'Do evangelicals' actions and belief match Jesus'?

[John317]

There still has not been any Scripture presented to support the some of the more questionable actions of Western Christianity. It is simply for the the reason that no scripture exists.

That's because Western Christianity is largely Babylon, consisting mostly of fallen churches. That is, they are fallen away from Bible truth.

We also have to consider the fact that as a nation, we have a separation between church and state, which means that the state doesn't make its decisions on the basis of the churches but rather on the basis of the will of the people's representatives. Governments of the world-- including Western nations-- must defend their citizens against attacks both from within and without. Since they represent people of all persuasions, including non-Christians and even the non-religous, we can expect that our nation will do many things that are not in agreement with Scripture.

Yet when we look carefully at the formation of the United States of America, there is no doubt that God was guiding and had His hand in it. He was doubtless in the decision of the nation's Founding Fathers to make this nation a Republic, with a separation of powers and separation of church and state, rather than a Democracy or a Monarchy.

[John317]

[quoting]: ....I can't wait for the day that religion breaths its last toxic breath.

It won't ever happen. Religion is the answer to too many longings of the human heart. They are mostly wrong answers, but the longings of people are certainly not satsified by science and materialism. God put eternity and desire for God in men's minds as well as the idea of the holy.

Remember that Voltaire said that the Bible wouldn't be read and that Christianity would die out in a short time, but his prophecy failed miserably. The prediction that religion will die out will suffer the same miserable failure.

[doug yowell]

I can't wait for the day that religion breaths its last toxic breath.

Why wait? If you moved to North Korea or parts of China or Viet Nam you could get a taste of the paradise you've been hoping for, right now!!Christians will always welcome you back if you decide it's not all it was cracked up to be. Just imagine;no more capitalism,no more poverty,no more Christianity,no more Republicans,no more death penalty,torture,hatred of illegal immigrants, greenhouse gases,lack of health care services,mistreatment of minorities,waste of natural resources......"just Yoko,Yoko and me"...wait...

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I can't wait for the day that religion breaths its last toxic breath.

Why wait? If you moved to North Korea or parts of China or Viet Nam you could get a taste of the paradise you've been hoping for, right now!!

They still have the same totalitarian nonsense as religion. They are your long lost brothers.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Those who don't have the intelligence or the resources to function within a competitive capitalistic economic system are abandoned in our society and I see that as a main concern of Jesus.

That is a major failure of a capitalistic approach to the problem of poverty because it has no moral code.

This seems to be the basis of the problem. You demand a moral economic solution to a secular economic problem. You use the Israel/Jesus model of economic outcome while rejecting the moral basis on which the succeess of all Biblical/Jesus demands are inexorably connected to.

[CoAspen]

(What will happen for agreeing)

[phkrause]

It won't ever happen. Religion is the answer to too many longings of the human heart. They are mostly wrong answers, but the longings of people are certainly not satsified by science and materialism. God put eternity and desire for God in men's minds as well as the idea of the holy.

Remember that Voltaire said that the Bible wouldn't be read and that Christianity would die out in a short time, but his prophecy failed miserably. The prediction that religion will die out will suffer the same miserable failure.

I do agree with you John, I don't believe religion will die. I personally do not like the word religion as defined in our society today. I believe the Bible rather than religion is the answer for us today or any time in the world's history.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

[it was the Jubilee proclamation (the year of the Lord's favor) from Isaiah that Jesus used to announce his mission when he began his ministry. The opening line is bringing good news to the poor.

Yes, and the good news was......?Seems I remember an incident that followed Jesus feeding of the 5000 where those fed now wanted to make Jesus king because of what He could provide them.

And your point is??? Are you suggesting this as a reason not to help the poor? Because they may sense a free-loading opportunity and take advantage of your kindness? That is your take-away lesson from this miracle of Jesus?

That certainly didn't seem to deter Jesus. Don't you think he likely foresaw that this would be the people's reaction? And that 90% of the healed lepers would be ungrateful?

[doug yowell]

Are you suggesting this as a reason not to help the poor? Because they may sense a free-loading opportunity and take advantage of your kindness? That is your take-away lesson from this miracle of Jesus?

