NationStates Jolt Archive


The Selfish Christian

Kamsaki
12-08-2005, 23:17
Be prepared, Ladies and Gentlemen, for possibly the longest and most self-contradictory religion post you have ever read. A few disclaimers; this is not meant as offensive to Christians, nor even as a refutation of your faith. In fact, by and large, I will be arguing your case. However, it is not my case. I am neither Christian nor Antichristian, and should you find anything derogatory, I apologise, but it is not intentional. On the other hand, if you find anything I say about you as members of a western society offensive, then tough luck. =P


Not so long ago, I had an unusual epiphany. It was a pretty simple one, and one that most would probably just shrug at me and go "So what?" at. It was this: People desire to get into heaven.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought this had an unusual thought pattern to it. Normally, when we think of the word desire, what springs to mind? Covetation is the word that the Old Testament applies to this idea of wanting what belongs to someone else, and is heavily frowned upon in Christian circles. Marital partnerships, material wealth and posessions, the other player's place on the football field... Desire has an innately negative connotation about it. Want. Lust. Temptation. It goes under many names, very few of them openly flaunted as a positive aspect of society.

Desire embodies that aspect of human nature that strives for the fulfilment of self-interest. And yet, undeniably, Christians want to get a good place in the afterlife. From first glance, this could very easily be simply seen as a continuation of this desire to the penultimate level; penultimate, in that it stops short of being God himself.

I wanted to look into that a little deeper. All sorts of theories about Christianity including the Heaven concept as a recruitment drive cropped up here, there, everywhere I wanted to look, but none of it really seemed satisfactory. So, perhaps surprisingly for me, I decided to check out a little Christian Literature and scripture (M. Scott Peck is a very enlightening read, though not, oddly enough, very theologic in nature). Several things struck me, but Three in particular stand out that tend to go rather unnoticed.

Number One is the unusual ambiguity with which Jesus himself approaches the Kingdom of Heaven. He uses a very Jewish approach to what is not far separated from an actual earthly kingdom, even though God resides there. If you actually read through his statements in the Gospel taking it to mean a Kingdom of God's People in that context, you can see why the Disciples were so shocked at his crucifixion, because what he gave them led them to believe that God had come to bring it to Them rather than to bring them to Him. It's almost as though the promises could be made to fit to a large range of existing beliefs about the nature of God's Divine Intervention.

Secondly is a bizarre quote from Matthew 7, Verses 21-23. Jesus himself makes it clear that not all those who are his followers will be judged favourably. Even miracle workers and preachers who tell people about him will be judged by their conduct, and if deemed to have done evil (even if they claim they've been Forgiven through his discipleship) will be turned away if they have not tried to change their ways.

The other point is the allegory of Salvation to a Healing process that I've heard several times lately. Arguably, the term Salvation actually originates from the word Salve; rather than a final, resolute state of "Healed"ness, it refers to a treatment used to sort out existing wounds rather than a preventative measure. Okay, so the word may have evolved some, but the idea of a spiritual Healing is still very much commonplace.

The apparent problem with this allegory is that we do not judge someone's health by the state of their body. A young kid can have scrapes, bruises and swellings all over his body and still be considered healthy. What counts, when we analyse health, is a person's ability to recover from and manage these sorts of pains or injuries. Health is not a snapshot in time; it is an ongoing process. Counter to that, people argue that Salvation is a one-shot deal.

But this is not an appropriate distinction, as I think those verses in Matthew outline. You are not saved by Jesus's universal redemption, nor by mere acceptance of it. What has happened, rather, is that God has effectively said "Okay, you're Human, and having seen what that's like, I have excused everyone from that aspect of sinfulness". He still will reward those who accept this change and use it to reform themselves into those who care for their fellow man, but a raw faith in Jesus's existence and mission is not sufficient. It is the Ongoing process of self-repair that really matters, not the one-shot superdrug that cures all known illnesses.

After all, the second you think you're perfectly healed and stop maintaining your natural defences, the diseases catch like wildfire.

