[TheMosco]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

It's a complex topic that can't be boiled down to simple political terms, said religious leaders who attended a Texas Faith Network conference in Austin on Tuesday. Many at the conference voiced concerns that the religious right dominates discussions of faith and morality in politics. They complained that issues such as abortion and gay marriage seem to take priority over hunger, corporate crime and even the war in Iraq.


Conservative pastors such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "would have us believe that morality is all about where you stand on abortion, how you treat homosexuals. I think that is simply wrong," said John D. Moyers, senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for American Progress.

The story is biased because most of the people there were left leaning but I think this stuff above is a good observation about abortion and homosexuals.

[angaq0k]

"Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself"

what else is there to say?


That is all I need...

[BRussell]

I didn't read the article, but there's no question in my mind that Jesus was an anti-authoritarian liberal radical egalitarian. How conservative Christians get from Jesus' actual teachings to their modern American belief system is quite a trick.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Really any different than radical Muslims distorting the teachings in the Koran?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I didn't read the article, but there's no question in my mind that Jesus was an anti-authoritarian liberal radical egalitarian. How conservative Christians get from Jesus' actual teachings to their modern American belief system is quite a trick.

A Kommunista!



(Note: sorry for the trolling. I could not resist.)

[BlackGriffen]

Oh, but there's so much more!

Mathew 19:24 - Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Mark 10:25 - It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:25 - Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

John 8:7 - When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (Oh, ****, that would disqualify everybody, wouldn't it )

Matthew 5:39 - But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Luke 6:29 - If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.

Matthew 5:1-12 - Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:
___ "Blessed are the poor in spirit,
_______for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
___ Blessed are those who mourn,
_______for they will be comforted.
___ Blessed are the meek,
_______for they will inherit the earth.
___ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
_______for they will be filled.
___ Blessed are the merciful,
_______for they will be shown mercy.
___ Blessed are the pure in heart,
_______for they will see God.
___ Blessed are the peacemakers,
_______for they will be called sons of God.
___ Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
_______for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Matthew 5:21-22 - "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Oh, crap! everyone here is fcuked but wdlove! )

Matthew 5:43-48 - "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (he doesn't expect much, does he? )

Luke 6:37-42 - "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

That should do for now.

Who would Jesus vote for? I doubt anyone would be worthy but himself, given the standards....

BlackGriffen

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Oh, but there's so much more!

That should do for now.

Who would Jesus vote for? I doubt anyone would be worthy but himself, given the standards....

BlackGriffen

Man...

That was beautiful....!

[Zimphire]

Jesus wouldn't have voted either way.

And the left wouldn't like to be called sinners. He did that sometimes you know.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Jesus wouldn't have voted either way.

And the left wouldn't like to be called sinners. He did that sometimes you know.

Bingo. He would pay his taxes (which he did) and keep his nose out of politics (which he did). He was offered "the world" and said (paraphrasing), "I'll pass on this one, and wait for the one to come".

And I agree with the other comment. He would call "the wrong people" sinners and still end up being killed. "How DARE you call US sinners, just who do you think you are sandal boy?"

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Jesus wouldn't have voted either way.

And the left wouldn't like to be called sinners. He did that sometimes you know.

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Bingo. He would pay his taxes (which he did) and keep his nose out of politics (which he did). He was offered "the world" and said (paraphrasing), "I'll pass on this one, and wait for the one to come".

And I agree with the other comment. He would call "the wrong people" sinners and still end up being killed. "How DARE you call US sinners, just who do you think you are sandal boy?"

Damn, you guys can't even keep to what are supposedly your own morals when they're staring you in the face!

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Jesus may have called people sinners, but last I checked, he kept that right exclusively as the only mofo around with no sin.

I was right, wdlove is the only Christian up to snuff on this board. The rest are too prone to name calling and judgmentalism to be sticking to the rules.

Oh well, return to your daily lives, self righteous hypocrites. I'll make sure to save a pitchfork for ya in a place that's nice and warm...

