It seems that U.S. Conservatism is largely influenced by Neoconservatives. People like Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer, Norman Podhoretz, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, William Kristol, David Frum and many other radical Christians.
The question that struck me after reading this article was: then who is least authentic, the most craven of them all?
Is it the liberal Christian who refuses to dispense with the trappings of a prescientific 1st century worldview that became totally irrelevent centuries ago?
Is it the conservative Christian who defends everything that Jesus vituperated against: violence, greed, hypocrisy -- anything natural.
Or was the biggest coward of all Jesus Christ himself who refused to live in the world on its own terms. Who, instead of confronting reality in good faith, retreated into a fantasy world, a 'Kingdom of God', where losers are winners, death is eternal life, and down is up?
It's been a while, Sybok. I surmise that your question is supposed to take authenticity or personal integrity as the highest standard with which to bash Christians. Technically, though, a Christian could concede that she lacks intellectual integrity because human nature is divided between the original sin of animal pride, and the grace-given faith or higher, saved self.
We could also ask which version of Christianity is most dangerous or most annoying/obnoxious (on aesthetic or other moral grounds).
One possible defense of Jesus would be that his retreat to fantasy was based on an authentic, likely entheogenic mystical experience. Just playing devil's advocate here.
Maybe Jesus deserves a pass since his beliefs likely had their ground in genuine mystical experiences which, I'll concede, can be at least as compelling and real as mundane ones. He also lived in a time when there was still plenty of room for God in the world. Jesus' quixotic behavior is admirable, but like Quixote himself, it's his delusions that ultimately mar what otherwise could have been an heroic character. But maybe I'm demanding too much of human nature. It is hard enough to be saint or hero with faith; it may be impossible without it.
It seems that U.S. Conservatism is largely influenced by Neoconservatives. People like Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer, Norman Podhoretz, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, William Kristol, David Frum and many other radical Christians.
ReplyDeleteIf you're interested, I wrote a lengthy series on the variety of conservative obfuscations, including neoconservatism.
Deletehttps://aninjusticemag.com/the-subterfuge-of-neoconservatives-4bb554eda40?sk=f28d40d56150520c53cd562caf415442
https://medium.com/grim-tidings/telling-the-brutal-truth-about-conservatism-89984745f17?sk=174085419fe90365a3544149dc494c58
The question that struck me after reading this article was: then who is least authentic, the most craven of them all?
ReplyDeleteIs it the liberal Christian who refuses to dispense with the trappings of a prescientific 1st century worldview that became totally irrelevent centuries ago?
Is it the conservative Christian who defends everything that Jesus vituperated against: violence, greed, hypocrisy -- anything natural.
Or was the biggest coward of all Jesus Christ himself who refused to live in the world on its own terms. Who, instead of confronting reality in good faith, retreated into a fantasy world, a 'Kingdom of God', where losers are winners, death is eternal life, and down is up?
It's been a while, Sybok. I surmise that your question is supposed to take authenticity or personal integrity as the highest standard with which to bash Christians. Technically, though, a Christian could concede that she lacks intellectual integrity because human nature is divided between the original sin of animal pride, and the grace-given faith or higher, saved self.
DeleteWe could also ask which version of Christianity is most dangerous or most annoying/obnoxious (on aesthetic or other moral grounds).
One possible defense of Jesus would be that his retreat to fantasy was based on an authentic, likely entheogenic mystical experience. Just playing devil's advocate here.
Maybe Jesus deserves a pass since his beliefs likely had their ground in genuine mystical experiences which, I'll concede, can be at least as compelling and real as mundane ones. He also lived in a time when there was still plenty of room for God in the world. Jesus' quixotic behavior is admirable, but like Quixote himself, it's his delusions that ultimately mar what otherwise could have been an heroic character. But maybe I'm demanding too much of human nature. It is hard enough to be saint or hero with faith; it may be impossible without it.
Deletehttps://israelpalestinenews.org/oil-for-israel-the-truth-about-the-iraq-war-15-years-later/
ReplyDelete