Jesus is a Democrat

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

http://www.jesusisademocrat.net/

Jesus' Beatitudes:

Blessed are the poor,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall possess the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called sons of God.

Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
...

Not just a Democrat, but a far left liberal, possibly even a Green sympathizer. I wonder who he'd vote for?

[southerngirlwriter]

1. Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7

are three of my favorites.

I have posted a few times in The Meeting Room, mostly threads using Scripture to back up progressive ideals. I will be doing that again soon -- I've just been insanely busy lately.

The Beatitudes are especially nice in the New American Standard and New Century versions of the Bible.

[Bake]

2. And that's not all

"I was hungry and you fed me; I was sick and you tended to me; I was in prison and you visited me ... ... Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these my brothers, you have done it unto me."

Sorry I don't have the chapter and verse.

Jesus would be a LIBERAL, not just a Democrat.

Bake

[southerngirlwriter]

4. To expand on your point....

If you look at the scriptures on judgment day, there is ONE difference between people He approves of and people He condemns:

What they *did* and *didn't* DO for the downtrodden, weak, and vulnerable among them.

Who are the only people Jesus forcibly threw out of the temple -- His Father's house??

The MONEY-CHANGERS -- the people who used religion to grab money and power.

Who are the only people Jesus ever called bad names (i.e. "snakes" and "vipers") ??

The PHARISEES -- the powerful, the politicians of His day, who used "the law" and the Scriptures to oppress others.

Jesus is my hero. If everyone imitated Jesus, the Right Wing would drift away and die a quiet death.

Edited for a typo.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. St. James, Jesus' brother, was very tough on corporate crime too

James 5:1-6 - "Watch out, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. Your wealth is corrupted and your money is debased, and they will be used as evidence against you. You have hoarded wealth and laid up treasures for the last days. Listen! The wages of the workers which you stole, and kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you."

What the Bible says about GREED: http://douglas7eberman.net/money.html

[mkultra]

3. did you read that book

by joseph adams. It deals with this very issue, I was wondering if someone who had read it would give me a review of it.

[BuelahWitch]

64. What book is that? n/t

[Runesong]

5. What would Jesus do...for a klondike bar?

I think Jesus would not associate with any political party, that is not what he was about.

[Character Assassin]

6. Jesus is libertarian, as he never resorted to gov't force

To accomplish these ends.

[Yupster]

11. Don't know about libertarian, but

it's true that Jesus never called for a march on Jeruselum to increase the bread dole, or a strike agqainst Rome for more land for peasants. He demanded people do good acts themselves. He did not talk about a Good Samaritan who found a hurt traveller and brought him to the local government for assistance. He lauded the individual for helping.

Certainly the groups Jesus criticizd the most were the hypocrites.

I would include among those many DU'ers who say we should do more to help the poor, but

it should be up to the government to do it, and

we need to raise taxes to do it, but not my taxes, only those other guys, the rich guys.

We need to ask more, but only from the other guys. Hypocrisy.

[NavajoRug]

28. Outstanding post . . .

And I agree that one of our shortcomings as Democrats is that we tend to think of ourselves as "doing something" to help others when in fact we don't really do it ourselves but call upon government to do it instead.

[gulliver]

36. Sorry. That's just way too simplistic.

What is your evidence that Democrats don't give as much or more to charity than Republicans?

And somehow it is wrong that "it should be up to the government to do it?" Well, in many cases it should be up to the government and in many cases not. You think the government has no role in promoting the general welfare and ensuring the blessings of liberty?

And yes, it is obvious that Jesus would be a Democrat. Democrats are not perfect, but they are a whole lot more perfect and are a lot better samaritans than the kind of "Republican" George W. Bush is.

But go on. Keep up the cheap shots on Dems that are only "mostly unfair." You are obviously satisfied when a grain of truth masks a bushel of lies.

[Nederland]

61. Charitable giving by State

What is your evidence that Democrats don't give as much or more to charity than Republicans?

Although the link below is not evidence about which political party gives more, it does show that charitable giving is greatest in Republican dominated states. Futhermore, I'm pretty sure that charitable giving is greater among people that regularly attend church, and that people that regularly attend church are more likely to be Republicans.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2003

[gulliver]

62. You're right. The link is not evidence.

And you say you are "pretty sure" ... giving is greater among church-goers. That could be. But being pretty sure is not evidence.

I'm pretty sure that per capita, Dems and Republicans both give to the needy. Which gives more or less? I don't know that anyone knows which.

Which believes that the government should feed any left hungry or house any left homeless? I'm pretty sure that the Democrats lead there. Most Republicans are that way too, of course. They would not want to see kids thrown out into the streets any more than Democrats would. Republicans just gripe about it and make a big deal out of its drawbacks. They are big babies about it, IMO.

The world has bigger problems than the poor.

[Nederland]

63. At least I gave something

...you've provided no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion.

[gulliver]

65. What assertion did I make?

I don't think I made an assertion. I think I questioned other assertions. I'm not trying to take on the burden of proving that Democrats are equally generous or more generous than Republicans. I simply said that there is no evidence offered yet to suggest the opposite.

You offered what I consider fairly weak evidence (for reasons already stated) that Republicans are more generous than Democrats. Sorry, I consider it weak evidence. You implicitly admit to that when you say "at least" it is "something."

Well, I'm not sure what it is. It isn't conclusive. It isn't persuasive. It is something, however. Three hours, four hours, a hundred hours more research on your part might stand your "something" on its ear in both our minds. Who knows?

[Woodstock]

97. Giving without getting anything in return

is true giving

The Republicans, when they do think about the needy (which clearly is not very much), have strings attached to their gifts...

They support a system that promotes the needy staying needy (and the sad thing is, the ones who don't consider themselves needy now, are heading that way, thanks to their shortsighted gullibility:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040105&s=krugman

Suppose that you actually liked a caste society, and you were seeking ways to use your control of the government to further entrench the advantages of the haves against the have-nots. What would you do?

One thing you would definitely do is get rid of the estate tax, so that large fortunes can be passed on to the next generation. More broadly, you would seek to reduce tax rates both on corporate profits and on unearned income such as dividends and capital gains, so that those with large accumulated or inherited wealth could more easily accumulate even more. You'd also try to create tax shelters mainly useful for the rich. And more broadly still, you'd try to reduce tax rates on people with high incomes, shifting the burden to the payroll tax and other revenue sources that bear most heavily on people with lower incomes.

Meanwhile, on the spending side, you'd cut back on healthcare for the poor, on the quality of public education and on state aid for higher education. This would make it more difficult for people with low incomes to climb out of their difficulties and acquire the education essential to upward mobility in the modern economy.

And just to close off as many routes to upward mobility as possible, you'd do everything possible to break the power of unions, and you'd privatize government functions so that well-paid civil servants could be replaced with poorly paid private employees.

***

And speaking of keeping the poor down, check out what the "Christian Coalition" did in Alabama. A Republican, who had basically screwed the poor his whole career, saw the light, and wanted to make things better for the poor once he became governor - and by make things better, he was really just making it so they were screwed less. The "Christian Coalition" fought him tooth and nail - launched a media campaign to fool an illiterate population - and won.

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_taxjustice.html

[bvar22]

130. How many republicans...

...have donated their LIVES in low paying jobs (teachers, social workers, community humanitarian services, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc.)dedicated to making the World a better place? I work in one of those occupations, and the majority (by far) are LIBERALS)

Some here seem to equate throwing a little money at a church as the end all to Charitable Giving.

[Yupster]

66. I didn't think I contended that

Republicans gave more than Democrats?

What I did do was criticize Democrats who call for tax increases, but exempt themselves and say "just raise taxes on the other guys - the rich." To me that's pretty bad.

Anyway, I did a yahoo search on "charitable giving Republicans Democrats" just to see if there is any evidence one way or the other.

