The paradox of American Christianity

[Darth Wong]

I have observed a few things about Christianity over the years (well, I've observed lots of things, but let's keep this on topic), and a few curious paradoxes have struck me:

1. Jesus Christ himself says, in the Gospels, that the most important parts of his religion (and he should know, he's got his fucking name on it) are to love God and "to love thy neighbour as thyself". However, the vast majority of Christian published thought today is in the areas of fighting "public indecency", keeping gays from marrying, forcing everyone to accept a literal reading of Old Testament creation myths, and hoping for (or even bringing about) the end of the world. Why the incredibly different priorities?
2. When Jesus was approached by a rich man who asked how he could enter Heaven, he told him to give his wealth to the poor. He did not say "work to make yourself and your rich friends even richer, for it will eventually trickle down to the poor". Yet the most religious parts of America are also the parts where the poor are worst-off and trickle-down theory is most widely accepted; the most generous welfare programs seem to be in the more "leftist" states. How do they rationalize this? Jesus once said that you will know the righteous because they are generous; when someone is cold, naked, and starving, they are the ones who will take them in, clothe them, and give them food. He most certainly did not say "the righteous are those who will keep everything for themselves and tell the poor to go get a fucking job."

There are other paradoxes of American Christianity, but these two are the ones which I find most striking. How do American Christians justify themselves when their own Lord and Saviour seems to think that so much of their political thought is bullshit?

[Lord Revan]

There are other paradoxes of American Christianity, but these two are the ones which I find most striking. How do American Christians justify themselves when their own Lord and Saviour seems to think that so much of their political thought is bullshit?

they probaly don't, I think it's same as with fundamentalist Islam they may be able resite long passages from the bible, but they really don't know what those passeges mean.

[Duckie]

Buffet Table Mythology. American Christians, being too lazy or unintelligent to read the bible, are given bits and pieces by their priests and then are free to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they accept and what parts are just symbolic, and even make up their own laws (such as "Gay People Suck", when the actual Bible text refers to Male Prostitutes, or less recently "Burn The Witches" when by witches the septaguint meant "Poisoners").

Also, if the term Buffet Table Mythology has not yet been invented or put into wide use, I hereby claim it in the name of King and Country. [Me and Myself, respectively.]

[Dakarne]

There are other paradoxes of American Christianity, but these two are the ones which I find most striking. How do American Christians justify themselves when their own Lord and Saviour seems to think that so much of their political thought is bullshit?

I don't think it counts as paradoxical... just Hypocritical.

They don't justify themselves, they just label themselves "Christian".

Jesus Christ himself says, in the Gospels, that the most important parts of his religion (and he should know, he's got his fucking name on it) are to love God and "to love thy neighbour as thyself". However, the vast majority of Christian published thought today is in the areas of fighting "public indecency", keeping gays from marrying, forcing everyone to accept a literal reading of Old Testament creation myths, and hoping for (or even bringing about) the end of the world. Why the incredibly different priorities?

Let's see...
Love thy Neighbor, I think this is one of the most important lessons, if not the only lesson in the bible worth listening to... let's look at the various infractions of said lesson you put up shall we?

Fighting "Public Indecency", by this, I assume you mean partial and full nudity. I think it comes from that old "Women and Sex are Sin" bullshite. I think it was originally written by someone who wanted to incite Genocide by stopping reproduction.

Keeping Gays from marrying, I think this comes from Jesus' quote, "To do unto a man, as you would unto a woman is sin." or words to that effect. It was probably made up because men can't get pregnant, and thus it is an unnatural union.

Old Testament stuff: it's written in the Bible, therefore is absolute truth in their eyes. I believe this was written originally as a rather successful novel which people took seriously.

When Jesus was approached by a rich man who asked how he could enter Heaven, he told him to give his wealth to the poor. He did not say "work to make yourself and your rich friends even richer, for it will eventually trickle down to the poor". Yet the most religious parts of America are also the parts where the poor are worst-off and trickle-down theory is most widely accepted; the most generous welfare programs seem to be in the more "leftist" states. How do they rationalize this? Jesus once said that you will know the righteous because they are generous; when someone is cold, naked, and starving, they are the ones who will take them in, clothe them, and give them food. He most certainly did not say "the righteous are those who will keep everything for themselves and tell the poor to go get a fucking job."

Hmm... one word, Hypocrisy.

