Where is Jesus in politics?

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/catholic-america/post/where-is-jesus-in-politics/2012/04/01/gIQA0xIxpS_blog.html

For almost as long as we have been a church, Catholic ritual for Palm Sunday has dramatized that people who greeted Jesus with “Hosannas” and palm branches on his entry into Jerusalem were in the crowd calling for his crucifixion days later.

Holy Week reminds us that religion can as easily distort consciences as illuminate them. This year, the entry of the Affordable Care Act into the Supreme Court invited Palm Sunday-like displays of acclaim accompanied simultaneously by dark threats of rejection. The final court decision is not on a par with Jesus’ passion, nor is Obama to be confused with the Messiah, but just because we consider ourselves God’s friends we are not exempt from the sin of distorting the Gospel message.

I’m troubled that public opinion so easily characterizes religion as only right-wing Republican politics. (Catholics like Rick Santorum probably falls into this category, so my critique is ecumenical.) The question of health care insurance is an example of how persons professing to be the most religious among us can nonetheless violate basic teachings of Jesus. We Christians are called to care for material needs of our neighbors (Mt. 25) without imposing evangelization as a condition. In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk:10:25-37), Our Lord criticized the temple priest and the Levite who passed by an injured man. Jesus praised instead the non-believer’s material help to his neighbor, while condemning the religious leaders’ escapism in the name of religious purity. Direct action for mercy is valued over abstract passion for piety. Logically then, it goes against Christian discipleship of Christ to repeal the Affordable Care Act without offering a substitute that will provide for 40 million uninsured, most of them children. Talk of “government take over” or “use of abortifacients” does not relieve the Christian’s need to be keeper of our brothers and sisters. Yet, we are treated these days to the irony of religion being invoked as reason to avoid Christian responsibility for health care.

Similarly, God’s friends say they want to remake the U.S. government in the model of Christian values. That clearly would include spending public tax dollars to perform the corporal works of mercy: food for the hungry, housing for the homeless, health care for the sick, etc. Yet the construct of their “Christian government” removes these functions from legislative action. Ironically, today’s so-called “secularists” promote Jesus’ values in government while the “Christian nation” folks largely oppose them.

more at link

[Thats my opinion]

1. Solid post. The Palm Sunday celebration is a case in point.

Jesus staged an overtly political demonstration. On the eve of the Jewish Passover, the Roman governor always welcomed the new Roman troops into Jerusalem with a pompous parade--the General and the Governor sitting on stallions as they entered the city through the West gate.
Jesus planned his parade sitting on a donkey, through the East gate. It was a planned occupy Jerusalem demonstration in which Jesus rallied the common people against the Roman legions---and it certainly got their attention.

[zeemike]

2. I don't believe it was for the Romans he did that

No where in the accounts of Jesus did he speak against the Romans...his beef was with the religious leadership...who he called snakes and wolves in sheep's clothing...and openly criticized often in the accounts.
But no doubt the Pharisees and Scribes wanted him to criticize Rome when they tempted him with the question of paying taxes ,,,but he never bit on that trick.

[Thats my opinion]

3. It was Rome that Jesus took on. When I get time, I'll detail his opposition. nt

[cleanhippie]

4. How can you detail his opposition when no extra-biblical source ever mentions him?

I mean, if you are using the bible as your source ( or someone else's writing that uses the bible as its source) you are just speculating and nothing more, right?

[skepticscott]

8. But it'll be in his next book

due out in 6 months (and which you can no doubt pre-order on Amazon).

[MissMarple]

136. Josephus, a 1st century Jewish-Roman historian, is often cited as an independent source.

Not surprisingly, there is quite a bit of controversy around this. Here are a couple of wiki entries, but I warn you, they might make your eyes cross, and your brain hurt. The second one is especially wonky. So, there is a historical personage whose writings exist which may have confirmed the existence of the biblical Jesus...or not, according to the wiki contributors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

[zeemike]

5. Can't wait to hear it.

But I know of no place in the bible where it exist.

[dmallind]

6. I'm sure lots of folks want to argue about what SHOULD be, but here's what IS

Clearly, the bigger fan of Jesus voters become, the more conservative they vote. Whining about which bits of scripture they should be paying attention to in an ideal world is irrelevant to the overwhelming facts that religiosity breeds right wing beliefs (I suppose it could be vice versa, but generally speaking people are indoctrinated into faith before politics; there are more kids in church than caucus meetings).

[zeemike]

7. Well I take issue on one thing

That the bigger fan of Jesus is not conservatives at all...in fact they never of seldom quote Jesus...most of their quotes comes from Paul or the OT...particularly Psalms because they are songs that have meaning to the people of the time and and be used to manipulate the teachings of Jesus to match their conservative beliefs...

You will find far more often that Liberals will quote Jesus...
And were Jesus alive today his criticisms would be against the TV shit house preacher that do exactly what the Pharisees and Scribes of that day did. And I can show multiple places to back that up.
.

[darkstar3]

9. I disagree, not with your evidence but with your premise.

You see, you're right when you say that liberals are more likely to quote Jesus than conservatives. What you miss is that conservatives often feel "closer to Jesus" and actually believe that he speaks to them daily and tells them what to do. Oh, not in the sense that they actually hear a voice, but in the sense that he "speaks to {them} through their heart."

Yikes, btw...

[zeemike]

12. But that is all for show.

Like a carnival barker telling us what wonders we will see if we pay our nickel to go in.
No I think many of them don't actually believe at all but see religion a useful tool to take peoples money...
And I don't accept feelings that are untrue or made up as any kind of evidence of their love of Jesus.
If they loved Jesus they would do what he says and follow his commandments...they do not...in fact they often do the exact opposite of what Jesus taught...for instance Jesus told them not to pray in public...and what is their biggest thing?....praying in public and wanting to make it universal...an more things like that.

[trotsky]

13. Do you follow everything Jesus said?

Have you sold all your possessions? And more things like that.

[zeemike]

17. I try to

But he never said to sell all my possessions...that comes from ignorance of just what the bible says....but we can take them one at a time and look at the truth for a change....

[17] And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
[18] He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
[19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[20] The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
[21] Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.[/div

So the key word here is perfect...some feel the need to be perfect...clearly this man did not and most people don't

[trotsky]

19. Loopholes!

Gotta love 'em!

Did it ever occur to you that the people you are claiming don't follow what Jesus said are doing the exact same thing you are in rationalizing why they don't have to?

[zeemike]

24. Rationalizing by quoting just what was said?

And where is the loophole?....you mean that anything less than perfect is a loophole?
The world is full of these false dichotomy.. eather you are just like Jesus or against him...nothing in between.
And this is used to batter people with and move them away from the truth.