This is the only article that had anything to do with anything. I don't know anything about it, but it was pretty interesting.

http://www.policyreview.org/oct03/brooks.html

It's contention is that there is not a divide in charitable giving between Republicans and Democrats, but rather between non-religious people and religious people. The conclusion is that religious people, whether Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, are far, far more likely to give and volunteer, even for non-religious charities than non-religious people, whether Democratys or Republicans, liberals or conservatives. Since there are far more religious Republicans than religious Democrats, I guess the conclusion would be that Republicans are much more likely to give to charity than Democrats, and give much more.

That's not what my post was about though. It was to criticize hypocrites that call for other people's taxes to be raised but not their own.

PS - This study would agree with my own life history. I have given way more to all different charities once I became associated with my church. Before that I gave a pittance. Now I see such a greater need, and therefore give much more. I don't know if my experience is common or not.

[gulliver]

84. Well...

I would include among those many DU'ers who say we should do more to help the poor, but it should be up to the government to do it, and we need to raise taxes to do it, but not my taxes, only those other guys, the rich guys.

We need to ask more, but only from the other guys. Hypocrisy.

You qualified it by saying "many DUers" so I stand corrected. You didn't outright say Republicans are more generous than Democrats. But why single out only Democrats for criticism and why be so tendentious and disproportionate in your criticism as to use the term "hypocrisy?"

People who think "it should be up to the government to do it" are not hypocrits simply because they also believe in progressive taxation to pay government burdens. That's sophistry, a straw man, and I believe you may be using it in the service of an unworthy cause.

Your link to Policy Review says a lot. It was a Heritage Foundation (right wing paper mill) rag until recently. Now it's Hoover Institution (whatever that is). Are you aware of that? Does it surprise you that it supports a traditionally conservative view? Do you feel the statistics (such as income disparity between Dems and Republicans) have been given full and fair consideration? Why was the polling not done by Pew, Kohut, or Gallup?

I am for things like Head Start and WIC because I believe that private giving is nowhere near high enough, organized enough, color blind enough, ecumenical enough... to produce these socially necessary services. They are both morally and pragmatically necessary IMO. I am gravely concerned that Republicans might use a pittance of private giving as a salve on their consciences while they oppose (but not loudly or directly) the kinds of real social foundation that could save a lot of kids.

Jesus would be a Democrat. That seems obvious.

[Yupster]

87. To me it is rank hypocrisy

To say that we need to raise taxes to correct some problem, and then in the next breath say that I didn't mean my taxes, I meant raise someone else's taxes. If we see a need that should be addressed, we should be the first in line to pitch in to address it.

This is similar to my other pet peeve which I have posted about many times which is schoolteachers who do not pay into social security complaining that we need to do more to help people, after they have carved themselves out of sharing the burden of our largest social program that helps the most people. Of course that leaves more of the burden for the rest of us to carry.

Someone's mom dies? Let's all gladly chip in to send the poor kid a check from social security. Well, all of us except the teachers who have carved themselves out of the system. Some poor guy's disabled? We'll gladly provide a monthly check from social security. We're all glad to chip in. All of us except school teachers.

The social security system is in long-term trouble. Want an easy way to fix it? Just bring the teachers back into the system who currently aren't in. No way. You suggest that and you might as well be Dick Cheney cashing stock options. The teachers have their cherry little retirement system which is better than everyone else's, and they're going to keep it.

But they hope that others will help those poor people. Just not them.

The reason this is a big deal to me is that I was a teacher for 9 years, and I was appalled that we were out of the system and didn't share society's largest social program.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I think it's hypocrisy to say we need to help people, but not be willing to chip in ourselves. If you think I'm too harsh, so be it.

As far as the source of the article, as I wrote in my first post, I just did a Yahoo search and this is what came up. I have no idea what the organization is. If you have better stats, please provide them. This article seemed believable to me just using my own life as an example.

PS -- thanks for the correction.

[gulliver]

88. The problem is that you evidently ...

... think there is a significant number of people displaying this hypocrisy, and you have no evidence of it.

Everything is proportion.

Bushists rely on people not knowing proportions. A tenuous, poorly substantiated, poorly understood pet peeve can rise to the level of a voting motivation if proportions are not carefully considered. The Bushies rely on a drop of truth and an ocean of emotion to divide people from each other, from their money, and from reality.

I doubt there are very many Democrats who are ungenerous enough to merit inclusion in your "hypocrits" category.

I notice you had nothing to say about Head Start and WIC. You took off on a flaw in Social Security instead.

There is a beam in the Republican eye, Yupster.

[Yupster]

92. I find this an odd conversation gulliver

First, I am in favor of Head Start and WIC. I really didn't think I had to say that. I didn't really think they were contentious.

Anyway, since it's a pet peeve of mine, maybe I notice the posts of the categories I talked about more than you do, or maybe I exaggerate them since they're a pet peeve.

I'm talking about the threads that say "I want free college," or "I want free healthcare", or "I want unemployment extended again," and to the question of who should pay for these things, there's either no answer or it's we should raise taxes, but not on us, no, only on the other guys, the rich.

I think there would be a lot more credibility if people would say they want something like free college, and they will be willing to have everyone's taxes raised to accomplish it. Otherwise, it doesn't look so much like philosophy of government to me, it just looks like greed. I want, I want, I want, and I want someone else to pay for it.

The reason I find this an odd conversation is that you seem critical of me (I don't have a clue what your last sentence means, but it seems critical), but you don't seem to disagree with the points I've made. You call many teachers not paying into social security a "flaw" in the system as if it's an issue of a few pennies, when it in fact effects millions of people's retirements.

You didn't disagree with my last post about the taxes and instead seemed to say I was just thinking disproportionately much about it.

You didn't like the source of the statistics, but didn't provide any other ones, and I don't even know if you tend to believe them or not. They seem reasonable to me.

It just seems like I'm saying my opinions, and you're sending me generic criticisms aroound the fringes of my points. I don't know if you're just playing devil's advocate, or whether you disagree with me, or agree but don't like me. You kind of remind me of my college debate coach trying to get me to sharpen my arguments.

Like I said, it seems like an odd conversation, so this is a good time for me to put my kid to bed and wish you a very happy new year.

[gulliver]

94. Happy New Year to you too.

Just trying to understand where you are coming from on these issues...

I'm glad we agree on Head Start and WIC.

The "I want free college and health care" threads are just threads. I don't let them bother me because they usually aren't politically viable in the short term, IMO. I do think it is in the best interest of the country that talented people are educated. If they have to earn their way through college and take loans (as I did), I don't see a problem with it. Free, quality K-12 is another story.

I have no problem with progressive taxation. That's a whole discussion.

I do discount your statistics from Policy Review. The article is not uninteresting, but I don't consider it reliable given its publication in a right wing think tank journal. I looked for better statistics at what I consider to be a good source for religiously correlated data (www.thearda.com), but couldn't find any right away. The questions I would have regarding "generosity indexes" are many, but they would include information of how much people gave of what they have, who was polled and how, whether it was a national or regional sample, etc.

I don't dislike you certainly and in this thread I only disagree with you on the degree to which you seem to let some of these wealth redistribution issues bother you. I think the Dems have been very, very good at resolving social spending issues. There is very little "rank hypocrisy" on our side (not none though). Overreacting, as I think you are in this thread, only plays into the hands of Bushian Republicans. Scare 'em, loot 'em, pollute 'em, send their jobs overseas ... and don't forget to laugh on the way to the bank.

I just put our kids to bed and am now about to get some Z's too. See you around DU.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. Actually, Jesus beat up libertarians

The lassaize-faire money changers, who wouldn't stop their scams and exploitation even during religious ceremonies, got their asses kicked by Jesus, as far as I can remember his only act of violence.

Ergo, doing violence to libertarians is following Jesus' example. Or something like that :evilgrin:

[thinkingwoman]

47. oh bull

the money changers did NOT resemble the libertarians. Pleeaaaaassseee.

