Zionist Christians

Certainly, some of the most visible and troubling manifestations of racism in society's recent memory has involved anti-Semitism. Simply put, the Jewish people have put up with a lot of nasty discrimination over the last two millenia; much of it with Christian roots.

Having said that, the Zionist movement itself has been accused of racism towards Arabs. This charge has been made mostly by Muslem nations, in different colourful and dramatic ways. They try and get this message out, but the empathy has not been pouring in. Its hard for me not to agree with them; at the very least I think that one would have to admit a strong potential for this sort of racism in Zionism, if not its actual presence.

But then many people don't see this at all. God gave them (the Jewish people) that land, so the Arab squatters, who have been squatting there a long time now, can just go find a new home. There's a line from a Roger Waters' song that seems appropriate here; 'What God wants, God gets; God help us all'.

Things are already ugly and ethically complicated, but it gets even worse. This brings us to what has to be the biggest group supporting the Zionist dream, and that would be Zionist Christians. Those familiar with the eschatology of conservative Christianity will know what lies at the heart of all this. For those who don't, let me explain.

First of all, eschatology is the branch of theology concerned with the end of the world. Conservative Christians have some interesting ideas about this, based on their reading of Revelation. Well, actually, they are quite childish ideas. They, the born again believers, will be whisked off to heaven (the rapture) while the rest of us nonbelievers scratch our heads trying to figure out where our very religious neigbours and family members wandered off to. Then a series of very nasty things will happen to us (the tribulation) while they are forced to gleefully watch. They've warned us about this countless times; it could happen any day now.

Now, I don't keep up with all the details, and perhaps some of them have changed recently. Hal Lindsay's books no longer make much sense, so perhaps they've been busy reinterpreting Revelation in the light of the present political landscape, as is their custom. Regardless, Zionist Christians supported, and continue to support the state of Isreal for one reason; to usher on the end of the world. And they're growing restless.

Mohammed on Christianity

Islam has an interesting tradition when it comes to its views on Christianity. I would imagine most Christians would find them somewhat bizarre.

As I understand it, this is a brief overview of the Moslem position on Jesus. The virgin birth is accepted, Christ is the second greatest prophet (after Mohammed of course), Christ was not the son of God, nor was he 'literally' crucified, although it appeared as such. To me, the interesting question isn't whether the Muslims are right or not, but how these ideas formed and their original sources. I haven't found a good book explaining this, but looking at the puzzle pieces, I think I can make a reasonable conjecture. Of course, I think all my conjecture is reasonable, so take it with a grain of salt.

It seems to me that some of Islam's ideas are quite similar to Gnostic interpretations. I would think that Mohammed must have come into contact with different heterodox forms of Christianity in his travels, and in particular, Gnostic Christian groups. A strong similarity can certainly be seen with what the Koran says about the crucifixion. It appeared that Jesus was crucified, but this is not what happened. The exact same thing is said in some of the gnostic writings.

'Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.'

This is Irenaeus quoting a bit of Basilides, an early Gnostic. You find something very similar in the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter. In other gnostic texts the solution is similar, but not quite so extreme. For the most part, Gnostic's rejected Christ's humanity, because of their views on matter, and this meant different approaches towards what the crucifixion was or meant.

Within Islam is the notion that the books of the New Testament have been edited over time, and as such, the original meanings of the books have been lost, or at least have a spurious nature. I'm sure this view would not have been hard to come by among Gnostic circles as well. Or even some other heterodox form of Christianity.

Mohammed makes mention, and rejects, the doctrine of the Trinity, so perhaps there was contact with Orthodox Christianity as well. Of course, I have no idea which forms of Christianity Mohammed came into contact with, but approaching it objectively, I think certain conclusions could be drawn. Unfortunately, in doing so, you might be offending the nature of the sacred scriptures of both groups. Still, it's far to interesting to think that no one has even bothered to try.

The Politics of Christianity: Elaine Pagels

"The kind of Christianity that pervades the religious right in this country divides the world between the saved and the damned, between God's people and Satan's people, between good and evil. We have all seen how this is played out in our politics. I used to think that President Bush was using this language as a political ploy. I still think he is, but I also think—to my disappointment—that he also believes it. His conviction that he is God's chosen one to "rid the world of evildoers" blinds him to the evil that he—and we, as Americans—are capable of doing. The conviction that we are on the side of good—of God—is, however, an ancient one—enormously powerful.

Christians invoking terms such as "evil-doers" read the bible, as anyone does, selectively. They choose the parts they like and they leave out the parts they don't. In this case the parts they like are the parts about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, that is—and a life for a life. If someone's taken a life, then their life is required. And that's certainly a biblical tenet. Of course, it's from the Old Testament. You don't hear much about forgiveness and turning the other cheek from our President and his administration. The Old Testament is what they choose for this occasion because it suits their purpose.

What I've learned through studying the Gospel of Thomas and the context of the politics of early Christianity, is that anyone who participates in Christian tradition without having learned anything about it—and that's most people who participate in it, because it's not taught in public or private schools for the most part—often think of their traditions as immutable, as if they've just come down from God."

Read the whole article here. Elaine Pagels well known for her books on early Christianity and Gnosticism; it is quite interesting to read her contrast of this to modern American politics.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pagels03/pagels_index.html

Malm

Theologian Quiz

You scored as Paul Tillich. Paul Tillich sought to express Christian truth in an existentialist way. Our primary problem is alienation from the ground of our being, so that our life is meaningless. Great for psychotherapy, but no longer very influential.


>created with
QuizFarm.com