[trotsky]

26. Hmm...

eather (sic) you are just like Jesus or against him...nothing in between

Sounds exactly like what you were saying. Fascinating.

[CJCRANE]

52. No, he/she's not saying that. I think Christians need to use a Buddhist technique...

and see their path as a continuing journey. You can not be a perfect Christ-like person (or Buddha) overnight. In fact you probably never will be but that doesn't make the effort to be pointless.

Obviously most people will not love their neighbors, love their enemies, turn the other cheek on every occasion or give away their possessions. But if you see that as an ideal that you can work towards that is the first step on the path.

[trotsky]

58. Thanks for your opinion. n/t

[Thats my opinion]

33. I think I have learned never to quesrion somone else's esoteric experience--just to hear it. nt

[Thats my opinion]

32. Yikes!! indeed.

Scrooge thought the vision of Jacob Marley was an undigested dinner.

[dmallind]

10. So Pew just made up their survey results?

In a country that is 80%+ Christian it is impossible for religious people to be more conservative than non-religious people unless the former includes Christians.

What you want to believe and what is real may not always align.

[zeemike]

14. I am not questioning the survey

I question your assumptions that Conservatives feel close to Jesus
something that no survey can show...But actions will.
And I base that on the clear evidence that conservatives are more likely to ignore the teachings of Jesus that liberals and that their actions are the opposite of what he said they should be.

[dmallind]

18. You're not...but you are

So according to you goimg to church regularly, having religion be very important to you and praying daily are NOT measures of religiosity?

The idea that you would claim to know how a whole group of people feel is laughable on its face and instantly dismissable. The question of how important religion (almost always Christianity) is to them is asked and answered in the survey. You don't get to second guess.

They would say the same about your actions. Do either of you speak for Christ? Then how can you expect to claim the true definition yourself? Obviously there are far more of them as the survey shows.

[zeemike]

23. What are we talking about here?

Belief in Jesus or religiosity?
I would say that going to church IS a sign of religiosity...but not necessarily a sign of belief in Jesus or how much they love him.
And I don't need to speak for Jesus he spoke for himself...and I do not nor will not ignore what he said.

"The idea that you would claim to know how a whole group of people feel is laughable on its face and instantly dismissable."

And so it begins...ridicule is the best tool you have for shutting up the conversation....I am supposed to feel so humiliated by it that I run away.....it won't happen.

[dmallind]

35. Ridicule? No! Just acknowledging your humanity

The idea that I, or Stephen Hawking, or the Pope, would claim to know how a whole group of people feel is exactly as laughable and dismissable.

But I'm not claiming it - you are. You're claiming that Conservatives don't feel close to, love or even believe in Jesus. I just believe them when they say they do. I'm not second-guessing 50% of the nation's churchgoers' self-reported feelings. You are. That should indeed be humiliating to have such overarching pride in your own opinion of what other people say they think themselves. They speak just as forcibly as you do that Jesus agrees with them. They offer just as many quotes from scripture as you can. It would be insane to think they do not truly believe themselves correct every bit as much as you do. I have absolutely no reason to prefer your view of Jesus to theirs. Even if we, naively, assume every word in scripture is true, Jesus has no clearly identifiable political bent. Every time he says to feed the poor he says it to individuals, not governments. When he asks a wealthy man to sell all for the poor it is to be a perfect disciple (and he similarly asks his disciples to abandon their families), and again not related to political action only personal charity. He says to forgive sins but to look at women with desire IS sin. The divergent views just reinforce my own conclusion that people make gods in their own image.

[zeemike]

36. Well it was not me that claimed to know that the DO love Jesus

I just disputed that based on their actions...which is the only real measure that means something.
It is like the conservatives that say they are not racist and then act like they are...are we to just accept their word for it or do we judge them by what they do?
But then you make it about me...I am being unfair to them because I do judge them by their actions...and you say it is wrong and accuse me of overreaching pride and say it is laughable to do that and worthy of instant dismissible and that I should be humiliated at that.
It sounds to me that you want them held up as experts so that you can bolster your own point that it is all bullshit.
But I do agree Jesus had no political bent...but he was clearly a communist in that he and his disciples held all things in common and continued that until Paul made Christianity acceptable to Rome....but that is economics not politics.
But what image is your god created in?...and don't say that you have none because you do....God is what ever you master is whether it is the God of Abraham or the God of Mammon or the god of no god at all.

[dmallind]

38. a) THEY claimed to know how they feel. Who else?

B) You're now claiming to not only know the feelings of half the nation's churchgoers better than they do but their actions too. I mean political disagreement is one thing but assuming conservatives are never charitable or forgiving or kind is absurd

Of course conservative believers ARE experts ON THEIR OWN OPINIONS.

You're not judging them on their actions OR feelings. You are guessing at them. How ridiculous is it to say you can judge tens of millions of people on either criteria? Of course that's instantly dismissable. Can I judge the thoughts and actions of every Japanese person? Italian? You're trying to do that for religious conservatives and it's just as ludicrous. Jesus did not absolutely ever say "Thou shalt not vote Republican". Would have been nice but nope. So there is nothing for which you can dismiss the Christianity of Republican voters. Communism? No. Sharing is not communism. Jesus was again silent on economic systems. He spoke of rich and poor and said the former should help the latter. He did not say all should come together in earthly financial equality. He even said the poor would always be with us.

My god? You have a similarly strange grasp of what atheist means. Master? I have a boss at work. I have a wife at home. I am subject to the government of the nation. All can tell me what to do in various ways, but there is no master here. I treat all god-ideas equally. I ask for proof, or convincing argument. All have failed to show me either via themselves or their followers. So I accept none. It's not a difficult concept. Not everybody needs a god just like not everybody has a favorite lacrosse team.

[zeemike]

39. Shees...talk about disassembling.

We are talking here about generalities not specific people...that is Fundamentalism in general not each and every individual.
But you have no problem with this in terms of the poll quoted that is about generalities not specific people.
so it seems to me you are just running me around in circles and want me to chase you...
But Yes I can judge Italians and Japanese by what they do...I can say for instance Italian like Pasta and Asians like rice and fish....that does not mean that everyone of them like it but them as a general population they do...and that is based on what they do..eat pasta and rice.
And if Jesus tells them not to be like the hypocrites and pray in public but to go in the closet and pray in secret and they openly do just the opposite of that then they do not respect the teachings of Jesus at all and so their love of him is surly suspect in my mind.
And Jesus made it clear what people that love him do

John 14
[15] If ye love me, keep my commandments.
[21] He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
[23] Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
[24] He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me

.

So I don't feel the least bit wrong in making these conclusions...but it is possible that some of the fundies have never heard this but still love him...or rather the idea of him.

