Politics | April 09, 2009 | 17 comments

Is Globalization God's Will?

source: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/globalization-religion

Image
St_Alia_10191
"For many Christians, the life of Jesus signifies the birth of a new kind of God, a God of universal love. The Hebrew Bible—the “Old Testament”—chronicled a God who was sometimes belligerent (espousing the slaughter of infidels), unabashedly nationalist (pro-Israel, you might say), and often harsh toward even his most favored nation. Then Jesus came along and set a different tone. As depicted in the Gospels, Jesus exhorted followers to extend charity across ethnic bounds, as in the parable of the good Samaritan, and even to love their enemies. He told them to turn the other cheek, said the meek would inherit the Earth, and warned against self-righteousness (“let he who is without sin cast the first stone”). Even while on the cross, he found compassion for his persecutors: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

But there’s a funny thing about these admirable utterances: none of them appears in the book of Mark, which was written before the other Gospels and which most New Testament scholars now consider the most reliable (or, as some would put it, the least unreliable) Gospel guide to Jesus’ life. The Jesus in Mark, far from calmly forgiving his killers, seems surprised by the Crucifixion and hardly sanguine about it (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). In Mark, there is no Sermon on the Mount, and so no Beatitudes, and there is no good Samaritan; Jesus’ most salient comment on ethnic relations is to compare a woman to a dog because she isn’t from Israel.

Why would some scholars downplay the earliest description of Jesus in favor of accounts compiled after there had been more time for myth to accumulate? In part, maybe, because some of them are Christians, or at least lapsed Christians who still resonate to their native faith. But in part, also, because it’s not obvious why a whole mythology about a “good” Jesus would have taken shape decades after the Crucifixion. What, after all, would have inspired early followers of Jesus to invent the idea of a brotherhood that knows no ethnic or national bounds?

Clues have been emerging in recent years, but not clues of the usual kind—not long-lost scrolls or other ancient artifacts. The clues come from the modern world, and they’re all around us. It’s increasingly apparent how analogous a globalizing world is to the environment in which Christianity took shape after Jesus’ death. And in this light, it makes sense that early devotees of the crucified Jesus would develop the now-familiar Christian message, which could later be attributed to Jesus himself.

Now, as we approach the global level of social organization—and see the social order threatened by strife among the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) —another burst of moral progress is needed. Success is hardly guaranteed, but at least the early history of Christianity and indeed of all Abrahamic faiths gives cause for hope. However bleak a globalizing world may look at times, the story could still have a happy ending, an ending that brings out the best in religion as religion brings out the best in people."
  1. groups:
    Politics,   Culture,   Religion,   God
  2. tags:
    Politics,  Culture,  Religion,  Islam,  12 more
  3.     
    |

17 comments // Is Globalization God's Will?

  • nursediesel
    • 0
      nursediesel  

    • This global government just won't work.
      There will be continuous civil wars.
      There are continuous wars now.
      Like a class room. In college my Art classes were a good contrast: the actual art classes were very small, you got alot of contact with the instructor. Art history class was like going to a sold out band festival, you needed opera glasses to see the instructor if you didn't get into the first tier seating.
      People are individuals and a few will act accordingly even under strict control.
      You can make the correlation.
      WWJD? I see a continuous 12 in the old and new testament.

    • 3 years ago
  • Ijusthatemoney
  • sk8bs55
  • nursediesel
  • sk8bs55
    • 0
      sk8bs55  

    • It seems to me to be that the chief responsibility of "religion" is a self-defense mechanism against any tyrannical form of government. This is why war cannot be waged with out consent of the majority. "religion"; not in the sense of any such faith based in that which we cannot see but, quite so to the contrary- more so to the point of "religio" the latinate verb form "to be skeptical,"

      "religio (relligio) -onis f. , of persons, [scrupulousness, conscientious exactness]; esp. [religious scruple, awe, superstition, strict observance]; in gen. [moral scruples, conscientiousness]"
      ~Latin Dictionary; Notre Dame University

      Especially of ones own rule of law enforced by the national form of government. Although there are those who would say that judging from the Nuremburg trials, WWll would have never happened if the church in Germany did not approve of the actions that were being taken against Hassidic Jews, the same thing seems to be happening to us.

