DougP

It seems to me that Christianity today has a very bad name. Perhaps better worded, they have the wrong name. I believe the correct name for what people today call "Christianity" is actually "Paulism". Let me tell you why.

Jesus was a pacifist, he believed in helping other people, he believed in turning the other cheek. I would go as far as to say that Jesus would have been rounded up during the McCarthy era in the United States for being "Communist" (because Jesus' actions make him seem like he believed in (whether he called it the same thing or not is irrelevant) socialism, or at least ideas that were very close to this. From what I can tell Jesus didnt have a huge interest in telling people how to live their day to day lives. He certainly had a set of ideals and such that he preaced, but he didnt have an interest in controlling them.

This is a bit odd, seing as "Christians" will tell you that Jesus is the son of god/god himself on earth. If they really believe that then you would try to emulate him as close as possible. However, what we have is many christians today starting wars, discriminating, treating people very poorly and other such things that I believe would have Jesus rolling over in his grave.

This is why I have come to call modern "Christianity", "Paulism". Christians today(the vast majority of them, are know there are a few exceptions to what I am about to say) do not follow the teachings of Jesus, but instead follow the teachings of Paul. The problem here lies is the fact that Paul believed that the second coming was going to come in his lifetime, literally it could have happened any day as he believed. It is Paul who is responsible for the discrimination that many "Christians" have today towards gays/lesbians. It is also Paul that is the cause of the negative attitude towards sex that
"Christianity" preaches. In fact, most of the things that Paul taught were based on roughly the following "Dont worry about having sex, or anything else, because the second coming is going to happen ANY TIME NOW. Just sit there are do what you have to do to make sure you are going to be on the right side of things when it all goes down". Sure, if the world is going to end and we are all going to ascend to heaven(or descend to hell) then believing as Paul preached might make sense. HOWEVER, here we are 2000 years later, and nothing has happened, and yet "Christians" still are trying to live like the end is coming any day now, as Paul would have the people he was preaching to 2000 years ago believe.

If people truely followed the teachings of Jesus, then they would simply not act the way they do, and this is why I do not call modern "Christianity", Christianity. It is instead a bastardized version of what a lunatic thought was going to save people from retribution 2000 years ago because he believed that it was all going down SOON. Hence "Paulism" and not "Christianity".

Thoughts on this?

Casper

Maybe "Petrinism" would be better?

jbernier

Not so sure. I think that Paul was actually very unconcerned with the end of the world. It does not take up that much of what he wrote. Plus, if he was so convinced that the end of the world was nigh and thus we should all just laze around why did he spend so much time building institutions (i.e. Christian communities)? He did not just go around preaching; he was also a superb institution-builder (the fact that we can say, two thousand years later, that Christianity is based upon his teachings is itself witness to this fact). Does not sound like someone who figures that we should just laze around in eschatological complacency to me.

NearNihil Experience

I absolutley agree with what you said. There are a lot of people who claim to follow Christ, which makes them a Christian. But noone is perfect and noone can follow the teaching in that silly book well without going mad in process. However, there are people who do claim to follow Christ, but act nothing of the sort...starting wars, hording money, pursuing power, ...neck deep in "the world". I have easily remedied this situation of what to call these people who can't seem to live the life they claim to profess and adhere to. I call them Xtians...its like they are Ex-Christians. They are the ones who have truly and wholly turned away from the teachings of Christ in favor of being less Christlike and more...ehh...Bushlike?
I guess its that I see theze people spending more of their effort on trying to please their personal conscience and tastes and desire than actually trying to live and emulate the life and ways of Christ. a lot of those things involved in such a life are quite clear and not really open to interpretation...so are, some aren't. My best example are devout killers. Military personel preaching Christ out of one cheek with rifle firmly pressed against the other. No better example of one who has turned away from the teachings of Christ have I found.
If you are going to claim to live a Christ-like life, at least try. Paying lip service just insults the people really trying to live a descent Christian life(and there are some). And those that pay lipservice are Xtians.

Magdlyn

I believe the "institution building" is in the forged epistles (tracts), not in the authentic Paulines.

Don't forget to take into account 2 Peter and Jude. Reread them, they are short.

The above are all of the "Whoops, the end is not all that nigh, now what should we do?" vein.

jbernier

You are right, there is probably more evidence of institution-building in the Pastorals (I would object to using the word 'forged' as I do not think that ancient pseudepigraphic writings are the same as what we consider forgeries. That is an aside, however). However there is also evidence in Paul's own writings that he was concerned with what the state and stability of the Christian communities with which he was associated. Galatians and the Corinthians (particularly the Corinthians) are excellent examples of this.

I would not say that there was no eschatological expectation in the early church; there certainly was. I would, however, argue that it is often overplayed in much contemporary thinking about early Christianity. I certainly do not think that Paul argued for complacency in light of the coming Parousia - indeed, perhaps the exact opposite: "The end is near so we best get about doing the work of God" seems to be more consistent with his thinking.

jbernier

Hence why I am a Christian pacifist.

Rick Sumner

I'd be inclined to agree that his preaching is not typified by an apocalyptic eschatology. It's there, but it doesn't define it. Few Pauline scholars would disagree--the primary issue of Paul's preaching seems to be the question of justification.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

NearNihil Experience

:thumbs:

....but remember, 99.9999999999% of pacifists get their ass kicked.

jbernier

Yes. And I think that is precisely the point of the cross: This world is one in which power strives to maintain and attain power; however, the way to be most authentically human is not to strive for power (knowing that such striving inevitably entails violence of some form or another) but rather to renounce power as the transitory thing that it is; this, however, is not how this world works and the powers-that-be and the powers-that-want-to-be will be threatened by those who say that the very thing they hold most dear - power - is actually the very thing which stands at the core of human strife; power, then, seeks to destroy this threat; hence why Jesus was killed and why those who follow him should not be surprised when they, too, enter into conflict with the powers-that-be. But let us be clear: This conflict should not be because Christians are trying to get their own way in "culture wars" or anything of the sort. It should be because Christians refuse to participate in the vain strivings of and for power.

btw, the above comes largely from my readings both of Paul and of contemporary writings about Paul. In short it is a deeply Pauline theology.