But a master does not have to be a person or an object...it can be an idea...it merely means that you make all your conclusions based on that idea...like a communist has communism as his master...or Fascism for that matter

[dmallind]

46. Yes you are dissembling.

You judged PEOPLE - it's there for all to see - and claimed that you know better than they do themselves about their religiosity. You can't run away from that silly no true Scotsman crap no matter how much you try. They are Christians. THEY get to decide that, not you or me. They are absolutely as sure that you are failing Jesus as you are sure that they do so, and neither of you has an indisputable claim to that mishmash of syncretivc folk tales that obviously, since both your opinion and theirs is based on it, can be twisted to support whatever an individual believer or group of them likes.

WHY does there have to be some overwhelming idea that guides a person? Don't rational people make up their mind based on changing information and circumstances? I suppose you could twist that idiotically and say my "master" is "trying to make correct decisions based on what I know" but that's a pretty ephemeral master, and has absolutely no independent existence outside of my own brain function (and no - Cartesian dualism is lunacy; brain function is not "my" anything except by accident of grammar rules - it is me).

[zeemike]

50. I said nothing about their religiosity...you did.

And yes I did judge people...and so do all of us.
I judged them on their actions compared to what the person that they supposedly claim to love and revere as a god and found that they did the exact opposite of what he said to do...and I make no apologies for it...and I don't give a fuck about their religiosities.
And if you hate that then don't say a single word about GOP hypocrisy ever again...because their politicalosities are unassailable.

Rational people do not dismiss what they don't understand...but seek to learn from it and about it.

[dmallind]

59. BS - "I question your [sic] assumptions that Conservatives feel close to Jesus"

So feeling close to Jesus is NOT "religion is very important to me"? Would anybody who wuvvs Jesus with all their widdle heart ever answer otherwise? Do people who feel close to Jesus pray more or less often than those who don't?

How the hell do you fondly imagine you know what the actions of tens of millions of frequent churchgoers - 50% of all of them are conservatives remember - actually ARE that you can judge them as hypocritical? Your savior said fuck all about voting and every analysis of charitable giving and volunteering - things he supposedly DID mention, shows conservatives do at least as much as liberals do.

Rational people actually understand - not make crap up about millions of strangers with zero evidence

[zeemike]

67. Zero evidence?

I point out to you that Jesus firmly and clearly told them not to pray in public and they do it anyway and want to make it a part of government and you say it is Zero evidence?
Jesus himself made such judgments about the Pharisees and Scribes...

Matt.23

[2] Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
[13] But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
[14] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
[15] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
[23] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
[25] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
[27] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

So does this sound like our present day Scribes and Pharisees of not?
And as long as we do not call them out for their hypocrisies they will continue in it...and if you insist on defending them by saying they love Jesus just because they say the words you are enabling it...the reason for that I can only guess at.

[trotsky]

70. You've already admitted there are things Jesus said that you don't follow.

You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.

[zeemike]

72. And what would that be?

That I did not sell all my goods and follow him?
I already pointed out that he did not require me to do that...or anyone else for that matter...nor did he forbid me from doing that...

[trotsky]

82. See? You're doing it!

Saying, in essence, "I don't have to follow that part because I don't need to be perfect."

You make an excuse to ignore something Jesus said.

Just like all the Christians you don't like.

[zeemike]

86. That's horse hockey.

When he said that it was because some rich guy asked him a question...What must I do to have eternal life and Jesus told him follow the commandments....it is only when he answered that he had done that all of his life that Jesus offered the suggestion that if you would be perfect you could do this.
It was not a commandment at all but a suggestion for someone not satisfied with his answer...and that is clear...he never required anyone to be perfect..in fact quite the opposite is true.

[trotsky]

88. Excuses. Rationalization.

Same thing Pat Robertson does with the parts of the bible he doesn't think apply to him.

[zeemike]

92. It has nothing to do with what I think

It has to do with what was said.
"If you will be perfect" is not a commandment no matter how you twist it.

[trotsky]

93. Are you saying Christians shouldn't strive to be perfect?

Are you going to tell me it isn't one of the yardsticks of Christianity to try and emulate Christ? (Even if you might fail?)

[zeemike]

101. Striving to be perfect is an individual trait.

And in some people becomes a problem...(Bulimic people have that trait)
And no it is not the yardstick that you claim to judge people by...and Jesus never told people to strive for it.

[trotsky]

104. So you don't think Christians should try to be Christ-like?

Interesting. But if that's how you have chosen to wiggle out of the problem, so be it.

[zeemike]

107. No they are not required to be

to have eternal life...can you see the difference?
Striving for perfection is great and we should all do it but when you think it is required of you it can lead to sickness and self hatred.

[trotsky]

109. I'm not saying they are required to be.

It has always been my understanding that Christians should TRY to be like Jesus.

You have stated repeatedly now that you do not believe that is the case.

Glad to clear that up.

[trotsky]

11. So is the frequency with which someone quotes Jesus...

the best indicator of how "true" a Christian they are?

[zeemike]

15. No their actions are

But Conservatives don't quote Jesus because his words expose them...and the act in opposite ways from what Jesus taught.
Lots of evidence of that and I will post it if you like.
If we judged people only by their words then Conservatives would be the greatest lovers of freedom and Zimmerman an innocent man.

[trotsky]

16. Ah, I see.

If someone is following the commandments of Jesus *as you interpret them*, then they are a Christian.

Funny, that's what the right wingers say too. Oh, and they've got just as much evidence on their side.

[zeemike]

20. Bullshit...they have no evidence from the words of Jesus.

And the words of Jesus are not so cryptic that you need an interpreter to know what he said...that is merely the device used to muddy the waters on what is right and wrong.

[trotsky]

21. I am glad that you feel you are the world's expert in knowing what Jesus said.

Strange how so many other people say the same thing - yet couldn't disagree with your interpretation more.

[zeemike]

22. I never said I was an expert.

But I can read and do have reading comprehension above a third grade level...and that is all it takes to understand it.
Now I admit that when you get into the parables Jesus told it does require a little more thought...but he never used parables to establish what we should do.
The majority does not rule what I think...and if the majority believes those that preach things opposite to what Jesus taught then that is a problem of education.

[trotsky]

25. Yet that is exactly what you're saying.

You know, better than any other person claiming to be a Christian, what Jesus really said and meant. That's quite impressive.

Unless you want to admit that you could be wrong about what Jesus meant.

[zeemike]

28. So if I claim to understand his words I am an expert?

Again it is a thinly veiled false dichotomy...you are saying that anyone who claims to understand words is also claiming to be an expert....and expert on what?

[trotsky]

29. You're the one who claims to understand his words better than other Christians do.

That, by definition, makes you an expert on what Jesus said.

So are you, or could you be wrong too?