      Instead, it seems to be the judeo-christian-cathalic-conservative-right-wing-fanatics are responsible for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in this case. Except, this time it just so happens to be Islamic Muslims. Interestingly enough both religions; Christianity and Islam are both Abrahamic religious sects and whose biggest difference are between the two revered profits, Mohammed and Jesus. It is quite literally a jihad; in this case it is a war of our ideals against theirs. It is the same for "US" as it is for "them" we see each other as the infidel. Not to be confused with all Christian sects, this war is war at the hands of the fundamentalist Christians pitted against the fundamentalist Islamic Muslims.

      Hopefully, someday, we will come to some semblance of the truth, religion and the globalization. "Religio(n)" will be used as a means to keep the worlds governments in check against unnecessary death, bloodshed and the often very trivial futility of world wars. With great power comes great responsibility and it is much too much to ask of one man to wield absolute power and to share the health and wealth in all the worlds’ resources and international relations. This war we're in is a microcosm of the human condition and the confusedness of religions and their roles in society with regards to world governments all throughout history (i.e. religious world views and their respective revolutions.)

      Fortunately due to the tumultuous times of globalization, it will be possible to come to some higher form of understanding. The circumstances given today may well pave the way and provide an opportunity for us to right our wrongs and redeem religion and all aspects of it in its role of balancing the distribution of power and plenty. In other words, religion not as radically irrational fundamentalism but as the strict observance of government and some kind of sociopolitical science.

    • 3 years ago
  • MycoJ
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  

    • Globalization is simply inevitable. If we survive long enough as a species it will happen.

      God's will has nothing to do with it. There is no god.

      Globalization is not something to be feared. Just because the Bible has some goofy stories doesn't mean squat.

      Rather than the BIblical world view, I prefer the Zeitgeist of Star Trek. Both are fictions, but Star Trek is morally and intellectually superior.

    • 3 years ago
  • sk8bs55
  • MycoJ
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  
    • unimatrix0:

      to refer to the self or collective unconscious as "god" is to simply redefine "god".

      While I have sympathy with parts of both Jung and Freud, neither were comfortable with a belief in the god of abraham.

    • 3 years ago
  • sk8bs55
    • 0
      sk8bs55  
    • unimatrix0:

      I can't say that i am comfortable with the abrahamic version of god either. although, perhaps the concept of "god" was skewed to begin with. or through out time, the concept of it was warped towards the will of the government and not that of the people or vice versa. how can we even begin to understand it? but i digress, convince the people that you are doing gods will and there will be little protest if there are few dissenters they can easily be labled as unbelievers. the same goes for declaring someone unpatriotic if they disagree with the majority. in reality, it, what ever it is, exists outside of reality as its own entity and does its own will at our expense. we have no more control over it than we do the forces of nature.

      it seems as though the old testaments version of "God" suited its purpose for a time and then there was the new testaments version of "God". much the same way that the "truth" is subjective, the faces of "God" are ever changing; the concept is constantly being redefined. in the same way that myths only emerge every few hundred years and whose mysteries are eventually solved internally as well as externally, consciously and unconsciously-new myths eventually surface to take its place and thus lend themselves to perpetual change. change is manifested through our relation with ourselves and simultaneously with it.

      i simply cannot imagine this "God" to be a static force. as unpredictable as the weather, in the same way, it can be equally as creative as it can be destructive depending on our actions towards it. and it answers to no one regardless of whether or not you believe.

    • 3 years ago
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  
    • unimatrix0:

      If you personify god (e.g. abrahamic god) you commit the fallacy of anthropomorphism and fail.

      If god is devoid of personality he/she/it simply collapses into what is natural.

      Either way god is simply extraneous non-sense. Why cling to the term? It seems silly.

    • 3 years ago
  • MycoJ
  • sk8bs55
  • Elligirl
    • 0
      Elligirl  

    • "In Mark, there is no Sermon on the Mount, and so no Beatitudes, and there is no good Samaritan; Jesus’ most salient comment on ethnic relations is to compare a woman to a dog because she isn’t from Israel. "

      So the Bible documents the sanitization of the Jesus character, letting the readers pick and choose which qualities they would like their Jesus to have. Is he vengeful and angry? Or forgiving and altruistic? Is he accepting of women and other races? Does he meet his fate gracefully?

      Now that I think about it, it's amazing that the four conflicting accounts were included in the Bible together like they are.

    • 3 years ago
  • RojoGatto
  • krush_productions
    • 0
      krush_productions  

    • No, it's the will of the idiots who all collaborated on that waste of paper, "better than condoms", book of the damned.

      And the morons that attempt to shove it off as a completely rational way to live day to day life...

    • 3 years ago
more from Politics:
from the community

top videos