NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is my beef with the modern Christian church. They seem to follow Paul more than they follow the actual words of Christ. Anyone else seem to notice that? I mean, honestly every sunday, there is a message out of a book written by paul, but why not a message from the sermon on the mount? Why does the church seem to be holding Paul to a higher degree than Christ?

Or maybe its just me that thinks this.


-edit- I am not saying Paul is wrong or anything, I like some of his teachings, I just feel like the modern protestant church almost worships him, much like the catholics sort of do with mary. (IMO)

Not sure what you mean by the "modern Christian church."

Not sure what you mean by the "modern Christian church."

The mainstream protestant church, mainly here in America.

Not sure what you mean by the "modern Christian church."
Yeah, there's a hell of a lot of denominations out there, and what one does, a dozen others don't.

The mainstream protestant church, mainly here in America.

I'm a United Methodist, and I haven't noticed any heavy tendency towards Paul's words... he did write a lot of the epistles, which is why he gets quoted often. But at least in my church, it's mostly Gospel for the Sunday morning liturgy.

I'm a United Methodist, and I haven't noticed any heavy tendency towards Paul's words... he did write a lot of the epistles, which is why he gets quoted often. But at least in my church, it's mostly Gospel for the Sunday morning liturgy.


See, my biggest problem with Paul is that he seemed to be very prohibitive, which lets face it, is what the church is like. However, when I read about Jesus, he is never that prohibitive, and it just makes him seem all the more accessible, and more compassionate, and I think that if the church continues with this prohibitive lifestyle thing, it is going to continue to make Christ look less compassionate.

I hope that makes sense :p

Go Quaker. Your sermons stop being from the Bible altogether. They, theoretically, come from God Himself. So, Paul gets out of the picture, at any rate. :)

See, my biggest problem with Paul is that he seemed to be very prohibitive, which lets face it, is what the church is like. However, when I read about Jesus, he is never that prohibitive, and it just makes him seem all the more accessible, and more compassionate, and I think that if the church continues with this prohibitive lifestyle thing, it is going to continue to make Christ look less compassionate.

I hope that makes sense :p

I agree with you there!

See, my biggest problem with Paul is that he seemed to be very prohibitive, which lets face it, is what the church is like. However, when I read about Jesus, he is never that prohibitive, and it just makes him seem all the more accessible, and more compassionate, and I think that if the church continues with this prohibitive lifestyle thing, it is going to continue to make Christ look less compassionate.

I hope that makes sense :p
I get what you're saying.
Go Quaker. Your sermons stop being from the Bible altogether. They, theoretically, come from God Himself. So, Paul gets out of the picture, at any rate.
If I was any other denomination, I think I'd probably be with the Friends. I have a lot of respect for them (and truth be told, Methodism's founder, John Wesley, got a fair number of ideas from the Quakers).

I get what you're saying.

If I was any other denomination, I think I'd probably be with the Friends. I have a lot of respect for them (and truth be told, Methodism's founder, John Wesley, got a fair number of ideas from the Quakers).

:p

Having been a member of a number of Prodistant churches of various stripes, I have noticed a tendency among many of them (though not all) to focus on the Pauline works as well as the Johanine works to some degree. Which is not to say that the Gospels are neglected, simply that the aforementioned tendency is there.

I would not say that they could be properly labelled followers of Paul as their primary religious affiliation despite that tendency. It's a smaller trend within the broader focus of a large and diverse community of Christian folks, similar to those who have a Marian devotion or a devotion to the Sacred Heart within the Catholic Church.

Personally, my goal as a Christian is to be as loving and compassionate and respectful as possible. As much as I enjoy dissecting Pauline works to learn how women should behave and how to treat my slaves, and examining the Johanine theology which is actually quite beautiful, I'd rather spend most of my time with religion focusing on how I can make myself a better person.

Paul had more influence than just the epistles.

I read a collection of essays called "The Early Christians" and one of the scholarly essays there (which doesn't mean it's automatically right, but does mean this isn't DiVinci Code grade speculation either) said that by analyzing the linguistic and historical anomolies, it's obvious that the majority of the New Testament was not written or passed down from any contemporaries of the events. Things like the Pharisees being characterized as the "bad guys" when they were in _opposition_ to the contemporary incarnation of the Sanhedrin, the traditional Aaronite priesthood. (please please correct me if I've got any of this wrong, Tropical Sands :) ) or misattributions of Jewish conduct which are archeologically contradicted.

