beth

Ok, my friend was mentioned and not Helen's. I have received the greatest love and the greatest hate from Christians. My friend followed the Bible and Christ's teachings. Not everyone reads into things literally. The cursing of the fig tree was supposed to be symbology for Israel. Jesus taught to show love and compasion for others. He taught not to judge others. He taught to show selfless love. ( I mention all this, but I do believe that much of what Christ said had been embellished.) These are the examples that she followed. I don't believe that she is selective in her faith, I think she lives according to how she interpreted the Bible. Now, I know that the average Christian is not as good or kind as she is, I know many Christians who use their faith to support their hatred.

Al Fresco

Concerning the apparent absence of an NT reference to killing heretics, perhaps you have overlooked Luke 19:27. This final verse in a parable told by the "Prince of Peace" reads as follows: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me." KJV

Although the actual historical reference in this parable may have been to Herod Archelaus, most Bible commentaries with which I am familiar equate (in an allegorical sense) the "nobleman" mentioned therein with Jesus. If that is indeed the correct interpretation, then at the termination of the parable, we have Jesus encouraging the faithful to round up those who have rejected his divine authority and to slaughter them in his presence. While some commentaries couch this parable in eschatological terms, the fact remains that people are being encouraged by this verse to murder nonbelievers.

Of course my understanding of this verse could be in error. When dealing with a deity who purposely obscures his teachings in confusing parables (Matt. 13:10-11, Mark 4:10-12, and Luke 8:9-10), selectively withholds the "truth" from some individuals (Matt. 11:25-27, 13:34-40), closes some peoples' minds (Isaiah 6:10 and John 12:39-40), makes them stubborn (Rom. 9:18), and deludes them into believing what is false (2 Thess. 2:11-12) in order to prevent them from being saved from the everlasting torment of hell, one can be rather easily led astray. Perhaps one of God's "elect" will be generous enough to share with us the "correct" interpretation.

As far as burning heretics is concerned, there is no need for people to assume that responsibility. God has promised that eventually he will command his angels to cast all the "wicked" nonbelievers into the bowels of Hades where they will experience the eternal agonies of the unquenched fire (Matt. 13:49-50, 18:8-9 and Mark 9:43,48). After all, we wouldn't want anyone to infringe on the duties of the merciful, gracious, longsuffering God who is abundant in goodness and truth (Exod. 34:6), now would we?

HelenM

I'm aware of that verse but I know of no Christian who interprets it as encouragement from Jesus to round up and kill anyone.

And since Jesus' clear and direct command in the Sermon on the Mount was to 'turn the other cheek and pray for those who persecute you' I don't see that anyone who believes Jesus' teachings to be consistent would a) assume Jesus taught the opposite indirectly in a parable and b) set aside the clear direct command in favor of an indirect message in a parable.

(Unless they cared more about finding an excuse for killing and burning heretics than looking at what Jesus clearest commands were - and there may have been people that way, but the Christians I know are not into burning and killing heretics and I don't think it's legal these days anyway, anywhere I've lived...)

Helen

the_cave

But I bet if they started calling themselves quasi-new age humanists, or deists, you'd still have a beef with them. For the simple fact that they're religiously-minded.

For that matter, hey happyboy, why the animosity towards religion? I'm simply curious as to what your general life-philosophy is. Do you ever experience a sense of the sublime, as some have called it? Or affecting emotional reactions to the mysteries of existence? These are fundamentally religious impulses, in my opinion--that is, they are specifically among the kind of things that "religion" refers to, and to call them anything else is to deny their character and existence, which would certainly be foolish, and a kind of denial of one's human character. But that's just my opinion. I'm curious as to others' opinions on the subject.

Godless Dave

I'm going to step up here and defend liberal Christians. Not just because they tend to be nicer and more tolerant than fundies and evangelicals, but because in my opinion their theology makes no less sense than fundy theology.

As far as I understand it (and I've had trouble getting them to articulate their beliefs), to a liberal Christian the Old Testament is not the word of God. It is an attempt by the Israelites to understand God. Because it is a human attempt, it is flawed. The New Testament isn't the word of God either. It contains the words of God (in the form of Jesus), but they are mixed up with the words of fallible men. So they "pick and choose", as others have put it. And I don't think that's inconsistent. I think they believe that, just as the Bible authors were trying to understand God, modern Christians try to understand God. So they accept the parts of the Bible that line up with their (admittedly pre-conceived) concept of God. The parts that do not they think are mistakes by fallible humans trying to fit their experience of God with the the culture and values of their time and place. To them, the Bible is a starting point for understanding God, not the end point.

