Jim Rigby: Christians Who Want Democracy Must Stop Bowing to a Dictator Ch

Someone asked on another thread if Presbyterians were liberal or not. I got to doing some surfing and found this article which I thought was a great read and certainly reflects my sentiments. To really get a bang out of it you should also go and read the Freeper response to it at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1649287/posts

Jim Rigby
Tue Jun 13, 11:57 PM ET



Whereas American theology was born out of a hope for democracy, much of it is wedded to a picture of Christ as a benevolent dictator. Should we be surprised that a hierarchical cosmology would produce hierarchical churches and nations? Should we be surprised that religious nations that picture Christ as a loving dictator have produced conquistadors, inquisitors and crusaders? What else could they produce? As the tree is, so shall be the fruit.



The word "Lord" was not in the original Bible. It is an English word from feudal times. Whereas the Greek word "kurios" had a range of meanings, from a title of respect, to a title of leadership, to a name for the sacred, the English translation "Lord" refers specifically to a male European land baron. Many people have softened that interpretation in their own minds, but in times of great stress, such nuance falls away and many Christians seek a white male king. He may be called "Pope", he may be called "the decider President," he may be called "televangelist," but the title only masks what he is, a benevolent (or not so benevolent) dictator.

Neither Calvin nor Luther spoke English, but they helped the Popes lay the groundwork for the view of God as a cosmic dictator. From Popes, Luther and Calvin we have some of the ugliest slurs ever recorded against women, intellectuals, and those who refused the church's message. How did Christians hold slaves, oppress women and slaughter nonbelievers? Perhaps they could not see Christ in non-male, non-European, and non-Christian people because they were limited by their theology. Their "Christ" was merely a glorification of the most powerful member of their own culture.

To picture God in terms of power is also one of the great bait and switch gimmicks of all time. People within the power hierarchy proclaim that God is the ultimate authority, and then appoint themselves as God's interpreters and enforcers. They are God's humble bullies. It has been one of the most successful con games of all time.

The real Jesus was born illegitimately. He called himself "the human one." Just like Buddha, his authority came from truth, not power. He taught whoever has love has God. He said those who work for the common good are his church.

The real Jesus was an anarchist. He spent his life refusing to claim power over anyone. He said that God is understood in terms of love not power. We add nothing to the majesty of "the human one" by adding a throne or a crown. If he did not want to rule over others in life, why should he want it in death? That is why Jesus is called "lamb of God," he spoke not as the king of the universe, but from its heart.

If you want to know why Americans are so frightened and why we are attacking anything that would challenge our dominance over others, read the Bible. Like Cain we have murdered members of our human family. Even when we silence our victims, the ground beneath our feet cries out against us.

(con't) http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060614/cm_huffpost/022942;_ylt=Am9XAPC2F5XmQK.BA79AaIqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-

"To picture God in terms of power is also one of the great bait and switch gimmicks of all time. People within the power hierarchy proclaim that God is the ultimate authority, and then appoint themselves as God's interpreters and enforcers. They are God's humble bullies. It has been one of the most successful con games of all time."

"they" decide what is the "truth" or not, who are the "sinners" and tell you to rot in hell if you don't accept their "truth". In the best case they pity you or tell you that "you don't understand" or are not "receptive to the message"...

Why have most Europeans rejected the snake oil peddlers and most Americans haven't ?

how the Christian religion came together. Once it had been commingled with Rome it was the tool of the aristocracy to keep the commoners in fear and under their control and has been such ever since.

It is unfortunate as if a spiritual awaking was ever needed it is needed in America today. If the masses could grasp the following line from the article.

"Just like Buddha, his authority came from truth, not power. He taught whoever has love has God. He said those who work for the common good are his church."

we might then have a chance for survival.

"Shatter your ideals on the Rock of Truth". This explains the whole evolution of concepts of God-a person, a group, a society, has a concept of God, but after a while it no longer "fits" what they know of the world. And their concepts, their ideals, are shattered as more of the Truth is revealed, and the process continues.

and one I'd love to hear some possible answers too...of course you mean "Why have most White Europeans rejected..."

as a matter of fact only about 5.5% of today's Europeans are immigrants (all nations included). And among those at least half of them, if not a majority are secular (thinking mostly of immigrants with a Muslim cultural background). Blacks are culturally the product of the former British/French empires and follow the general pattern. And the most religious nations in Europe are Ireland and Poland, where immigrants (non-white) are a tiny, tiny minority.

