Evangelicals & Jesus

[Jonsa]

I came across this article and thought it provided an interesting (if over the top) perspective.

Could it be that religious beliefs are really matters of convenience?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237.html

Phil Zukerman

Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied article

[bush_cheney2004]

...Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. -- it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow "Christian." They aren't.

History says otherwise....Christian religions are no stranger to any of the above over hundreds of years...to pin this on "Evangelicals" is just very superficial politics. The actual death of "Jesus" is at the core of religious tenets.

[Jonsa]

History says otherwise....Christian religions are no stranger to any of the above over hundreds of years...to pin this on "Evangelicals" is just very superficial politics. The actual death of "Jesus" is at the core of religious tenets.

think you missed the point.

Its about the contradiction in religious and political beliefs, particularly those of evangelicals as the pew poll seems to indicate.

[bush_cheney2004]

think you missed the point.

Its about the contradiction in religious and political beliefs, particularly those of evangelicals as the pew poll seems to indicate.

There is no contradiction vis-a-vis the historical behaviour of Christian religions...the Pew poll simply reflects this fact. "Contradiction" is the standard, not the exception. What people say is not as important or relevant as what people actually do or have done. This is a straight political puff piece.

Edited March 15, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Jonsa]

There is no contradiction vis-a-vis the historical behaviour of Christian religions...the Pew poll simply reflects this fact. "Contradiction" is the standard, not the exception. What people say is not as important or relevant as what people actually do or have done. This is a straight political puff piece.

If I understand you correctly, Christians are hypocrites who on the one had accept Jesus as the son of god and his innerrent word while on the other are selective about his teachings and have been this way throughout history.

Okay. can't really argue with that.

What I found interesting is the attitudes of those that identify themselves as evangelicals. Seems irony is lost on themselves.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Jonsa

[bush_cheney2004]

If I understand you correctly, Christians are hypocrites who on the one had accept Jesus as the son of god and his innerrent word while on the other are selective about his teachings and have been this way throughout history.

Okay. can't really argue with that.

Right...but the behaviour is not isolated just to Christians. It is human behaviour....human nature. This piece is politically directed at Evangelicals because they wield power and influence as part of the electorate.

What I found interesting is the attitudes of those that identify themselves as evangelicals. Seems irony is lost on themselves.

It is just as consistent and self serving as any other like paradox. Only "those other people" are screwed up!

[eyeball]

There is no contradiction vis-a-vis the historical behaviour of Christian religions...the Pew poll simply reflects this fact. "Contradiction" is the standard, not the exception. What people say is not as important or relevant as what people actually do or have done.

True enough, religious beliefs are just things and it's what people do with them that counts.

I'm reminded of certain Jesuits who believed the suffering that would result from giving small-pox infected blankets to unsuspecting indigenous people would make these people more amenable to Jesus and the priests ministrations. Today's Evangelicals seem to operate on a similar principle, the harsher and meaner society can be made the more amenable to believing in the fairy-tale of a heavenly here-after people will become. It's about producing a state of wishful thinking based on the suspension of disbelief.

This is a straight political puff piece.

Perhaps, but it's also the straight up truth.

[Shady]

True enough, religious beliefs are just things and it's what people do with them that counts.

Not just religious beliefs. Any beliefs. But I'm definitely looking forward to Phil Zuckerman's next piece entitled 'Why Muslims Hate Muhommad.'

Oh wait. Nevermind.

[bloodyminded]

According to these self-proclaimed torch-bearers of a religion born in the Middle East, progressive church-goers had been infected by foreign ideas

That's pretty good.

I read somewhere--I don't remember where, or by whom, and I'm making no claims to its veracity--that the very young generation of Evangelicals, the 15-25 year olds, are quite profoundly changing course. In effect, they're embracing a more liberal approach to social/political issues. While abortion remains of singular importance to them, many other Evangelical notions and terrors are taking a back seat...and arguably evenbeing expunged. The young Evangelicals, more cognizant and confortable than their elders with sweeping changes and social problems, are embracing notions of mobilizing to help the poor in ways usually done only piecemeal. More and more of them accept the claims of climate scientists, and believe that care for the planet should be fundamental to the moral life. While not supportive of homosexuality, they are happy to let issues like same sex marriage slide by completely, and concentrate on more clearly and grievously damaging "sins."

Again, I'm not saying this is totally accurate, much leass meaningful in a large, sweeping sense. But it's possible.

Maybe society moves leftwards as it grows up!

[segnosaur]

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness.

Did he?

