OK, we have all seen them. You know, the car filled with Christian bumper stickers like “Honk If You Love Jesus” or “Warning: This Car Will Be Unoccupied During the Rapture.” Another group of G-d’s “Special Ones” are those who hold up signs and shout at you while the light is red. They tell you you’re going to hell if you don’t repent. No buddy, you don’t understand, this is hell. Watching you embarrass my faith is hell.
But sometimes I wonder…“am I missing something?”
We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)
Are these people so filled with zeal for their faith that they feel the need to advertise it on the back of their motor vehicle? Does Christ need this kind of PR? I mean, would you jump in the car if this stranger offered you a ride?
In my perfect world, you leave your back bumper alone. I don’t care if your kid is an honor student at a school of one, I just don’t care. I am stuck reading the back of your car, not you, therefore I get final say about what you put back there. Moses had the tablets, Jesus had the Gospels, no one, neither God nor Buddha nor Bart Simpson needs your bumper.
And while we’re on that topic, if you can’t change my religion from your bumper what makes you think you can change my vote? No, that beautiful red, white and blue re-election sticker covering the rusted dent will not be the sign from God that I was looking for — now please at least drive the speed limit.
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” – Karl Marx
So, do these people breath special air? Do they get silly at the mere mention of God? Do these people really feel like they’ve done the Lord’s work when they shout at intersections filled with cars, all coincidentally rolling up their windows? Which commandment is the “thou shalt interrupt traffic” one?
And let’s do the math. Just how many people are supposed to be so moved by this holy work that they say to themselves “I want to do THAT! I want to be just like them! This is what heaven must be like!”?
Just for the record, the spirit I was taught said not to let the left hand know what work of charity the right hand was doing. It’s supposed to be between you and God — not you and Main Street.
Since the whole affair had become one of religion, the vanquished were of course exterminated. — Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
And the scary thing is how quickly some of these folks will start a fight. Let me give you an example, lets say I’m meeting someone for the first time. After small talk my new-found friend drops into our conversation that he’s a specific Christian denomination or belongs to a certain church. I casually answer by saying I’m from a different Christian denomination.
It starts with “the Look,” that “you can’t be serious” look, that look that condemns and demeans and hurts. But the best is yet to come.
Next comes the “I’m exercising my Christian Patience” sigh followed by the “Problem.”
“You see,” my new friend/evaluator of my very worth as a person says, “I can’t believe that any religion calling itself Christian can (fill in the blank here). It’s not (pick one: biblical, scriptural, moral, Christian, American, all of the above). How can you explain (previous topic here) and still follow Christ’s calling?”
Now don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t only happen between people of different Christian denominations, it also happens between believers of the same denomination.
See, here’s where I need things explained to me. I thought that non-Christians would know you were a Christian by the love you showed for everyone, not just to the pre-qualified. Suddenly, in less time than it takes to baptize a baby, I have been challenged, tried and convicted in a court of Christian heresy. I am a heretic, my soul is lost, cast adrift from my one decision not to agree with them.
Scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based. — Ambrose Bierce (1842 – 1914), The Devil’s Dictionary
Now combine that highly combustible personality trait with politics and you get not just stupid but a holy kind of stupid. Somehow the “Religious Right” now represents the “Moral Majority” of the country and any candidate that is not endorsed by them is somehow less moral than their candidate? Wait, aren’t these the same kids that can’t play in the same yard with each other because they can’t get along? What happened to the “Look” and the “Christian Patience Sigh”? How about the “Problem,” you guys all have “Problems” with each other but that doesn’t matter in an election year?
Let me get this right, the Word of “Our Savior” is not as much a unifying factor as the Word of “Our Candidate”?
And are these really my choices: Sacred Right Wing Candidate or Spawn of Satan? If I even tried to vote against the religiously-approved candidate would I be smitten upside the head (lovingly, of course) until I saw the error of my ways? In reality, isn’t there a middle ground?
And in reality, aren’t there people of alternate sexual preferences in the “Religious Right? Chances are, if you have to italicize your sexuality, you have no place in the “Majority.” But they’re there. Are you trying to tell me that EVERY delegate to the Republican National Convention is straight?
