Christianity confuses me!
Feb. 7th, 2004 05:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livSo, months ago, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rysmiel asked me to go into detail about what it is about Christianity that I find so off-putting. I've been thinking about this in the intervening months, and I think I'm about at the stage where I can try to write it up.
I am aware that there are a number of Christians (of various flavours) reading this. This isn't a disclaimer, as such; if you want to take offence at this little essay, you're probably entitled to. To a very large extent, I'm shelving all I have learnt in over a decade of serious commitment to Jewish-Christian dialogue, and reverting to my eight-year-old self who got into trouble for complaining to my form teacher, But your religion makes no sense! I do want to point out, though, that I don't mean this in any way as a personal slight against any Christian individual. I am also very well aware that Christianity isn't monolithic, and I do already realize that you could almost certainly point to a Christian who doesn't do or believe any one of the items on the list.
A parable that I rather like: To-what-may-this-be-compared? A traveller comes to a foreign country. He peeks in through the windows of a building, and sees people moving about in a bizarre way. These foreigners are right weird, he concludes, as he goes on his way. Later, a second traveller arrives at the same building. Instead of peeking through the windows, he knocks on the door. The foreigners welcome him in and he finds himself in a dance hall. At the moment I'm being the first traveller; Christianity looks weird to me because I don't hear the music.
rysmiel asked me to go into detail about what it is about Christianity that I find so off-putting. I've been thinking about this in the intervening months, and I think I'm about at the stage where I can try to write it up. I am aware that there are a number of Christians (of various flavours) reading this. This isn't a disclaimer, as such; if you want to take offence at this little essay, you're probably entitled to. To a very large extent, I'm shelving all I have learnt in over a decade of serious commitment to Jewish-Christian dialogue, and reverting to my eight-year-old self who got into trouble for complaining to my form teacher, But your religion makes no sense! I do want to point out, though, that I don't mean this in any way as a personal slight against any Christian individual. I am also very well aware that Christianity isn't monolithic, and I do already realize that you could almost certainly point to a Christian who doesn't do or believe any one of the items on the list.
A parable that I rather like: To-what-may-this-be-compared? A traveller comes to a foreign country. He peeks in through the windows of a building, and sees people moving about in a bizarre way. These foreigners are right weird, he concludes, as he goes on his way. Later, a second traveller arrives at the same building. Instead of peeking through the windows, he knocks on the door. The foreigners welcome him in and he finds himself in a dance hall. At the moment I'm being the first traveller; Christianity looks weird to me because I don't hear the music.
- Translated texts. OK, some Christians don't take the Bible seriously, which is fine. But those who do think that Scripture has authority really confuse me when they don't bother to learn the original languages. I don't get how anyone is prepared to take someone else's word for what a sacred text actually says.
- Vows. Christians seem to be positively encouraged to make vows, and religious vows at that, all over the place. Vows that are not time-limited, vows that they have no way of being sure that they will be able to keep, vows that are too general so it's not clear what one is vowing. And there seems to be almost an expectation that vows will be broken. The kinds of Christians who accept divorce still make marriage vows, for example. Christians even make vows on behalf of others, which I find a seriously unpleasant concept.
I know several people who prefer to publicly name themselves oathbreaker rather than live in a way that would be untrue to themselves. I have nothing but admiration for people who are brave enough to make that decision, but it seems to me a very bad thing for a religion to create the kind of situation where this is likely to be a frequent outcome. There are even, apparently, formal religious structures for abjuring / renouncing / annulling vows, which does suggest that the system is geared for vows not to be kept. And as for encouraging children to make vows they are too young to understand, that's simply obscene. - Original Sin. Yeah, this is a pretty obvious one. Stereotypically, the Jewish / OT view of God is perceived as being too focussed on Justice (as opposed to Mercy). So maybe I'm living up to the stereotype a bit here, but I'm inclined to ask, Will not the Judge of all the earth do justice?; how can one follow a God who would be so utterly unfair as to blame the whole of humanity for something Adam and Eve did?
