Jesus favored church/state separation - is this true?

[Rocknrule]

I've heard that the "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and unto God that with is God's" quote was an indicator of this. Is this true?

[havocmom]

1. Sounds like it to me

But then I am not a whacked out fundie xian trying to impose my narrow minded views on the universe ;)

[Rocknrule]

3. That's good

I am a Christian, but I also realize that religion is probably the #1 cause of violence in the world

[havocmom]

5. I like most Christians I meet

but the xians drive me nearly to rage.

Jesus mentioned keeping prayer private too, I believe. Sure don't see the xians following that one either.

[Joe for Clark]

12. "My kingdom is not of this earth" - something like that.

Joe

I didn't pay very good attention in CCD. I did pass though.

The main theme of Catholisism and Christianity is - "What so ever you to the least of my brothers, that we do unto me." Truly, that is the "big one". It is too bad so many fundamentalist didn't listen or can't read -one of the two.

And my further understanding is that (as you might infer from the quote) that the "church" exists within a person, not a temple. Those fundamentalists seemed to miss that one too (guess it interfered with fund raising schemes for them).

Have a great weekend.

Joe

[havocmom]

16. Thanks Joe

Have you read Carter's Our Endangered Values? He takes them to task for the twisting of much. Good read.

[Yupster]

21. I think you have it just about right

Jesus didn't have anything to do with the state. He was here or much more important things.

The render unto Caesar remark I always interpreted as 'well the state's here and they demand something so give it to them. It's not important. What's important is getting yourself ready for his kingdom which is to come.'

Jesus is also clear about how you will be judged by how you helped the less fortunate, but again, he ignores the state. It's an individual responsibility just like you will be judged individually.

Therefore, there were no marches on Rome organized or calls for the upping of the bread dole. The question was 'what did you do to help?', not what did you call for others to do.

I think the state was just an annoyance that was to be ignored as much as possible to Jesus.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

2. Yes & he was against greed, materialism, for the poor & peacemakers

but you wouldn't know that by listening to the american taliban - they distort & rewrite the bible & history to fit their viewpoints. But then again, what do you expect from cultist.

[JuniperLea]

10. And don't forget how he befriended the outcasts

Hookers, Lepers, etc. However we treat the lowliest of men is how we treat him. I wish I could find that scripture... it's a great Fundie argument support when they start talking hate toward certain groups. And the one about loving the sinner and hating the sin... and all the ones about how we are all God's children and he loves us all the same. That would include Saddam Hussein and OBL! heh

[lastliberalintexas]

13. The King will reply,

'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Matthew 25:40

I also like "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself. And the measure that you use shall also be put to you." Matthew 7:1-2

It's really funny to watch the fundies heads' explode at this agnostic quoting scripture back at them. :)

[JuniperLea]

23. Thanks!

I used to be a fundie, but now I'm just confused... agnostic, yep. Me too. It's the hypocrisy, not the humidity:)

[azurnoir]

4. I am most certainly

no expert on Christianity or the new testament but wasn't there something about Jesus kicking the merchants, moneylenders, whore mongers out of the temple? How does that jibe with "Christian" businesses, dating services, and politicians who preach from there respective podiums"

[enigma000]

6. I would say, yes

It might explain the lack of Christian Theocracies today (or even in the past) Europe may have state churches, but the clerics did not directly rule. In North America, early immigrants may have been escaping religious prosecution in Europe, but did they create theocracies in the New World?

[tocqueville]

7. at Jesus' time the state didn't exist in a modern sense

The word "state" in contemporary parlance often means the Westphalian state, a reference to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, and is used most often in political science.

besides nobody knows if Jesus said that, it's only reported in a gospel written 100 years later by somebody who never met Jesus, if he existed...

[Kutjara]

8. Whether that was his full intention when speaking those words...

...or not, that was certainly the justification that many thinkers during the Enlightenment used to justify the formation of truly secular states. Either way, it works for me.

[tocqueville]

15. "justifying" Enlightment with religion is like

"justifying" liberal policy with a neocon one...

[Kutjara]

20. True, but if that's the only language that was permitted...

...at the time, they had to use it. Europe had just come out of a period where any deviation from orthodoxy was severely punished. By using Scripture to peel apart Church and State, thinkers were able to address issues of State without offending the Church. If such a separation hadn't been possible, Christianity would be in a similar situation to Islam, which tightly couples the sacred and the secular.

The Fundies are trying to rejoin Church and State, which, if they succeed, will return our political systems to the state they were in in 1500.

[khashka]

9. Not quite....

He was talking about taxes, money and spirituality. That coin of the realm was invented by man and means nothing. Instead we should focus on the riches we recieve from god. Which are infinite and aren't taxed.

He was asked a question. He answered and basically said "quit worrying about money, work instead on the state of your soul".