Or is that just an inconvenience in an election year? Or an inconvenience of reality?
In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point. — Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900)
Let’s see if I can keep up here: Science was created by the Church (capital C here because it was the only church in business in the 1400’s) to further explain God’s creation. Then suddenly, the findings of Science were not agreeing with the Teachings of the Church so it became necessary to push Science underground or face death. This cycle continued as the Church reformed itself and became the churches (small c because there were so many). In the meantime, Science kept going and eventually gained the trust of the People who turned to it to cure disease and improve life (just a few of the many things the church had been working on but never finished).
Eventually Science became a threat to the church and a group calling itself Fundamental said that if it wasn’t in the bible, it wasn’t true, even if they couldn’t agree as to what was in the bible. And to this day they hold great sway in American society. The same group that screamed when the USSR launched the first satellite, howled when Japan became an economic giant, and continues to make noise every time a job gets sent overseas.
Just checking.
The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. — George Washington (1732 – 1799)
Perhaps this quote upsets a few people. I found this quote on the web and would have to do significant research to find if it’s even true, but let’s just pretend it is.
Let’s see, if Christianity wasn’t the unofficial “official” religion of the land we wouldn’t have to worry about a “state” religion at all. In fact, according to the founding documents of our nation, not only would there be no “official” religion but there would be tolerance for anyone’s religion (except where bumper stickers are involved). If there actually were that sacred separation of church and state, it would be up to the person to vote what their head and their heart said, not an entity that claimed to speak for us all. Social issues could be tackled without regard as to whether you could partake in all of the rituals of your church.
Justice might not be completely blind but it would be blinder. We wouldn’t have Justices in Alabama use religion as a tool to get headlines nor presidents standing in front of huge religious campaign fundraisers.
And we would stop saying that “God is on our side.” Let’s get very real here folks, God doesn’t care which candidate gets in. Do you really think it matters to the Author of Creation that we have a (fill in the blank) ticket in 2004? Is his/her/its power really limited in any way, shape or form by the number of chads miscounted in a senior citizen community?
Do you really believe that the Plan of Creation rides on either of these candidates getting in?
In my humble opinion, we need to seriously consider separating church and state because it’s not changing anything in the big picture and probably only annoying any higher being associated with our politics. Like we need that, too?
Religion is meant to be bread for daily use, not cake for special occasions. — Author Unknown
If, in fact, this state religion of tolerance came to pass we would have one less facet to our identity. We would still have the usual differences of our sex, our heritage, our upbringing but we would be a step closer to just being American. Just being American is when we’re at our best. Just being American is what unified us in the first place. Just being American led to a remarkable country and some remarkable ideals. Why does it take tragedy for us to just be American and see our strength in our differences?
Ours is an age of criticism, to which everything must be subjected. The sacredness of religion, and the authority of legislation, are by many regarded as grounds for exemption from the examination by this tribunal, But, if they are exempted, and cannot lay claim to sincere respect, which reason accords only to that which has stood the test of a free and public examination. — Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804)
So, to answer my original question from so long ago, “am I missing something?” Yes, yes I am.
As much as I think that religion and politics only make fools of each other, I am grateful that knuckleheads can stand on the street corner and warn me of impending spiritual doom. We have a First Amendment and Freedoms that some in the world envy, some hate.
I am most happy that I live someplace where I can question authority and seek my own answers. In this “Information Age” it’s amazing how many times the facts just don’t speak for themselves. In this time of talk radio and “spun” news, its more important than ever to be able to ask and judge on your own findings and values.
And I am still NOT happy that people outside of my faith think that all Christians are called to stand on the street and shriek at them. The Good News here is that Freedom of Speech goes two ways.
You can always tell them that G-d told you to turn up your radio.
23 responses so far ↓
1 Mark // May 20, 2004 at 9:02 am
Nice piece of writing, Bob.
My personal favorite among the bumper stickers is the one that says, “Come the rapture, can I have your car?”
2 Nat // May 20, 2004 at 5:23 pm
Bob,
I wasn’t going to respond to your piece – as the tone is irritating and the topic dangerous in a medium such as this – but mark’s mockery of your contribution motivated me to get on the keyboard.
