------------------
It takes the author 2476 words to make his point. His rhetorical journey includes some interesting ideas, and some of it is worthy of receiving as a rebuke to certain parts of the contemporary church. In that we can agree.
But the author conflates politics with the contemporary church in a way that is what a left wing pagan (self-admitted) would do. He makes no distinction between cultural Christianity, Biblical Christianity, right-wingers, and fundamentalists. They are all the same thing to him.
Oddly, the author finally gets to his summation, but asserts something unrelated to what he wrote up to that point: ...it doesn't matter what race, gender, orientation, faith... if you're a decent person, that's all that matters. Upon what basis the author makes this moral statement is unknown. He doesn't define "a decent person," nor does he tell us how someone would be determined to be decent or what should be done about a person deemed to be not decent or why it is good to be decent or expect others to be decent.
Now, we would agree that there is value in being a decent person (according to our own morality, of course), but it's another matter entirely to suggest that Christianity is adequately replaced by the author's unstated version of decency.
And it should seem obvious that the author appeals to decency in the context of what religion teaches is decent. Kindness, helpfulness, respect, hard work, mercy, and lawfulness are likely the kinds of things the author has in mind as examples of decency. But the only reason he knows these things are decent is because religion has said so. His moral precept is second hand.
Further, he doesn't he tell us why decency is all that matters. How does he know this? Why is this moral value important? Why should we accept it as true?
The author offers us a moral imperative without justifying its truth.
Christianity is an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
Religious syncretism is the blending of two or more religious belief systems into an existing system, or the incorporation of beliefs from unrelated traditions into an existing religious tradition.
This can occur for many reasons, but the most common is when a culture is conquered, and the conquerors bring their religious beliefs with them, but they fail in entirely eradicating the old beliefs or, especially, the old practices, they incorporate the local culture/religion to create something familiar to ease conversion of the populace.
Harper's Bible Dictionary states that syncretism is "either a conscious combining of two or more religions over a short period of time, or a process of absorption by one religion of elements of another over a long period of time. In both types the absorbed elements are usually transformed and given new meaning by the fresh context. The borrowed item may remain outwardly the same but its new context signifies something quite new."
Attempts to assimilate other religions, or even aspects of other religions, into Christianity always meant something is either given up or added. This was the danger Paul spoke of in writing to the Colossians. The heresy within their midst was not any of the orthodox teachings, but that they were adding to it elements of Judaism and paganism (such holidays). Yet the point of the Bible is that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped as prescribed by God. Any blending with other religious ideas or practices goes against that.
Gnosticism was an early form of syncretism that challenged the beliefs of early Christians. In the first few centuries after Jesus was crucified, there were various competing "Jesus movements". The Roman emperors (starting with Constantine) used syncretism (as Rome had for centuries before) to help convert the Pagans. Then came the newly Christian theocratic empire (which in and of itself is against the bible). Social conversion to Christianity happened all over Europe for centuries (willingly or forced, the latter going against the bible). It became even more effective when missionaries encountered different cultural/religious traditions and interlaced them into a Christian synthesis to ease conquering/converting. Sometimes old pagan gods (or at least their aspects and roles) were transferred to Christian saints (St. Bridgit anyone?).
The Second Apology of Justin Martyr states: "Whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians." The Church has assimilated many (though not all) of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. Augustine of Hippo is remembered for assimilating the ideas of Plato, while Thomas Aquinas is known for doing so with the ideas of Aristotle.
Romans ran on the concept of syncretism because from their earliest times they had used it with, among others, the Greeks. The Roman acceptance of other cultures' religions into their own made it easy for them to integrate the newly encountered people and existing religions they found as a result of their expansion. In other words, it was done to solidify their conquering of other cultures and religions. One can contrast Christian syncretism the practice of making Christianity relevant to culture. Some Jesuit missionaries used local religious/cultural systems and images to teach Christianity, as did the Portuguese in China.
Historian Yuval Noah Harari argues in Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (2014) that syncretism is pervasive in Christianity, saying that "In fact, monotheism, as it has played out in history, is a kaleidoscope of monotheist, dualist, polytheist and animist legacies, jumbling together under a single divine umbrella. The average Christian believes in the monotheist God, but also in the dualist Devil, in the polytheist saints, and in animist ghosts."
Constantine I was the first to make it legal for Christians to practice their faith openly. By the late fourth century, emperor Theodosius established Christianity as the official religion of Imperial Rome (creating a theocracy, which goes against the teachings of Jesus). Christians were then able to hold positions of power in the government (which is against the bible), which then granted the religion more followers and power. That's where it all started.
