The paradox of American Christianity

[TimothyC]

As a person who came up in a rather conservative Christian family, I can say that a common mindset is that it is the job of the church not the state to provide a safety net for the disadvantaged in society. For example, I give 10% of my pre-tax income to my church for social programs. I also try to give an additional 5-10% to other charities (Often I don't quite make it due to my tight budget [being a student and all, I know I could do better but I don't]). I much prefer being able to control where my money goes to rather than have the money be distributed to programs that I don't approve of. See that's capitalism in action. I have the choice of where to put my money, and thus those that do the best job (IMO) of helping others gets the money to continue to operate, those that don't, well, they go bye-bye.

In that vein, I (and my friends) have less trouble with government charity on state and local levels as we have a greater say as to where the money in question goes.

I will admit that most "Christians" in the US today are hypocritical in how they act verse how they claim to believe (I say claim because I believe that actions speak louder than words when it comes to faith), but the concept that all Christians are that way (Which is one possible interpretation of your OP Mr. Wong) is, as I understand it, a Black-White Fallacy that I find quite offensive.

Now if all Christians were to follow a similar system to what many of the Christians I know follow (which is similar to what I follow myself) then a system that has minimal government intervention would work wonderfully. However implementation of such a system suffers from the same problem that plagues Communism, the very real truth that people are quite flawed in their actions. In fact many of my friends and myself admit that in a world where people are not flawed in this way, a communist state (without atheism) would be the “Most Christian” state that could exist. unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world and thus we must take the next best option, that of a government that interferes in peoples lives as little as possible.

[Rye]

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?

I think they see their interfering as both loving and in line with treating others as they'd like to be treated. Public displays of nipples, or whatever, are to them, inspirations to lust and other sin. To "love" one another, they try to eradicate the causes of sin so fewer people will get tainted by it, and therefore less will be harmed. They will often say that if they were showing nipples or whatever, they would like some selfless christian like themselves to "tell them the truth." "Hate the sin and love the sinner [enough to tell them]," is a popular slogan amongst interfering types. Even the Phelps' repeat that slogan.

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."

I don't have an answer for this one. I think they just replace Jesus with american nationalism when they come to this problem. I will go out on a limb here and predict that such people think Jesus has some sort of personal hand in america and its capitalism.

[Darth Wong]

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.

... and who meet the American Christians' standards for "righteousness", which I think is the point, and which is also why they prefer to give to churches as opposed to welfare, because then the money will only go to people who come to churches. Beneath all of this is a pretty clear belief that a typical welfare recipient "doesn't deserve it", and therefore shouldn't get it. Which, once again, is not "Christ-like" at all.

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.

I've heard this canard before. Why are there so many impoverished Americans then, if there is so much charitable giving? Where is it all going, since the poor do not seem to be receiving it?

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

Why not? More and more of the nation's wealth finds its way into the hands of the wealthy every year; they are obviously not giving it away to the poor, either in the form of welfare or private charity. Why aren't filthy rich people like George W. Bush being rebuked by the churches for their hoarding of wealth? Why is he instead being praised for hating the people they want him to hate?

[The Guid]

I'd just like to say that I do not believe any of the following bullshit, but you asked it so I shall provide you with an answer in the veign of the righteous Christians I have met.

1. All good Christians love their neighbours. By preventing the gay man from marrying you are attempting to save his soul. To them, everything that can be done must be done to save him. By accosting women who have abortions they are making sure other people do not make the same terrible mistakes. By trying to force people to believe the Old Testament myths they are trying to get people to accept God which for them is the most important thing in the universe. And the end of the world is a glorious time for them, where all the sin and suffering ends. Admittedly I have not had the chance to confront anyone about the supposed love of trying to force a situation where Christ judges against many of your "nighbours" and damns them.

2. Ah yes, the riches one. What Jesus did not like was the love[/] of money, not the aquisition of it. When he told this man to lose all of his material possessions Jesus could tell that this man loved his possessions more than Christ and it was blocking his path to heaven. The Americans don't love[/] their wealth, they just happen to have it - and they give to charity to prove that their true love is their fellow man and God not their 99 inch widescreen double delux sky and digital uber sound television they watch all day.

[Justforfun000]

2. Ah yes, the riches one. What Jesus did not like was the love[/] of money, not the aquisition of it. When he told this man to lose all of his material possessions Jesus could tell that this man loved his possessions more than Christ and it was blocking his path to heaven. The Americans don't love[/] their wealth, they just happen to have it - and they give to charity to prove that their true love is their fellow man and God not their 99 inch widescreen double delux sky and digital uber sound television they watch all day

Hmmm.....this sounds like a cop out to me....

