This is really just a collection of thoughts around a fairly broad theme.

I took a taxi a few weeks ago, the driver was Nigerian. He was listening to a CD of some kind of African Christian music. The lyrics were describing what believing in Jesus could do for the listener. It was a call-and-response thing: Who is the one to give you happiness? Jesus. Who is the one to save your soul? Jesus. Who is the one to make you prosperous? Jesus.

My knowledge of the actual teachings of Jesus is fairly limited, but I do know that there were certain commandments he gave his followers regarding how he wanted them to live their lives. Being that I don't see the man as having been divine, it doesn't matter greatly to me if he said this or that or the other - but there are things he did say that I find agreeable, or admirable - most particularly with regard to altruistic acts. "Sell all your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor," or words to that effect, I believe he said that more than once. It's not that I think I should sell everything I own, nor that I think anyone should, really. But it's the difference in emphasis between modern Christianity and the actual teachings of Jesus that bothers me.*

My knowledge of the early Church is equally limited, but my impression is that besides preaching their new religion, they 'gathered alms for the poor'. Maybe this impression is wrong. And, sure, many Christians do this - or its modern equivalent - from time to time, and some, presumably, do it a lot.

But look at what most of them say. "Finding Jesus let me find myself." "I have never felt such peace as when I saw the Light of Christ." "In accepting the Word of God I have found true happiness." When I see statements like this, I'm, for want of a better word, disappointed - where's the guy who found Jesus, quit his job, sold his house, and gave the money to people in serious need? Where are the people whose supposed spiritual enlightnement has led them to acts of altruism, rather than introspective, meditative quests to ever further and perfect their 'relationship with Jesus'?

I suppose part of the cause could be the decline of works theology, and the mainstream acceptance of 'justification through faith alone'. Granting that a believer would, presumably, say that altruistic acts will arise naturally from a position of true faith... with well over a billion Christians in the world, how many fakers do we have out there? How many Bible-thumping demagogues decrying socialised medicine?** And the number of Christians who would agree with them, as compared to the number out there, doing good, helping the needy?

I suppose it would be unfair of me to take what I've read of posters on this forum (excepting Praxising, who seems to do charity work) as indicative of their lives, and even if it would be accurate to do so, I don't mean to judge anyone. But I find it very strange, the sort of gap between what Jesus taught, and how Christians present their faith nowadays. It seems to me the emphasis is on the self, on personal satisfaction and happiness, rather than on being a good person - except to the extent that kowtowing to the Almighty is 'good'.

Me? Not much. I have two charity standing orders (who knows if the money actually reaches the needy), and I'll give change or a spare smoke to a bum on the street from time to time - I'm not pretending to come at this from a position of superiority. But if I had to choose a religion to live by - gun to my head - I wouldn't go for Buddhism or Jainism or any of that jazz; I'm sure I'd go for some 'red-letter' version of Christianity, because of the altruistic principles that (I'm pretty sure) it espouses. And yet when I look at Christianity today, I don't see that. I see navel-gazers, if you want the truth.

I'm not at all sure this has the potential to provoke an interesting discussion, I've just been thinking about it a bit lately.

* I have absolutely no interest in discussing the Reformation, or Luther, or anything in that vein regarding re-interpretation of Scripture, etc.

** I am equally uninterested in discussing public healthcare.

+1, I share a lot of your sentiments

Of course, altruistic principles is not exclusive to Christianity. Reciprocal ethics can be found in all of the major religions presented in a very similar way to Christianity's Golden Rule, just with different words and different speakers.

Out of interest, when someone puts a gun to your head and says 'choose a religion' are Christianity's altruistic principles the only reason you would choose it as your religion, both Buddhism and Jainism have their near equivalent altruistic teachings?

Buddhism's out because it's nice and all, but it's organised navel-gazing, if you get me. Jainism's out because it's too nitty - I couldn't give a **** about insects. So I'd go for red-letter Christianity (and in case you don't know, 'red-letter' basically means 'with sole regard to the utterances of Jesus'), if for no other reason than that I'm more familiar with it than any other one.

AIF, to your experience on this site - it is a religion forum wrapped in a poker site that will skew the participants away from mainstream Christianity. Regardless, it is my habit not to share information about my charitable contributions or activities, and I suspect that is true of many posters here - Christian or not.

