It's a shame that some holier-than-thou types are so much in denial over the nature of their Master (Yeshua) that they resort to reconstructing his very teachings to reflect their own hostile and belligerent propensities. At least two such instances were brought to my attention by a blog reader, following my posting of the blog 'Christianity: The Paradox and Practice' yesterday. That blog intended to show that while North American Christians purport to say they are following Christ, they're doing nothing of the sort. They are followers of form only, but the heart of his message and teaching is ignored, the better to support Empire-building, war-mongering, military ocupations, killing in cold blood (as opposed to real justice via trial) and trying to use economic terror to make elderly people expendable (in the case of the GOP).
Now, two main issues were brought up by those who reported the critics' words to me. First, the critics assert I am some kind of "hypocrite" because I cite their Master Jesus but am not myself a Christian. This is a false argument, and is based on the 'One True Scotsman' Fallacy. As I examined it before, it deflects a well-reasoned argument on the nature of a principle or issue, to the irrelevant one of whether the person arguing possesses the "true" nature to provide it. Thus, from the original use of it (as reported by Antony Flew, in his Thinking About Thinking) an argument conducted in a Scottish Pub might be about which historical Scotsman was the best leader of all. Thus while six debating Scotsmen are sitting at the table and five are eating a "true Scots" breakfast of haggis and black pudding, the other is eating rye toast. He is then discharged from offering any insights since he "cannot be a true Scotsman". The argument being:
1) All true Scotsmen eat haggis and black pudding for breakfast
2) Joe eats rye bread for breakfast.
3) Therefore Joe cannot be a True Scotsman!
4) Therefore Joe is not entitled to have his opinion on Scottish issues taken seriously!
Thus, Joe is not entitled, if not a true Scotsman, to comment on which Scot in history was the best leader! The comparable argument made by the fundie critic is parallel to the preceding:
1)All TRUE Christians follow the Bible and have faith in Jesus as personal Savior
2) Joe is an admitted atheist.
3) Therefore, Joe is not a true Christian
4) Therefore Joe is not entitled to comment on Jesus' teachings else he's a "hypocrite" 'cause only Christians are entitled to comment!
The purpose of all such fallacious arguments is to take issue with the inherent quality of the source rather than the arguments per se, no matter how correct they might be (especially if Joe the atheist is a former Christian who studied scriptures, textual analysis!) However, by committing the 'One True Scotsman' Fallacy all the arguments of the critic are themselves disallowed! Thus, to argue that I, as an atheist, am not allowed to cite scripture or teachings in a debate or argument about alleged Christian behavior, is a copout. Attaching the label 'hypocrite' merely exposes the critic as committing an ad hominem. There is certainly nothing hypocritical about an outside observer holding a group's own teachings up to the spotlight and questioning whether in fact they are being followed. (After all, such Xtians have zero problem doing that with Islam, or Catholicism!)
The next issue or claim was that the various words used by Yeshua, such as "love your enemies as yourselves", and "turn the other cheek" were only intended on the personal level as a rebuke to personal retaliation. They were never intended as a carte blanche principle to be enacted on the national level. In other words, Christ would have conveniently permitted killing - all the killing in the world - to preserve or "protect" a nation's interests or in defense. However, a serious screening and interpretation would show this doesn't fly. It is merely the result of the mental projection and expectation of those who call themselves "Christian", but who have totally lost (or never processed in the first place) the original message!
First, we have the very example of Yeshua in his assorted confrontations with Roman Power. As Oxford scholar Geza Vermes has shown, his disciples continuously enjoined him to take up active rebellion against the Roman occupiers. They in fact, were convinced Yeshua was a warlike organizer and would lead them in rebellion. At various stages they even tried to incite him to do it, but he consistently refused. His demeanor instead was one of submission. They refused to grasp, just like their modern purblind counterparts, that Yeshua had arrived as a submissive Messiah not a warmongering, sword-wielding worldy "Messiah" in the sense of aggressively defeating the Roman occupiers and delivering the Jews from their power!
Even when Yeshua was dragged away for crucifixion, the disciples continued to harbor fanciful beliefs he'd use his God power to break free and assault the Romans with his infinite might. Never occurred! Surely, if Christ was the warlike figure, or at least advocated a warlike stance toward enemies, he'd have thrashed the Romans to smithereens, but he never did. The apostles then felt aggrieved and let down. They didn't get a conquering Messiah at all! He was a submissive Messiah! Vermes makes clear ('Jesus Killing a Political Act, Scholar says', in The Denver Post, Oct. 4, 2003, p. 3) why the Romans would have nevertheless put him to death:
"Yeshua (Jesus) was crucified because he clashed with Jewish and Roman leaders and was regarded as a potential threat to law and order and consequently to the well being of the Jewish people. They thus decided he had to be eliminated for the common good.
Now think about this: Obviously if one has built up fanciful notions of a mighty Savior who'd wage combat against one's oppressors, one would be let down if he merely meekly submitted. But this was the LESSON Christ taught, that his followers even today are too blind, disinterested, propagandized, arrogant or hateful to grasp! You cannot harbor an unconditional love for neighbors (including neighboring nations on the planet) if you're prepared to kill them, for whatever. Love is such a transgressive power and conditionality that it even transgresses the natural human impulses to revenge and war as well! (Indeed, it transgresses the natural wiring of the brain's reticular formation and amygdala from which territoriality and aggression spring). This is why Christ would NEVER NEVER EVER have countenanced aggression against any group, nation, etc. irrespective of their acts. His perspective was from one who had essentially surmounted his brain's natural human wiring and propensity to aggresssion, certainly to the extent of using lethal force against another - which he would have extrapolated to the national level.
Unnatural? Almost unearthly and inhuman? Of course! But that was the standard HE set!The problem is that this produces a mindset not conducive to following the injunctions of Matthew 5:43-44 or 18:21-22, but to perpetually seek out “enemies” and fight with them – if they don’t conform to one’s own uncompromising beliefs.
But again, this is also why I mentioned that NO national leader would be a true follower of Christ. He might well follow the outer behavioral forms: reading scriptures, attending services, and even saying prayers, but would not be a follower at heart. Nor would millions of "pastors" including those engaging in bombast against truth seekers like Rob Bell, my Eckist sister-in-law, or my Spiritual Master friend, John Phillips. They would simply resort to the usual "Satanic" and "false teaching" rhetoric, which of course makes them Pharisees, though they'd never see it. How can they claim to see the mote in their sister's or brother's eye, when they can't see the beam in their own?
Ouch! Does that make me a hypocrite? Nope, just a person courageous enough to hold up a mirror to these hypocrites, one that they'd prefer not to face!
No comments:
Post a Comment