Entry XVI--Fallacies (Part 2)
Is Christianity truly the religion of political conservatism?
If it's supposed to be based on the teachings and actions and wisdom of Jesus Christ, it certainly isn't.
And despite the cloak of conservatism, christianity has a liberal, and yes, even leftist tradition running through it.
Enough so that portraying the second coming of Christ as a neo-hippie revolutionary is not so far fetched. {MAYBE EXAMPLES HERE}
The contrived association between Christianity and political/economic conservatism can be traced back to the Catholic Church's appropriation of the religion from the original Christians, who tended to adopt a superiority complex based on their belief that their faith, exemplified in their ascetic lifestyles, was inherently superior to the decadence of the Roman pagans.
{THIS MAY BE INCORPORATED IN THE ESSAY ON CHRISTIANITY AND PSYCHOLOGY}
Their asceticism restricted overindulgence in everything from sex to food to limiting more abstract concerns such as pride and judging others.
It should also be noted that the leading Christian writers of the time reinterpreted previous Biblical texts to created a newly synthesized Scripture. Another term for it would be "watered down". In other words, they distorted the truth about Christ and the 12 apostles and portrayed them as living the lifestyle they deemed suitable for salvation.
The Catholic Church exploited this previously sincere (however misguided) asceticism as a system of control by imposing it on the faithful by convincing them that the only path to Christ and salvation was to live a life bereft of creature comforts and to always submit to the authority of the Church.
However, ascetiscism in Christianity was just getting warmed up, peaking with the rise of a Prostetant offshoot known as Calvinism.
Though the connections between Christianity and the political and economic philosophy of Marxism stem back from the the teachings of Christ himself, there is a more tangible connection that must be explored.
The connection between the Christian denomination of Calvinism and Marxism.
Calvinism was founded, conveniently enough, by John Calvin, who published his first religious tract in 1536 Switzerland. Calvinism was a particularly harsh derivative of Luther's Protestant denomination.
Luther transformed the soteriological chessboard by declaring that it was faith, not good acts that ensured safe passage into heaven. Calvin amended Luther by claiming that even an act of faith would not guarantee salvation. Those who were saved were called 'the Elect.'Salvation was predetermined--in other words, God decided who's soul would be saved or not before one was born.
One wonders what methods were used by God to possibly determine in any kind of judicious manner who's soul was saved.
Calvinism is known for tying the notion of war with spiritual salvation and in doing so served as one of the roots of the crucial Marxist concept of dialectical materialism.
Peace was a sin in this system, because that meant Satan had been victorious. War amongst humans was meant to parallel the ongoing war between God/Christ and Satan, and was thus virtuous, as it would ultimately result in heavenly utopia.
Marxism, some 300 years later, is largely similar in that it promotes a 'final battle' line between the worker's class and the capitalist exploiters. Conflict between these two entities was encouraged because it would result in utopia, a worker's paradise on Earth.
Like Calvinism, a lack of conflict is negative, because that means that the capitalist masters are pacifying the masses any number of various opiates, including religion.
But ironically, it was the Christian denomination of Calvinism which gave rise to 'godless Communism.' For it is only through the clash of opposites endemic to dialectical materialism can the workers finally overthrow the shackles of ownership oppression. (When exactly the conflict was to give way to a worker's paradise remains unclear, but it's just a 5-year plan or two away).
But it is not merely at this extreme variant that christianity defies any concept of political conservatism.
Christ himself was no conservative. He was a single guy. Never married. Consorted with prostitutes. Opposed the crass money changers in the temple and the corrupt Roman government.
In other words, he was a long haired rebel who messed with the establishment.
While Christ may have been conflicted when it comes to certain issues such as abortion, as he is portrayed in the bible, he was not conservative.
Here are just a few examples, direct 'quotes' from the mangod himself:
Christ as pacifist:
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9]
Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39]
I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44]
Christ as anti-conspicuous consumption activist:
Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.]
Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23]
You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]
But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]
Christ as humble guru:
And when thou pray, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou pray, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret… [Matthew 6:6 & 7]
From just this small sampling of Jesus soundbytes, it's apparent that the man wouldn't have been a big fan of the conservative christians of present day America who wear their religion on their sleeves, all the while oppressing, not 'giving a feast' to the poor.
And it seems unlikely that Christ would have supported the US Persian Wars that essentially decimated the Muslim population around the globe.
In short, the link between conservative American politics and the bibical interpretation of Christ could not be any more tenuous, if not an outright falsehood.
And with this mountain of evidence, can there be any doubt that Christianity should weigh heavy on the political left of the spectrum?
However false it may be, the morality of christianity (evangelical as well as less extreme denominations) has become associated with the political right, even though the words and actions of Christ clearly reveal a liberal leaning.
Therefore, it should surprise none that most liberals and progressive eschew Christianity, but they do not possess the courage to abandon it completely. At least not in any large-scale sense.
