are both created by man. They will have their faults. I choose to believe and follow Christ, who is infallible. Does that make me infallible? No way! I am a sinner and always will be. But I know that I am forgiven. Please remember Analyst that Christianity isn't an organization of men, it's a faith in Christ by any individual. I'm sorry for "cherry picking" about the historical accounts of catholisicm, but I agree with you about every other denomination that uses the word "Christian" as a claim. Many have done some terrible things in history, not just catholics either, even though catholics do have to worst historical evilness around. I hope I made myself clear about what "True" Christianity really is and historically the "true" Christians were those who were persecuted beyond belief.
God bless
May 26, 2007 11:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 26, 2007 23:55
anybody who has time to philosophize and rationalize
what they THINK christianity or any other religion
"is" is obviously NOT out in the world doing the kinds
of things the very same religious values call for!
May 26, 2007 10:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 26, 2007 22:59
Hi David, I'm afraid you need to read up on your history if you think only Catholics were involved in witchcraft, massacres, and other violence.
Need examples?
#1 Martin Luther's writings on the Bible became entwined with economic and social unrest in Germany—that erupted in a large peasant revolt. Luther sided with the German princes against the peasants, stating in AGAINST THE MURDERING, THIEVING HORDES OF PEASANTS, that the peasants “should be knocked to pieces, strangled and stabbed, secretly and openly, by everyone who can do it, just as one must kill a mad dog". The revolt was harshly put down, with some fifty thousand people killed
#2 Luther’s solution to the "Jewish problem" was to drive them out of Germany, for "They are a heavy burden like a plague, pestilence, misfortune...". As for those that refused, Luther recommended, "that their synagogues or schools be set on fire... that their houses be broken up and destroyed... and they be put under a roof or stable, like the gypsies...in misery and captivity as they incessantly lament and complain to God about us."
#3 Both Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in the existence of witches. Luther boasted: "I would have no compassion on the witches; I would burn them all." He had four of them burned to the stake in Wittenburg. Calvinism's extremist views on authoritarianism and damnation, led to more witch burnings than any other protestant sect.Both Luther and Calvin liked to quote Exodus 22:18, which states, "Thou
shalt not suffer a witch to live".
#4 In 1769, John Wesley, founder of Methodism wrote in his JOURNAL:
"It is true, likewise, that the English in general, and indeed most of the men of learning in Europe, have given up all accounts of witches and apparitions as mere old wives' fables. I am sorry for it, and I willingly take this opportunity of entering my solemn protest against this violent compliment which so many that believe the Bible pay to those who do not believe it. I owe them no such service. I take knowledge that these are at the bottom of the outcry which has been raised, and with such insolence spread through the land, in direct opposition, not only to the Bible, but to the suffrage of the wisest and best of men in all ages and nations. They well know (whether Christians know it or not) that the giving up of witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible."
#5 In the 1600s, Puritan Protestant leader John Winthrop argued that smallpox epidemic was God's way of thinning out" the heathen Indian population to make way for English migration. “the natives are neare all dead of the small Poxe, so as the Lord hathe cleared out title to what we possess."
Puritans saw the extermination of Indians as part of God's mandate on the new land. That is, just as God had driven out the peoples in Canaan to make way for the ancient hebrews, he was now doing the same thing with the Puritans and the Indians.
This continued over the next centuries-- ever hear of the Trail of Tears of the Cherokees?
You must look at ALL the facts-- rather than cherry picking, David. This is what I have told Susan Brooks to do too -- to be credible.
May 26, 2007 9:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 26, 2007 21:57
David --What is a true Christian?
May 26, 2007 9:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 26, 2007 21:39
So many people here say that "Christians" were the causes for things such as the crusades, inquisition, witch trials, etc.. But please understand that it wasn't the Christians that did these things. It was the catholic church. Catholicism and Christianity are two different things. Maybe you can do the research and learn that the REAL Christians were those who opposed the false teachings of the catholic church and of course were persecuted and murdered for not following the catholic system and following the teachings of Christ. I'm sort of getting tired of the catholic system causing this bad name to Christianity.
For you Analyst, I recommend studying who the true Christians were instead of settling on those who call themselves Christians (catholics) but teach a different message other than in the Bible. They use the Bible as a means for empowerment and money. If you knew who the true historical Christians were, then maybe you can understand that they were not the cause for all the death and persecution. And your right, Nazis (especially Hitler) used the catholic church as a means for power as well. The catholic church supported Hitler. Doesn't that tell you something? So, please seperate Christianity from catholicism. They both have two different histories and two different teachings. But both would like to be referred as "Christians" when only one can be called true Christians.