Huh? Not help the poor??Where does that come from? How does my use of Jesus pronouncement leap from focusing in on the main focus of His mission to an excuse to not help the poor?? My point was that Jesus main focus was on the salvation of the "poor in spirit" not the elimination of hunger in Israel or the world. Jesus had the resources to eliminate completely all poverty,hunger,and sickness,but He saw the healing of the sin-sick soul as being of more importance. His biography indicates that He was moved by compassion at both physical and spiritual suffering but that He chose to limit His miracles because focusing in on the physical would send the wrong message to those who benefited.Often He was unable to perform those miracles because of the people's unbelief (Matt. 13:58) Jesus did heal and feed many that may not have been grateful but He didn't feel the need to feed everyone all the time,something that is implied by many who demand that that is what constitutes true Christianity and legitimate moral governance.

[doug yowell]

I'm not talking about individual evangelicals. I'm talking about the 80% that aren't even willing to dialog about effective alternatives to take care of the poor when at the same time they support policies that allow the most wealthy in this country get aide.

It is so backward that it is simply unbelievable how ignorant and blind the collective vision of the evangelical community is. They are so concerned that everything has the proper label and says god and jesus christ every 5 seconds that they can't see the suffering they sustain.

They would rather believe the myths that the poor are all lazy and freeloaders. What happened to our concern about every individual?

I can't wait for the day that religion breaths its last toxic breath.

So Rich, how do you really feel about Evangelical Christians?Quit beating around the bush!

[doug yowell]

I can't wait for the day that religion breaths its last toxic breath.Why wait? If you moved to North Korea or parts of China or Viet Nam you could get a taste of the paradise you've been hoping for, right now!!

They still have the same totalitarian nonsense as religion.

But not all religion is totalitarianistic (is that a word?)And so far, unless you create your own utopian religion substitute which will appeal to the masses, your options are limited if your ideals are non-negotiable.Don't forget the French experiment of the 1790's when evaluating a reason based,anti-religion government.

[doug yowell]

We also have to consider the fact that as a nation, we have a separation between church and state, which means that the state doesn't make its decisions on the basis of the churches but rather on the basis of the will of the people's representatives. Governments of the world-- including Western nations-- must defend their citizens against attacks both from within and without. Since they represent people of all persuasions, including non-Christians and even the non-religous, we can expect that our nation will do many things that are not in agreement with Scripture.

Yet when we look carefully at the formation of the United States of America, there is no doubt that God was guiding and had His hand in it. He was doubtless in the decision of the nation's Founding Fathers to make this nation a Republic, with a separation of powers and separation of church and state, rather than a Democracy or a Monarchy.

This used to be the belief of most Americans prior to the 1960's. What do you think happened John?

[doug yowell]

North Korea,They still have the same totalitarian nonsense as religion. They are your long lost brothers.

Ahn young ha-shim-ni-ka,brother,how bout doing lunch?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I can't wait for the day that religion breaths its last toxic breath.Why wait? If you moved to North Korea or parts of China or Viet Nam you could get a taste of the paradise you've been hoping for, right now!!

They still have the same totalitarian nonsense as religion.

But not all religion is totalitarianistic (is that a word?)And so far, unless you create your own utopian religion substitute which will appeal to the masses, your options are limited if your ideals are non-negotiable.Don't forget the French experiment of the 1790's when evaluating a reason based,anti-religion government.

Another red herring. You still haven't dealt with what Jesus says.

The absence of a solution doesn't make yours right.

Evangelicals are totalitarian and use totalitarian methods.

[cardw]

So Rich, how do you really feel about Evangelical Christians?Quit beating around the bush!

So Doug, how do you feel about Jesus' policy toward the poor? Quite beating around the bush!

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Are you suggesting this as a reason not to help the poor? Because they may sense a free-loading opportunity and take advantage of your kindness? That is your take-away lesson from this miracle of Jesus?

Huh? Not help the poor??Where does that come from? How does my use of Jesus pronouncement leap from focusing in on the main focus of His mission to an excuse to not help the poor?? My point was that Jesus main focus was on the salvation of the "poor in spirit" not the elimination of hunger in Israel or the world.

