Religion The USA, religious yes, but more Christian or Jewish ?

[Maciamo]

As outside observer of the USA knows, a striking majority of American people are religious. Church attendance is several-fold higher than in Europe, and most Americans will tell you that they believe in God (many also in heaven and hell, or in creationism). There is no doubt that one of the biggest divide between Europe and the USA is religious faith.

What struck me as interesting and odd at the same time, is that many Americans believers are so different from the few real believers in Europe. It is pretty standard for Americans in some region (eg. the Bible belt in the South), to believe firmly that God created the world (in 7 days), and created Adam and Eve and all creatures. Some American schools do not teach the theory of evolution but creationism. Some government institutions do not hesitate to place copies of the 10 Commandments on their walls, and people are frowned upon for mowing their lawn on Sunday - which God gave us to rest. Many Americans fear hell and judgement day. Their fear God Almighty, a concept that would make even Christian Europeans smile.

But where do all these beilefs come from ? Yes, they are mostly, if not exclusively, from the Old Testament, the one Christians and Jews have in common.

In contrast, I have noticed that the young Europeans that still claimed to be true Christian believers (as opposed to the majority which is Christian in name only, mostly agnostic or atheist) had very different beliefs from US-style Christianity. European born-again Christians almost entirely dismiss the old-fashioned ideas from the Old Testament. In fact, even the mainstream clergy of the very conservative Roman Catholic Church admits that God did not create the world in 7 days, that the Earth is not the centre of the universe, that evolution is a fact, and that people do not go to hell for committing a deadly sin or going against one of the ten commandments.

What young European Christian believe in, is quite the opposite of the fear of God Almighty and Judgment Day from the older book; they believe in forgiveness, compassion, love and respect - all the values taught by Jesus and absent from the Old Testament. I do not deny that such people may exist in the US, but they surely are a tiny minority (and with little influence in the government).

It really looks that these people believe in 2 completely opposite gods. The one from the OT is vindictive, unforgiving, choleric, judgmental, even tyranical. The one from the NT is compassionate, understanding, loving, caring and appeasing. I have never understood how a religion could have merged these two gods under the single name of Christianity.

To sum up, religious Europeans are mostly the hippie-like type, who believe in peace and love, and get their faith almost exclusively from the New Testament (Jesus). The mainstream American Christians, those who voted for the neo-conservative party of GW Bush, those who teach creationism, want divine revenge for 9/11, and live in the fear of being judged by god, or believe in hell, all get their ideas mostly (although for most also not exclusively) from the Old Testament.

No wonder that even the very Christian US government should do so much to protect Israel (the Holy Land of the OT) against the evil Muslims. It is not just that these Christians share the OT with the Jewish, they hardly care about the ideas expressed in the NT, and therefore are almost Jewish themselves. The USA is virtually a Jewish nation, with pockets of Christians (i.e. people who follow the teaching of Jesus Christ first), Muslims, Hindus or whatever.

 

[kirei_na_me]

In what public school, in the U.S., is creationism taught? Seems that would be illegal? Private Christian schools, yes, but public schools?

My high school was in the Bible Belt, and my Biology teacher taught evolution, never creationism. I remember it vividly, because someone asked her if she believed in creationism, she said she believed in both, and I was pretty amazed at that answer? :?

Oh, and good thread by the way. As always, I am in complete agreement with you.

 

[Maciamo]

In what public school, in the U.S., is creationism taught? Seems that would be illegal? Private Christian schools, yes, but public schools?

Well, I didn't say 'public' schools, did I ? :relief:

I have never heard of creationism being taught at school in Europe at leats for the last 10-15 years, even in private schools (i.e. over 90% of the schools). I went to a Catholic secondary school, and we had compulsory religion classes, but even there the priest (or regular teacher, depending on the year) thought that creationism was outdated and could not posibly be taught in the late 20th century.

Oh, and good thread by the way. As always, I am in complete agreement with you.

Thanks !

 

[kirei_na_me]

No, you didn't say public. My fault.

There are so many Christian schools around here. There are people I know, who are so concerned about the 'secular world', that they send their children to Christan school until graduation from high school, and then send them to a Bible College to 'further' their education. To me, they're limiting their children and doing them a disservice. To them, they're protecting them from the influence of 'the world'.

You are right. It's deeply embedded in a lot of Americans. It breeds intolerance and ignorance. It also breeds support for a president who claims he's a Christian, but really uses it to his advantage in order to excuse 'protecting' Israel and invading Muslim countries. Speaking of Bush, the oil billionaire, did anyone ever hear that Jesus said, "a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven"(Matthew 19:23)?

 

[lexico]

Clueless

This is a great article, Maciamo. I'm a little overwhelmed, so I really don't know where to start. There are several versions of the "historical Jesus" floating around, and I wish I had my old references with me for clear argumentation.

