Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Q U E S T I O N: Are Fundies The Pharisees And C I N Os The Real Christians?


R. S. Martin

Recommended Posts

That question was raised because of an article (almost booklength) I'm reading by Ron Henzel on spiritual abuse and manipulation. It was linked from an exChristian site (not this one) with the notice that it was written by a Christian but was valuable anyway. I'm finding it enlightening. The characteristics he describes as manipulations are practically every single one of the things that I myself, or others here on exC, have accused Christianity of doing because it is what we experienced in our churches.

 

What has puzzled me for so long is that I don't experience this at the seminary where I am studying.

 

QUESTION: Is fundamentalism in reality spiritual abuse and are CINOs the real Christianity?

 

Many of us here say we are more like Christians since we deconverted than we were while Christians. If we can say that, why not the CINOs? For me, the Christians at the seminary show me that there are professing Christians who live the way Jesus taught, yet many people here would call them CINOs. I disagree with that but we discussed that elsewhere and it's not the point I am raising for discussion here. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

 

The fundies have a very harsh hard-liner religion but preach a loving and gentle Jesus. I have found this seriously confusing. Now with this article, I'm coming up with the question presented here.

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the fundies are the pharisees. I called them just that on YouTube and a number of other people on the site have done the same. They're modern day pharisees, no question about it.

 

They have the rules and say, "if you don't believe/do this then you aren't one of us and aren't going to heaven, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."

 

The pharisees did the same.

 

Not once did Jesus ever tell off a non-religious person. Not once did he despise a "sinner."

 

Seems to me that Xianity really started off as a way to fight against the established religion. Yet, once the ball got rolling it became the very thing it was trying to get away from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Graphics Guy.

 

This brings up the interesting question of what the historical Jesus (assuming he existed) actually would have intended for his followers, at least insofar as their behavior is concerned.

 

Although there are some contradictory passages, mainly he seemed to be as against the established religion and certainly the government of his time. It seems to me he was compassionate to the outsiders, the poor and sick of his time. I don't see him despising "sinners" either.

 

The fundys act like there have been no archeological discoveries regarding the first century and early Christianity and no discoveries insofar as Biblical scholarship is concerned in the last century, whereas there have been quite a few. In fact, I think most of them are frozen with the King James Bible. They are wilfully ignorant and very confused. They are determined to remain that way, even within their own religion. They are the "frozen chosen" as far as it looks to me.

 

There are many ways of understanding Christianity. Maybe we will never be able to determine (unless more discoveries are made) what Jesus' true intentions were, and even if he really wanted followers. I think one thing is for sure-- the fundys have a distorted and ruined version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many ways of understanding Christianity. Maybe we will never be able to determine (unless more discoveries are made) what Jesus' true intentions were, and even if he really wanted followers. I think one thing is for sure-- the fundys have a distorted and ruined version.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. If you look at recent history, you'll see an undercurrent of radical scholarship that wants to turn this country into a Calvinist pit of despair. Many of these "Reconstructionists" have such a distorted view of how history really was. Christianity always wanted to be separated from the state at least in this country, not merged like some massive corporate conglomerate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mainly he seemed to be as against the established religion and certainly the government of his time.

 

By "government" I'm assuming you mean the Sanhedrin and the religiously established governments.

 

I am pointing it out because Jesus didn't align himself with the zealots and never once spoke out against Rome either...and I'm mentioning that because for some reason the fundies seem to think that Xianity and politics actually have something to do with one another when Jesus never once made that example.

 

And if Jesus was going to act as the moral compass for the government he certainly would have lambasted the Roman Empire. However, that was obviously never his intention either.

 

My opinion is that "Jesus" may be a conglomeration of numerous travelling teachers that eventually was transformed into the "messiah" in later years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fundies are the pharasies and the CINs are the lukewarm members that Jesus spews from his mouth like warm, well... you get the picture.

 

That's the twisted trap of contradiction that caused me to feel like a schizophrenic when I was a believer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CINOs will probably inherit the mantle of the name. Besically the Fundies can only go more conservative, until they remove themselves from the culture and the gene pool...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fundies can only go more conservative, until they remove themselves from the culture and the gene pool...

Wish they'd hurry up about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CINOs will probably inherit the mantle of the name. Besically the Fundies can only go more conservative, until they remove themselves from the culture and the gene pool...