May 26, 2007 3:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 26, 2007 15:48
The Abrahamic traditions are ridiculus religions based on war stories for agressive desert nomadic tribes warring to steal land, slaughter competing tribes to the last infant, and offering sacrifices to appease their imaginary Gods. Christianity is worse by far being an combination of these tribal stories wedded with Greek and Roman stories with snippets of "pagan" seasonal rituals thrown in for spice. Add in a endless parade of charletans peddling relics, crosses, and other "blessed" articles and you get the endless parade of "Elmer Gantry's" doing the fire and brimstone thing to an endless stream of ignorant savages. These people have so lost their humanity that they envourage and condone savage murder, torture, and worse for those labeled non-Christians! The few words in their "Holy" book by their God are largely ignored in favor of the whory rants from Paul, Peter, and other men disappointed by their leader. There is no God in any of the Abrahamic traditions, only the deluded embrace of death!
May 26, 2007 3:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 26, 2007 15:17
I didn't say that Muslims have not caused evil in the world, only that all of our anscestors have caused evil in the world.
I think/hope love will win over evil, brother Jai.
I am sorry for our suffering.
May 26, 2007 11:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 26, 2007 11:30
To the Muslim who posts as Friend
Muhammadans aka Muslims have stolen land from non-Muslims ever since Muhammad claimed to be the prophet of the Arabic god Allah and then started his campaign of robbing. He stole all the lands that the Jews owned, perhaps half of Saudi Arabia. His followers followed his example stole more land. Sikhs and Hindus owned huge tracts of land in what is now Pakistan and were more than 40% of the population in the provinces of Sindh and Punjab. Today Sikhs and Hindus are less than 1% of the population in Pakistan. In Bangladesh Hindus were over 35% at Partition in 1947. Today they are 12 to 15% and most of their land stolen by Muslims. Muslims have been the biggest land thieves in history. You are the pot calling the kettle black.
May 26, 2007 7:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 26, 2007 07:33
Interesting comment:
"This is what Christopher Hitchens and others who write about religion being “man-made” never get. They attack the forms of religion as being fragile and finite and clearly generated by human beings. This is all too true. But you can’t explain a Dietrich Bonhoeffer from the forms of finite religion—and that they never address. Religion isn’t reducible to its forms. That’s like explaining a baby’s first smile as “gas”. Any mother knows when it’s a smile—it’s the relationship of love of parent and child that is mirrored in that infinite connection."
Except it doesn't matter what the mother thinks, the child is smiling instinctually to survive as quickly as possible in an alien world. Religion, in this analogy, is the method by which the fearful unknown is rendered "less fearful" through story telling. And, over time, it became the institutionalized method through the otherwise useless modern cleric finds gainful employment.
We all know this, don't we?
Thank you!
Bob
May 25, 2007 8:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 20:30
Analyst --You've hit the nail dead center. The Old Testament is as much evidence of God's presence as it is of the human-barbarians he reached out to. The Catholic Church refers to its revelation as 'imperfect and transitory'.
I believe that the intent behind the first coming of Christ was to rectify this, to help us evolve out the barbarian state, but many still don't seem to get it. They are indeed Old Testament Christians and Catholics...as if Christ had never really spoken and acted quite intentionally in contradiction of the OT.
May 25, 2007 6:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 18:57
There is a major flaw in your thesis, Susan. A major reason for the popularity of the Bible over the millennium is precisely because it has verses that promotes BOTH warmongering/ violence AND peace/loving actions. Plus the whole Bible is bogged down with detailed trivia, so one has to pick out selected verses just to get through it.
You are really proposing to selectively "pick and choose" yourself --ignoring the warlike/aggressive verses in the Bible and emphasizing the peaceful, loving verses.
Need examples of the former verses? Early Christian settlers to the Americas had no problem finding biblical verses to justify (i) slaughtering Indians for their land (the Israelites in Canaan), (ii) enslaving blacks (the Ham story), or (iii) burning women at the stake for witchcraft. Even Jesus curses Pharisees and hypocrites, uses a whip to cleanse the Temple, and looks forward to the day when the world will be destroyed for its wickedness and lack of faith. ( Nazis knew which verses to emphasize.)
So how can you prove the Nazis were not really following the Bible? You have to pick and choose your verses, Susan (ignoring what you don’t like)-- same as what the Nazis did (no doubt in reverse of you). And no, you cannot follow ALL the verses -- because many of the morals behind the verses are diametrically opposed/contradictory to each other. You might find yourself acting like a Nazi at times.