The point made in another essay was that the early Christians were a group of heretical Jewish apocalypse cultists. There had been some similar groups before them, there would be several groups after them one of which was responsible for the diaspora! These people were _not_ interested in an elaborate moral code; they saw their purpose as to wait peacefully for the end and liquidate all their belongings and try to prove by their interim conduct that they deserved to be in the "favored" portion of those to be judged.

They didn't seem to have any radical breaks with comptemporary Jews on what "good and evil" was. Jesus' sermons and parables were predated in several prominent cases by other Pharisaic preachers. There might have been some specific alterations to the "moral code" but they didn't seem to feel it was necessary to record them because 'everybody knew'.

(yes, Jesus was a Pharisee in fact ! and they're the heroes, too, because they were the first people anywhere to stand for a personal morality that was more than "don't break the rules and honor thy God" Some were good, some were bad, but the general methodology was the foundation of most of what is deemed good in monotheism and even to a degree secular humanism today.)

So what changed Christianity from another marginalized cult doomed to extinction ?

Paul.

Not only did he found the Church, he essentially wrote it's theology. And it seems the early communities he founded were the soil from which the ones who wrote the Testament and the various Letters sprang from. It wasn't quite a "top down conspiracy"....but really, it seems "the real Christ" was about as known (and knowable) as the Real King Arthur. Whatever Paul saw or knew about Jesus that inspired him so is now lost to the ages. But the fact that it moved him to change the world is not proof of it's divinity. Mohammed did the same thing, and Lenin, and Mao....I don't have much use for Mohammed, frankly, because his style is essentially the same as LRon Hubbard. Read biographies of the Ron and his Scientologists and you'll see some amazing similarities....

Put another way, the Moslems start from the proposition that Mohammed was as perfect as a human gets. Thus, everything in his life should be used as a model to guide the interpretation of the Qu'ran. The problem is, his life shows he was really messed up. Far more so that Jesus or Moses or Abraham or whatever.

None of the rest of them, for example, said "It is holy and good to use the swag from looting a city that wouldn't convert to bribe the surviving grandees into converting so that excessive time doesn't have to be wasted in going on to the next conquest". I can see some Machiavelianism coming naturally to a budding empire, but to _praise_ it ???

And if you bring up this or other demonstrable historical facts (like the fact the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem _cannot_ be the site where Mohammed ascneded to heaven, because that place was "the last Mosque" and we have confirmed there was no mosque in Jerusalem by the end of Mohammed's time on earth.) they refuse to hear of it. I call that serious ontological violence and uncomfortably close to insanity.

Some Christians do it, too, but not with the same pride and to the same degree. The Catholics, for example, (much as you may hate their conclusions) do try to make references to objective fact and reality in their ongoing evolutions of Holy Doctrine....

The point is, Paul was a man. He made the Christian church; there was a "popular history" that we can dimly see which was related to Jesus which he cited somewhat and was inspired by deeply. But he created the vast majority of it himself, by his own writings and the writings of his disciples.

Yes, there could be a God involved here, but I ask you: What is the Point of Sending a Messiah...if you're going to make some _non divine_ _agent_ do the actual WORK of teaching humanity the lessons you allegedly want them to draw from this advent ? Jesus could have done all the things Paul did and still had time to die on the cross :) He didn't, which makes me believe he was just another troublesome heretical apocalypse cult leader who wasn't much good to the world.

Paul arguably might have been some good to the world, but I really really deeply doubt this is because some God had anything to do with it.

All Christian's like the Paul.

Give me the early celtic Church and the Justinian tradition anyday.

And anyway - the best lessons come straight from God to my drug addled brain. I'm with the Eagle of Patmos on this one.

Or maybe its just me that thinks this.



It's just you ;)

I thought this was going to be a thread about people who worship this Paul Lynd.

http://www.frankdecaro.com/recipes/photos/paul%20lynde/paul%20lynde%205.jpg

See, my biggest problem with Paul is that he seemed to be very prohibitive, which lets face it, is what the church is like. However, when I read about Jesus, he is never that prohibitive, and it just makes him seem all the more accessible, and more compassionate, and I think that if the church continues with this prohibitive lifestyle thing, it is going to continue to make Christ look less compassionate.
What are you talking about? The bible is terrible literature. How do you get that out of it?