 

That's an open question. A major "for example" is that they didn't used to be involved with politics because they considered it too worldly or whatever. Becoming involved with politics can be seen as a move toward liberalism from one perspective.

 

Looking at the American crowd here more than the Brits, and the Falwell-Paterson company and legacy in particular. In light of what else went along with their take-over of politics, one would be inclined to think it wasn't so much a leaning toward liberalism as a change in position or beliefs. I dunno. I'll be reading up on that by and by.

 

GG and Deva, you hit right on the topics I've been chewing on for the longest time. All of these things fed into my deconversion. Christians won't (can't?) answer those questions satisfactorily. All they will say is to have faith. When I see that things hang together logically (like computers) then I have faith for the parts I don't understand (which are legion). But the parts of the plan of salvation that we can understand don't even hang together; what is there to inspire faith in me that the parts I don't understand hang together? He that is unfaithful in little, how will they trust him with the more important things???

 

In other words, a god that cannot be trusted as far as he can be seen, who can trust him for the things we cannot see?

 

I guess there was a time when human monarchs were assumed to be above the law, if the one author is right. That would let gods totally off the hook.

 

IF there ever was such a time, that time is past. I just want to smash in all their faces as though they were so many ceramic figurines. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW--GOD OR OTHERWISE.

 

Rulers and authority figures presuming to be above the law are said to be abusing power, and often bring on rebellions or revolutions of some sort, depending on the situation. This happens on every level of human politics and institutions, whether the family, the workplace, the nation, wherever there is more than one human being. It happens in a team of two, whether a marriage or work partnership or between siblings who have known each other since birth. In those situations where the relationship is extra-ordinarily good, the opposite is liable to happen and we end up with a god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A major "for example" is that they didn't used to be involved with politics because they considered it too worldly or whatever. Becoming involved with politics can be seen as a move toward liberalism from one perspective.

 

I guess I hold the other perspective on that one because from the fundy viewpoint politics is about control. Theocratic thinking. Trying to force Biblical "values" onto the masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've regarded the conservative Fundementalist political movement a last ditch attempt to gain temporal control (more or less an attempt at a Protestant Vatican...) They've achieved it to a degree, in that some candidates wouldn't be given the time of day without the Christian Right's money... but (GWB notwithstanding and he carried some major corporate backing) they've not got an electable candidate to date.

 

Looking at the Rep line up for '08 - Huckabee isn't really electable, since I don't see the big corps falling in line with him. Paul (who I account as a CR candidate) just pisses too many of TPTB off to be a contender, and is more what I'd call a 'fashion statement' candidate (looking at the demographic of his supporters). Then there's the Mormon... who even the CR think of as a godless apostate freak. The rest are CINOs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "government" I'm assuming you mean the Sanhedrin and the religiously established governments.

 

Yes, he was. He was clearly against the people controlling worship in the temple-- he threw quite a scene with overturning the tables of the moneychangers. Maybe just creating this disturbance was enough to get him killed.

 

I am pointing it out because Jesus didn't align himself with the zealots and never once spoke out against Rome either...and I'm mentioning that because for some reason the fundies seem to think that Xianity and politics actually have something to do with one another when Jesus never once made that example.

 

He did not advocate violent overthrow of Rome and align himself with the zealots. If he had, there would have been a lot of his disciples joining him on crosses at Golgotha.

 

As far as speaking out against Rome--maybe he did. I am not sure about that. Maybe his was a nonviolent sort of resistance. After all, if the Romans had seen him as no threat at all, why would he have been crucified? Would Pilate really have been that pressured to execute Jesus by a crowd of Jews?

 

I think there is a consensus among scholars that the gospels were written much later than the events. The Romans were written to appear bascially blameless and the Jews to have all the blame for the crucifixion.

 

I am reading an interesting book on all this right now- God and Empire-Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now by John Dominic Crossan. Crossan thinks that it is likely the only crowd present yelling for Jesus to be crucified was a few supporters of Barabbas.

 

The way the Roman emperor was held up as a God and worshipped is hard for us to understand today. There indeed was no such thing as separation between the religion and the state for centuries.