It always struck me that the Salvation issue was a sort of cheap "Get out of Jail Free Card". Now I see, apparently, that scripture states that what is rewarded is not coming to Jesus; anyone can do that, just like the rich young man in Matthew 19. What is rewarded rather is using that chance, when given to you, to make a change for the better in your life and to continue to do so for as long as you stay in this life.


That brings me neatly to the central core of my discussion. The aim of the Christian way is to lead the life of continual self-refinement according to that which Jesus suggested. And What Jesus taught was, very simply, Human Empathy. Be kind to your fellow man. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Give up your cloak and anything else that the others need. Shelve your covetations and desires and place them at the furthermost corner of your mind.

There's that word again. Desire. Funny, huh? Desire has changed from my first paragraph as a driving force for Christianity to my most recent as the harmful entity that should be pushed aside defined by the Christian Church's main figure of worship.

However, the Desire for Heaven is an ethically acceptable one specifically because doing so requires (not simply encourages, as some Christians would claim) adherence to a set of standards wherein harmful and destructive desires are sidelined. Or, at least, a genuine effort to adhere to these standards and a continual self-assessment to try and close the gap between your way of life and the empathetic way of Jesus of Nazareth to the best of our human and fallible capabilities. Basically, this is a redirection of Earthly desire to an unearthly desire that forces its impact on earth to be a benevolent one.

So what am I getting at? Well, for one thing, I now believe that this has shown that Christianity is the Perfect Religion, and indeed the perfect Philosophy, for the selfish Western Society that currently dominates much of our world. People within it have long been encouraged to act on a self-full mandate, and arguably the ease with which the idea of the American Dream was accepted is a testament to this sad fact. Expecting them to immediately drop this mindset will not work, simply because we exist in a world where self-promotion is worshipped with as much candour as any idea of God or Nature. If, however, you offer them a promise of enormous spiritual wealth in a life hereafter as a reward for empathetic behaviour, you target them at the very level of greed that binds them in the destructive behavioural cycle of material covetation.

At its very heart, Christianity is a religion targetted at Selfish individuals and, in so doing, changes them into genuinely civil people. Islam has attempted something of a similar nature. Both religions in their early days, however, fell prey to some of the side-effects of such a targetting. The goings on in eras past, and indeed still going on, whereby people killed for their beliefs are an unfortunate but inevitable result of having those with a personal agenda as your key "recruits".

Think about it. When you promise an eternal afterlife with the creator of all things as a result of good behaviour, of course those who would have that will try to attain such an outcome by whatever means necessary and by making as few concessions as possible. It's part of the very human nature that "Reward" appeals to.

There is a very definite link between material desire and spiritual desire. However, those who truly follow the way of constant self-improvement that the Bible instructs will, if they keep it up for long enough, actually lose the material desires that constrain them. They have been replaced by a desire for something more profound than that.


Here comes the big But. It seems, to me anyway, that the more one follows the path of Jesus, the less one feels any sense of desire at all. Act Justly, Love Kindness and Walk Humbly With Your God becomes, in itself, the reward rather than the criteria. The closer one gets to Jesus, the less one desires, demands or expects a heavenly rebirth and the more they genuinely strive to live a life for others.

In fact, the more like Jesus you become, the less the church has in its repetoire to encourage you to continue. They would have you become missionaries so that, for whatever reason they would have you do it, you can go give other people their shot at eternal life as if that's the be-all and end-all of a relationship with God. They would have you remain in this idea of Jesus as someone who utterly outstrips all human potential and that we should merely accept our sinful nature rather than (no matter how apparently futilely) trying to overcome it though study, conversation with God, self-assessment and, fundamentally, engaging with those around us on a level plane regardless of their belief.