A lot of European revolutions were anti-clerical because the Church sided with the monarchy. The American revolution was backed up by the clergy because they sought independence from what a lot of them had being fleeing from.

Another important fact is that the Churches in the States played (and play) an important role in taking care of people needs when in precarity, while this was replaced by social welfare in Europe. Europeans think that charity is OK, but it can NEVER replace their tax-funded welfare. Charity is just a complement.

American Churches have been successfull because they play the same role than the Hamas in the Muslim world. It's a very good strategy. But people pay it another way, paving way for theocracy which still is the ultimate goal for most Christian Churches, all denominations together, with a few exceptions...

I was flamed here previously by saying that revealed religions are anti-democratic by essence and definition.
They don't even deny it. The only democracy they will allow is the one among the believers. The other ones will be in the best case tolerated.

That's why separation of Church and State is so important. No concessions can be allowed.

That is a very unpopular position to have here as most people really don't want to hear the truth. But your points are all historical correct and I think it should be continually stated that the major impetus for separation of church and state came from the churches themselves for, as you pointed out, they did not want to have government control over them.

It is a sad fact that most Christians today, even mainstream ones, are unaware of that fact.

http://www.staopen.com/

I don't have time to read it tonight but it looked interesting. I gather it is related to the author Jim Rigby.

I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday...

And to my old Headmaster and to anyone who cares,
before I'm through I'd like to say my prayers

I don't believe you, you have the whole damn thing all wrong
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday.

Well you can excommunicate me on my way to Sunday school
Have all the bishops harmonize these lines.

---Jethro Tull, Wind Up

is a change in concepts of God. And those who cling to the old concept of a dictator God, seperate and very unequal to ourselves, are scared to death. Their fear is manifesting in ugliness and strife. What practicing spiritual people must do is to welcome change, and look back to the examples set by the great teachers, including Jesus.

on the other, it is a very exciting time to be living in. It could be the beginning of a new dark ages, or it could be the beginning of a new enlightenment. I hope I get to stick around long enough to get a better idea of which way it is going to go.

The second, I won't. Sorry. He's just wrong on the facts.

Here's how it goes. "Lord" had a lot of meanings. Primary one until the time "Lord" became standard in the English Bible and had started to acquire a meaning independent from English legal language was the guy in charge of the bread, and whatever else that required or entailed. The guy in charge of feeding the laborers, or the family. The guy with the land that the grain grew on. The local prince or the ultimate ruler, because he had control over the bread, and was the guy who fed you. Unless you were a freeholder, but those diminished with time.

With being hlaf-waerd or 'lord' was the implied obligation "feeding" in exchange for "obedience". You could ask your lord for food; and while not all were good and would honor the obligation, the right to ask was there. When the French occupied England, they didn't like the language, and their equivalent was 'maister' (< Lat. magister), later reduced to mister. The houseserfs dragged a few French words from the manor into English. ('Master' comes from 'magister' independently of French.) The word in the Anglo-Saxon Bible for what Jesus was called was "dryhten", which was more like 'commander, the guy in charge of people', strictly a one-way power relation, and much more accurate.

By KJV times, however, "lord" had long since ousted 'dryhten' from use. It had already acquired another, purely theological use, while it still had some older uses predating 'England land baron'. As a term of address, 'lord' was becoming more specialized, while 'mester' being bleached to a term of respect that you gave to gentlemen, never to rabble: 'mister'. But only to low-placed gentlemen, those without titles. Mister could be reciprocal, of course; 'lord' couldn't be. I'll point out that while 'lord' went from a common term to having, in additional, a more exalted meaning, 'sire' was also reduced 'sir'.

So much for the narrow interpretation improperly foisted on the word 'lord'; it has a rather rich heritage, and a range of uses and meanings quite at odds with just 'English land baron'. It rather presents it in at most a two-dimension way, flat and insipid.

