When you are flipping through channels and a smiling Hispanic man assures the reporter that he is the second coming of Jesus Christ it will most certainly end the remote button pushing and probably cause some double-takes.
Last night the ABC News program “The Outsiders” featured a story on Jose de Jesus who claims to be the “second manifestation” of Jesus Christ. While as a Christian my first response is to gasp at the audacity of the man, my more thoughtful response is to applaud his honesty.
De Jesus grew up in government housing in Puerto Rico stealing to pay for his teenage heroin addiction. This landed him in jail for nine months, where he claims he was born again.
He moved to the United States became involved with church youth groups and eventually became a minister in Boston. But after that a vision revealed that he was now God incarnate.
De Jesus, who now lives in an affluent suburb of Houston, said, “The same spirit that was in Jesus of Nazareth, and the same spirit is in me. He came to me. He [integrated] with my person in 1973” when two angels came to him in a vision.
His “millions of followers” don’t seem to mind that de Jesus can offer no proof to any of his claims – they like what he is saying. “So you tell the millions of followers I have that … this guy is a liar. You know what are they going to say? Is that I prefer his lies than what religion gave me,” de Jesus told ABC.
He’s right and reaping the rewards of it. As he parades around Hispanic communities in the US and Latin America, he is lavished with praise and financial benefits. De Jesus’ official accountant, his daughter, said that the luxuries around her father are simply gifts from loving followers. “They’re just very grateful, and they want to give him gifts.”
The reason why I, a conservative evangelical Christian, would recognize the honesty of someone like de Jesus is that he merely personifyies and espouses the idea that many of us hold so dear – “I am the final authority,” essentially “I am God.”
While Jose parades and profits from his beliefs, most of us tend to hide from the fact that we feel (and act like) we are God, even – sometimes especially – Christians. We can see clearly that an action is morally wrong, but we come up with enough reasons we are justified in an attempt to soften or excuse our disobedience. Many times we know that we should do something, but we convince ourselves that it would be better if we stayed out of it. Through our actions, we say that we are God or at least we know better than He does.
The theology that de Jesus teaches meshes perfectly with his doctrine of personal deity. His upbeat messages delivered to faithful gathering in a hotel conference room assures followers that there is no such thing as sin, hell, Satan or any type of eternal punishment of their behavior.
He believes things such as murder are crimes, punishable here on earth, but not sins, punishable in eternity, because Jesus (the first one) died and was resurrected and now no one can do anything wrong in God’s eyes. “Before the presence of God, there’s no more sin,” exlained de Jesus.
Despite his abnormal beliefs, some of his doctrine is actually inline with orthodox Christianity. He told ABC that “Heaven doesn’t have anything to do with your behavior.” According to Christian doctrine, he is correct – salvation is about God’s grace and we cannot do anything to earn it. But he is not right in the way he applies it – live however you would like.
De Jesus said that he has gleaned his teaching from Paul, whom he claims is the only New Testament writer to get it right. One can assume however that de Jesus does not preach from Romans 6.
“So what do we do? Keep on sinning so God can keep on forgiving? I should hope not! If we’ve left the country where sin is sovereign, how can we still live in our old house there? Or didn’t you realize we packed up and left there for good?” – Romans 6:1-2, The Message
If his message is clearly not biblical, why then are so many people leaving a faith in Jesus of Nazareth behind to embrace Jesus of Suburbia. Again, Paul is the place to turn. In his instructions to Timothy on being a pastor, Paul explains why a shift like this takes place.
2 Timothy 4:3, NIV – “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”
The Message phrases it like this: “You’re going to find that there will be times when people will have no stomach for solid teaching, but will fill up on spiritual junk food—catchy opinions that tickle their fancy. They’ll turn their backs on truth and chase mirages.”
People tend to follow and believe what they want to be true. People have an inate desire to be in control, to answer to no one for their actions. They not only want to be their own boss, they want to be their own God.
While some take the atheistic, materialistic route to avoid answering to a higher power, many more find comfort in their own deity. The grasp of materialism on younger generations is weakening as testifyied to by atheist Lauren Sandler in her book “Righteous: Dispatches from the Evangelical Youth Movement.” She sees the need of a Great Secular Awakening to stem the tide of what see deems the “disciple generation.” What Sandler and others recognize is that religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, has been providing people with a sense of belonging and purpose, while atheist have lagged in that area.
Unlike Sandler, de Jesus and those like him provide followers with the “best of both worlds.” Disciples of this Jesus (the second one) can experience a sense of fellowship, along with the “freedom” to avoid accountability. They can somewhat satisfy the spiritual longings they have and continue to live life however they would like – no questions, no qualms.
While Christians can and should continue to engage in addressing the concerns and objections brought up by materialists, the next great battle we face will not be led by Richard Dawkins, but by Jose de Jesus and an army of individual Gods.
Aaron's writes:
"…some take the atheistic, materialistic route to avoid answering to a higher power…" What evidence do you have for this statement? Isn't it more accurate to say that those of us who take such a route do so because we find claims about higher powers to be unconvincing, and that we are intent on taking personal responsibility for our beliefs and our actions? We don't blame or credit some god for everything. We value truth so highly that we aren't satisfied with easy religious answers merely to feel good. This isn't seeking to be a "god," as you charge!
In fact, I see little difference between you evangelicals and the Jesus of suburbia types: both of you seek to take refuge in something for which you have little or no proof, and you are avoiding a reality which has a chance of being verified. It all looks cultish to me.
Comic strip supporting Louis
"comic strip supporting Louis"
That always makes me laugh when Cineaste pulls out comic strips as evidence. Sorry Cineaste, I know what you are getting at, but it is still funny.
Louis, this column is one of the rare ones that I write completely from the Christian perspective and make Christian assumptions. It is not that you can't read and critique this one, but you must understand that it is written with a Christian audience in mind. I usually specify those types with the "church life" tag.
We have discussed evidence etc. in other places and will do so again, but it should be obvious to any but the most biased observer that orthodox Christianity carries much more weight and evidence than a guy from Houston claiming to be God.
I would say that belief in something greater than oneself does not decrease personal responsibility for actions, but increase it. I must recognize that I alone am responsible for how I behave and the choices I make, but also that I must answer to Someone greater than myself. I can't self-determine whether my actions are correct or not. When there is no outside force or correction, people can make just about anything justifiable – unfortunately that same desire resides in those of us who must answer and we still try to bypass that corrective force and do things our own way, with bad results.
Obviously, orthodox xianity holds more weight than narcissistic cultists like the creep you mentioned. What I was reacting to was your easy dismissal of the atheist/materialist (I might add, rationalist) viewpoint. You may claim it was directed towards fellow xians, but that's precisely the point, isn't it? When you lump us in with the "jesus" guy, or caricature us as somehow dishonest or self-deceiving, then you must be answered. Or is that all that xians want to hear about their critics?
As to the "greater than myself" question – I DO have powers greater than myself: the gov't, for one. The law, for another. Also, centuries of human knowledge, science, and the high standards of reason. As to a supernatural force: I don't find the claims of xianity very compelling. Just look at its history. It's claims of higher powers usually devolve to what some local authority or in-crowd wants. Even the Devil quotes scripture to suit his desires.
That being said, I do find Buddhism points in a direction I find compelling. But it makes no claims that some god is telling us what to do.
I don't dismiss materialism easily.My point was to seperate the sides that Christianity comes in "conflict" with – the "rationalists" and the spiritualists. Those are different questions that Christians have to answer because both challenge Christianity but from different viewpoints. This column dealt with the spiritualists, so the time was not spent on the other side.
I don't think you are dishonest, but I do think you are deceived. If I didn't I would follow your path. You think I am deceived. Now we are even.
On issues of morality, you determine for yourself what is moral. You may chose to lean on past knowledge, reason, law or any other measuring stick, but utimately you answer to no one but yourself – particuarly on issues that are legal, but morally questionable.
The same charges you level at Christianity can, to some degree, be leveled at Buddhism. (The difference being that Buddhism never became the "religion of the world.") Look in areas that are control by Buddhist many resort to beating and killing Christians, Muslims and Hindus.
Any way of thinking, worldview or religion can be twisted and used for evil – it is the nature of man. That can be used as a defense for God as well.
"That always makes me laugh when Cineaste pulls out comic strips as evidence."
Who said it was evidence? It is however, self explanatory.
But when you say the comic "support[s]" Louis' statement or anything anyone of us says it strikes me as essentially, "we're right because this comic strip makes a sarcastic remark that says so." I know that's not what you mean but it makes me laugh anyway – sorry.
But the comic misses the point anyway. First of all, remind me when Christians hijacked planes and flew them in to buildings and secondly certainty does not equal murder, if that is the case you would be killing in the name of evolution.
"But when you say the comic "support[s]" Louis' statement or anything anyone of us says it strikes me as essentially, "we're right because this comic strip makes a sarcastic remark that says so."
Is satire evidence? Can the comic be seen as a supporting satirical argument rather than hard tangible "evidence?"
First of all, remind me when Christians hijacked planes and flew them in to buildings…
I believe the reference to "flying a passenger plane into a skyscraper" is a reference to 9/11 and Islam. Do you agree? The connection is, Muslims and Christians both have "certainty" which they call "faith."
"secondly certainty does not equal murder."
In the case of 9/11, certainty does equal murder. The hijackers were certain they would go to Heaven. Do you deny this?
…if that is the case you would be killing in the name of evolution
Huh? Why am I killing in evolutions name?
I know the reference is to Muslims, but I am not speaking as a Muslim. I speak only of my own faith in Jesus.
The hijackers were certain they would go to heaven for their acts, but to paint all religions with such a broadbrush attack is weak at best. Many other characteristics played into the terrorists decision to kill themselves and thousands of people beyond simply being certain of their faith.
My point about evolution is that if mere certainty is all that is required for an individual to turn into a murder for their cause, then you could be in danger of killing in the name of evolution since you are certain it is true. You could be out to prove that only the strong survive and illustrate that by killing the "weak."
I don't believe that to be the case because I believe that issues such as terrorism and murder are more complex than simply – "He's certain about what he believes."
"I know the reference is to Muslims, but I am not speaking as a Muslim. I speak only of my own faith in Jesus."
Certainty in Allah, certainty in Jesus, certainty in Zeus; what's the difference? I can't discern any.
"The hijackers were certain they would go to heaven for their acts, but to paint all religions with such a broadbrush attack is weak at best."
It's not an attack. It's an observation. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims have complete faith in religion. I think you agree.
"Many other characteristics played into the terrorists decision to kill themselves and thousands of people beyond simply being certain of their faith."
Yet, certainty in Islamic faith is the reason Muslims point to when asked why they are so willing to commit suicide. Christian fundamentalists have this same certainty.
"You could be out to prove that only the strong survive and illustrate that by killing the weak."
This makes no sense at all. Can you please explain?
"I believe that issues such as terrorism and murder are more complex than simply – He's certain about what he believes."
Oh yes, I agree. Yet, being certain that you will be rewarded with a ticket to Heaven for killing people sure helps too.
The difference between my faith and a Muslims may seem insignificant to you, but to me they are vast as I place you in the same boat as the Muslim – outsiders. That is how every human views those outside of his own worldview.
While I may share a complete faith in my beliefs with a Muslim that does not mean that I am any more likely than you to hijack a plane – that is my point.
My point about you killing in the name of evolution is that in arguing the sameness of fundamental Christianity and Islam, you say that because of certainity they (we) will resort to the killing of other individuals. What removes certainity of evolution from this consequence, besides the fact that you are a follower? You seem to hold certainity up as a negative that should be avoided in religion yet embraced in your viewpoints. It is easy to say certainity in everyone else is bad, but good for me.
Believing that killing other people will get you in to heaven could motivate people to kill, another reason I'm glad I'm not a follower of Allah, but of Christ – who was the last sacrifice needed.
The difference between my faith and a Muslims may seem insignificant to you, but to me they are vast.
Your doctrine may be (arguably) vastly different but you faith in God is identical.
While I may share a complete faith in my beliefs with a Muslim that does not mean that I am any more likely than you to hijack a plane – that is my point.
But you are more likely to believe in Heaven as a reward than I am. What would you do for Jesus Aaron? Anything? Would you be capable of doing what Abraham did? Not me. It’s completely irrational.
…you say that because of certainity they (we) will resort to the killing of other individuals.
Be specific. Irrational certainty in things you cannot know. Dogma. Like an afterlife. And yes, having religious certainty makes it easier to rationalize killing others. See 9/11.
You seem to hold certainity up as a negative that should be avoided in religion yet embraced in your viewpoints. It is easy to say certainity in everyone else is bad, but good for me.
Here is the difference between my “certainty” and your “certainty” (faith). Religious Certainty vs. Cineaste’s Certainty
Of course, I believe I have vastly more evidence for my belief than does as Muslim. I also believe I have more evidence for my belief than does an atheist. Again, I wouldn’t be a Christian if this wasn’t the case.
While I may do “anything” for Jesus that does not including killing, since He forbade it. Again big difference with Muslims, whose teaches commends killing of the “infidels.” We are called to be missionaries with our words and lives, not with guns and suitcase bombs.
Does having a certainty about a certain belief system make it easier to kill? Probably, but it depends on what you are certain about. If you are “certain” that unborn babies aren’t human then it makes it easier to kill them. If you are certain Americans are infidels then it makes it easier. The teachings of Christianity is that all people are created equal in the image of God and that each life is precious and should be protected – that does not lead to killing (unless it is perverted and twisted).
The same is true for any belief system. What about the Columbine shooters who were atheists and saw no real value in their lifes or anyone else’s? Humans are nothing more than grown-up apes, a cosmic accident, why regard life as precious? What about Nazi’s who viewed Jews (and others) as lower on the evolutionary scale, therefore there was nothing morally wrong with killing them?
My point is that certainty can lead to the killing of people, but I don’t know of a belief system that is not capable of going in that direction. With Christianity you have to act clearly against the teachings of Christ to go that way. With Muslims it is debateable at best. With atheism there are no teachings so who is to say what the right way to go is?
As to the cartoon, I don’t think you have faith in science. I think you have faith in the conclusions you (and others) have drawn from the same science that everyone else has.
Of course, I believe I have vastly more evidence for my belief than does as Muslim.
I know you believe this Aaron but we can’t substantiate supernatural claims. I asked before “Certainty in Allah, certainty in Jesus, certainty in Zeus; what’s the difference? I can’t discern any.” At this point I usually use the FSM to illustrate.
Again big difference with Muslims, whose teaches commends killing of the “infidels.”
There are equally repulsive sentiments in the Bible. Regardless, it’s the fundamentalism to the doctrines that cause suffering not the fundamentalism of the doctrines.
If you are “certain” that unborn babies aren’t human then it makes it easier to kill them.
I’ve said this before. I’ll say it again because it is very important you understand. From the moment of conception, cells ARE human. The question is, “when should those cells attain the rights of a person?” Shall I freeze 20 of my girlfriend’s fertilized eggs and claim them as dependents for a tax write off? The argument from potential is untenable. Seeker and I actually agree about this though we differ on exactly when “personhood” occurs.
What about the Columbine shooters who were atheists and saw no real value in their lifes or anyone else’s?
You use the plural of “shooter” and “atheist.” Seriously. I’d like to see what evidence you have for claiming that 1. atheism was a motive 2. all or even one of them were atheists. My suspicion is that one or more of the victims was religious so you are assuming they must have been targets for the “godless” atheists who have no morals. Is this simply your assertion? Show me your evidence documenting Atheism.
Now, what about that Amish Christian guy who broke into a school and shot half a dozen 6 year old girls in the head? He saw no real value in his life or anyone else’s and he was a Christian not an Atheist. I can provide evidence of his religion if you ask.
Humans are nothing more than grown-up apes, a cosmic accident, why regard life as precious?
This needs correcting. 1. Humans are a separate species of ape, they are not “grown up apes.” 2. A cosmic accident makes no difference. There are many children who are the result of accidental pregnancies but they are just as precious. 3. We regard life as precious because we have only one life. Have you seen this Aaron? It’s the atheist mindset in a nutshell… You’re going to die
My point is that certainty can lead to the killing of people, but I don’t know of a belief system that is not capable of going in that direction.
I agree with you about this.
With Christianity you have to act clearly against the teachings of Christ to go that way. With Muslims it is debateable at best.
I seems to me as if the teachings of Christ are unclear and can be interpreted in any way people feel. For example…
With atheism there are no teachings so who is to say what the right way to go is?
Of all questions, I think this is the one religious people have the most difficulty understanding about atheists. The answer is one of personal responsibility.
If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.
We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.
Aaron wrote:
“On issues of morality, you determine for yourself what is moral. You may chose to lean on past knowledge, reason, law or any other measuring stick, but ultimately you answer to no one but yourself…”
Precisely! I’m glad you understand, Aaron.
I might add that everyone does the same to one degree or another. We all have to choose how to live our lives, whether we choose xianity, atheism, rationalism, etc. You may claim that you answer to your god, but I would reply that you must choose which interpretation of god you will follow, and exclude all others. How do you know your choice is the correct one? What hard evidence do you have? If you were brought up in Saudi Arabia, you would be Muslim. One’s religious beliefs are, to some degree, arbitrary and dependent on one’s culture. And ultimately you must answer to yourself, because all others must be suspect.