When the western Roman empire fell completely by 476, the infrastructure of the church survived, allowing more religious control in Europe. The pope became the key figure of religious leadership; bishops then controlled governments at the local level, ensuring the theocracy stayed. What followed were centuries of bloodshed.
Once the political/governing power of the church was established, the church had to keep it. Creating armies, adding rules and laws that gave the church absolute power, and using religion as a justification for the cruelty and hatred that has existed for centuries.
In "Romanism in the light of prophecy and history: its final downfall, and the triumph of the church of Christ" [New York, American and Foreign Christian Union, 1854, p. 58], Brownlee quotes a figure of 68,500,000 killed by the Papacy, composed of 50 million Christians in Europe, 15 million Indians in the New World, 1.5 million Jews in Spain and elsewhere, and 2 million Moors in Spain. He then writes, "And, O merciful Father in heaven, this does not include the millions of their own people, and her enemies, which fell in her crusades, and wars, and massacres! Here thirty million and a half would be a moderate calculation! Thus, Rome papal has hurried into eternity A HUNDRED MILLION OF THE HUMAN RACE, by her bloody religion!" That's how the church kept power.
In general, whenever the church its territory, a significant fraction or even a majority of the population was killed, as occurred in Bohemia, Spain, Central and South America, with the Waldenses, and in the extermination of the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heruli. Therefore the number killed was larger than the number remaining. Extending this proportion to all of Europe with a population of 50 to 100 million at the time yields an estimate of 50 to 100 million or more killed in Europe alone. For example, the conversion of Prussia to Christianity in the thirteenth century was accompanied by deliberate extermination by the Teutonic Knights.
Now, does any of that sound Christ like? And that doesn't even consider modern day.
Doctrine is "a set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true." Biblical doctrine refers to teachings that align with the bible. False doctrine is any idea that adds to, takes away from, contradicts, or nullifies the doctrine given in the bible. Many things from the early church have been carried into today that completely go against the bible.
The heretic is someone who teaches counter to the faith. Peter warned against them in his second letter. "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2:1). The heretic is the person who teaches what blatantly contradicts an essential teaching of the Christian faith.
From the church's earliest days, she has been afflicted by the heretic in his various forms. It continues to work today, sometimes by contradicting the truth and sometimes by adding to it. Like Jehovah's Witnesses, they may alter God's word, or like Mormons, he may add to it. They may teach doctrines that are the polar opposite of what the bible actually says. How many Christians on the right actually follow/teach the teachings of Jesus?
There are those who use Christianity as a means of personal enrichment. Every megachurch and politician fits here. "If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain" (1 Timothy 6:3-5). These people are only interested in the Christian faith to the extent that it can fill their wallet. They leadership positions to benefit from others' wealth. Constantly asking for money. Sound familiar?
Then modern "prophets" claim to be gifted by God to speak fresh revelation outside of the bible with new authoritative words of prediction, teaching, rebuke, or encouragement. I'm sure it's coincidence that it just so happens to agree with a political ideology or a personal interest. In the New Testament, John offered an urgent warning about them. "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). Seems not many tests are being given anymore.
The abuser uses their position of leadership to take advantage of other people. Usually, to feed sexual lust (Catholic Church anyone?), though they may also desire power.
Another false doctrine is PROSPERITY GOSPEL
Prosperity Gospel teaches that we are saved to be rich, healthy, happy, and whole. That if we give our lives to Jesus then we will live a blessed, prosperous, and happy life. But in order to receive these blessings financially first we must give financially so that God can bless us (mega church, Paula White, and every politician). If their logic is to hold out, that means not even Jesus was saved, because he was homeless, a Palestinian Jew who couldn't pay his taxes got betrayed by his best friends, oh and that whole thing about being murdered on a cross... If your definition of a gospel is too small to include Jesus, is it really valid?
In short, with the syncretism from the Gnostics forward to today, and the blatant behavior of the church that is contradictory to the bible, most (not all; legitimate Christians do exist) that claim Christianity and wear the cross are not in fact Christians, and it has been that way for well over a millennia. Christianity is named after Jesus (Pronounced Yeshua) Christ (the word Christ was a title or office ("the Christ"), not a given name. It derives from the Greek Χριστός (Christos), a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (משיח) meaning "anointed" and is usually transliterated into English as "messiah"), so one would assume that his teachings would be first, foremost, and primary. As history has shown, most people that have taken up the cross are liars. Even into modern day. They even attack legitimate Christians.