Rick complains that I don’t read the lead articles or respondent posts. He is wrong. I read them all. Some are well written and well presented arguments, but many are foolish expostulations exposing poor research, weak reasoning and misunderstandings bordering on insanity.
Analysis
________
Having sifted through your litany of complaints, my main conclusion is that you probably would do well to go your priest, or minister, and sit down with him and ask him to explain the very fundamentals of Christian theology.
Your complaints seem to dwell, broadly, on the attitude of the Christians who attempt to proselytize on street corners and the manner in which they choose to decorate their forms of transportation. You seem muddled about your reaction to their efforts. On one hand you express annoyance that they are doing what they’re doing, and on other the you express satisfaction that these folks have a right to do what they are doing.
But what seems to get to you most are the automobile bric-a-brac that some people decorate their cars with. This is where you show that you really don’t get it.
Focus on the inner man
______________________
The people who put those things on their cars are making a statement about themselves. It may be sincerely felt or it may be because of some need to belong, to affiliate. Whatever.
The point is this. Jesus would not care if you have a bumper sticker or not. His ministry was devoted to preaching the coming of The Kingdom of Heaven. If you look carefully enough you will see that Jesus did not give out rules. Rather he established principles. If we are intent on entering into the Kingdom, then it is up to us to embrace, in our hearts, the principles that he left us. This is the core center of Christian doctrine.
Jesus would brush aside the bumper stickers and the silly “what would Jesus do” bracelets because those are all externalities. Look how firecely he rebuked the Pharisees for their show of religion. The Pharisees would make a big show of giving to charity, they would walk up down wearing their phylacteries and looking all pious and so concerned that the Levitical code was being follwed to the nth degree blah dee blah dee blah.
What Jesus told people to do was to look inward. The Kingdom of Heaven is within, my good friend. Do not concern yourself over externalities, it is what is in your heart that will be the benchmark on The Day of Judgment.
Conclusion
__________
Next time you see the proselytizer on the street corner you should give thanks. Yes, as you said, give thanks that you live in America where they have the right to express themselves. But much more so, Bob, you should give thanks to God Almighty that there are people who are strong enough in the faith to be able to summon up the courage to even approach you on the street corner. These kind souls should be lauded, not scorned, because they are attempting to carry out The Great Commission which is to carry The Good News of Jesus Christ to the four corners of the earth.
And for that they deserve our admiration and thanks.
3 Mark // May 20, 2004 at 10:45 pm
Nat,
Not only are you unable to understand that I was not mocking Bob’s writing — your response shows you to be (to my reading) precisely the kind of person Bob is writing about.
Think about it, Nat. Then read Matthew 6, verses 5-6. It will probably upset you, but read it anyway.
4 Kent // May 20, 2004 at 11:32 pm
It always amazes me when those who advocate In Your Face proselytizing use the sentence “The Great Commission which is to carry The Good News of Jesus Christ to the four corners of the earth”. When there is actually no basis for their types of actions and strong evidence contrary to it.
Christians always state that they follow the bible and the actions of Jesus. However there is not a single passage in the bible that supports In Your Face proselytizing. Examining the action of Jesus according to any version of the bible you pick up, you find just the opposite. He always spoke when people came to see him, not by going to find people to speak too.
The most well known sermon was conducted on the Mount of Beatitudes, yet there was several near by towns where he could have been easily found groups of people. Capernaum and Tabgha are only about 10 to 15 minute walk away, yet he chose this hill overlooking the Sea of Galilee.
I have been to the Mount of Beatitudes twice now and can tell you it would have been easier to round up a bunch of people in either Capernaum or Tabgha. It would surely have been easier on those individuals to gather on the Plain of Gennesaret right below. He most certainly intended to provide his sermon to those who wanted to hear it.
The most amusing group are the ones that come to my door trying to sell their religion like a cheap box of candy.
5 Bob // May 21, 2004 at 6:16 am
Nat, speak of the devil….
I’ll be brief.
The article was written tongue-in-cheek, but it was modeled after you.
Your behavior on this blog has been more than just irritating, it has been an embarrassment. You, whether you admit it or not, are just like those who stand on the street corner. You are the prototypical Right-Wing Republican that I mocked.
Your previous words on this blog prove my point over and over.