- Faith. Following on a bit from the previous one, I find it offensive that someone can live a completely blameless, even a saintly life, making the world a better place, and yet be condemned because they have wrong ideas about some extremely complicated matters of theology. I have no problem in principle that I don't understand how something like the Trinity is supposed to work, but I do have a problem if this means I'm going to Hell, however wonderful a person I may be. The converse, that someone who is absolutely horrible and vile, but manages all the mental gymnastics to understand and believe all the ins and outs of Christian teaching, can be forgiven, is less problematic; forgiveness is on the whole a good thing. It does seem a bit odd that it's predicated on having exactly the right views about such things as the nature of God, though, especially since I'm kind of inclined to think that anything that can reasonably be called God is probably beyond ordinary human understanding.
- Proselytizing. This is the big one, for me. However many aspects of Christianity I don't understand, (and there are lots I haven't listed here, because I'm focussing on the ones that really make my skin crawl), in general my attitude would be, well, that's because I'm ignorant, and trying to understand the Divine is so complicated that it's reasonable that different religions are going to come up with different approaches to spirituality. But proselytizing goes completely against that pluralism which is far more fundamental to who I am than any particular position I happen to take on any topic. I don't like proselytizing in general, but religious proselytizing is the very worst kind, it's an attack on something which, for those who are religious, is the very foundation of their life and identity.
I suppose this does follow from the previous bullet-point; if one believes that theology is all-important, then it makes sense to want to bring as many people as possible to the 'correct' beliefs and thus to salvation. But it's so appallingly, sickeningly arrogant. (I'm not talking about the fact that certain evangelists use really crass methods of trying to get converts, I'm talking about the principle of holding that as an aim at all.) It's really, really hard for me to respect a belief system that is based on such a total lack of respect for not only my beliefs, but for those of anyone who thinks differently from the believer.
Please feel absolutely free to argue with me, or tell me that I've got the wrong impression of how Christianity actually works, or whatever. Discussion is good.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 06:27 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-07 06:31 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-07 08:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-08 06:46 pm (UTC)How is this question relevant? It depends massively how you define the continuity between the nomads who originally joined the Abrahamic covenant and modern day Jews!
To say that the band of nomads is still around is a near-meaningless assertion. You might as well argue that the Trojan empire still flourishes because Aeneas founded the Roman empire and parts of Europe still show Roman influence.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 07:45 pm (UTC)That goes back to the 'not hearing the music' thing. I think it's very hard to understand a religion unless you're seeing it from the inside. This may well mean that religion is all baloney and based on circular arguments; I don't happen to think this is the case, but it may be so. I find religions other than Judaism confusing, but I expect this because I simply don't know enough about them. And this is why I try to learn as much as I can through my interfaith work. But I know I'll always be an outsider.
The thing is, with Christianity, simply from being immersed in it, I know more about it than other religions that are not my own, and yet it still confuses me far more than, say, Islam or Sikhism. I just keep choking on the proselytizing thing, which makes it that much harder for me to say, oh well, different set of concepts and different culture from mine, no wonder I don't really understand.
For example, how can anyone seriously believe that the Supreme Being cut a special deal with an obscure band of nomads?
This doesn't seem significantly more remarkable than that said Supreme Being cares about humanity at all, much less that mere humans can have an almost-personal relationship with God. I can easily see why someone might have a problem with those things, and indeed that strikes me as a perfectly respectable argument for deism. But given a personal, involved God, why should a special deal with obscure nomads be particularly problematic?
Doesn't the whole idea of a Chosen People imply massive disrespect for everybody else?
I honestly don't think so. No more than the fact that I'd choose a plumber to fix my boiler implies that I have disrepect for electricians.
