 |
| The true god is white, radiates purity, and uses cave salt to condition his hair. You can still gain entrance to heaven if you don't believe the last part with perfect faith. |
I don't have statistics, but certainly I must comment more on Christianity than on Judaism. Partly this is because Christian themes are more prevalent in the blogs I read. Christianity is also easier to deal with, as, alas, blogs on Jewish subjects can be so esoteric and irrelevant.
So, I came across a Christian blog that asks "Are Mormons 'Christian'?" With admirable charity, the blogger concludes "sure they are." I am most interested, however, in one paragraph:
I mentioned a while back that I have quite liberal standards as to who I would fellowship with and who I would consider to be “Christian”. Personally, I don’t cast people “outside the camp” who reject the Trinity, the virgin birth, or any number of other doctrinal issues. It has been said that you can not be saved by a false God. That is all good and true but I think it is also correct to say that the true God can save whoever he wants to, and I just don’t see where Jesus taught about orthodoxy being the key to inheriting eternal life.Now, I am no Christian. I have no dog in the fight over whether Mormons are or are not Christians. But this question over who is a true whatever captures for me the whole problem of religion. That problem is the tension between adherence to doctrine and performance of moral behavior.
The writer of the post can afford to be magnanimous toward Mormons only by de-coupling doctrine and morality. One can hold orthodox beliefs and behave in ways that are or are not socially acceptable. One can reject some or all orthodox beliefs and also behave in ways that are or are not socially acceptable. One can behave like a good or a bad person, regardless of the doctrines one professes.
Once we accept that real actions towards others are more important than sectarian beliefs, it's a small logical step to realizing that moral behavior should be valued over any held religious belief. From there, we can ask the real question: what do we need these doctrines and dogmas for, anyway? Can't we just let them go and focus instead on how people act, especially toward others?
In the end, quite literally, the writer is left to weakly offer the carrot of "eternal life." Does anyone really buy the eternal life bit anymore? Really? Hasn't the term "eternal life" lost all sense of force? Does anyone need to be coerced by eternal life into behaving properly?
We need to grow up as a species.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNot to sound too much like a Bible thumping Christian... but...
ReplyDelete“. . . I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”(John 14:6)
and
Wouldn't Jesus comment that "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 10:33)
along with
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18)
Do not these series of doctrinal comments imply, I should think, a strict adherence to doctrine? At least as far as Christianity is concerned?
That's where I think more liberal Christians get hung up--they want to practice secular values without relinquishing the 'sense' that they are still a part of Christianity.
But it never ceases to amaze me how they can take things so liberally and still call it Christianity and be satisfied. It seems like they are trying to have it two ways--they want to be Christian--but at the same time they want to uphold their secular values/lifestyles--but since they can't do both, precisely because of strict doctrinal reasons, they manipulate that doctrine until it becomes an entirely different doctrine--a hybrid doctrine of secular values attached to Christian ones.
***
I think you are right when you say Christians tend to decouple their faith from doctrinal matters as separate from morality, while only pretending they are still whole, but I do not think most Christians are aware they are doing it.
My theory has come to be that most Christians are just generally ignorant of what the NT teaches, and so when their own "Christian" beliefs are often times unwittingly in conflict with the teachings of Christian doctrine. Other times, they are just trying to have it both ways.
Either way, they do not know, or they do, but they don't seem to care all that much--because the moment you point it out to them they go about harmonizing away any difficulties so they can maintain a separation of a strict Christian doctrine and practice of a lose Christian lifestyle largely influenced by secular values, while pretending it's all part of one unified philosophy.
I find the habit rather peculiar. Even as I myself came out of Christianity, in reflection, I never realized that was what I was doing. But looking back it seems extremely confused--to say the least.
Tristan,
ReplyDeleteFirst: How are you and yours? Everyone OK, I hope? Where is help still needed?
Second, you say: "That's where I think more liberal Christians get hung up--they want to practice secular values without relinquishing the 'sense' that they are still a part of Christianity.
But it never ceases to amaze me how they can take things so liberally and still call it Christianity and be satisfied. It seems like they are trying to have it two ways--they want to be Christian--but at the same time they want to uphold their secular values/lifestyles--but since they can't do both, precisely because of strict doctrinal reasons, they manipulate that doctrine until it becomes an entirely different doctrine--a hybrid doctrine of secular values attached to Christian ones."
Exactly.