NationStates Jolt Archive

As a lifelong Christian and student of the Holy Bible, I have never really understood the idea of a 'Christian right.' I just can't find the scripture to back up what the right is doing/has done. Specifically, I don'tunderstand the Christian aspect of the right's positions on:

war-Christ himself abhors violence and calls for peace, (turn the other cheek etc) even when faced with arrest and crucifiction. If Christ, who we are to emulate, will not strike out against another, even in self-defense, how can Christians justify going to war for any reason?

taxes-if a man takes your cloak, are you not supposed to offer also your tunic? Where is the scripture behind getting/keeping what's yours? So the government wants all your money. So what?

big-business friendly-Christ instructs his followers to avoid backscratching with the rich and powerful in hopes of gaining power for themselves, so what's with the no-bid Haliburton contracts and hob-knobbing with Saudi royalty?

persecution of gays, muslims, etc- all people live in sin, and with these planks in our eyes, we do a poor job of helping our brothers with their splinters. And if gays have equal rights or even more rights than others, what is it to a Christian? If a gay asks you to walk a mile with him, should we not offer to walk two? It's particularly disturbing to hear Christians talk about how "the gays should all be shipped off to an island to survive on their own." You wouldn't believe how often I hear stuff like that from followers of Jesus, who was a friend of tax collectors and whores.

So explain it to me. Maybe I'm missing the point, because I just don't see a correlation between the so called Christian right and Christ.

As a lifelong Christian and student of the Holy Bible, I have never really understood the idea of a 'Christian right.' I just can't find the scripture to back up what the right is doing/has done. Specifically, I don'tunderstand the Christian aspect of the right's positions on:

There generally isn't much to back it up, but just to point a few things out...

war-Christ himself abhors violence and calls for peace, (turn the other cheek etc) even when faced with arrest and crucifiction. If Christ, who we are to emulate, will not strike out against another, even in self-defense, how can Christians justify going to war for any reason?

taxes-if a man takes your cloak, are you not supposed to offer also your tunic? Where is the scripture behind getting/keeping what's yours? So the government wants all your money. So what?

Two *very* misinterpreted texts. You have to know something about the societ at the time - but *both* of these are forms of passive resistance.

"Turn the other cheek" refers to a form of passive resistance that keeps the other person from hitting you altogether. See, if someone wanted to hit a slave or a woman (who would be lower in society), they had to backhand them. Hitting the forwards was admitting they were on the same level. Also, one could not touch another person with their left hand. Therefore, if you "turned the other cheek," the person either had to not hit you, or admit that you were an equal - which would allow you to legally hit back.

The "offer your tunic" passage is also a form of passive resistance. Often, a man would be taken to court and if he could not pay, his outer garment would be taken. Christ said to give your inner garment as well - which would basically leave you naked. Now, here is the interesting point. In Christ's time period, the person who *saw* nudity was shamed, not the naked person. Therefore, doing this would punish the entire court, as well as the person suing you.

If a gay asks you to walk a mile with him, should we not offer to walk two?

This is also an example of passive resistance. Roman law stated that a Roman soldier could force *anybody* to carry his belongings, but only for a mile. Any further would get the soldier in trouble. So, if a soldier told you to walk with him a mile, and you walked two, you get him in trouble and he won't pick you again!

"They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service." ---John 16:2

The Christian Right only say that God wants them to do that stuff

This is also an example of passive resistance. Roman law stated that a Roman soldier could force *anybody* to carry his belongings, but only for a mile.


Might you please offer some citations for that?

Good question. Because Religion is a powerful political tool. Our Forefathers knew this, and tried hard to keep their religions and our government seperate. Nobody else in the world was even thinking about this at the time (save maybe Switzerland).

No, Capitalism and Christianity make for strange bedfellows and are about as oppositional as you can get. Just don't try and tell a Christian fundy this; they won't get it.

Might you please offer some citations for that?

Sure, as soon as I get all of my stuff moved in and find my old theology notebooks.

However, any study of ancient Jewish society would demonstrate that this is true. Hell, you can look in the current Middle East and see a prohibition on the use of the left hand.

Actually, here's a quick source, although the scholar that spoke in my theology class was a better one.

http://bs.cyty.com/elmbs/wink_en.htm

Dempublicents

I too would be very interested in any sources or research that you have to give on these topics.