The reason why people who claim to be Christians yet do not follow Jesus' teachings is because it is counterculture to them. In other words, the cost to follow Jesus Christ is too high for many people to unlearn their political leanings and personal opinions. It is easier to love/hate the world and the things of this world on one hand and say that I also love God on the other. It is not either or for many Christians, but the idea of both and in their world view. 1 John 1:8-10 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. And: James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
The word "Christian" does not mean "admirer of Christ," nor "recipient of Christ's blessings," nor even "one who believes in Christ." "Christian" means "follower of Christ."
Because the church that everyone sees on the news is false, and the people of said church are false, the Church/Christianity that we have known/seen for the last almost 2000 years is a false church with fake followers. But, legitimate Christians do exist, and most people don't even know it.
I spoke with John Norris III, lay minister (non-ordained because he views being ordained as man-made and non-biblical) about this topic/article. He has seen the "corporate" (as he labels it) church firsthand. Most churches don't care about people outside of the congregation. Has faced discrimination from pagans, atheists, and the church itself.
The fact that he doesn't need a building to practice faith (says the word 'religion' is manmade), Prochoice (not pro-abortion), has friends that are LGBTQ, other faiths" he has been labeled a heretic by the "corporate" church for "following the teaching of Jesus".
He believes syncretism hasn't completely falsified true belief, just veiled the actual message, and caused the church to act counter to the teachings of Jesus. Per John, "The teaching of Jesus views all others as human beings first, a view 'corporate' Christians do not have."
He had said to me that "legitimate Christians have no voice". Due to the media, the "corporate" church is the face of the faith, which is why all Christians are lumped together by everyone else. He views people lumping legitimate Christians in with "corporate" Christians is simply "acting like the 'corporate' Christians they condemn and in turn makes them hypocrites and just as hateful".
When asked if syncretism from the early church created the right-wing/evangelical/"corporate" church we see today, responded with "Absolutely". He views it as syncretism has eroded and diminished the church and turned it into nothing more than a "self-help group".
He has compared the current state of things in the world (politics, religious turmoil) to "Everyone ('corporate' Christians, pagans, Jews, Muslims) all have a boiling pot of water in front of them and they are all throwing bricks into each other's pots, splashing the boiling water everywhere, burning each other. While legitimate Christians are running around with a hose trying to cool everything off." (I had a Startrek analogy of corporate/right-wing/evangelical as Veddic/Kai Winn, and legitimate Christians being Veddic Bareil, taken from Startrek DS9.) Legitimate Christians being ignored or associated with the ones throwing the bricks.
In short, the right-wing/evangelical/"corporate" church we see today is the result of the syncretism of the early church and is not the face of true faith. And in my personal opinion, is a false faith/church.
Now, some of you might be saying "Well, you're a Pagan, of course you think that way..." and if you are saying that, you're proving my point. You're proving John's point. You're proving the article's point.
I, like many other Pagans, and like John (and others like him), view it as, it doesn't matter what race, gender, orientation, faith... if you're a decent person, that's all that matters. Now ask yourself, when a Pagan is viewing things in a way that follows the bible more closely than your views do, what faith are you actually following (if any)?
Religious syncretism is the blending of two or more religious belief systems into an existing system, or the incorporation of beliefs from unrelated traditions into an existing religious tradition.
This can occur for many reasons, but the most common is when a culture is conquered, and the conquerors bring their religious beliefs with them, but they fail in entirely eradicating the old beliefs or, especially, the old practices, they incorporate the local culture/religion to create something familiar to ease conversion of the populace.
Harper's Bible Dictionary states that syncretism is "either a conscious combining of two or more religions over a short period of time, or a process of absorption by one religion of elements of another over a long period of time. In both types the absorbed elements are usually transformed and given new meaning by the fresh context. The borrowed item may remain outwardly the same but its new context signifies something quite new."
Attempts to assimilate other religions, or even aspects of other religions, into Christianity always meant something is either given up or added. This was the danger Paul spoke of in writing to the Colossians. The heresy within their midst was not any of the orthodox teachings, but that they were adding to it elements of Judaism and paganism (such holidays). Yet the point of the Bible is that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped as prescribed by God. Any blending with other religious ideas or practices goes against that.
Gnosticism was an early form of syncretism that challenged the beliefs of early Christians. In the first few centuries after Jesus was crucified, there were various competing "Jesus movements". The Roman emperors (starting with Constantine) used syncretism (as Rome had for centuries before) to help convert the Pagans. Then came the newly Christian theocratic empire (which in and of itself is against the bible). Social conversion to Christianity happened all over Europe for centuries (willingly or forced, the latter going against the bible). It became even more effective when missionaries encountered different cultural/religious traditions and interlaced them into a Christian synthesis to ease conquering/converting. Sometimes old pagan gods (or at least their aspects and roles) were transferred to Christian saints (St. Bridgit anyone?).