Jesus explicity states it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven. That directly condemns the person who HAS wealth as it is a present tense of him being rich. He didn't say someone who was actively seeking wealth, who coveted it beyond all else, or any other qualifier. It was quite simple and implies someone rich is not sharing with others in a way that would equalize others living status.

Of course this is foolish and cannot be done by everyone. It's another silly idea from the Bible that is unworkable in reality. In any case, here are more examples of the same theme to back up what Jesus was saying:

“ Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you….You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.” [James 5:1,2,5]

“Are they [the rich] not the ones who are slandering the noble name of Him to whom you belong?” [James 2:7]

“Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love Him?” [James 2:5]

This generality that the rich slander God, while the poor tend to recognize their need for God may be what Jesus meant in the beatitudes found in Luke 6:20-27. There He says “blessed are you who are poor” and “woe to you who are rich.” These blessings and woes may refer to spiritual poverty and spiritual self-righteous “wealth” as Matthew’s beatitudes proclaim, but it is also true that worldly wealth tends to be an impediment to gaining heavenly wealth.

[Darth Wong]

Looking through the answers, I've been searching for a simple description of the ways in which American Christians rationalize the written tenets of their faith with their wildly contradictory personal behaviour (en masse; I am aware that there are exceptions so don't get on my case about that).

And what is the answer? Simple: America is a nation of fucking lawyers. They look (or search, or excavate, or wrangle) for loopholes in the text, no matter how tortured their semantic interpretations must be, rather than interpreting it at face value. They've been doing it with their own laws for more than 200 years; it makes sense that they do it with their religion too. As much as you all despise your own lawyers, you willingly think like them.

[bekeleven]

As much as you all despise your own lawyers, you willingly think like them.

That's because thinking like lawyers allows the average slothful, ignorant american with badly needed rationale.

[tharkûn]

... and who meet the American Christians' standards for "righteousness", which I think is the point, and which is also why they prefer to give to churches as opposed to welfare, because then the money will only go to people who come to churches. Beneath all of this is a pretty clear belief that a typical welfare recipient "doesn't deserve it", and therefore shouldn't get it. Which, once again, is not "Christ-like" at all.

That is never explicitly stated in any of the major Christians charities, the Bible at least is ridiciously clear that Christ sought to help the prostitutes, beggars, tax collectors, etc.

There is a strong animosity to "lazy bums", America was steeped in the Protestant work ethic. A huge number of Christians beleive that if one is capable of working, and that includes most everyone in their eyes, then work they should.

I've heard this canard before. Why are there so many impoverished Americans then, if there is so much charitable giving? Where is it all going, since the poor do not seem to be receiving it?

The number of impoverished Americans was going down up until the economic recession. Right now it stands around 5%, down from a modern high around 6% in 1993. The big reason the numbers are that high is that the cost of minimal susbstance has been rising faster than inflation and wage adjustments.

As far as where all the money is going? Much goes abroad by the billion, more gets eaten up in administration, lawsuits, capital expenditures, and corruption.

Even if you had a perfect charity, there is always the fact that some poor are going to take the charity and use it to increase their consumption without increasing their wealth. Sometimes it is immentantly understandable that they do so - being poor with a car in the US in better than being poor without one; other times it is a case of feeding addictions or whatnot.

Why not? More and more of the nation's wealth finds its way into the hands of the wealthy every year; they are obviously not giving it away to the poor, either in the form of welfare or private charity.

Only if the economy were a zero sum game. The percentage of wealth in the US held by the top 1% is moderately less than it used to be. The top 1% of populous owns 32.7% of the wealth as of 2001 which is down from 34.0% in 1998 and 38.9% in 1989.

Yes in the wealthy have more money and can buy more crap with it, however so too does the rest of the populous. The wealthy are getting less wealthy according to the data I've been seeing. Right now they own about the same proportion of the wealth they did in the 1950's, less than in the 60's and only before WWII/after 1929 did the wealthy control significantly less of the wealth. Yes they hold a huge proportion of the wealth, but the general trend is showing that proportion falling.

Why aren't filthy rich people like George W. Bush being rebuked by the churches for their hoarding of wealth? Why is he instead being praised for hating the people they want him to hate?

GWB as filthy rich? He doesn't even crack the top 1% and likely is not earning millions simply by being the president. He also has given away hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal charity while in office. According to his tax returns Bush gives away 14% of his net income, which seems to be greater than the 10% tithe most dogmatic sects insist upon.

[Justforfun000]

GWB as filthy rich? He doesn't even crack the top 1% and likely is not earning millions simply by being the president. He also has given away hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal charity while in office. According to his tax returns Bush gives away 14% of his net income, which seems to be greater than the 10% tithe most dogmatic sects insist upon.