I think that people who are not part of my group have a different contribution from me to make to God's plan. Their beliefs may be good or bad, they are just not my beliefs. Christians, AIUI, think that people who are not part of their group are simply wrong, and their beliefs are worthless. To me, the second attitude is far more disrepectful. It may be that I am misrepresenting Christianity here, but that's the impression I have, and that's what bothers me.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-07 08:05 pm (UTC)On the personal God thing, I have seen it from the inside. I was once a practicing Anglican. Ultimately I find the phlosophical and logical contortions necessary to reconcile a loving God with the presence of evil quite bizarre. Certainly in other context than organised religion such beliefs would get one diagnosed as schizophrenic.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-08 07:01 pm (UTC)Does Islam not also proselytise and hold that other groups are wrong?
Sorta. From what I know about it I find their attitude a lot less offensive than the Christian equivalent. Muslims, in my experience, feel that it is their duty to educate people about Islam, so that they are able to make informed decisions. This can still result in the annoyance of being pamphletted and buttonholed and generally preached at (indeed, in the past few months I have encountered Muslims who are nearly as annoying as the worst kinds of Christians!), but the annoyance isn't really what bothers me, so much as the core attitude that we're right and everyone else is wrong, which seems to be largely absent from Islam.
Muslims, I believe, also have the nice getout that anyone who lives a life that is acceptable to God counts as Muslim anyway, regardless of whether they formally convert or even have heard of Islam. Well, still I prefer the attitude I have picked up from Judaism that non-Jews are just as likely to be good people as Jews. But at least saying that everyone who lives a godly life is de facto Muslim is, IMO, preferable to saying that non-Christians are intrinsically inferior, no matter how exemplary their life. I do know of some liberal Christians who have a similar idea; yes, you have to be Christian to be saved, but it's possible in their view to be a Christian without knowing it.
On the personal God thing, I have seen it from the inside. I was once a practicing Anglican.
I do apologize if I implied that you were speaking from ignorance. I meant to emphasize that I don't know what I'm talking about, but I can see how it could be interpreted to apply to you, which wasn't my intention at all.
Ultimately I find the phlosophical and logical contortions necessary to reconcile a loving God with the presence of evil quite bizarre
Hmm, the problem of evil. That was something I was thinking about adding to my list of 'why I don't get Christianity'. Because it seems to me that by theologizing evil you risk making evil sound like a positive thing. I will try to formulate a more properly thought out comment than that, though.
This kind of thing is tangential to my not getting the concept of faith, though. The thing is, there are plenty of Jews, probably even the majority, who have heterodox views about all sorts of things, and for the most part they're still Jewish. Whereas if you're Christian, you have to accept all that doctrine wholesale or else stop being Christian. That strikes me as putting a huge burden on Christians; it seems to me, as a person of rather little faith as these things go, rather difficult to be constant and unwavering in all your beliefs, especially where such fraught metaphysical questions are concerned.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-08 08:04 pm (UTC)Islamic states traditionally levied extra taxes on non-believers and excluded them from all kinds of public office.which was certainly intended as an incentive to convert. According to the Koran it also a capital offence to become an apostate or to seek to convert Muslims to another faith.
Whereas if you're Christian, you have to accept all that doctrine wholesale or else stop being Christian
I don't think we are comparing apples to apples here. 'Being Jewish' isn't just about religion whereas 'being Christian' is. So you can still claim to be Jewish even if you reject all the religious stuff (my father in law for example).
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-09 09:48 pm (UTC)If I wanted to be really snide, I could draw a comparison with how Christians were treating non-Christians at the equivalent point in history. But that would derail the discussion from what I'm actually trying to talk about; it's far too easy to point to examples of representatives of any given religion behaving despicably, and so what?
Seriously, maybe I'm just weird, but here I am, I'm neither Christian nor Muslim. And somehow, the idea of Muslims saying to me, you're not one of us, extra tax, offends me much much less than the idea of Christians saying to me (however kindly), you're not one of us, I feel so sorry for you because your life is completely meaningless and you haven't understood the fundamental truth.