And you rose to the bait just like I thought you would.
Perhaps you need to get YOU to a priest or minister. Or are you above that? Are you a Christian (certainly not by your behavior here) or are you just a personal consultant to God? Do you serve Him or in an advisory capacity?
Read your own words, Nat.
6 Rick // May 21, 2004 at 7:22 am
And Nat says,
Jesus…who was he?
A white guy? No. A Republican? No. A rich person? I don’t think so.
His commission?
Let’s pretend — just for this minute — that he was a real person. No…let’s go farther than that. Let’s pretend — just for this minute — that he was G-d. Just pretend.
How proud he would be of the people with fish on the back of their cars who pass me so quickly that I barely see the tails as the backwash nearly pushes me off the road?
“Kind souls,” indeed.
The fact of the matter is that Jesus spread his message to those who were willing to hear it. How do I know? Certainly not from those who call themselves Christians in modern America! Rather, it’s because the stories about him (which I, a non-Christian, actually read) say so. These stories are doubtful in no small part because of the people who claim to have been “changed” by having accepted his message — my G-d! what were they like before!
If the stories about Jesus were true, then it’s pretty darned bizarre that he spawned the modern-day Christians, running around shoving their messages down the throats of others, trying to force their way of life on those who do not willingly accept it, by attempting to use the power of the government to do so.
Carry the message all you want. But when you stop trying to force people to accept it, and instead carry it the way Jesus reportedly did, then maybe you’ll transform the world for the good.
Admiration and thanks. Heh… It takes more than beeping the message into people, more, even, than forcing acceptance by law (which is the wrong message anyway), to win admiration and thanks.
The message of Jesus, if there ever was one, needs to get a lot closer to its messengers than their bumpers, their shirts, or even hanging around their necks. The day I see it in their hearts I might pay it some attention.
7 Nat // May 21, 2004 at 10:07 am
Like I said, Bob, you’re highly irony-impaired. If THAT was tongue in cheek, I’m just glad I never have to listen to you tell a joke!! Man!
Stick to your straight-man role, Bob. Johnny Carson you’re not.
Bob, I’ve given you the key but it’s up to you to unlock the door. Maybe if the word “devil” was not every fourth word you write … that would be a good start.
Peace, bro.
8 Bob // May 21, 2004 at 10:12 am
“Peace, bro”?
From the only person on this blog to type STFU?
From Webster’s Dictionary:
Hypocrite – a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion.
That’s you Nat, in black and white. Considering how vile you’ve been to people in your writing you should be called much worse.
9 Rick // May 21, 2004 at 10:35 am
This conversation pushes me to feel that the folks asking me to moderate are right.
The new “Terms of Use” for this website will be written this weekend, even if it means I can’t blog because of the time commitments I have.
I’d be more active as it is, but I’m busy trying to write my first motion to dismiss. In my opinion, though, the personal attacks are out of hand.
The inability to be civil is driving other blog participants and potential blog participants away — I won’t post them, but I have the emails saying so.
Nat, your private emails to me indicating that you find this an acceptable “stylistic” thing and that you don’t really intend the vehemence that drips from your posts is, as I noted to you then, worse than unnecessary. If it comes down to allowing you to put these “stylistic” touches on your posts, or having more people involved in the discussion, I’ll be editing your posts for style.
Unfortunately, that means that, by the time I’m done, most of your posts will contain little more than your name.
10 Nat // May 21, 2004 at 10:40 am
Rick,
“Jesus…who was he?”
When “The Passion” came out I enjoyed a lively correspondence with a numbers of Rabbis. For the most part these were lovely men, full of wisdom, understanding and wit. Except for one, who was as unpleasant a Man of God as I have ever encountered and who predicted a Kristalnacht in the US which, of course, NEVER happened; they all acknowledged that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure.
“A white guy? No. A rich person? I don’t think so.”
No, he most definitely wasn’t a white guy. He was a Jew of Middle Eastern origin. His parents were not paupers but they were not wealthy either.
“His commission?”
The Great Commission is clearly stated in the Gospels.
“Let’s pretend ? just for this minute ? that he was a real person. No…let’s go farther than that. Let’s pretend ? just for this minute ? that he was G-d. Just pretend.”
