Saturday, March 16, 2013
If you know me you know I am a believer in Christ, but you also know I consider Western Christianity to be an historical distortion of the original message.
I accept many of the same things I just understand them differently. When traditionalists scold non traditionalists something strikes me as very off.
Traditional fundamentalist Christian theology can only survive by getting people accustomed to shutting down their brains and not trusting the obvious or the decent.
Am I to accept the notion that Christ came to free me and to be directly available to me through His amazing indwelling yet there is an institution that must be authorizing my theology?
Am I to accept the bible as what they claim it to be when it has too many horrible examples of an evil god such as god making a nation out of a people who were not a nation by authorizing them to commit ethnic cleansing to wipe out all the inhabitants of a land flowing with milk and honey? Can they not see the obvious projection upon god in the text for their own nationalistic desires?
Can I accept at point blank the authority of a text that tells me if I beat a slave to within an inch of his life but he is able to walk a few days later that I have done nothing wrong? How does justifying the alleged revelation from god affect my own standards of right and wrong in how I treat those who are under my authority at my job?
But most importantly to me, as a linguist, I find the text to be so badly translated by people who obviously never studied Greek and Hebrew except so as to sustain their already confirmed theology that it has become a text biased in the direction of a theology that has a low view of the value of mankind and an institutional authority. So when traditionalists come along to defend their faith it leaves me wondering what exactly is their sense of honesty or right and wrong.
Institutions are helpful and we cannot get much done without them, but it was never Jesus intention to put an institution or a creed between you and Him.