Whispers on Real Christianity
Next article: A Double-shot of Standards
Previous article: The Twelfth Imam
Theodora (SWMNBN) recently tackled a saddening, maddening topic: Violence in the name of religion.
This excerpt was part of a larger comment that rather called into question the clarity of the commenter’s mind, but it certainly calls for an answer from Christians.
“History is replete with examples of religious leaders and followers advocating, supporting, and participating in blatant evil. Regardless of attempts to shift or deny blame, history clearly records the widespread crimes of Christianity. Whether we’re talking about the abominations of the Inquisition, Crusades, the greed and genocide of colonizers, slavery in the Americas, or the Bush administration’s recent deeds and results, Christianity has always spawned great evil. The deeds of many Muslims and the state of Israel are also prime examples.”So what is “real” Christianity? Is it the doctrine of Christianity, which is most eloquently expressed in these two simple sentences? “Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemy and do good to those who harm you.”
Or is it the practice and results of what people do in the name of Christianity, which is, sadly, so viciously described above?
Read the rest: Whispers on Earth: What is Real Christianity?
Although the comment she quotes is from another blog entirely, I can guess that her conversation on this blog about the pope’s recent injuring of Muslim pride has probably remained on her mind, especially the last few comments: Does the Hydra of violence rear its ugly heads in every religion or are some exempt by virtue of their superior doctrinal foundation?
Theodora ends by quoting Richard Feynman: “The keys to heaven and to hell are the same. It’s all in what door you open with them.” This quote is quite similar to the one her post inspired for me, by Alexander (Aleksandr) Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago:
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committeing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn’t change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.
I found this quoted at length in a blog article by the “Crunchy Con” Rod Dreher on beliefnet. Dreher quotes more, including Solzhenitsyn’s conclusion that the difference between the evils of the twentieth century and ages past is ideology.
Most major world religions can respond that the essentials of their religions eschew violence and evil of any kind. Even those that do not have modern, liberal advocates who have ingenious ways of explaining why their scriptures do not really advocate violence.
I also think that a malaise of modern, liberal society is tied up in this: There are a growing number of people who do not value freedom precisely as a human right. They accept it, not as an “inalienable” right “endowed by their Creator,” but as a privilege bestowed by the State, which of course has absolute, not limited, sovereignty. They do not believe that our liberal way of life is worth defending with blood, in the same way that it was established, nor do they believe that others deserve it. Or, if they do believe that others are deserving of liberty, they have difficulty believing that there are men in the world bent on destroying freedom.
As a sidebar: There was no ability to comment directly on Theodora’s blog. This brought back the memories of the old days when you commented on someone’s blog by writing a blog article of your own. It was years, in fact, before I even enabled comments here. My attitude, in fact, was: If you want to comment on what I write, get your own blog!
The URL to trackback this post is:
http://kevinbasil.com/2006/10/03/whispers-on-real-christianity/trackback/
4 Responses to “Whispers on Real Christianity”
Copyright © 2002–2011 Kevin Robert (Basil) Fritts, all rights reserved.
October 5th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Hi Basil, you can comment now. I accidentally turned off the comments and it took a long time for my non-computer-savvy self to figure out how to fix it.
I have appreciated the Orthodox view on heaven and hell…as something we choose from moment to moment. When we choose heaven, I believe we choose freedom of all sorts.
Imagine if for one moment only, everyone in the world chose heaven all at once! Can you imagine what the repercussion would be of that one instant of freedom!
October 9th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
The Adam & Eve story is taken from a Chaldean myth. It never really happened. Christians say we need a savior, since those people in the garden were disobedient. Since the Adam & Eve story never really happened, we DO NOT need a savior. We are our own savior. By trying to live a righteous life, we progress thru many lifetimes to a perfected state.
LOVE TO ALL
October 9th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
I disagree, Guru. I mean, yes, the Adam&Eve story is a myth, but I very much disagree that we don’t need a savior, and I disagree that Christianity says we need a savior because those two in the garden were disobedient. Even in Catholicism, the doctrine of original sin only goes so far; we need a savior because of US.
And every time I TRY to lead a righteous life, it ends up being at best self-righteous…If perfection is the goal, there’s no way in the world I can save myself.
Would you be so kind as to identify the religion of which you are a guru?
October 15th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Basil, I’m just finishing Under The Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer. A fairly interesting read that takes a look at Mormonism & Mormon Fundamentalism…a serious amount of violence in this history, & Christ seemingly as a mere footnote to all of it, even though his name is part of the name of their church.
An interesting quote from a chapter heading:
“Critical examination of the lives & beliefs of gurus demonstrates that our psychiatric labels & our conceptions of what is or is not mental illness are woefully inadequate. How, for example, does one distinguish an unorthodox or bizarre faith from delusion?…
Gurus are isolated people, dependent on their disciples, with no possibility of being disciplined by a Church or criticized by contemporaries. They are above the law. The guru usurps the place of God. Whether gurus have suffered from manic-depressive illness, scizophrenia, or any other form of recognized, diagnosable mental illness is interesting but ultimately unimportant. What distinguishes gurus from more orthodox teachers is not their manic-depressive mood swings, not their thought disorders, not their delusional beliefs, not their hallucinatory visions, not their mystical states of ecstasy: it is their narcissism.”
Anthony Storr, FEET OF CLAY