[zeemike]

30. So are you saying that you DO have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?

And I base my understanding on what is actually said and not what people tell me is said...
It used to not be easy to be an expert on what Jesus said when most of the population could not read Latin...then you needed an "expert"

Now days we all know how to read...and so now they muddy the waters by saying...yes Jesus said that but here in Psalms or in the letters John wrote...it says this and so reinterpret the words to mean what they want it to mean...which is obviously in conflict with what he actually said.
And in a way you enable them...by insisting that THEY are the experts when in fact they are deceivers pretending to be experts.

[trotsky]

34. Sure, you all know how to read...

but you interpret differently. And you're interpreting an interpretation that has been transcribed, translated, re-translated, and retold an unknown number of times.

You think you know better than the Christians who disagree with you, what your Jesus fellow really meant. I.e., you're claiming to be an expert.

And the Christians who disagree with you will tell me that YOU'RE the deceiver pretending to be an expert.

Glad we cleared this all up. LOL

[zeemike]

37. Well I actually have been called a deceiver by right wing Christians.

More than once...and have been kicked off christian sights for saying what I said..
But I have come to expect projection from them...and I stand by what I say and can offer evidence for it...which seems to make me the enemy of the fundamentalist as well as the atheist.
Which leads me to believe that they have a game going on their and I am messing things up for them both.

[trotsky]

42. Yes, yes.

They're bad, you're good, you know what god really wants, blah blah.

Same thing Fred Phelps says. And Pat Robertson. And all the rest of them.

Until you realize you're all equally justified in saying that, we won't make any progress.

[zeemike]

44. Well I am not good.

What ever that means.
But I can read and think for myself...and pardon me if I call bullshit when I see it...and it is bullshit to legitimatize Phelps and Robertson and all the other TV preachers who say exactly the opposite of what Jesus said...no matter who does it.

[trotsky]

45. I'm not the one legitimizing Phelps and Robertson. You are.

Because you've set up the standard of "I know what's right because I said so," which is the exact same standard they use.

Sorry you don't like where that leads, but as I said, until you and those guys realize that's where that reasoning leads, we're going to continue to have problems.

[zeemike]

48. Well excuse me for saying it

But that is total bullshit.
I did not say that I know what is right because I said so...I said I know what Jesus said and it don't match at all what the fundies do....not in any way the same thing.
And then you put me with them by saying "until you and those guys realize where that reasoning leads"...
Sorry but I call you on your bullshit but there it is.

[trotsky]

49. And Pat Robertson would say:

"I know what Jesus said and it doesn't match at all what the liberals do."

So there we are.

You each legitimize the other. You can get mad at me and throw whatever words around that you want, but that's what it comes down to and until one of you can convince the other that they are wrong, then you have no right telling everyone else which one of you is the "true" Christian.

[zeemike]

53. And so you accept that as legitimate.

What Pat says Jesus said is true and don't bother us with the text of the bible because Pat told us what it says and all of us must accept it because he calls himself a Christian and you want to brand me with it too.
And then you project what I said back on me...say I am legitimizing Robertson and the others like him?
I have never claimed to be a "true Christian" whatever that means...I claim to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus...and nothing else...I have not attended any church of any kind in more than 40 years and probably never will because Jesus did not establish a church...men did that...and it was soon compromised by political and economic forces...but his words come down to us and those words are what I believe in...not a church.

[trotsky]

57. There's plenty of stuff in the bible you ignore too.

And then there's the stuff that is really unclear and could go either way. You insist it should be one way, he insists the other.

I'm very sorry this is so frustrating for you - but imagine how it is for someone like me who wishes we could get past all this religious nonsense.

[CJCRANE]

64. But let's go to the core - what did Christ do and what did he say?

The Christian religion is based on Jesus Christ, not Leviticus, not Paul, not St. John.

So the Gospels should be the core texts.

In Islam they have the Hadith, which are the sayings of the Prophet. Many muslims model themselves on what the Prophet said and did. AFAIK in Buddhism they have something similar in regards to the Buddha.

So what is wrong with Christians looking at what Jesus said and did in totality and aiming to emulate that? Not a couple of phrases here or there, but the spirit of everything he said and did?

[trotsky]

65. Yes, let's go to the core.

Because the answer is: we don't know.

We only know what OTHER PEOPLE claim he did and said. Some of the other people include:

* The original writers of the gospels, who are most assuredly not the men whose names they bear, as they were not put to paper until a generation after the alleged crucifiction.

* The transcribers of those works

* The translators of those works

* The editors of the various bibles

* The people who re-transcribed, re-translated, and re-edited all of the above over the last 2000 years.

So what is wrong with Christians looking at what Jesus said and did in totality and aiming to emulate that?

Nothing other than it's impossible. Every Christian has formed their opinion of what Jesus was, and interprets their bible looking only for those parts that reinforce their pre-determined conclusions. Everything else is allegorical, or otherwise dismissed.

[CJCRANE]

66. That's all true

but the basic story is the same regardless of translation.

Here was a guy who hung out with social pariahs, helped the poor and healed the sick.

It doesn't matter whether it's Elizabethan English or American English the meaning of most of his sayings is fairly straightforward, whether it's "love thine neighbour" or "love your neighbor" we can figure out the spirit of the message.

[trotsky]

68. He also cursed a tree, took out a whip to break up groups of people,

advised his followers to purchase a weapon, and told them to abandon their families to follow him.

Not to mention the difficulties in defining exactly who is one's neighbor? Some take it as every human being. Others are selective. Who is right?

Bottom line is, it's remarkable that the all-powerful creator of the universe left us such a confusing and f'ed up message that we basically have to engage in all sorts of contortions or just discard 99.999% of it to look for just the part that REALLY matters. Insane.

[CJCRANE]

73. Start with your neighbor and take it from there.

Most prophets/messiahs shake things up, annoy the powers-that-be and put their followers through some tough times. That's all part of coming up with something new.

But we know the basic idea of all the 'follow me' stuff and all the heaven and hell malarkey is to try to make people behave as better human beings.

IMO we can beat the fundamentalists on their own playing field (especially since they're not going to come onto our playing field).

[trotsky]

83. LOL

No, "we" don't know those things because some Christians have believed and done them, and others disregard them. Some Christians believe "neighbor" means everyone, some don't. And PLENTY of Christians really do believe in a literal heaven and hell, including many in this very forum. Tell you what - if you can start by merely getting all DU Christians on the same page, you'll be well on your way to a Nobel prize. Until then, you're just making stuff up.

[zeemike]

69. Name it.

What did Jesus say that you don't understand or is unclear and could go either way?
But it is wrong to think that this frustrates me...I have been doing this for many years now and it would only frustrait me if I had no response to offer...that is not the case.

But I am ready to get past the religious nonsense any time you are..we can discuss the actual teachings of Jesus till the cows come home and never even touch religion at all.