How someone feels when they find Christ does not define how they behave from then on. Obviously, there are many Christians who do not live up to Christian ideals - or even try to, but I don't think you should read too much into the lack of posting about charitable works. And of course, the guy who found Jesus, quit his job and gave his money to people in serious need - well he's not posting here - no internet. Just sayin'.

I've said this repeatedly on this forum. I can't generalize all Mormons, but (other then their recent foray into politics to block gay's rights in CA), they're the one group that has really impressed me.

I've met a half dozen or so Mormons in my life. Many of them graduated college and did things like volunteering overseas in poor countries. Even on all the trash reality shows I've watched... for instance, I recall a Mormon wedding on one of those reality wedding programs my wife likes... where the Mormon couple worked a charity event into their wedding.

The mormons I've met put a real premium on public service. And, even though I'm annoyed when Mormons show up at my door, they do try to spread the word and seem very polite and dedicated to good.

I think the only person I've seen who I was surprised was a mormon because he seemed such a jerk was one of the contestants on last year's Survivor.

sidenote: I've lived in NYC for a number of years. I would like to add Hassidic Jews as a special note. Not so much for their charity. They're a very isolated group and I don't know that they reach out much beyond their community (they might, I'm just not aware of any)... but, they are people who are clearly dedicated to their faith. When its the middle of a heatwave, they're still tooling around in their wool coats, their hats,... they are always studying scripture if you see them on the subway.

Finally- Special shout out to the Quaker communities.

But mainstream Christians... I totally agree. Most seem to often pay lipservice and there definitely has been a trend, at least in the US, towards Christians who embrace material rewards and whose political stances seem to ignore charity, helping the sick and poor, not judging others, etc.

You are referencing Bible passages that talk about giving your possessions to the poor such as the conversation with the rich young rulers in Matthew (Matt 19:16-24) )

I have a question for you. Do you think the theme of the passage is charity or idolatry?


I agree with most of this, and its a challenge for me.

The deeper I grow in my faith, the more I realize that I'm called to be less self-focused and more other-focused. Just learning to trust God is in itself a non-selfish task and difficult. I can give some examples if you are interested.

I think this is a totally fair criticism of many Christians. What you are criticizing is what is known as sanctification or the process by which we are more and more transformed into the likeness of God as we pursue him. Unfortunately, this can be a very slow process for some and a non-process for others as they don't really pursue. Christians should do a better job at progressing and not standing still. However, Christians are no different from others in that personal development is often shunned as its difficult.

No doubt there's something to what you're saying there - my concern is that my perspective is being skewed by 'theology nerds' if you know what I mean - individual Christians who happen to take exceptional interest in the particulars of their theology. But I'm not just talking about posters on this forum; I mentioned that in hopes of making the OP more relevant to people reading it - sure, that's part of what has prompted me to post this, but it's far from the only thing.

Well, I understand what you're saying, and I'd hate to see this thread degenerate into a charity pissing contest. But, again, I'm not just talking about RGT - I'm giving my impression of Christianity as a whole.

Maybe you recognise the guy in my avatar, maybe not - his name was Lenny Bruce, and in case you never heard of him, or know the name but nothing more, he was a stand-up comedian who, from the late fifties through to the mid-sixties, received acclaim and odium in fairly equal measure for the content of his routines. This is a transcript from a very famous routine referred to as 'Christ and Moses' (going from memory as Youtube is giving me nothing here):

Now there are two immediate counter-points to this. Firstly, it's specific to Roman Catholicism. Secondly, Lenny himself later came to accept the idea that the Church must present itself as materially magnificent, in order to impress the common people, the better to convert them to the (Christian) truth.

But this is what I'm getting at, and I suppose in a sense I can't really blame Christians for disagreeing: I would rather they pawn the ring and give the money to those Puerto Ricans, than that they use the ring to convert the Puerto Ricans to the faith, and leave them living in povery and squalor. My contention ITT is that I feel fairly sure Jesus would have preferred that also (and I know, there are statements made by Jesus in the Bible which would tend to contradict that, but hey, it's an opinion).