According to the Koran
I don't really want to get into the game of matching up scriptural quotations. It would only take me a little digging to provide a list of liberal-sounding quotes from the Koran and compare them to the most exclusive, illiberal soundbites from the Bible. I don't think that would be productive though, especially as I have only a passing familiarity with the NT (and no solid idea of how Christians generally read it), and an absolutely minimal knowledge of the Koran. To the extent that I don't even know where I can find a reliable translation.
it also a capital offence to become an apostate or to seek to convert Muslims to another faith.
It's true, Islam's emphasis on physical justice is one of the things that can make it unpalatable to western liberals. I personally am against the death penalty, and have serious issues with any kind of corporal punishment, particularly when it's excessive as the mutilation prescribed by Sharia. But really, most cultures have practiced capital and corporal punishment at some point during their history, so this isn't a fundamental problem for me. And I can't help feeling some sympathy for the concept of severe punishment for people who try to convert others!
It's hard to put my finger on why Islam seems perfectly reasonable and sensible to me, while I have such a strong reaction against (certain aspects of) Christianity. Neither is my tradition, after all. I can perfectly well make a case against Islam, if I want to (I can even more easily make a case against Judaism, of course!) but it's a purely intellectual exercise, I don't feel a gut reaction against it.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 10:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-10 09:39 pm (UTC)I don't think it's better or worse than Christianity either, which is why I find it strange that Islam provokes a 'different, but interesting' reaction, whereas Christianity makes me feel, 'woah, weird, I don't get that at all'. I'm not claiming my reaction in either case is entirely rational.
I do believe that they both believe in proseletising (sp?)
I'm not confident of how to spell it either! It's true that some Muslims proselytize some of the time, and I'm not mad on this, because I don't like proselytizing in general. But I find it more palatable than Christian evangelism, I think mainly because of the underlying views of the standing of non-Muslim religions.
It's easier for me to live up to my standards of tolerance when it comes to Islam; it doesn't emotionally appeal to me, but I accept it as part of desirable religious diversity. I know I should take a similar attitude to Christianity, but I struggle. That's more something wrong with me than something wrong with Christianity, I'm well aware of this!
in different times and different places have displayed considerable intolerance
Well, sure, all religions have intolerant people and sometimes the intolerant approach is in the ascendant. There are even a few historical examples of Jews proselytizing aggressively and even violently, and a few fringe Jewish sects who effectively proselytize nowadays, and I disapprove of them too, even though they're theoretically part of the same religion as me. But somehow, even tolerant, fluffy, liberal Christians seem to be expressing coming from a viewpoint that I find very difficult to accept on an emotional level.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-13 05:27 pm (UTC)I don't think we are comparing apples to apples here. 'Being Jewish' isn't just about religion whereas 'being Christian' is. So you can still claim to be Jewish even if you reject all the religious stuff
This is a good point, and one I'd forgotten. I was rather thinking about being, if you like, actively Jewish, being involved in the (religious) Jewish community, living a recognisably Jewish life, etc, without necessarily believing anything much. But the distinction is of course blurred, and I do tend to forget that not all religions work like that.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 09:35 pm (UTC)Ask any who say that (or that only Christians can be saved) just why they are putting limits on Divine Grace.
Whereas if you're Christian, you have to accept all that doctrine wholesale or else stop being Christian.
Depends on what you mean by "all that doctrine" and which church. Judaism isn't just a religion, it's a culture as well, and it is hard to say that someone isn't a member of a culture. A better perspective would be to say that they aren't an Orthodox Jew or the like.
'Sides, there have been at least two heretical Anglican/Episcopalian bishops in the last 20 years (and I think it's three). If the Bishop of Durham can claim not to believe in the Resurection...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-20 01:19 pm (UTC)Ask any who say that (or that only Christians can be saved) just why they are putting limits on Divine Grace.
