The Tragic Story of Christianity: How a Pacifist Religion Was Hijacked by Rabid Warmongering Elites

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/story/153939/the_tragic_story_of_christianity%3A_how_a_pacifist_religion_was_hijacked_by_rabid_warmongering_elites/

From time to time, I read about condemnations of religion coming from non-religious groups, especially concerning the all-too-common violence perpetrated in the name of religious gods. Indeed there is plenty to condemn.

Altogether too many religions sects of both major and minor religions, despite verbally professing a desire for peace and justice in the world, are actually pro-war, pro-homicide and pro-violence in practice (or they may be silent on the subject, which is, according to moral theology, the same as being pro-violence).

Obvious examples include those portions of the three major war-justifying religions of the world: fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity.

I use the term fundamentalist in the sense that the religious person, who ascribes to a fundamentalist point of view, believes, among other dogmatic belief, that their scriptures are inerrant and thus they can find passages in their holy books that justify homicidal violence against their perceived or fingered enemies, while simultaneously ignoring the numerous contradictory passages that forbid violence and homicide and instead prescribe love, hospitality, mercy, forgiveness and reconciliation.

[Cassandra]

1. Fundamentalism is a psychological bent...

rather than a ideological or religious one. Those psychologically leaning in an authoritarian direction seek out religious and political doctrines that speak to their insecurities.

[xchrom]

3. i tend to think of them as being afraid of modernity.

i think that was true in the renaissance -- i think it's true today.

i also think certain church leaders are afraid of losing their positions of authority -- kind of a perfect storm.

[MisterP]

4. which historians of the Renaissance would you base those views on? that sounds really like

Burkhardt

[xchrom]

5. I'm really thinking of Savanarolla -

Originally his movement is about church corruption but quickly devolved into book burning.

Burkhardt, though is a good one.

[izquierdista]

2. Fundaments

Next time you ponder the term "fundamentalist", look up the root word, fundament.

[DeSwiss]

7. As an etymological groupie.....

...I thank you for that one!

[font size=5]FUNDAMENT - Anus or Buttocks[/font]

- I can think of no other word that could fit them better.......

K&R

[meow2u3]

16. In other words, fundamentalist is a fancy term for an asshole

We have a dictionary to prove it!

[tclambert]

11. The better term for them is fundamentists?

[66 dmhlt]

14. Thanks! That's a GREAT little tidbit to know!

[Uncle Joe]

6. I believe the author has put his finger on a fundamental truth.

Thanks for the thread, xchrom.

[patrice]

8. Nailed. It. I "need a cigarette"!!

Behind the scenes, of course, there are hidden elites — amoral, politically and financially motivated operatives who are embedded in these religious organizations — who, through the strength of their political power, can easily manipulate the followers into clamoring for war, not against their enemies, but rather against the enemies of the ruling elites: the politicians, the financiers and the other exploiters of natural resources.

IMO, the current cohort of these hidden elites, with the assistance of such as The Order of the Golden Spur & this outfit here http://www.tfp.org/ , sold their souls for a chance to name a SCOTUS justice and the price was War on an innocent & sovereign nation known as Iraq.

[WingDinger]

20. Went to an Evangelical Church a girlfriend wanted me to see.

One of the elites, having heard me giggle at their lameass liturgy, accusing the back row of being witches, telling those with teens, to place oil soaked rags under their pillow, to control them, and babbling in tongues, said he had a word from God for me and dont leave till he had given it.

I said, that before he give the word, I thought his one upmanship, implying a closer connection to God, was garbage.

He said, God would KILL me, and soon.

I put my hand on his shoulder, and asked him to explain to me how these activities are biblical? He said, I gotta go over here, bye!

PS. Still here.

[patrice]

24. "witches" + "oil soaked rags"!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT IS THAT??? a threat???!!!!!

That person is superstitious!!

[chervilant]

9. hmm...

I am reminded of two books that may interest you:

Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Legends by Barbara Walker (especially the details of the Christ myth)

and

The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby

Virtually ANY attempt to expose the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of our species' contemporary mythologies is met with resistance and derision...