The Second Apology of Justin Martyr states: "Whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians." The Church has assimilated many (though not all) of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. Augustine of Hippo is remembered for assimilating the ideas of Plato, while Thomas Aquinas is known for doing so with the ideas of Aristotle.
Romans ran on the concept of syncretism because from their earliest times they had used it with, among others, the Greeks. The Roman acceptance of other cultures' religions into their own made it easy for them to integrate the newly encountered people and existing religions they found as a result of their expansion. In other words, it was done to solidify their conquering of other cultures and religions. One can contrast Christian syncretism the practice of making Christianity relevant to culture. Some Jesuit missionaries used local religious/cultural systems and images to teach Christianity, as did the Portuguese in China.
Historian Yuval Noah Harari argues in Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (2014) that syncretism is pervasive in Christianity, saying that "In fact, monotheism, as it has played out in history, is a kaleidoscope of monotheist, dualist, polytheist and animist legacies, jumbling together under a single divine umbrella. The average Christian believes in the monotheist God, but also in the dualist Devil, in the polytheist saints, and in animist ghosts."
Constantine I was the first to make it legal for Christians to practice their faith openly. By the late fourth century, emperor Theodosius established Christianity as the official religion of Imperial Rome (creating a theocracy, which goes against the teachings of Jesus). Christians were then able to hold positions of power in the government (which is against the bible), which then granted the religion more followers and power. That's where it all started.
When the western Roman empire fell completely by 476, the infrastructure of the church survived, allowing more religious control in Europe. The pope became the key figure of religious leadership; bishops then controlled governments at the local level, ensuring the theocracy stayed. What followed were centuries of bloodshed.
Once the political/governing power of the church was established, the church had to keep it. Creating armies, adding rules and laws that gave the church absolute power, and using religion as a justification for the cruelty and hatred that has existed for centuries.
In "Romanism in the light of prophecy and history: its final downfall, and the triumph of the church of Christ" [New York, American and Foreign Christian Union, 1854, p. 58], Brownlee quotes a figure of 68,500,000 killed by the Papacy, composed of 50 million Christians in Europe, 15 million Indians in the New World, 1.5 million Jews in Spain and elsewhere, and 2 million Moors in Spain. He then writes, "And, O merciful Father in heaven, this does not include the millions of their own people, and her enemies, which fell in her crusades, and wars, and massacres! Here thirty million and a half would be a moderate calculation! Thus, Rome papal has hurried into eternity A HUNDRED MILLION OF THE HUMAN RACE, by her bloody religion!" That's how the church kept power.
In general, whenever the church its territory, a significant fraction or even a majority of the population was killed, as occurred in Bohemia, Spain, Central and South America, with the Waldenses, and in the extermination of the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heruli. Therefore the number killed was larger than the number remaining. Extending this proportion to all of Europe with a population of 50 to 100 million at the time yields an estimate of 50 to 100 million or more killed in Europe alone. For example, the conversion of Prussia to Christianity in the thirteenth century was accompanied by deliberate extermination by the Teutonic Knights.
Now, does any of that sound Christ like? And that doesn't even consider modern day.
Doctrine is "a set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true." Biblical doctrine refers to teachings that align with the bible. False doctrine is any idea that adds to, takes away from, contradicts, or nullifies the doctrine given in the bible. Many things from the early church have been carried into today that completely go against the bible.
The heretic is someone who teaches counter to the faith. Peter warned against them in his second letter. "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2:1). The heretic is the person who teaches what blatantly contradicts an essential teaching of the Christian faith.
From the church's earliest days, she has been afflicted by the heretic in his various forms. It continues to work today, sometimes by contradicting the truth and sometimes by adding to it. Like Jehovah's Witnesses, they may alter God's word, or like Mormons, he may add to it. They may teach doctrines that are the polar opposite of what the bible actually says. How many Christians on the right actually follow/teach the teachings of Jesus?
There are those who use Christianity as a means of personal enrichment. Every megachurch and politician fits here. "If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain" (1 Timothy 6:3-5). These people are only interested in the Christian faith to the extent that it can fill their wallet. They leadership positions to benefit from others' wealth. Constantly asking for money. Sound familiar?
Then modern "prophets" claim to be gifted by God to speak fresh revelation outside of the bible with new authoritative words of prediction, teaching, rebuke, or encouragement. I'm sure it's coincidence that it just so happens to agree with a political ideology or a personal interest. In the New Testament, John offered an urgent warning about them. "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). Seems not many tests are being given anymore.