It's ok to dislike libertarians because they would do away with social programs that liberals/Democrats hold dear. But don't treat them like Republicans, because they just are not the same.

The money changers are most accurately compared to evangelists.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

70. no

"The money changers are most accurately compared to evangelists" - no, not at all. Have you read the story? It was their unethical business dealings that was the problem. The Pharisees are more properly compared to televangelists I would say.

The only difference between a Libertarian and a Republican is the Libertarians are usually athiest/agnostic. In my experience, of course.

[thinkingwoman]

77. most libertarians I know

are spiritual if not religious. Haven't met a single atheist/agnostic libertarian yet. In my experience, of course.

Um, yes I have read the story. My interpretation differs from yours so much that I wonder if you read it.

The Pharisees and the Sadduccees (can't spell, sorry) are little more than political parties...kind of like repuke and repuke lite maybe. Just my opinion of course.

I still think that the money changers are best compared to people who make money off of peddling beliefs and the trappings that go with them, ie. televangelists/evangelists.

[salin]

95. there has been a growth industry around "Christian" businesses

that is companies who market their services on "being Christian". Insurance companies, dentist offices, etc. In fields that have no relation to religiousness. I take this as the comparison - as folks are making money by 'marketing' Christianity (and generally a particular brand (evangelical) of Christianity.

Related but not the same, within weeks of 9/11 I was buying a bottle of wine to have with dinner with friends from out of town. By the register there were these high profile bottles of wine which had no name recognition but were in bottles with flags and eagles. It was a bit stunning - all I could think is that perhaps the company was donating some of the proceeds to the victims' families from 911 (this store would often have jars for donations for a local food bank and other causes.) So I asked what the deal was on the 'patriotic wine' - did some of the monies go to the victims... the slightly embarrassed worker said.. "well, no." Oh, says I, this is just marketing on the moment of peoples' horror at the tragedy that just happened but does nothing but try to make money off of that symbolism. As you know, Hoosiers are folks with pretty decent sensibilities. Several weeks later when I was back - there was NO sign of the "patriotic wine" near the cash registers.

All that said, my interprettion about the anger with the money lenders is similar to yours. Sad thing is some of the unseemly exploitation has become so common place that I believe that some who do it (eg advertise as a "Christian Realtor") no longer even think about what they are doing enough to be creeped out by the aspect of that tactic which would be in direct opposition to the actual teachings of Jesus.

[thinkingwoman]

101. hi salin, good point

about the Christian marketing--wow, I am surrounded by that down here and didn't even make the connection until I read your post. I think Jesus would be horrified about that practice, but as you said, some of the people doing it don't even think about what they are doing, and how it goes against the scripture they hold so dear.

What bothers me the most about this, I think, is that there are thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands maybe of people who consider themselves Christians but never actually read and study the words of the man they claim to follow. Instead they let some preacher interpret it all for them, as if there aren't dozens of versions in plain English available at bookstores all over the nation.

Ok, end rant. Thanks for posting--you made me think about this all in a whole new way.

[salin]

118. It has struck me since I returned to Indiana several years ago

that even more and more mainstream Christian churches have become more dogmatic with rhetoric that starts to sound more and more old-testament driven rather than gospel centered. Maybe I had just been gone long enough (nearly 10 years) that I didn't remember this as so and it hasn't been a drift. But as this has become more common, I have also been struck by the very sad thought that some ministers seem to be leading their congregations - of well-intended (but not reading/studying for themselves) people - into acting in ways that are in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ; and that this feels almost tragic in a way. Had already been pondering this by 911 when the comments of Falwell and Robertson were broadcast. I was so horrified by their response (use to politically vilify and by extension place blame on the victims?) that I did some digging into both. These two are prime examples of leading people astray. I think it is they who are evil.

Many months later I was doing some consulting in Indy and spent several days with a thoughtful evangelical woman... 9-11 wasn't too long past so it came up. I gently tried some of my ideas out on her - focusing not so much on local religious leaders but on the easy to point out - Falwell and Robertson. I spoke from a tone of sorrow (for the followers being led) - and she agreed. There ARE ways of raising these issues with folks, one on one, that are not offensive and lead people to think. That is always my goal. Sometimes I think that life has gotten so stressful and so fastpaced that collectively as a society we have turned off our willingness to think through complexity - leaving to someone else to sort it out for us and if it resonates - even if just on the surface - then we accept it. That helps me to explain Rush, the explosive growth (imo) of the politicized-evangelical right, and reality tv (had to throw that in ;-))

Always nice talking with you talkingwoman. Hope all is well with you.

Btw, how is the family and community doing in coping/coming to terms with the tragic loss from the young serviceman this past fall?

[Columbia]

13. I agree

Jesus advocated to do these things through personal works and deeds and not through a coercive and corrupt government process.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. The Christian Church shared their property in common

Jesus was not a capitalist, sorry :)

The Christian origin of socialism: http://www.bergonia.org/Christian%20Origins.htm

[Columbia]

29. They did so by choice and not by force

[sangha]

82. Simpistic Libertarian propoganda.

Jesus never called for abolishing govt social programs or income taxes. Libertarians do.

Jesus never called for the deregulation of business. Libertarians do.

Jesus never pushed the legalization of prostitution. Libertarians do.

But Jesus never asked the govt for anything, so he must be a Libertarian. Can you say "Wishful thinking"?

[Character Assassin]

103. That's 'libertarian' not 'Libertarian'

You are the only one here comparing him to a modern political party.

But Jesus never asked the govt for anything, so he must be a Libertarian. Can you say "Wishful thinking"?

Can you say 'foot in mouth'?

[Terwilliger]

21. too bad we all don't think like Jesus

not everybody does, so THEN what do you do?

[Columbia]

25. Not by force

Jesus promised a kingdom not here on earth, but in Heaven for those individuals who did his work.

If one were a Christian modeling oneself after Jesus, one would continue to work towards the abatement of suffering through works and deeds and persuading others to do the same and not by advocating use of force through the state to do so.

[Terwilliger]

38. but the state is the only avenue that guarantees security

leaving things up to their own devices hasn't proven itself to be reliable

people of this earth are not self-governing and they are more interested in themselves than others

[Columbia]

48. The state guarantees nothing

[Terwilliger]

50. yep...that be the problem

that's why we need to make it better

[lapauvre]

53. But WE ARE the state!

WE need to get better.

[Terwilliger]

56. yes, and WE aren't

and WE don't care enough to make sure that the people we've elected to do the job are doing it properly

[gulliver]

41. Of course that is ridiculous.

Within his group of disciples, Jesus was a leader of a form of government. How did he act within his organization? And his calls to charity were calls to charity from others.

The tiny fraction of welfare our government provides is not coercive. It is voted upon by the majority of Americans.

Tell the people on unemployment right now that they ought to go begging because you think that's what Jesus would want.

[Columbia]

46. Jesus was a leader of a form of government?

That's absolutely preposterous. He may have been a leader, but a group of religious followers can nowhere close to be defined as government. Jesus and his disciples may have put forth and advocated a type of ideology, but they did not force anyone else to follow their beliefs.

Also, just because something is voted on by the majority of Americans does not make it not coercive.

Here is the definition of coercion from dictionary.com:

n 1: the act of compelling by force of authority 2: using force to cause something

People who are on unemployment right now are in effect begging already. Jesus would want people to help the unemployed (and any disadvantaged), but he would not have forced others to do so.

[gulliver]

49. Well, uh, yeah.

It's preposterous to you because it doesn't fit your model of a government. Your model is wrong.

Jesus was the leader of an organization if you prefer, and his organization was run with principles of brotherhood (sisterhood), sharing, peaceful coexistence, etc.

Coercion is a freighted term, and apparently it is a big one with you. Another one is probably "force." How can you "force" someone to do X or Y, you might be expected to say.

