Negative sides of Christianity

[Lutiferre]

First of all - this is not a thread for anti-Christian chauvinism or hatred or defamation. This is strictly for discussion. Christians as well as non-Christians are welcomed to join.

I am making this thread, as a person who is not all that reluctant towards Christianity, to discuss some of what may be perceived to be negative sides of Christianity.

I believe biblical Zionism, also known as Christian Zionism, believing that the Jews are literally the chosen people, that we are to serve, is a very negative side of Christianity - it is perhaps, together with the Judaic derivation of the Christian foundation, one of the biggest problems in the religion.

Another aspect of Christianity I am against, is what I would refer to as religious egalitarianism. That anyone who converts to Christianity, is an equal, that we are to accept into our hearts. This, I cannot agree with.

Now of course, there is no static version of the religion, only interpretations. But these are some of the prevalent, actual problems I see, and hear from Christians, from priests as well as Bishops, not some senseless abstract critique.

Those subjects should perhaps be discussed more openly than before so. I am also interested to hear what Christians here may have to say about it. Before you accuse me of blasphemy, let it be clear that my intentions are good, and not founded in anti-Christian sentiment.

Feel free to reply to the threads original title, or to my initial remarks.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I believe biblical Zionism, also known as Christian Zionism, believing that the Jews are literally the chosen people, that we are to serve, is a very negative side of Christianity - it is perhaps, together with the Judaic derivation of the Christian foundation, one of the biggest problems in the religion.

Another aspect of Christianity I am against, is what I would refer to as religious egalitarianism. That anyone who converts to Christianity, is an equal, that we are to accept into our hearts. This, I cannot agree with.

Actually, you start from a wrong assumption. Christianism --at least as taught by the Catholic Church-- challenges and defeats the belief that Jews are the chosen people. The New Testamente is a new covenant with God whereby Jews are stripped off this exclusivism, in pursue of a universalism. On top this universalism is not based on predestinationism (an effect of chosenitism, or chosenitism in itself) but on own's deeds. This last part is important to notice because it implies the freedom of choice in that, though God makes us all equal before His eyes, He also makes us free to do good or evil.

Your error in perception may arise from your own cultural background: If you come from a Protestant influenced culture, this may be understandable. Protestantism emphasizes on the Old Scriptures. Most noticeable Calvinism and neo-Calvinist doctrines, included the old Baptists or the newer Adventists and all new doctrines started in America, are strongly predeterminationists and they are in fact not Christian but neo-Judaic.

Not surprisingly, racial supremacists arise from Protestant communities (e.g. the WASPs), as a form of chosenitism. These racist doctrines which are today displayed in physical differences, derive from the same sources from where a number of doctrines in the colonial world arose, which preach that they are the chosen people themselves.

Also, notice that we are equal at birth and through Baptism. But another point of disagreement with Protestants (and here it includes Lutheranism as well) is Justification. For the Catholic and Orthodox Churches there is a distinction between justification at birth (baptism) which makes us equals, and justification at death whereby each of us is judged for his deeds throughout life.

Now of course, there is no static version of the religion, only interpretations.

Refer to above. I would call them Joshuaists rather than Christians. As they are not in the sense of Christendom.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Before you accuse me of blasphemy, let it be clear that my intentions are good, and not founded in anti-Christian sentiment.

Excuses. Expect the Inquisition to knock on your door pretty soon.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I believe biblical Zionism, also known as Christian Zionism, believing that the Jews are literally the chosen people, that we are to serve, is a very negative side of Christianity - it is perhaps, together with the Judaic derivation of the Christian foundation, one of the biggest problems in the religion.

While there are some remarks, from Paul in the New Testament, that suggest that non-Jews are guests while Jews are regulars in the house of God, I still think it's unfair to speak today of "Christian Zionism".

From the letter from Paul to the Romans:

28.
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29.
For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30.
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31.
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32.
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Romans 11:28-32

In fact, that whole chapter is an argument that the Jews are by their nature saved, while non-Jews are only saved by their faith. Whether Paul is right is of course a question in itself. I think a case against him could be made from the Revelation of John:

8.
And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
9.
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
10.
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
11.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Revelations 2:8-11

It speaks about faithfulness "unto death" as that which will only save a man, regardless of whether he is an ethnic Jew or not. Curiously, the word "Jew" doesn't even have an ethnic meaning there, but a spiritual meaning.