BlackGriffen

[version]

Jesus was a forward looking man, upsetting the conservative, ingrained political-religious stagnant environment he lived in. Doesn't quite square with the history of Christianity as we have known it since the times of Paul, to the current revivalist Christian movement we see in some countries today.

[RonnieoftheRose]

No one knows what or who Jesus was and we can't tell what are his words in the Gospels. There are some stories, parables and whole paragraphs of sayings that appear in exactly the same form in Buddhist texts that would be socially out of context in 1st century Judea. But looking at history of the time one could even say that Jesus was an al-Sadr of his day against Roman forces. That doesn't make al-Sadr a saint, but the comparison means Jesus was a religious person with human faults who wanted his land free.

He wouldn't side with Bush no matter who or what he was.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Damn, you guys can't even keep to what are supposedly your own morals when they're staring you in the face!

Jesus may have called people sinners, but last I checked, he kept that right exclusively as the only mofo around with no sin.

I was right, wdlove is the only Christian up to snuff on this board. The rest are too prone to name calling and judgmentalism to be sticking to the rules.

Oh well, return to your daily lives, self righteous hypocrites. I'll make sure to save a pitchfork for ya in a place that's nice and warm...

BlackGriffen

Wow, if I were Christian, I might take offense at that. LMAO!

EDIT: and FYI, my morals and views aren't the same as a Christian's.

[Millennium]

Jesus himself doesn't appear to have been much for politics. Truth be told, I'd imagine his voting record would defy classification, appearing to lean liberal on some issues while appearing to lean conservative on others. He didn't believe in change (or its resistance) for their own sakes; he had his own goals, and sometimes these were better served by change, and other times by preservation of the status quo. For his time he would have been considered extremely liberal in the classical sense (which, I'm coming to find, is not a definition that people who call themselves liberal nowadays want to identify with). But some of his goals have been achieved in the intervening years, and it stands to reason that in modern times he would seek to defend those, which pulls him away from the classical definition of "liberal".

Either way, to call him "liberal", "conservative", or any other political label is to Just Plain Not Get It. But hey, if you look at the Gospels it rapidly becomes apparent that even the apostles were pretty clueless about that until well after Jesus had already died; if they didn't get it after personally travelling with the man for several years then I suppose it comes as no surprise that most people today didn't get it either.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I was right, wdlove is the only Christian up to snuff on this board. The rest are too prone to name calling and judgmentalism to be sticking to the rules.

I honestly ask that you point out an instance where I have resorted to name-calling and judgmentalism. I take pains to refrain from this, but I recognize that sometimes I may slip, and when I do so I prefer to have it pointed out so that I may try and understand how it happened, such that I can correct that in the future.

Please keep in mind, also, that there is a difference between judging people and judging their actions. There is a very real difference between what a person does and who a person is.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Jesus wouldn't have voted either way.

And the left wouldn't like to be called sinners. He did that sometimes you know.

He called everyone sinners at one point or another, not just the Left. If anything, he found more fault with that age's conservatives (though not necessarily with that age's conservatism; he was silent on that) than anyone else; note his feud with the Pharisees.

Would he find similar fault with modern conservatives? Certainly some of them. You can bet that Falwell, Robertson, Phelps (the preacher, not the swimmer), and their ilk would be soundly denounced as the Pharisees of our day. At the same time, would he denounce the whole belief system, or simply the people leading it? That's a question we may never be able to answer.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Jesus himself doesn't appear to have been much for politics. Truth be told, I'd imagine his voting record would defy classification, appearing to lean liberal on some issues while appearing to lean conservative on others. He didn't believe in change (or its resistance) for their own sakes; he had his own goals, and sometimes these were better served by change, and other times by preservation of the status quo. For his time he would have been considered extremely liberal in the classical sense (which, I'm coming to find, is not a definition that people who call themselves liberal nowadays want to identify with). But some of his goals have been achieved in the intervening years, and it stands to reason that in modern times he would seek to defend those, which pulls him away from the classical definition of "liberal".

Either way, to call him "liberal", "conservative", or any other political label is to Just Plain Not Get It. But hey, if you look at the Gospels it rapidly becomes apparent that even the apostles were pretty clueless about that until well after Jesus had already died; if they didn't get it after personally travelling with the man for several years then I suppose it comes as no surprise that most people today didn't get it either.