May 25, 2007 6:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 18:19
"That’s often why humans invent the soft and pretty trappings of religion like banners and robes and buildings with colored glass."
You want soft and pretty, go to a protestant evangical mega church.
Rock bands, large screen tvs, best selling books on "changing your life" etc etc. I am suprise they are not selling the secret...
Prof T seems to be stuck in the Middle Ages in regards to her critques of organized religion.
May 25, 2007 4:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 16:57
"if we separate Christianity from its trappings of ritual, dogma and institutions."
These rituals are not the problem; there are benifits to rituals and traditions and they can be found in all cultures and groups.
The problem was the connection between power and religion and, while it was a painful seperation, Europe and the church we seperated in the last two centuries.
Politics and faith do not mix and, thanks to the enlightenment and other revolutions, the church can focus on its real mission in the modern world.
As an feminist and moral relativist (perhaps a gnostic), Mrs. Brooks reviles the traditions of the Catholic church and consistent moral teachings in regards to human life as a threat and she talks down and bashes these traditions in subtle ways any chance she gets.
When she says "dogma" this and "dogma" that read "those damn, backward Catholics!" As she refused to accept the fact that reforms and historial changes have been made and that it is not a static faith or unthinking faith - just look at the scholars throughout the centries and at philosophers like Charles Taylor today.
May 25, 2007 4:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 16:48
SPEED123: I don't think she is specifically attacking Catholics but lack of effort in the understanding the underlying messages of the word.
May 25, 2007 3:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 15:24
I can say my parents were raised in a Catholic orphanage and I am thankful for the love they were given there. The rationalist don't realize that we are also emotional beings. This is reflected in our religious texts. Science is now only starting to swim in these waters.
May 25, 2007 3:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 15:17
Ms. Brooks, like in all of her pieces, likes to express anti-Catholic tirades.
"That’s often why humans invent the soft and pretty trappings of religion like banners and robes and buildings with colored glass. That’s why the outwardly religious go along with massive social evil—too must trouble to confront it. And besides, the Nazis might kill you."
Funny, that the mainline Protestant denominations were the most friendly to Hitler's movement...politically adapable as they were.
And the Nazi's must have enjoyed Martin Luther's anti-semitic rambelings.
On the other hand, thousands of Catholic priests were sent to the camps.
May 25, 2007 3:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 15:11
Ms. Brooks, like in all of her pieces, likes to express anti-Catholic tirades.
"That’s often why humans invent the soft and pretty trappings of religion like banners and robes and buildings with colored glass. That’s why the outwardly religious go along with massive social evil—too must trouble to confront it. And besides, the Nazis might kill you."
Funny, that the mainline Protestant denominations were the most friendly to Hitler's movement...politically adapable as they were.
And the Nazi's must have enjoyed Martin Luther's anti-semitic rambelings.
On the other hand, thousands of Catholic priests were sent to the camps.
May 25, 2007 3:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 15:11
No really, Friend, I cannot; although they were not directed at you.
I am sick of atheists using selective bits of history or current events to advance their agenda and propaganda.
This is exactly what Hitchens does: claim the positive atributes of human nature and history for rationalism while assigning the negative aspects of human nature / history to religion and belief in God.
What bias! What dishonesty...
May 25, 2007 2:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 14:46
Anyone who thinks they have absolute knowledge of truth can be dangerous, regardless of belief system.
May 25, 2007 2:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 14:41
SPEED123:
You can substitute belief system for any reference of religion that I make so that the atheist and agnostics won't be left out.
Is it possible for you to leave the insults out of your posts?
May 25, 2007 2:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 14:36
Atheism and greed funding atrocities in Sudan...how about that for a headline.
May 25, 2007 2:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 14:34
What a bunch of simplistic idiots...
Like to condem certain groups and ignore historical facts and policial realities on the ground.
Yes, American Christians are totally to blame...
What about the ATHEIST communist regime of China that is doing most of the funding of the oil projects and government of Khartoum.
Chinese power/economy is no joke.
You people are ridiculous, rightous and simple minded! So you blame religion....
May 25, 2007 2:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 14:23
Fair enough. I'm sure you realize then that there are those of us that interpret that divinity as metaphorical. I can't speak for Rev. Thistlethwaite. I still admire people whose beliefs in the divinity of Christ are different than mine. I feel it is ok to use their lessons in discussions or writings even if I may not agree with them on everything.
May 25, 2007 11:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 11:26
Yes, the divinity of Christ is central to orthodox Christianity. For the record, it was core to Bonhoeffer's theology and dogma. Bonhoeffer's criticism was directed at the non-Biblical dogma that had been attached to the Gospel. Like barnacles on a ship's hull, they needed to be removed.
