Christian Divergence

For my special friend. I really need her.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Not one among those present, from the priest and the inspector down to Maslova, seemed to be aware that this same Jesus whom the priests glorified with so many queer words and whose name was uttered by him so many times and in such wheezy tones, had expressly forbidden all that had been going on here: not only the senseless chatter and blasphemous incantations of the priest over the wine and the bread, but also, in the clearest words, had forbidden one man to call another master; had forbidden all worship in temples, commanding every man to pray in solitude; had forbidden the very temples themselves, declaring that He had come to destroy them, and that men were to pray not in temples but in the spirit and in truth; but above all the rest, He had forbidden human judgments and the imprisonment of men, and their subjection to the shame, torture or death which was visited upon them in this place. He had forbidden violence in all its forms, and had proclaimed that He had come to set captives free.[1]

Tolstoy was a very compassionate writer, concerned with the poor and imprisoned of pre-revolutionary Russia. He recognized that the superficial trappings of religion were contrary to Christ’s guidance and of little value to the needs of humanity. He was not the first to challenge the logic and practice of the established religion. History is awash with the blood of many who have made such challenges. Some were successful; many were tortured and executed in the inquisition. In the sixteenth century Martin Luther and the reformers shattered the structure of the Catholic Church, with its excesses and erroneous teachings.

Increasingly, decisions based on morality are being made that affect your life. People are making your health, inheritance, elder care, education, and entertainment determinations based on a belief system rather than scientific or medical appropriateness. They are committing your tax dollars to charities of their choice. The belief system is Christianity and the people are both religious leaders and politicians. No American should blindly acquiesce. Those who assume the right to make your decisions based on their morality should be judged on their own standards. Christianity’s own divine philosopher demanded that those who assume leadership positions be judged, as he warned that many would pervert his teachings for selfish reasons. You must understand that philosopher’s teachings to determine if the moral decisions being made for you will improve our culture or simply fatten some pocketbooks. Challenging a leader’s religious motives is not sacrilegious; it is your duty in order to protect your children.

Today, America is experiencing a strange sort of religious revival. Our courts are struggling with the issue of church and state separation and the religious are pushing back demanding the recognition of God by the government, public displays of religious monuments, prayers in school and at public meetings, and the enforcement of morality through legislation. Social values are being defined by such questions as abortion and gay marriage. Various members of the Christian leadership and certain political figures, including the President and Attorney General are assuming the prerogative to define morality and to implement that definition into American society. There is a movement within the states, and perhaps even the nation, to amend the constitution to define marriage according to the interpretation of the majority, and establish roadblocks for those who seek to gain the legal right to properly care for their loved ones.

The majority of Americans seem to approve of the position taken by the religious leaders on most issues. Others are quite concerned about the essential liberties established by the constitution and the principle of religious tolerance which was so sacred to the founding fathers. What the majority do not understand is that a very significant problem in the separation of church and state issue is the validity of the moral system supported and implemented by the government. Conceptually, most feel that a society based on a high moral standard is a good thing; that legislating the highest good will result in the best possible culture. I am totally opposed to the government supporting any religion, feel that the principle of religious tolerance is sacred, and that the private, undisruptive affairs of the public is not the business of the government. However, the topic at hand is the definition of the greatest good. Disregard the principle that government has no business in religion, it would be tragic if the religious beliefs supported by the government were in reality designed to enrich the big business of religion. The critical point is the definition of the highest good.

Christians will take the position that Christ, who they see as God, defined morality during his ministry on earth. If all Americans were to concede that this is indeed the case there remains yet another very significant problem. Why would any right minded American think that either the government or the wealthy religious leaders themselves were sufficiently moral to implement Christ’s philosophy as it was taught? Have they learned nothing from two thousand very bloody years of history or from people like Martin Luther? Both the political and the wealthy are hypocritical with their greed and lust for power. No rational Christian, let alone a non-Christian, could possibly want them creating legislation to control our actions based on their morality.

