Azure on "Coming To Terms With Christianity"

[Pastaneta]

All three religions have a dual ethic separating believers and unbelievers.

Not in regard of the Golden Rule. Both Judaism and Christianity say to treat others (believers and unbelievers) as yourself. Islam doesn't.

[Ibrahim]

All three religions have a dual ethic separating believers and unbelievers.

Not in regard of the Golden Rule. Both Judaism and Christianity say to treat others (believers and unbelievers) as yourself.

That is not apparent in either their historical conduct or in the Bible. Could you possibly base this statement on something?

[Ibrahim]

Of course, but the point is that happened because Christians blithely ignored the demands of Christian ethics, not because the Gospel commanded (or even allowed) to fight the unbelievers and enslave them.

The Bible permits slavery and war by conquest, it's only matter of which portions you emphasize.

[Spengler]

Ibrahim,

It surely is the case that Judaism and Christianity are not "theologically compatible" -- God forbid we should worship anything in human form! But there nonetheless is a fundamental commonality of attitude between Jews and Christians, which can be summarized in Heschel's phrase, "divine humility." The Jewish God is a God of covenants: he descends from heaven to Mount Sinai and establishes a partnership with mankind (in which man is the junior partner, of course). God's self-limitation by covenant also is the fundamental concept of Christianity which believes that God's self-sacrifice on the cross extends the covenant to all who believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

You really should read Rabbi Soloveichik's article before throwing around theological vagaries. In form, Judaism more closely resembles Islam (strict monotheism, dietary laws, daily prayer) and there are many Jews who see a greater affinity with Islam. In content, Judaism is much closer to Christianity with whom, after all, we share sacred texts (although the way in which the two faith-communities read these texts are of course different).

[Ibrahim]

Ibrahim,

It surely is the case that Judaism and Christianity are not "theologically compatible"

This is all I am saying.

But there nonetheless is a fundamental commonality of attitude between Jews and Christians, which can be summarized in Heschel's phrase, "divine humility." The Jewish God is a God of covenants: he descends from heaven to Mount Sinai and establishes a partnership with mankind (in which man is the junior partner, of course). God's self-limitation by covenant also is the fundamental concept of Christianity which believes that God's self-sacrifice on the cross extends the covenant to all who believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

While you see these two acts, forming covenants and self-sacrifice, as being similar I cannot see them as anything but radically different. The Jewish, and similarly Islamic God establishes a set of laws for his people, but the Christian God replaces laws with a ritual sacrifice, in which God himself plays the part of the victim.

In form, Judaism more closely resembles Islam (strict monotheism, dietary laws, daily prayer) and there are many Jews who see a greater affinity with Islam. In content, Judaism is much closer to Christianity with whom, after all, we share sacred texts (although the way in which the two faith-communities read these texts are of course different).

I agree with both of these statements, but,

You really should read Rabbi Soloveichik's article before throwing around theological vagaries.

Really now, my statement was not vague. It was a simple reminder that each religion must deny the essential truths of the other. A comment you just agreed with.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

...
But there nonetheless is a fundamental commonality of attitude between Jews and Christians, which can be summarized in Heschel's phrase, "divine humility." The Jewish God is a God of covenants: he descends from heaven to Mount Sinai and establishes a partnership with mankind (in which man is the junior partner, of course). God's self-limitation by covenant also is the fundamental concept of Christianity which believes that God's self-sacrifice on the cross extends the covenant to all who believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

While you see these two acts, forming covenants and self-sacrifice, as being similar I cannot see them as anything but radically different. The Jewish, and similarly Islamic God establishes a set of laws for his people, but the Christian God replaces laws with a ritual sacrifice, in which God himself plays the part of the victim.

The Jewish God also established an elaborate system of ritual sacrifice, which the Christian views as pre-figuring that of Jesus. Further, Christianity derives it's core of righteousnes based on faith from:

Gen 15:5 And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”
6 Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

which couldn't be more Jewish in origin.

I cannot speak to how Islam does, or does not, relate.

[Ibrahim]

...
But there nonetheless is a fundamental commonality of attitude between Jews and Christians, which can be summarized in Heschel's phrase, "divine humility." The Jewish God is a God of covenants: he descends from heaven to Mount Sinai and establishes a partnership with mankind (in which man is the junior partner, of course). God's self-limitation by covenant also is the fundamental concept of Christianity which believes that God's self-sacrifice on the cross extends the covenant to all who believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

While you see these two acts, forming covenants and self-sacrifice, as being similar I cannot see them as anything but radically different. The Jewish, and similarly Islamic God establishes a set of laws for his people, but the Christian God replaces laws with a ritual sacrifice, in which God himself plays the part of the victim.