If you get the chance plz e-mail me some more info: palidorsk@hotmail.com

There generally isn't much to back it up, but just to point a few things out...



Two *very* misinterpreted texts. You have to know something about the societ at the time - but *both* of these are forms of passive resistance.

"Turn the other cheek" refers to a form of passive resistance that keeps the other person from hitting you altogether. See, if someone wanted to hit a slave or a woman (who would be lower in society), they had to backhand them. Hitting the forwards was admitting they were on the same level. Also, one could not touch another person with their left hand. Therefore, if you "turned the other cheek," the person either had to not hit you, or admit that you were an equal - which would allow you to legally hit back.

The "offer your tunic" passage is also a form of passive resistance. Often, a man would be taken to court and if he could not pay, his outer garment would be taken. Christ said to give your inner garment as well - which would basically leave you naked. Now, here is the interesting point. In Christ's time period, the person who *saw* nudity was shamed, not the naked person. Therefore, doing this would punish the entire court, as well as the person suing you.



This is also an example of passive resistance. Roman law stated that a Roman soldier could force *anybody* to carry his belongings, but only for a mile. Any further would get the soldier in trouble. So, if a soldier told you to walk with him a mile, and you walked two, you get him in trouble and he won't pick you again!

Seen as a historical document, practically the entire book would be outdated, since the social and political conditions under which it was written are no longer in existance - in which case it is useless as a religious document. Seen in a religious light as the divine word of an omniscient god, one would think that it was written in such a way to speak to all people of future generations, so that one should interpret the words as they would apply to modern society.

The theory is that *all* religions have a positive message to convey to people. The problem is that there are always some obscure, difficult to understand Bible/Koran/Talmud/whatever passages that can be "creatively interpreted" to justify practically anything.

As a lifelong Christian and student of the Holy Bible, I have never really understood the idea of a 'Christian right.' I just can't find the scripture to back up what the right is doing/has done. Specifically, I don'tunderstand the Christian aspect of the right's positions on:

war-Christ himself abhors violence and calls for peace, (turn the other cheek etc) even when faced with arrest and crucifiction. If Christ, who we are to emulate, will not strike out against another, even in self-defense, how can Christians justify going to war for any reason?

taxes-if a man takes your cloak, are you not supposed to offer also your tunic? Where is the scripture behind getting/keeping what's yours? So the government wants all your money. So what?

big-business friendly-Christ instructs his followers to avoid backscratching with the rich and powerful in hopes of gaining power for themselves, so what's with the no-bid Haliburton contracts and hob-knobbing with Saudi royalty?

persecution of gays, muslims, etc- all people live in sin, and with these planks in our eyes, we do a poor job of helping our brothers with their splinters. And if gays have equal rights or even more rights than others, what is it to a Christian? If a gay asks you to walk a mile with him, should we not offer to walk two? It's particularly disturbing to hear Christians talk about how "the gays should all be shipped off to an island to survive on their own." You wouldn't believe how often I hear stuff like that from followers of Jesus, who was a friend of tax collectors and whores.

So explain it to me. Maybe I'm missing the point, because I just don't see a correlation between the so called Christian right and Christ.

this is why i have every respect for religion and Christianity, but absolutely no respect whatsoever for organised religion like the Church or 'The Christian Right' who use their religion in an organised way to back up seeminly, as you say, anti-christian political beliefs.

If you have right that Christ did advocate passive resistance, then the support of war still makes no sense. Because how can a christian who accepts the beliefs of a man who like the thought of passive resistance and speaka gainst the zealotes be able to support war?

There is another fun part in the New testament (my favourite) which is called "the Farisée's prayer". It is about a praying farisée and a praying poorman, the farisée thanks God for not being a terrible sinner whilst the poorman asks for the forgiving of sins, guess which prayer Christ claimed to work?
And how the **** does this comply with the talk of deporting homosexuals?

The fundamental mvement isn't anything of what it was. Today it has nothing to do with religion and is just used to back up screwed opinions, like the view on homosexuals...