That is purely insulting to all Christians. I am quite shocked at your insensitivity. Jesus’s physical existence was noted by the Romaan historian Josephus, among others. For you to question whether he was real is to ignore the witness of history, the writings of Saul of Tarsus and the body of evidence in the four gospels.
“How proud he would be of the people with fish on the back of their cars who pass me so quickly that I barely see the tails as the backwash nearly pushes me off the road?”
And you’re accusing ME of not reading posts? I already answered this. Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven in spiritual terms. He would not have been interested in externalities, such as Jesus fish, which are of the material world.
“These stories are doubtful in no small part because of the people who claim to have been “changed” by having accepted his message ? my G-d! what were they like before!”
So, some people annoy you by the way they carry on. Join the club. Lots of people annoy me too.
“Carry the message all you want. But when you stop trying to force people to accept it, and instead carry it the way Jesus reportedly did, then maybe you’ll transform the world for the good.”
Who’s “forcing” anybody? Someone gives you a religious tract on a street corner is “forcing” you? For crying out loud.
“The message of Jesus … needs to get a lot closer to its messengers than their bumpers, their shirts, or even hanging around their necks. The day I see it in their hearts I might pay it some attention”.
I said all of that in my post. Clearly, you didn’t read it.
The point of it all is this. Every person in their lifetime must face the challenge presented by Jesus. Regardless of what their religious persuasion is. You’ve obviously made up your mind and we will see, on the Day of Judgment, whether or not you are right or whether you are cast into the fires of Hell.
As for me, I’ve made my choice. You can call me a Right Wing Republican and all your trendy Liberal insults but I am standing firm in my faith in Jesus Christ as the gateway to the Kingdom of Heaven.
11 Rick // May 21, 2004 at 11:16 am
I like the subtle way you equated “standing firm in my faith in Jesus Christ as the gateway to the Kingdom of Heaven” with “Right Wing Republican.”
Until you said this, I barely realized that the true opposition isn’t “Democrats versus Republicans.” On the calculus you imply, it’s clear that the Democrats aren’t just “Liberals,” but are actually failing to stand firm in the faith.
I don’t think my refusal to accept what others have accepted — even rabbis — is any indication that I’m insulting Christianity. If G-d “himself” were to come down from heaven and tell me that I was wrong, I would be justified in arguing with “him,” as well; it would not be an insult.
If you (or anyone else) finds my doubt that Jesus was a historical figure an insult, how much more insulted should I feel when it is said, “Judaism? Forget that. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life: No one comes to G-d, but by him.” (Cf. John 14:6.) You may argue that my comment is an insult to Christians. If saying that Jesus may not have existed is an insult to Christians, then saying that Jesus did exist and arguing that you aren’t following the One True G-d unless you are following him is equally insulting to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists…and anyone else who isn’t a Christian.
But you don’t see that, or you don’t see it as a problem.
Which is exactly the point I was making before.
(And just like when you thought “making them parade around in their jammies” was an appropriate way of characterizing sexual humiliation, sexual assault and rape at Abu Ghraib, so now you take my comments about attempts to legislate Christian morality and morph them into someone giving out religious tracts on street corners.)
Rabbi Peter Knobel in his Kol Nidre message notes that “[w]ords have the power to destroy and words have the power to create.” Such weapons should be used with care. The “stylistic” use of words to hurt, the infliction of pain for fun, has a name: Sadism.
Ponder what I’ve said, Nat. Ponder it hard. My comment that I, personally, have doubts based upon my own reading and two years spent studying at a Freewill Baptist university are not intended as an insult. They are no more an insult to Christians than comments made to me by Christians that I’m going to burn in hell because I don’t believe that Jesus is G-d.
And they are certainly no more an insult than your “stylistic” ad hominem attacks.
Since you’re such an avid reader of the Bible, I’m looking forward to having you read Matthew 10:14. This blog will be a better place for it.
12 Mark // May 21, 2004 at 11:32 am
Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul)? Nat, Saul didn’t have his “vision” of Jesus until well after the man called Jesus of Nazareth was dead.
