Native Americans as true Christians?
Jesus is supposed to have said many things including that you should clothe the naked, feed the poor, how you treat the least of us is how you treat (H)im, love your neighbor as yourself, the rich have an easier time passing through the eye of a needle than knowing the Kingdom of Heaven, the way to the Father was through the Son, etc.
Now think about those who profess themselves as Christians in these capitalist societies, including the Pope, most ministers, reverends, pastors, and the Sunday “faithful” flock. Is it even possible to live as a Christian and find “The Kingdom of Heaven” in such a wealthy and materialistic consumer society? I for one seriously doubt it unless you are homeless or intermittently homeless living off of charity and still being charitable as Jesus and His disciples did, keeping Jesus’ commandments (suggestions for finding peace?) and keeping His message close to your heart (the way to the Father is through the Son).
Now think about the Native Americans who fed the starving Pilgrims (supposed Christians) who had invaded their native and sacred land (truly a Garden of Eden). “When I was hungry, you fed me.” They treated the Pilgrims like brothers and sisters (neighbors). Native Americans weren’t materially wealthy and were probably bewildered by the childlike Pilgrims who thought they could and should tame nature.
Who is more Christian? The contemporary Christians or the Native Americans?
Now think about those who profess themselves as Christians in these capitalist societies, including the Pope, most ministers, reverends, pastors, and the Sunday “faithful” flock. Is it even possible to live as a Christian and find “The Kingdom of Heaven” in such a wealthy and materialistic consumer society? I for one seriously doubt it unless you are homeless or intermittently homeless living off of charity and still being charitable as Jesus and His disciples did, keeping Jesus’ commandments (suggestions for finding peace?) and keeping His message close to your heart (the way to the Father is through the Son).
Now think about the Native Americans who fed the starving Pilgrims (supposed Christians) who had invaded their native and sacred land (truly a Garden of Eden). “When I was hungry, you fed me.” They treated the Pilgrims like brothers and sisters (neighbors). Native Americans weren’t materially wealthy and were probably bewildered by the childlike Pilgrims who thought they could and should tame nature.
Who is more Christian? The contemporary Christians or the Native Americans?
Comments (69)
You need a theme tune for the thread. I'm sure it's in the guidelines...
Have you read Pirsig on the influence of Native culture on the (white) American psyche?
Quoting unenlightened
The only book of Pirsig’s that I’ve read is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I do know that the founding fathers of the United States were heavily influenced by the Iroquois Nation, however.
In any case, although Christians are called to give alms, that is not what makes one a Christian. What makes one a Christian is not the observance of a particular ethic (the Native Americans did not even identify themselves as Christians), but being in a particular relationship to the risen Christ, one of faith. I am speaking biblically here. Certainly, faith without works is dead, as James says in his epistle, but this is a comment about the nature of an authentic, saving faith.
In any case, there does seem to be a leap being made. Why should living in a (partially) capitalistic, materialistic, or wealthy society be in tension with a Christian ethic? It is not money, after all, but the love of money which is the root of all evil. I'm not exactly sure what the argument is supposed to be here.
There are all sorts of ways in which the non-capitalistic elements of (the way government coercively invades) society are in tension with a Christian ethic. The welfare state, for one, gives rise to the worst kind of atomised individualism, where 'alms' (taxes) are 'given' (confiscated), not in such a way that is motivated by helping those who need it most in the way that they most need it, but in such a way that creates a class of permanent dependants, and exempts the tax-payer from any further charitable action. 'I support these insitutions with my taxes,' they will say, 'I have already done my part'. Charity has to remain charity, and that is why capitalism has to remain capitalism.
This might be interesting to some:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP7RgdpSyMw
Do you even know what you are talking about? I’m not talking about religious dogma taken from the Bible that was sanctioned by the corrupt Roman Catholic Church that all Christian church denominations also use as their sacred text. Dogmatic bullshit is what it is full of.
I am talking about the teachings of Jesus, His supposed actual words as portrayed in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, and Mary.
And no, Jesus most assuredly condemned the wealthy. You can’t serve two Gods.