We have an evangelical administration with our president and attorney general. Can we trust their morality? By their repeated self identification as evangelical Christians, they have set for themselves a standard by which they should be judged. Is their administration Christian. Do they follow Christ’s guidance to help the poor and that the wealthy have a higher responsibility to alleviate poverty. Do they favor the wealthy over the poor? Did their occupation of Iraq meet the Christian standard, most churches were opposed, and those who gave their support did so based on the Just war principle of imminent danger. Did they absolutely exhaust all possible alternatives?

In July 2003 the Vatican issued a statement that Catholic politicians have a moral duty to publicly oppose laws granting recognition to homosexual unions and to vote against them if proposals are put to a vote in legislatures. The document also comes out strongly against allowing gay couples to adopt, saying children raised by same-sex parents face developmental obstacles because they are deprived of having either a mother or a father. (Please ignore the fact that thirty percent of Catholics have been divorced, the statistic presented by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2000 that 33% of children adoption from Foster Care is by a single parent and 9.8 million households in the US are headed by a man or woman raising a child alone or without a spouse living at home.) The Vatican says that Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. The Vatican could not even say that homosexual acts go against Christ’s commandments, the foundation of their beliefs, but had to refer to a vague natural moral law, unmentioned by Christ.

Do we really want the Catholics legislating morality? They have been obsessed with sex for the past two thousand years. They oppose almost everything sexual including birth control, premarital sex and even masturbation. Catholics adopted the theory of coercion of the faithful seventeen hundred years ago, executed the inquisition for over three hundred years, and have tortured and slaughtered millions of the faithful to enforce their rules. Their priests have been raping our children in America for many years and exacerbating the problem by protecting the criminals. The pope is demanding our legislators vote against an issue based on the pope’s assessment of morality, not Christ’s morality but a natural moral law. The Catholic doctrine has been ineffective because it deviates so much from the Gospels. It has always needed government support and apparently cannot survive without enlisting a government to enforce its rules. If the doctrine of a church is pervasive and compelling, there is no need to enforce its beliefs by government edict.

Are we better today in implementing Christ’s philosophy than we were during the inquisition, or pre-reformation, or in Tolstoy’s time? Are our religious and political leaders themselves sufficiently moral to be trusted to legislate the country’s morality?

It has been our deficiency for the past two thousand years that we are afraid to judge and answer these questions ourselves. Since the first shaman we have been taught that religion is a mystical, supernatural thing. All religious leaders have subsequently endeavored to maintain this mysterious shroud over religion, always conveying that only the saintly, those with special powers, those anointed by God, have the ability to really understand the truth. Christian leadership, since Paul has worked this illusion to their advantage. We cannot understand God, or the bible or the parables without their assistance, and they charge dearly for that help.

Christ himself promised that nothing in his philosophy would be secret, and warned us to be wary of the religious leaders because, as he says, they are hypocrites (Lk 12:1).

It is time for us to determine for ourselves if the morality we are being force fed is reliably the philosophy of Christ. The task is no where as difficult as it may sound. Christ’s philosophy was fully documented in the four books of the gospels. The Old Testament and the epistles are not essential to this understanding. The four books are repetitive but very easy to understand. There are some parables which may be confusing, but you do not miss the essential nature of the overall philosophy, if these are skipped.

It is my intention to dissect these four books, apply a bit of analysis, and develop a simple description of Christ’s philosophy. Any of you could do the same thing without the assistance of your pastor, it is quite straight forward. Then I will discuss some of the historical developments of Christianity to ascertain just where we went wrong, and review some of the terrible consequences. Finally I will compare the philosophy to Christianity today, both in how it is applied and how it is taught.

For those of you who are agnostic, atheist or non-Christian, I invite you to join us. If you are an American citizen, you will be affected by those who would claim the right to legislate morality based on their version of Christianity. You should have a basic understanding of Christ’s philosophy and how it is being presented by our Christian leaders.

Undoubtedly, many who read this book will swear that I am the anti-christ. I intend to critique Christianity vigorously, focusing on where it does not conform to the words of Christ. A major target will be the Catholic Church for their horrific history of brutality, for their failure to implement Christ’s teachings, and because I am most familiar with that religion as a veteran of twelve years of parochial education. I will also address many of the protestant churches as well as the evangelical. However, you will clearly see that I am a great fan of the philosophy of Christ. It was revolutionary in the environment in which it was first introduced, and it is applicable, and of interest, to all who value humanity, even those who may not believe in His divinity.