They're to Hypocritical to actually step back and look at things, probably only Christian in name. Because Christian is a popular title, and people want a "Popular Title"... It's an infantile desire for something someone else has got, no one ever really grows up, they just get better at whatever language they speak.

[SyntaxVorlon]

As Al Franken pointed out in "Lying Liars" most neo-cons with a christian bent pay more attention to Jesus's "Parable of the Talents" in which a man gives three people some gold and the one that used it is the one who has the whole religion thing right. It led Franken to declare the neo-con movement the disciples of Supply-Side Jesus.

[Duckie]

They don't justify themselves, they just label themselves "Christian".

No True Scotsman?

Keeping Gays from marrying, I think this comes from Jesus' quote, "To do unto a man, as you would unto a woman is sin." or words to that effect. It was probably made up because men can't get pregnant, and thus it is an unnatural union.

And is completely without basis once the Age of Empires 3 Popup Window said "You have discovered Secularism. Welcome to Age IV- Age of Enlightenment!"

Old Testament stuff: it's written in the Bible, therefore is absolute truth in their eyes. I believe this was written originally as a rather successful novel which people took seriously.

They're to Hypocritical to actually step back and look at things, probably only Christian in name. Because Christian is a popular title, and people want a "Popular Title"... It's an infantile desire for something someone else has got, no one ever really grows up, they just get better at whatever language they speak.

I"m not exactly sure if this is a No True Scotsman, because it sounds so true.

[Duckie]

Ghetto Edit- "Old Testament stuff: it's written in the Bible, therefore is absolute truth in their eyes. I believe this was written originally as a rather successful novel which people took seriously" is part of Dakarne's post that got left in mine.

[Dakarne]

I"m not exactly sure if this is a No True Scotsman, because it sounds so true.

It probably is, human society has a natural desire to be clones of other people...

[Magnetic]

In the story of the rich man, Jesus selectively tells the rich man to 'sell all he has and give it to the poor' because he could see his heart, and knew that his god was his riches. Of course, for him to 'get to Heaven by selling his stuff and giving it to the poor' would be contradictory to the salvation by faith and not by works. . . . . . . . .contradicted in Heaven when we are judged by our works. . . . .

Someone mentioning 'love your neighbor as yourself' as their favorite part of the Bible. I personally think that if The Golden Rule", doing to (treating) others what (how) you would want them doing (treating) to you, were followed by all people, we would have a much better world. A little side note to this thread.

[John of the Dead]

Some of us actively fight against what we see as a rising tide of apathy. Darth Wong, you're 100% correct that much of modern American Christianity is focused on petty trivialities and ignores the very things we're told to focus on, namely, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, housing the homeless.

I cannot justify the behavior of anyone else. All I can do is the best I can, and encourage others to do so as well. I won't go in to what I do to minister; I will say that my wife and I are both very active in our local church, and she is active at the state and national level. We're both pushing for change, trying to bring more focus on actual ministry, away from policing others' thoughts and morals.

I'm really sad for my religion when an avowed atheist has a better grasp of our calling that most of its followers. As to why that is the case, I cannot begin to fathom.

[Duckie]

In the story of the rich man, Jesus selectively tells the rich man to 'sell all he has and give it to the poor' because he could see his heart, and knew that his god was his riches.

Where is your interpretation of these events within the Bible?

Of course, for him to 'get to Heaven by selling his stuff and giving it to the poor' would be contradictory to the salvation by faith and not by works. . . . . . . . .contradicted in Heaven when we are judged by our works. . . . .

Salvation by Faith alone, or Mahayana Christianity as I have taken a leaf from Frank Hebert and started calling it, is a ridiculous doctrine thought up later by Paul, if I remember correctly, to mainstreamize Christianity. Jesus believed in Slavation by Works.

Someone mentioning 'love your neighbor as yourself' as their favorite part of the Bible. I personally think that if The Golden Rule", doing to (treating) others what (how) you would want them doing (treating) to you, were followed by all people, we would have a much better world. A little side note to this thread.

True. But the Golden Rule is essentially a form of social Communism- "Everybody be nice to eachother and we'll be nice back". Problem is, people aren't nice.

Incidentally, who invented The Golden Rule? Jesus is always claimed, but my sources list it as
"Do not that to thy neighbor that thou wouldst not suffer from him" [Translated from Greek to Biblical English] --Pittacus of Mytilene [c.650-c.570 BCE], with several Oriental philosophers also inventing it independantly.