First, the stock image of "Jesus the Christ and King the servant the son of God" can often be sparated into several independent entities when seeking the historical truth. When this is done with adequate support, much confusion and mystery that surrounds the Christian faith can be resolved, I think.

The book of Q actually deals with the historical and textual study of the historical Jesus, son of Joseph, the Nazareen, the Galilean. In summary, the book says the following:

1. Jesus was of Judean blood and upbringing. Hence the frequent references to the Old Testament and the emphasis on Jerusalem as opposed to Sechem, the holy place for the Samaritan Israelites.

2. Jesus' hometown of Galilee was a multiethnic, multilingual community which formed as a reorganization of the disintegrated old, land-based peoples of the Levant or Mediterranean regions.

3. Jesus was probably a polyglot; with Aramaic as his mother tongue, Classical Hebrew for his Tanak lessons in the synagogue, and possibly Koine Greek, and some Latin Vulgate to communicate with the people he met in his neighborhood.

4. As a Judean, Jesus was surrounded by, and exposed to, a foreign environment in the sense of Jewish tradition. (Galilee means "land of foreigners?") According to the Mosean~Levitican Law, any contact with foreigners was ruled unclean, which required ritual, sacrificial cleansing.

5. Jesus confronted the traditonal authority of ritual cleanliness, and called for a new, natural life style that can accomodate the new world that was in the making.
A) Be friendly
B) Beg if in need, give if you can
C) Stop fighting over material things, ideas, laws, and cleanliness.
D) Love life, more than keeping holidays holy
E) Love God, the Jewish brethren, and even non-Jews

The most shocking aspect of the book is that it claims the historical Jesus probably did not advocate his being "the son of God" or "the Christ, the annointed" or "the King of the Jews" as modern Christians have been taught.

A hypothetical booklet which biblical scholars have named "the book of Q; for Quellen 'what'" was a collection of Jesus' sayings that was circulated in the late 1st century CE. The growth of the Jacobean Chuch in Jerusalem, the Asian Churchs in Asia Minor, and the Roman Church in Rome are in parallel with the NT authors of James the brother of Jesus, Paul, and Peter. While James and Peter initially held on the the OT tradition, Paul made a major decision to make a break with OT tradition by placing precedence on Jesus' new ideas. (Although we have clear statements from Jesus that God should come before him. Trinity is unbiblical, then? Mystery?) The spread of Christianity in Europe largely owes to Paul's interpretation (or Jesus' revelation to Paul) regarding church policy towards non-Jews.

Although it come as a surprise that Jesus' original sayings may not have included such quintessential notions as the trinity, The Book of Q does not promote antichristian ideas. But it tries to bring proper emphasis on the sayings of Jesus, often neglected or de-emphasized the Christian Church of the West.

The hippie image of early Christians, however funny it may sound, may be closer to the historical truth, but this does not mean that early Christians worshiped the happy plant or experimented with various marital combinations. I hope this post confuses more than enlightens, as many wise-morons have done in the past.

Edit: Ths last line is not sarcasm. I'm only humbling myself because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about! Like I said in the beginning, I am overwhelmed.

 

[Shooter452]

I am not a devout anything, and I am certainly not an authority on scripture or theology. Indeed, you both probably know more about this subject than do I. That caveat aside, I am struck that the tone of your conversation seems to be mildly--to be kind--condescending. There is a whiff of sarcasm borne of the very same intolerance that you seem to find in Christians, in your attitudes. I find this disquieting and I wonder if--assuming I am correct--you are even aware of it.

What little I know about the New Testiment makes me cautious. Stamping 21st Century concepts and values over that scripture strikes me as being, IMHO, careless. Statements that are probably idiomatic to the place and time of their recording cannot be safely taken out of context nor even in content. Worse yet, they are the statements of a person or persons who were overly fond of folksy cryptic examples, analogies and aphorisms. It is possible (likely) that the words do not mean what we think they mean because we do not know the dialect of the day.

Worse yet, most of us read these words in idiomatic English--and often not even the English language of our era, but in a dialect that we do not truly understand. These are also translations from Koine Greek and Aramaic that have been handed down to us by what may be some very unscrupulous translators--some/many/most of whom had a theological ax to grind when they did their work.

That these men--and they were exclusively men at the time--would have allowed their personal agendas to creep into their efforts is almost without challange.

So not only is there a possibility that the words of the New Testiment were never even spoken at all, there is also the possibility that what was said was totally different than what we (want to?) hear. That might be one of the reasons why one can make scripture say just about anything that one wishes it to say.

Beware simplicity when you discuss the mind of God--if God there is. If there is anything of which I am absolutely certain it is that God does some pretty convoluted thinking out there. If you are trying to read his mind, you've got your work cut out for you.