Not disagreeing with you on this, but even though he may not meet the standards set by some as to "filthy" rich, to someone with a low income, he's loaded.

Lets put it this way. I personally rake in somewhere between 2500 to 3500 a month. That's enough to get by, I can buy good food, have my nights out, and pay rent. Save up a bit for bigger items, and maybe once in a while have a vacation.

Does George Bush give away enough of his income and assets that would bring him even CLOSE to this level?

Even if he ONLY got 10,000 a month clear, that would be a six figure salary, and more then enough to be entirely comfortable for your life if you are not wasting it on extravagance, whether in large homes, ranches and condo's and boats and fancy cars, etc.

What IS his income anyway?

If he's raking in a hell of a lot more then this and does not "share" it with everybody else less fortunate, then I'm sorry, he doesn't follow the true Christian creed. He would qualify indubitably for the title of "rich".

[tharkûn]

Not disagreeing with you on this, but even though he may not meet the standards set by some as to "filthy" rich, to someone with a low income, he's loaded.

I reserve the term "filthy rich" for those to whom money is no object, particularly those who couldn't spend all their money if they tried. Bush is rich, but nowhere near the filthy rich.

What IS his income anyway?

He nets just under 500,000 per annum (about 2/3rds of which comes from being POTUS) and gives away a little under 70,000. He falls into the top 5% of income earners, but falls short of the top 1%.

If he's raking in a hell of a lot more then this and does not "share" it with everybody else less fortunate, then I'm sorry, he doesn't follow the true Christian creed. He would qualify indubitably for the title of "rich".

Could you quote this creed to me? The president's denomination, the United Methodist Church, subscribes to the tithe which Bush handily meets.

[Darth Wong]

Thanks, Tharkun, for proving me right about the American Republitard tendency towards legalistic loophole-finding bullfuckery. You won't even admit that George W. Bush is filthy rich by any Christian standard, despite the abject poverty in which Jesus himself lived.

Jesus according to Tharkun: "For if a man who is worth billions of dollars tries to get into Heaven, he may be rebuked unless he gives at least 1% of his income to private charity. But if he is only worth millions rather than billions and he has a history of funneling money toward his similarly rich but not filthy-rich friends, then blessed be him, for God will smile upon him in his not-quite-filthy-wealth".

[Zoink]

"to love thy neighbour as thyself

Maybe they think that they're loving their neighbour by trying to 'fix' his 'condition'. Maybe they rationalize it by hoping people would do the same for them if they were likewise in need of 'fixing'.

he told him to give his wealth to the poor.

I bring this up a lot in discussions. There are other quotes as well (which I have saved for just such a discussion)

"...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" (Luke 14:33)

"If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" (Matt. 19:21)

"Sell your possessions and give alms" (Luke 12:33)

"But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" (Luke 11:41)

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21)

"How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23)

"Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:23-24)

A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21)

and (i) Paul said, "For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil. 3:8 RSV)


----------------


The most I've been told is that it's "not literal" that it simply means, "don't be too greedy". I keep getting told that you don't get into heaven by actions, simply by accepting Jesus. However, that's completely contrary to the quotes. Wealth would be irrelevant if you only have to accept Jesus as your savoir. In your example you have a guy asking Jesus *how* to get into heaven. If you take the Bible as truth, Jesus didn't have a better chance to explain how to get into heaven and he was extremely explicit in what *actions* were required.

[tharkûn]

You won't even admit that George W. Bush is filthy rich by any Christian standard, despite the abject poverty in which Jesus himself lived.

Are you serious? Compared him to any of the Borgia Popes and he isn't all that spectacular. Compare him to to any of the Midevil Christian rulers, any of the Victorian Christian rulers, or any "Defender of the Faith" throughout history and filthy rich he ain't.

Frankly the Bible is riddled with wealthy men of God - David and Soloman come to mind directly. Likewise Job, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc. were all wealthy. Comparing Bush to just about any Biblical ruler shows him not to be filthy rich.

Exactly what is your dividing line between being rich and being filthy rich? Hell how do you define being rich? Because let's be honest here EVERYONE in the US is rich compared to the peasants in North Korea. Most Americans are rich compared to the rest of the world.

Jesus according to Tharkun: "For if a man who is worth billions of dollars tries to get into Heaven, he may be rebuked unless he gives at least 1% of his income to private charity. But if he is only worth millions rather than billions and he has a history of funneling money toward his similarly rich but not filthy-rich friends, then blessed be him, for God will smile upon him in his not-quite-filthy-wealth".