[Dakarne]

Salvation by Faith alone, or Mahayana Christianity as I have taken a leaf from Frank Hebert and started calling it, is a ridiculous doctrine thought up later by Paul, if I remember correctly, to mainstreamize Christianity. Jesus believed in Slavation by Works.

I prefer the "Actions in your life" part personally...

True. But the Golden Rule is essentially a form of social Communism- "Everybody be nice to eachother and we'll be nice back". Problem is, people aren't nice.

Communism in its purest form is actually a good Idea, and yes, people aren't nice...

Except for a large percentage of the people on this board.

Incidentally, who invented The Golden Rule? Jesus is always claimed, but my sources list it as
"Do not that to thy neighbor that thou wouldst not suffer from him" [Translated from Greek to Biblical English] --Pittacus of Mytilene [c.650-c.570 BCE], with several Oriental philosophers also inventing it independantly.

People like taking credit for other people's work

[Lord Revan]

Thing with fundamentalists here and in the US is they either ignorant of what the Bible truly says or they don't teach/preach chose parts 'cause it doesn't give [palpatine]Power. UNLIMITED POWER![/palpatine]

[Duckie]

People like taking credit for other people's work

True, but then again it's not that complicated of an idea.

[Dakarne]

True, but then again it's not that complicated of an idea.

Not really, but the fundies would have you believe that Christ is the be all and end all of everything

[tharkûn]

1. Jesus also says, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" and "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." Given there is a commandmant of God against gays, public indenceny, and beleif in the bible they just chalk it up as part and parcel of "loving God". Of course they are rather selectively overlooking the commandments on divorce, resting on the 'day of the Lord', etc.

2. Virtually all Christians beleive in private charity, if St. Whatever Hospital wants to offer free medical care to the homeless the Christians shell out money to support it - hell a good number of protestants and orthodox Christians donate money to catholic charities. The big problem comes in when you try to have the government 'force' them to do so. In the Bible it was the church, not the government, which was tasked with feeding the widows and orphans. In the US socialism is largely considered one step away from godless communism and seen as a force that undermines good Christian charity (beside which they can always show it to be superior if they use the right numbers - say a monk who took a vow of poverty compared to civil servant managing the same services).

[Rogue 9]

When Jesus was approached by a rich man who asked how he could enter Heaven, he told him to give his wealth to the poor. He did not say "work to make yourself and your rich friends even richer, for it will eventually trickle down to the poor". Yet the most religious parts of America are also the parts where the poor are worst-off and trickle-down theory is most widely accepted; the most generous welfare programs seem to be in the more "leftist" states.

I won't speak for the personal charity or lack thereof of Christians, but state welfare programs wouldn't fill the charity requirement anyway, as they constitute the state taking money for the welfare through taxation whether those being taxed consent or not, and is thus compulsory and not really charitable, at least not on the part of those providing the funds.

[wolveraptor]

Isn't most of the OP concerning Right wing Christians and not just any Christian? So shouldn't this thread be called, "Paradoxes within Right-wing Christianity"?

[Darth Wong]

2. Virtually all Christians beleive in private charity, if St. Whatever Hospital wants to offer free medical care to the homeless the Christians shell out money to support it - hell a good number of protestants and orthodox Christians donate money to catholic charities. The big problem comes in when you try to have the government 'force' them to do so. In the Bible it was the church, not the government, which was tasked with feeding the widows and orphans. In the US socialism is largely considered one step away from godless communism and seen as a force that undermines good Christian charity (beside which they can always show it to be superior if they use the right numbers - say a monk who took a vow of poverty compared to civil servant managing the same services).

That argument doesn't fly when you realize that the free choice these people insist upon is actually given to them whenever they vote on these social programs. But it is an interesting example of the sort of self-serving nonsense they will use in their own defense.

[Surlethe]

1. Jesus Christ himself says, in the Gospels, that the most important parts of his religion (and he should know, he's got his fucking name on it) are to love God and "to love thy neighbour as thyself". However, the vast majority of Christian published thought today is in the areas of fighting "public indecency", keeping gays from marrying, forcing everyone to accept a literal reading of Old Testament creation myths, and hoping for (or even bringing about) the end of the world. Why the incredibly different priorities?

The answer I've been given is, "Love them, but speak the truth to them". That is, free will, in the mind of the conservative Christian, does not follow from love; thus, a conservative Christian will feel completely justified in continuing to love the gay man (for example), and yet inhibit his free will in the name of "speaking the truth" -- i.e., that the gay man is sinning, and should not be allowed to marry.