Unlike 'lord', even in later times implying a mutual relationship between the higher lord and people under him, the wonderful, softer word 'kurios' comes from "kuros" meaning 'supremacy'. A person with kuros, who is described as kurios, can be an utter jackass, with no implicit obligation being ignored; a person who is kurios, bluntly, owes you nothing. Slave-owner, tyrant, dictator; it was strictly a one-way street. He's got more authority and power, you've got less. That's the entirety of the warm and cuddly relationship. Over the next century or two it bleached in meaning, and could perhaps be the same as 18th century English 'sir' as increasingly insignificant people demanded that those even more insignificant than they were show respect; more like 'sir' than 'mister', since I don't think 'kurios' was readily reciprocal; my impression is that few Englishmen called each other 'sir', it was a power thing. To say 'kurios' was to say anything from 'sir' to 'sire', and was to say that you had lesser power and authority. How much lesser was derived from context. "Lord" was the best equivalent we had at the time, even though it did wrongly imply a duty from lord to subject lacking in the Greek. "Jesus kurios" was not "Jesus, lord" when 'lord'. Perhaps if it *had* only meant "English land baron" it would have been more apt.

The person with the most right--not much of one--to ask a kurios person for anything was his property, his slave. Perhaps a bondsman, perhaps chattel. Otherwise, the petitioner was in the position of a beggar: Please, sir, I'm hungry, would you please give me a farthing? You'd hardly ever say, "Sir, I'm hungry, you have a duty to give me a farthing." Kyrie eleison ... no obligation to show mercy in that "kurios".

Oddly enough, most fundamentalist Christians have reinterpreted the word 'lord' in a way that wouldn't have been necessarily quite right in the Middle Ages, especially the early Middle Ages, at least not in common law. It had the meaning, as one possibility, to be sure. But that was a legal meaning, not the usual one in common use for a couple hundred years. And the fundies have moved it almost precisely to where 'kurios' would be, with one exception: they leave out the more bleached use more or less parallel to 'sir'.

Then again, the author has at least part of a point. He just shows he doesn't know how to make it, and that insulting others is one of his goals, even if he sacrifices truth for truthiness. Well, we all have our priorities. But, IMHO, he also wants to present Jesus as two-dimensional. For Jesus is surely humble and gentle, not insisting on exercising his power and authority, but he is also kurios. That is quite significant. But, by the same measure, nowhere does he ever address his sheep as kurios; Rigby apparently believes that Jesus should address him as kurios. This is also quite significant.

In fact, by the way he uses the word, he says that Jesus isn't really kurios. Or, at least, that we're all equally "kurios". Word games can be such fun.

As for the comments on FR ... blech. (I *knew* there was a reason I hadn't looked at it for a couple of years. But at least they knew they were being insulted.)

What is your point?

which comes from latin senior (the oldest thus the commander). And the Latin translation of seigneur (used in French in the same religious meaning than the English "lord") is DOMINUS (the lord over the house). Note that the Germans use the word Herr, Scandinavians "Herre" etc... which have all the same meaning : "the one who commands".

In feudalism, a Lord (French: seigneur) has aristocratic rank and claims dominion over a portion of land and the produce and labour of the serfs living thereon. The serf would swear the oath of fealty to the Lord, or "keeper of the loaves". Such lords normally inherit their position and theoretically expect allegiance similar to that owed to a monarch. - - As part of the heritage of feudalism, the word lord can generally refer to superiors of many kinds, e.g. "landlord". In many cultures in Europe the equivalent term serves as a general title of address equivalent to the English "Mister" (Spanish Señor, Italian Signore, German Herr) or to the English formal "you" (Polish Pan). Compare "gentleman". - - In Scotland, the word Laird is also used for minor feudal landlords or masters of landed estates.

wikipedia

So I don't think that the author was that wrong. It's an old tradition to depict Jesus as the "commander in chief". It's not the fundies that invented it (they are too recent) it's the Catholic church. They needed the hierarchy.

because originally Jesus was called "teacher" which is far from the "lord".

Mary Magdalene calls Jesus Rabboni,<29> which means "my rabbi" , which is also used for Jesus in other passages.<30> Jesus told a crowd and his disciples to call each other "brother" rather than "rabbi", and to avoid the title "master" as well, because there is only one master, Christ.<31> A rabbi is a Jewish teacher, usually referring to a religious teacher.

wikipedia

and there is a big difference in critically listening to a teacher and blindly obey a predefined version of how you ought to behave.

would be to make itself obsolete.

understanding.

It comes from feeling all alone.