If we turn to history, the case of "Christian Zionism" is weak. It is a new phenomenon, arguably alien to Christian tradition.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Actually, you start from a wrong assumption. Christianism --at least as taught by the Catholic Church-- challenges and defeats the belief that Jews are the chosen people. The New Testamente is a new covenant with God whereby Jews are stripped off this exclusivism, in pursue of a universalism. On top this universalism is not based on predestinationism (an effect of chosenitism, or chosenitism in itself) but on own's deeds. This last part is important to notice because it implies the freedom of choice in that, though God makes us all equal before His eyes, He also makes us free to do good or evil.

If interpreted uncritically, that we are all created equally, it sounds like egalitarian ignorance to me. But perhaps it should be interpreted less literally, and more in a general sense than I am doing.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Your error in perception may arise from your own cultural background: If you come from a Protestant influenced culture, this may be understandable. Protestantism emphasizes on the Old Scriptures. Most noticeable Calvinism and neo-Calvinist doctrines, included the old Baptists or the newer Adventists and all new doctrines started in America, are strongly predeterminationists and they are in fact not Christian but neo-Judaic.

Actually, I had the opposite idea about Protestants. From my experience, protestantism is almost exclusively based on the new testament, and most Christians I talk to in this country, the majority being protestant, confirm this. Whether it was founded based on the old testament, I dont know. I dont know many calvinists.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Also, notice that we are equal at birth and through Baptism. But another point of disagreement with Protestants (and here it includes Lutheranism as well) is Justification. For the Catholic and Orthodox Churches there is a distinction between justification at birth (baptism) which makes us equals, and justification at death whereby each of us is judged for his deeds throughout life.

Yes, I was aware of this, and for me it makes much more sense than the Protestant egalitarianism and liberalism.

Originally Posted by Gnist

If we turn to history, the case of "Christian Zionism" is weak. It is a new phenomenon, arguably alien to Christian tradition.

Perhaps you are right. But it stays as a negative thing.

[Delbáeth]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

If interpreted uncritically, that we are all created equally, it sounds like egalitarian ignorance to me. But perhaps it should be interpreted less literally, and more in a general sense than I am doing.

We are all created equal in the eyes of God. We are not how ever created equally in social class, assuming that's what you mean by equallity?

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Leipreachán

We are all created equal in the eyes of God. We are not how ever created equally in social class, assuming that's what you mean by equallity?

Class is not the only qualitative divergence of men in how they are created. With equality, I was speaking in general terms, as I am now.

[Delbáeth]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Class is not the only qualitative divergence of men in how they are created.

Yes, I was simply using Social Class as an example.

With equality, I was speaking in general terms, as I am now.

Well, regardless we are all still created and seen equal in the eyes of God. I don't understand what is so negative about that ?

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

...

Actually, I had the opposite idea about Protestants. From my experience, protestantism is almost exclusively based on the new testament, and most Christians I talk to in this country, the majority being protestant, confirm this. Whether it was founded based on the old testament, I dont know. I dont know many calvinists.
...

Mynydd is essentially right about the Calvinist obsession with the Old Testament. From what I have seen they really want to leave the New Testament and the Holy Trinity behind. But it is important to point out that Calvinism and other neo-Judaic movements were combated by the established Lutheran and Anglican Churches. Perhaps not completely, but they were expelled repeatedly from the established Churches.

Puritan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crypto-Calvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


My main complaint against the modern Christian Churches is their attitude to immigration and refugees. This article below does a good job arguing against that.

Not Of This World, And Certainly Not Globalist

by Daniel Larison

In the course of giving his devastating reply to Derbyshire's review of his book Religion of Peace?, Robert Spencer reminds us once again of a crucial point regarding Christianity and immigration:

In reality, Christianity has no inherent connection at all with open-borders insanity and globalization. No less prominent a Christian than St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the mainstream Christian view when he said that “after his duties towards God, man owes most to his parents and his country. One’s duties towards one’s parents include one’s obligations towards one’s relatives, because these latter have sprung from [or are connected by ties of blood with] one’s parents…and the services due to one’s country have for their object all one’s fellow-countrymen and all the friends of one’s fatherland.” An open-borders globalist? Not quite.

