A Test for False Prophets

 

Simon Magus, who exorcised in Jesus's name.

Some years ago, friend Xerxes objected to George Bush Jr.’s supposed attitude, which he said was “anyone who is not with me is against me.” And this he said was starkly opposed to Jesus, who said instead “anyone who is not against me is with me.”

I corrected him then. Jesus actually said both. See Matthew 12: 30; Mark 9: 40.

Presumably in Xerxes mind, had he known this, he must think Jesus contradicted himself; or else the Gospels are inconsistent. One must be unreliable.

But both are true. There is such a thing as the fallacy of the false dilemma. But here we have a true dilemma, a situation in which there are only two choices. Either you are with Jesus, the Truth, or you are against it. There is no third option. Creation is a constant war between truth and falsehood, good and evil.

Bob Dylan makes the point in song: “It may be the Devil, or it may be the Lord, but you’re gonna have to serve somebody.”

Anyone who is committed to Truth, which is to say, necessarily, the one true God, is on the same team. Anyone who is not so committed is, consciously or not, worshipping and working for the Devil.

This point comes to mind from noticing several talks on YouTube by Rabbi Tovia Singer. His entire programme seems to be to debunk Christianity. I say those who try to debunk or discredit any monotheistic faith are really of the Devil’s party. Their agenda, even if not themselves conscious of it, is to drive others from faith in the Lord; they are doing the Devil’s work.

Does this mean there are no possible errors in the creed of this or that denomination? Of course not; this is categorically impossible. So long as they disagree on any point, and they do, one must be right, and one must be wrong. But in comparison to the fundamental issue, of being of the party of God, any such differences must be trivial. To focus on them is to turn away from God yourself, and to attempt to turn another away. You are of the Devil’s party, even without knowing it.

This applies to nominal Jewish rabbis like Singer; they are really wolves in sheep’s clothing. It applies to those many Protestant ministers whose chief interest seems to be in criticizing Catholicism rather than asserting their faith. They are attacking faith.  It applies to any who claim to be Christian, who scapegoat Islam as intrinsically evil. Although so ffar as I can see, the strongest criticism of Islam comes not from the fellow religious, but from secularists. It applies to any Muslims who claim that Christians or Jews are evil—the “Islamist” terrorists. They are not true Muslims; they are secularists. Like the psychiatrist who drove his car into a Christmas market in Germany: these people hate Islam as well, if they hate Christianity.

I note too the conclusion to the story of the rich man and Lazarus, told by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke:

“They [i.e., like the Jews] have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, [i.e., like Jesus] they will repent.’

 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

A good Jew is a good Christian. A good Christian is a good Jew. 

It is important to me that the post-Vatican II Catholic church has a good record of not criticizing other faiths. I went through the Catholic schools, and never heard a peep in criticism of any other denomination. 

I had a Jewish friend in grad school who refused to believe this. She assured me that, regardless of my actual experience, all Catholics are taught that the Jews murdered Christ.

Her supposedly Jewish teachers were in league with the Devil.

This is a good test, like the test for discerning the spirits. Does the teacher support and nurture faith, or does he spend his greater energy criticizing faith?

There are many false shepherds.

Those Endless Religious Wars

 

Friend Maximilian laments that too many people are convinced that only their religion is true; leading to endless strife. If only we could get past this religious prejudice and become more tolerant.

This is a common view. Like most common views, it is the opposite of the truth.

If you do not believe your religion is true, you do not believe your religion. If you nevertheless attend services and go through the public motions, you are a hypocrite.

“When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I tell you the truth, that is all the reward they will ever get. But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private.”

“These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”

If you believe your religion is true, it follows that, wherever another religion differs from yours, you believe it is false. 

Now, does believing another person’s religion is false lead to strife? Do you commonly beat someone up for being in error? Do you want to kick someone down the stairs for thinking 1 + 1 = 7?