To be honest, I think that part of Jesus's vagueness in scripture is designed to lead us to this point. What Heaven actually is can be dismissed as irrelevant once you pass a certain point. Whenever you embrace the idea that the life of Jesus is worth living regardless of reward, heaven and whatever reward it embodies becomes an afterthought. (Arguably, when you reach this stage, you could already be there, but I'll not delve into that just yet)

Inevitably, the result of Christianity should be a discipleship with Jesus that transcends, and arguably bypasses, the organised religion of Christianity altogether. The more you progress, the less you desire what is perceived as the end reward and the less "Christian" you see yourself defined. In fact, though you in no way renounce your journey or fellowship with the Lord, you learn to treat everyone you meet as being at their own stage in the same journey whether Christian or Not. Rather than sitting back in the awe-struck paralysis of inaction that the idea of "Everyone is Saved!" propagates through the Church to heighten its membership, actually getting up and following him leads you to a place that could arguably be the missing link between the Nirvana of the East and the Heaven of the West, forming the foundation from which all benevolent Religion originates.


So Who is the Selfish Christian? The Selfish Christian is he or she who would twist Christianity to their own ends. However, the Selfish Christians are also those who follow the teachings of Christ's church for the sole reason that they expect reward, and they are also those who think they are comfortable enough where they are right now with enough of the "right" answers to keep themselves satisfied; those who lock themselves within the comfortable areas of their faith that suit their own lifestyle. They are those who think they have all they answers they need and stop looking, even stopping others from looking in the process.

True Discipleship of Jesus is not a companion to the Western Ideology of Self-promotion. It is a destroyer of it. Those who would dampen its principles to allow them to milk the best from both worlds, even at the expense of others seeking for their own answers... They are the Selfish Christians.


If anyone has anything they'd like to contribute, please do so. I'm still journeying too, so any directions or advice would be greatly appreciated. ^_^
Rambozo
12-08-2005, 23:20
You make an interesting point :eek:
Drzhen
12-08-2005, 23:35
I tried to stomach your post, it's just that the whole denial of pleasure and self-fulfillment doesn't get me on well. Humans need to be selfish, we need to desire, we need to lust, we need to fuck. A religion that teaches to deny Earthly pleasure is simply an institution totalitarian in nature. Which is why I invite you to at least learn about the Church of Satan (http://churchofsatan.com/).
Xhadam
12-08-2005, 23:51
I tried to stomach your post, it's just that the whole denial of pleasure and self-fulfillment doesn't get me on well. Humans need to be selfish, we need to desire, we need to lust, we need to fuck. A religion that teaches to deny Earthly pleasure is simply an institution totalitarian in nature. Which is why I invite you to at least learn about the Church of Satan (http://churchofsatan.com/).
Because institutionalized brutallity and murder are wonderful things we should all embrace. :rolleyes:

Nice post Kamsaki, you make a very interesting point.
Laerod
12-08-2005, 23:53
Because institutionalized brutallity and murder are wonderful things we should all embrace. :rolleyes:

Nice post Kamsaki, you make a very interesting point.Is institutionalized murder what Kamsakis post is about? (I haven't read it, its too long...)
Kamsaki
12-08-2005, 23:54
I tried to stomach your post, it's just that the whole denial of pleasure and self-fulfillment doesn't get me on well. Humans need to be selfish, we need to desire, we need to lust, we need to fuck. A religion that teaches to deny Earthly pleasure is simply an institution totalitarian in nature. Which is why I invite you to at least learn about the Church of Satan (http://churchofsatan.com/).
Numero Uno, you're more than justified not being able to get through all of that. Heck, it's a point I've come to after years of analysis, and I don't expect people to even understand my point on a single read through. But I'll simplify some issues in response.

Secondly, I'm not talking about an organised religion at all. In fact, my point is that by following the path that Jesus leads us through, we may leave the field of the organised religion of Christianity altogether. It's not totalitarian if there's no organisational structure to it.

Thirdly, on a more negative note, I agree with the fact that such desires may be locked within our nature, but I believe unreservedly that such self-interest is a major, if not primary, cause of dischord in humanity. Perhaps we may agree to disagree on that point, but I think that such an attitude is symbolic of the degree to which the Selfish Christian idea is needed in the short term as an intermediatory step to true civility.
Sabbatis
12-08-2005, 23:56
<snip>



To address only a single aspect of your post, that governing reward, punishment, and selfishness:

The concept of reward and punishment are frequently considered, but are of minor consequence when placed within context of the Christian's walk with God. Many religions concern themselves with this concept as well.