[trotsky]

71. But you have no response to offer. That's the problem.

Your "response" is that Jesus said exactly what YOU think he said. You're right, everyone else is wrong. There is as much opportunity for discussion with you as there is with Robertson or Phelps.

[zeemike]

74. No everyone else is not wrong.

There are many people that feel like I do and many that can and do understand the teachings of Jesus...but they don't have big church buildings and a TV show as a platform to spread the word...and probably never will for reasons you might not understand.

I say that Jesus said what the text says he said...that is all...and I understand it because it is in clear terms...not the confusing terms you and the fundies want it to be.

[trotsky]

81. That's not what you're saying though.

And the text is most assuredly NOT in clear terms - or all Christians would agree on what it says. So you're wrong.

[zeemike]

90. So now I have some hidden meaning in what I said?

And you say clearly that you think the proof that the text is ambiguous is that many of the people calling themselves Christians don't follow it?
I have pointed this out before to you and said it many times...those fundies DO NOT quote Jesus..they quote Paul of the old testament the great majority of the time...and when they do it is out of context...and there are many examples of this if you watch them.
But if you like, give me an example of something you don't understand or think is unclear and I will try to clear it up for you.

[trotsky]

91. I love the context distraction! How many times is John 3:16 quoted out of context?

Here's a question for you: What do you think it means when Jesus allegedly said that he came not to abolish the (OT) law, but fulfill it? Give me the CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL meaning of that.

[zeemike]

97. I will be happy to.

First John 3;16 contains no commandment at all...but is a statement about spirituality.
But look what came before John 3;16 and you understand why he said what he said...

[9] Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
[10] Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
[11] Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
[12] If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

And then ask your self how a law is fulfilled?
Laws are made to solve a problem...like it is against the law to Jay walk because it interferes with traffic and is dangerous....so how could that law be fulfilled?...could that law be made unnecessary if there was no traffic and all streets were safe to cross at any time?...that is how a law is fulfilled.
The laws of Moses were strict and burdensome...for instance a woman caught in adultery was stoned to death...and those laws were made because the tribes of Israel; were rebellious after they came out of Egypt and so the laws were made to correct that.
Jesus came to fulfill those laws and preached against them...that is why it is called the new testament.

[trotsky]

99. You're missing the point completely.

If you're going to complain about context in one situation, you have to apply it to all.

Let's look at your fulfilling the law rationalization, for instance. In the context of Matthew 5:18-19.

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Now again - you dodged what I requested of you. I wanted the clear, unequivocal meaning of those words. (Though I'm highly tempted to force you to justify under what possible circumstances you'd be OK with a law punishing an adulterous woman with death.)

[zeemike]

105. Well context is everything.

And this is from the Sermon on the Mount...in which he spoke against the old laws and he was talking about his new testament.
and that became clear if you read on...

[21] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
[22] But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

And he goes on and on about with it.

And I do not justify the death of an adulterous woman...and neither did he because he had one presented to him and he helped here escape that punishment.

[trotsky]

108. You absolutely are justifying the execution of adulterers.

Because you are saying there was a time and place where it was appropriate.

Your exact words: "those laws were made because the tribes of Israel; were rebellious after they came out of Egypt and so the laws were made to correct that"

Honestly the more you say the more shocked and appalled I am. I find it very telling that no other DU Christians are even trying to defend your position.

And I will note once again that you dodged the question I asked.

"...not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Those are supposedly Jesus' words. They seem pretty clear to me. I understand though why you don't want to address them.

[zeemike]

112. I was saying what was not what I thought was good.

And that is what Moses did and for the reason stated in the OT....I did not say it was a good thing at all.
But you continue to put words in my mouth and assume all kinds of things about what I said.
And I did not dodge that question...but let me try again even though you will probably not understand that either.
The coming of Jesus fulfilled the law...and so it was accomplished...his death accomplished it and the new testament of Jesus was established...to wit that the old laws that heaped injustices and harsh punishments on people was done with.

And by the way the KJV bible says it different...like this.

[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And this is the reason I prefer the KJV because fulfill and accomplished are not exactly the same thing...and I believe that the KJV is closest to the meaning because it was translated by some very learned men who were much closer to the language as scholars...and many of the new versions change words and meanings....and don't read anything in what I said because I feel that way.
And I point out to you that what he said is literally true...the text of both the OT and NT did come down to us and is in no way in danger of disappearing from our culture and society.
And the other things he prophesied have also come true...including this.

[

34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And no one can say that is not true unless you know nothing of history.

[trotsky]

120. You said there was a time when it was appropriate.

I find that disgusting. Bye.

[zeemike]

123. I did not say that and you know it.

If you said that Hitler murdered the Jews could I then say that you said it was appropriate?
That is the real problem with getting caught up in ideologies...it makes you do and say things like that.
But I supose no one can leave a fight without a parting shot..that was yours and this is mine.

[trotsky]

125. You absolutely did and I'm sorry you don't like it being pointed out.

Your exact words:

The laws of Moses were strict and burdensome...for instance a woman caught in adultery was stoned to death...and those laws were made because the tribes of Israel; were rebellious after they came out of Egypt and so the laws were made to correct that.

You assert that the OT laws, including the specific example of stoning an adultress to death, were MADE (by your god!) to "correct" the rebellious tribes of Israel. In other words, you are claiming those laws were appropriate for a certain people at a certain time.

I'm really very sorry you feel that way. It is beyond disgusting and again very telling that no DU Christians are leaping to your defense here. You've exposed some very, very ugly beliefs of yours on this thread and I can certainly understand your embarrassment.

[zeemike]

126. So you changed correct that to approve of?

Hitler made laws to correct problems he saw too...that don't mean that if you say that you approve of it....don't but words in my mouth please.
And no the laws in the OT were made by Moses not god....God only gave 10 commandments and Moses made laws that he thought would force people to conform to that.
And please stop with this crap about how disgusting you think I am...I get plenty of that from the right wing and I don't need it here too.
But no sane person would expose themselves to this kind of verbal abuse...so I don't think any DO christian would ....but I am just insane enough to try to answer your arguments in spite of the verbal abuse you use to shut me down.

[trotsky]

129. When we switched over to DU3, I purged my ignore list.

Thought I would give folks a second chance.

I can see in this case it wasn't worth it. Welcome back to Ignore.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. You are the one making the odd claim that you have some actual words of this Jesus to know.

[zeemike]

85. So you think that it is an odd thing

If people believe the written words were actually spoken by someone?..is that all you got?
Words have meaning and that meaning stands alone...so questioning the meaning is a separate thing from questioning who said them and who recorded them.

[trotsky]

87. Yes, it's a very odd thing.

Do you know who actually wrote those words down?

