Talk:Judeo-Christian
The text reads "The New Testament teaches that if someone comes to harm you, then one must turn the other cheek. This has led many Christians to develop a theology of pacifism, the avoidance of force and violence at all times. In practice, this has not often been followed (i.e. the many crusades, pogroms in Russia, Martin Luther's exhortions to burn down synagogues with Jews still in them) when applied towards gentiles; it is most often applied towards inter-Christian disputes."
I think this text is one-sided, if not biased towards Christian practice of non-violence. The examples of violence by Christians are true, but grotesque and absurd to the everyday Christian today. They do not represent the teachings of Christ (love your enemy), nor of his own example, nor of the numerous examples in history which have not been written down in history text books, nor of the daily life of many Christians, nor of the experiences of millions of Christian martyrs, in history and today. Jesus' exhortations have often been followed. Most Christians I know do put this in practice, though we are fallible as anyone else. This part of the text deserves a more balanced approach--TK
- Well, as one who comes from the Quaker tradition, I could not disagree more with the assertion that most or even many Christians believe in turning the other cheek or loving one's enemy, or even apply it in their everyday lives. How many Christians own guns or believe in capital punishment? Most Christians do not believe in loving their enemy or turning the other cheek, no matter how much they might pay lip service to the notion.
- The article was about real-world Christians, not about Jesus's personal behaviour. In any case, your rebuttal is invalid. It is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, and fails in all cases. I personally have rebutted this argument when it was used to attempt to defend the actions of Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish extremists, I have rebutted it when I saw it applied to Islam, and for the sake of logical consistency, I must rebut it here as well. The "No true Scotsman" is a logical fallacy described in a Wikipedia entry. It is an argument that goes like this - "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply - "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal - "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Atrocities of religions are often discussed away using this fallacy.
You must speak from an American point of view? As far as I know in Western-European countries we know no death penalty and are generally not permitted to walking around with a gun, so that's no issue here. Anyway, I know you're right that many people who call themselves Christian act in ways that are contrary to Jesus' teachings. However, what Jesus said has everything to do with faith and love; it is not an isolated rule, it is a heart-issue and cannot be seen, nor practised apart from the rest of his message. And again, many Christians have followed Christ's words in these, believe it or not. That's why the wording of the passage should be less rigourously negative about the matter. "This has not often been followed" simply is not true! Please do not only look to major political events, grave enough as they have been.
- Again, you are claiming that millions of Christians throughout history were not really Chrisitians, but that only you and the people that you like are the real Christians. Again, this argument is just the same old "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy. It is invalid. Your argument may, of course, be used to describe how you believe a given faith system should choose to act in the future, but it cannot white-wash the existence of members of any given faith system for their actions in the past. RK
"Its origins are in American politics"? Really? I'd like to see some evidence of that. --LMS
Re: "Christianity teaches that the purpose of Jesus's message in the [[New Testament] is to show that beliefs (such as belief in Jesus as the son of God) held by a person are considered by God to be more important than one's actions." I think that might be more particularly true of Protestantism, but I don't know how true that is of all variants of Christianity. Also, it is worth nothing that the epistle of James in the New Testament argues very much in favor of the importance of works. I think it is true that Christianity places great emphasis on faith, but like so many theological points within that religion, there are disagreements and probaby just enough ambiguity in the New Testament on the subject to support a variety of Christian interpretations.
- That is true, and I agree that it should be mentioned in the article. However, Christianity, as the great majority of it has actually has existed for the past 2000 years, has downplayed - or entirely ignored, James's point of view. In practice, Christianity is based indirectly on Jesus' statement's, and directly on Paul's interpretation and amplification of them. Similarly, there are phrases in the Tanach (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) which might argue for faith over works, but in reality, rabbinic Judaism has not followed this path. Again, this is because Judaism is not the faith of the Bible directly, but rather is based on how the rabbis have interpreted the Bible. RK
- Thus, we need to differentiate between biblical quotes, and the theology, dogmas and practices that have in practiced developed from them. We have to do this; discussing what Judaism or Christianty could have developed into would be an interesting exercise in alternate history, which is a legitimate historical endeavour, but its not good for an encyclopaedia entry. RK
- I agree that we need to differentiate between biblical quotes and actual practice, but I still think that the emphasis on faith over works is more evident in Protestantism than other varients of Christianity. Also, many variants of Christianity believe that salvation is available to non-Christians (this is official Catholic dotrine these days, if I am not mistaken).