For what it’s worth, I do believe there was a rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth. The Nazareth part was necessary because, if I am to believe friends of mine who have studied this subject far more than I have, Jesus was not an uncommon name for a man in that era in that place. I personally don’t think Jesus ever thought of himself as anything other than a Jew.
As detailed in a post I did after another comment, Paul took what he considered to be the best parts of the faith in which he was raised (Judaism) and what he thought were the best parts of the predominant religion in his hometown (Mithraism) and merged them into what is now called Christianity. It doesn’t take much research to discover that the mythology and the rituals of Mithraism and Christianity are remarkably similar, from the wine and bread communion to the story about wise men bearing gifts following a star that leads them to a holy infant (Mithra/Jesus — take your pick) and a whole lot of other things in between (including your vision of “Judgement Day”).
Whether Paul ever had the vision he described is a matter of faith. I happen to believe he made the whole thing up. Obviously, you believe otherwise.
But to refer to Paul’s claimed vision as an historical fact is stretching it, Nat. It’s a matter of faith. And at least as of today, you still have the freedom in this country to hold whatever religious faith you wish.
13 Bob // May 21, 2004 at 11:48 am
Thus Saith Nat:
Also Saith Nat:
Nat proves again that Nat is a hypocrite.
And again saith Nat:
Gee, if I was a non believer, how could I turn down such a “warm” invitation? Who wouldn’t want the power to cast people who disgagree with you to hell? Where do I sign? When will the self-worth rush to my head and make me so self-important?
So much for that “love one another as I have have loved you” trivia. I don’t believe He was referring only to the pre-approved, it was supposed to apply to everyone you come in contact with. YOU don’t get to judge, Nat, sorry. The job of God is filled but we’ll hold your application in case anything opens up.
Hypocrite.
Outstanding. I have no arguement with this at all except don’t force your views on others. You cannot force someone to believe in your religion or your political party, you have to be an example they care to emulate. You have been something on this blog no one wants to emulate, politcally or spiritually.
You exemplify everything wrong with those who stand on the corner and shout at cars. You exemplify everything wrong with people who stop thinking because their candidate is “Christian”.
You’ll have to start treating people with respect and making some peace before anyone can take THAT seriously. Until then, please refrain from using that word.
14 Nat // May 21, 2004 at 1:20 pm
I said, at the beginning of this comment thread that this is a dangerous topic – for this medium – and I have been proved right.
Bob,
I’m recommending a course in Anger Management for you. You’re a little over the top, babe. You can call me a “hypocrite” and all sorts of ugly things but I can’t tease you about your shortcomings as a comedian?
Please. You’ve got to learn to lighten up, man.
mark,
You know, for once you have actually stumbled into the truth. IT IS all a matter of FAITH. You have to decide whether or not you’re going to make that leap. I’ve chosen to do it and I don’t regret it for a second. Doesn’t mean I don’t question aspects of theology, but as far as believing … I am there.
So, good job for once except that you are totally wrong about The Judgment Day. It is a
central point of early Christian, Jewish, and Islamic eschatology.
Rick,
Are you in a time bind today? I’ve never seen such kneejerk responses from you. I’ve never equated Republicanism with Christianity. That’s an invention entirely of your construction.
Oh, and factual point. From birth to death, Jesus was a very observant Jew. He said he did not come to change “one jot or tittle of the Law”. So your invention that he said “forget Judaism” is pure bunk.
IN ACTUAL FACT Jesus instructed his followers to love God and love each other because “on all this hangs all the Law and The Prophets”. In other words, Rick, the entire Jewish Bible (now known as the Old Testament) as it existed then. That’s not someone who is saying “forget Judaism”.
You believe what you want to believe. It doesn’t bother me whether you agree with me or not. All I know is there will be a Day of Judgment and you will be asked some questions about the positions you have taken. IMHO right now I think you’re on shaky ground.
And, yes I am a Bible scholar but I don’t have time to straighten you out on your obviously many misunderstandings. Here’s a great little one page reference source anytime you want to check something out before you spout off about what are and what are not Christian values.
http://web2.airmail.net/dpelc/yellow/
Peace.
15 Mark // May 21, 2004 at 2:09 pm
Nat,
Judgment Day is also a part of the mythology of Mithraism. Study it sometime. But I must warn you, the remarkable similarities to the much younger faith of Christianity will likely send chills up your spine.