It's a sincere question: who wrote down those words that you claim are the exact, "clear" words that your Jesus fellow spoke?

[zeemike]

94. Makes no difference at all.

It is the words and their meanings that stand alone.
But I well know thousands of people wrote those words down many times because media in those days was fragile and must be copied to be saved...And I know your conclusion is that every time they copied it they changed it...and there is no proof of that...only your own cynical belief that all of them had the agenda of fooling people.
But there IS evidence that they did copy it accurately...the part of the dead sea scrolls they have of the bible is accurate with today's version.
But if you want to impeach ideas because you don't know who wrote it down then Impeach Socrates and Plato and all literature from the ancient world...you are saying that all of those ideas are wrong because we don't know who wrote it down?

[trotsky]

95. Are you kidding me? Really? It makes all the difference in the world!

The very words you claim are so clear and obvious, aren't even in the same language they were allegedly spoken! How can that not matter?

You have said yourself, in this very thread, that Christians don't have to be perfect. Meaning they can make mistakes. Meaning the people who first wrote down those words could have made mistakes! They didn't have to intend to fool people, they could have been innocently mistaken. Or any of the later translators, transcribers, editors - any one of them could have made a simple error that significantly changed what those original words meant.

Do you really not see the problem here? Do you still think that you, sitting in your easy chair reading whatever preferred English translation you use (I'm guessing KJV) can clearly and easily discern what this Jesus fellow really said and meant?

I am just flabbergasted. And your certainty that you can indeed do just that makes me see you as no different than the Robertsons and Phelpses of the world.

[zeemike]

100. Well first let me establish that I don't give a shit how you see me.

I am not hear for my image...if I was I would just agree with you.
So then you must be able to show us evedence that mistakes by the Trappist monks who took on the task of copping the text made mistakes..
And you cannot understand how people like them could be so devoted to their job that they were mitulious in copping it accuratly.
But they were and they did and you can't show the errors.
But then I guess you dismiss all of acient literiture because it was all in diferent language and was coppied over and over...even Shakspear was in a diferent language than today...which I guess means we don't understand that eather....well some don't I know but others can and do.
There is no way something that old can be totaly error free but I question your assumption that the errors are so great as to change the meaning. and that every generation of coppiers made errors, which it would take to make significan changes over time.

[trotsky]

103. Clearly you're not here for your image.

Because otherwise you would at least try to form a decent argument for your position.

I have to *prove* that all the totally unknown people in between your personal copy of the bible and the actual words that were allegedly spoken were capable of making mistakes? That sounds startlingly like what literal fundamentalists say about the bible.

"There is no way something that old can be totaly error free "

Congratulations. You have admitted that I am right. Even the slightest error can change the meaning of something. And no, I don't dismiss ancient works because they contain errors. However I am intellectually honest enough to not claim that I am 100% sure of the "clear" meaning of what was written.

You are evidently not.

[zeemike]

114. You got it...I don't need image.

But lets establish one thing....Mathew Mark Luke and John are the witness to Jesus...not a tape recorder...and as witnesses they told what they heard...and no doubt they did not hear it all and may have heard it slightly different as wittiness often do
And that is important to remember because under Jewish law of the time if two or more witnesses told the exact same story then the judges of it could believe it was contrived...and rightly so.

But you are the one claiming that the text was changed significantly over time by mistakes and people deliberately changing it...so the burden of proof is on you no me...I can't prove a negative..you have to prove a positive...and I have given you some evidence to support my contention that it came down to us largely unchanged and you just ignore it.
So you show the evidence you have for your contention....I have shown you mine.

[trotsky]

119. Don't know how to break this to you, and you won't accept it anyway...

But the authors of the gospels, whoever they were, most certainly were NOT eyewitnesses to the events described. I think this discussion is at an end when you show such ignorance of the authorship of your own holy text.

[zeemike]

122. there you go again saying things you cannot back up with facts

Tell me how you know that Mathew did not wright down his experiences or recite them to a scribe to write down....show me the facts on why you can say with certantiey that he did not?
Mathew could have written it down right after the events and that copy would have deteriated in less than 50 years...but not before someone made a copy of it...which is the case with all media from that day
I don't understad how you think you can get away with such declarations because you surly would not accept them from me.

[trotsky]

124. I knew you wouldn't accept it from me.

But serious bible scholars are on my side. Don't worry though, you are not alone in your belief that eyewitnesses wrote the gospels. Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps agree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible#Gospels_and_Acts

[zeemike]

127. And Stalin and Lenin agree with you...so what?

You think you can lump people together but no one better do that to you?

[trotsky]

128. When it's cental to the discussion at hand, you bet.

This whole thread you've been trying to distinguish your beliefs from those of the fundies like Robertson and Phelps. But all you've done is shown just how closely related they really are.

And since you have nothing left to say in response to that, you throw in a couple of early 20th century Communists as a red herring. That's pathetic. Have your precious last word.

[zeemike]

132. It is not a red hearing at all

And a completely fair comparison...because you said my spiritual beliefs were the same as the fundies and I said that yours is the same as Stalin...it is you that wanted to tie me to some people that I have nothing in common with me other than both accept the account of the bible but in totally different ways...so why is it so pathetic for me to tie you to Stalin in the same manner....you are both atheist so you must be alike....
I am and was pointing how unfair that is by turning it around on you....and you did not like it much as I don't like it when you did it to me.
And could I say that "This whole thread you've been trying to distinguish your beliefs from those of the communist like Stalin and Lenin. But all you've done is shown just how closely related they really are."?

I have lots to say but I will never get the chance to say it when I have to defend myself from such baseless charges...just like comparing you to Stalin is a baseless charge.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. yes, seeing as how the words were written long after this person died.

The gospels are 2nd century CE accounts of what was supposed to have been said and done, and are full of contradictions and errors, and the surviving gospels are the ones that the victors in the bitter factional fighting within the early church allowed to persist.

By any objective standard we have no idea what this guy said or if he actually existed.

[zeemike]

98. I find really odd

That you say there are errors and you claim to know this how?...from reading accounts from that time?
so how do you explain that the Dead Sea Scrolls parts of the OT that were found are exactly like today's version?
Did they copied accurately the OT but not the NT?...and if they did why?
But I have seen this over and over again...claims that are not backed up with anything but speculation...usually by someone who is an expert on style of writing...which to me is really odd because style is nothing that is chiseled in stone and varies from place and time and just how people feel and is the most fungible of evidence.

But the truth is it don't matter if you think he did not say it...the words and the ideas they present stand on their own regardless of who wrote them or spoke them.

[Warren Stupidity]

102. well for example Mark is just full of geographical errors

the problem is that there are a lot of good historical documents that are contemporaneous to the era that do document what was where. You can google Mark's problems with geography, it is kind of funny. other gospels attempt to correct some of the more blatant errors in Mark.

