Bowing to a dictator Christ

[pnwmom]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-rigby/christians-who-want-democ_b_22942.html

Whereas American theology was born out of a hope for democracy, much of it is wedded to a picture of Christ as a benevolent dictator. Should we be surprised that a hierarchical cosmology would produce hierarchical churches and nations? Should we be surprised that religious nations that picture Christ as a loving dictator have produced conquistadors, inquisitors and crusaders?

SNIP

The word “Lord” was not in the original Bible. It is an English word from feudal times. Whereas the Greek word “kurios” had a range of meanings, from a title of respect, to a title of leadership, to a name for the sacred, the English translation “Lord” refers specifically to a male European land baron. Many people have softened that interpretation in their own minds, but in times of great stress, such nuance falls away and many Christians seek a white male king. He may be called “Pope”, he may be called “the decider President,” he may be called “televangelist,” but the title only masks what he is, a benevolent (or not so benevolent) dictator.

SNIP

The real Jesus was born illegitimately. He called himself “the human one.” Just like Buddha, his authority came from truth, not power. He taught whoever has love has God. He said those who work for the common good are his church.

The real Jesus was an anarchist. He spent his life refusing to claim power over anyone. He said that God is understood in terms of love not power. We add nothing to the majesty of “the human one” by adding a throne or a crown. If he did not want to rule over others in life, why should he want it in death? That is why Jesus is called “lamb of God,” he spoke not as the king of the universe, but from its heart.

SNIP

[rpannier]

1. very nice

thanks for sharing.

[pnwmom]

2. You're welcome, rpannier.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. Kicked and nominated, I wish I could get a link to this to hang at

FR.... it would last 10 seconds if that.

[pnwmom]

4. I'm afraid you're right. I doubt there's a single paragraph that would

survive their censor.

[Hekate]

5. Adonai means Lord; Ba'al means Master

Oy. The "original" Bible was not written in Greek, any more than it was written in English.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N
God has many appellations: YHWH, Elohim, Adonai, Ba'al, El, Shaddai, El'yon.

I hardly need to mention that Jesus was Jewish by birth and culture, and the culture of the time was hierarchical. It's quite likely he was a member of one of the various sects of the time -- the Essenes is one guess -- but the names of God he grew up hearing included those associated with kingship.

In the Lord's Prayer he referred to God as "father" -- but this was not the first time a gentle aspect of God was evoked, for the 23rd Psalm refers to God as a shepherd.

And so on. The Bible makes a fine Rorschach Test, for so much is in it that we can find nearly everything we are looking for. A God that is motherly, kind, nurturant, protective -- or cruel, despotic, jealous, destructive, vengeful -- all there.

Hekate

[pnwmom]

6. The New Testament wasn't part of the original Bible.

The original Bible was the "Old Testament," or the "Hebrew Bible."

Most scholars today think that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. That's why the author of the article referred to the meaning of the word "kurios" -- a Greek word.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

Most Jews accept as Scripture the same books as those found in the Protestant Old Testament, though the ordering of the books in the Jewish Bible differs from that of the Protestant English Old Testament. However, because Judaism does not accept the books of the New Testament as Scripture, they do not label their Bible "the Old Testament". For Jews the books of the Protestant Old Testament are simply "the Bible". Since the books of the Jewish Bible were written primarily in Hebrew (with some Aramaic), the Bible of Judaism is also called "the Hebrew Bible". The term "Hebrew Bible" is a theologically neutral term as compared with "the Old Testament", which is distinctively Christian. Another Jewish term for the Jewish Bible/Old Testament is Tanakh, which is short for Torah, Nebi'im, and Ketubim, or Law, Prophets and Writings, the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

"The common language spoken in the time of Jesus was Aramaic. However, the original text of the New Testament was most likely written in Koine Greek, the vernacular dialect in 1st-century Roman provinces, and has since been widely translated into other languages, most notably, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. However, some of the church fathers seem to imply that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or more likely Aramaic, and there is another contention that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, which was translated into Greek by Luke. Neither view holds much support among contemporary scholars, who argue that the literary facets of Matthew and Hebrews suggest that they were composed directly in Greek, rather than being translated.
It is notable that many books of the New Testament, especially the gospel of Mark and the book of Revelation, are written in relatively poor Greek.They are far from the refined Attic Greek or Classical Greek found composed by the higher classes, ruling elites, and trained philosophers of the time. Relative exceptions to this include the gospels of Luke and John and the Acts of the Apostles, the latter probably written or redacted by the same person who wrote or redacted Luke.
A very small minority of scholars consider the Aramaic version of the New Testament to be the original and believe the Greek is a translation (see Aramaic primacy)."

[Hekate]

7. I know.I refer to 2nd paragraph of your OP: "The word 'Lord' was not in...

"The word “Lord” was not in the original Bible."

I took "original Bible" to mean the Torah/Old Testament. The New Testament is another story, but still rooted in cultures not our own.

Hekate

[pnwmom]

10. From the context, a discussion of Jesus's words, it's clear that the OP

was talking about the New Testament. And so when he was talking about the language of the "original Bible" he meant the original language of the New Testament. But he should have said, "from the original language of the New Testament."

