Flexible Definitions

In class, we discussed the way in which some important historical and political figures (such as Gandhi or Jesus) have rejected certain words because of their negative connotations.  I wonder, though, how effective this is in the long run and in terms of influencing a population.  If a single person chooses to use the word 'opponent' rather than 'enemy', it will stand out, and people will likely recognize the significance of the choice.  However, if a population decides to follow the example of this person and discard the term 'enemy', using 'opponent' instead, it may be that the meaning of 'opponent' will change over time (possibly a very short time) to match the meaning of 'enemy', thus rendering pointless the original term choice.

Response: Political Traditions

In response to Dania Guadalupe's post "What Would Jesus Do?" (February 23, 2012):

I would agree that Jesus would have supported discrimination on the basis of baptism or anything else.  However, it is helpful to remember that just because Jesus would not have supported it, it is not necessarily bad.  Many religions have changed over time to reflect changing political and social situations, and many of the changes are good things.  This one practice in particular, I think, may not be a good thing, but this is not true of all changes.  In fact, I doubt that Jesus would have wanted people to keep Christianity (or a modified form of Judaism, as it was when he was alive) in a static state just in order to strictly follow what he said; he probably would have recognized that changing times call for changing practices if one hopes to keep a religion alive.

Response: Unverifiability and Religion

In response to Jess Gamari's post "Revolution Through the Filter" (February 23, 2012):

In regards to wanting to know the truth, I think that the Crossan book can be very helpful as far as Jesus is concerned.  Of course, there are still significant parts of Jesus' life which are unchronicled, and which we can only guess at, but on a whole it seems that we can reconstruct a relatively clear picture of who he was and what he did.

God, though, is a different matter.  As God's actions are a matter of theology rather than history, we cannot simply find evidence of them through archeology or careful reading of historical texts.  This unverifiability of God is, I think, one of the most significant issues dividing theists and atheists; as the reality of God has to be taken on faith rather than historical evidence, some people reject the idea, and others support it.  Honestly, though, I think that the way this requires faith is a good thing; if God was a matter of fact rather than conjecture, religion would basically be another science, rather than a matter of belief - which is what makes it interesting to me.

Jesus and Discrimination

So far, Crossan's book has presented a picture of Jesus as an advocate for universal equality.  If this is truly the case, then what might Jesus say about those modern practitioners of Christianity who use the Bible to justify all sorts of discrimination, ranging from racism, to homophobia, to sexism, to discrimination on the basis of religion?  While it appears that Jesus may have been something of a feminist, do we have any idea how he felt about other issues, like race relations or homosexuality?

If he intended to keep his message consistent, it seems likely that Jesus would have supported equality for all of the above minority groups.  Ironically, it seems that in modern society Christianity (as with many religions, actually) has been used more frequently to preach in favour of various forms of discrimination than it has to support universal equality.  It is both amusing and sad that some people appear to have taken Jesus' messages and used them to support exactly the sort of agenda he was most vehemently opposed to.