A lot of Christians are undeniably stupid... very, very stupid. One quick walk down the road on a Saturday night and you find yourself bombarded with leaflets showing all the strange and interesting things that will inevitably happen to you if you don't sign up for Pastor xyz's special 'cleanse all my sins' seminar ($69.90 + GST). You listen to people talking online, trying desperately to explain how Adam managed to name every animal on earth within a 24 hour period, and you begin to think some very low thoughts of that partiular faith.
Yet, as the majority of people with a passing interest in the subject should have realised is that these people are far from a good representation of the average Christian (probably a better person to represent Christianity as a whole would be someone in Latin America practising a fairly orthodox Catholic brand of Christianity mixed with Ancient Amerindian traditions). Indeed the arguments often used to debase Christianity, its judgemental and only for idiots, are completely baseless. Many of history's finest minds have been religious and Christian; Newton, Coppernicus, Da Vinci, Washington, Wellesly, Lincoln, Churchill; while the largest Christian Church (the Catholic church) preaches that mere mortals have no right to say who will and who won't end up in hell...
In fact most mainstream churches reject ideas such as Creationism and Intelligent Design as fundamentalist doctrine... why then is Christianity cast in such a dim light? And why do so many of the 'intellectuals' in our society chose to become sneering atheists?
The first question is difficult to answer, but the second is relatively easy. Most of society's sneering atheists, in reality, have the intellectual capacity of a baked apple, that is to say, none whatsoever. One only needs to here someone bleeting on their blog about the crusades like some tired record that's been stuck on the same track for the past 600 years to realise most have very little concept of the religion they attack with such relish...
There are probably 2 main causes of this. The first is a teenage rejection of what their parents believe in that continues on into adulthood; "Mum and Dad de me go to church, so I'm not going to believe in God... yeah, we'll see how they like that!" The second is an attempt to fit in with bourgeois, fashionably socialist, "intellectuals". Anyone with pretences of socialism, who drives an audi is instantly suspicious...
In such circles, where the pretense of socialism rules supreme, religion as the "opiate of the masses" has become quite the accepted theory. It gives them grounds to sneer at the poor people without making the real reasons too obvious. Christianity has become a handy avenue.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Christianity, Socialism and Capitalism
The traditional Alliance we have seen between the Christian churches and the Capitalist system is one that once examined more closely, makes no sense whatsoever.
The teachings of Jesus on which the Christian churches are based stress ideas such as 'sharing' and 'self sacrifice'. Indeed the early Christians lived in communities which in many respects would have been seen as ideal models by later leftist thinkers such as Marx. Property was owned by the community rather than the individual. This can be seen in Paul's letter to one such community, in which he criticises a member for refusing to share his wealth with the remainder. Is this not the a socialist society?
If we then examine the Capitalist system, we can see this is far less in line with the teachings of Jesus. The capitalist system is based around the indivudual striving to meet the needs and desires of him or herself at the possible expense of others. It places particular value on ideas such as material wealth which mainstream Christian churches reject.
If we look at Guevara's ideal of the "hombre nuevo", we see it shows striking similarities to the idea of the perfect Christian, a man motivated by "moralistic rather than materialistic rewards"... it sounds almost like a quote from the Bible.
Perhaps it is time that Christian and Socialist Leaders both take a big step back and look at the what their core values are...
The teachings of Jesus on which the Christian churches are based stress ideas such as 'sharing' and 'self sacrifice'. Indeed the early Christians lived in communities which in many respects would have been seen as ideal models by later leftist thinkers such as Marx. Property was owned by the community rather than the individual. This can be seen in Paul's letter to one such community, in which he criticises a member for refusing to share his wealth with the remainder. Is this not the a socialist society?
If we then examine the Capitalist system, we can see this is far less in line with the teachings of Jesus. The capitalist system is based around the indivudual striving to meet the needs and desires of him or herself at the possible expense of others. It places particular value on ideas such as material wealth which mainstream Christian churches reject.
If we look at Guevara's ideal of the "hombre nuevo", we see it shows striking similarities to the idea of the perfect Christian, a man motivated by "moralistic rather than materialistic rewards"... it sounds almost like a quote from the Bible.
Perhaps it is time that Christian and Socialist Leaders both take a big step back and look at the what their core values are...
The Spread of Freedom and Democracy
(originally as a comment on http://whatarthurthinks.blogspot.com/)
When examining the concept of democracisation in the world today, i.e. the tendency of certain Western Nations to go about attempting to spread Democracy we shouldn't so much ask what "the price of democracy" is, as what the "value of democracy is."
In the Middle Ages Christendom lauched numerous crusades against the infidel East, to capture the holy land and to spread Christianity. It is somewhat ironic that the Middle East remains the battleground of idealogies. Now though, the Christian West has been replaced by the Democratic West.
When we talk of democracy, emancipation etc etc, we must consider where that ideology is coming from. Since the last rifles were laid down in 1945, the West decideed that Democracy was the "worst system, apart from all the others", and set about trying to spread this manner of enlightenment to the poor opressed masses the world over.
However, in doing so the West has shown the most arrogant attitute concievable. It talks about embracing foreign cultures on one hand, while on the other attempting to force democracy on people at gunpoint.
as we can see in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been a great deal of resistance to this. Is this because people resent chosing their own rules? No, it is because people resent being told what to do in their own country.. just as I would resent someone breaking into my house and rearranging the furniture. It may be true that the chairs and sofas are in better places now, but the places they were in before were my places. Maybe the armchair was a little bit hard to get to, but I put it there. People dislike being forced to change by others.
In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was definitely not popular, but people are similarly unhappy about a Regime and a system that was effectively created by Washington. It's not that the system is bad, but it isn't their system.
The West needs to take a big step back and allow Nations to forge their own destiny if we are to avoid more Iraqs. Maybe the West can give a subtle hint that the chair might look better under the window, and even give a hand moving it, but in the end, people need ownership of their systems of Government.
When examining the concept of democracisation in the world today, i.e. the tendency of certain Western Nations to go about attempting to spread Democracy we shouldn't so much ask what "the price of democracy" is, as what the "value of democracy is."
In the Middle Ages Christendom lauched numerous crusades against the infidel East, to capture the holy land and to spread Christianity. It is somewhat ironic that the Middle East remains the battleground of idealogies. Now though, the Christian West has been replaced by the Democratic West.
When we talk of democracy, emancipation etc etc, we must consider where that ideology is coming from. Since the last rifles were laid down in 1945, the West decideed that Democracy was the "worst system, apart from all the others", and set about trying to spread this manner of enlightenment to the poor opressed masses the world over.
However, in doing so the West has shown the most arrogant attitute concievable. It talks about embracing foreign cultures on one hand, while on the other attempting to force democracy on people at gunpoint.
as we can see in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been a great deal of resistance to this. Is this because people resent chosing their own rules? No, it is because people resent being told what to do in their own country.. just as I would resent someone breaking into my house and rearranging the furniture. It may be true that the chairs and sofas are in better places now, but the places they were in before were my places. Maybe the armchair was a little bit hard to get to, but I put it there. People dislike being forced to change by others.
In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was definitely not popular, but people are similarly unhappy about a Regime and a system that was effectively created by Washington. It's not that the system is bad, but it isn't their system.
The West needs to take a big step back and allow Nations to forge their own destiny if we are to avoid more Iraqs. Maybe the West can give a subtle hint that the chair might look better under the window, and even give a hand moving it, but in the end, people need ownership of their systems of Government.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