As to your other point, Jesus was a Jew who grew up in Jewish culture. But his words were revolutionary. He grew up in a hierarchical culture with an established religion, but he brought a new message, which Christians believe was recorded in the New Testament.

[Hekate]

11. Yes, his message was revolutionary for its time, & still valid today

I hope that as buried/forgotten texts have come to light, we will see another evolutionary step in how we look at Jesus and Christianity. These old writings (Nag Hammadi, Gnostic, Dead Sea) seem to me like a gift out of the past, jumping millenia to reach us when we most need them.

Hekate

[undergroundpanther]

8. jesus was an anarchist

Gnosis is Anti Archon.Anti-archon=anarchist..Archon is the root word of Authority,rulers.The state,the king,the lord land baron..
Alot of people think,and there is mounting evidence that early Christians were gnostics,and some were even dualist. I am a gnostic hermetic pangan blend and a dualist.You don't have to demonize the flesh or hate the world and see devils round every corner to be a dualist.

Read about anti archons and archons


- The early part of human history relates to our imprisonment and the injustice of the created world. A critical part of the Archon's agenda is to hide the truth of the Pleroma from their pawns. The chief of the Archons, the Demiurge, is particularly megalomaniacal and sadistic. He wants the world to worship him as the one true god.

As in Lord... in other words..THE LORD..of lords..Sound suspcious that a guy who sdays his kingdom is not of thisd world wants to come back kill of everyone who does not bend thier knee to him and install himself as the LORD?The bible is written with two voices of spirit and of archon. I throw out the shit written by archon.

http://againstarchons.blogspot.com/
http://www.haverford.edu/relg/faculty/amcguire/relg221b/hyparchons.htm
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/04/06/archons-hate-our-freedoms/

On account of the reality of the authorities, in the spirit of the Father of Truth the great apostle told us concerning the "authorities of darkness" that "our struggle is not against flesh and ; but against the authorities of the cosmos and the spiritual (forces) of evil." sent (you) this because you inquire about the reality authorities. <86.20-27>

Their great one is blind; power and his ignorance arrogance he said with his , "It is I who am god; there is none ." <86.27-31>

http://egina.blogspot.com/2004/12/gnosticism-101.html

[undergroundpanther]

9. An anarchists morality

PRE-CONVENTIONAL

* Stage One: Fear of punishment or respect for authority; no higher reasoning.

People operating at this level of moral development obey laws and authority out of a fear of punishment. Most conservative theorists think we all operate at this very basic, childish level of moral development, and are only held in check by the power of the state. This is a falsehood, however. Only a small percentage of a population operates at this basic level. Fascists and fundamentalist Christians are most likely to be found at this stage.

* Stage Two: Moral relativism, with a sense of equal exchange and fairness; rules should be followed only when they serve to advance your's or another's interests. Some individualism developed at this point.

This is a somewhat more common stage, which combines an awareness of the ideas of fairness and equality with opportunism -- that rules are to be obeyed when it is in your best interests to obey them. I suspect most capitalists operate on this level of moral development, as well as authoritarian socialists (Bolsheviks, Maoists, Trotskyites).

CONVENTIONAL
* Stage Three: Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") emphasized, valuation of trust, loyalty, respect, and gratitude -- heedful of expectations of others. They follow stereotypes of what is "good" around them. A sense of caring is developed at this stage.

* Stage Four: Adhering to Kant’s categorical imperative (e.g., "if everyone did this, would it produce the greatest good?"), avoiding actions that if undertaken would undermine the collective; recognizing a generalized moral system that defines roles and rules. They seek to fulfill agreed-upon duties.

I suspect that most people fall into these categories, with conservative moderates falling in Stage Three, and liberal moderates in Stage Four. Mainstream (not fundamentalist) Christians are likely operating at Stage Three on Kohlberg's scale, using God (and/or Jesus) as the stereotype of goodness, whereas the moderate liberal seeks a secular model in Stage Four in the idea of government.

POST-CONVENTIONAL (PRINCIPLED)
* Stage Five: Holds that values are still relative, but upholds them on basis of notions of social contract which requires obedience to shared laws; sees utilitarianism as justification for good (e.g., that which brings greatest good to greatest number of people is good).

This is probably the basic democratic socialist position. They seek to bring about the best situation to the most number of people, while still allowing themselves moral latitude -- e.g., opportunism. They see the state as a necessary and logical component for social justice to be realized.

* Stage Six: Sees development of personal commitment to universal moral principles such as justice, equal human rights, individual dignity; sees persons as ends unto themselves, and not means, and treats them as such.

This is where genuine anarchists find themselves. We oppose the state and capitalism because we see individuals reduced to the level of products and drones to be used and abused at the will of leaders; we hold justice and equality central to our beliefs. For a person at this level of moral development, anarchism is the only satisfying political theory. Everything else requires a compromise of one's internal values.

http://a4a.mahost.org/moral.html

[checks-n-balances]

15. Be sure to include the intro to the Kohlberg stages that you just posted:

"Lawrence Kohlberg created his Theory of Moral Development in the 1950s based on extensive research of boys between 10 and 16, in an effort to determine where morality (e.g., ethics) came from. The following is a cursory summary of his observations.