I strongly suspect you’re so defensive because you yourself love your wealth and privilege. I’m sorry Jesus has condemned you, but ease your mind in knowing that He condemns all those who do not repent, myself included. Also, I’m not religious.
Jesus literally said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” He was talking about paying taxes. :razz:
You know virtually zero about me. Why are you being personal? This is a philosophy forum.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Careless eisegesis. This is not a proof-text for Jesus's moral approval of confiscationary levies, and the NT commentary tradition agrees with me on this point. The point here, as it is at Jesus's trial, is that Jesus's kingdom is not of this world. It is a spiritual, not political revolution.
I’m not being political. You clearly are. I was being descriptive of contemporary society, and you bring in some far right-wing Murray Rothbard nonsense about the coercive State and how taxes are theft. I’ve got you pegged and we both know it. You’re defensive about your wealth and privilege. Biblical commentary? What in any way does that have to do with what Jesus said? Do you even realize that the Bible’s various books from Genesis to Revelation were set by the corrupt, self-serving Roman Catholic Church? And now all denominations use it.
In comparison to Rabbinic Judaism and Islam, what characterizes Christianity is that it does not necessarily reason from first principles contained in the scripture. I personally consider that to be Christianity's most serious weakness.
In fact, Luther already pointed that out at his trial in Worms, Germany, in April 1521, before Charles V, emperor of the holy roman empire. Luther said:
If you can show me through scripture and reason that I would be wrong, I will retract what I have said.
Luther's defence was ultimately rejected by Church and Empire on grounds on what Van Eck, emissary of the papacy, argued. Van Eck said:
The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each evil heretic has drawn his deceptive arguments.
The Bible has never been used to reason from first principles, and therefore, Christianity is not dogmatic, which in my opinion, is the religion's most severe weakness.
You are not saying there isn’t Church dogma, are you? Google any Christian church denomination and you will find in their tenets of faith dogmatic nonsense. What Christ taught and what the various churches teach are starkly at odds.
Their advisories are not axiomatic from scripture, i.e. from the Bible. Therefore, no, not at all, their practices do not constitute a sound formal system.
That is the difference with Rabbinic Judaism and Islam, which contrary to Christianity are effectively sound axiomatic formal systems.
The difference is entirely and exclusively epistemic. It is really not about what the scripture says. It is about the consideration whether their advisories necessarily and provably follow from scripture.
Taxation is not political? You are bemoaning capitlaism, are you not? Invasions of capitalism (by which I mean the 'free market', the peaceful exchange of goods and services) are necessarily either criminal or political (which is just legitimised criminality), for they must involve the invasion of justly held property.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I didn't mention Rothbard. But the State is a coercive monopoly and taxation is a confiscationary levy. These are just definitions.
Max Weber on the State, whose definition is the most widely acknowledged: a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.
Oxford Dictionary of Economics definition of 'tax': A payment compulsorily collected from individuals or firms by a government . . .
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Ad hominem, and also irrelevant. Unless you are the worst-off person to have ever lived, everyone is privileged to some degree. Privilege is not a social problem to be solved. This is kind of knee-jerk egalitarianism that is as subject now to the levelling-down objection as it always has been.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Because we have no knowledge of Jesus's words outside of the testimony of the canonical gospels (note that Thomas et al. date to the mid-second century at the earliest, and are rightly considered pseudopigraphical).
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
'Set'? Are you referring to the formation of the canon? In fact, there is evidence from as early as the 2nd century that the NT canon was established very early, and not by a central authority (see the Diatessaron and the Muratorian fragment). The best historical treatments of this are Michael Krueger's three books on the formation of the canon.
And the various churches all believe that their different and varied tenets of faith do indeed come from Scripture. As I understand it, there are different sects of Jews (the Reformed and the Orthodox as examples), and there are the Sunni and Shia Muslims. The two Muslim factions have been at odds for centuries. Plus, there is the Wahabbists, too.
With money with a graven image on it, occupation money the Pharisees shouldn't have been carrying. He's making a joke, I think. What did Jesus think didn't belong to God?
