The logical and theological errors in this piece are too numerous to name. Yes, Christ said clearly that Gods love for us and our love for one another are paramount. One of the first things this writer gets wrong is his assertion that mainstream Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church (and, the Eastern Orthodox church, more conservative than all) do not embrace this ideal. The writer confuses the Churchs delineation of an act as being sinful with lack of love for the sinner--a common confusion among liberals, who cannot imagine having a moral objection to something someone does while retaining unconditional love for the person. The writer also engages in the outrageous and despicable lie that because conservatives oppose GOVERNMENT providing certain services to the poor and other, that they oppose caring for the recipients of those services at all. What makes this so outrageous (and what shows the extent to which this writer is willing to shred the truth) is that the vast, vast majority of the food banks, soup kitchens, orphanages, hospitals for the poor free medical clinics, and similar services throughout the world are operated by Christian churches. It is important to note that Christs teachings are full of commandments of what we are to as individuals, but he says nothing about what the role of government should be. He had a perfect opportunity to do so: preaching to subjects of the Roman Empire or in a satellite state of the Empire to people who often despised it or, at best, were indifferent. He could have preached fiery sermons about the evils of the cold, cruel empire of the pagan Romans, how it cares not for the poor and the widow and the orphan and the sick, and how it is the duty of every citizen to use whatever forces he can muster to urge the government to engage in more charitable works. But, as far as I have seen, there is not one word--NOT ONE WORD--in Christs teachings about the role of government. The part of government and its officials hinted at in only a few places, such as the famous render unto Caesar statement to the scribes and priests--repeated through the Synoptic Gospels--when they asked Christ whether it was proper to give tribute to the Empire. Government officials asked Jesus about their moral obligations: 12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?” 13 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them. 14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” Luke 3: 12-14 (New International Version--in place of KJV because tax collectors is rendered in the King James as publicans whic would confuse most readers.) Note that Christ does not exhort them to reject the Empire or to do anything in their capacity as agents of the government. Instead, he urges them to follow the rules and do their jobs fairly and equitably. If Jesus wanted to tell his flock about our duty to expand the role of government, he missed a big chance right there. The writer also assumes that the reader doesnt know what the New Testament says when he lies in the most overt and outrageous manner regarding Christs attitude toward the scripture of his day. Yes, again, Christ felt that scripture should be read with an eye toward compassion and love, but he did not reject the Torah. Inded, he said this at the Sermon on the Mount: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew, 5: 17-19 (King James Version). Contrast that statement with this one from the article: Every time Jesus mentioned the equivalent of a church tradition, the Torah, he qualified it with something like this: The scriptures say thus and so, but I say… Jesus undermined the scriptures and religious tradition in favor of empathy. Every time Jesus undermined the scriptures (Jewish church tradition) it was to err on the side of co-suffering love. I might note also that the Torah was not Jewish church tradition. The word embodies a complicated concept that is too nuanced to go into here, but one should be aware that the word is generally translated into English as law. It also carries with it the implication of guidance, proceeding toward a target or goal, and teachings of the truth. But, it was not mere tradition but had the binding force of law on the Jewish people and, indeed, among most observant Jews, still does so today. The writer also shows his true colors in his assertion, quoted above, that Jesus frequently said things like the scriptures say thus and so, but I say . . . . What he doesnt tell you is what Jesus says after that. Typically, Christ doesnt contradict the law, but expands it, interprets it, give it more context and meaning. Heres probably the most representative example: 21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time [referring to the Ten Commandments found in the Torah], Thou shalt not kill [commit murder]; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca [a term of contempt in the Aramaic language, which was the language spoken by the common people in Judea at the time of Christ--HPH], shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5: 21-22 (King James Version) As you can see, Christ does not say that anyone who commits murder does not violate the law. Rather, he says that anyone who harbors undeserved anger against another or who insults him has also sinned. THIS is Christ undermining the Torah? He also simply doesnt get the fundamental message of the New Testament. Yes, empathy and love are MESSAGES, but the primary message is that we may enter the eternal kingdom of our Father only through Christ, who bore our sins and transformed the world allowing us to be saved. If you could take one message from all of the New Testament it is not the ethical messages of how to live this life but the salvational message of how to be saved in the next. This writer does not understand Christianity as practiced in most Churches, he does not understand the New Testament, and he does not understand Christs fundamental message. His article, while containing scattered grains of truth, is fundamentally misleading on all of these subjects--indeed, it is misleading to the extent that one can conclude only that he either is deliberately lying or doesnt care whether what he says is true or false. salon/2014/11/03/why_conservative_christians_would_have_hated_jesus_partner/
Posted on: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:27:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015