If Christians stuck to the "red letters" would the world be better off?

Simultaneously the world's biggest religion and the one most relevant to most of the Western world, Christianity has had an unfathomable impact on everything from science to healthcare, both for better and for worse. Does it have merit? Discuss here.
Forum rules
This is a debate-friendly forum. Board-wide rules apply, but expect things to get heated. Christian apologetics and theology can be debated here by believer and unbeliever alike, but be respectful. For example, a debate one when a person should be baptized cannot be ended by someone arguing that the debate is moot because there is no God. Arguments against Christianity are allowed here, but they shouldn't be used to derail conversations which assume the validity of the faith.
User avatar
Secularick
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 41
Registered for: 3 months
Location: Connersville, IN
Contact:

If Christians stuck to the "red letters" would the world be better off?

Unread post by Secularick »

Strip away the epistles, the Revelation… strip it on down to Jesus' words, commonly printed in red, throughout the four gospels.

Gone would be things like "women cannot teach men," "don't marry because it'll distract you from God," and so many other problematic messages in the writings of, for example, Paul.

And we'd be left with… OK, the red letters still have a lot of interesting stuff in there, but there would be far less distraction from the crux of the message: compassion, empathy, and inclusion.

What do you think?

And given that we've had 2,000 years of the 27 books of the New Testament being repeatedly asserted to be perfect the way it is, would it ever even be possible for Christendom to ever, well, revise its position in the name of a more focused, true-to-Jesus message?


Secularick, A Friendly Neighborhood Human Guy
One more time around oughtta do it.
twicedouble
Posts: 14
Registered for: 3 months
Location: Probably California
Contact:

Unread post by twicedouble »

Isn’t the “one jot or tittle” verse in the red letters?


Don’t read this sentence.
User avatar
Secularick
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 41
Registered for: 3 months
Location: Connersville, IN
Contact:

Unread post by Secularick »

Yes, but it refers to the Old Testament; the epistles, within the narrative, didn't exist yet. (Realistically, the epistles were likely written first, but that's not really the point here.)

Edit: It occurs to me you may be pointing out that the red letters contain Jesus' affirmation of the Old Testament, a testament which is, well, filled with questionable material.

And if that's the case... Yeah, you're right. But there are a fair few examples of Old Testament passages brought up in Jesus' life, and he tends to interpret them in the most radical, liberal ways possible, often enough anyways. In a sense, Jesus not only redeems humanity but also the Old Testament. Now, does that mean Jesus is playing as fast and loose with the passages he refers to as other New Testament speakers do when forcing messianic prophecies to fit Jesus' life (or turning non-messianic passages into messianic ones for the sake of bolstering Jesus? Absolutely.

It's problematic the whole way down, but I still remain convinced that a radical reimagining of how churches handle the Bible could have a tremendously positive effect.


Secularick, A Friendly Neighborhood Human Guy
One more time around oughtta do it.
Post Reply