- I agree with the first part; the emphasis on faith over works is more evident in many Protestant denominations than Catholicism. (I don't know much about this in Orthodox Christianity). Also, there have been a few mainstream to liberal Protestant groups that have unambiguously stated that salvation is indeed available to non-Christians. Most Protestant groups mildly to vehemently disagree. As for the Catholic Church, there is no one official viewpoint at the moment; instead, there is a theological & political struggle going on right now in the Catholic Church over this issue. A number of high-level Catholic officials have issued statements saying that Jews indeed do have a way to God without Jesus; these statements are very clear with regard to Jews, but not so in regard to other non-Christians. In response, other equally high-level Catholic officials have issued statements that make it fairly clear that Jews, while loved by God, nonetheless can not achieve salvation due to their non-acceptance of Jesus as their saviour. The Jewish community has expessed some concern over these battling proclamations of dogma. RK
- Unfortunately, I don't have any reference works at my disposal, but it has been my understanding that it is the official position of the Catholic Church that salvation is available to non-Christians, regardless of what some individual Catholics might think. Perhaps we need someone knowledgeable on Catholic theology who can clarify this point.
Regarding faith and works, it's worth noting that Martin Luther relied heavily on the book of Romans but had no idea what to do with James; I've heard it rumoured that he would have gotten rid of it if he could, as he did the Protestant "Apocrypha", but wasn't able to manage it. Whether that's true or not (can't remember where I heard it), Protestantism definitely emphasizes right faith, as in believing and saying the right "magic words".
My impression of Eastern Orthodoxy is that works are integrated into the Christian life; our religious life consists of prayer, fasting, almsgiving and repentance; the first two happen chiefly inside the church and at home, the latter two have a broader social impact (or at least they should). Theologically, we believe that there is a synergism between what God does and what we do, and between what happens in the interior of our hearts and minds and what happens in our outwardly visible actions. Thus, a cleaner heart will lead to cleaner actions; however, I shouldn't wait for my heart to get cleaner to do good works, since going through the motions of good works will also make it easier for my thoughts and motives to reform. Naturally, the Orthodox have succeeded at times, and failed at times, both individually and corporately. So have the Jews, and practitioners of any other religion that sets standards for behaviour that is moral, ethical and just.
I would like to hear how this compares with Roman Catholicism, as I honestly have no idea. But I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt (smile) and edit the text to include various views of faith vs. works within Christianity. If there are differing historic views within Judaism, it would be good to be honest and open about those as well; I don't know whether there are or aren't. Does Judaism rely so much on actions that an atheist would find salvation, if his behaviour was upright? --Wesley
- Absolutely! Judaism teaches that any atheist Jew who spends his life doing good deeds and following Jewish custom will get a heavenly reward (or whatever you want to call the afterlife). Also, any atheist gentile who spends his life doing good deeds will get the same reward, and they are not even expected to have to follow any Jewish custom at all. Conversely, according to Judaism even a devout and religiously observant person will find that their beliefs and observance counts for very little in the eyes of God if that person was a scoundrel and murderer. God does care about our beliefs, but He cares more for our actions. Jewish philosophers are universal on that point. Even the most extreme advocates of holding certain principles of faith as mandatory (such as Maimonides) explained that this was only because a person who held such beliefs was more likely to be led to follow the right actions. (See his "Guide for the Perplexed) for a detailed discussion of this.) RK
I have modified the section on the Bible to reflect two important points: first, many Jews are offended by the characterization of the Tanach as an "Old" Testament -- moreover, I think it is important to recognize that even when people read the same book, how they read the book and what it means to them may be fundamentally different. Second, I think there are many Jews who accord the Talmud the same status as the Tanach -- SR
- Jews believe that the meaning of the laws in the Tanach are authoritatively explained in the Mishnah and Talmud. Thus, although the Talmud is not part of the Jewish biblical canon in name, it effectively is in practice. The Jewish description of the relationship between the two is called the "oral law". (See Mishnah entry for more details.RK