May 25, 2007 10:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 10:54
Derek, because she interprets the bible different from you, doesn't me that she, "rejects the divity and teachings of Jesus Christ". Certainly, the teachings of Jesus Christ are her motivation. There are many ways to interpret the divine.
We all struggle to loosen the grips of the dogma of our beliefs...you too. Is the divinity of Christ your dogma?
May 25, 2007 10:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 10:35
Thistlethwaite is as dogmatic as they come, in my view. Of course, her dogma differs substantially from Bonhoeffer's - that is, he believed that true justice & peace is not possible apart from Jesus Christ. Thistlethwaite, on the other hand, embraces dogma that rejects the divity and teachings of Jesus Christ. In point of fact, she teaches a dogma that differs substantially from the Apostle Paul and the New Testament.
May 25, 2007 9:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 09:05
Mr. Mark,
In general, I guess I do agree with you. But with this author, her arguement and presentation are cohesive and well thought out. The content did answer the question asked and the notion of "Religionless Christianity". I do personally like the style of her writing.
May 24, 2007 1:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 13:26
Your hostility toward the Islamic world is unrelenting. Your tone of writing is confrontational.
What do I now say, that the Western Imperial armies occupied most of the Islamic world during WW 2?
Or should I say those Anglo-Christian armies sat in England while hundreds of divisions
fought the real war on the Russian Steppe?
That would be too easy and incorrect…like your statement.
In Iraq, Iran, India…to name a few, Muslim soldiers helped us win that war.
May 24, 2007 11:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 11:47
FRIEND writes:
Hi Mr Mark -
You said:
I don't believe that it's acceptable for people like Susan to come up with their own definitions for words that having nothing at all to do with the long-accepted definition of said words, especially when Susan comes up with a definition that sits almost opposite from the accepted definition of the word."
I respectfully disagree...especially when dealing with metaphysics and ethics...I want definitions."
Dear Friend -
But the definitions you wish are of the "up is down and down is up" variety. How is that helpful to a cogent discussion? I, for one, don't wish to spend two-thirds of every post in some semantic black hole.
I don't see the religionists busy trying to redefine terminology that has a positive connotation. It's the negative connotations they're being footloose about. Why is that?
May 24, 2007 11:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 11:23
maybe i missed it but didn't the christian world go after hitler while the islamic world was blessed with the largest non arian ss division hitler could create in bosnia. remember bosnia - and all those poor peaceful islamics there?
and dont tell me the pope did not do anything - the pope did not have an army to do anything with.
May 24, 2007 7:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 07:36
Dr. Brooks --First time I agree a great deal with you. I am a practicing and committed Catholic and yet I find that my faith, my absolute certainty of Christ's divine presence in the Eucharist, contradicts a lot of what I see in the practice of the Catholic religion. I believe Gandhi once said that if Catholics believed what they taught they would be walking on their knees to the altar. Most do not. Indeed, not few seem altogether oblivious of whose presence they are in. Faith, like all experience, as Schillebeeckx pointed out is layed on the bed of culture, on cultural soil, and that soil is what it is transforming, even as it distorts it on receiving it.
May 23, 2007 9:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 23, 2007 21:27
She brings up an interesting question, which I don't have an answer for but I've thought a lot about, in recent days. I'd like to pose this to those here.
If Anti Semitism completely disappeared tomorrow, and the Jews were no longer stuck in perpetual victim mode, what then would it mean to be Jewish in modern times?
I was raised Jewish, before anyone accuses me of anti-Semitism. I don't hate myself or my family. It was partly (but only partly) because I couldn't answer this question satisfactorily for myself that I started looking around, and ultimately found my faith elsewhere.
May 23, 2007 6:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 23, 2007 18:07
I agree, I too have a hard time saying to someone, "It's your responsibility to fix for this problem".
But... we do what we can with the blessings we have been given. Mainline leaders have a unique responsibility and they carry a burden most of us will never carry. In any event, this is the path they follow.
I also agree that the resolution to the Sudan crisis is not just ours, it's a global concern but, just like our Mainline leaders, the US has a unique responsibility in the world as one of the few super powers.