It is telling that many of those who either cite the Gospel as the source for rejecting national loyalties and/or supporting immigration or invoke the Lord to justify the importation and exploitation of poor labourers are not themselves professing Christians. Of course, the absurdity of justifying the exploitation of labourers in the name of Christian fraternity ought to be obvious, but we live in dark times where even the simplest things are obscured. This quote also brings us back to the question of the relationship between Christianity and patriotism.


It has also never been clear to me where anyone came across the idea that orthodox Christianity endorses or encourages egalitarianism or rootless cosmopolitanism. (There have been many modern Christians who have understood their religion in this way, but their egalitarian and cosmopolitan views are typically matched by their departure from orthodoxy more generally.) The teachings in the Gospels and Epistles presuppose social hierarchy and patriarchal authority, and their authors literally cannot conceive of a world in which civic and family obligations are weak or non-existent, much less do they advocate for such a view. If Christianity is "universal" in that it is for the salvation of all, it nonetheless does not obliterate natural loyalties and affinities to particular places and peoples. Being willing to leave all your earthly relations for the sake of following God is a measure of the devotion the believer has and his desire to put God first--it does not abrogate his obligations to his kith and kin. Indeed, to be a good and faithful servant, the Christian must not only show mercy to those who seek it from him, but he must also discharge his duties to those to whom he is obliged and related. The Apostle exhorts: "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (I Tim. 5:8)

Not Of This World, And Certainly Not Globalist (What\'s Wrong with the World)

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

...
Another aspect of Christianity I am against, is what I would refer to as religious egalitarianism. That anyone who converts to Christianity, is an equal, that we are to accept into our hearts. This, I cannot agree with.

Now of course, there is no static version of the religion, only interpretations. But these are some of the prevalent, actual problems I see, and hear from Christians, from priests as well as Bishops, not some senseless abstract critique.
...

This is a very good point. The Church is meant to be a pillar of Christendom (obviously) but so many of its current members actively work to weaken our societies.

Here's the part of the Summa Theologica mentioned in the post above:

On the contrary, Tully says (De Invent. Rhet. ii) that "it is by piety that we do our duty towards our kindred and well-wishers of our country and render them faithful service."
I answer that, Man becomes a debtor to other men in various ways, according to their various excellence and the various benefits received from them. on both counts God holds first place, for He is supremely excellent, and is for us the first principle of being and government. On the second place, the principles of our being and government are our parents and our country, that have given us birth and nourishment. Consequently man is debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God. Wherefore just as it belongs to religion to give worship to God, so does it belong to piety, in the second place, to give worship to one's parents and one's country.
The worship due to our parents includes the worship given to all our kindred, since our kinsfolk are those who descend from the same parents, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 12). The worship given to our country includes homage to all our fellow-citizens and to all the friends of our country. Therefore piety extends chiefly to these.

and:

Objection 3. Further, in human affairs there are many other mutual relations besides those of kindred and citizenship, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 11,12), and on each of them is founded a kind of friendship, which would seem to be the virtue of piety, according to a gloss on 2 Timothy 3:5, "Having an appearance indeed of piety [Douay: 'godliness']." Therefore piety extends not only to one's kindred and fellow-citizens.
[...]
Reply to Objection 3. The relations of a man with his kindred and fellow-citizens are more referable to the principles of his being than other relations: wherefore the term piety is more applicable to them.

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Piety (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 101)

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I believe biblical Zionism, also known as Christian Zionism, believing that the Jews are literally the chosen people, that we are to serve, is a very negative side of Christianity

Biblical Zionism? What does that mean? First of all, Zionism is a modern political movement which arose among Jews and had as its aim the establishment of a "Jewish homeland in Palestine" (later Eretz Yisrael) and the promotion of Jewish interests worldwide, in order that the newly established Jewish state be protected. Zionism has a certain, albeit limited, influence upon the policy of the leading world powers. Its influence is sometimes grossly overrated.

I think that this argument was taken up in numerous occasions on this board in the past, but let me repeat it once more: the essence of Christianity is precisely that Jews are NOT the Chosen People. It is the Old Testament Jews WERE the People chosen by God, not to be "masters of the nations to whom the whole world should serve" (this is a later Talmudic interpretation), but to serve to all nations as the "nation of priests" ("You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation", Exod. 19:6). Still during the Old Testament times Jews rejected God many times and turned to idols. All is very well documented by that book. They sinned many times against this gift of chosenness, but God forgave them, until their rejection of Jesus Christ, a messiah announced many times in the Old Testament. That was their final act of apostasy. After that time they ceased to be chosen people in any sense. This is Christian doctrine.