The particular Christian sect Bush belongs to holds to the tithe, which is biblical if a carryover from the old testement. Frankly Bush is doing what his clergy tells him to do - actually a decent bit more. You might argue that his clergy are getting it wrong, fine, but they are merely quoting Christian tradition for the past thousand odd years which makes this far less than an American problem.

Frankly I the only point I see you having is that essentially the majority of Christendom for the past odd thousand years has been getting Christianity wrong. Okay fine, why then would it surprise you that Christians in America aren't rebuking Bush?

[Thinkmarble]

Private property?


A responsive reading, in response to an astonishing comment by Pastor Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, as quoted by Jeff Sharlet in "Inside America's most powerful megachurch," in the May 2005 Harper's.





"They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property. ... That's what evangelical stands for."

-- Pastor Ted Haggard


"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."


-- Acts 2:44-45

"They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property. ... That's what evangelical stands for."

-- Pastor Ted Haggard


"Thou shalt not turn away from him that is in want, but thou shalt share all things with thy brother, and shalt not say that they are thine own."


-- The Didache

"They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property. ... That's what evangelical stands for."

-- Pastor Ted Haggard


"Therefore all things are common; and let not the rich claim more than the rest. To say therefore 'I have more than I need, why not enjoy?' is neither human nor proper."


-- St. Clement of Alexandria

"They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property. ... That's what evangelical stands for."

-- Pastor Ted Haggard


"From those things that God gave you, take that which you need, but the rest, which to you are superfluous, are necessary to others. The superfluous goods of the rich are necessary to the poor, and when you possess the superfluous you possess what is not yours."


-- St. Augustine

"They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property. ... That's what evangelical stands for."

-- Pastor Ted Haggard


"If one who takes the clothing off another is a thief, why give any other name to one who can clothe the naked and refuses to do so? The bread that you withhold belongs to the poor; the cape that you hide in your chest belongs to the naked; the shoes rotting in your house belong to those who must go unshod."


-- St. Basil

"They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property. ... That's what evangelical stands for."

-- Pastor Ted Haggard


"The rich have that which belongs to the poor, even though they may have received it as an inheritance, no matter whence their money comes."


-- St. John Chrysostom

"They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property. ... That's what evangelical stands for."

-- Pastor Ted Haggard


"When you give to the poor, you give not of your own, but simply return what is his, for you have usurped that which is common and has been given for the common use of all. The land belongs to all, not to the rich; and yet those who are deprived of its use are many more than those who enjoy it."


-- St. Ambrose

"They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property. ... That's what evangelical stands for."

-- Pastor Ted Haggard


"Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: 'He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.'"


-- 2 Corinthians 8:13-15

"They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property. ... That's what evangelical stands for."

-- Pastor Ted Haggard


"'What should we do then?' the crowd asked. John answered, 'The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.'"


-- Luke 3:10-11

"They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property. ... That's what evangelical stands for."

-- Pastor Ted Haggard


"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?"


-- Matthew 6:25

"They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property. ... That's what evangelical stands for."

-- Pastor Ted Haggard


"But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."


-- 1 Timothy 6:6-10

"They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property. ... That's what evangelical stands for."

-- Pastor Ted Haggard


"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter."


-- James 5:1-5


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


The scripture quotes above are from the NIV. The quotes from the early fathers are mainly from Justo L. Gonzalez's invaluable book, Faith & Wealth: A history of early Christian ideas on the origin, significance and use of money. I could easily have gone on and on and on citing both the scripture and the saints in a similar vein.


Pastor Ted's embrace of "private property" as the badge. hallmark and signifier of Christianity is absurd. Christians do believe and always have believed in the right to private property, but that right has always, always been limited. And the insistence on those limits has always been just as important, or more important, than the insistence on the right itself.


Allow me to quote again from the late John Paul II's encyclical On Human Work:

The church's constant teaching on the right to private property and ownership of the means of production differs radically from the collectivism proclaimed by Marxism, but also from the capitalism practiced by liberalism and the political systems inspired by it. In the latter case the difference consists in the way the right to ownership and property is understood. Christian tradition never upheld this right as absolute and untouchable. It has always understood it as subordinated to the fact that the goods of this world are meant for all.

Christians cannot speak of being "pro-private property" without also insisting that any understanding of private property is subordinate to the common good, to what is often called "the universal destination of goods." Pastor Ted is wandering off and should take care lest he be pierced with many griefs.