Oh dear, now we're into Capitalized Christian Concepts. I was afraid that would happen. One of the major obstacles I have found to getting more of a handle on Christianity has been that when I ask about something, it often turns out that there's some CCC that I don't understand. I'm never going to make sense of what's confusing me until I understand the concept of Salvation, or Faith, or Love, or... Grace.
The CCCs are mostly things that have correlates in normal English, except that they seem to mean something entirely different when they're capitalized. And I suppose they're part of the reason why I listed Faith as one of the aspects of Christianity that bother me. I mean, if in order to feel any less alienated by Christianity (let alone achieve whatever goal it is that Christians think I should be aiming for) I have to understand these CCCs, which no-one seems to be able to explain to me, what hope is there?
The thing is, I wasn't talking about any sort of limits on anything to do with God. I was talking about limits on humanity; my understanding is that, because of original sin, people who are not Christian are inferior in God's eyes. So how does that connect to putting limits on Divine Grace? And would you care to have a try at explaining what you, at least, mean by Divine Grace? I'd appreciate it. Even if the answer is 'if you have it, you just know', at least that would be something I could interact with logically.
That said, there's also a fairly strong philosophical tradition within Judaism (the Kabbalists ran away with it, but it's in other places too) that it is necessary to invoke some kind of limit to the Divine, so's to speak, in order that physical reality can exist. But that's starting to get complicated.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-24 02:05 am (UTC)I haven't come across a particular reluctance to try and explain Capitalised Christian Concepts; if you're still interested, give me a list and possibly what your current definitions are, and I'll give it a go.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-06 07:18 am (UTC)I haven't come across a particular reluctance to try and explain Capitalised Christian Concepts
I didn't mean that Christians are reluctant do explain, just they are not able to explain in a way that I understand, even though they make genunine and sincere efforts to explain. Because words don't derive meaning from definition, they derive meaning from usage. I'm starting to suspect that CCCs are so tied in to the whole Christian context that there's simply no analogy in the world I'm familiar with to allow me to get a handle on them. It's also perfectly possible that I'm just stupid, of course!
Just as an example, this is a real discussion I had recently with a (perfectly lovely and well-intentioned, I should add) Christian:
if you're still interested
Most certainly still interested. It's very discouraging to spend this much time observing and studying another religion, and still being this clueless about how it fits together!
give me a list
OK, list in a new comment so I don't run out of room here.
I'll give it a go
Thanks, that's a very kind offer! I hope I won't annoy you too much if I'm slow to understand.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-06 07:54 am (UTC)Normal meaning: a collection of sounds with a meaning established by the consensus of people who use it, usually mapping on to a fairly simple concept
My best guess at a Christian meaning: the means by which God interacts with creation; (also scripture, prophesy)
Faith
Normal meaning: belief in something that one is not compelled by evidence to believe; expectation that a person will be adequate to the task that is expected of them
Christian meaning: something similar to the above, but wrt God / Jesus specifically; something that Christians possess
Grace
Normal meaning: elegance, beauty of movement or form
Christian meaning: an aspect of the interaction of God with people; divine favour or generosity; a property that makes things have quasi-miraculous effects; something that Christians possess
Salvation
Normal meaning: rare, almost always used as a directly religious metaphor; rescue from extreme danger, possibly
Christian meaning: being eligible for heaven or other reward; being excused / forgiven from sin.
Love
Normal meaning: this one's a bit of a cheat, because it's pretty ill-defined even in the normal world! Um, affectionate commitment to another person?