Please accept that I do not desire to be overly critical of your opinions. I am only fearful that you are on the verge of making a very common error. It is one that rabid Evangelical tent preachers make all the time.

Deus absconditus

 

[kirei_na_me]

Good points, Shooter. Let me take this time to tell you, that I have been enjoying your posts. You are always speak very eloquently.

 

[Shooter452]

*a tip of the hat to you*

Thanks for the kind words, Kirei.

I am a product of my times. But allow me to be the first to tell you that like most commentators I may have a long list of complaints, but am very short on solutions.

 

[lexico]

*playing innocent--looking back at Maciamo, and back*
Who, me?

Thank you for your kind criticism, Shooter, and Kirei_na_me.
I'm glad people care about these things.
Because I think they are important.
Apathy is the deadliest foe!
I must say that I am with you on most points that you made.
I personally didn't like the "anti-Christian" look and the overly "radical" approach and conclusion that the author of The Boot of Q offered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work is supposedly based on more than a century of bliblical studies, and is a summary of it.
If we can see that being a biblical scholar often does not equate to being a Christian of any denomination,
it is really not surprising that the words coming from such scholars appear neutral, cold, critical, of even sarcastic at times.
That I didn't like at all, as a reformed catholic Catholic, I would rather have someone or some book confirm my faith and help me grow spiritually, than have harsh remarks about the bible or how we see the bible.
So I left the book, circulated it among my Christian brothers, and lost two copies as a result.
They probably burned them.
Now I have to buy my third copy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sarcastic at all. In fact I have come to believe that I can learn something from it, that is enlightening in its own special way.
Who said God speaks in one language only?
So perhaps in his special way, he could reach the unbelieving Thomas!?!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you are correct. The book is making a remark that is overly confrontational.
But I really don't know if that was the intended effect.
Possibly a "rhetoric" of irony, saying one thing but meaning another.
I even think the guy wants to promote the Christian faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting that you mentioned "sarcasm."
In the ancient world, I believe the cynics, or sophists would often go around asking people "weird" questions with the purpose of teaching wisdom.
If one took one statement from The Book of Q that "Jesus was also in the tradition of sages who taught the public the wisom of life and the universe," would that be considered sacrilige? :souka:

 

[kirei_na_me]

Thank you for your kind criticism, Shooter, and Kirei_na_me.

I didn't criticize you?

 

[lexico]

I didn't criticize you?

**again looking back at Maciamo--and back**
Who, me?
Don't worry, I was complimenting on your interest in the subject.
No, I feel wonderful that we can talk about this topic Maciamo presented so interstingly.
You are doing great for JREF.
No wonder some people call you Queen.
It takes more than looks to to that, right?

 

[kirei_na_me]

Some people call me Queen? Wow. I didn't know that! I am not worthy.

Anyway, yes, this is an interesting discussion. I look forward to hearing more from you, Shooter, Maciamo, and the rest. I'm not good at these discussions.

 

[Shooter452]

You do just fine, milady.

 

[bossel]

they believe in forgiveness, compassion, love and respect - all the values taught by Jesus and absent from the Old Testament. I do not deny that such people may exist in the US, but they surely are a tiny minority

Hmm, I wouldn't be so sure of that "tiny." I've taken part in several discussions with people who believed all this "forgiveness, compassion etc." stuff & at the same time didn't seem to have a problem identifying this with that murderous OT god. They seem to think that everything changed without their god having changed. I have problems understanding how that should work with an omniscient, omnipotent & omnipresent entity, but, well, I have problems with understanding a religious mindset in general.

 

[Maciamo]

I think the discussion has slided to a quite different direction from the one I had started. Not that it is bad, but I just wanted to point out that there are two opposite tendencies in Christianity (judgmental and tyranical OT vs peace & love NT), and that most Christian Americans tended to attach (much) more importance to the OT part, making them more Jewish than really Christians.

 

[Lina Inverse]

As outside observer of the USA knows, a striking majority of American people are religious. Church attendance is several-fold higher than in Europe, and most Americans will tell you that they believe in God (many also in heaven and hell, or in creationism). There is no doubt that one of the biggest divide between Europe and the USA is religious faith.

What struck me as interesting and odd at the same time, is that many Americans believers are so different from the few real believers in Europe. It is pretty standard for Americans in some region (eg. the Bible belt in the South), to believe firmly that God created the world (in 7 days), and created Adam and Eve and all creatures. Some American schools do not teach the theory of evolution but creationism.