N.B. Clearly, Christian thinking on wealth and property has "evolved" over the last 1,500 years. It is rather rare, these days, to hear a Christian assert or even defend the idea that "superfluity is theft" -- yet that was the consistent and universal teaching of the church during the first four centuries of Christianity. This evolution or sophistication of Christian teaching is, likely, a concession -- the gradual, frog-in-a-kettle process of accommodation to this world. Yet despite that, again, I'm willing to entertain the idea that this evolution is also in some ways reasonable and justifiable. But it is hypocrisy and nonsense when contemporary Christians who have sold off and abandoned every vestige of the traditional Christian understanding of wealth turn around and insist that the Christian understanding of sexuality is fixed, immutable and eternal. These people strain at the gnat of same-sex love while swallowing the camel of credit card usury. They are so obsessed with their mistaken belief that they live in the most promiscuous society of all time that they have failed to notice they live in the most affluent, the haughtiest, proudest and least concerned with the poor.

From Slacktivist.

[Justforfun000]

Are you serious? Compared him to any of the Borgia Popes and he isn't all that spectacular. Compare him to to any of the Midevil Christian rulers, any of the Victorian Christian rulers, or any "Defender of the Faith" throughout history and filthy rich he ain't.

Oh for fucks sake, give me a break. I don't care how you "compare" him to STINKINGLY rich people. Anyone who has a million dollars income after two years is fucking RICH!!

Are you for real? The man makes over $41000 a MONTH. That's an obscene amount of money.

He could probably take one months salary and feed, clothe, and house over TWO HUNDRED people for a year.

Of course you can compare him to other people that have billions or such, but it's like you're trying to imply that he's not THAT rich, so we're being hard on him?

Frankly the Bible is riddled with wealthy men of God - David and Soloman come to mind directly. Likewise Job, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc. were all wealthy. Comparing Bush to just about any Biblical ruler shows him not to be filthy rich.

And these are all pre-Jesus people and undoubtedly this teaching of Jesus AGAINST wealth was one of the many things Jews did NOT like about his message. Hence it's easy to see why they didn't want this man as the messiah.

Exactly what is your dividing line between being rich and being filthy rich? Hell how do you define being rich? Because let's be honest here EVERYONE in the US is rich compared to the peasants in North Korea. Most Americans are rich compared to the rest of the world.

You're missing the point. AND giving a bad analogy. Peasants in North Korea are not just middle class or surviving, they are STARVING. They don't have two pots to piss in.

Being "rich" in a generalized term that most would agree with, is a person with far more assets and money that he needs to live comfortably in this world. Enough that it would take a LOT of spending or really bad financial hard times to knock them down to anything even resembling middle class.

Frankly I the only point I see you having is that essentially the majority of Christendom for the past odd thousand years has been getting Christianity wrong. Okay fine, why then would it surprise you that Christians in America aren't rebuking Bush?

No! They haven't been getting it wrong. They are deliberately DEFYING what is clearly in there. How interesting that the most direct and easily understandable statements in the Bible are conveniently examined and "philosophized" into context that suits whomever wants the more palatable meaning.

The point here is that they are fucking hypocrites and I'm not sure why you are defending Bush. We don't have to pick him in particular, but he IS guilty along with the rest of them for not following it literally.

[tharkûn]

He could probably take one months salary and feed, clothe, and house over TWO HUNDRED people for a year.

Of course you can compare him to other people that have billions or such, but it's like you're trying to imply that he's not THAT rich, so we're being hard on him? Rolling Eyes

What is your definition of "rich"? What is your definition of "filthy rich"? I see nothing invalid about comparing Bush to previous Christian leaders and noting this ain't exactly just an American quandry.

And these are all pre-Jesus people and undoubtedly this teaching of Jesus AGAINST wealth was one of the many things Jews did NOT like about his message. Hence it's easy to see why they didn't want this man as the messiah.

Joseph of Arimathea, the man who donated Jesus's tomb, was a tin magnate. And so what if the examples are from the old testament, when Jesus tells the parable of the poor man and the rich man who die in the same night, who is standing in Heaven? That's right Abraham, you know one of those old testament rich boys. When the author of Hebrews offers up a list of virtious men who does it include? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Gideon, and David ... all of whom were rich. Sorry but no, Christianity was a sect of Judiasm and as such all the patriarches of Jewish tradition were held in esteem. Nowhere in the Bible, nor in Christian tradition, were these men (nor Joseph of Arimathea) taken to task for "hoarding wealth".

You're missing the point. AND giving a bad analogy. Peasants in North Korea are not just middle class or surviving, they are STARVING. They don't have two pots to piss in.

So then all good Christians should be sharing the wealth with the North Koreans, neh? I don't understand this, Bush follows the precepts of his denomination, which really aren't terribly different than what most of Christendom has held to be true for a millenium, and it comes as a big surprise that no one rags on him for doing what they've held to be doctrine for centuries?