[Molyneux]

Buffet Table Mythology. American Christians, being too lazy or unintelligent to read the bible, are given bits and pieces by their priests and then are free to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they accept and what parts are just symbolic, and even make up their own laws (such as "Gay People Suck", when the actual Bible text refers to Male Prostitutes, or less recently "Burn The Witches" when by witches the septaguint meant "Poisoners").

Also, if the term Buffet Table Mythology has not yet been invented or put into wide use, I hereby claim it in the name of King and Country. [Me and Myself, respectively.]

Eh...the idea of "poisoners" being mistranslated as "witches" is pretty shaky, so far as I know. Of course, the definition of the word "witch" itself has changed even since it entered the English language...

[Duckie]

Eh...the idea of "poisoners" being mistranslated as "witches" is pretty shaky, so far as I know. Of course, the definition of the word "witch" itself has changed even since it entered the English language...

I was basing that on hearsay, but I've always heard from anyone familiar with the KJV that the eponymous King James hated Witches and made sure that particular vagarity of the language was kept in.

Either way, it's not important to the main idea.

[tharkûn]

That argument doesn't fly when you realize that the free choice these people insist upon is actually given to them whenever they vote on these social programs. But it is an interesting example of the sort of self-serving nonsense they will use in their own defense.

Devil's advocate: Votes in a democracy are merely the tyranny of the majority compelling everyone. It would only be charity for those in the majority who vote for it and are not simultaneously recipients. The bottom 60% of the population voting themselves wealth transfer from the top 40%, in an extreme example, would contain no element of charity.

The real hitch comes is that the individual loses control. If an individual doesn't like the policy of specific charity, like say a charitable hospital offering 'optional' abortions, then they can give to something else even if everyone else has no problem with the abortion policy or whatever the problem is. Hardcore Christians are very strict about who controls their charitable donations, even to the point of stopping donation over trivial issues. Frankly a secular government is never going to be able to please all sects simultaneously, particularly if they want to maintain even the present level of secularity in the US government. Which is why they like Bush's Faith Based Initiatives, government money comes in but control is kept out of secular hands.

[Darth Wong]

Devil's advocate: Votes in a democracy are merely the tyranny of the majority compelling everyone. It would only be charity for those in the majority who vote for it and are not simultaneously recipients. The bottom 60% of the population voting themselves wealth transfer from the top 40%, in an extreme example, would contain no element of charity.

Of course not. But if the top 40% vote against it, that is not charity either and they must still answer for their absurd pretensions of being "Christ-like" when they are doing everything in their power to hold onto their own money. And why should it matter how it is distributed? I don't recall Jesus saying that only the righteous should receive charity; he said that the righteous would give charity. Isn't this simply more imprinting of American "me me me" cultural values onto Christianity?

PS. It's interesting that Christians argue that they're choosing charity over government programs when all of the statistics indicate that the wealthy share of the nation's wealth has been increasing by leaps and bounds. If rich Christians in America are making up in charity what they hoard in their Scrooge-like hands from government programs, it sure doesn't show up in the numbers.

[tharkûn]

Of course not. But if the top 40% vote against it, that is not charity either and they must still answer for their absurd pretensions of being "Christ-like" when they are doing everything in their power to hold onto their own money.

Devil's advocate: Being opposed to the modern welfare state does not equate with being opposed to charity. Indeed the Bible explicitly says, "this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." The point of charity is not supposed to be to give money away simply to give from the wealthy to the rich, but to aid those who cannot provide for themselves.

It's interesting that Christians argue that they're choosing charity over government programs when all of the statistics indicate that the wealthy share of the nation's wealth has been increasing by leaps and bounds. If rich Christians in America are making up in charity what they hoard in their Scrooge-like hands from government programs, it sure doesn't show up in the numbers.

Ehh Christians demographics are strongest among the poor. The biggest opponents of the welfare state among Christians are the poor followed by the middle class. Wealthy Christians tend to be more parternalists and centrists, and that ignores a negative correlation between beleif and wealth.. When you look at it, the poorer, less secular states are the ones with smallest welfare nets.

In reality private charitable giving in the US is ridiciously high. More private charity goes abroad from the US than US government aid. Private charitable giving has a larger annual budget than Medicaid. Oddly enough the largest 'socialist' programs in the American budget transfer wealth to one of the wealthiest segments of the American populace - the elderly.

Suffice it to say the concentration of wealth in the upper class is not a valid indicator of much of anything.