And then the gospels themselves are notoriously contradictory between each other over who said or did what. Again, there is plenty to learn here by just reading outside the Official Story.

[trotsky]

106. The bible is perfect and there are no errors SO STOP SAYING THAT!

Bob Boudelang lives.

[zeemike]

113. I have heard those same complaints for the last 30 years

And when I have examined them I found that it was nit picking and full of assumptions...and I have no doubt that they still are.
It is not hard at all to pick things apart if you really try...and this thread is a real example of it
The most common one is "there is no evidence that ------ existed before the second century AD"...as if they would have known about it because there would be evidence of it if it were...assuming that they know all about life 2000 years ago.

But if you really want to pick one and I will give you my take on it.//and show you I can pick it apart with the best of them.

[Warren Stupidity]

118. Critical analysis of the gospels goes back a bit further than 30 years

and it is not nit-picking.

The Roman Empire kept a lot of records, and had quite a few people writing histories. We have lots of data about what happened, where things were, who did what. The geography errors in Mark aren't nit picking when one is also asserting that the exact words, or even an accurate semblance of those words, of Jesus are recorded there. We know the books are full of errors. That really is relevant when discussing the accuracy of these books.

[zeemike]

121. Yes I know but I never paid attention to it until then.

Because 40 years ago I was an atheist in my belief.

But it is funny that you question the accuracy of the biblical text but never question the accuracy of the text that you use to impeach with that ....how is that?
The real reason is that text that says things you think are impossible or that don't agree with the established knowledge must be invented...case in point Plato and his story of Atlantis and Troy...one is still considered made up and the other used to be but was proven to be true.
So you select what you think is true by what the establishment tells you is true...and anything that deviates from it must be made up.
But we can take them one by one and I will show you how I can pick apart what you are trying to pick apart and with the same logic...that you cannot prove the text you use to dispute the text I use is accurate and not just made up.
So go for it...I am up for a game of run around in circles.

[Joseph8th]

40. Ah... the "real Christians" argument...

... that old canard. THOSE Christians weren't the REAL Christians... never mind that 2000 years of violence and repression have earned Christianity its reputation. Ignore that, and only pay attention to the Teachings of Jesus. That's what Real Christians do. Those other Christians that murder and kill (except in our authorized wars) aren't real Christians. The real Christians belong to my group, you see. Jesus was a Liberal. Why can't everyone see that what we all need to do is gather together and take Christianity back from those false Christians and false Prophets... and... and...

Sound tiresomely familiar, anyone?

[zeemike]

43. Well it sounds familiar to me

Same disassembling I hear all the time....first establish that anyone who calls them self Christian must be considered as a true believer in Jesus and thus Jesus and his teachings are tied directly to the crimes committed by those who say they are Christians...thus dismissing everything that Jesus said as bullshit..

Like I said it seems to me that the fundies and the atheist that are militant have a game going and if you get in the way of it both sides attack you. Both want to legitimise their Christianity.

[CJCRANE]

54. You're right, they are trying to run you round in circles.

And I agree with you, that the NT details a lot of well-known sayings that Christians believe Jesus said.

And those sayings are pretty clear both individually and in totality about Jesus' basic message.

Anyone who claims there isn't a clear theme from Jesus' sayings is just dissembling (as you rightly claim).

[zeemike]

56. Thanks ...I thought I was all alone here in the firing line.

But most people don't want the hassle that is caused by speaking freely on this subject...no problem for me because my skin is very thick and I have the time.

[dmallind]

60. And the millions of other devout Christians who disagree?

What DO you think Jesus said about politics and government by the way - as opposed to recommending personal actions?

[CJCRANE]

63. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Pay your taxes. nt

[Joseph8th]

76. In other words, Jesus said nothing we couldn't figured out ourselves RE politics. nt

[trotsky]

89. The only circles here are the ones with zeemike's logic.

We are exposing them. You and he claim Jesus' words are so patently clear that it is obvious what they mean.

Yet the existence of thousands of Christians cults, sects, and groups proves you both quite clearly wrong.

[cbayer]

27. That has been my experience as well.

Most of the really extreme stuff that the religious right hangs on to seems to come from the OT, while I see progressive christian organizations using the NT to provide guidance.

[Joseph8th]

41. Isn't the story of the Apocalypse...

... in the NT?

That misguided and disgusting belief is as big a problem as original sin. Neither book has much to commend it to modern life and the thinking person.

[dmallind]

47. Read the epistles too

Slavery, homophobia, misogyny, despotic punishments and the like in riotous splendor

[CJCRANE]

55. The discussion is specifically about the sayings and actions of *Jesus* nt

[dmallind]

61. Yeah - who specifically said what about polirics?

RW nutcases give to charity. They volunteer to help others. They forgive people. They also think sexual attraction is sinful and that nonbelievers should burn forever just like Jesus said too.

[CJCRANE]

62. We can fight them on their own terms. They do not follow the majority of the things Jesus said

nor do they follow the spirit of what he said.

Blessed are the peacemakers / Turn the other cheek / Love your neighbor / Love your enemy / Do unto others what you would have them do unto you / What you don't do for the least of these you don't do for me

They know that giving to charity isn't enough to help 'the least of these' in a big, complex first world country (or any country for that matter).

[Joseph8th]

75. It's the "Real Christians" argument, again...

... No I hear ya. I get it: let's ignore the raising of the dead, the walking on water, the making wine from water, the virgin birth and most of all the cataclysmic end of all life on earth and mass transport of all human beings to either heaven or hell (not sure where the animals go... nowhere I guess, but it ain't heaven without my kitty).

In fact, if we could just cut those parts of the Bible out, and get everybody on earth to believe the remaining portion, everything would be hunky-dory. (Oh wait, Thomas Jefferson already did that.)

It's just that last part -- as great as Jesus might've been, if he was, and as virtuous as the things he said might be, in part, a few amorphisms do not a philosophy make. Supposing the teachings of Jesus do comprise a philosophy, it is an ethical one that doesn't pertain to science, so certainly their is no basis in the NT for any of the crazy RW Christian BS going down.

If there IS a basis for some of the ethical Prog Christianity, it's precisely because in real life, liberal Christians don't preach outside church functions. It's great. Thank you. I think what atheists are now asking is for liberal Christians to help push back against the RW Christians, if they want to retain any dignity for their faith in an increasingly secular multiculture.

[cbayer]

77. There is a substantial number of both individuals and groups doing exactly what you ask -

pushing back, and pushing hard, against the christian right.

The media doesn't cover it. Heck, we can't even read about it here without facing all kinds of opposition.