I see nothing particularly American about the tithe doctrines, nor do I see anything particularly out of whack by Bush - he certainly gives away more than many Christians.

Being "rich" in a generalized term that most would agree with, is a person with far more assets and money that he needs to live comfortably in this world. Enough that it would take a LOT of spending or really bad financial hard times to knock them down to anything even resembling middle class.

Useless definition, what defines middle class? What defines a "LOT" of spending (Bush could squander his entire net worth on a single home, for example)? I don't deny that Bush is wealthy, but I apparently hold a different definition of "filthy rich" than anyone else.

By Jesus's standards (he who owns two cloaks, etc.) everyone in the western world is wealthy.

No! They haven't been getting it wrong. They are deliberately DEFYING what is clearly in there. How interesting that the most direct and easily understandable statements in the Bible are conveniently examined and "philosophized" into context that suits whomever wants the more palatable meaning.

The tithe concept is an old one, been around since the earliest Christian records. On rare occassions it has been challenged, but not often. I see no reason to call this an American paradox, nor do I see any reason why anyone should be surprized that Bush is being harangued on it.

For whatever reason you are stating that today's Christian churches, and those that existed in the centuries prior are not doing the "Christian thing" with respect to wealth. Fine, let's grant that. What makes this an American paradox? Why does Mike expect them to rebuke Bush for following a doctrine that has been exercised for centuries?

[The Guid]

America is a nation of fucking lawyers.

To single out the USA is unfair. All legalistic Christians fall into the same trap.

[Darth Wong]

You won't even admit that George W. Bush is filthy rich by any Christian standard, despite the abject poverty in which Jesus himself lived.

Are you serious? Compared him to any of the Borgia Popes and he isn't all that spectacular. Compare him to to any of the Midevil Christian rulers, any of the Victorian Christian rulers, or any "Defender of the Faith" throughout history and filthy rich he ain't.

Frankly the Bible is riddled with wealthy men of God - David and Soloman come to mind directly. Likewise Job, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc. were all wealthy. Comparing Bush to just about any Biblical ruler shows him not to be filthy rich.

Except for one: Jesus. And guess what: Christianity is supposed to be about emulating Jesus. Not Moses, not Job, not Abraham, not Jacob, not Solomon, not any of the other Old Testament leaders. And not the early Popes either. But thanks for proving, yet again, that you will say anything in order to deny the simple and obvious truth that Jesus was anti-wealth.

Exactly what is your dividing line between being rich and being filthy rich? Hell how do you define being rich? Because let's be honest here EVERYONE in the US is rich compared to the peasants in North Korea. Most Americans are rich compared to the rest of the world.

Precisely. It seems you're finally getting the point I'm trying to make about the country which professes to be the world's most Christian nation. And how long did it take?

Frankly I the only point I see you having is that essentially the majority of Christendom for the past odd thousand years has been getting Christianity wrong.

On the contrary, there are plenty of Christians who believe very strongly that Christianity is about love and generosity, not the sanctity of private property. However, the predominant American strain of Christianity does not. The existence of generations of previous hypocrites such as the crusaders does nothing to address or refute this fact.

Okay fine, why then would it surprise you that Christians in America aren't rebuking Bush?

I never said it surprised me. What I said was that Jesus himself, as described in the Gospels, would never have agreed with any of George W. Bush's actions, and I asked the rhetorical question of why so many American Christians do.

[Darth Wong]

America is a nation of fucking lawyers.

To single out the USA is unfair. All legalistic Christians fall into the same trap.

Ah, but of all the first-world nations, America claims to be (and polls to be) the most Christian. And yet, of all the first-world nations, America is the least sympathetic to its poor. America is the least sympathetic to their economic woes, their health care, even the plight of their children. Of all the first-world nations, America is the most militaristic. If there is a problem with legalistic Christianity in general, it is worse in America.

[Molyneux]

America is a nation of fucking lawyers.

To single out the USA is unfair. All legalistic Christians fall into the same trap.

Ah, but of all the first-world nations, America claims to be (and polls to be) the most Christian. And yet, of all the first-world nations, America is the least sympathetic to its poor. America is the least sympathetic to their economic woes, their health care, even the plight of their children. Of all the first-world nations, America is the most militaristic. If there is a problem with legalistic Christianity in general, it is worse in America.

SOME AMERICANS claim that America is the most Christian nation on Earth. A good portion of us respectfully disagree.

Hell, I didn't KNOW any Christian people until middle school. I had TWO friends who were even nominally Christian before high school...and I was a pretty gregarious kid.

Granted, I grew up in Brooklyn, so that may be a bit skewed...