Well, there are laws and there is a democracy and (yikes the terror of it!) a government. And it is a good thing there is or we'd all be deader than doornails. The conservative fear of government has always struck me as pee pants -- just making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I'm a lot (LOT) more afraid of what life would be like without the American government. Is it coercive in that it, say, forces (there's that word) a wealthy guy to pay more taxes? Well, yes, to the seriously spastic, that is a problem. But that rich guy has more to lose than the poor cop who protects that rich guy's house. And not as many people want to rob middle class people as rich guys.

And so on.

Coercion. That's all Republican tripe. The Bushies are robbing us blind and killing everyone's future -- and stampeding the gullible with tripe. Same as it ever was.

[Columbia]

51. Which is it?

Your own view of government seems contradictory to me. You trust it, yet at the same time, you don't.

"The conservative fear of government has always struck me as pee pants -- just making a mountain out of a mole hill."

"The Bushies are robbing us blind and killing everyone's future "


For what it's worth, I never said anything about having *no* government. I was only intimating that I don't believe Jesus would be an advocate of government sponsored welfare (and yes, through coercion, whether you agree with me or not).

[gulliver]

55. No contradiction there.

Bush is wrecking the American government and the country soon to follow. I like government. Not too much. Not too little. I especially don't like Bushian government. Too much bad. Too little good. Too costly. Too dishonest. Too secretive.

I don't like deficits. I don't like lies (well, half-truths if you are a Bush apologist) in State of the Union speeches. I don't like wars entered into under false pretenses.

Bush is wrecking the American government we all depend upon. There is no contradiction except in that a balanced government requires both sides of the equation, government control coupled with controlled government. Lose one side and all hell breaks loose.

You might personally not advocate a government that uses some of its tax revenues to keep people from starving, but don't imply that would be Jesus' attitude. If Jesus ran our government, I think he would absolutely certainly see to caring for the less fortunate, the homeless, the hungry, the cold, the lonely, and the lost.

I'm not sure which Jesus you are referring to if you think otherwise.

[Columbia]

68. I don't think

Jesus would advocate stealing to give to the "less fortunate, the homeless, the hungry, the cold, the lonely, and the lost."

If you disagree with me, please find scripture to back it up.

FWIW, I also don't like those things you listed either.

[gulliver]

78. Stealing, force, coercion.

Can't help you there. Even Republicans don't vote away welfare and unemployment. They just cry like babies about the drawbacks that admittedly are there. Taxes spent to keep people from starving, to help kids go to school and get a meal, to put a roof over someone's head, these are not theft -- unless as a radical you are defining theft in some manner not encompassed by the laws of the United States of America.

The people of the United States run the government. Given that, they might ask what would Jesus do if he were a voter. That seems to be the core question. What would Jesus do if he were a voter? Who would he vote for?

[Columbia]

81. Never said vote away welfare or unemployment

I don't think Jesus would want to have anything to do with politics. It was as corrupt back then as it is now.

[gulliver]

86. Corruption in politics.

I think Jesus was a very, very successful politician. He was "a fisher of men." His lack of corruption put him at odds with the corrupt politicians and business people of his day, but Jesus was a politician. He was a politician for good.

Bushian Republicans are the most corrupt bunch I have ever personally seen. Democrats do whore themselves out to business of course, but Bushian Republicans are business. The relationship is so tight it is reflexive. The GOP has become a dual-use political party and business consortium.

And what corrupts more than money? Jesus' time or today? And where is the money?

Jesus would be a Democrat.

[Bobby Digital]

100. "And what corrupts more than money?"

A desire for power.

You understand nothing about christianity if you believe Jesus would associate himself with politics.

[gulliver]

102. Maybe you're just talking about ...

... your idea of Christianity. Money and power are interchangeable.

On edit: What are you really saying when you say Jesus would not "associate" with politics? Is it that politics would be beneath Jesus? What's your take on government in general? Just curious. Don't be so shy. Type out a few more sentences so I can tell what you really think.

[Bobby Digital]

121. Money and power

are not interchangable. Money is often a means to power, but the desire for power is more fundamental, and more dangerous.

As far as the Jesus issue goes, I have a very low opinion of politics and government. "Jesus would be a democrat" makes about as much sense to me as "Jesus would be a Knicks fan." Politics and Christianity are just such seperate realms for me that I find the comparision between them absurd.

[gulliver]

144. Sure they are.

I happen to agree that a desire for power is more fundamental than a desire for money. But they are interchangeable. Not always, of course, but the Republicans are working on it.

You find the comparison between politics and Christianity absurd. I think you are drifting off point. I said that Jesus was a politician, not that there was a comparison to be made between Christianity and politics. But I'll bite and say that neither is absurd just to keep the argument going. I've already made a case (however weak you may think it) that Jesus was a "fisher of men," a leader, and a politician. Certainly his contemporaries thought so.

But isn't it absurd to say that politics and Christianity are (your words) such separate realms that you find the comparison between them absurd. I wish they were separate realms, and maybe you do to. But the Republicans are working on taking things the other direction.

I wonder what the grounds are for your "low opinion of politics and government." Is all politics deserving of that low opinion of yours? How about government? Is it just the American government that you have a low opinion of or just government in general?

Almost sounds like you might be a Libertarian. Libertarianism (I was a long time Reason subscriber until I grew out of it) has lost its mind.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. No one is forcing you to pay taxes

If you don't want to pay taxes to the country that protects your wealth and prosperity, you're free to live in some lassaiez-faire Libertopia somewhere. I hear they are building a huge barge to float out in international waters where you don't have to pay taxes.

No one is forcing you to stay in America, all your "coersion" are arguements are null and void. If you want to be "free" of government coersion, have at it.

[camero]

59. The only "force" is taxation.

Not in where the money is spent. We choose that and evidently we have chosen to let the poor eat cake. There is no politician alive or dead (yes even FDR) who would have done something for the less fortunate without it being called for by the people.

And at the time, the people loudly proclaimed that they did not want to see people dying in the streets. Just as Christ would have not wanted to see them die in the streets.

[Character Assassin]

75. Sorry, that doesn't hold up to scrutiny

Jesus was a leader of a form of government

He was a leader, but there was no recognizable gov't that he led, regardless of what tortured machinations you might resort to to portray one as actually having existed.

[gulliver]

79. Your opinion CA ...

... is as valued by me as it always is.

[Character Assassin]

80. Hey, don't go changin', ya hear?

[gulliver]

83. You either. Would miss ya.

[DerekG]

8. Jesus was a progressive, not a democrat...

Jesus would never have supported Bill Clinton's role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children through sanctions.

Jesus would never have supported Lyndon Johnson's war against a peasant country.

Jesus would never have supported Harry Truman's authorization for two atomic weapons to be dropped on a civilian population.



Jesus was not a democrat; he was the greatest progressive in world history.

[roguevalley]

42. Interesting. Three dem presidents.

What about Bush's (both) war against Arab countries?
Reagan's wars against Central and South America?

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

60. Uh... read the subject line for this thread again.

WCTV specifically said Jesus was a Democrat. DerekG responded to this by citing actions by Democrats that Jesus would (in theory) never have been a part of. Nobody's saying Republican presidents haven't done bad things too, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

[WillyT]

9. I've Always Liked Long-Haired Hippie Liberals !!!

Jesus comes ta mind.

:thumbsup::hippie::thumbsup:

[Malva Zebrina]

10. I honestly do not know how to reply to these Chrtist ain threads

you are stating facts not in evidence. If I refute that, will I be deleted?

Please do some more research into those beautitudes-they are not exclusiveluy Christian-they have been around for a long long time, way before Christianty as we know it was established in the fourth and the fifteh century CE by the hieropphants and the patriarchs.