[Cassandra]

27. The Chalice and the Blade is good, too.

[chervilant]

28. True

I agree. I like Elaine Pagels and Joseph Campbell as resources--they help explain our current mythologies as continuations of the oral myths which predate our species' ability to set type.

[Angry Dragon]

10. I have thought that the god of the Old Testament was a very selfish,

jealous and vengeful god.
He killed whole civilizations just because he wanted people to love him.
Killed people because they did not love him the correct way.
Hard to build a peaceful and loving relationship on that kind of foundation.

[Uncle Joe]

21. I believe that's why Jesus built a new foundation from that of the Old Testament.

Raising the phrase and conception of "Son of Man" or human from a flawed creation of God to that of offspring.

From the Old Testament.

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

"EzekielThe Book of Ezekiel is unique within the tradition of the Tanakh, in that as the story unfolds, the phrase son of man is used approximately 94 times by a divine being to refer to the author. For example:

Ezekiel 2

1 He said to me, Son of man (בן־אדם : [ben-'adam]), stand on your feet, and I will speak with you. 2 The Spirit entered into me when he spoke to me, and set me on my feet; and I heard him who spoke to me. 3 He said to me, Son of man (בן־אדם : [ben-'adam]), I send you to the children of Israel, to nations that are rebellious, which have rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me even to this very day. 4 The children are impudent and stiff-hearted: I do send you to them; and you shall tell them, Thus says the Lord YHWH. 5 They, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, (for they are a rebellious house,) yet shall know that there has been a prophet among them. 6 You, son of man (בן־אדם : [ben-'adam]), don’t be afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with you, and you do dwell among scorpions: don’t be afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they are a rebellious house. 7 You shall speak my words to them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear; for they are most rebellious. 8 But you, son of man (בן־אדם : [ben-'adam]), hear what I tell you; don’t be you rebellious like that rebellious house: open your mouth, and eat that which I give you. 9 When I looked, behold, a hand was put forth to me; and, behold, a scroll of a book was therein; 10 He spread it before me: and it was written within and without; and there were written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.

Son of man here appears to be a title referring to the humanity of the author, much how the word "human" may suffice in English. It is not a respectful appellation, but a humbling one (in some cases, an arguably abject one), and this use is a consistent pattern throughout Ezekiel."

as compared to Jesus's take on the "Son of Man"

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

"The "Rock" dialogueIn a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples (Matthew 16:13-20), Jesus asks, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” The disciples give various answers. When he asks, "Who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answers, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." In turn, Jesus declares Peter to be "blessed" for having recognized Jesus' true identity and attributes this recognition to a divine revelation. Then Jesus addresses Simon by what seems to have been the nickname "Peter" (Cephas in Aramaic, Petros [rock] in Greek) and says, "On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."

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

"The Lord's Prayer (also called the Pater Noster[1] or Our Father[2]) is a central prayer in Christianity. In the New Testament of the Christian Bible, it appears in two forms: in the Gospel of Matthew[3] as part of the discourse on ostentation in the Sermon on the Mount, and in the Gospel of Luke, which records Jesus being approached by "one of his disciples" with a request to teach them "to pray as John taught his disciples."[4] The prayer concludes with "deliver us from evil" in Matthew, and with "lead us not into temptation" in Luke. The liturgical form is Matthean. Some Christians, particularly Protestants, conclude the prayer with a doxology, an addendum appearing in some manuscripts of Matthew."

"Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil."

[tclambert]

12. I blame ORGANIZED religion, which exists for the purpose of engrandizing the organizers.

They always try to insert themselves in the org chart between the worshippers and God. The temptation to which many of the organizers succumb is to believe their position in the church hierarchy makes them holier or somehow spiritually superior to the rank and file worshippers and thus deserving of worshipful obedience. They may start out with honorable intentions (and not always), then greed for power, greed for money, and often greed for sex follows as the night the day.