[Justforfun000]

What is your definition of "rich"? What is your definition of "filthy rich"? I see nothing invalid about comparing Bush to previous Christian leaders and noting this ain't exactly just an American quandry.

Who cares? We're not trying to define terms WE would use. We are discussing a very simple subject here which is why I'm very surprised at you for throwing in a whack of red herrings. Jesus states very clearly that anyone who is well off and does not share with others and bring themselves to a material level of just enough to get by, is going to have a hard time getting into heaven. Only bullshit spin doctoring on context changes this crystal clear message based on numerous quotes (presuming the quotes are real and translated properly, but since the majority of Christian believe they are, and in most cases considered PERFECT, then it is something they have to agree with or be fucking hyporcrites).

Joseph of Arimathea, the man who donated Jesus's tomb, was a tin magnate. And so what if the examples are from the old testament, when Jesus tells the parable of the poor man and the rich man who die in the same night, who is standing in Heaven? That's right Abraham, you know one of those old testament rich boys. When the author of Hebrews offers up a list of virtious men who does it include? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Gideon, and David ... all of whom were rich. Sorry but no, Christianity was a sect of Judiasm and as such all the patriarches of Jewish tradition were held in esteem. Nowhere in the Bible, nor in Christian tradition, were these men (nor Joseph of Arimathea) taken to task for "hoarding wealth".

Why are you arguing the Bible and it's consistency to me? It's as if you are making an argument to a christian confused by this. I don't care about the contradictions and I'm not trying to reconcile them. I don't BELIEVE in the Bible. Of course this doesn't make sense that the earlier ones you mentioned were rich and after Jesus, should never have entered heaven. It's another glaring example of errors in the Bible compared to common sense and internal consistency.

So then all good Christians should be sharing the wealth with the North Koreans, neh? I don't understand this, Bush follows the precepts of his denomination, which really aren't terribly different than what most of Christendom has held to be true for a millenium, and it comes as a big surprise that no one rags on him for doing what they've held to be doctrine for centuries?

Forget Bush. He's not relevant to this overall point really.

All good Christians should be following everything that Jesus himself said or intimated in the New Testament. In this specific case, Jesus made it quite clear that wealth beyond the normal was an impediment to heaven.

Americans then SHOULD be sharing with North Korea, Mexico, Somalia, etc. Everywhere. Doesn't even matter specifically where. Until people make a point of giving away every dime of excess income they have after providing for necessities to less fortunate people, then they cannot claim to follow Jesus and his message to the letter. Period!

I see nothing particularly American about the tithe doctrines, nor do I see anything particularly out of whack by Bush - he certainly gives away more than many Christians.

Well I don't think America alone deserves the title or accusation of bad Christian. Far from it. The whole point here is the hypocrisy of the situation. If you REALLY want to be 100% honest, you have to admit that people do not follow the Bible to a tee, and if you can find anyone that truly does, I would like to examine how he gets away with it. Personally I can't see how anyone can follow the good Christian path to the letter and not be broke, screwed over, jailed and unanimously ostracized.

Useless definition, what defines middle class?

Bullshit. Now you're being argumentative for no reason. I made it clear. Enough to keep your necessities going as the main basis. That covers all cultures, economies and so forth. You're just nitpicking.

By Jesus's standards (he who owns two cloaks, etc.) everyone in the western world is wealthy.

EXACTLY!! Now you're using an example that corroborates the point. So all of us "wealthy" people should be distributing our excess to all the poor.

The tithe concept is an old one, been around since the earliest Christian records. On rare occassions it has been challenged, but not often. I see no reason to call this an American paradox, nor do I see any reason why anyone should be surprized that Bush is being harangued on it.

We agree here. It's not JUST an American paradox. DW simply started this by saying it was a prevalent EMPHASIS on these things in the States and he's absolutely correct. The case of wealth is being used because Americans are the heaviest in terms of Christian population and GNP per person in a certain statistical sense. Hence they are a perfect expose of how "Christian" the wealthiest people in the world are.

[Justforfun000]

Until people make a point of giving away every dime of excess income they have after providing for necessities to less fortunate people, then they cannot claim to follow Jesus and his message to the letter. Period!

EDIT:

That should say:

Until people make a point of giving away every dime of excess income they have to less fortunate people, after providing for their own necessities, they cannot claim to follow Jesus and his message to the letter.

[His Divine Shadow]

SOME AMERICANS claim that America is the most Christian nation on Earth. A good portion of us respectfully disagree.

I am not american I claim that the the USA is one of the most christian nation on earth, poland and such are up there too but nowhere as large.

[Magnetic]

America is a nation of fucking lawyers.