Anyway, I have some serious problems with some of Christ’s anti-materialism, his stance against the natural and healthy impulses of man, and his claims of divinity or at least enlightenment. Lust is natural, both for possessions and sex. Nobody is perfect, and reality is material. To dismiss those truths is to abandon reason.

Here is my beef with the modern Christian church. They seem to follow Paul more than they follow the actual words of Christ. Anyone else seem to notice that? I mean, honestly every sunday, there is a message out of a book written by paul, but why not a message from the sermon on the mount? Why does the church seem to be holding Paul to a higher degree than Christ?

Or maybe its just me that thinks this.



Hey, you're probably right but forget the church. The church is just a ragbag of followers and not-followers of Jesus. Follow Jesus and if He wants you to be in a church ( Pauline or otherwise ) he'll lead you there.

I think it's because Paul outlined the theology and the reasons why Jesus came for the Church. I don't really see any tendency to place him above Jesus, though. That would be blasphemous.

What I would like to see is some OT in some sermons. It's Scripture also.

Here is my beef with the modern Christian church. They seem to follow Paul more than they follow the actual words of Christ. Anyone else seem to notice that? I mean, honestly every sunday, there is a message out of a book written by paul, but why not a message from the sermon on the mount? Why does the church seem to be holding Paul to a higher degree than Christ?

Or maybe its just me that thinks this.


-edit- I am not saying Paul is wrong or anything, I like some of his teachings, I just feel like the modern protestant church almost worships him, much like the catholics sort of do with mary. (IMO)

It's not just you, my friend... Jocabia and I have both argued against 'Pauline' Christianity on this forum... and the 'conflicted' opinions about Paul stretch back about as far as the existence of Pauline scripture:

"A very few writers, generally supporters of the Mosaic Law as a Christian essential, find Paul's teachings so discordant from Jesus' that they identify him as the Anti-Christ. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche often made contemptuous attacks toward Paul, even going so far as to claim in his The Antichrist that "Deus, qualem Paulus creavit, Dei negatio" (Latin: "God as Paul created him, [is] the negation of God"). In the same book, he expresses his belief that Paul had contorted the teachings of Christ, and a consistent rancor toward Paul runs throughout much of his work.

Even before Nietzsche's era, the American Founder Thomas Jefferson was ridiculed as a heretic by his Christian contemporaries for excising the Pauline books from the Bible canon as a means of returning Christendom to what he felt were the true teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Jefferson once wrote that "Paul was the first corrupter of the teachings of Jesus."

Irenaeus, considered a father of the early Roman Catholic Church, notes that the Ebionites (an early Christian sect that continues to have a small following in the modern era) disputed with Paul using the book Matthew, "But the Ebionites use only that Gospel which is according to Matthew, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, calling him an apostate from the Law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

Paul had more influence than just the epistles.

I read a collection of essays called "The Early Christians" and one of the scholarly essays there (which doesn't mean it's automatically right, but does mean this isn't DiVinci Code grade speculation either) said that by analyzing the linguistic and historical anomolies, it's obvious that the majority of the New Testament was not written or passed down from any contemporaries of the events. Things like the Pharisees being characterized as the "bad guys" when they were in _opposition_ to the contemporary incarnation of the Sanhedrin, the traditional Aaronite priesthood. (please please correct me if I've got any of this wrong, Tropical Sands :) ) or misattributions of Jewish conduct which are archeologically contradicted.

*snip*

The point is, Paul was a man. He made the Christian church; there was a "popular history" that we can dimly see which was related to Jesus which he cited somewhat and was inspired by deeply. But he created the vast majority of it himself, by his own writings and the writings of his disciples.


Sounds good to me, I don't think you've got any of it wrong here.

Here is my beef with the modern Christian church. They seem to follow Paul more than they follow the actual words of Christ. Anyone else seem to notice that? I mean, honestly every sunday, there is a message out of a book written by paul, but why not a message from the sermon on the mount? Why does the church seem to be holding Paul to a higher degree than Christ?

Or maybe its just me that thinks this.