16 Rick // May 21, 2004 at 2:17 pm
And so more from Nat,
We haven’t actually seen a comment thread in which you’ve been involved that hasn’t “been dangerous” — assuming that you’re talking about the manner of argumentation that’s happening here. Even if we had, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that religious discussions among people of varying religious views can sometimes be inflammatory. As with all such topics, I think the idea is to monitor one’s own speech about it as best one can. Will people sometimes feel insulted by what others say in such discussions? No doubt. No doubt at all. That’s why I don’t say things like, “I think you’re on shaky ground there, Bubba, holding those religious views you hold.”
And, for the record, you aren’t the only one who receives email suggestions from me concerning “style.”
And then,
I believe I said, “Until you said this,” by which I meant “until you said,”
And I then said that I read this as an implied statement of equality. You, of course, think my seeing this implication is “an invention.”
Perhaps.
But no more so than,
Firstly — since you accused me of insulting Christians by failing to agree that there was an historical Jesus — I’d like to point out that the Tanakh is still “known as” the Tanakh, at least by Jews. Perhaps many non-Jews, thanks to the near hegemony Christianity enjoys in many parts of the world, think of it as “the Old Testament.” I don’t. And I don’t personally know any other Jews who think of it as “the Old Testament.” Not that it’s insulting to indicate that my Bible has been supplanted by your Bible.
And, actually, if one reads anything into the way you quoted me (in the post to which I was originally responding above) and then followed that quote by saying that what I said was the insult, then it becomes a real question as to who was insulting whom. This appears to indicate that my insulting Christians was by saying I would pretend, e.g., “assume for the sake of argument,” that Jesus really was G-d instead of actually recognizing him as G-d. In short, you said I insulted Christians by being a Jew who does not recognize the divinity of a man I’m not even sure existed.
Secondly, nowhere in my post do I say that Jesus said “forget Judaism.” For one thing, remember, I didn’t even agree that the Jesus you talk about even existed, so certainly I didn’t quote “him” as having said anything. I did, however, say that this has been said — and I think from the context it’s pretty clear that I meant “by Christians.” But I’ll be more specific for you in the future.
Incidentally, your comment about Jesus not changing even “one jot or tittle of the law,” is sometimes read as “not an iota, not a dot” — same meaning — and comes from Matthew 5:17. It brings to mind a very funny letter purportedly written to Dr. Laura, a supposedly hardcore right-wing Christian radio host who never had sex with people to whom she wasn’t married nor posed for any pornographic photographs and has thus always been able (and willing) to cast the first stone:
And, lastly, Nat says,
Translation: “Here’s my opinion, devoid of any supporting arguments. I’m just spouting this unsupported opinion because I’m a Bible scholar [appeal to authority; but, wait, Rick spent some years studying the Bible, too, including translating Greek texts into English and reading parts of the Tanakh which he frequently quotes in both English and Hebrew]. But I have no time to support my arguments. Besides, it works better this way.”
No time…no time…
I don’t have much time, either, as I noted. I still make the time to support my arguments before simply stating to others that they’re on shaky ground.
Rick to Nat…come in, Nat: I’m not a Christian. I don’t accept your religious beliefs as providing a veridical view of the world. That doesn’t mean I insult your religious views. I simply don’t share, accept, embrace or otherwise adhere to them.
However shaky you think the ground under me may be, it’s my ground; when it comes to my religious beliefs, I’ll stand on it if I wish, just as you will stand on yours. 😉
17 Nat // May 21, 2004 at 2:46 pm
You are right about one thing. The Jewish Bible contains books not in the Old Testament. However, the point stands. Jesus did not disrespect the faith of Fathers and there was clearly no effort on my part to disrespect the Jewish Bible.
You don’t seem to get that we are basically Jews too. We don’t reject Judaism, we embrace it. Who do you think is the most powerful lobby supporting the State of Israel today? It’s the Christians.
Nat to Rick: I said – I don’t care that you don’t believe what I believe. Here’s what I said above:
“You believe what you want to believe. It doesn’t bother me whether you agree with me or not.”