Conceptually, most feel that a society based on a high moral standard is a good thing; that legislating the highest good will result in the best possible culture. I am totally opposed to the government supporting any religion, feel that the principle of religious tolerance is sacred, and that private, undisruptive affairs of the public is not the business of the government. However, the topic at hand is the definition of the greatest good. Disregard that the principle that government has no business in religion, it would be tragic if the religious beliefs supported by the government were simply designed to enrich the big business of religion.

I will address many issues in depth as we proceed, however, to answer my two questions with an example from Christ’s commandments, we have not implemented Christianity as Christ taught and our religious leaders are not to be trusted morally. As examples, Christ demanded that his message be taught without compensation, (Mt 10:8), and he commanded that we do not accumulate wealth (Mt 6:19). How many religious leaders implement these two commandments, and how many have become quite wealthy as a result of donations from the poor they are supposed to assist?

We all understand the message we are receiving from our religious leaders. We must publicly acknowledge God, the good Christians are those who stand up and display their sanctity, we must prevent other folks from sinning, the Ten Commandments are the epitome of Christian morality, homosexuality violates God’s commandments, and gays must be prevented from marrying. The overall philosophy appears to be that breaking some of the Ten Commandments or other commandments contained in the Old Testament or Paul’s letters is evil, that the good must demonstrate to others that they are holy and honor God, and that the righteous are required to assure that the unrighteous are condemned and punished.

Let me summarize Christ’s philosophy by these words; And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest? Jesus said to him, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments." (Mt 22:35)

This quote is consistent with everything that you will read in the gospels. These are not commandments against sin; they are incitements to the positive. They tell you of your duty to yourself and to your God, and then they tell you of your duty to others. Importantly, they tell you to interpret all other so called commandments with these two as a reference point.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.

Note first that Christ said, the Lord, your God, leaving you to define God. Essentially you have to fully commit to your idea of God. Christ hated hypocrites; we see this throughout his teachings. It is evident in this commandment. There is no requirement to flaunt your belief or love, no requirement in the gospels even to go to church, only the necessity of complete commitment.  It’s your God, your soul, your mind. No mention of an intermediary. It is absolutely between you and your God, but it must be whole hearted and honest.

Elsewhere Christ commanded that you pray, give to charity and make your sacrifices in secret. He says that God knows your mind and so knows what you need and your intentions. He specifically warns against praying in public as those who do are hypocrites who are performing solely for the admiration of others, to flaunt their own piety. Your commitment to God must be honest; pretentiousness in front of others opposes this concept.

Strangely, if you were to ask most honest folks what they think of someone praying in public they would, in their heart, see it as hypocritical.  So you see, this analysis of Christ’s message is almost intuitive. Our religious leaders think this prayer thing is very critical to their program, their effort to gain as many followers as possible. They demand that we relax the constitution to allow children to pray in school and adults to pray at their public meetings. It is totally inconsistent with Christ’s message, but great advertisement.

The facts are that every child, in every school, in every country of the world, at any time is fully capable of praying in accordance with Christ’s instructions. That child can mentally acknowledge God, and will be rewarded. A short, secret, mental prayer fully meets Christ’s mandate, and the child is free from the temptation to self righteous hypocrisy.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

This is the one that baffles Christians. They are at ease with the commandments that prohibit them from something or the other. They do not grasp the concept of loving the neighbor with the same respect that they think they deserve. Christ provided extensive guidance and example. He stated that if you do not care for the poor and the sick you cannot reach heaven. (Mt 25:41) He demanded that we treat each other with respect, that we forgive sins, and that we do not judge or condemn anyone. Since Christ said that all of the commandments are based on these two great commandments the issue is not sin, the issue is that we do not hurt others.

Again, this prime commandment is consistent with all of the gospels. Christ spent his years helping others, curing the sick, feeding the hungry, raising the dead, etc. He continually focused on good works. He never mentioned the Ten Commandments. In his commission to his disciples when he sent them out to teach he told them to cure the sick, he didn’t tell them to stamp out sin. When asked what a person should do to reach heaven he said keep the commandments but to be perfect sell everything and give the proceeds to the poor.