The abuser uses their position of leadership to take advantage of other people. Usually, to feed sexual lust (Catholic Church anyone?), though they may also desire power.
Another false doctrine is PROSPERITY GOSPEL
Prosperity Gospel teaches that we are saved to be rich, healthy, happy, and whole. That if we give our lives to Jesus then we will live a blessed, prosperous, and happy life. But in order to receive these blessings financially first we must give financially so that God can bless us (mega church, Paula White, and every politician). If their logic is to hold out, that means not even Jesus was saved, because he was homeless, a Palestinian Jew who couldn't pay his taxes got betrayed by his best friends, oh and that whole thing about being murdered on a cross... If your definition of a gospel is too small to include Jesus, is it really valid?
In short, with the syncretism from the Gnostics forward to today, and the blatant behavior of the church that is contradictory to the bible, most (not all; legitimate Christians do exist) that claim Christianity and wear the cross are not in fact Christians, and it has been that way for well over a millennia. Christianity is named after Jesus (Pronounced Yeshua) Christ (the word Christ was a title or office ("the Christ"), not a given name. It derives from the Greek Χριστός (Christos), a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (משיח) meaning "anointed" and is usually transliterated into English as "messiah"), so one would assume that his teachings would be first, foremost, and primary. As history has shown, most people that have taken up the cross are liars. Even into modern day. They even attack legitimate Christians.
The reason why people who claim to be Christians yet do not follow Jesus' teachings is because it is counterculture to them. In other words, the cost to follow Jesus Christ is too high for many people to unlearn their political leanings and personal opinions. It is easier to love/hate the world and the things of this world on one hand and say that I also love God on the other. It is not either or for many Christians, but the idea of both and in their world view. 1 John 1:8-10 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. And: James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
The word "Christian" does not mean "admirer of Christ," nor "recipient of Christ's blessings," nor even "one who believes in Christ." "Christian" means "follower of Christ."
Because the church that everyone sees on the news is false, and the people of said church are false, the Church/Christianity that we have known/seen for the last almost 2000 years is a false church with fake followers. But, legitimate Christians do exist, and most people don't even know it.
I spoke with John Norris III, lay minister (non-ordained because he views being ordained as man-made and non-biblical) about this topic/article. He has seen the "corporate" (as he labels it) church firsthand. Most churches don't care about people outside of the congregation. Has faced discrimination from pagans, atheists, and the church itself.
The fact that he doesn't need a building to practice faith (says the word 'religion' is manmade), Prochoice (not pro-abortion), has friends that are LGBTQ, other faiths" he has been labeled a heretic by the "corporate" church for "following the teaching of Jesus".
He believes syncretism hasn't completely falsified true belief, just veiled the actual message, and caused the church to act counter to the teachings of Jesus. Per John, "The teaching of Jesus views all others as human beings first, a view 'corporate' Christians do not have."
He had said to me that "legitimate Christians have no voice". Due to the media, the "corporate" church is the face of the faith, which is why all Christians are lumped together by everyone else. He views people lumping legitimate Christians in with "corporate" Christians is simply "acting like the 'corporate' Christians they condemn and in turn makes them hypocrites and just as hateful".
When asked if syncretism from the early church created the right-wing/evangelical/"corporate" church we see today, responded with "Absolutely". He views it as syncretism has eroded and diminished the church and turned it into nothing more than a "self-help group".
He has compared the current state of things in the world (politics, religious turmoil) to "Everyone ('corporate' Christians, pagans, Jews, Muslims) all have a boiling pot of water in front of them and they are all throwing bricks into each other's pots, splashing the boiling water everywhere, burning each other. While legitimate Christians are running around with a hose trying to cool everything off." (I had a Startrek analogy of corporate/right-wing/evangelical as Veddic/Kai Winn, and legitimate Christians being Veddic Bareil, taken from Startrek DS9.) Legitimate Christians being ignored or associated with the ones throwing the bricks.
In short, the right-wing/evangelical/"corporate" church we see today is the result of the syncretism of the early church and is not the face of true faith. And in my personal opinion, is a false faith/church.
Now, some of you might be saying "Well, you're a Pagan, of course you think that way..." and if you are saying that, you're proving my point. You're proving John's point. You're proving the article's point.
I, like many other Pagans, and like John (and others like him), view it as, it doesn't matter what race, gender, orientation, faith... if you're a decent person, that's all that matters. Now ask yourself, when a Pagan is viewing things in a way that follows the bible more closely than your views do, what faith are you actually following (if any)?
No comments:
Post a Comment