May 23, 2007 5:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 23, 2007 17:39
The difference between "religion" and "faith" is so so important. But I wonder if Thistlethwaite would endorse the use of the word "spirituality" in place of "faith." After all, spirituality is associated with attempting to transcend, the same way she says faith is geared to that end. And I wonder if she would endorse the idea that the texts -- Torah, the New Testament, etc. -- are narratives that describe positive ways to express or experience faith or spirituality. She alludes to this concept in the last paragraph of her entry, i.e. faith being found in certain stories of the Bible. I am just positing the question: If God is a metaphor for love/one-ness/nature/creation/beauty/connectedness/peace, then faith/spirituality is the appreciation and experience of that oneness. When Job begs God to stop subjecting him to loss, he is begging to be included in the positive world, to benefit from the beauty of the world. When we pray to God, we are celebrating all that that word means and feeling a part of it and trying to become even more a part of it.
May 23, 2007 4:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 23, 2007 16:55
Gary Aknos:
I can feel your passion and I'm thankful for your voice.
But I have a hard time saying to someone, "It's your responsibility to fix for this problem". Especially, as you say, that person is a pacifist and you're advocating violence.
I think as individuals, we should either "put up or shut up".
I'll write Congress but I'm not sure about the armed intervention unless other powerful and regional nations help.
Keep talking about it, but if you're being called, do all you can and don't let "transcendent faith should scare you to death".
You can't save the world, only yourself...but let's try to save the world anyway.
May 23, 2007 4:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 23, 2007 16:49
worth:
I am sure that the displaced and killed Sudanese are also thankful for the "thinkers".
C'mon... we have enough thinkers and talking heads... we need more people to act.
May 23, 2007 4:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 23, 2007 16:28
This isn't a matter of individuals... this is what the Mainline leaders (like Susan) can do (they have the pulpit, the credentials and the resources). We lend our collective ecumenical voices for so many issues but none, in my opinion, is as important or grave as the crisis in Sudan.
How shocked would D.C. be if Mainline leaders (and hopefully all major Christian leaders) made a statement that while we recognize that peace should be our first option, the crisis in Sudan now meets the criteria for armed intervention to stop the genocide (I would probably avoid "Just War" language although I think it meets that threshold as well)? How about generating popular support for an armed intervention? If there was ever a moral justification for an armed intervention, Sudan is it.
Would Bonhoeffer be proud of how little progress we've made on Sudan?
May 23, 2007 4:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 23, 2007 16:25
Gary Aknos:
No individual can fight every fight, but she does seem to be working for some of the disadvantaged. I think some people are pacifist in their heart of hearts and will not fight anyone for any reason.
But, that wouldn't exempt you, or me.
Ok, your point is well taken...what should we as individuals do for Sudan (I have to provide for my wife and kids)?
What have you done for Sudan?
May 23, 2007 4:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 23, 2007 16:13
Hi Mr Mark -
You said:
I don't believe that it's acceptable for people like Susan to come up with their own definitions for words that having nothing at all to do with the long-accepted definition of said words, especially when Susan comes up with a definition that sits almost opposite from the accepted definition of the word.
I respectfully disagree...especially when dealing with metaphysics and ethics...I want definitions.
May 23, 2007 4:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 23, 2007 16:00
Some are thinkers, some are doers. The just causes of the world require both kinds of people. If Ms. Thistlethwaite is more of a thinker/student/synthesizer/teacher/message spreader, that's fine - she has served her purpose admirably by effectively exposing the works of a doer to a mass audience that includes many who were previously unaware of him, which may include other thinkers and doers, some of whom may actually make a physical difference in a place like Darfur because of what Ms. Thistlethwaite has revealed to them here. The world needs both kinds.
May 23, 2007 3:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 23, 2007 15:42
Some are thinkers, some are doers. The just causes of the world require both kinds of people. If Ms. Thistlethwaite is more of a thinker/student/synthesizer/teacher/message spreader, that's fine - she has served her purpose admirably by effectively exposing the works of a doer to a mass audience that includes many who were previously unaware of him, which may include other thinkers and doers, some of whom may actually make a physical difference in a place like Darfur because of what Ms. Thistlethwaite has revealed to them here. The world needs both kinds.
May 23, 2007 3:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 23, 2007 15:41
Friens -
Thanks for pointing out Susan's personal definitions of what religion is and isn't. It still doesn't answer my question.
Part and parcel to having a dialogue is the necessity of agreeing on what words mean. It seems that every religionist I know runs away from the term "religion." I don't believe that it's acceptable for people like Susan to come up with their own definitions for words that having nothing at all to do with the long-accepted definition of said words, especially when Susan comes up with a definition that sits almost opposite from the accepted definition of the word.
I find myself agreeing with Susan more often than I agree with Cal Thomas, but at least Cal has the fortitude to embrace the horror of the language when it comes to the word "religion."
May 23, 2007 3:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 23, 2007 15:26
Friend:
I didn't realize that our Christi