[John317]

I do agree with you John, I don't believe religion will die. I personally do not like the word religion as defined in our society today. I believe the Bible rather than religion is the answer for us today or any time in the world's history.

Yes, exactly. The teachings of the Bible aren't religon per se. Religions are all about salvation by works and what people can do to earn salvation-- to change "God" or the "gods" so that humans can gain what they want-- whereas the Bible shows that God came in search of people, and that God will change us if we allow Him to.

[John317]

I didn't know you believed in Jesus or even in His existence.

Do you really believe in following His teachings?

I think that would be great if you do, yet given your previous posts about the Bible, I have to wonder how serious you are about doing his commandments.

[John317]

They still have the same totalitarian nonsense as religion. They are your long lost brothers.

I agree that communism or revolutionary socialism is very much like religion, but I can't believe you think atheistic communists/Marxists are "long lost brothers" of Chrsitians. They are the antipathy of Christianity and Christians.

[doug yowell]

Evangelicals are totalitarian and use totalitarian methods.

But if you support the government's use of force (taxation)in order to accomplish moral and social equity (redistribution of the wealth, ect...)then you are just as totalitarian as those whom you criticize. Since Evangelicals (your convenient Christian scapegoat)don't require force either to give to society's needs or to accept the gifts offered, how can they be totalitarian? This is exactly the opposite of what they really believe or teach or practice.

[Tom Wetmore]

...There is a great saying. The truth of what a person really believes comes after the but.

...About those that say the most through their "but"...

[Tom Wetmore]

...Jesus had the resources to eliminate completely all poverty,hunger,and sickness,but He saw the healing of the sin-sick soul as being of more importance. His biography indicates that He was moved by compassion at both physical and spiritual suffering but that He chose to limit His miracles because focusing in on the physical would send the wrong message to those who benefited....Jesus did heal and feed many that may not have been grateful but He didn't feel the need to feed everyone all the time,something that is implied by many who demand that that is what constitutes true Christianity and legitimate moral governance.

Yes, exactly where are you pulling that from?!?!

Again what is your point? Are you saying that because Jesus didn't feed all the hungry, heal all the sick or solve poverty that he meant for us not to try to do so either? Is this a convenient rationalization for not doing everything within our power and resources to fix the problems of this world? Or that all we need to be concerned about is others spiritual well-being?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

...Jesus had the resources to eliminate completely all poverty,hunger,and sickness,but He saw the healing of the sin-sick soul as being of more importance. His biography indicates that He was moved by compassion at both physical and spiritual suffering but that He chose to limit His miracles because focusing in on the physical would send the wrong message to those who benefited....Jesus did heal and feed many that may not have been grateful but He didn't feel the need to feed everyone all the time,something that is implied by many who demand that that is what constitutes true Christianity and legitimate moral governance.

Yes, exactly where are you pulling that from?!?!

Again what is your point? Are you saying that because Jesus didn't feed all the hungry, heal all the sick or solve poverty that he meant for us not to try to do so either?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Unless you can find His teaching and example to indicate that ending world poverty and hunger was to be the primary goal of the Christian church I'm sticking to the gospel commission as being the church's primary mandate. Care of the poor has it's place BUT it's not the solution to the world's problems.

[Stan]

(I so wish this had a different title)

[John317]

...Jesus had the resources to eliminate completely all poverty,hunger,and sickness,but He saw the healing of the sin-sick soul as being of more importance. His biography indicates that He was moved by compassion at both physical and spiritual suffering but that He chose to limit His miracles because focusing in on the physical would send the wrong message to those who benefited....Jesus did heal and feed many that may not have been grateful but He didn't feel the need to feed everyone all the time,something that is implied by many who demand that that is what constitutes true Christianity and legitimate moral governance.

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Yes, exactly where are you pulling that from?!?!

Again what is your point? Are you saying that because Jesus didn't feed all the hungry, heal all the sick or solve poverty that he meant for us not to try to do so either? Is this a convenient rationalization for not doing everything within our power and resources to fix the problems of this world? Or that all we need to be concerned about is others spiritual well-being?

See Part II, Chapter 5, book V, of Dostoevsky's Brother's Karamazov. It's one of the world's greatest books ever written and this chapter addresses the question of Christ's coming to earth to give people material things.