I'd say charity. I suspect you disagree, and I have a hunch that you're using 'idolatry' in a particular sense, unfamiliar to me - attachment to material possessions, maybe?

I might be interested, or not, depending. By which I mean, if this state of being 'other-focused' doesn't result in material benefit to others, I'm unimpressed (and again, I'm not criticising you when I say that).

No doubt.

You have to understand that it is very very difficult to live like Jesus Christ in the 21st century, especially in the West, where everything is very expensive. But I understand completely what you mean, and why you are 'not pleased' by Christians who do not do what they are supposed to do to be a perfect person.

But there are a lot of Christians in other parts of the world who live more like Jesus Christ, there are more examples than just the Mormons in your country. But yes, the majority isn't perfect, but they are still Christians.

Yes, I did recognize your avatar, and I was aware of his reputation, though I haven't heard any of his material for many years. And he was not alone in using comedy to skewer the occasional religious issue. But to your point, you seem to be addressing your own concerns here.

I share your concern with the excesses of the Catholic Church. I have posted that some of my earliest concerns about religion were fuelled by the Church's focus on money. Or in hindsight - my Church. Over many years of attending many parishes with even more different priests, the view of the Church can be widely different. Still, I believe the Church can afford to do more and keep less. But I also must confess that I do not give as much as I might now, for fear that I may need it for my family down the road. For the Church - that road is much longer than it is for me.

My experience with Christians, and theists in general, is that there are almost as many interpretations of their religion as there are Christians. The majority appear to hold a middle-ground position. Not many will live exactly as Jesus did, but most don't believe they are supposed to - though I suspect that most do believe they are better people for believing.

Is this even a religious issue? Perhaps you simply want people to be good - and Jesus is an example of a good person - as are others through history, (though not enough of them, based on the surviving record). Is the question: why aren't Christians more like Jesus; or why aren't people more like Jesus?

To dismiss Buddhism as you do reveals your ignorance.

Everything we say and do reveals our ignorance.

[QUOTE=All-In Flynn;13147948] You suspicion is correct. I think its idolatry.

When I was younger, I was always troubled by many of the same verses that seemed to say to me that you can't be wealthy and go to heaven. In hindsight, I think this really kept me from ever pursuing a relationship with God.

Now I've learned that that interpretation is not accurate. There are many wealthy people in the Bible deemed righteous (e.g., Abraham, David, Solomon, etc.). Without some wealth somewhere, the church could not function.

Specifically, in Matthew 19-16-24 Jesus is talking to several people who come to him asking what to do. He gives them vastly different answers. To this particular rich young ruler, he's saying he needs to sell his possessions. In all these examples, Jesus tells the person to give up whatever they have made supreme in their life and follow him. These things were stumbling blocks for them and in the case of that rich person, it was his wealth.

So I think its about idolatry which I define as making anything supreme in your life rather than God (i.e., money, family, etc.).



Before I give an example, I want to point out that people can provide material benefit for others and not really have the heart of God within them. It's very common for people to operate under a false system that says, "If I do this good thing, then God will bless me." So they give to the poor, expecting a return and that is fundamentally un-Christian.

So my example is not about providing material benefit, but about providing service to another at expense to myself. Interested?

Well... not really . As an atheist I'm not really concerned with whether people 'have the heart of god in them.' What I'm trying to get across here is that... well, suppose it was possible to wave a magic wand that would remould Christianity entirely. I would certainly choose to change it to a works theology - which I think is what you're referring to as "If I do this good thing, then god will bless me." I'd prefer if god did bless people because they did good things, rather than because they believed in him. Since you're a believer, I'm not even sure that can make sense to you, but believe me when I say I'm not trying to offend.

To dismiss my dismissal as you do, etc...

Maybe you didn't get me. I'm not denying that Buddhism has worthy, altruistic principles at its core, but my impression of the practice of Buddhism is that it centres far more on meditation and such than materially helping others - hence 'navel-gazing'. Maybe I have that all ass-backwards, but the point is that I was saying (in response to a question) that the reason I'd choose a red-letter Christianity over Buddhism wasn't because I saw the altruism taught there as exclusive.