They are NOT the original or the unique postulates of Christianity. Others have said the same thing, way before Jesus or the bible said it. The bible is not , imo, an original piece of work. It borrows from what pagan religion before it taught the people and it did so in order to organize it's particular "tribe" in an area where tribal connections were extremeluy important.And, It continues on into this day, incredibly! Oh the humanity! When will we evolve beyond that?

The bible simply takes what went before it, and applied it in different language to it's own tribe--that of Abraham--and, apparently all of that did NOTHING to preserve the lives of sincere human beings who did nothing but be born into a different tribe. It has done nothing but promulgate violence against those who are "different" in order for it's own "tribe" to prevail in the area.

Please--those beatitudes were around long before the Council of Trent decided it had the power and the wealth to determine what exactly Christianity was. And ever since then, it has been guilty of extreme and terrible acts, in spite of those "beatitudes"

That is the fact in evidence, in spite of the inclination of people to go off on the mystical belief that Christianity follows these inany way. It does not and that is obvious. You are running a meme and that meme is going against all logical interpretation of history

[zeemike]

31. You miss the point

If you just consider whether what is said is truth or not does it matter who said it first?
I should recommend that you read Ecclesiastes, which is philosophical, and its theme is “there is nothing new under the sun”.
If every truth Jesus uttered was uttered before by someone else so what?

[Malva Zebrina]

69. If that was pagan, I think it not a very good idea to pass it off as

"Christain" , do you think? I posted that because there is a theory that more than one bible researcher or theologian has put forth and that is the theory somewhat touched upon by Bishop Spong for one, in his book Christianity Must Change or Die and that is the theory of the "midrash"--the habit of scribes or writers of the holy texts of taking a former story and changing the actors but keeping the theme--there were no copyright laws in those days--



And if this atheist reads what Ecclesiastes you "recommend" to me and I come back with a criticism, are you confident that the cry will go out that I am disrespectful or trying to start a flame war over religion, when your "recommemdation" to an atheist is similar if you think about it.

But here goes nothing: I have had many discussions over this verse with many bible believers--My personal opinion as a person not inclined to give it anything more than what it actually presents or giving it more than it's due because of a belief in the god behind the bible is:--it is trite, imo and superficial and uninspiring to me. It reminds me of the bad poetry one sees on a Hallmark Greeting card . What can I tell you--I am looking at it without the religion and god context that some persons, perhaps, would have to agree it is a wonderful piece of writing because the entire bible is "god inspired"

I just read it the same as I would read a Hallmark greeting card.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

117. If I was quoting a pagan

No one would chime in to discredit the sayings or question the autheticity of the story. If I was quoting a Hindu or a Muslim or a Jewish saying there would be little controversy. It would just be taken at face value. This is DU after all

[Yupster]

14. Matthew Chapter 5

My Beatitudes starts with

"Blessed are the poor in spirit"

Kind of a big difference from blessed are the poor. Don't you think?

I checked the Cokesbury, NIV Study Bible, and the Revised Standard Version. Don't know if they're all that way but all three I checked are.

[Malva Zebrina]

15. and some who are "poor in spirit" are indeed amongst those who

have no personal and necessary ability to stick up for themselves in face of the truth. They need to have more self esteem that that which tells them then NEED to be "Poor in spirit".

We no NOT need to be "poor in spirit" and demean ourselves as rag rugs for simply being human beings.

[H2O Man]

35. Look closely at the message.....

Jesus was speaking about how humans obtain the state of "bliss", which we translate roughly as "blessed." The point is that the POOR are blessed in spirit ... because poor folks tend to share to survive ...poor folks simply can NOT afford to be greedy ... It does not refer to those who are "poor" in their spiritual development ... though The Master did have much to say about them! These tend to be wealthy people, who are morally distorted ... and we see them at ENRON, Halliburton, the White House, etc.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

72. very profound, H20 Man

You did a great job of explaining that verse, better than I could. Thanks! :)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. that's called a "gloss"

The term "in spirit" is a gloss - an addition - from the editors/translator. The term "poor" referred to a specific group of Jesus' followers - often called "Ebionites" that were in fact, poor, in the sense that they renounced wealth.

[DieboldMustDie]

24. Luke 6:20

"Looking at his disciples, he said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.'"

[Liberal Veteran]

32. Luke's Beatitudes were a bit different.....

Although Luke has only 4 of the Beatitudes, His begin with:

"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets."

Luke further expands on these concepts with their opposites.



"But woe to you who are rich,for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets."

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

18. I knew Jesus and he didn't vote. He worked for me one summer.

He couldn't.

He did have a green card and was great at building scaffolds.

[WillyT]

19. Lol !!! I Thought He Played Centerfield In The Majors A While Back ???

Happy New Year BP!!!

:party:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

23. You too, WillyT!

:party:

[Malva Zebrina]

27. heh

:toast:

The Jehovah witness came to my house several times. I actually listened to them believing that they were actually sincere in their beleifs and that it was necessary for them to actually do this in order to feel "safe" abut their beliefs, especially those that deal with the hereafter. I, actually, enabled them in their arrogance for whatever reason. I do not know why actually--we have all been taught to "respect" religion from the time we are little children. Maybe that is what it was.

So I was an enabler to these intruders, actually, because I figured that I was not causing them to consider that they are actually pricks who are proselytizing at will, wherever they decide to knock on doors, because they do indeed live in this country which tolerates such things. So I figured, "why not?"

Until I found out at about the third visit that they did not vote!!! It was against their "religion" to vote!''

now that really made me a little bit angry. Here they are, taking advantage of their freedom to knock on my door at their will and tell me all about their doom and gloom religion, but refuse to have anything to do with the very process that gives them that freedom--and that is the democracy of the USA of America.

Ugh--totally an illogical and a religions that seems to not realize how it is taking advantage of a country that allows them to knock on my door to preach and to proselytize, while at the same time, disparage the voting process of that democratic country. And then, to top it all off, they play the "persecuted" game in Russia and other countries that do not want them there doing the same thing, while disparaging the political process. Well, they cannot have their cake and eat it also.

If they do come again I will warn them that I will intend to call the sheriff's office and initiate a legal prohibition against them ever approching my property again.

It was a mistake to be nice to them in the first place, actually. I take some responsibility for it.

Some of us need to take heed of what establishing our boundaries are and protect them.

[Terwilliger]

20. Jesus who?

there are so many

[never cry wolf]

22. Ok, you asked for it, cutnpaste of a long email I sent a while ago

I put this together for a religious friend who complained about the welfare mothers, dregs of society, etc. and why I would support such slackers. I am not overly religious, agnostic, really, but do feel the there are many valuable teachings and parables to be found in religious texts.

--------------------
If the right-wingers really studied the matter, they'd find they have more in common with Muhammad than with Jesus. Muhammad was a merchant, a businessman and entrepreneur - a capitalist. Before Jesus walked off his job, he was a carpenter, a common laborer - and with his talk of brotherhood, no doubt would have been a union man.

He hung out with the dregs of society: the poor, prostitutes, tax collectors, and finally thieves. Not exactly the kind of person to whom you would entrust your most precious and eternal possession: your stock portfolio.

Jesus revealed his anti-business agenda as soon as he threw the money-changers out of the temple. To the orthodox for whom taxation is government organized theft, Jesus' clear advocacy of paying taxes by "rendering unto Caesar" is a complete abomination. Scholars are still divided over whether the raising of Lazarus was to escape the death tax or an intent to pay it twice.

--------------------

Jesus mollycoddled the poor and went out of his way to condemn the rich. His warning that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy man to get into heaven was typical socialist blather. The affluent have had to devote themselves to breeding smaller camels and building larger needles ever since.

------------------
Jesus' purpose in life was to do the will of His heavenly Father. Wherever He went, He brought goodness. He never hurt or injured anyone, although He did get angry at others who did wrong. He called self-righteous church-going people vipers and once turned over tables in the temple where money-changers were taking advantage of the people.

