most Christians today can be more accurately described as Paulians.

[IndianaJones]

They follow more closely the hateful teaching of that man rather than Jesus Christ.

[charlie]

1. I don't know about most...

It's true of the loud ones, though.

[IndianaJones]

2. what percentage are Catholics? nt.

[Divine Discontent]

3. good summation of what many are... I like it, well, I don't like it, but I like what you said. eom

[BrklynLiberal]

4. The loud, mean-spiited, holier-than-thou, hypocritical ones certainly are Paulists.

The ones who feel compelled to foist their beliefs on everyone around them, and condemn the non-believers to hell are Paulists.
The intolerant, uncharitable, narrow-minded ones are Paulists.

[jonnyblitz]

5. do you believe the fundies and their ideological ilk out number

liberal/progressive christians or vice versa? many DU christians claim the "real" or "good" christians outnumber the fundies but I don't believe that. I never see huge mega churches filled with liberal christians like I do for the fundies. I could be completely wrong because I haven't researched this. :shrug:

[IndianaJones]

8. I believe the teachings of all the major denominations of Protestantism....

as well as Catholicism are Paulian in essential nature.

While the individual followers of these various sects my disagree with some points here and there, their very membership in these churches carries some considerable weight in my opinion of them.

[jonnyblitz]

11. thanks.

i just don't believe the nice christians are the majority like the nice christians here at DU keep telling me.

[IndianaJones]

12. I don't think they are either. But there are nice Christians. nt.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. No, and you likely won't

We don't tend to congregate in large, impersonal, theme-parks of churches.

Go to your local food pantry, though, and ask around - I'll bet you find many members of those smaller and much less conspicuous congregations that don't need big screen tvs to worship.

[xchrom]

6. ya know without James -- the older brother of Jesus --

Paul wouldn't be where he is today.

[jeff30997]

7. And without Ringo...

Paul would be the last living Beatle! :wow:

[IndianaJones]

10. James was a rival of Paul, more in line with the teaching of Jesus. nt.

[jpgray]

9. Unfortunately, that still doesn't describe them

Modern Christians have almost as casual a relationship to Paul as they do to Christ, or Peter, or--take your pick. I never get sick of quoting this motherfucker, because he's right:

The doctrines have no hold on ordinary believers--are not a power in their minds. They have an habitual respect for the sound of them, but no feeling which spreads from the words to the things signified, and forces the mind to take them in, and make them conform to the formula. Whenever conduct is concerned, they look round for Mr. A and B to direct them how far to go in obeying Christ.

Substitute Paul, if you like. Or really any Abrahamic religious figure in existence. Religious leaders pick and choose from Scripture for their own ends, bigotry and self-contradiction are no strangers to that process. They weren't for Paul, and they aren't for religious leaders today.

[saltpoint]

19. "Casual" is a good word for it. Many are in fact casual in their

relationship with the stick figures of the New Testament and some are "sloppy."

The New Testament itself needed either more careful interpolators or a good editor, one.

Or both.

[cosmik debris]

13. But do they put sugar on their porridge? n/t

[knitter4democracy]

14. Western Christians definitely are.

I would agree with that assessment. What they do with that Pauline basis, though, varies greatly from group to group and denomination to denomination.

[Sam1]

15. Yes - and it has been that way for hundreds of years.

Martin Luther claimed that should the new testament disappear, with the exception of Romans, that Christianity could be recreated. When it comes to nitty-gritty theological argument the Gospels get neglected, not Romans. But then when Paul was kick out of Palestine he turned west and the rest is history.

Or did the empire's first Christian, Constantine, have a little more then some influence?

[Evoman]

16. Jesus, paul...who cares. It's all the same bullshit.

Why people don't just fucking toss that shit away and just live their lives is beyond me.

[saltpoint]

17. There does seem to be an infestation of Paulism in the practice of

Christianity in the United States.

Paul certainly has a controlling share of the New Testament.

I've never liked him much. I don't trust his insights. The few passages of uplift and vision in his writings strike me absolutely as interpolations and not his own words. This is not a demonstrable point but remains nevertheless a persistent hunch.

[Vidar]

18. Damned good point. "The last real Cristian died on the cross" according to Nietzsche.

[saltpoint]

28. It is a startling point and difficult most times to refute.

I'd add also Shaw's observation that "Christianity might be a good thing if anybody ever tried it."

[cosmik debris]

20. Every novel needs a hero and a villain

In the Bible, Paul is the villain.

[saltpoint]

21. And a worthy one he is. I love your construction on this.

I find myself thinking also of Scorsese's casting in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, with Harry Dean Stanton as Paul.

A logical casting, considering Stanton's turn in REPO MAN.

[cosmik debris]

22. Of course there are many levels

The God v. Satan story line is just the children's story.

The grown-up story line is (Jesus) reason v. emotion (Paul).

At least that's the way they taught it at Baylor University forty-several years ago.

[saltpoint]

23. Yes. It's interesting that the Bible generally and the New Testament

especially has yielded such rich literary treasure.

Strongly agree with you on the narrative constructs.

[Goblinmonger]

24. Guess what? Hitler hated Paul, too.

He thought that the teachings of that dirty Jew, Paul, took away from the true teachings of Christ. I'm just saying.

[AllentownJake]

25. Paul is a mixxed bag

In my personal Christian faith I choose to mostly focus on what Jesus had to say. I fail miserably.

[heidler1]

26. My casual observation is that Jesus insists on the impossible love and turning the other cheek.

That most people won't do, but the "Mark of the Beast and chanting 666" has great hate appeal.

[Why Syzygy]

27. Historical accounts

do tell us of multitudes of Christians who "turned the other cheek".
They were summarily dipped in oil, hung on lamp posts and set aflame.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. Or perhaps the ones you refer to follow what they've been taught

are Paul's teachings - really those picked and chosen and interpreted to support a particular system.

I think there's more to Paul than most see at first sight - and particularly those whose exposure is carefully calibrated by preachers to point to the message those preachers like.

Jesus' message is both simple and very, very difficult. I think there is a very human tendency to use something easier to bend so that people can congratulate themselves for adhering to the letter of the law while often ignoring its spirit.