9 Comments

There’s always been a thread of rationality to the Christian religion…as taught to me. And this is one of those Christ quotes that have been running through my head as I’ve tried a comparative analysis of Islam/Christianity.

While no longer a practicing Christian, most Christian traditions emphasize the individual?s ability to make decisions. The only major division within the Christian tradition is the role of the church in determining the relationship man has to his god.

As practiced today Christianity is about doing those things that are required of a Christian without the penalties imposed for failing to meet that standard being imposed here on earth. Those penalties will be imposed by a civil society…where the mis-administration of justice will be balanced by life in the hereafter.

The import of this is that either “redemption” can be viewed as a form of denial or, as a form of acceptance. One of the reasons why the stories of Ezekiel and Daniel are so important to Christian belief.

So, imposed political belief can be accepted. This transduction of Jewish/Christian beliefs leads to a transcendental view that allows the modern man to accept limitations to individual action as a voluntary acceptance of the role society must have to serve each of us.

Or, more briefly, read Locke.

I assume that smiting on the cheek was, in Biblical times as it was later, an attack on the ego; a challenge. In the movies it was typically done with a pair of gloves and a statement like “Thou varlet…” Jesus did not say “If a man stabbeth you in the back, turn the other shoulder blade.”

I think the point is that Christianity recognizes (and often recognized, starting with Christ) the separation between Church and state. The original Christians didn’t push their religion on anyone, and they didn’t behead heretics.

Contrast this to the modern Islamists.

It even makes a Catholic Athiest like Falacci have faith in Christianity. As she wrote in “The Force of Reason” in those words were the seeds of seperation of church and state …

PS – ISLAM = Theocracy , just in case you were wondering.

There is also the charge to do unto others as you would have them do unto you and love thy neighbor. I can think of some folks in the Middle East that could take a lesson from that as well.

Roger,

There’s always the divine Ms. M.

Orianna Fallaci now defines herself as a “Christian Atheist”.

jesus was a rabbi – a pharisaic rabbi, and nothing he said is antithetical to judaism.

he uttered many debatable points – as was the pharisaic tradition and as the talmud embodies.

he was crucified for violating roman law, not the torah.

when he attacked the moneychangers in the temple and the Hasmonean royal family and the priesthood he was defending the faith, and attacking the sacriligious corrupters. and the quizlings.

jews orignally preached that we each ultimately answer to a higher authority than any mortal king and to a law higher than any written by man, and that is why jews were perseuted and why jesus was killed.

caesar WAS god to rome, an absolute tyrant. who could’t tolerate any competition in any realm – secular or religious.

some of us still believe in a higher law – in Natural Law. and, in lines that should not be crossed, though they can be: like abortion and EMBRYONIC stem cell abuse and euthanasia.

others think that these issues are too personal or too religious in nature for a secular libertarian society to ge involved, and they want the government to “stay out!”

IMHO: this is where the radical secularists become advocates for libertinage.

i say that liberty without natural law (natural, universal, unalterable, inalienable, transcendent constraints) always becomes libertineage. because without transcendent laws ANYTHING any individual wants to do must be allowed. i just don’t think that always yields good behavior, or pro-social behavior.

which is why i think the BEST golden rule is not the christian one, but the hillelian one – the one by Rabbi Hillel, (not the one by Rabbi Jesus):

jesus said: “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

hillel said: “do NOT do unto others what you would you would object to being done unto you.”

hillel’s formulation actually leads to better behavior.

(close your eyes and think MASOCHIST amd imagine what he would do under each system. under rabbi jesus’s edict, he would hurt others – because he likes pain. but under hillel’s he would do nothing bad.)

the ten commandments are similar – in that they list ony things you must NOT do – and only ten. God is saying: you can do everything/anything else – as long as you don’t do these 10 things. that’s a pretty liberating program! [jews have more commandments.]

similarly, our constitution limits the powers of the state to those enumerated, those UN-ENUMERATED ARE SAID TO BELONG TO THE PEOPLE. we the people are sovereign. the government gets it LIMITED powers from us – and ony the ones we assign to it.

and Rog’, utlimately – it is my firm belief – that Natural Law and the sanctity of the individual – as sovereign over his self – is the bedrock of secular-but-not-atheistic government by consent of the governed, and not your quote – “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s…”

Consent of the governed is what ultimatley limits the power of the state, and prevents totalitarianism.

which is why NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY TOTALITARIAN MOVEMENT – not marxism or baathism or binladenism – has ever held free elections and governed by continuous consent of the people.

hamas and hizballah are ARMED jihadothuggery “militias” which gained strength through INITIMIDATION. if they had been disarmed BEFORE the elections – as they should have been – then they would NOT have won.

hamas – having won in the WB and Gaza – has not enacted a single part of their radical religious program, EXCEPT to attack and try to destroy israel.

the moment hamas and hizballah really try to enact sharia is the day they start a HUGE bloddy “civil war.”

I suppose I’ve used this particular quote from Jesus more in the last few years than at any stage in the last 40 years. It’s just made for Judeo/Christian/Muslim debates and so directly points to the crucial difference with the Muslim world.

Vast tracts of the Muslim world have no interest in Jihad, but this one tenant of the Faith that requires them to fall in line with 7th century dogma robs them of their future.

JC