Christian meaning: an aspect of the relationship of a worshipper with God; evangelism
Son
Normal meaning: male offspring
Christian meaning: a person who simultaneously both is God and is in a close relationship with God
Suffering
Normal meaning: something extremely unpleasant; the totality of unpleasant experiences
Christian meaning: unpleasant experiences which have a range of theologically positive effects (counteracting sin, furthering God's plan, sustaining free will, demonstrating love)
***
There are probably more, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Sorry if my guesses at Christian meanings sound a bit irreverent; I'm really trying to get my head round this, and I'm confused, I'm not trying to be critical.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-20 01:39 pm (UTC)Um. People keep telling me that Judaism is a culture, which I suppose is fair enough. But are you seriously telling me that Christianity isn't a culture?
The idea that a religion can exist entirely outside culture seems implausible to me. I find it less difficult to grasp the idea that one's religion could be restricted to cultic matters, without any influence on culture and daily life, but I personally would find it hard to have much respect for any religion that worked like that.
A better perspective would be to say that they aren't an Orthodox Jew or the like.
I think you've slightly misunderstood what is meant by the term Orthodox Jew. I mean, it's an easy enough mistake to make, because the very word Orthodox looks like it ought to mean 'believing the right stuff'. But that's not in fact what Orthodox Judaism is. You'll probably find as many Orthodox Jews who don't believe in anything as you will in other movements; possibly you'll even find more, because a lot of the time belief is simply not discussed in that sector of the community.
There are indeed a few groups within Judaism who put more emphasis on belief than the norm; the Liberals used to, but that was when they were explicitly modelling themselves off the C of E. You will also find groups within Judaism who hold that those who are not part of their group are not Jewish. But those are pretty fringe; on the whole Jews (of the intolerant sort) are much more likely to argue that those who are not part of their group are bad Jews than not Jewish at all. And the basis of the argument will usually be that the bad Jews are doing the wrong things, not that they have erroneous theology.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 09:45 pm (UTC)Christians, AIUI, think that people who are not part of their group are simply wrong, and their beliefs are worthless. To me, the second attitude is far more disrepectful.
But by virtue of being one of God's chosen people, you automatically have a major part to play. It is * dificult to become one of God's chosen people, whereas almost anyone can become a Christian. Is it more disrespectful to believe that people have smaller parts due to birth or due to choice and that they can fix their choices?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-20 02:11 pm (UTC)But by virtue of being one of God's chosen people,
Given that so many people seem to misunderstand the chosen people concept, I'm at least prepared to accept the possibility that we've been explaining it wrongly all this time. I suspect it's partly a language problem; the word chosen has connotations of being in primary school and not being chosen for the team.
you automatically have a major part to play.
Well, yes, but everybody automatically has a major part to play by right of birth, by right of being human. It's just that Jews don't (on the whole; there are always the odd exceptions) particularly feel that anyone else's part is our business to define.
people have smaller parts due to birth
If you seriously believe that the whole of human achievement is a smaller part than religious ritual... well, I suggest you swap that devil's advocate hat for a tonsure.
they can fix their choices
I don't believe that everybody who thinks differently from me needs to fix their choices. At least, I don't start from the assumption that all choices different from mine are wrong. Some of them might be, but I don't assume it unless the consequences of those choices give me a good reason to believe so.
it is * dificult to become one of God's chosen people
I would say that a valid criticism that could be made against Judaism is that most of the religion really needs to be a lot kinder to converts. This is an area where we could learn from Christians; Christians are, on the whole, welcoming to converts. I'm really talking about attitudes towards people who don't want to convert, though.
Does that make it any clearer?
Re:
Date: 2004-02-10 12:12 am (UTC)Christians who know their NT should know that this is specifically not true of the Jews. Paul seems to say something like "you Gentiles had better not get too uppity". Forgive me if you know this already, I'm not sure how far your knowledge of the NT goes.