Furthermore, you are not aware of the several councils the Church held to set dogma and the format of the modern Bible?
The way I read it, he wasn’t making a joke but was genuinely trying to avoid the folly of choosing sides between the occupiers (Rome) and the priests’ set trap for him.
You could argue all of that, of course, but that doesn't make it plausible.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
The canon was already long established at Nicaea 325, the first of the ecumenical councils.
When all's said and done, you have asserted some sort of incompatibility between capitalism and a Christian ethic, and I have requested (not demanded) an argument to that affect. You have declined to furnish us with such, instead engaging in ad hominem attacks, and from a position of ignorance to boot. What are we to make of this?
Not true at all, and even admittedly so.
The early history of Christianity was about mandatory Church council advisories, such as the one in Nicaea, and the one in Chalcedon. The religious persecutions against Arians, Nestorians, and Copts was about the fact that they rejected these Church council resolutions.
For example, there is not one Church that pretends that the Nicene creed comes from the Bible. On the contrary, they all admit that the theory of the trinity was decided at the Council of Nicaea.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
As far as I am concerned, Reformed Judaism is not a valid religion. It is also known to be epistemically unsound. In the context of Judaism, I only mention Orthodox (Rabbinic) Judaism as a legitimate formal system.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
The following is an example where the Shia and the Sunni disagree, i.e. the Shahada (central Islamic creed):
[i]Sunni: There is just one God and Muhammed is his prophet.
Shia: There is just one God, Muhammed is his prophet, and Ali is his friend.[/i]
That last bit cannot possibly originate from the Quran or the Sunnah. Therefore, it is epistemically unsound. It clearly amounts to introducing an additional first principle. Now, in my opinion, Shia jurisprudence does not seem to derive any new theorem from this (heretical) addition. Hence, it does not materially affect their take on Islamic theory. In that sense, this addition does not particularly matter in practice.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
It is a protest movement against heretical advisories of which they deem that they do not necessarily or provably follow from scripture, or which are even contradictory to scripture. It is obvious that heretical advisories exist, but I disagree with any condemnation in globo. In my opinion, the problem of heresy can only be assessed per existing advisory, on a case by case basis.
You don’t hear me bitching and moaning about Christ’s incontrovertible teachings. What’s your problem?
Couldn't it be both?
Apparently you’ve never heard of the probably hundreds of Protestant denominations who believe that the entire Bible is the divine Word of God, passed down to humanity through God’s will? Are you from the United States? Protestants aren’t taught about the Council of Nicaea and if they know about it, they would just say that God’s will was done.
Logically, this actually does not follow. Jesus did not say that the wealthy certainly do not go to heaven, only that it is difficult for them to do so, which is not in dispute. There is no question, money can be a curse, and it is to many people. But what does it mean to be 'rich'? 'Rich' is, of course, a relative judgement. Suppose I pass a beggar on the street and give him a coin. He may now be a coin richer than the beggar on the parallel street, whom I have not so graced. Is my beggar now 'rich', and barred from entering the kingdom of heaven? Jesus himself was clothed. Was he the parable's 'rich man', compared with the naked? You are very confident that you have understood the spirit of Jesus's words here, but it is very doubtful that you have.
Jesus commands a particular individual, not everyone for all time, to sell of his possessions. Why? The pericope itself tells us: he was excessively attached to his wealth, and this served as an impediment to discipleship. Others may find different spiritual impediments, but this was his. This ought not to be overblown into a universal imperative, which it isn't.
Perhaps you can furnish us with a non-arbitrary threshold, biblically informed, as to when rich-status kicks in. Otherwise, I think one is well within one's intellectual rights in considering Jesus's preoccupation to be with the excessive love of money, to the detriment of helping one's fellow human being, as is consistent with the tenor of the rest of the NT.
Wrong. He was saying that just as it is impossible for a person to pass through the eye of a needle, so it is impossible for a wealthy man to get into Heaven. This is very clear and obvious to anyone who has actually read the Gospels.
From a jurisprudential point of view, the scripture is a set of first principles, from which it is permitted to derive theorems, inasmuch as they necessarily and provably follow from these first principles.