I know what I believe and I’m entirely comfortable with that. What you want to believe or disbelieve is your business. To me religion is pretty much a personal matter. I jumped in here because Bob posed the question “am I missing something” and, in my view, he was.
18 Rick // May 21, 2004 at 2:59 pm
I believe the point I was making by saying “Nat to Rick” is that I’m not insulting Christians just because I don’t accept those views.
You indicated otherwise.
And I find it particularly interesting that you don’t feel you insulted me by misrepresenting the Tanakh as “the Old Testament” (which, incidentally, contains exactly the same books as the Tanakh — unless you use the Catholic version of the Christian Bible, which contains more), but you do feel that I insulted Christians by “pretending” Jesus was G-d for the sake of argument, rather than just accepting it.
And you may wish to identify yourself as “Jews too [sic],” but I don’t — for the same reason I don’t call myself a Christian.
Talk about hubris…Christians telling Jews who gets to count as Jews!
19 Nat // May 21, 2004 at 3:11 pm
It’s hard to argue with someone who employs the kind of circuitous logic that you do.
As I said no misrepresentation was intended and therefore you should not feel insulted. An insult could only happen if there was intent to make one.
You seem to think you’re obliged to embrace Christianity because we embrace Judaism? First I didn’t say that and second, I didn’t imply that.
WE embrace Judaism except for one central point. You reject Christianity on the same point. We have agreed to disagree. We’ll see on The Judgment Day who is right and who is wrong.
Why can’t you just leave it there?
20 Rick // May 21, 2004 at 3:36 pm
Uh…okay…here comes some more of my circuitous logic.
Nat One:
Nat Two:
Then,
You actually caused me to re-read my note, because I thought, “Huh? When did I say Nat said this?” After several readings, even attempting to translate it into other languages, I discovered — lo, and behold! — I never did say you said or implied that.
Then again,
Although I’m grateful to you for telling me why I reject Christianity, I have this non-inchoate feeling that you’re mistaken. (At least you’re consistent. First you tell me that Christians “are Jews too [sic]” — although I and many other Jews [maybe all, but I can’t speak for all Jews] would reject that contention — and now you tell me why I reject Christianity.) I reject Christianity on much more than just one point. Most Christians — at least according to the writings — also reject Judaism on more than just one point. What you do with it, I don’t know. It’s no doubt one of those “no insult possible unless intended/you insulted us” things. The sands shift according to which post you’re writing at the moment.
Not that it matters, but, for me, the major difference — but not the only one — betweeen Jews and Christians is that Judaism isn’t faith-based. It’s based upon actions. Jews aren’t perfect and, often, they’re not forgiven. Christians aren’t perfect, either, but apparently it doesn’t matter much, because they’re forgiven, so long as they profess to believe the right things.
That’s how it looks to me, anyway.
21 Mark // May 21, 2004 at 5:42 pm
I agree that the action versus belief debate is a major dividing line between Judaism and Christianity. From the Jewish emphasis on actions comes the teaching that those of other faiths may be considered to be good and righteous persons (based on the way they behave). This is a concept that I haven’t seen yet in Christianity.
22 Bob // May 21, 2004 at 8:17 pm
Let me see, a Christian, a Jew and an Athiest all believe in one thing, that Nat is an idiot!
It’ a miracle!
23 Rick // May 21, 2004 at 9:44 pm
I just want to be “on the record” as saying I don’t think it’s acceptable for us to call Nat on the name-calling, and then do it ourselves.
I’ve mentioned more than once that it’s appropriate to attack arguments, not people.
Although I understand the feelings Nat appears to find joy in evoking, I no more agree with name-calling from those who oppose Nat than I do from Nat.
And, incidentally, that same criticism would go for me if I give in to the pull to simply insult him via name-calling. It’s one thing to use his words against him and let others decide what label best fits him; it’s another to just spit out the label without delineating the supporting data.
This note should not, in any way, shape, or form, be construed as supporting Nat. I share a disgust for his methods, for what he calls his “style.” But I don’t feel I can rightly point to his rhetorical moves, which are often devoid of any real argumentation, and never say anything about anyone who does the same thing.
My apologies to any of my friends who are offended by this.
Leave a Comment