"Kohlberg theorized that there are six stages of moral development, with Stage One being the lowest, most basic level of moral development, and Stage Six being the highest. He also developed the idea of cognitive dissonance, whereby people operating at different levels of moral development would find communication nearly impossible.

"In other words, these people were operating from completely different paradigms -- speaking different moral languages, and would not be able to bridge that gap without considerable effort."

I really think Kohlberg makes a lot of sense applied to our Great Mental Divide, created in great part by reactionary misunderstanding of progressive thought. Let's not forget that part of his beliefs was that PEOPLE DO NOT SKIP STAGES IN THEIR UNDERSTANDING; THEY MOVE ONLY TO ONE STAGE AT A TIME. So obviously, it's difficult to understand what someone at stage 5 or 6 is saying if your definition of Right and Wrong is stuck at stage 1, 2, or even 3 understanding.

This has led me to strongly believe that you can't reason with someone at stage 1 on a stage 5 level, although that's the task we talk about all the time at DU. No wonder it seems so impossible!

If their thinking is at STAGE 1, present your point with a Stage 2 idea; i.e., let them know HOW YOUR BENEFITS THEM PERSONALLY.

If people are highly individualistic and only interested in how things benefit them personally (STAGE 2), they can begin to understand stage 3 thinking: that a GOOD AMERICAN (or a Good Citizen/Good Person or even a Good Christian, if it applies) would do or believe the point you are making.

I think many (albeit, not all) who are now disenchanted with GOP policy because it no longer benefits them personally. Sincerely altruistic people should be ready to go beyond understanding benevolence in highly individualistic terms (STAGE 3) into a broader understanding of THE COMMON GOOD (STAGE 4). Maybe they will be attracted to the idea that we will only survive and thrive if we ALL contribute unselfishly to society. If not, we cease to be even a resemblance to the culture upon which this country was built. At this point a person is FINALLY READY to actually understand The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Hey, at this point, it's unrealistic to expect our citizenry to Stage 5 or 6. If we could move back to Stage 4, where we have been in the better moments of our history, we will have made a giant leap in progress for our country (and the world as a whole). Moving to Stage 4 would be a worthy, miraculous goal.

[pnwmom]

20. Kohlberg makes a lot of sense.

And your idea about presenting ideas to people just a bit above where they are makes a lot of sense, too.

[NMMNG]

12. Oh my

Forward that article to a Fundie or Freeper and watch their head explode. :nuke: :rofl:

[pnwmom]

13. That might be fun. Got any addresses?

I don't hang around many people like that.

[NMMNG]

14. I don't hang around any people like that.

There's always Freak Repugnant and perhaps this board.

[Goblinmonger]

16. This, and you, are a perfect example

of what I have said many times on this forum. There are many people that I have gone back and forth with and disagreed with very sharply (we've had our times in different forums) but then there are moments like this where you say, "Damn, I like that person. That is someone I would like to have a beer with and talk to."

Thanks for reminding me of that.

[pnwmom]

18. Goblinmonger, thank you

for making my day. And, yes, I've enjoyed our conversations, too. Sometimes this place reminds me of sitting out in the hall in the dorm -- ages and ages ago -- and just gabbing. You know what I mean? My neighborhood is fine, but it's not exactly full of people interested in having these kinds of discussions.

Thanks for the boost.



:toast:

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. "Thy will be done": oh yes, very anarchistic, that

No, the Bible isn't about a dictator Christ; it's about a dictator God ("the Father", as far as the New Testament is concerned). A benevolent dictator God, but a dictator nonetheless. And other meanings of "kurios" include "master of a slave" - see http://www.irr.org/English-JW/tetra-appenC.pdf .

[pnwmom]

19. The message of the New Testament -- the word of Christ --

as I hear it -- is that God is Love.

Not a dictator. A Lover.

[struggle4progress]

21. This completely misses the subversive aspect of religion: the ..

.. State always believes that it is the highest good, and whatever official noises are made, the State tends always to demand from its subjects worship and devotion. Sometimes these demands are explicitly linked to a claim that the rulers of the State are gods or are godlike; sometimes, the demands masquerade behind piety; and these theological pretensions appear even in States that are nominally atheistic.

Against these State claims, the assertion -- that the State is NOT the highest authority or that humans have proper allegiences that transcend this State and all other States, is (in the eyes of the State itself) an act of sedition or treason -- while (in the eyes of the counter-claimant) it is an essential act of conscious conscience. And in what words can this fact be explained to the local tyrants? "You are merely the lord of this place, but above you is another lord, and above that one another and another and another -- but above them all is a Lord of All Lords, who rules over even the stars and whose command I must honor more than yours."

[PabloLego]

22. a narrow and bizarre interpretation of scripture...

that seems to do exactly what he accuses right-wing evangelicals of doing, interpreting scripture solely in the light of modern political doctrine. And as for Jesus being an anarchist, "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars" Matt. 22:21 and Mark 12:13-15...hardly an endorsement of modern anarchism.