Jesus was friends with the outcast of society—sinners. He reached out to the publicans, thieves, prostitutes. He never scorned anyone. He knew what was in the heart of a man (or woman). Just because they were religious did not mean that they knew God.

----------------------

Jesus challenged the Pharisees’ purity system by almost everything he did. It’s no coincidence that there are so many stories about Jesus getting into the everyday dirt and grit of life. Touching lepers, being touched by a hemorrhaging woman. Forgiving an adulteress. Going into an unclean graveyard to cast out demons and send them into a herd of unclean pigs. Eating with outcasts like tax collectors and prostitutes, and drunkards — all of those people at the very bottom of the Who’s Who of the Impure.

So Jesus came to confront the heart of this system — the temple — by driving out the money-changers and the sacrificial animal dealers; by exposing the profits and the kickbacks that the temple elite received “under the table” when he said that the temple authorities had turned his Father’s house into a “den of robbers,” as it’s recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

----------------------

"Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments'" (Matthew 22:37-40, emphasis mine).

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:34-35).

The counterfeit Christ and his followers have long lists of "do's and don't's" that are preached as "Gospel." And everyone who doesn't subscribe to their legalistic list are condemned. We see them protesting with signs that read "God hates fags," "God hates baby-killers," and "God hates !"

But the genuine Jesus has just two laws: love God and love people. True followers of Jesus may not agree with the lifestyles and opinions of everyone (in fact, they shouldn't), but they will be the first to show compassion to those they disagree with. That's why Jesus hung out with drunks, prostitutes, "tax collectors," and "sinners." He loved people. He didn't love all their actions--and didn't join them in all their behaviors--but He showed them that he loved them. True followers of Jesus are not preaching against people with addictions; they are volunteering at rehabilitation programs at local shelters. They're not bombing abortion clinics; they're working in the pro-life Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

--------------------------

Jesus also had withering words for the wealthy who oppressed--or simply ignored --the poor.

"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort" (Luke 6:20, 24).

Genuine followers of Jesus have a sense of joy and satisfaction in who they are--at whatever "level" on the social or ecclesiastical ladder they may find themselves.

Jesus said, "I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete" (John 15:11).

----------------------------

5. His earthly father was a carpenter, a humble hewer of wood with whom He lived and laboured, conforming to our human ways of life, custom, language and living that He might understand and love us better and communicate with us on the lowly level of our own limited human understanding!--He learned to LOVE Mankind. He saw their suffering and had great compassion on them, longing to not only heal their sick and broken bodies, but also to save their immortal spirits!

6. When the time came and He began his life's work, He went about everywhere doing good.--Helping people, loving children, healing heartaches, strengthening tired bodies, saving whom He could. He not PREACHED His message, but He LIVED it amongst us. He not only ministered to their spiritual needs, but He spent a great deal of time ministering to their physical and material needs, miraculously healing them when they were sick, feeding them when they were hungry and sharing His life and His Love!

7. He was so simple and His religion was so simple that He said you must become as a little CHILD to receive it! He didn't preach Temple worship, He didn't preach going to synagogue nor going to church, He didn't preach any complicated ceremonies or difficult rules.--All he did was preach LOVE and show Love, as He strove to lead God's children into the True Kingdom of God, whose only laws are to "love the Lord with all thy heart" and "love thy neighbour as thyself".

8. He had very little to do with the high-fallutin', rich-robed, churchy scribes, pharisees and hypocrites--the religious leaders of that day--except when they insisted on annoying Him with their critical questions. Then He would sock it to them, publicly exposing them as the "blind leaders of the blind" that they were, even telling them that they were like white-washed SEPULCHRES, which indeed appear beautiful, clean and holy on the OUTSIDE, but WITHIN are full of rottenness, corruption and stinking dead men's bones!

9. He was not a mere religious reformer, He was a REVOLUTIONARY! He refused to compromise with the false religious system, but rather worked totally OUTSIDE of it, reaching and sharing His Love with the poor and common folk who had long ago abandoned and been abandoned by organised religion. He never went into any bar with whip in hand, breaking up the bottles and throwing out the bartender. Nor did He ever enter any brothel, beating up the poor girls, overturning their beds and throwing the men out the window.--But He DID make a whip, go into their big beautiful religious Temple, overturn the tables, spill out the money and drive the money-mad money-changers out of the church, condemning them for turning what was supposed to be a house of prayer into a den of thieves!

10. He made Himself of no reputation, and was a companion of drunks and prostitutes, publicans and sinners, the outcasts and downtrodden of society. He even told them that they would enter the Kingdom of Heaven before the so-called "good" people, the self-righteous and religious leaders who re jected Him and His simple Message of Love. The power of His Love and of His appeal was so great and gave such great faith to the sincere truth-seekers that they didn't hesitate to drop everything they had and forsake all immediately to become His full-time followers!

----------------------------

From Matthew 25:

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are
blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for
you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are
cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to
eternal life."

[Terwilliger]

34. extremely interesting post

Thanks :-)

[zeemike]

40. That was brilliant. n/t

[lapauvre]

54. Your letter....

And my heart was begging for it. I only wish I could say I had written it. Wish I knew one of these current day "Christians" well enough to even offer it to them, but I don't.

Your letter should be copied and pasted, ON THE CHURCH DOORS OF EVERY HYPOCRITICAL CONGREGATION IN THIS COUNTRY.

Thanks.

[never cry wolf]

76. I wish I could say I wrote it as well

I basically googled and cut and pasted from various other sources for which I did not save the links.

I think we all know where Jesus would stand on the current admin and the hypocrital fundies.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

73. "patriots switched to Johnny Walker"

great sig :evilgrin:

[Woodstock]

98. Right on, steviet_2003!

I think Jesus - and you - made things pretty clear. Let see if they still insist Jesus was fine with wealth and thought it was cool not to share.

[NavajoRug]

26. Regardless of political affiliation, one this is for sure . . .

He sure didn't like lawyers very much:

"And he said, 'Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye laden men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.'" --- Luke 11:46

[gulliver]

37. Republicans don't like them either except...

... the lawyers that won the lawsuit that put Bush in the White House.

[NavajoRug]

39. That's a good point . . . Though I would change that a bit . . .

The best friend the Republicans had in 2000 was actually Al Gore's lawyer, since his incompetent legal counsel was really what put Bush in the White House.

[gulliver]

43. Is it true that Navajos always leave an imperfection ...

... in their rugs?

[NavajoRug]

44. You're right about that!

Navajo rugs are deliberately made with a small imperfection woven into one of the corners.

It's hard to describe exactly what the principle behind this custom is, but basically it's like this. For the Navajo people, the concept of "perfection" does not mean that something has no imperfections, but that the imperfections are incorporated into the object or person in such a way that they are seen as "perfect."

I know this doesn't make sense, but it's hard to translate what it is behind it. Kind of like the Inuit peoples of Nunavut and northern Alaska -- who have over 100 words in their language to describe what we call "snow."

[Deja Q]

30. Jesus is far left, far more left than the "centrist" Democrats

Jesus is a Green, if not a progressive liberal Democrat, though I prefer the classification of Green...

[hippiechick]

33. He was more likley a Green or a Socialist ....

Far, Far futher left for what is considered a 'Democrat' in our times.

:hippie:

[FDRrocks]

52. Agreed.

I always thought Jesus was more akin to a socialists beliefs.

[moondust]

67. Socialist. n/t

[sujan]

45. Jesus would be an independent

[jsw_81]

57. Perhaps

I don't know if Jesus really exists/existed, but if He does/did, I sure hope He's a Democrat. :)

[RandomKoolzip]

58. Jesus was a gunslinger.

Oh, wait, I have him confused with Bo Diddley again. Damn....

[littlejoe]

74. Jesus is make believe

[pasadenaboy]

91. He is clearly a historical figure

by any test one would use to define the existance of a historical figure in that time. You can debate the religous beliefs about him, and whether the teachings ascribed to him are actually really his, but it is clear that he did really exist.