-edit- I am not saying Paul is wrong or anything, I like some of his teachings, I just feel like the modern protestant church almost worships him, much like the catholics sort of do with mary. (IMO)

Yes this seems to be true. Read this it is by St. Tertellian in the year 200 ish ad. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian11.html St. Tertellian agrues in the latter part of the text for Paul by sayign that Jesus's words were meant i nthe context of the conversation he was having atthe time, and were not meant for all time where Paul's letters were meant for CHristians forever. But what do you expect when Paul converted the Gentiles.

I think it's because Paul outlined the theology and the reasons why Jesus came for the Church. I don't really see any tendency to place him above Jesus, though. That would be blasphemous.

What I would like to see is some OT in some sermons. It's Scripture also.


The only OT scripture I ever see is when people need to justify something like death penalty or what not, with the whole "eye for an eye" ordeal. I love reading the OT though, and would most certainly love to see more of it preached. :)

The only OT scripture I ever see is when people need to justify something like death penalty or what not, with the whole "eye for an eye" ordeal. I love reading the OT though, and would most certainly love to see more of it preached. :)

I don't see why it's so disliked by some; some parts of it are cruel, but Revelations is most assuredly part of the New Testament.

And much of the best parts of the New Testament are straight from the Old Testament anyway.

(yes, Jesus was a Pharisee in fact !

From what I've read, Jesus' ministry actually seemed to be much closer to the Essene Jews than either the Pharisees or the Saducees - the two largest "sects" of Judaism at the time.

From what I've read, Jesus' ministry actually seemed to be much closer to the Essene Jews than either the Pharisees or the Saducees - the two largest "sects" of Judaism at the time.


I have heard that as well. I forget where, but I have heard that.

To dismiss those truths is to abandon reason.

It is possible to believe in something you can never live up to.

It is possible to believe in something you can never live up to.


Which, pretty much sums up Christianity, no? :D

Which, pretty much sums up Christianity, no? :D

It probably sums up most religions. Most religions describe the "ideal" for a human being - something we can strive towards, but are unlikely to ever reach, even if it is possible. We all make mistakes.

It probably sums up most religions. Most religions describe the "ideal" for a human being - something we can strive towards, but are unlikely to ever reach, even if it is possible. We all make mistakes.


Very True.

It is possible to believe in something you can never live up to.
Possible, but pointless.

The only OT scripture I ever see is when people need to justify something like death penalty or what not, with the whole "eye for an eye" ordeal. I love reading the OT though, and would most certainly love to see more of it preached. :)

Right! I wish that Noah's Ark and David and Goliath were used for more than the nursery's Sunday School stories.

Possible, but pointless.
Nonsense. Everyone has ideals.

Nonsense. Everyone has ideals.
Some of us prefer to stay in reality. Idealism and ideology are the paths to intellectual stunting.

Some of us prefer to stay in reality.
What does that have to do with it?

What does that have to do with it?
More often than not, idealism and ideologies distract human beings from the real and practical solutions to problems.

More often than not, idealism and ideologies distract human beings from the real and practical solutions to problems.

How can you judge something to be a problem if you don't have an ideal that it violates?

More often than not, idealism and ideologies distract human beings from the real and practical solutions to problems.
But it is not necessary to leave reality to have an ideal or an ideology. These are things you HAVE, not things you ARE.

And they can PROVIDE practical solutions more often than not as well, depending on the person (an architect, for instance).

From what I've read, Jesus' ministry actually seemed to be much closer to the Essene Jews than either the Pharisees or the Saducees - the two largest "sects" of Judaism at the time.

Jesus was not an Essene; far from it. The Essenes were a warrior cult who eschewed all bodily contact and pleasure because it would interfere with their ritual purity in case of death in battle. They lived in isolated monastic orders far away from the mainstream Jewish society. They were virulently at odds with foreign views infiltrating their religion. As such, they are very, very different from the Nazarene carpenter who preached love for all mankind, lived, worshipped, and travelled with women, had no aversion to violating purity laws, food laws, and communing with the poor and unclean, and went out of his way to incorporate Greek philosophy into his thinking and religion.

I'm sorry if I come off as a bit harsh on this, but I'm tired of pointing out how different the two are. Saying that Jesus was an Essene because he's a unique Jew is like saying Frederick Douglas was a Black Panther because he's African-American. In both cases, you are talking about an individual with radically different views from a group that only came to prominance after the demise of the individual in question. If you want to make associations between Jesus and some established group, you wouldn't look at Jewish groups at all: if you look at his teachings and mannerisms, he has a lot more in common with Greek Cynic philosophers than anything in the Jewish community.