So, to use the words of those who don't like it when someone refuses to let themselves be parcelled in to one political wing or another, Jesus was a "fence sitter"

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
So, to use the words of those who don't like it when someone refuses to let themselves be parcelled in to one political wing or another, Jesus was a "fence sitter"

I just see him more as "a"political, he really didn't care about the politics of the day, just the people.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
So, to use the words of those who don't like it when someone refuses to let themselves be parcelled in to one political wing or another, Jesus was a "fence sitter"

They might have called him that, yes. It wouldn't have been accurate, but then, when is it ever accurate?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Really any different than radical Muslims distorting the teachings in the Koran?

That's the problem with religous scripture. People can distort it any way they want.

I can read the bible and see condemnation of things like 9/11, and the Holocaust. Others can read it and find things for it.

They are written in a way that they can be interpreted in 'the eyes of the beholder'.

That's why you have so many variations of each faith (Jewish Orthodox, Hacitic, CHristian Catholic, protestant, methodist, lutheran... we can do this with every faith).

We've had people go as far as form cults over what they read (in particular the book of revelations comes to mind). Suicide, murder have all been justified by the Bible, Koran, Torah.

But does that make it right? Or a religous act?

I'd say no. Here's my reasoning:

The fundimental concepts in these scriptiures (all faiths) are xerox of each other. Faith, love, compassion, charity, humility among other virtues.

These teachings are pretty solid and indesputable (they are shared across any religious group). How they are portrayed in the teachings may vary ('10 commandments', 'rules', 'tenets', etc.).

As for the rest, it's merely stones. Build what you want. You can build a church, you can build a hospital, you can build a giant wall to keep others away, you can build a bridge to help others come to you, you can build a fort, or you can just throw them at people's heads. The bedrock exists. Do what you please.

The majority of all faiths clearly build constructively, or ignore the stones, instead just understanding and accepting the fundimental concepts. Some go overboard building with the stones. We see these every so often, and occasionally honor the best architect.


They are there for use. But there's nothing protecting against misuse.


Morphene can be used to take away the pain of a cancer victim. A good thing. It can also be used to kill people, or used by an addict. Is morphine inherantly bad? Or inherantly good? Or up to the user?

We live on water (our bodies are made of it). But it can also be used to kill (Floods, drowing kids in a bathtub, etc.). What is water?

Originally posted by version:
Jesus was a forward looking man, upsetting the conservative, ingrained political-religious stagnant environment he lived in. Doesn't quite square with the history of Christianity as we have known it since the times of Paul, to the current revivalist Christian movement we see in some countries today.

Jesus was a liberal amongst totalitarian Romans (Rome was a Republic by most accounts, but the remote regions like the middle east really operated like dictatorships since there was quite some distance from Rome), and Jewish High Priests.

But then again, he wasn't the only one. Look at the old testiment and it's filled with similar characters.

Look at the history of most religions, and you see it as well.

As history progresses, people become more liberal... but looking back, things were (and always will be) more conservative.

It's perspective. Nothing more, nothing less. Someone of that time would find it obserd to communicate with someone without knowing their ethnicitiy (Jewish, Roman, etc.) and social class. The internet itself is violating that. So would the printing press. People of that time wouldn't have a conversation like this. Only with people of your own class. Higher classes talk down to lower classes. Not with, or a 'conversation.

Heck even churches became more liberal. Go back in time and a priest performed mass in latin, and had his back to the congregation. The idea of facing the congregation, or using the native language was absolutely wrong and immoral. A discrace against God... but that changed.


Back in Jesus's time, it was acceptable to walk around in a sheet and barefoot.

Now it's considered offensive for an adult male to wear shorts and sandals.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I just see him more as "a"political, he really didn't care about the politics of the day, just the people.

I agree. I wanted to stress the portion that I quoted.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Back in Jesus's time, it was acceptable to walk around in a sheet and barefoot.

