So what is it then? Is it a philosophy...a science...a
social science?
Who came up with this idea anyway? Well, if we look at the bible, supposedly the foundation of most Christians ideas about Christianity, we an interesting view. In James 2 [NIV] we read:
“If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep
a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look
after orphans and widows in their distress [better translated: oppression] and
to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Hmmm. That is quite different from saying that religion, per
se, is bad. By the way, the second part of the myth is ...”it is a relationship
with God”. Let’s stick with these verses: so God wants all to watch what they
say and to care for those being oppressed. And we are to be pure: not to live
in luxury and self-indulgence [Ch. 5]. And the context of James is clear: the necessity of caring for the poor
and a condemnation of the rich.
So we see very clearly and practically what kind of
religion/Christian God demands. But the church “waters down” the demands to
what you can get from God. It
projects a romantic “relationship” as the goal – not a life of love for one
an-other [and all of God’s creations] [2:8]. It is more palatable to alter demands to benefits. Turning God into a mere sugar daddy or lover, all sense of
responsibility is void.
No comments:
Post a Comment