The Paradox of 21st Century Christianity in America
Let’s begin with the admission that this generality is unfair to a great number of people; we all know many Christians who are very fine people.
Yet there is enough truth here to make this an interesting paradox. Jesus Christ was an olive-skinned, egalitarian, anarchistic radical whose deepest beliefs were in the equality of all humankind, that money was (at best) unimportant, and that we, collectively as a society, need to come together and take care of the sick and the poor. How His present-day followers came to represent the precise opposite values in American life is indeed a mystery.How about this: there are two senses in which the word “Christian” is used, and they mean two very different things.
• Those whose lives center around emulating the character of Christ, and
• Those who accept the dogma of certain “Christian” denominations, some of which have been cherry-picked and taken out of context from the most violent and hateful passages of the Bible.
As the meme suggests, the subjects of charity and war are good examples of this apparently weird dichotomy.
Here’s another. Ask yourself why “Christians” in the second sense, e.g., Mike Pence, abhor homosexuality, a subject that Jesus never mentions once. Could it be that it didn’t exist 2000 years ago? No, look at ancient Greece. Could it be that He didn’t want to take a controversial stand? Give me a break. Maybe it comes back to the core value of Christ Himself that we should love our neighbors as we do ourselves and that surface-level issues are completely unimportant compared with the love we carry with us in our hearts.
One can only hope that, as the years go by and our society recovers in terms of civility and moral fiber, that we see more Christianity in the first of the two senses.
Craig,
Setting aside the philosophic musings in your article and the political jabs, I fascinated by your assertion that Jesus Christ was ” olive-skinned ” ?
I would really appreciate you directing me to any authority you have read or contemporary description of His skin tone. This isn’t a criticism but a genuine inquiry for information.
If you Google “jesus olive skin” you’ll get 14.4 million hits. Here’s one: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/things-you-may-not-know-about-jesus/3/
Craig,
My question wasn’t about the number of “Google hits”, I’m not sure of the significance, but why you can state with authority the colour of Christs skin and appearance.
In fact, since their are no contemporaneous descriptions in existence, every depiction is a matter of conjecture dependent on interpretation and fashion.
In the end it doesn’t matter, since the Christ’s physical appearance is immaterial.
My real point is your willingness to accept and promote fashionable leftist speculative conjecture as established “fact”.
Why don’t you read the most authoritative one you find on the first page and forget about the other 14 million? That’s what I did. It’s really not a controversial issue.
Craig,
Um, “authoritative” ? There is no “authoritative” article (especially not CBS), just opinion and speculative conjecture.
With no existing evidence or authentic contemporaneous accounts to use as a reference, nothing can be definitely established and it doesn’t really matter.
The point I’m making is your willingness to accept as “fact”, whatever version suits your particular interpretation.
This is the sort of conclusion that flows from the reasoning, “Dogs eat meat, Cats eat meat, therefore Dogs are cats !”
It’s equally credible that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Cheruscan (Germanic tribe) Vet who served with a Roman Auxiliary horse unit stationed in the area around Galilee at that time. This would explain his advanced medical knowledge especially the ‘miracle’ of restoring the sight of a man blind from birth, a technique involving a certain element in clay that dissolves nuptial gum in horses.
Roman Auxiliary vet’s from Batavia were also well known as entertaining magicians, and amateur scientists. That may account for some later descriptions of his appearance as being fair, blondish and taller that average.
Or, Christ may be a descendant from some of the substantial non-Semitic people who inhabited Galilee at that time.
Or,.. any of many different explanations, all equally speculative, and all probably equally erroneous.
Being tall, blond and blue eyed myself, naturally I identify with the tall blond Jesus portrayed in the Victorian chapel painting of Jesus at my prep school. Was I born of Indian heritage, I might just as easily identify with the portrait of Jesus to be found in a Church in Madras.
The point is, no one can certify with any degree of certainty the physical appearance of Christ! Your depiction is just as tinted with your political-philosophic beliefs as any other, and that wouldn’t matter, except for your attempt to justify your preference as “fact’ rather than simply what you would like to be true.
OMG, what a fabulous waste of time. What is your story? Just look it up.
There are definitely a number of Christians that do follow Jesus’ teachings, but the vast majority only do what they want and deem the rest as invalid. That is not how the bible, or any other holy book, was meant to be used for reference.