As such, religious jurisprudence is an axiomatic formal system. Just like for any formal system, religious jurisprudence is not interested in a justification for its first principles, from within the same system. That is not possible anyway, as it would lead to infinite regress.
Furthermore, we also do not try to further justify the 9 axioms of number theory (PA) or the 10 axioms of set theory (ZFC). The principle of system-wide premises is simply the essence of the axiomatic epistemic domain.
So, yes, we can say that the scripture comes from God, but so do ultimately the 9 axioms of PA and the 10 axioms of ZFC, or any first principles that we use.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Protestants who do not know that the trinity was decided at the Council of Nicaea, and who do not know that it does not originate from the Bible, are simply ignorant about their own religion:
Quoting Wikipedia on the trinity
Except for the Unitarians, all Protestants subscribe to the Trinity:
Quoting Wikipedia on Protestantism and Trinity
The Trinity is a theory that does NOT necessarily follow from the Bible. Hence, I consider it to be a heresy within the context of Christianity.
I couldn’t disagree more. Wealth precludes the possibility of salvation. I am very comfortable in my home among my possessions as I’m sure billions of people are. It’s not supposed to be easy to garner God’s grace. It takes real work. Sorry to burst your bubble.
However, I believe we should each believe whatever gets us through this life whilst doing the least harm to others. That’s my motto.
It probably is, as is most of the tenets of faith of the various denominations. So, back to my original point. What did Jesus actually say about God, God’s commandments, and about himself? Who better personifies what he said? The natives or the pilgrims?
Well, grace is not 'garnered'; that is why it is grace.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9)
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy (Rom. 9:16).
So, you will not provide us with the threshold so as to determine the rich from the non-rich, on which the whole question of salvation apparently turns.
Jesus never said this. This is from an Apostle’s epistle.
Anyone in the middle to upper classes in a First World country is wealthy.
Ok: why?
As I mentioned earlier, this is only the case in Christianity, which is not a formal system unlike Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism and Islam.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
There are two major problems with that question.
First of all, this is a jurisprudential question, while Christianity is not a formal system. Hence, there is no deductive method available to answer your question. You are treating Christianity as if it were a formal system and that is where you make a serious mistake.
Secondly, in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clarified that did not come to alter, modify, abolish or abrogate Jewish law. Therefore, the opinions of Jesus and the opinions in Christianity are simply not the same. If you want to know what Jesus would have said, you will need to ask the question to a religious scholar in Jewish law. If you want to know what Christians would think, there will be as many answers as there are Christians. It is important to emphasize that Christians generally do not think like Jesus did. Again, Christianity is not a formal system and is therefore not suitable to answer jurisprudential questions.
My question, again, is: if, as you insist, being wealthy definitively bars one from salvation, and that this is what is implied by Jesus's own words, how do you know that this threshold lies precisely where you insist that it does? Especially since the concepts you invoke - 'middle class' and 'first-world country' - were unknown to Jesus himself, and were never mentioned by him? Is there not just the slightest chance that you are engaging in anachronism here?
You’re being pedantic. It is clear from the Gospels what were the words of Jesus and what were the words of the authors. What did Jesus say? Who better reflects this?
You’re getting into some sort of pedagogical pedantry that is besides the point and is a total waste of our time.
I assume I’m much richer than the rich man that Jesus told to give up his possessions. I’m sure he didn’t have indoor plumbing. Lol
I’m bored of you. You make me yawn and wish I didn’t have to waste so much time on you.
You’re not too wealthy to get into Heaven, Virgo. You don’t have to give up your wealth, and Jesus loves you. Does that help? Feel better? Or have I sowed doubts now?
That's right, and the beggar to whom I give a coin is richer than the beggar who has no coin. So I suppose the coined beggar is now 'rich', and thereby barred from salvation by Jesus's own words. Unless, of course, we contrive an arbitrary and anachronistic wealth-threshold totally unknown to Jesus, with no philosophical justification.
You want to derive theorems, i.e. deductive conclusions, from the words in the Gospels. It is obvious that the theory on deduction, i.e. proof theory, is very, very relevant in this context.