This attachment stems from a dubious sentimentality that even otherwise rational and clear thinking liberals and progressives have for Christianity, a sentimentality that might be based in nostalgia (stemming from their belief in God/Christ as children, nostalgic Christmas memories also forms a link that binds left-wingers to the religion they have generally left behind).
Even worse, there are doubtless countless libs and progs who still have yet to transcend the fear that they do possess a 'soul' and that said soul will be 'judged' by God/Christ /Allah/Buddha at the end of their physical existence.
This lingering fear, the product of years of indoctrination, makes it impossible for the liberal to make the full committment of abandoning Christianity and rejecting it from top to bottom, meaning even arguing against the metaphysical aspects of Christianity, i.e., questioning its logical legitimacy. {FLESH OUT THE CONCEPT OF 'TOP TO BOTTOM' REJECTION OF CHRISTIANITY. THERE IS A LOT MORE TO BE EXPLORED THERE}
Other factors preventing the liberal/progressive from making a 'clean break' from christianity could be family considerations; parental pressure to appear at church, wife/husband/friend/lover who does not share the feelings of her/his anti-Christian significant other.
Usually, it is the extreme noncomformist; the artist, the punk, the street kid, gays, etc who can wholy reject christianity and even outwardly oppose it. Often these individuals do not fall into the camp of 'liberal' or 'conservative' Some may be genuinely described as 'anarchistic.'
The majority of liberals are ultimately still too conformist and plugged into the institutional-based system to reject christianity as it must be in order to lessen its undue influence on the culture at large.
Even more disturbing is the relativity recent phenomenon of liberals/Democrats/etc who have made the connection between the true teachings of Christ and a more leftist point of view. While it is in all honesty a sincere connection, it still undermines the undermining of Christianity proposed by this book. In this way, liberals sustain Christianity, instead of moving beyond it.
If Christianity co-opts the political left to a substantial degree, that it will truly be left to the anarchists and the scientists to overcome the religion's debasement of virtually every aspect of human existence.
Another consideration; let's say the dream of the religious right in this country someday comes true, that the Constitution is replaced by religious rule, by biblical law. Would that system be in any way compatible with our modern day, corporate controlled culture?
Unlikely, as morality, rather than money would become the first priority when making business decisions, but business is not predicated on morality, it's predicated on money.
But let it be concluded that the notion that Christ is compatible with political conservatism is as implausible as the Resurrection itself.
It's just one of Christianity's many fallacies on perpetually on display for those who care to look.
If it's supposed to be based on the teachings and actions and wisdom of Jesus Christ, it certainly isn't.
And despite the cloak of conservatism, christianity has a liberal, and yes, even leftist tradition running through it.
Enough so that portraying the second coming of Christ as a neo-hippie revolutionary is not so far fetched. {MAYBE EXAMPLES HERE}
The contrived association between Christianity and political/economic conservatism can be traced back to the Catholic Church's appropriation of the religion from the original Christians, who tended to adopt a superiority complex based on their belief that their faith, exemplified in their ascetic lifestyles, was inherently superior to the decadence of the Roman pagans.
{THIS MAY BE INCORPORATED IN THE ESSAY ON CHRISTIANITY AND PSYCHOLOGY}
Their asceticism restricted overindulgence in everything from sex to food to limiting more abstract concerns such as pride and judging others.
It should also be noted that the leading Christian writers of the time reinterpreted previous Biblical texts to created a newly synthesized Scripture. Another term for it would be "watered down". In other words, they distorted the truth about Christ and the 12 apostles and portrayed them as living the lifestyle they deemed suitable for salvation.
The Catholic Church exploited this previously sincere (however misguided) asceticism as a system of control by imposing it on the faithful by convincing them that the only path to Christ and salvation was to live a life bereft of creature comforts and to always submit to the authority of the Church.
However, ascetiscism in Christianity was just getting warmed up, peaking with the rise of a Prostetant offshoot known as Calvinism.
Though the connections between Christianity and the political and economic philosophy of Marxism stem back from the the teachings of Christ himself, there is a more tangible connection that must be explored.
The connection between the Christian denomination of Calvinism and Marxism.
Calvinism was founded, conveniently enough, by John Calvin, who published his first religious tract in 1536 Switzerland. Calvinism was a particularly harsh derivative of Luther's Protestant denomination.
Luther transformed the soteriological chessboard by declaring that it was faith, not good acts that ensured safe passage into heaven. Calvin amended Luther by claiming that even an act of faith would not guarantee salvation. Those who were saved were called 'the Elect.'Salvation was predetermined--in other words, God decided who's soul would be saved or not before one was born.
One wonders what methods were used by God to possibly determine in any kind of judicious manner who's soul was saved.
Calvinism is known for tying the notion of war with spiritual salvation and in doing so served as one of the roots of the crucial Marxist concept of dialectical materialism.
Peace was a sin in this system, because that meant Satan had been victorious. War amongst humans was meant to parallel the ongoing war between God/Christ and Satan, and was thus virtuous, as it would ultimately result in heavenly utopia.
Marxism, some 300 years later, is largely similar in that it promotes a 'final battle' line between the worker's class and the capitalist exploiters. Conflict between these two entities was encouraged because it would result in utopia, a worker's paradise on Earth.
Like Calvinism, a lack of conflict is negative, because that means that the capitalist masters are pacifying the masses any number of various opiates, including religion.
But ironically, it was the Christian denomination of Calvinism which gave rise to 'godless Communism.' For it is only through the clash of opposites endemic to dialectical materialism can the workers finally overthrow the shackles of ownership oppression. (When exactly the conflict was to give way to a worker's paradise remains unclear, but it's just a 5-year plan or two away).
But it is not merely at this extreme variant that christianity defies any concept of political conservatism.
Christ himself was no conservative. He was a single guy. Never married. Consorted with prostitutes. Opposed the crass money changers in the temple and the corrupt Roman government.
In other words, he was a long haired rebel who messed with the establishment.
While Christ may have been conflicted when it comes to certain issues such as abortion, as he is portrayed in the bible, he was not conservative.
Here are just a few examples, direct 'quotes' from the mangod himself:
Christ as pacifist:
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9]
Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39]
I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44]
Christ as anti-conspicuous consumption activist:
Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.]
Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23]
You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]
But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]
Christ as humble guru:
And when thou pray, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou pray, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret… [Matthew 6:6 & 7]
From just this small sampling of Jesus soundbytes, it's apparent that the man wouldn't have been a big fan of the conservative christians of present day America who wear their religion on their sleeves, all the while oppressing, not 'giving a feast' to the poor.
And it seems unlikely that Christ would have supported the US Persian Wars that essentially decimated the Muslim population around the globe.
In short, the link between conservative American politics and the bibical interpretation of Christ could not be any more tenuous, if not an outright falsehood.
And with this mountain of evidence, can there be any doubt that Christianity should weigh heavy on the political left of the spectrum?
However false it may be, the morality of christianity (evangelical as well as less extreme denominations) has become associated with the political right, even though the words and actions of Christ clearly reveal a liberal leaning.
Therefore, it should surprise none that most liberals and progressive eschew Christianity, but they do not possess the courage to abandon it completely. At least not in any large-scale sense.
This attachment stems from a dubious sentimentality that even otherwise rational and clear thinking liberals and progressives have for Christianity, a sentimentality that might be based in nostalgia (stemming from their belief in God/Christ as children, nostalgic Christmas memories also forms a link that binds left-wingers to the religion they have generally left behind).
Even worse, there are doubtless countless libs and progs who still have yet to transcend the fear that they do possess a 'soul' and that said soul will be 'judged' by God/Christ /Allah/Buddha at the end of their physical existence.
This lingering fear, the product of years of indoctrination, makes it impossible for the liberal to make the full committment of abandoning Christianity and rejecting it from top to bottom, meaning even arguing against the metaphysical aspects of Christianity, i.e., questioning its logical legitimacy. {FLESH OUT THE CONCEPT OF 'TOP TO BOTTOM' REJECTION OF CHRISTIANITY. THERE IS A LOT MORE TO BE EXPLORED THERE}
Other factors preventing the liberal/progressive from making a 'clean break' from christianity could be family considerations; parental pressure to appear at church, wife/husband/friend/lover who does not share the feelings of her/his anti-Christian significant other.
Usually, it is the extreme noncomformist; the artist, the punk, the street kid, gays, etc who can wholy reject christianity and even outwardly oppose it. Often these individuals do not fall into the camp of 'liberal' or 'conservative' Some may be genuinely described as 'anarchistic.'
The majority of liberals are ultimately still too conformist and plugged into the institutional-based system to reject christianity as it must be in order to lessen its undue influence on the culture at large.
Even more disturbing is the relativity recent phenomenon of liberals/Democrats/etc who have made the connection between the true teachings of Christ and a more leftist point of view. While it is in all honesty a sincere connection, it still undermines the undermining of Christianity proposed by this book. In this way, liberals sustain Christianity, instead of moving beyond it.
If Christianity co-opts the political left to a substantial degree, that it will truly be left to the anarchists and the scientists to overcome the religion's debasement of virtually every aspect of human existence.
Another consideration; let's say the dream of the religious right in this country someday comes true, that the Constitution is replaced by religious rule, by biblical law. Would that system be in any way compatible with our modern day, corporate controlled culture?
Unlikely, as morality, rather than money would become the first priority when making business decisions, but business is not predicated on morality, it's predicated on money.
But let it be concluded that the notion that Christ is compatible with political conservatism is as implausible as the Resurrection itself.
It's just one of Christianity's many fallacies on perpetually on display for those who care to look.
posted by Darwin Grimm at 10:58 PM
0 comments