I expect that this passage doesn't quite prevent Christians who are keen on evangelism from evangelising Jews, since the previous chapter makes it clear that Paul thinks the Jews of his day have missed the point and need to hear his message (though 10:9 is interesting for just how little theology Paul says Christians do need to be saved). But it chapter 11 is probably useful against uppity Christians :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-10 10:06 pm (UTC)That's a very interesting point, thank you. The truth is that this doesn't comfort me as much as it might; I'm reminded of an occasion when a friend of mine was explaining that he was avoiding a former friend, on the grounds that said friend held rather racist views. My friend thought this unpleasant chap would probably be ok with me "since you're white". I was really bothered by that; if bigotry was going on, I wanted to be in the out group, not the in group! Not that I'm even slightly comparing Christian evangelists to racists, you understand.
It's inevitable given the history that there's going to be some kind of special relationship between Christians and Jews. Indeed, that's why I find Jewish-Christian dialogue in some ways more exciting than general interfaith. But I'm always wary when generally intolerant, right-wing Christians lean too heavily on that special relationship.
Forgive me if you know this already, I'm not sure how far your knowledge of the NT goes.
My NT knowledge is... patchy, I think is the best word. I know the Gospels reasonably well, on the level of knowing what they say rather than anything deeper. And there are odd bits of NT that I've studied in depth, and odd bits that repeatedly come up in debate. That means it's almost always worth pointing stuff out! I wasn't aware of Romans 11, as it happens, and I appreciate your flagging it for me. Besides, in this sort of discussion I'm always pleased when opinions are properly textually supported ;-)
I have a close friend, PM, who recently completed a PhD in Jewish-Christian relations. Her title was going to be along the lines of 'Jews in the NT', but that turned out to be too broad, so she ended up doing 'Jews in John's Gospel'. From what I've picked up from her, I get the impression that the topic is fascinating. Clearly, the varying attitudes of Christians towards Jews can't entirely be explained by reading the Bible, but it's very interesting to see what is there.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-11 12:34 pm (UTC)John's the odd man out among the 4 gospels in that he doesn't share a common storyline with the others. I've heard him called anti-semitic before, since he tends to attribute negative comments about Jesus to "the Jews" rather than, say, "the Pharisees". I like him for the writing, which I find more numinous than the other gospel writers, thinking of things like John 1 for example.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-13 05:44 pm (UTC)This much I was aware of, yes.
I've heard him called anti-semitic before, since he tends to attribute negative comments about Jesus to "the Jews" rather than, say, "the Pharisees"
I think that's why PM wanted to focus on John for her thesis. She was trying to look at lots of contemporary Jewish and non-Jewish (don't think there was much Christian stuff around at that time) texts to try and see if there was a reading that was faithful but not antisemitic. And avoiding the easy liberal route of saying, lots of nasty stuff in the Bible, but, you know, cultural context and all that, we don't have to take it literally nowadays.
Whether or not he's antisemitic (to speak anachronistically), John is certainly less geared to a Jewish audience than the other Gospels. He's the one who really emphasises theologically strange stuff about Incarnation and the rest. And he's less interested in fitting Jesus into OT prophecies or describing plausible-sounding Jewish practice.
I like him for the writing, which I find more numinous than the other gospel writers
Oh yes, absolutely. The smattering I have of classical Greek is enough to be able to see that John was doing much more interesting stuff with the language than the other gospel writers.
things like John 1
*smile* Yay, that was the first proper sentence we ever read in Greek. But it's impressive poetry even if I don't have much idea what it means.
Non-believers are Wrong?
Date: 2004-10-29 12:00 pm (UTC)While this is a generalism, to be sure, I have seen this very often. We have to understand that Christians, like any other self-professed followers of faith, come from a variety of backgrounds, and profess their faith for a variety of reasons. The majority of people don't examine themselves, much less the origins of their faith - they simply like to belong to a group. When we don't examine ourselves, and the complete context of what it is to be human, we are much less likely to appreciate the importance of having compassion for the meaning systems of others. Therefore pluralism, as important a concept as it is for world peace, is not even a concept that can be grasped by the majority of people. So I believe we will see that people of most faiths will come across as "I'm right, and you're wrong". I doubt it is a particularly Christian attribute.