[auburnblu]

93. Littlejoe are you for tolerance or not?

Everyone of your posts has a line about you not being a fan of intolerance. certainly admirable. But lo and behold, you post something that sure seems to be an open clear attack on those of the Christian faith. Littlejoe here's a thought, go look in the mirror, when you do and you see the reflection say outloud, "So that's what a hypocrite looks like." Quit acting like you are against intolerance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrite

[Misterpilot]

85. You sound like a NEOCON

Religion and politics do not mix. Why would you want to bring religion into a political forum? Next, you will be pronouncing how you want us to live.

[drb]

89. Nah, that's not the point at all....

The point is that rethuglicans pretend to have Jee-sus on their side, when Jesus' own words point in exactly the opposite direction.

---

"Don't the Bible say we must love everybody?"

O, the Bible! To be sure, it says a great many such things, but then no one ever thinks of doing them. You know, Eva, nobody does."
--Harriet Beecher Stowe, "Uncle Tom's Cabin"

[Terwilliger]

96. religion and politics DO in fact mix

and the right-wing will tell you about it

[Woodstock]

99. Actually, the neocons brought it into politics - we are just countering

them.

Even if you aren't religious, you must admit most Americans are; in fact, most Americans identify themselves as Christian. And the Republicans - who do just about everything Jesus said NOT to do - are attempting to claim the moral high ground by taking ownership not just of patriotism but of religion. Since the Republicans own the media, a lot of people are being snookered into voting for them because of this. To point out that many Republicans are violating everything Jesus taught is to nullify what they are attempting to use to their political advantage.

Nobody believes more than I do in the separation of church and state, and the right to follow whatever religion one chooses - or to elect not to choose one at all. I would like nothing better than for this to not have to be brought up - it's a personal issue. But I see nothing wrong with nullifying something the Republicans are attempting to use to their political advantage on a political forum - in fact, I think it is imperative that we DO respond.

[Selwynn]

106. Yes Let 9 post man tell us what to do in our own forums. :)

[Cocoa]

132. neocons are not particularly religious

among the republicans, they're probably the least religious.

[GreenPartyVoter]

90. Yep, he was a radical liberal for sure

I have a page of links on my site dealing with that, including one about Christians and Greens. ;^)

[Strapping Buck]

104. Be careful quoting Jesus...

The beattitudes might be refreshing, but don't forget Jesus' views on other things:

1) Divorce and remarriage is not to be allowed.
(Puritanical and oppressive to women)

2) Fornication (sex outside of marriage) is sinful and those who practice it will not go to heaven.
(Puritanical again, and moralistic)

3) He believed and warned often of Hell.
(Not very nice and/or compassionate)

4) He boldly claimed that believing in Him as the One Way was the ONLY way-- thereby insinuating all other religions as false.
(Not very democratic or open minded)

How much of that do we agree with?

[Selwynn]

105. All of it. - see here:

1) Divorce and remarriage is not to be allowed.
(Puritanical and oppressive to women)

No, he said Moses allowed it (and was right in doing so) because their hearts were hard. The idea is to say, in a perfect world marriage will last forever, but even the Law, of which Jesus came to fulfill not destroy, made exceptions and allowances for divorce.


2) Fornication (sex outside of marriage) is sinful and those who practice it will not go to heaven.
(Puritanical again, and moralistic)

I will agree that the bible puts it in terms of sex outside of marriage. However, and you can disagree with me if you want, but I believe the actual larger point of Jesus was not to defend the "sanctity" of an "institution of marriage" but rather the defend the relational and personally intimate quality of sexuality. Sex should be treated as a sacred encounter between two committed people in genuine love and devoted relationship. It should be the highest expression of devotion, not the casual opening to a one night fling. Casual attitudes about sex which cheapen the experience and which undermine healthy relationships are a large part of the reason the world sucks so much today. :) So, do I think the real point of the bible is that if you don't have a marriage certificate in your hand and you have sex you're going to hell? Frankly, no I don't. But do I believe sex shouldn't be frivolous or casual? You bet I do.


3) He believed and warned often of Hell.
(Not very nice and/or compassionate)

Actually, it would be very, very nice and compassionate of a person who knows that you might be in impending danger to warn you of it. :)

Now, I have different views on hell, I'll admit. But still, I don't consider this to be a very good point, since Jesus' teachings were all about how to enter and enjoy the riches of the kingdom of heaven and avoid the suffering of hell (hell on earth is what I personally believe, but that's another discussion).


4) He boldly claimed that believing in Him as the One Way was the ONLY way-- thereby insinuating all other religions as false.
(Not very democratic or open minded)

I'll agree that the gospel writers attributed these claims to Jesus. However, he also said "If you have seen me, you have seen the father." I believe that we rightly understand the spirit of that statement if we say, if we look at the witness of Jesus we have, and see his compassion, his devotion to others, his tendency and gentle teachings, then we have seen what God is really like. And I believe that. And that remains true whether you are a Buddhist (I love Thich Nhat Hahn's book, Living Buddha, Living Christ - the point being other religious traditional can find value in Jesus and Christians can find value in other religious traditions) or a Muslim or a Hindu and so on.

So, as with so many things in life, it really just depends on your point of view.
Sel

[Strapping Buck]

110. The rest of all of it...

Thanks Sel for you thoughtful comments. Let's investigate further.

1) Here's the actual verse:

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." Mark 10:2-12

It seems pretty clear that what he's saying is that Moses allowed divorce and remarriage because of people's hard hearts, but that he, Jesus, does not. He considers it adultery. In the same account from the other Gospels, he allows one exception-- infidelity. Other than that, it is to be impermissable.

2) You are right that Jesus does not care about a state-issued marriage liscense. But he certainly did care about the sacrament of marriage-- which he describes quite passionately in the above verse from Mark. The two have become one flesh. And it is a man and a woman that this happens that God joins in this way, not any other combination.

Note: this may not be my or anyone else here's personal belief on the matter-- but it is certainly the one history records Jesus as having.

3) Actually, Jesus' outlook was very grim concerning those who would enter the riches of Heaven as opposed to those that would not. His most definitive comment on the matter:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13-14

4) If you look at His statement about seeing him and we see the Father in the full context of the gospel account, it seems rather apparent he really did think he was God-- the only God. Remember that later on when the Pharisees pressed him about forgiving people's sins, Jesus answered, "God alone can forgive sins." Also, when they charged him with blasphemy before the Sanhedrin (they certainly understood him to be claiming that he was in fact God), he in no way denied or argued the charge. In fact, he infuriated them further by referring to himself as "I am"-- the very name God revealed to Moses in the burning bush. You put all of this together and he really seemed to think that people ought to believe that he was God, the only God, and only those who believe this will have eternal life.

Again, I'm not preaching any of this stuff. I'm just saying that Jesus can be a difficult pill to swallow. For all of his talk of love and peace and forgiveness, he also had some very harsh, narrow-minded, exclusionary ideas about himself and about how people ought to live.

[Selwynn]

116. And the rest of it.

1) I would suggest that in the same way that the point of the statements about sex was healthy relationships, so is the point about marriage and divorce. We live in a society today where marriage is like a joke - over 50% of marriages end in divorce. People try on relationships like cheap clothes and scoff at the idea of Fidelity and commitment. I think marriage should be taken seriously. I think the commitment between two people should be a life commitment. But, like the narratives of Jesus, I am not dogmatic. I recognize that the highest principles are love, justice, mercy, compassion, and that these things are the most important thing of all. I believe that the most appropriate theme to take away from this one slice of biblical narrative is to say Jesus emphasizes the seriousness of fidelity, the importance of committed devoted relationships, and yes, the sanctify of marriage that should never, ever be thrown away on a whim. Do I think for an instant that Jesus, if he were "here" today would say that an abused and tortured woman should not leave and "divorce" and abusive husband? No. And what's more, I don't even think you can reconcile any other answer with the rest of biblical narrative about Jesus. But of course, when you try to pick and choose texts and fall into the same fallacy as the fundamentalists - that being demanding to take a literal and dogmatic interpretation of scripture, then these problems occur.