To single out the USA is unfair. All legalistic Christians fall into the same trap.

Ah, but of all the first-world nations, America claims to be (and polls to be) the most Christian. And yet, of all the first-world nations, America is the least sympathetic to its poor. America is the least sympathetic to their economic woes, their health care, even the plight of their children. Of all the first-world nations, America is the most militaristic. If there is a problem with legalistic Christianity in general, it is worse in America.

Though a country claims to be Christian, in the strictest terms, they aren't. They call themselves a Chistian if they darken a pew on Easter or for a Christmas play. If we truely were a Christian nation, that being one that strives to follow the ideas of Jesus, there would be very little (if any) poverty.

I personally know 'top level management' in the main business building of a denomination that receive 6 figure salaries, live in gated communities (thus live in expensive homes), and drive luxury automobiles. This is a denomination that goes by the strict interpretation of the bible. I have a HUGE problem with that. I'm sure they probably give some to their church as tithes, and probably offerings as well. Perhaps some of that gets to "people in need", but in my humble opinion, those who call themselves "in the ministry" and live lavashly, and all that goes along with that lifestyle, while countless numbers are living in poverty and/or are homeless, . . . . . . . . . . that's a major problem.

I also have a problem with a lot of other areas that allow people to live WAY more lavashly than a person really should. I'm sure you know who they are. Entertainment, sports, . . . . but I digress.

[tharkûn]

Except for one: Jesus. And guess what: Christianity is supposed to be about emulating Jesus. Not Moses, not Job, not Abraham, not Jacob, not Solomon, not any of the other Old Testament leaders. And not the early Popes either. But thanks for proving, yet again, that you will say anything in order to deny the simple and obvious truth that Jesus was anti-wealth.

This is the same Jesus who gives us the parable of the talents, rebukes Judas who suggest selling perfume so the proceeds could be given to the poor, and the same Jesus who counted Nicodemus (wether member of the clergy) and Joseph of Arimathea among his followers. Like it or not there are inconsisitencies in the "anti-wealth" position.

Further Christianity did not reject the whole of the old testement. Many modern Christians point to the Levitical law as an example of how welfare should be run.

On the contrary, there are plenty of Christians who believe very strongly that Christianity is about love and generosity, not the sanctity of private property. However, the predominant American strain of Christianity does not. The existence of generations of previous hypocrites such as the crusaders does nothing to address or refute this fact.

The majority of Christendom has held to some type of tithe concept for over a millenium. While the idea of private property is not the focus of Christianity, it is present throughout the bible.

Your arguement reads more like a general rant against Christian practice, than as some type of American paradox. The predominant strain(s) of Christian thought in America is steeped in the Protestant work ethic, which while making allowances for those who cannot work (rather steep criteria for that), does hold with he who does not work, does not eat.

What I said was that Jesus himself, as described in the Gospels, would never have agreed with any of George W. Bush's actions, and I asked the rhetorical question of why so many American Christians do.

Well for starters Christian thought is not limited to the Gospels, nor are they accorded any special status in the canon. The epistles, revelation, and the old testament don't carry through to the extremes proposed by JFF and the like.

JFF:

Jesus states very clearly that anyone who is well off and does not share with others and bring themselves to a material level of just enough to get by, is going to have a hard time getting into heaven.

Where? I would note that he had followers he did not do exactly that and yet they were sainted by the church (and never rebuked by Jesus in any gospel I've ever read).

Why are you arguing the Bible and it's consistency to me? It's as if you are making an argument to a christian confused by this. I don't care about the contradictions and I'm not trying to reconcile them.

Whoop-de-doo. They exist, those contradicting examples are given weight within Christian theology, and they DO attempt to reconcile them. If you want to say Christians are being idiots for not doing this which happened in the Bible, you cannot reject out of hand a contradictory passage elsewhere in the Bible.

Americans then SHOULD be sharing with North Korea, Mexico, Somalia, etc. Everywhere. Doesn't even matter specifically where. Until people make a point of giving away every dime of excess income they have after providing for necessities to less fortunate people, then they cannot claim to follow Jesus and his message to the letter.

Following Jesus to the absolute literal letter makes society completely impossiblem further as you yourself point out there are contradictory passages. Hench the fact that they don't follow "to the letter" is irrelent - it cannot be done.

Now you're being argumentative for no reason. I made it clear. Enough to keep your necessities going as the main basis. That covers all cultures, economies and so forth.

Does basic necessities mean just those required in the first century AD? Or does it include things like indoor plumbing, electricity, cars (for large swathes of North America), etc.? Middle class of the 1st century are DIRT poor today, and virtually no one in the world lives below that level today.