How can you judge something to be a problem if you don't have an ideal that it violates?
Something doesn’t have to violate any ideals to be a problem. Something that is harming one either directly or indirectly through society must be rectified.
But it is not necessary to leave reality to have an ideal or an ideology. These are things you HAVE, not things you ARE.
No, just a waist of time and effort.

Jesus was not an Essene; far from it. The Essenes were a warrior cult who eschewed all bodily contact and pleasure because it would interfere with their ritual purity in case of death in battle. They lived in isolated monastic orders far away from the mainstream Jewish society. They were virulently at odds with foreign views infiltrating their religion. As such, they are very, very different from the Nazarene carpenter who preached love for all mankind, lived, worshipped, and travelled with women, had no aversion to violating purity laws, food laws, and communing with the poor and unclean, and went out of his way to incorporate Greek philosophy into his thinking and religion.

None of these things are even close to what I read of the Essenes in my theology class.

Something doesn’t have to violate any ideals to be a problem. Something that is harming one either directly or indirectly through society must be rectified.

Doesn't that suggest that the ideal would be to never be harmed, directly or indirectly?

Doesn't that suggest that the ideal would be to never be harmed, directly or indirectly?
I’m not talking about basic human wants and needs. I’m talking about isms and tys, like Christianity, Communism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, Environmentalism, etc.

Something doesn’t have to violate any ideals to be a problem. Something that is harming one either directly or indirectly through society must be rectified.

You cannot have a concept of "harm" without an ideal state that the harmful thing is violating. If I object to pain, it is because, ideally, I would not be pained.

The lack of any ideals is simply apathy, not practicality.

None of these things are even close to what I read of the Essenes in my theology class.

It's what I was taught in mine.

I did some preliminary checking on Wikipedia (potentially innaccurate, I know, but handy), and the full account of them as a warrior priest cult only makes sense if the Zealots at Masada were Essenes. I was taught that they were; Wikipedia makes no mention of the truth or falsity of the claim. In any case, Josephus makes very clear that they were what we would call a monastic order, seperate from the larger Jewish community. That alone makes it difficult to say that Jesus was an Essene, because he was willing to work with Romans and Gentiles when Essenes seemed to strongly avoid that. They have some similarities in their thinking, but then again, so do Jesus' teachings and Cynicism, as I said earlier.

I’m not talking about basic human wants and needs. I’m talking about isms and tys, like Christianity, Communism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, Environmentalism, etc.

Because, of course, none of those have anything to do with basic human wants and needs.

Because, of course, none of those have anything to do with basic human wants and needs.
They do a good job of getting in the way of them, yes. Not to mention, distracting those in power.

They do a good job of getting in the way of them, yes. Not to mention, distracting those in power.

Don't you think there's a basic human want for the ideals you condemn so strongly?

Here is my beef with the modern Christian church. They seem to follow Paul more than they follow the actual words of Christ. Anyone else seem to notice that? I mean, honestly every sunday, there is a message out of a book written by paul, but why not a message from the sermon on the mount? Why does the church seem to be holding Paul to a higher degree than Christ?

Or maybe its just me that thinks this.


-edit- I am not saying Paul is wrong or anything, I like some of his teachings, I just feel like the modern protestant church almost worships him, much like the catholics sort of do with mary. (IMO)

catholics dont worship mary, Im not a cotholic but my mum is and she gets really mad when people say catholics worship(or sort of) worship mary.

But it is true, even with catholics, when I used to go to mass it was always, paul to the corinthians blah blah, paul writing to the thingamagigs,he want around at the time of jesus was he?

bleagh.

catholics dont worship mary, Im not a cotholic but my mum is and she gets really mad when people say catholics worship(or sort of) worship mary.

Thats why its fun to accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary. They really do get pissed. Even though I think we all really know that they don't actually worship Mary.

Thats why its fun to accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary. They really do get pissed. Even though I think we all really know that they don't actually worship Mary.

Which is really mean.

Personally, I think there should be more SOS in the sermons... :D

From what I've read, Jesus' ministry actually seemed to be much closer to the Essene Jews than either the Pharisees or the Saducees - the two largest "sects" of Judaism at the time.