Separation between church and state? Kinda, sorta. But not in quite the same way we usually argue about.....

Khash.

[gatlingforme]

11. I don't know, why don't you ask him?

[TheWraith]

14. Pretty much, yes. And a further note...

Remember that influence of the church upon the state was what got the man executed. The priests didn't like the stuff he was saying, and they demanded to the Roman governor that he arrest Jesus and have him killed. The threat backing it up was that if the governor didn't comply, then the priests would use their power to foment an uprising that would end the man's political career when the news got back to Rome.

Back to the original point, yes, there are some fairly strong indications of a church/state divide in true Christian teachings. Another interesting point can be found in Matthew 6:5-6. (NKJV)

"And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward."

"But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly."

Read plainly, this would seem to be a strong injunction against public prayer of any kind, and (rightly) saying that many people who engage in public acts of religion are actually seeking to impress their fellows.

[Ezlivin]

17. He had long hair, hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors

The established church hated him and his followers wanted him to overthrow Roman rule.

He said "My kingdom is not of this world."

Jesus showed no interest in political involvement ("Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's") and did not encourage his followers to attempt an overthrow of the current government. (In fact, during his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, he restrained Peter from attacking the arresting officers. Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.')

[Disturbed]

18. I wonder what Jesus would say about...

Bingo in church.

[Ezlivin]

25. He'd always win

Who'd want to play with him?

[Sinti]

19. Seems like he would have

As the story goes he was eventually crucified by a government that was deeply in bed with the church at the time. IOW, he was a threat to the church, and the government killed him, at least that's what I heard. ;)

[MikeNearMcChord]

22. His biggest battles were against the Pharisee's

the Jerry Falwells and The Pat Robertson's of his day, his Seven Woes that is in the book of Matthew is an excellent argument against Christian Fundies of today, he also warned against false piety, if your going to fast, then fast, but also wash your face and look normal don't try act like your fasting for effect.

[TheBaldyMan]

24. that was to dodge the Pharisees' attempt to trap him into admitting he was

seditious towards Rome.
from Matthew Chapter 22, vers 15-22

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. The context of Christ's words and his world are a little more

complex.

As when Paul, I believe, taught that Christians should "honor the Emperor". It was, in fact, a preaching of the acceptance of the overwhelming reality, in a spirit of realism, not cynicism. Evolution, not revolution, was to be the favored path of Christian, social progress. The devil was to have power over the world until the resolution of salvation history, and that was why he spoke of our warfare, why he described Christians as soldiers - though personally we are supposed to "lead with our chin", so to speak. With his crucfixion, he demonstrated in the most dramatic and personally painful way possible that true strength, spiritual strength is passive.

So you have the underlying acceptance that we are to be "on the back foot", but at the same time, we must never cease to "fight our corner". The acceptance of personal suffering is the means whereby the Christian obtains supernatural grace, not just in terms of his own spiritual growth, but also as deposits in a supernatural bank to be used by others in need.

We know from Christ's own words that there will be a hierarchy in Heaven, in the mystical Body of Christ, the "true vine", although it will not have anything of the divisive, competitive overtones, hierarchy tends to have on earth, and which will continue until the end of the world (although there is reason to believe, out hierarchy of honor will be largely inverted in Heaven). But even so, such a consideration is steeped in paradox, since the Children of Light will be all "other Christs" by adoption, and how could one "other Christ" feel a spirit of rivalry with his fellow "other Christs"?

In fact, it sounds as if Christ's teaching concerning "the greatest among you being your servant" might well be continued in Heaven; so that, like good parents, who love their children more than themselves, the greatest people in Heaven would be happiest anonymously "supporting" their fellows, seeing them flourish - and resonating somewhat with Goethe's precept - that Love does not seek to dominate, but to cultivate. The corollary of "a mother will not be comforted", of course, is that the love of a good mother is sublime, probably closer to the inner life of the Holy Trinity than anything else we normally come across in this life. Little wonder, therefore, that no economic value is placed on it by the world. Rather like children - also particularly close to God - tend to be beneath the contempt of politicians, since they have no vote. This is much more true in cynical Europe, I believe, than in your country. Remember the English nanny, Beverly Allit?

Originally, it seems God did not want the Israelites to have a king, but rather for them to look to Him for their guidance and help in every situation, presumably, as hitherto, through the judges and prophets. However, they kept on grizzling about it, until he finally acceded to their request, and had Samuel anoint Saul as their king. So, it seems it was man that wanted this separation of Church and State in the first place, not God.

However, it wasn't necessarily the case that none of their kings ever ruled wisely, however, humanly prone to sin and misrule; or that under the judges, the Israelites always behaved worthily, never opppressing the poor or indulging in other forms of idolatry.
The problem, of course, is that even in the most theocratic cultures, particularly in the most theocratic cultures, the Church itself can become very separated from the true Church and all too close to the State.