[zeemike]

13. Calling them fundamentalist is really Orwellian.

Because the fundamentals of Christianity are peace, love and understanding...and that is clear if you read the words of Jesus.
In days of old when most people could not read they had an excuse because they did not know the truth...now they don't so they accept the Orwellian doublespeak in order to maintain their positions.

[sarge43]

15. When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, it became a tool

of an authoritian, aggressive government. Quell surprise that the religion would become authoritian and aggressive.

[WingDinger]

17. Much was left out.

Even among Jesus disciples, there were if not daggermen, at least daggermen sympathizers. Daggermen were those opposed to government interference, in this case Rome. They would assassinate Roman pols, and all those within Israel, that cooperated with them.

Jesus, by finally making clear, that they had it all wrong, and he would not be creating the Government to topple Rome, set in motion his demise. The Sannhedrin, and other conservative elements in Judaism, started MFing Jesus to their Roman contacts. Judas Iscariat
betrayed Jesus out of his own sense of betrayal.

The Romans started killing and torturing Christians, as they understood the fundamentalist threat that the daggermen posed, might ignite. Thus, Constantine making Christianity an offer they couldnt refuse.

That of course, made it a state religion. NAtionalism is the evil. Hypernationalism, is evil incarnate. It is the going beyond the intended evolutionary bounds of INGROUP. Extend TRIBE out to national borders, and something very bad happens to human nature. As we arent affected by a random person dying on the other side of our country, unless it is by another tribe killing our own. At which point we are about expunging the other whole tribe.

It is TRIBALISM, and not religion that is the culprit. Religion is simply the tool they use to accomplish evil. As Einstein said, nationalism, is the measles of mankind.

Instead of obliquely attacking religion, and it's tendencies, we must address the real enemy, ignorance, provincialism, resource inequality, and in particular, those that manipulate these things in men that don't analyze their pull.

Far from treating all religious leaders as roughly equal, those such as Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and others that espouse nationalism, they must be warred against. This includes particularly, Mormonism. As they are the HYPERNATIONALIST sect. Used liberally as FBI and other sensitive zealot posts.

FOlks, religion is simply the organizing principle evil men use to accomplish imperialist aims. It is not itself the evil. Men of manipulative ambition are.

[patrice]

18. Thank you for these interesting observations. I would be interested in seeing what

you think about the Black Bloc within the Occupy.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cancer_of_occupy_20120206/

[WingDinger]

19. Turn them out. Excommunicate them forcefully, if needed. Shun them in front of Media.

How do you think society might view OCCUPY, as they shove haters out towards cops, authoriity etc? Give fair warning, that anyone that acts violently, will immediately be thrown towards the cops. The cops will know that this is why, and will scoop them up. This will satisfy the cops, that are charged with public safety. Therefore leaving alone all those peacefully protesting.

Society watching this, will praise those not violent, and contrast them.

At the same time, tell those in power and authority, that economic inequality will at some point make those prone to violence, outside of our ability to stop.

[patrice]

23. I could support this as long as we authentically address the root causes of the violence. If it's

violence for violence's sake, violence for disruption, we should be able to identify that, but I have seen manipulators (Borderline personality-disordered?) around our occupy. They CAN just play that authentically committed effort into distraction too. At some point, it is necessary, for someone(s) to act vertically and deal with what's going on.

I just don't want to throw away an opportunity to address REAL problems, authentic injustice, in order to get away from what may or may not be the Black Bloc, don't want to turn what could be sincere Occupiers into the Black Bloc, because it was easier than figuring it all out, separating the sheep from the goats and dealing with each appropriately to their commitment to being Us.

[WingDinger]

25. I went to Occupy san diego. They were lighting up a joint, as the cops passed.

I was disheartened, and was reluctant to post anything. The bulk of the crew were marching, and these were the homeless left behind. Some of occupy we would not vote to represent us. But, they are entitled to economic justice, and more in need of it than we.

Yes, real violent persons, are outnumbered. If they present themselves as violent, not in response to head getting bashed, but first response, shove them forward. Simple. Cops being alerted to this, will act.