 

I can remember a time before Jerry Falwell when fundamentalists were not interested in government. They wanted to be separate from the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Judas was an Iscarii, I'm surprised he wasn't nailed to a tree at best, and killed on sight at worst. Basically, Jesus DID hang out with terrorists, since Judas was such a man. I doubt that Simon called Petros ("Rocky") got his non-de-guerre by flower arranging.

 

Interesting t note: The authorities knew EXACTLY where Jesus was, as did the Temple, since Gethsemane was hard by the main temple in Jerusalem, and they'd been camping there all week... TBH, it was something Judas told the 'authorities' that got Jesus hauled in... and since they knew his messianic leanings prior to his entry to Jerusalem, it must have been something that Jesus had done they didn't know about... only thing I can see is the stolen donkey(s). Theft of live stock is a known crucifying offence. Most likely, he was hung as a horse thief, which he clearly was, even based on the gospel account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the Roman emperor was held up as a God and worshipped is hard for us to understand today. There indeed was no such thing as separation between the religion and the state for centuries.

 

I can remember a time before Jerry Falwell when fundamentalists were not interested in government. They wanted to be separate from the world.

 

I think that is why the Romans might have disregarded Jesus as a minor nuisance and subsequently why his character didn't make it into the scribal rolls of Pilate and Herod. I wonder how many God men were executed by the Romans in those days in Palestine. It certainly lends a shred of credence to the Christian point about why no other ancient writers of the time penned anything about Jesus.

 

Furthermore, I think the reason Falwell and his cronies reacted the way they did was because of Madalyn Murray O'Hair's ability to convince the Supreme Court that public prayer in our schools violated the establishment clause. There was a lot more than that fueled the Religious Right's rage back then but I am willing to bet the school prayer incident was the initial spark. Why else would the fundy rats keep bitching about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, I think the reason Falwell and his cronies reacted the way they did was because of Madalyn Murray O'Hair's ability to convince the Supreme Court to yank prayer from public schools. There was a lot more than that fueled the Religious Right's rage back then but I am willing to bet the school prayer incident was the initial spark. Why else do fundy rats keep bitching about it?

 

Good point. I do think that was one reason. They were really threatened by Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

 

Its a fact that there were other messiah figures around other than Jesus. Rome thought he was nothing special- one among many-- but they were concerned with keeping order and he was somehow a threat to that order, no matter how minor. The whole big trial scene in front of Pilate doesn't ring true and gives Jesus more importance than he really had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on his record, if they'd disturbed Pilate with him, he'd have gutted Jesus himself and had the others slung in jail for disturbing him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on his record, if they'd disturbed Pilate with him, he'd have gutted Jesus himself and had the others slung in jail for disturbing him...

 

That is interesting. If any shred of the Jesus story is true, Jesus could have wiped the floor with Pilate and the centurions since he is the son of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fundies can only go more conservative, until they remove themselves from the culture and the gene pool...

Wish they'd hurry up about it.

 

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a fact that there were other messiah figures around other than Jesus.

 

That's why I was wondering if Jesus could be a blending of a number of those messiah figures. Wasn't that the case of William Wallace? Actually the blending of 3 or 4 different revolutionaries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff! Jesus hung as a horse thief. Can you imagine the outcry this would cause if anyone dared say it in a fundy church--over the pulpit maybe by one of our members who still works in a church? It would get HIM crucified no questions asked. Erm, no one would dare hang him on a tree in anyone's backyard because it would earn them the death sentence if it was in the USA, twenty years of jail without parole in any other country. But he might end up having an "accident."

 

Or Jesus not being recorded in the records because he wasn't important enough??? Another major outcry would occur from not only the fundies but from any other devout Christian. He was the SON OF GOD! His death was ordained from the foundation of the earth--nay, he OFFERED HIMSELF! So the story goes.

 

But then why, as someone said, did he not "wipe the floor" with Pilate and company? FUNDY Reply: He had to drink the cup of God's will.

 

Or why, as Gramps suggests, didn't Pilate just gut him and have the Jews thrown in jail for disturbing him? FUNDY Reply: God's will had to be done.

 

Actually, I think that is not only the fundy reply; it's the Christian reply.

 

graphicsguy said:

 

That's why I was wondering if Jesus could be a blending of a number of those messiah figures. Wasn't that the case of William Wallace? Actually the blending of 3 or 4 different revolutionaries?

 

I think he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.