Take your own advice.
The issue isn't Jesus but Christianity. If you argue that Christianity supports contemporary liberalism, you must explain why most Christians have not been like contemporary liberals.
On the other hand, if you want to argue that Christianity has corrupted the teachings of Jesus, at the very least, you have to explain why your reading of the teachings of Jesus is more authentic and valid than the readings of a 2,000-year-old organization founded by the actual followers of Jesus (we have examples of 1st-century Christian literature and those are organically connected to the Church organizations that grew up in the next few hundred years.) Were it not for the Church, we wouldn't have the very accounts of Jesus's teachings with which you want to refute the Church's reading, so you have your work cut out for you, to say the least.
The world-famous doctor, missionary, humanitarian, and theologian Dr. Albert Schweitzer was likewise no fan of Saint Paul...Famed philosopher Will Durant claims that "[f]undamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ"...Thomas Jefferson once wrote of Paul that he was, "the first great corrupter" of Jesus' teachings...
Making your argument implicitly is a coward's act. That said, Jefferson and Durant are pretty much the opposite of authorities on Christian philosophy, theology, and hermeneutics, and Albert Schweitzer's quote ignores the fact that, of Paul's life's work, we retain a mere 14 letters. Presumably Paul did say and write more, on more topics, in an entire adult life spent as an evangelist. In any case, Schweitzer too is a dead limb on the tree of Christianity, having left no school or lasting influence within convinced Christians or the Church.
But here's the really damning bit:
Pay attention when the fundamentalist types start spewing their hatred and crowing about how righteous they are: they rely heavily on the Old Testament (which Jesus rendered academic) and the writings of Paul (who never actually met Jesus)... [consider] Galatians 3:19-25 (the old Law cannot provide salvation); Romans 7:1-6 (a Christian who follows the old Law commits spiritual adultery); Galatians 3:13-16 (Jesus took away the old Law, nailing it to the cross); Ephesians 2:11-16 (He abolished in His flesh the Law with its commandments and regulations) ... Acts 13:29 (with His death it is fulfilled)Just who do you think wrote Romans, for pity's sake, except the very Paul you are trying to condemn, you ignorant boob? It's St Paul himself who tells us that the Law cannot provide salvation. He anticipated your argument more than 1,900 years ago. He also wrote all the other letters you're quoting, except for Acts, which we think that St Luke wrote primarily as a history of St Paul's ministry.
Come back when you've done some reading yourself rather than regurgitating, wholly undigested, somebody else's discredited arguments. And before you start quoting ROMANS for heaven's sake read the damn thing.
| < Boston? | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' > |