[patrice]

26. Homeless/Street-people culture is extremely fucked-up. It's not like you or me only just without a

home; that's kind of what I expected. It's entirely different.

All anarchists should live homeless *F*O*R* *R*E*A*L*, because THAT'S anarchy. I bet some of them, young anarchists in particular, would change their minds. There's nothing to admire in opportunities to get profoundly enslaved to drugs and alcohol ESPECIALLY when you have NO money. Nothing to admire in constant threats and possibilities of assault, random violence, sexual coercion. Nothing to admire in eating whatever. Nothing to admire in getting AIDS. Nothing to admire in getting Tuberculosis. Nothing to admire in every kind of accident possible threatening your life and limb. Nothing to admire in late-stage alcoholism. It IS slavery.

And I suppose the anarcho-syndacalists amongst them figure that's the way around that slavery. Just find your tribe and do what you want, but the basis upon which those tribes form OUT OF SLAVERY will shape what they are and how they function.

The only real solution is authentic freedom and that means the authentic power to choose not to light that joint, to choose to do to others as you would have them do unto you, to choose to respect and to honor freely.

Thinking Fight Club now: I suppose there are those who will choose to do violence to others, because, as the golden rule says, that's what they want done to themselves. They want that experience. I know ex- (non-combat) military who demonstrate this kind of lust. Perhaps the rest of us should let them step forward. Let them have what THEY want without forcing that on others. If they care about freedom as much as they SAY the do, they will want others who choose differently to step back as they step forward and meet their fate.

[libodem]

22. Most excellent

Piece. Comments rock, too. Glad to be amongst smart thinkers.

K&R

[Manifestor_of_Light]

29. Christianity is NOT a pacifist religion.

Jesus allegedly said many hateful and cruel things which Christians like to ignore.

Cussing out a fig tree that did not fruit out of season, condemning people to hell that did not like his preaching, coming not in peace but with a sword, etc....there are LOTS of NT verses with hateful intent.

[Uncle Joe]

30. The fig tree was a method of teaching pacifism

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Mark 11:12-14 and 11:20-25[2]

"The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
....

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!” “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pacifism leads with the thought and/or prayer followed by the action, you believe yourself to be a pacifist and those thoughts guide your actions.

Jesus was teaching that as children of God, our thoughts and/or prayers have great power.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34), part of the Lesser Commission, is one of the controversial statements reported of Jesus in the Bible. The saying has been interpreted in several ways. Its main significance is that it is often offered as evidence that Jesus advocated violence—a view that is repugnant to many branches of Christianity, such as the peace churches. Many Christians believe that the sword is a metaphor for ideological conflict and that Jesus is not advocating physical violence, especially since he talks of division in a family immediately after."

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As I posted upthread, I believe the "ideological conflict" came with Jesus redefining "son of man" or "human" from flawed creation to children of God. This threatened the dictates of the top down power structure of the day.

The only time Jesus ever became physically violent was in throwing out the "money changers" aka; businessmen of day from the Temple which also served as the government.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

In this episode Jesus and his disciples travel to Jerusalem for Passover, where he expels the money changers from the Temple, accusing them of turning the Temple to a den of thieves through their commercial activities.[1][2] In the Gospel of John Jesus refers to the Temple as “my Father’s house” thus in some views making a claim to being the Son of God.[3]

This is the only account of Jesus using physical force in any of the Gospels. The narrative occurs near the end of the Synoptic Gospels (at Mark 11:15–19, 11:27–33, Matthew 21:12–17, 21:23–27 and Luke 19:45–48, 20:1–8) and near the start in the Gospel of John (at John 2:13–16). Some scholars believe that these refer to two separate incidents, given that the Gospel of John includes more than one passover.[4]

(snip)

Creating a whip from some cords, “he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. But he said to those who sold doves, ‘Get these out of here! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!’[Jn 2:13-16]”

Israel Museum model of Herod's Temple, referred to in John 2:13.“ And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
”
— Matthew 21:12-13

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe the "ideological conflict" brought about by Jesus challenging the corrupted power structures of the day were the primary reason for his crucifixion.