The Jewish doctrine is another matter: they think that even after the rejection of Jesus they keep on being "chosen", not in the original sense (ie. that they should serve as a priestly nation), but in a sense that they would be better than other nations, which should serve them. But it is not Talmudic Judaism that is being discussed in this thread, but Christianity.

So, anyone who thinks that Jews are still chosen people, just as the Old Testament Israelites were, is not a Christian. It is one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. If Jews are still "chosen people" and not one people among others, then Church has no meaning. It is the same as, for example, if someone does not believe in, or outright rejects, Jesus Christ, he is not Christian, by definition.

Another thing is that in modern times everything got corrupted, so did the official "Christianity" (Churchianity). The corruption is present in the Catholic Church, but much more in different Protestant denominations. So many started to claim that Jews are still somehow "chosen". This new wave of Judaeophilia has to do with many factors: remorse for the fate Jews suffered in the Second World War, culture of guilt (which is in fact a perversion of the original concept of Christian charity) for the persecutions and expulsions of the Jews throughout centuries in Europe, a need to "go back to the roots (and roots are here mistekenly being taken as Judaic) etc. But those people or even some (Protestant) denominations which hold such claims (ie. that Jews are still chosen) are not Christians by definition, no matter how they call themselves. I can call myself grandson of David Rockefeller, but I am not still the one. These are heretical perversions of the Christian message.

So if you mean that considering Jews as "chosen" is negative (I think it's negative too), you should maybe entitle the thread "Negative sides of some modern pseudo-"Christian" cults" and not "Negative side of Christianity". Because that is not what Christianity is about.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

it is perhaps, together with the Judaic derivation of the Christian foundation, one of the biggest problems in the religion.

Is Christianity derived from Judaism? Partly yes, partly from other sources.

Some say they the reject Jesus Christ because he was "swarthy Middle Easterner and not our European man" (I don't say you are of this opinion, I am just speaking broadly). It is so idiotic and below the lowest level of decency that it is not even worth commenting upon. It may be understood as some crude and primitive materialism, which does not distinguish between the material and spiritual level.

More serious objections say that it is a spirituality born in one nation and alien to others. But here again, we know that spiritual truths operate in a way that, even if they come into being in a certain time and space and among certain ethnic groups, they later, if they are worth, godly and deemed of universal value, spread to others and become universal. So if God, for some reason chose Israelites as people through which His word will be spread, it does not necessarily mean that it is the exclusive property of Jews. It is an eternal truth which became manifest in a certain time and space, for reasons unknown and unknowable to human mind. That is at least the (traditional) Christian viewpoint.

Writers of the New Testament, on the other hand, were not all Jews and the New Testament contains some elements of the Greek philosophy, especially the Gospel of John.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Another aspect of Christianity I am against, is what I would refer to as religious egalitarianism. That anyone who converts to Christianity, is an equal, that we are to accept into our hearts. This, I cannot agree with.

I do not see anything controversial in this. As Leiprechan already said, there is nothing wrong in all people being equal in God's eyes. I don't believe in Übermenschen. It does not mean though that they all ought to be equal in absolutely all earthly matters (and that is what modern egalitzarianism claims).

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Now of course, there is no static version of the religion, only interpretations. But these are some of the prevalent, actual problems I see, and hear from Christians, from priests as well as Bishops, not some senseless abstract critique.

The things you are pointing out at are very much represented in different Protestant denominations. However, I am very well aware that Protestantism is a very braod term covering a variety of denominations, different in many respect, I just say that there is a general Judaizing tendency in them. Also in some "modern theologians" of the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Those subjects should perhaps be discussed more openly than before so. I am also interested to hear what Christians here may have to say about it. Before you accuse me of blasphemy, let it be clear that my intentions are good, and not founded in anti-Christian sentiment.

The subject was very extensively dealt with in this thread:

On Christianity and Tradition [split]

In fact, I am glad that you did not take up the traditional, boring anti-Christian stereotypes, cherished by less educated anti-Christians who adore streotypes learned at (worthless) public schools and by the dominant modern "culture" like: Inquisition, witch-burning, the alleged suppression of scientific research etc.

I don't see any anti-Christian sentiment in the introductory post, these are legitimate topics for discussion.

[Marulus]

Open Bethlehem - Bishop condemns Christian Zionism

Christian Zionism: its history, theology and politics