[Joseph8th]

78. For example?...

... Who's pushing back hard? From my POV it seems like lib Xtians are usually more interested in defending lib Xtianity from attacks by atheists than by attacks from RW Xtians.

[cbayer]

79. People post about it all the time here.

Just look for the threads about progressive religious organizations and individuals working for progressive causes.

Many people who post here are actively involved in it.

If all you see is people defending themselves from attacks from atheists, then maybe that is all you are looking for.

[Thats my opinion]

130. Progressive Christians Uniting is a multi- denominational, multi congregational group in this area,

and there are similar groups all over the country. There are also serious Councils of Churches, Interfaith groups, numerous publications etc. They all push back against the right-wingers in politics and religion. I don't know of a single case where they "defend Christianity from attacks by atheists."

You made a glaring blanket statement. I offer you this challenge.
For every example of "lib Xtians" who do what you say, I'll find you ten examples of what you claim they don't do.
Are you big enough to take the challenge. if not why not retract the accusation.

[Thats my opinion]

31. Historically this comes and goes in waves, depending on what is happening in society.

These days when conservative politics, particularly in the South is big-time, religion flows in that direction. Sad but true. There are, however religious forces that confound this statistical evidence, and it is the more authentic advocates of Christianity, seen in the main-line and the liberal Catholic church, that confounds this image. As of now your statistics are correct-----but what does that mean regarding authenticity? The same could be adduced from current political statistics. That does not invalidate progressive politics.

[jeepnstein]

51. Can't speak for other congregations, but...

We chose to allow our religious faith to rise above politics. We quite simply do not address politics or politicians other than to pray for all our leaders. Everyone is urged to vote their conscience and we leave it at that. It's quite possible for me, a Democrat activist and professional political hack, to sit in fellowship with a Republican conservative. We have a few folks who want to ignite the culture wars because they hear that it is so vital to the survival to our country but we're not really buying that.

Christianity is supposed to rise above national boundaries anyway, so why should we even worry about a government that is only temporary in the grand scheme of things? Jesus avoided the politics of his day and stated his larger purpose. Churches would be well-served to emulate Him more and Rush Limbaugh not at all.

[Humanist_Activist]

80. At best Jesus was apolitical, and frankly I don't see the relevence of a 2000 year old...

legendary figure that may or may not have existed, and the "quotes" from this figure whose authenticity cannot be verified. Might as well ask where Herakles is in politics, its nonsense.

In any case, assuming such a man existed, Jesus was a 1st century Jewish rabbi and/or preacher, and has little relevance to todays world.

[Thats my opinion]

110. Loaded, as usual.

How i wish you were only mildly acquainted with what is really going on in a very lively progressive Christian movement--instead of throwing sarcastic rocks at the entire enterprise.

You may not--because you just don't know or want to know--but there are millions of Christians who do know and act on what they know. I accept that you have a different position, but I do not except your fundamentalist judgement about what many others hold to be true.

[Humanist_Activist]

111. I wasn't being sarcastic, I simply don't see the relevance of a character in a story...

that is about 2000 years old in today's world.

A historical person or persons may have existed that created the basis for the Jesus character, but even that is unverifiable. I'm talking about lack of evidence, you talk like its fundamentalism. I don't care what character people claim to follow to have progressive ideals, it could be Zeus or Woden for all I care, doesn't change the fact that those characters are fictional as well. As long as their actions don't endanger me or try to oppress others, that has no bearing on the fact that they believe a fantasy.

[darkstar3]

115. How I wish you were only mildly acquainted with what is really going on in churches outside of CA.

I don't buy your millions number, because I live (and have lived) in the parts of this country where Christians are most prevalent.

Read the sig...

[Thats my opinion]

116. That's becasue you hate it so much you haven't taken the effort to really listen to what is going on

It is what prejudice does to the mind.

[darkstar3]

117. Venture out of your comfort zone. See the nation as it is, not as you wish it were.

And stop telling others that they are prejudiced simply because they don't buy your hippy-dippy claim that Christianity is all good now, man...

That's called being an asshole.

[Thats my opinion]

131. I know the Christian movement widely from the inside,.

which is the only location sensible, scientifically oriented people look at. Of course the nation--even in CA is smothered with fundies of all kinds. Please learn to read. I have said that over and over again, and I have never said that Christianity is "all good now." That statement comes out of your bigotry, not anything I have said.

[darkstar3]

133. Oh, nothing you've said? Really?

What about all those times that you've downplayed those fundy morons by saying that "what's really going on in {churches/denominations/Christianity}" is so very different?

Now you're talking out both sides of your mouth.

I'm serious, when was the last time you spent any time with a congregation in a "flyover state"? Have you ever? I really don't think you realize just how far out of the mainstream your "process theology" is with regard to how Christianity is practiced through the majority of this nation.

There are other ways to refer to your continued insistence that you have an "internal perspective". Insulated...sheltered...inexperienced...all those and more come to mind.

[Thats my opinion]

134. This winter I spent 13 Sundays as an anonymous visitor to those churches.

And I wrote an expose. I know one of our regular snarkys will snark about this--my book
Reclaiming the Christian Faith
is about exactly that.
Since process theology takes on the very issues you do I cannot understand why you don't celebrate it instead of trashing it? Is your prejudice abut all religion getting in the way?

Let me put the question back to you. How much time have you spent in progressive churches? --or even read what is going on?

[darkstar3]

135. I can't find one, and that's the biggest part of my point.

And if you actually think that your whirlwind tour showed you anything beyond confirmation of your cursory understanding of churches that aren't like yours, you're deluding yourself.

I doubt you even made it to one of those "flyover states" I mentioned. If you had, you'd be far more disturbed by what you saw than you could ever put into a book.

[Thats my opinion]

137. You are speaking out of ignorance. I was appaled by much of what I found.

If you can't find one where you live,let me know my DU mail if you don't want to do it here, and I'll put you in touch. They are in every State.Or would that spoil your prejudices?

[darkstar3]

138. And you, out of arrogance, born of willful blindness.

When you recognize that you don't even come close to representing 10% of Christianity in this country...when you recognize that there are even people here on this board who espouse the theological views you call outmoded and cartoonish...when you stop playing the game of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" while at the same time constantly redefining what is evil...on that day, I will still disagree with you, but you will at least have earned an inkling of my respect.

ETA: And furthermore, if Christianity is about what you say it's about...if your version of theology is so incredibly right, then why do so many people I know have to put a Holmesian effort into finding it?

Your fantasies don't mesh with the reality I live in. You need to stop worrying yourself about the people you refer to as "outside", and start actually leading the people you refer to as "inside". That is, of course, assuming that they will actually follow you.

I don't think they will. In fact, I think they haven't, and that's part of the reason why you attack "outsiders" here as "prejudiced."