Yes, there was a strong essene influence upon him, but I think the fact that he was not an out and out ascetic; that he didn't have an issue with marriage and reproduction (the essenes were like the Shakers in practicing total abstinence; they also only allowed men into their retreats); and he didn't make mystic ritual a significant part of his everyday activity once he "came out" as the Messiah.

So I think that he is closer to being a pharisee because he was all about their main goal: the intentional adoption by all the faithful of a moral code that they attempted to guide their entire lives by. (rather than the "make the right observances and avoid the big no no's of the official Priesthood, which was a good starting point, but a bad ending place.)

More often than not, idealism and ideologies distract human beings from the real and practical solutions to problems.

Well, the Jews will be fascinated to hear this, since the whole sociological thrust of their religion and social organization was to merge abstract love of virtue with meeting your necessary obligations to the community (and a profound awareness of the community, without an abnegation of self).

The wealth of rituals that were not empty observances by layers of metaphor and memories to make the daily routine remind them endlessly of their goals and their highest aspriations.....and still are, for those who are highly observant of their faith, small a number that they be.

They lost a lot of this in the last fifty years, but what history I've read seems to paint a picture that contradicts your blanket assertation.

But all the same, I agree that as Voltaire concludes in Candide "we think too much"....and that attention to diginified labor is a vital component of a healthy life.

But that does mean what thinking we do has to be of a high quality :)

Jesus was not an Essene; far from it. The Essenes were ....[lots of details]

Sounds like you've studied it more than the few pages I saw in the essays. But a _warrior_ cult ? I thought they were ascetic monastics who wanted to retreat from the world, not fight physical battles within it ? Do you have a reference I could pursue on this ? Not that I doubt you read it , but I want to read the same source....

They lost a lot of this in the last fifty years, but what history I've read seems to paint a picture that contradicts your blanket assertation.

Couldn't it be argued that what you're referencing is indicative of the impracticality of living in such a manner in a modern society?

Here is a website on the Essenes (http://www.essenespirit.com/who.html)

and this one talks more about Jesus and the Essenes (http://www.essenespirit.com/jesus.html)

Sounds like you've studied it more than the few pages I saw in the essays. But a _warrior_ cult ? I thought they were ascetic monastics who wanted to retreat from the world, not fight physical battles within it ? Do you have a reference I could pursue on this ? Not that I doubt you read it , but I want to read the same source....

Actually he brought up a good point. Your posts on the Essenes were right on as well, especially how they may have influenced Jesus vs why Jesus most likely wasn't an Essene.

I'm not sure if I would go as far to call them a warrior cult, but they were prepared for a very real, physical battle. As the sons of light they believed that they would have to fight the sons of darkness. Aside from it being a spiritual battle, they also believed it would be a real physical battle on Earth. And that as a result, the messianic age would be established as a very real physical kingdom on Earth.

So, if I remember correctly, when the Romans came to slaughter virtually all of the Essenes, they actually came out to meet the Romans with weapons because they believed it was that final epic battle.

Couldn't it be argued that what you're referencing is indicative of the impracticality of living in such a manner in a modern society?

It could, but I wouldn't go along with it :) /Smartass_mode OFF

Seriously, I think what it does illustrate is that even the most well adapted systems from pre-modern times are hard pressed to continue to function as intended under the onslaught of changes which the modern age is defined by.

Nothing but nothing works forever, especially human institutions. Everything needs maintenance. And after the sheer magnitude of recent changes ...(every human in industrial society more materially well off than a typical West European noble ? Who would _think_ should a thing could happen _much less have a rational plan for how to deal with it_? back in the 4th century CE when this all started to come together...)....I think the mainteance is kinda akin of switching from coal burning steam bower to diesel turbine....or maybe nuclear reactor!

ie there's some things that simply have to flat out change after all that's happened...but... the more something has to change, the more debate is required to establish _what_ and _how_ :)

The Jews _have_ tried -really hard- to keep current _all along_. That was after all the whole point of the unending Rabbinical inquries on how to keep G*d's Law.

But the problem is their "editing algorithm" is incremental. Plus, the Holocaust was...kind of a bit of a severe challenge to a gut-level belief in G*d. Now, here I'm possibly incorrect, so again please correct me if I'm wrong Sands....