As a theological nerd I can easily give you the stock answer to your main issue - we are all sinners and come short of what we should do, none of us love enough, give enough, sacrifice enough - but after all, that's why we're Christians, because we can't do and we know we can't, we need God's forgiveness both for sin and failure.

But I want to berate you for your criticism of the cab driver. You don't know what his life is like, what difficulties he's having, what temptations he's resisting. To play music that reminds him of who he is may be the only way he can get through the day without bitterness, anger, jealousy. To remind himself that God loves him and Jesus should be the focus of his life is hardly navel-gazing. How do you expect someone who is fundamentally evil to do all those wonderful deeds you criticize us for failing to do unless he undergoes personal development? Most people are hanging by a thread, "living lives of quiet desperation", and Christians are not exempt from this difficulty. To cling to the Lord any way we can, to ask and pray that He will change us and enable us to do what He requires, is the stuff of our daily lives, in the midst of the trials and difficulties of menial jobs, overwhelming temptations and endless duties to family, friends, etc. You are sadly mistaken in criticizing this guy for using a legitimate means to strengthen his faith and seek a closer relationship with His Savior - you should be glad he's listening to Christian music and not setting you up for a murder or robbery. You have no idea whether he's generous or stingy, loving or spiteful, helpful or hurtful. You are correct to criticize the hypocrisy of Christians - we've done the same to ourselves since the time of Christ, read the NT. That's entirely different from having a low opinion of someone who's earning an honest living, perhaps doing the best he can, instead of selling drugs to your children or robbing your money from the bank. After all, maybe that's the job he quit (or politician or lawyer), in order to drive a cab. For all you know, he's given everything already.

A very brief point - I agree there are legitimate criticisms to be made of Christians, but you should not mistake being against government involvement in "charity" through taxation with a lack of genuine charity. Truly committed private charities and individual efforts, whether Christian or not, are orders of magnitude more efficient that government welfare and health care. Doctors alone in this country donate millions of $ worth of health care each year through no coercion or government interference. I don't want to debate which is actually better - I just want to point out that someone who wants lower taxes isn't being uncharitable by definition. You have to look deeper.

I didn't read AIF's OP as critical of the cab driver at all. I may have it all wrong, but I took the mention of the music in the cab as the trigger that got AIF thinking on the theme of reward for good works vs reward for beliefs. AIF seems to believe that Jesus had some good ideas. His criticism was directed at Christian posters here and Christians everywhere, who don't seem to live up to those good ideas.

Perhaps AIF can clarify...

1000 points of BS

I wasn't criticising him. I didn't even intend to criticise him implicitly. I was just talking about the contrast in focus between the lyrics of the song and Jesus of the Gospels ("Who is the one to make you prosperous?" as opposed to "Sell your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor").

I really did bend over backwards trying not to annoy anyone with this, but I've got to take flak over the taxi driver? Come on...

Fine, I'll take your word for it. In my defense, however, this is the first part of your OP:

Out of all that I'm supposed to know the only operative words were those I have bolded? I'll take your word for it but you get an F in clarity.

Who wins them?

Nah, you just failed the Book Report. It's like Oshenz11 said, hearing that song playing in the taxi a few weeks ago started me on that train of thought. I didn't even mention the taxi driver after that paragraph. And I drew the contrast between the 'prosperous' line and the 'sell your possessions' bit in the next paragraph - what do you want, diagrams?

It's a common tactic on this forum to use the same method Dawkins does - take the weakest argument or element of Christianity and expose it as foolish. Many posts here have attacked average Christians for statements and beliefs that are obviously shallow or uninformed and pretended that was some kind of refutation of Christianity. DS himself constantly implies that smart people can't be Christians. So the picture I got from your words was of an ignorant, greedy, insensitive, uneducated dummy seeking worldly goods under the guise of spirituality - and then you take that as a launching point to attack Christianity itself.

In this case, I don't disagree with your overall criticism. My tirade wasn't just in defense of that cab driver though, but for all of us who don't measure up to some figment of the skeptic's imagination about what perfect Christians should be. I was surprised that you say that isn't what you were doing. I guess I gave you too much credit for artful prose because I really don't see the need for dragging in the driver in the first place - quoting the song would have done the job, or even better, the Lenny Bruce thing.