The Jewish God also established an elaborate system of ritual sacrifice, which the Christian views as pre-figuring that of Jesus.

That is certainly where the idea of Jesus as ritual sacrifice originates. I think Jews and Muslims still instinctively recoil from the idea of placing God himself in such a role.

Further, Christianity derives it's core of righteousnes based on faith from:

Gen 15:5 And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”
6 Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

which couldn't be more Jewish in origin.

I cannot speak to how Islam does, or does not, relate.

I consider this one of the unifying principles of all monotheistic religions.

Consider, from the Quran, 49:13:

The noblest of you in God's sight is he who is the most righteous.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

...

Further, Christianity derives it's core of righteousnes based on faith from:

Gen 15:5 And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”
6 Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

which couldn't be more Jewish in origin.

I cannot speak to how Islam does, or does not, relate.

I consider this one of the unifying principles of all monotheistic religions.

Consider, from the Quran, 49:13:

The noblest of you in God's sight is he who is the most righteous.

Unless I badly misunderstand that verse, it would seem to be nearly antithetical to Christianity:

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

and Paul in Romans is referencing:

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

[AzariLoveIran]

The Vatican? Oh, I am sure you remember "Sublimis Deus" (1537):

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith. We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

Unfortunately that is not what actually happened in the Americas. The Indian civilizations were wiped out, the people decimated, and black slaves from African imported as laborers in their place.

Ibrahim, that is "salvation Christian style" that Spengler and Pasta are so proud of . . wipe out all the indigene in north America, wipe out all indigene in south America (steal their gold), imports slaves and proclaim great civilization and claim championship in human rights and humanity . .

Welcome to western civilization . .

BTW, 4got to mention Australian and NZ.

.

[Ibrahim]

I consider this one of the unifying principles of all monotheistic religions.

Consider, from the Quran, 49:13:

The noblest of you in God's sight is he who is the most righteous.

Unless I badly misunderstand that verse, it would seem to be nearly antithetical to Christianity:

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

and Paul in Romans is referencing:

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

This is the difference between Christianity on one hand, and Judaism and Islam on the other. In Christianity all salvation is based on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In Judaism and Islam the individual deals with God directly, by either adhering to holy law, or by mystical understanding of God directly.


In this context I am understanding "righteousness" to mean faith in and love of God. So too in these Christian passages, though in those cases the faith would be in the efficacy of Jesus sacrifice rather than in God directly.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

This is the difference between Christianity on one hand, and Judaism and Islam on the other. In Christianity all salvation is based on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In Judaism and Islam the individual deals with God directly, by either adhering to holy law, or by mystical understanding of God directly.

In broad strokes, mostly... I think it could be better said that in Christianity, all salvation is based on imputed righteousness, with Abraham's belief/faith being the exemplar. Importantly, this concept predates the incarnation. (In fact, it predates the entire Bible.) With respect to Christians, that imputation is predicated on a faith/belief in the substitutionary sacrificial death of Jesus. (Which faith/belief is not even considered "merit," but itself a gift from God.) It stands in conceptual opposition to other systems which emphasize "earning" or "meriting" God's acceptance/approval.

In this context I am understanding "righteousness" to mean faith in and love of God.
...

Most Christians would not couch "righteousness" in those terms. It may result from faith in God and an understanding of the God's love. (Unfortunately, actual "love of God" is a pretty scarce commodity in any religion, IMHO.) But Christian "righteousness" is a flawless "right-standing" with God, obviously humanly impossible.

So too in these Christian passages, though in those cases the faith would be in the efficacy of Jesus sacrifice rather than in God directly.

Personally, I would reverse that. The efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice is entirely dependent on the character of God to make and accept that sacrifice. Thus, sacrifice of Jesus is essentially an expression of the character of God, so that one's faith is essentially in the character of God Himself.

Put another way, it is conceivable to me that one could put effectual saving faith in the character of God without necessarily fully understanding some or all the facts of Jesus' sacrifice.

As to those verses, my perspectives, FWIW...

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Darn few do.

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Ditto.

Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Sentence #1 is the kicker. Establishing one's own righteousness is a dead end. That's what I meant above when I said about Christianity, "It stands in conceptual opposition to other systems which emphasize "earning" or "meriting" God's acceptance/approval." Sentence #2 is talking about the result of that imputation of righteousness.