3) you weren't originally talking about whether Jesus was "optimistic" about how many people would make it to "heaven." Your criticism was at how mean it was to say people were going to hell. I on the other hand, think that devoting a lifetime to trying to tell people how to live so that the might BOTH have full joy on this earth AND also enjoy joyful eternal life and AVOID hell is probably a good thing. Whether or not he was optimistic or pessimistic about how many people would heed his words or listen is really pretty irrelevant to his personal "character."

Once again, I have some different opinions on the concept of "hell" as one in a long list of different opinions. But the fact remains, these criticisms really don't strike me as particularly fair.

That's all I can do for now -- I'm pressed for time.
Take care,
Sel

[GreenPartyVoter]

108. We must recall, though,

that as far as we know Jesus did not record any of the gospels himself. Therefore, as with every book in the Bible, assume there may be some personal slant by the writer or most recent translator.

How else can we explain the many cases where the Bible seems to contradict itself? If it truly was the direct outpouring of the Holy Spirit through men, one would expect consitency throughout. But free will has a funny way of rearing its head at times most inconvenient to the Lord. I suspect that may be one explanation for the Bible being the way it is..it has, even from its first recordings, been subjected to its writers knowingly or unknowingly reshaping it to suit their view of the world at the time they wrote it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

109. how amazingly simplistic

This is similar to the people who say Mohammed preached terrorism and that Moses was a racist. No one is forced to follow Jesus' example, some people do it voluntarily. If you don't want to, don't.

Go ahead, divorce your wife, have casual sex ... it's not illegal. "Sin and sin vigourously" - Martin Luther, father of Protestantism.

P.S. - and accept the consequences of your actions and choices as well...

[CivilRightsNow]

111. Id like to know the verses to support some of your statements

2... that's a lie. Even if you break a commandment, you can still get into heaven. Jesus never said otherwise.

3... Jesus wasnt nice or compassionate? Wow.

4...Heh, did you want him to lie?

[CivilRightsNow]

112. On second thought, forget it..

Judging from some of your responses it would seem just as effective as speaking with Jerry Falwell.

[Terwilliger]

113. really? where did he say these things?

the Beatitudes were the only public statements he made

[Malva Zebrina]

114. Yupp

never mentioned but i am glad it was mentioned here.

We are to believe that Jesus, wheter he existed or not, was a haloed,(haloes, btw are graphic depictions of the "sun" and the sun god) saint, loving and above all was unmarried at the age of thirty==a definate no no for Jewish males. Come on--this is the truth=Jesus was NOT a liberal. Jesus did have a wife somewhere at the age of thirty or else he was such a rebel that he considered his own religion to be stupid--there is not evidence that he though his religion to be stupid when it comes to marriage.

[UrbScotty]

107. I would like to shout a big AMEN!!!!! (nt)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

115. Can I get a witness?

Hallelujah!!! (pardon the secret christian-speak tribal sayings!) :bounce: :evilgrin:

[Beaker]

119. Jesus is Santa Claus for adults.

weak-minded insecure "adults" that is.

the always correct perfect human who promises eternal life...the go-to guy with all the answers...son of man, yet son of god.

the ultimate urban legend.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

120. wow, that's pretty amazing ignorance

of the history of the Western World you display there! While perhaps children might hold your view of Jesus, most adults don't, Christian or non-Christian.

I'm sure you're proud :hi:

[Beaker]

127. "...amazing ignorance of the history of the Western World"

and all in 38 little words, too! I didn't realize that I could apparently say so much in so few syllables...yes, I am proud...

damn proud! :hi: backatcha!

[Faygo Kid]

122. What about the message?

Hey, you're entitled to your beliefs, but what about the message of the Beatitudes? You call that weak-minded? I happen to think it's more than just pretty good. I don't know about Christ's divinity, but I sure as heck like the message, and hate that it has been hijacked and twisted by the Right. In fact, I'm so sick of it, I'm starting to speak out; wish better Christians than me would, as well.

[Beaker]

125. the "message" isn't reserved to christianity-

it all boils down to one thing- "treat everybody else like you would want to be treated yourself, and we'll all get along fine"

the same message has been at the heart of religions and philosophies for as long as man has been.

but apparently the message is too simple for some people to understand, and they get distracted by the whole "perfect being" aspect of the religion.

You're right- It's supposed to be about the message, not the messenger- and that's where most "really stupid morons who focus more on the supposed jesus christ supposedly being the son of the supposed god and deserving of our eternal worship, then on trying to understand and live by the supposed actual words that came out of his supposed mouth" get it all fucked up.

edited to change "christians" to: "really stupid morons who focus more on the supposed jesus christ supposedly being the son of the supposed god and deserving of our eternal worship, then on trying to understand and live by the supposed actual words that came out of his supposed mouth".

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

128. tell us about "most Christians"

and how they "get it all fucked up". I'd love to hear this...

[Beaker]

129. i thought i already had.

ummm...the message, not the messenger...

think about it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

131. "most Christians"

think about it ... you're bigotry is showing. Will you tell us next about "most Jews"?

[Faygo Kid]

133. Ouch! Touche

Not to get in the middle, but your point is well taken. There's a petard that is painful to be hoisted upon.

[Beaker]

135. you're right, i apoligize-

instead of "most christians", i should have said "really stupid morons who focus more on the supposed jesus christ supposedly being the son of the supposed god and deserving of our eternal worship, then on trying to understand and live by the supposed actual words that came out of his supposed mouth".

i stand corrected- and the post has been edited to better reflect the reality you pointed out. thanks.

[superbug]

123. I pray....

That he bless you and that thru those blessings you come to know him as Lord and Savior. Jesus would not have been Republican, Democrat or any other third or fourth party. Jesus is the Savior, he that paid a price we would have never been able to. To try and say that he would have been of one party or the other is to show that we have a long way to go in understanding who he is.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

124. you're not praying, superbug

If you're a Christian, you should be following Jesus' example and praying in secret, not as the hypocrites do... If you are trying to "win souls" your post is certain to do the opposite...

[Beaker]

126. ...you waste your time.

there's nobody but you on the other end of those prayers- they never actually leave your cerebrum.

[superbug]

136. It's ok..

....in due time you will know the truth.

[Beaker]

137. the truth?

as you see it?

that day came and went.

[superbug]

138. nope.

It has yet to come. superbug out.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

139. Beaker, here's what Jesus had to say about superbug's post

"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. "

He claimed to be "praying for you". Jesus had pretty strong words for those people. Don't believe the hype.

[superbug]

141. Actually you aren't quite on target.

When you pray like those that Jesus described you pray for the praise of your fellow man. I do not pray for that reason. When he says "for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners os that they may be seen by men." it is so that people will think that they are holy, my intention is not seem holy. If it were then I would not care where Beaker ended up.
Now with that said on to Beakers question.
"superbug out" is just habbit from the military. When ending a transmition after you have nothing left to say on the matter you end it with "(your name)out".

[Shakespeare]

142. You're 18 and it's a "habit" from the military?

Riiiiiiight.

*cough* *bullshit* *cough*

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

143. you posted a "prayer" so you could be "seen" by others

You got all self-righteous on the non-Christian poster, and decided to show off your religion in front of others. That was wrong superbug, and you did a disservice to Christianity.

[Beaker]

140. superbug out...?

where the hell am I supposed to find enlightenment now?
is that how a "real" christian responds??
just turntail and run and allow an eternal soul to rot and fester in the unenlightened ooze that courses through my veins?

have you no compassion for a fellow traveller?

woe is me.

[Cocoa]

134. my cousin Jesus is apolitical

I'm working on him to start voting dem.