Now it's considered offensive for an adult male to wear shorts and sandals.

It is???

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
They might have called him that, yes. It wouldn't have been accurate, but then, when is it ever accurate?

I agree. Personally, I find that most of those on the fence are among the few to have put any thought into their position.

[Sven G]

Jesus was a "sad" (too passive) revolutionary, IMHO: at his times, not enough to radically change things for the better - and in later times, so, the perfect alibi for power-hungry people to misuse the Christian teachings.

Humans aren't perfect, of course - but neither was Christ, in his too weak (super)humanity, which sadly wasn't radical enough.

IMHO, again: I'm not a Christian, rather an agnostic.

Would Jesus have voted? Probably not.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Jesus himself doesn't appear to have been much for politics.

Right. The Messiah, Annointed King and Liberator of Israel wasn't ever supposed to be into politics? Therefore Jesus, if he was politically disinterested, should have never have claimed to be Messiah and should have stuck to fishing and carpentry.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by djohnson:
It is???

Haha, I didn't know that either. I wear shorts and sandals just about every day in the summer. Oops, fashion faux pas!.

------

What set Jesus apart, and what the high-status folks complained about, IMO, was his radical egalitarianism. Most of what he did was hang out with and praise low-status people, like the poor, lepers, enemies, women and children, tax collectors, and Samaritans.

Of course it's a silly question to ask "How would he vote." It's almost impossible to take the man out of the time. How do you translate an oppressed community under the violent rule of the Roman empire to the fat middle class world of today? I suppose he'd vote for one of the religious parties in Israel. He'd probably be a peace envoy to the Palestinians, given his "love your enemies" approach and his love of the downtrodden.

But the "voting" question is really an attempt to answer the more general question of "WWJD" - how do you apply Jesus' philosophy to the present day?

What's interesting to me about Christianity is that it's so little about Jesus' actual teaching. It's really about "accepting Jesus as your savior." Well, what does that mean? It appears to simply mean "faith," faith in the resurrection and in Jesus' messiah-dom. As far as I know, you can be a Christian if you accept that Jesus is the unique son of God, period. You don't need to behave like or even think about what Jesus actually said or did. That probably stems back to early attempts to define orthodox (small o) Christianity, and they came up with the basic creed which defined all Christians.

The Apostle's Creed, for example, has no reference to the life of Jesus, except:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
____the Creator of heaven and earth,
____and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
____born of the Virgin Mary,
____suffered under Pontius Pilate,
____was crucified, died, and was buried.

So he was born, suffered, and died. OK, but what did he say. What did he do. The Nicene creed is essentially the same: He was born and then he died. There's not a word about what Jesus actually said or did. It's quite odd really. Christianity isn't about Jesus.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Right. The Messiah, Annointed King and Liberator of Israel wasn't ever supposed to be into politics?

Given that Jesus was never a king in the literal sense, nor did he liberate Israel, I don't see how this phrase works out. Of course, this also assumes that the Messiah was by definition supposed to be a literal king.

Therefore Jesus, if he was politically disinterested, should have never have claimed to be Messiah and should have stuck to fishing and carpentry.

He never claimed to be that kind of Messiah.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Millennium:


He never claimed to be that kind of Messiah.

How interpretations change when time passes.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I honestly ask that you point out an instance where I have resorted to name-calling and judgmentalism. I take pains to refrain from this, but I recognize that sometimes I may slip, and when I do so I prefer to have it pointed out so that I may try and understand how it happened, such that I can correct that in the future.

Please keep in mind, also, that there is a difference between judging people and judging their actions. There is a very real difference between what a person does and who a person is.

D'oh! Looks like I screwed up doubly. To everyone but Zimphire, I apologize.

BG

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Either way, to call him "liberal", "conservative", or any other political label is to Just Plain Not Get It.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Lets get back to the parts i quoted.

[version]

No-one can really say what Jesus intended, not if we use the Gospels. The Jesus of the Canonical books is written to suit certain audiences, such as Luke's Goespel's anti-Jewish leanings. If these books are tainted by even a slight margin, then where lies the truth of Jesus?