Having studied Christianity for quite some time - and having two parents who, frequently and at many different times offered me apologetics literature - a defense I often hear about several different philosophies, especially Christianity, is that its qualities or merit cannot be judged exclusively by the behavior of its allegd participants.
For example, the Christian Church has, as is common knowledge, committed some of the most criminal and diabolical subversions of just about every culture it has laid its talons on since its inception, from the cults of the Middle-east, to the heathen Europeans, to the annihilation of innumerable Indian tribes and clans. Since, according to the apologists, murder is not sanctioned by the Biblical precepts, the people who claimed to come to these lands and spread Christianity in the name of the One True God were heretics who forever tarnished the reputation of Christianity.
I refuse to buy this copout any longer.
There is typically a considerable parallel between what a particular element claims to be intended for, and the most common use or outcome of said element.
For example, if I am a civil union representative dealing with a company that pledges itself to financial dignity and a strong sense of business ethics, yet tosses around bribes, pulls extortion scams, and sucks every dime out of union funds with the most corrupt and evil tactics of manipulation and deception, I am not going to pretend that the company is, in fact, rooted in righteousness. In spite of what that meaningless pledge of dignity indicates about the quality of the company, this does not distort the fact that they are crooks.
As another example, Communism is rarely judged in relation to its inception by Marx and Engels, but is instead judged by the historical success of its application in Russia, Cuba, and the Far East.
Why is Christianity exempt from this type of rational conclusion-forming?
The very spirit of Christianity - as it has been expressed since its very inception by every credible power in human history - is in direct contradiction to the precepts outlined in the Bible. From its roots and connection to the warlike Zealots, to the conversion of Rome, to the entrapment and subterfuge of countless other, dignified, noble cultures, Christianity has expressed itself in enough circumstances, regardless of epoch, context, or intent, to identify itself as a breathing entity to which its own spirit and name can be attached.
This, as human history has recorded it, is Christianity.
This perhaps was not the intention of the originator of the faith; this was perhaps the exact opposite of it. The fact remains, however, that this is the end result - a xenocidal war machine that assimilates everything it touches.
If this type of a description of Christianity were an isolated incident, I wouldn't mind so much - it's easy to sell that a rag tag pack of maniacs in central park talking about how God won't stop playing the kazoo right in their ears is not an accurate reprsentation of what Christianity truly is.
The things that have been done in the name of Christianity, that have been ordained and sanctioned by the church itself, is too great a historical trend to pass off as "a few stray sheep running from the herd." Cruel, blood-hardened tyrants have forged the true definition of Christianity, which is ironically very different from the Bible.
Well, I'm done running my mouth. What do you guys think? What is more important in the judgment and definition of a particular faith or creed? The principle by which it claims to exist, or by the continuous straying from those principles for the benefit of the self?
|
Threaded Mode