Religion imposes on its sincere followers rules for moral conduct; that is what the word “religion” means: “binding.”  These involve respect for the rights of others: in a phrase, “do unto others as you would be done by.” All the major religions do this. In that they impose these moral obligations on their followers, they are the main bulwark we have against strife. Laws alone are useless without a moral populace. If the people are not moral, they will not follow them anyway. If the police are not moral, they will not enforce them. If the judges are not moral, neither will they. Religion is the cement for all social order.

There are and have been wars of religion. There is a problem when two moral systems try to coexist in close proximity. But historically, most wars of religion involve the Muslims. Islam is curious in this regard: it is not just a religion, but a political ideology. It requires control of the secular power. This is not true of Buddhism other than Vajrayana, of Hinduism, of Judaism, Taoism, or mainstream Christianity. All are “mystical” faiths operating on the individual level, lacking a political agenda. Protestant sects vary on this point.

So subtract Islam from the equation. 

How many religious wars have there been, then, really? 

Northern Ireland comes up. But note, Sinn Fein and the IRA were Marxist, not Catholic, and condemned by the Catholic Church. The Ulster Protestants were motivated by religious prejudice, perhaps, but not the other side. In such a case, to blame “religion” or “religions” in general means blaming the victim. Blame the specific religion, or its errant followers.

Take away religion, on the other hand, and what do you have historically? Nazi Germany—the Nazi leadership was pagan or anti-religious, in revolt against Judeo-Christian morality. Soviet Russia and Maoist China, both officially atheist and hostile to religion. The Khmer Rouge and North Korea. The Reign of Terror in Revolutionary France. You have genocide. Inevitably.

Religion is the chief bulwark preventing social chaos, in which the strong simply prey on the weak.

Of course the strong resent religion, and will condemn it if emboldened. Be deeply suspicious of any force or source or opinion that stands against religion.

I Was Afraid of This

Chora Church in Istanbul has been converted into a mosque. This is one of the most historic churches in Christendom.

Religion as Aggression

World's tallest buildings, 1850.

My left-leaning friend laments the “colonization” of the Mediterranean basin by the followers of Jesus a few thousand years ago. All a matter, in the end, of religious intolerance. Okay, at first it was all voluntary, but not once Constantine Christianized the empire. Then one had to be Christian or face consequences.

We pride ourselves on being more religiously tolerant than our ancestors—just imagine trying to impose our religion on someone! But I suspect we may be giving our ancestors a bum rap. It is easy to accept religious diversity so long as your own religion is not really Christianity any longer, or any of the recognized others, but secular humanism, human rights, materialism, and science. It is, after all, when that shift happened in our culture, especially in the nineteenth century, that we really started relaxing about religious differences.

It seems to me symbolically significant that, up until 1884, the world's tallest buildings were always (at least next to another, ancient religious structure, the pyramids) cathedrals. In that year, the Washington Monument, an image of secular humanism, became the world's tallest, and secular buildings have held the record ever since. The Washington Monument was surpassed by the Eiffel Tower, essentially a shrine to science and technology. Since the Eiffel Tower was surpassed in turn in 1930, the biggest shrines are either to technology—broadcast masts—or to commerce.

A fairer comparison to the attitude of our ancestors, who held that Christianity was simply truth, since it was indeed what they believed, as we now do science and human rights, would be how peacefully we can tolerate in our midst people who reject the basics of both science and human rights. Not just science or technology alone, because science or technology, unlike Christianity, lacks a moral dimension; so rejecting it is not so much considered morally disturbing as just insane.

Now, wouldn't we have a problem? Don't we? Note that it is on human rights grounds that “we” went in to Kosovo, or Bosnia. Were we wrong, or simply aggressive, to do so? Were we right to stay out of Rwanda, or Syria? Should we have nothing to say about female genital mutilation? Perhaps; but it gets hard to make the case.

You might scoff that religious differences are not that morally significant. But they often are. When you contrast Christianity with historical paganism—back when people actually believed in either—for example, you have to consider issues like human sacrifice. Contrast Christianity with historical Hinduism, and you have issues like suttee, the caste system, and such. With Islam, you had issues like slavery. I think we would still consider such issues morally significant today. We would just ascribe them to human rights instead of Christianity.