[G.B. Vico]

This is not a discussion on the merits or crimes of Western civilization. The question was whether Christian ethics is dualistic or universalistic. It is infantile to try to decide such question based on a moralistic reading of history (Christians were bad, everybody else was good). Even a superficial reading of the original sources shows that Christian ethics is not dualistic. But if you guys have no counter-argument to that , we can stop here.

[Ibrahim]

It stands in conceptual opposition to other systems which emphasize "earning" or "meriting" God's acceptance/approval.

Absolutely.

But Christian "righteousness" is a flawless "right-standing" with God, obviously humanly impossible.

The New Testament says that Christians will receive righteousness, so it seems that it is attainable, though only through the miracle of Jesus' sacrifice, or the miracle of believing in Jesus' sacrifice, as you have it.

Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Sentence #1 is the kicker. Establishing one's own righteousness is a dead end. That's what I meant above when I said about Christianity, "It stands in conceptual opposition to other systems which emphasize "earning" or "meriting" God's acceptance/approval." Sentence #2 is talking about the result of that imputation of righteousness.

I never took "righteousness" to be a characteristic entirely of the individual. It means faith in and love of God, so that no righteousness belongs to the individual independent of God. There is a lot of Christian and Islamic mystical writing on this theme (and probably Jewish as well, though I don't know it), and the common metaphor is that the righteous, or faithful, human being is a vessel into which God pours love, salvation, knowledge, ecstasy, etc.

[Ibrahim]

This is not a discussion on the merits or crimes of Western civilization. The question was whether Christian ethics is dualistic or universalistic. It is infantile to try to decide such question based on a moralistic reading of history (. Even a superficial reading of the original sources shows that Christian ethics is not dualistic. But if you guys have no counter-argument to that , we can stop here.

I made several points in this respect. First, history shows that in practice Christian ethics are dualistic. That much is established fact. I think it is worth mentioning , but there isn't much of a discussion to be had beyond that.

Second, I described the Biblical examples of dual ethics for Jews and non-Jews, which goes beyond mere historical incident because the Bible itself describes these events, along with the divine sanction for them. Unless a Christian is willing to repudiate the Old Testament, and few are, then there exists within Christian scripture a precedent for treating unbelievers with different ethics than believers. Israel was not only permitted but instructed to slay and enslave members of other tribes at various times. Christians are, through miraculous means, members of the people of Israel. So it is not such a leap to create Christian justifications for dual ethics.

So, having a history that shows dual ethics in practice, and have a set of scriptures that provide at least precedents if not justifications for dual ethics, I think it can safely be said that Christianity has dual ethics, or at the very least the potential for dual ethics.

Christians were bad, everybody else was good)

I hope you are not implying that I said this.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

It stands in conceptual opposition to other systems which emphasize "earning" or "meriting" God's acceptance/approval.

Absolutely.

If you understand and agree with that, forgive me--I do not mean for this to sound condescending at all, but I find that amazing. There are lots of ostensible "Christians" that don't get that one.

But Christian "righteousness" is a flawless "right-standing" with God, obviously humanly impossible.

The New Testament says that Christians will receive righteousness, so it seems that it is attainable, though only through the miracle of Jesus' sacrifice, or the miracle of believing in Jesus' sacrifice, as you have it.

I quease at the word "attainable," and much prefer "imputable."

Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Sentence #1 is the kicker. Establishing one's own righteousness is a dead end. That's what I meant above when I said about Christianity, "It stands in conceptual opposition to other systems which emphasize "earning" or "meriting" God's acceptance/approval." Sentence #2 is talking about the result of that imputation of righteousness.

I never took "righteousness" to be a characteristic entirely of the individual. It means faith in and love of God, so that no righteousness beings to the individual. There is a lot of Christian and Islamic mystical writing on this theme (and probably Jewish as well, though I don't know it), and the common metaphor is that the righteous, or faithful, human being is a vessel into which God pours love/salvation.

It would appear we simply use and define the word a bit differently then. At least part of what you describe, if I follow you, is what I would probably refer to as "sanctified," which is to say, set apart for holy use. In that sense, one is a vessel set apart for God's purposes. But to me, any valid definition of righteousness cannot escape the "There is none righteous, no, not one..." component as part of it's definition. I think it is important, at least in NT Scriptures, to remain cognizant of that aspect.