The chapter, Grand Inquistor:

http://www.tanais.info/art/en/inquisitor.html

Entire book online:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/dostoyevsky/d72b/

Quote:

Summary

Ivan explains his prose poem, “The Grand Inquisitor.” In a town in Spain, in the sixteenth century, Christ arrives, apparently reborn on Earth. As he walks through the streets, the people gather about him, staring. He begins to heal the sick, but his ministrations are interrupted by the arrival of a powerful cardinal who orders his guards to arrest Christ. Late that night, this cardinal, the Grand Inquisitor, visits Christ’s cell and explains why he has taken him prisoner and why he cannot allow Christ to perform his works. Throughout the Grand Inquisitor’s lecture, Christ listens silently.

The Grand Inquisitor tells Christ that he cannot allow him to do his work on Earth, because his work is at odds with the work of the Church. The Inquisitor reminds Christ of the time, recorded in the Bible, when the Devil presented him with three temptations, each of which he rejected. The Grand Inquisitor says that by rejecting these three temptations, he guaranteed that human beings would have free will. Free will, he says, is a devastating, impossible burden for mankind. Christ gave humanity the freedom to choose whether or not to follow him, but almost no one is strong enough to be faithful, and those who are not will be damned forever. The Grand Inquisitor says that Christ should have given people no choice, and instead taken power and given people security instead of freedom. That way, the same people who were too weak to follow Christ to begin with would still be damned, but at least they could have happiness and security on Earth, rather than the impossible burden of moral freedom. The Grand Inquisitor says that the Church has now undertaken to correct Christ’s mistake. The Church is taking away freedom of choice and replacing it with security. Thus, the Grand Inquisitor must keep Christ in prison, because if Christ were allowed to go free, he might undermine the Church’s work to lift the burden of free will from mankind.

The first temptation Christ rejected was bread. Hungry after his forty days of fasting, Christ was confronted by Satan, who told him that if he were really the son of God, he could turn a stone to bread and satisfy his hunger. Christ refused, replying that man should not live by bread, but by the word of God. The Grand Inquisitor says that most people are too weak to live by the word of God when they are hungry. Christ should have taken the bread and offered mankind freedom from hunger instead of freedom of choice.

The second temptation was to perform a miracle. Satan placed Christ upon a pinnacle in Jerusalem and told him to prove that he was the messiah by throwing himself off it. If Christ were really God’s son, the angels would bear him up and not allow him to die. Christ refused, telling Satan that he could not tempt God. Beaten, Satan departed. But the Grand Inquisitor says that Christ should have given people a miracle, for most people need to see the miraculous in order to be content in their religious faith. Man needs a supernatural being to worship, and Christ refused to appear as one.

The third temptation was power. Satan showed Christ all the kingdoms in the world, and offered him control of them all. Christ refused. The Grand Inquisitor says that Christ should have taken the power, but since he did not, the Church has now has to take it in his name, in order to convince men to give up their free will in favor of their security.

The Grand Inquisitor tells Christ that it was Satan, and not Christ, who was in the right during this exchange. He says that ever since the Church took over the Roman Empire, it has been secretly performing the work of Satan, not because it is evil, but because it seeks the best and most secure order for mankind.

As the Grand Inquisitor finishes his indictment of Christ, Christ walks up to the old man and kisses him gently on the lips. The Grand Inquisitor suddenly sets Christ free, but tells him never to return again.

As Ivan finishes his story, he worries that Alyosha will be disturbed by the idea that if there is no God, there are no moral limitations on man’s behavior. But Alyosha leans forward and kisses Ivan on the lips. Ivan, moved, replies that Alyosha has stolen that action from his poem. Ivan and Alyosha leave the restaurant and split up. Ivan begins walking home and Alyosha walks to the monastery where Zosima is dying.