But I was under the impression that while perhaps it is too much to say the Jews are generaly Deists....that they do NOT believe in this "Buddy G*d" crap that the Christians (particularly Protestants) do. Namely, the idea that G*d listens to them, talks back, gives them little gifts in the material world, and throw metaphorical banana peels where their enemies tread. That G*d is someone one behaves well for so that He will do good things to/for oneself.

So the point is, they tried to adhere to their code from a love of righteousness, and a belief in a vision of G*d who is at the least quite aloof if not actually divorced from material reality....

But when you see any event _that_ big and _that_ bad that would have been directed at you (if you're a Jew)(yes others were killed within the Holocaust, but I'm talking about the special challenge I think it has presented to their beliefs)....it isn't unreasonably that you might start thinking "well, if G*d is playing _any_ sort of "referee" role _that would have been the time to do it! And because there _was_ no divine intervention to protect _his chosen people_ (not even so much as Hitler getting killed by the General's Plot and the successor making peace a year early), maybe there simply is no G*d after all.

Theoretically, to my understanding, the Jews _don't_ expect G*d to be trying to look after them in the material world. But...humans are, y'know, human. After something like that, you might really think long and hard... about how if two explanations fit the facts (G*d doesn't intervene terrestially _no matter what the events_ OR G*d isn't there at all) that maybe Occam's Razor is appropriate and it is the latter is more likely. In which case, what's the point?

So....a unique in-your-face challenge to a commitment to a very uncuddly unpampering theology, plus the shortfalls of a reliable but incremental editing process that is confronted with cataclysmic changes....

I think nothing made by humans would weather that sort of turn of events well. So if even the majority of the Jews have faltered under the onslaught, it's not like the forces acting against their traditions weren't off the scale.

At least they're trying to reorganize and get it together. Time will tell if they still "have it". (ie the commitment to make themselves rules to make rightful behaviour easier (and follow them!) and the brains to figure those rules in the first place.)

But I think it is premature to say that Modern Society makes such a system as they had _impossible_ and that it's just taking time for the zeitgeist to kick their walls in.


**********


I have more respect for the Orthodox Jews now than before. They at least have held very firmly to their guns on daily ritual and the commitment to using it to help themselves be good people. As I understand, Reform Jews have tossed that (pretty much entirely), many Conservative Jews would _like_ to observe daily ritual, but don't, and ditto for the Reconstructionist Jews....

But the Orthodox are practicing an implimentation which is only going to work for a minority of people. Obviously, whatever motivation they are good at applying to keep people "in step" does not work on most folk these days. It works well on those whom it works for, but the trick now is for the other sects to find a way to persuade people back to habits of righteousness.

(That sounds sanctimonious, but I'm sorry, most behaviour is not inborn and you need to work your social and emotional muscles constantly to stay "in shape for it". If there is an essence to righteousness...it is to try and do what you ethically know in your head is necessary when your limbic system is saying "eeeew...work....stay away!" And _that_ is an accomplishment that merits lavish (though conditional and performance based) praise.

We have collectively made a world where not only are sanctimanity and hypocrisy properly reviled (a good thing) but where the vast majority deny that there is any value in the variable but often intense lifelong effort to make your practice match your ethical theory. Some would go so far as to say there is no such thing as ethical behaviour and it's just puffery to glorify your default behaviour, a la the Emperor's New Clothes. This is a really _bad_ thing.

Perhaps previous ideas of morality and virtue had inconsistentcies and flaws, but to say that the very _idea_ of moral behaviour is flawed....is to say "do whatever you want, and may only a greater force to yours stop you!" And that is not a very good type of world to affirm and substain by your agreement with this consensus.)

....I'm not sure if I would go as far to call them [The Essenes] a warrior cult, but they were prepared for a very real, physical battle. As the sons of light they believed that they would have to fight the sons of darkness. Aside from it being a spiritual battle, they also believed it would be a real physical battle on Earth. And that as a result, the messianic age would be established as a very real physical kingdom on Earth.


If we needed a benchmark of how predisposed the Jewish society of the time was to an apocayptic flavored rendering of reality and radical proscriptions for what was going to have to happen in their near future, there it is.

I always wondered what made them fight so hard against the Romans, in the Judean War, and then in the War that led to the Diaspora. This touches on a big part of that....

It's just as well that the Diaspora was a good thing, since I don't see how it could have been avoided with this sort of tinder lying around!