Ok, here's some food for thought - is it odd for me as a firmly convinced atheist to not believe in the evolution theory? Because that's what it is, a theory and nothing more, even if most people treat it as a fact
I've recently read a book which has some very good evidence against the evolution theory, which I'd recommend everyone to read! It doesn't make any religious references (otherwise I surely wouldn't have touched it), but simply presents some very interesting facts :haihai:
I think there should be an English translation by now... ah, there is:
Dr. Hans J. Zillmer, "Darwins Mistake"
You'll really gain some very interesting insights by this! I just started reading the successor to it ("Irrtümer der Erdgeschichte" - Errors in the Earth's History) which just came out here. No English translation out as of yet (at least I didn't see any).

 

[lexico]

Evolving God

They seem to think that everything changed without their god having changed. I have problems understanding how that should work with an omniscient, omnipotent & omnipresent entity.

Actually there is a school of theology that thinks quite differently from the Christians that you've encountered; that "god" has not changed in the course of time.
In fact, they believe that "god" evolved from the very moment the universe was created.

The time line would roughly be as follows:

1. pre-universal god: The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent "god" was alone and content in "god's" motionless perfection.

2. unhappy god: The perfect state that "god" enjoyed was motionless because it was perfect. It became tedious, and "god" felt empty.

3. planning god: In the hopes of creating motion, "god" designs the universe and humans. Hence "god" chose to cease to be perfect, and to begin a new era of motion, imperfection, birth, life, and death.

4. creating god: The universe and humans are created in an imperfect world. Being dependent on "god" as imperfect beings, the universe has reason to recognize and praise "god," and "god" sees that it is good, finally!

5. communicating god: In the course of creation and motion, god learns that it is difficult to manage the proper upbringing of humans, and interacts with them. The major divide in the phase of communication becomes the advent of Christ, who is put in charge of salvation.

So in their view, god also changed, by learning about his creatures. This could be classified as a modern form of anthropomorophic theology. God's omni-ness is only in principle and hind sight. But arguably "god" has evolved with us. Otherwise, why did he change his policy towards humans? This too in hind sight would seem to be a plan, and from a supratemporal view point, it would be exactly that.

EDIT: ; that should be who believe that.
EDIT: they should be subsribers to this other theology

 

[Maciamo]

I've recently read a book which has some very good evidence against the evolution theory, which I'd recommend everyone to read! It doesn't make any religious references (otherwise I surely wouldn't have touched it), but simply presents some very interesting facts

Could you summarize these facts for us please. Judging from the subtitle of the book : "Antediluvian Discoveries Prove Dinosaurs and Humans Co-Existed", I would rather think that this book concerns Darwin's paleontologic mistakes (he didn't have the same knowledge of dinosaurs and sciences 150 years ago as we do now), not the basic idea that life beings evolve.

 

[Maciamo]

1. pre-universal god: The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent "god" was alone and content in "god's" motionless perfection.

5. communicating god: In the course of creation and motion, god learns that it is difficult to manage the proper upbringing of humans, and interacts with them. The major divide in the phase of communication becomes the advent of Christ, who is put in charge of salvation.

Doesn't make sense. If that god is omnipotent and omniscient, why would it have any problem "managing the proper upbringing of humans and interacting with them" ?

2. unhappy god: The perfect state that "god" enjoyed was motionless because it was perfect. It became tedious, and "god" felt empty.

How can it be perfect if it is boring ? How can an omnipotent god feel unhappy or bored (if he can't use his power just to control his emotions, he is hardly omnipotent). ?

So in their view, god also changed, by learning about his creatures. This could be classified as a modern form of anthropomorophic theology. God's omni-ness is only in principle and hind sight. But arguably "god" has evolved with us. Otherwise, why did he change his policy towards humans? This too in hind sight would seem to be a plan, and from a supratemporal view point, it would be exactly that.

Considering teh length and extent of the universe, seeing how this "god" has difficult dealing with his own creation, and was even forced to change his basic morals, is just absurd. There is so much more to care about than humans in the universe. At best, in our huge (probably infinte) universe, this god looks like a 'village chief' preoccupied by trivial matters. Not a big deal to guess what kind of person might have imagined such a god - and not difficult se understand why such thinking would appeal mostly to people living in remote areas, such as the US countryside (given the very low population density, not unlike that of the Ancient Middle East, where the concept was born).

 

[kirei_na_me]

I do think that most Americans go by the OT more than the NT. There are many churches around here that claim they are NT churches, but to me, they can be just as strict as the OT churches.

Believe it or not, a good friend of ours is a preacher at a Church of Christ, which claims to be a NT church. They are the ones that talk about the "secular world" so much. At first, when you talk to them, you get the feeling they are very progressive and much more open than other churches. After you get to know them better, though, you realize they're almost just as conservative as Southern Baptists or Pentecostal Holiness. It's very misleading.

If I have the time, I will try to dig up some more specific examples. I don't have my documentation in front of me now, and it's getting late.