The problem is, in my view, that the people in charge of most sects of christianity have gotten more concerned with being "the one true faith" than are concerned with the overall point of Christ's message, which was that we need to love one another and have empathy for one another. It's one of those things Jesus warned about when he described the Pharisees as straining out the gnat but swallowing the camel. Ignore what "christians" have done to unbelievers throughout history--christian sects have killed each other for centuries over differences of opinion in interpretation of scripture translated from long dead languages. No wonder we're all screwed up.

The problem is, in my view, that the people in charge of most sects of christianity have gotten more concerned with being "the one true faith" than are concerned with the overall point of Christ's message, which was that we need to love one another and have empathy for one another.

Is that the problem with all world religions at the moment?

Is that the problem with all world religions at the moment?
Some more so than others. Islam certainly has the same issues, as do small sects of Hinduism and Buddhism (although to a far smaller degree). This is a vast overgeneralization, but basically, the stricter the dogma of a religion, the more likely there will be violence associated with it. The least violent religions are the ones that tend toward the idea that all religions are paths toward enlightenment.

Great post, Brandvin. I agree with all of this points completely, and wonder the same thing. It kinda makes sense though, seeing as most of the "Christian" population is hypocritical......

Seen in a religious light as the divine word of an omniscient god, one would think that it was written in such a way to speak to all people of future generations, so that one should interpret the words as they would apply to modern society.
I agree with this, too...

Also, I think that today, religion is really more of a governmental tool used for public brainwash. In the distant past, when religion focused on peoples' personal relationship with God or whoever they worshipped, that's when religion was pure. That bothers me that the government would do that.

What about this:
What if someone tampered with the Bible over time? I mean, one would say that God wouldn't let that happen to His word and the tool He gave to Christians, but the second person could say that God doesn't mess with the freewill of men. So how do we know it hasn't been tampered with by the government or the mainstream Christian community to better fit their opinions?

As they say, "The religious right is neither."

This thread could be about Christians/Jews/Muslims..doesn't matter. Large religions tend to stray from their orginal teaching from time to time

If you have right that Christ did advocate passive resistance, then the support of war still makes no sense. Because how can a christian who accepts the beliefs of a man who like the thought of passive resistance and speaka gainst the zealotes be able to support war?

I never said it did. I was just pointing out three texts that you misinterpreted that are *very* often misinterpreted. The "turn the other cheek" verse is the one that priests used to tell women to go home to their abusive husbands with. Never mind that turning the other cheek, in our society, just means you get hit on that side (which was never the intention of the passage).

As for the person who said that it should be interpreted in the light of today's society, rather than the society in which it was spoken, do remember that Christ was preaching - and preaching to people *of the time*. He wouldn't have said "drive your car nicely," now would he?

I think this was a intersting post but one thing you didn't mention was the enviroment. I guess the bible don't mention it directly because they didn't have those problem back then. But I think if you belivied that the earth is gods works and especially if you a creationist you should be alot more concern of mankinds destroying of earth. Because if god created the earth is it not mankinds job to take care of it not destroying it and if you are a creationist how can you accept that animalspecies get extinct then as you belive no new ones can be created and that the aninamals is created by god. This is why I think that the USA that have so many cristian don't have more people concerned with the enviroment, especially whos christian that gladly support the republicans with out oppostion there wiew on the enviroment. This is just my thoughs as a left leaning swed with limit knowledge in the bible.

all i know is that it felt pretty good to write "blessed are the warmongers!" on giant bush-cheney signs

Good points everyone. I have to say that even if the scriptures I've cited point to passive resistance, the scripture still doesn't support the waging of war. There are other examples as well...blessed are the peacemakers, etc. Also, Christ himself did not retaliate or engage in violent self defense when arrested and crucified. He did not resist at all. I thin the overall message of peace and pacifsm is pretty clear in the New Testament.

And as far as the whole gay rights thing....I see so many Christians outraged about gays endangering the sanctity of marriage (a splinter) even though Christ himself never even addresses homosexuality (that I have found, call me on it if I've missed something) yet Christians tend to accept divorce without scruple (a plank), lining up with everyone else to get one even though Christ is very clear about divorce.

I see other incongruities between Christian values and the values of the Christian right (yeah, I could talk about the environment), but it doesn't look like any right wing Christians are going to explain it to me here, lol.

Brandy