Here's quote to illustrate:

"... Muslim mystic Rabi’a al-Adawiyya (c213-801) of Basra, who had a lasting influence on Sufism. She said: ‘O my Lord, if I worship you from fear of hell, burn me in it; if I worship you in hope of paradise, exclude me from it. But if I worship you for your own sake, then do not hold me back from your eternal beauty."
Xhadam
13-08-2005, 00:07
Is institutionalized murder what Kamsakis post is about? (I haven't read it, its too long...)
No, institutionalized murder is what is contained in the eleventh rule of the Earth in the church of Satan. Hence why Satanism is a craptastic religion.

Kamsaki's post was seriously quite good in explaining an interesting dynamic in that Christians who are only in it to get to heaven missed the point of christianity.
LazyHippies
13-08-2005, 00:08
Sorry but your post is too long. Learn to communicate more efficiently.
Xhadam
13-08-2005, 00:11
Sorry but your post is too long. Learn to communicate more efficiently.
I considered his communication quite effective. Perhaps it is merely because I am used to reading things in essay for that are longer than a paragraph though.
Mods can be so cruel
13-08-2005, 00:11
*Snip*


Honestly, I couldn't agree with you more. Christianity after the Reformation took a decidedly selfish approach, where once before the selfishness was reserved for corrupt Catholic officials, now it was open game for everyone. Now, the question must be asked, what church environment correctly embodies everything that christianity is about? I think a reformed christian/catholic (without the ritual) church, one that embodies the servitude and anti-capitalism of catholicism (one problem with Protestantism and the selfishness it embodies was that it was a bourgeoisie reformation, Lutheranism and Calvinism both allowed for internal selfishness, while catholicism does not.) with the personal connection to god and lack of heirarchy that Protestantism accepts. What are your thoughts on this?
Kamsaki
13-08-2005, 00:52
To address only a single aspect of your post, that governing reward, punishment, and selfishness:

The concept of reward and punishment are frequently considered, but are of minor consequence when placed within context of the Christian's walk with God. Many religions concern themselves with this concept as well.

Here's quote to illustrate:

"... Muslim mystic Rabi’a al-Adawiyya (c213-801) of Basra, who had a lasting influence on Sufism. She said: ‘O my Lord, if I worship you from fear of hell, burn me in it; if I worship you in hope of paradise, exclude me from it. But if I worship you for your own sake, then do not hold me back from your eternal beauty."
Maybe so, maybe so. I still don't think that changes the fact that all Christians want to ascend to heaven, though, even if that's not their primary aim in doing so, and part of my point was that since this concept of reward is there, it acts as an effective method of redirecting selfish ambitions long enough for the "Christian" to learn to love both God and Man for their own sakes and thus embodying what it truly is to be Christian (no quotation marks... ^^).

In the end, by transcending the institution, I mean the idea that for all the difference it would make to your relationships with God and Man, the rewards and punishments of Christianity would be a complete non-issue, rather like Ms al-Adawiyya. I also meant, though, that your motivation for behaving that way would have changed from what brought you there in the first place and that, even independently of the Organisation with its own literal constrictions on who or what God is, you could continue to engage and learn both with him and through everything around you that is inspired by Him. It's in that part that I think we find God's true identity, and rather bizarrely, it seems to work as a foundational structure for most Religious denominations currently in existence.