Christ specifically stated that all other commandments are based the great commandments. Therefore, if there is any question concerning the meaning of any specific commandment it must be interpreted in respect to loving and caring for others. Christ went on to list the more important commandments as justice, mercy and faithfulness (Mt 23:23), which tracks with the prime and gives further guidance as to what he thought important. The remaining commandments of Christ are as any moral society would anticipate.

Let’s struggle with a more complicated issue this time, homosexuality. Gays are continually condemned by the religious leadership. Christ never condemned homosexuals, homosexual marriage or the homosexual act. The religious leaders have to look to other sources to justify their prejudice. I do not know why there are gays. But we know it’s not a choice. We know they are God’s creations and our brothers and sisters. If not ourselves, they are our neighbors. The prime commandment requires that we love them as ourselves. Subordinate commandments require that we care for them if sick or hungry, or poor, that we do not judge them or condemn them. There are those religious leaders who would restrict them from the benefits that would accrue to them or their families if they were not homosexual. If they have children, their ability to care for them is to be reduced. If they are caring for their loved one, legal roadblocks are implemented, restricting that care. The religious leaders ignore Christ’s commandments in their condemnation of homosexuals and homosexual unions. They violate Christ’s commandments when they make no effort to resolve the harm done to homosexuals by the legal restrictions. They hide behind empty but hallowed sounding phrases such as the Sanctity of Marriage, while they pursue their campaign to find others to condemn camouflaging their own failure to lead the country in the resolution of the real Sanctity of Marriage issue, the one that was condemned by Christ.

Four gay men recently sued the State of Florida for the right to adopt the children they had been fostering. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them. The argument used by the state was that Florida had the right to legislate its moral disapproval of homosexuality. That is modern Christianity in action, and it substantially violates Christ’s guidance. Floridians argue that it is their right to judge and condemn others for their natural desires. But worse, they take their bigotry out on the innocent, again violating Christ’s commandment against hurting the little children. They allow gays to provide homes for children in a foster situation, but when they ask to be allowed to provide all of the security and benefit of adoption, the state rules against it. The children suffer the loss of the protection of legal parenthood, but the Florida Christians get to send their message of condemnation to the gays. Even worse, Florida is third in the nation with the highest number of foster children, with over 31,000 in their system. They have a real problem with homeless children, they have not developed a Christian solution, but, in their self righteousness, they demand the right to ban gays from adoption.

I will concentrate on the atrocities of Christianity emanating from the theory of coercion and exemplified by the Inquisition and crusades as we review our history. However, as we introduce today’s Christianity it is obvious that Christian leadership has failed America. We have a dismal record of poverty, homeless, single parents, children and adults without proper health care, crime, imprisoned, and the list is embarrassingly long. We do not compare favorable to most of the industrialized world including the non-christian nations. Our belief systems are primarily Christian, our founders were Christian, and our population is significantly Christian. Why have we not followed Christ’s guidance in caring for the sick and the poor? The answer is also obvious. Our Christian leaders preach other than Christ’s doctrine. They do not preach helping the poor, the sick, and the less fortunate. Perhaps they give it some lip service, but we know their emphasis. It is gays, prayer in school, Ten Commandment monuments, etc, all superficial issues.

Why would any man of God want to pervert Christ’s teachings? How could one possibly get away with such deception?

The why is simple. If you follow Christ’s guidance it would be impossible for you to dominate others, it would be impossible for you to get rich, it would be impossible for you to place yourself above anyone else, it would be impossible for you to bask in your self righteousness condemning the actions and sins of others, and it would be impossible for you to flaunt your piety. You would receive very little benefit on this earth, except the benefit of knowing that you are doing the right thing. Unfortunately, the history of Christianity is one of fabrication of doctrine, rituals, and practices solely to consolidate the power and riches of the leadership. Christians distort the scriptures for their own aggrandizement and to support their domineering attitudes towards others.

Lets go back for a moment to our pray and give to charity in secret concept. The churches have always been very much against these commandments. If you were to do both of these in secret, what would happen to the influence and the income of