Analysis

The story of the Grand Inquisitor strongly resembles a biblical parable, the kind of story that Christ tells in the New Testament to illustrate a philosophical point. Both Ivan’s story and Christ’s stories use a fictional narrative to address a deep philosophical concern and are open to various interpretations. The similarity between Ivan’s story and Christ’s stories illustrates the uneasy relationship between Ivan and religion. At the same time that Ivan rejects religion’s ability to effectively guide human life, he relies on many of its principles in forming his own philosophical system. Like Christ, Ivan is deeply concerned with understanding the way we define what is right and what is wrong, and with understanding how morality guides human actions. However, Ivan ultimately rejects both Christ’s and God’s existence, as he cannot accept a supreme being with absolute power who would nonetheless allow the suffering that occurs on Earth.

The story also implicitly brings up a new point with regard to Ivan’s argument about expanding the power of ecclesiastical courts. By setting his story in sixteenth-century Spain, where ecclesiastical courts were at the height of their power to try and punish criminals, Ivan asks what verdict such a court would have reached in judging Christ’s life. Since Christian religions teach that Christ lived a sinless life, presumably an ecclesiastical court would have been unable to find Christ guilty of any sin. However, the fact that Ivan’s court finds Christ guilty of sins against mankind illustrates the difference between Ivan’s religious beliefs and his beliefs in the efficacy of ecclesiastical courts. He sees the courts as an effective way to guide human action, but not necessarily as a way to induce men to believe more strongly in God or religion.

The conflict between free will and security further illustrates the reasons for Ivan’s dissent from Christianity. The fundamental difference between Christ’s point of view and that of the Grand Inquisitor is the value that each of them places on freedom and comfort. Christ’s responses to the three temptations emphasize the importance of man’s ability to choose between right and wrong, while the Inquisitor’s interpretation of Christ’s actions emphasizes the greater value of living a comfortable life in which the right path has already been chosen by someone else.

The assumption at the heart of the Inquisitor’s case is that Christ’s resistance of Satan’s temptations is meant to provide a symbolic example for the rest of mankind. The Inquisitor interprets the rejection of the temptations as Christ’s argument that humanity must reject certain securities: comfort, represented by bread; power and the safety that power brings, represented by the kingdoms; and superstition, represented by the miracle. The Inquisitor believes that Christ’s example places an impossible burden on mankind, which is inherently too weak to use its free will to find salvation. Effectively, the Inquisitor argues, the only option is for people to lead sinful lives ending in damnation. The Inquisitor’s Church, which is allied with Satan, seeks to provide people with stability and security in their lives, even if by doing so it ensures that they will be damned in the afterlife.

Ivan’s story presents the Inquisitor, a man who considers himself an ally of Satan, as an admirable human being, acting against God but with humanity’s best interest at heart. Ivan does not believe that God acts in the best interest of mankind, but the implication that human nature is so weak that people are better off succumbing to the power of Satan is a radical response to the problem of free will. Ivan’s attitude stems from the psychology of doubt. Ivan’s over-riding skepticism makes it impossible for him to see anything but the bad side of human nature. As a result, he believes that people would be better off under the thumb of even a fraudulent religious authority rather than making their own decisions. Even though his argument is pessimistic, his reasoning is compelling.

Just as Alyosha is unable to offer a satisfactory response to Ivan’s critique of God, Christ says nothing during the Inquisitor’s critique of him, one of several parallels between Alyosha and Christ during this chapter. But Christ’s enigmatic kiss on the Inquisitor’s lips after his indictment completely changes the tenor of the scene. Recalling Zosima’s bow before Dmitri at the monastery in Book I, the kiss represents an overriding act of love and forgiveness so innate that it can only be expressed wordlessly. On its deepest level, it defies explanation. The power of faith and love, Dostoevsky implies, is rooted in mystery—not simply in the empty and easily digestible idea that God’s will is too complex for people to understand, but in a resonant, active, unanswerable profundity. The kiss cannot overcome a logical argument, but at the same time there is no logical argument that can overcome the kiss. It represents the triumph of love and faith, on their own terms, over rational skepticism. In having Ivan end his poem on a note of such deep and moving ambiguity, Dostoevsky has his major opponent of religion acknowledge the power of faith, just as Dostoevsky himself, a proponent of faith, has used Ivan to acknowledge the power of doubt. Alyosha’s kiss for Ivan indicates how well the young Alyosha understands the problems of faith and doubt in a world characterized by free will, and just how committed his own will is to the positive goodness of faith.