Honestly, I couldn't agree with you more. Christianity after the Reformation took a decidedly selfish approach, where once before the selfishness was reserved for corrupt Catholic officials, now it was open game for everyone. Now, the question must be asked, what church environment correctly embodies everything that christianity is about? I think a reformed christian/catholic (without the ritual) church, one that embodies the servitude and anti-capitalism of catholicism (one problem with Protestantism and the selfishness it embodies was that it was a bourgeoisie reformation, Lutheranism and Calvinism both allowed for internal selfishness, while catholicism does not.) with the personal connection to god and lack of heirarchy that Protestantism accepts. What are your thoughts on this?
To be honest, I don't think any church has quite got it perfectly right yet. Certainly, some are closer to the promotion of the selfless way. All past misdemeanours aside, Catholicism has come along a far way, but there is still a tendency there to lull into routine that I think bears a similar hallmark of Comfort over exploration of faith.

On the other hand, though, I did argue that the selfish nature of the message of some Churches can be used as a positive measure as long as it is only an intermediatory one. It could very much be argued that a lot of Protestant environments have a strong dependency on the Reverend; in that respect, they can either be exceptionally good or actually a step back, depending on the speaker's own take on things.

I think any church needs to be willing to take a stand against negative societal influences, but they also need to be able to encourage exploration of the issues by its members. I never meant for the removal of the Self; on the contrary, everyone has ideas and experiences that make them unique, and they need to be able to grow in an open, though guided if needed, manner.
Mt-Tau
13-08-2005, 01:04
Because institutionalized brutallity and murder are wonderful things we should all embrace. :rolleyes:

Nice post Kamsaki, you make a very interesting point.

You obviously know nothing of satanism. Good for you! :cool:
Kamsaki
13-08-2005, 01:24
Sorry but your post is too long. Learn to communicate more efficiently.
Well *Shrug*. Sorry you didn't want to take the time to read it. How about I summarise it for you?

Getting into heaven is a desire.
Generally, a lot of disorder on earth is due to self-indulgence of such desires.
Jesus refuted the One-Stop-Salvation strategy that some Christians profess.
If you want to get into heaven, you need to constantly analyse your standards and understandings for the better.
Therefore, if you want heaven, you need to temper your other desires.
So, Christianity redirects the indulgence of earth to a desire for heaven, and that's good.
However, it's also still selfish.
Christians should progress from there through constant self analysis onto a state of selfless kindness and empathy.
In doing so, they no longer worry about heaven or about its exclusivity, and allow people freedom in exploring ideas through the God they have found.

Not all people make it to that stage. Those people I have dubbed the Selfish Christians, and to them I say that they're not finished yet. I also point out that these are the ones that most counter-Christians scapegoat and note that of course they're going to be stubborn and underdeveloped in their faith if they're stuck at that part of the progression.


That make it any simpler for you? Personally, I thought my first version was a bit more aesthetically pleasing, but each to their own, I suppose. ^^;
Ritlina
13-08-2005, 01:27
YAY! Another Christian Contraditction!
Gronlo
13-08-2005, 01:29
That was...aa.....Awesome :confused: Grr! To...much...to....read! :headbang:
Gartref
13-08-2005, 01:46
Getting into heaven is not so much a desire, as getting sent to hell is a threat.

People don't sit around and fantasize about how neato, cool and fun heaven is going to be. They do, sometimes though, get a little nervous contemplating that old Lake of Fire.
Elttek
13-08-2005, 01:47
An interesting post, and one I definitely agree with. A few points I'd suggest:
The Kingdom of Heaven is supposed to consist of living for ever in worship and praise of God. Therefore, to get into heaven you need to /want/ to worship and praise God for all eternity. However sorry for you sins you feel when you die, unless a love of God is behind it, you won't go far. This is the flaw in the 'get-out clause' of those who feel they'll live how then want, then repent on their deathbed. On the other hand, the bible clearly states that if you truly repent, your arrival in heaven will be greeted with more joy and happiness than that of someone who has lived all their life in worship of Christ.
Naturally, this is all just theory, we're hardly in a position to test.

The other point I was going to make is that Christians I know, including my father who is a Church of England vicar, believe that Jesus showed us it was possible to be human and still lead a perfect life. We all suffer weakness and temptation, but he resisted, chose the right path, and so can we. To look at his life and say 'Oh, I could never be that good' is defeatist. I'd do it myself, if I wasn't quite so lazy...
Kamsaki
13-08-2005, 02:25
Last 2 before I disappear into the night...