I am not being pedantic.
I insist on the soundness of the formalisms to be used.
That is the essence of what you are supposed to learn from mathematics, i.e. the very basics:
If your procedure is flawed, then your answer will be too.
Furthermore, this is exactly the problem that Martin Luther raised at his trial: Please, use a sound procedure. The answer of the Church to his request was: That cannot be done, because the Bible is merely an arsenal of deceptive arguments.
Wealth is a relative term. There is no such point in the Bible or anywhere else where it is decided NON-ARBITRARILY who is wealthy and who is poor.
Therefore Bill Gates can get to heaven, if, in Heaven's books, Jesus' books, wealth starts at 300 trillion dollars in the possession of one person.
This is fantasy, of course, but so is the claim that there are poor and rich in this world. Everyone has wealth, to different degrees and to different amounts, but what constitutes wealth for the purposes of Heaven or for the purposes of getting into Heaven has no indication given in the Bible or anywhere else.
There, Noah Te Stroete, you can hurtle insults at me for destroying your argument and your point again.
"Blessed are the Cheesemakers for theirs is the inheritance of the Earth."
^That actually applies to all manufacturers of dairy products.
Read the gooddamned post I wrote.
Nice point, but it's irrelevant to the topic of "wealth." Your escape route is blocked.
"Logical reasoning that destorys Noah Te Stroete's arguments" is equivalent to "psychopathic asshole".
Nowhere else is this more clearly defined, than in your mind. And nowhere else is it defined this way, but in your mind.
Edit: Just looked it up and the world GDP is actually $80 trillion. I think I was quoting the USA.
Concerning the epistemic principles of jurisprudence, I can see that there is also a debate in the usul al-figh ("epistemology of jurisprudence") concerning qiyas ("analogies"):
Quoting Wikipedia on the epistemology of Islamic jurisprudence
Hence, analogies are a bit controversial.
They can easily damage the provability of a religious advisory. In my impression, they have probably no place in a serious formal system. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, a legitimate advisory must be produced by deductive inference only.
After re-reading this post I must admit that you did try to answer the OP as honestly as you could. I apologize for my agitation.
Regarding your points on what it means to be Christian and whether it is compatible with a wealthy materialistic consumer society driven by profits for the owner class, well I couldn't disagree more fervently. I see how you voted and I acknowledge it. I just don’t see things that way, and to me this society couldn’t be more at odds with Jesus’ teachings and example.
I will leave it at that.
Yawn
The noble (Christian?) savage is a myth.
Yes, the noble savage is stupid for the same reason.
Actually it is a truth that many white men are pseudo-Christian Tump supporters who own AR-15s. Most people living in the US know this.
Likewise, there certainly were noble tribes. The tribe that greeted Christopher Columbus welcomed him and his crew only to be later slaughtered or enslaved by Columbus.
First it’s “all white men” are such and such, then it’s “many”. This is the kind of logic required to sell nonsense.
The best you could say is that that particular tribe was hospitable or welcoming, virtues that are not limited to any one religion.
Just wanted to add another perspective on the wealthy entering heaven that sort of makes you both right:
The camel through the eye of the needle quote from Jesus does not suggest "difficult" but rather "impossible". It is impossible for a wealthy man to enter heaven. But this is because one cannot bring their wealth with them to heaven. This means someone COULD be rich on earth and still enter heaven as long as they are not attached to their riches (their wealth is part of who they are).
This kind of makes you both right...but I agree with Noah. Those of us in the middle class and up identify with our lifestyles that are made possible by wealth. Anyone who worries about who inherits their wealth, would be unable to enter heaven. Anyone who justifies why they did not do more to help the needy, will not go to heaven. There can only be repentance for not doing more.
Unfortunately, if we go back to the OP, the native americans cannot be more christian because the number one thing that makes someone christian is them accepting jesus as their lord and savior. Now, did native americans follow the ten commandments better than most christians? Seems reasonable at the very least.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Is this a parody?
Sorry, but the two of you are sooo stereotypical here that it's actually funny. :snicker: