A dilemma, really?

Yes, I'm afraid we've got a full-fledged dilemma on our hands. We've got the "founder" of a religion saying one thing, and we've got all these followers saying something else. That doesn't bode well, now, does it?

What his followers are asserting is at odds with what he was saying himself. What is even more interesting is the fact that a couple of thousand of years later, his alleged followers are asserting exactly the opposite of what the founder was saying himself. Exaggerated? I don't think so.

We've got the texts that tell us what he said. We have also seen that the other folks, especially those who are what we would call "down-and-out" today - widows, orphans, the sick, the infirm, the beggars, the unemployed, those without any resources at all - are more important than oneself. Nevertheless, by some twist of thought, today's followers can assert, in tune with the mantra of modern economics, that it is "enlightened" self-interest that rules the world. If I'm doing well, maybe my "neighbor" is doing well. The man himself said, however, that if your neighbor is doing well, you are probably doing well yourself. We've turned it around. Hey, you don't have to believe me. You can read it for yourselves, if you're willing.

Once again, we've got it backwards. Modern economic theory is based on the assumption that we all act as individuals who have our own best interest at heart, that our self-interest - what's in it for ourselves - is our primary motivator. On the other hand, we have this poor hippy from 2,000 years ago telling us that whoever is in need is more important than yourself. If two positions aren't more at odds with themselves, I don't know which ones they are.

When seen in this light, though, our dilemma is easy to identify: Christ (if you will) said others first; modern economics says put yourself first. The dilemma is: how do those who call themselves Christians bring these two antithetical positions into harmony. I maintain that they can't. You've got a choice: you can actually be a follower of the one whom you claim is the son of Gd and your savior, or you can believe that modern economists have figured it out. You can't have it both ways.

As I see it, the choice is simple: you can call yourself Christian and be all about yourself, or you can actually be a Christian (in the sense of practicing what the Good Jesus actually preached). You can't be both.

It's time to decide.