Getting into heaven is not so much a desire, as getting sent to hell is a threat.

People don't sit around and fantasize about how neato, cool and fun heaven is going to be. They do, sometimes though, get a little nervous contemplating that old Lake of Fire.
Okay, fair enough; if your church happens to go into the whole fire and brimstone thing then I suppose the self-interest aspect of it is more justifiable. I'd argue, though, that such deliberate blackmail is a pretty sure sign of a Selfish Christian who's gotten to a comfortable place whereby they're in the right as a member of the clergy and they can promote their own underdeveloped ideas to heighten their standing with God.

Plus, even if their ideas happened to be the right ones, those who follow such ideas do so out of self-preservation, and though it may be a starting block, it's not enough to build a mature faith on. The unselfish Christian doesn't think about hell at all; partly because it's no longer a threat, but also because they appreciate the very human nature of using it as a recruitment tool.

An interesting post, and one I definitely agree with. A few points I'd suggest:
The Kingdom of Heaven is supposed to consist of living for ever in worship and praise of God. Therefore, to get into heaven you need to /want/ to worship and praise God for all eternity. However sorry for you sins you feel when you die, unless a love of God is behind it, you won't go far. This is the flaw in the 'get-out clause' of those who feel they'll live how then want, then repent on their deathbed. On the other hand, the bible clearly states that if you truly repent, your arrival in heaven will be greeted with more joy and happiness than that of someone who has lived all their life in worship of Christ.
Naturally, this is all just theory, we're hardly in a position to test.

The other point I was going to make is that Christians I know, including my father who is a Church of England vicar, believe that Jesus showed us it was possible to be human and still lead a perfect life. We all suffer weakness and temptation, but he resisted, chose the right path, and so can we. To look at his life and say 'Oh, I could never be that good' is defeatist. I'd do it myself, if I wasn't quite so lazy...
On the first, I think that by reaching the heights of Unselfish Christian, you have grown with God in such a way that coexisting with him on a personal level would be very much welcome regardless of any particular longing for eternal life. You can like something without wanting something, particularly when you think of Want in the sense that you desire it above anything else. But I still personally feel that understanding of the innate evils of man and striving to overcome them is a worthy enough challenge in itself if it is backed up by a Search for God or Truth even if you don't actually find him.
And of course, that's just theory too. ^^

The second, well, I think that God learned something through Jesus. In the Garden of Gethsamane, in particular, he experienced true temptation and trials which were by no means easy to deal with. And this is God we're talking about here. I think then he really understood just how much pressure our innate nature applies on us in this world where perhaps he may not have quite envisioned it beforehand. I too think we can shoot for the perfect life, but he has sympathy for us whenever we slip up every now and then.


Well, I'm off. Night everybody!
Accumulatia
13-08-2005, 02:32
I agree with your conclusion kamsaki, and you presented it very well. Have you ever read The Tao te Ching?
Xhadam
13-08-2005, 04:52
You obviously know nothing of satanism. Good for you! :cool:
On the contrary, I try to avoid criticising beliefs I don't understand and thus I investigate them ahead of time.

The tenets of Satanism specifcally call for destroying those who annoy you (Rule of the Earth 11) and to be barbarous to those who don't show you respect on your ground (Forget the rule, somewhere in the four area). Knowing this, I can tell the lot of them to bugger off without violating my own principles.

EDIT: Was right, was Rule of Earth 4.
E2fencer
13-08-2005, 06:03
I like this post and the philosophy stated but still have one huge problem w/ the idea of faith being necessary. While I agree that no one is perfect, clearly god would understand this and not require perfection from anyone, but rather one to do more good than bad and make the world better, regardless of one's beliefs. A common Jewish belief is that one's soul is borrowed from god and comes to us as a grey sheet, good actions lighten is, while bad ones darken it. One is supposed to return it in better condition than when found.