As far as tolerating other religions, the ones I've talked to believe that the Bible prophets and apostles are not the only people in history to have achieved a little bit of divine wisdom. Native Americans, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. have tried to understand God in their own ways in the context of their cultures, so while their understanding may be different wisdom can still be found in their beliefs. Like the bumper sticker says, "God is too big for one religion". To claim that one particular human understanding of God is the whole truth and nothing but the truth is arrogant. Unlike traditional Christians, liberal Christians (in general) do NOT think Jesus is the only path to salvation - although they may think he offers the best path.

I know what you're saying - if they reject some of the Bible as true, why not reject all of it? I think (and again I'm basing this on conversations with Christian friends) to many of them it doesn't matter if Jesus really was God. It's the message of Jesus that matters. Just like the story of, say, Abraham and Isaac isn't literally true, but wisdom can be derived from it. (To use a more modern example, Huckleberry Finn is not a true story, but it has truth in it).

To me this is a more rational (well, less irrational) theology than that of fundamentalist Christianity. Anyone willing to use their brain would figure out that the Bible was written by people, not by God. But if one believes in a God anyway, it makes a certain amount of sense to use other people's thoughts about God to stimulate one's own thinking, without having to assume those people had access to some truth you do not.

Godless Dave

I also disagree that biblical literalists are more consistent. They claim to be, but they go through some strenuous mental gymnastics trying to explain how the two creation stories in Genesis don't contradict each other and why homosexuality is an abomination but eating shellfish isn't. Liberal Christians are at least honest that they pick and choose.

Al Fresco

It is reassuring that most Christians today either ignore this verse or do not interpret it to mean what it actually says. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. The perpetrators of the Inquisition considered this verse and others such as John 15:6 to be ample justification for conducting their dirty work. The Reformation leader, Thomas Muentzer, called for a Christian revolution and holy war in 1524. In doing so, he cited verses such as Matt. 10:34 and Luke 19:27 to lend legitimacy to his campaign. (See www.geocities.com/anatheist2001/submonday22.htm for more details.)

While most Bible study sites on the Internet avoid discussing Luke19:27 in any detail (for obvious reasons), those that do so interpret it in rather ominous militaristic terms. For example, the "Jesuswalks" site comments on the verse as follows: "But you are God's enemy when you set your will against his and refuse to use productively what he has given you. That is a dangerous place in which to stand, as an enemy of God." The site, "Reigning with Jesus", discusses Luke 19:27 in relation to the coming "Millenium" period. Nonetheless, it reminds us that "It [the Bible] focuses on what people need to be doing now to please God." Verse four of the uplifing ditty presented on this site reads as follows: "Take hold of all those who joined the rebellion, And followed Satan's o-r-ders; Take them to the Lord to slay them before him, Put them to death for all their sins!"

So, while you and your more rational associates do not consider Luke 19:27 to be a mandate to snuff non-Christians, some other Bible believers appear to be more inclined to take it at face value. One can only wonder, if this verse was not intended to mean what it clearly says, what is the correct interpretation and what was the purpose of including it in the Bible.

It is difficult for me to find any consistency between verses such as Matt. 10:34 ("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.") and Luke 12:51 ("Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division...") and the notion that Jesus was in the habit of always turning the other cheek. Certainly the portrayal of Jesus whipping moneychangers into submission (John 2:15) does not conger up for me an image of reticence and mild-mannered cheek turning.

Again, that is an encouraging sign. Presumably slavery has also been illegal anywhere you have lived. However, that has no bearing on the fact that the Bible in numerous passages clearly endorses this abominable practice, including the beating of "disobedient" slaves (Luke 12:47). (Jesus, no doubt, would have admonshed them to turn the other cheek.) Much of what was accepted as moral and/or legal by the authors of the Bible bears little resemblance to what is considered moral and legal in our modern society.

Godless Dave

Which wouldn't be a problem if people accepted that the Bible is a work of the men of its times. But when people think it's the first and last word on everything we get trouble. Big trouble.

Grad Student Humanist

You're absolutely right. No Xtian, liberal or fundy, follows the Bible word for word. But at least the liberal Xtians respect other people's religions, respect atheists, and in general, are a lot more Christ-like than the fundies who use Jesus and the Bible as a club to beat those who have different beliefs.

I've no doubt that if God does exist he is a lot more pleased with the liberal Xtians than with the fundies.

MollyMac

Aren't some xians fundies because that's how they were brainwashed from birth to be? And aren't some xians liberal for the same reason? It's the xians that unquestioningly accepted everything they've been taught, that I have least respect for.