"He that is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12)

"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Matthew 12)

"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." (Mark 3)

Not that I don't agree there is a certain amount of hypocrisy amongst evangelical christians. However, the bible is a horrible book in many ways, and consists of multiple contradictions and horrible passages that can be used to justify pretty much anything. If the author is claiming it is "unambiguous" in it is message, then he is possibly falling into the same trap as the evangelicals.

Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. -- it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow "Christian." They aren't.

Another problem with the article is the assumption that his interpretation of these issues are somehow more "christian" in nature than the evangelical's.

Corporate greed? Who said that all instances of "corporate greed" are done to the detriment of others? Corporations earn money by engaging in business transactions that are often mutually beneficial.

Condemning gun possession as "unchristian" assumes the gun will be used in a violent manner; it ignores anyone who wants to use them in "peaceful" ways (e.g. target shooting only) or for personal protection (and I don't recall anything in the bible that says you can't prtect yourself.)

Welfare? Well, it could be argued that the bible teaches us to treat others well. But is Welfare actually an act of "charity/generosity"? After all, when the government gives money to someone on welfare, it isn't necessarily coming out of the "christian's" pocket, but out of the pockets of others; i.e. it can be viewed as a form of 'theft'.

Now, I'm an atheist. There is no god, and the bible is a piece of carp. But the arguments put forward by the author are basically flawed too.

[bloodyminded]

Did he?

"He that is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12)

"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Matthew 12)

"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." (Mark 3)

These are all about recognizing Him as the Son of God; they don't refer to anything else.

I hold no truck with this personally, but it's internally logical.

The unambiguous mercy referred to does indeed apply to the poor--and agaisnt the rich and powerful. Jesus appears to have remained quite consistent on this score.

And what's interesitng is that so many Evangelical Christians absolutely ignore this very important part of their Messiah's teaching.

But you're right that the gun ownership idea is a non-starter.

Edited March 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

[scouterjim]

There is a move in the "conservative church" to delete from the Bible ANYTHING that goes against their beliefs. The word "comrades" (the disciples) is too communist, so it has to go; "the meek" inheriting the Earth is to pacifist, so that is out; helping the poor has to go because only the wealthy count; the word "virgin" is out because children don't need to know the word; the line about a rich man not entering Heaven is out (for obvious reasons).

Edited March 16, 2011 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[segnosaur]

The unambiguous mercy referred to does indeed apply to the poor--and agaisnt the rich and powerful. Jesus appears to have remained quite consistent on this score.

He was?

"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." (1 Timothy 6)

So, looks like even though he believed in 'mercy', Jebus still thought Slavery was acceptable (or at least being "rich and powerful isn't so bad, depending on how you interpret 'servant/master'.

Of course, I could also point out that even if you assume Jebus was talking about mercy "for the poor", it does conflict with the article's assertion that his message was 'unambiguous'.

[bloodyminded]

He was?

"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." (1 Timothy 6)

So, looks like even though he believed in 'mercy', Jebus still thought Slavery was acceptable (or at least being "rich and powerful isn't so bad, depending on how you interpret 'servant/master'.

Of course, I could also point out that even if you assume Jebus was talking about mercy "for the poor", it does conflict with the article's assertion that his message was 'unambiguous'.

Well, you could be right, at that. It might well be that Jesus had a strain of genuine elitist assholery to him.

[Bitsy]

Not to worry, the bible is being cleansed of all liberal thoughts...a bible that conservatives can follow.

http://www.alternet.org/story/143506/conservatives_are_rewriting_the_bible_to_free_it_from_%22liberal_bias%22

[bloodyminded]

Oh man...that's awesome. "Floozy" as a Biblical term!

It's only several decades out of date, rather than two thousand years.

Will Judas be referred to as a "heel," using a James Cagney impression?

"Why, I oughtta...."

[scouterjim]

Oh man...that's awesome. "Floozy" as a Biblical term!

It's only several decades out of date, rather than two thousand years.

Will Judas be referred to as a "heel," using a James Cagney impression?

"Why, I oughtta...."

Maybe the Magi will be reffered to as "the three rich and powerful conservatives from America". (After all, to the east of Judea was [gasp] Persia, or Iran as it is known today.)

Edited March 15, 2011 by scouterjim

[segnosaur]

Well, you could be right, at that. It might well be that Jesus had a strain of genuine elitist assholery to him.

On the other hand, its also possible that Jebus never actually existed, and the New testament (and all the fairy tails associated with him) come from various random writings crammed together.

[scribblet]

Well, you could be right, at that. It might well be that Jesus had a strain of genuine elitist assholery to him.

Possibly, so maybe he would like drink those Lattes with the Liberals huh

[betsy]

Jonsa, you said you've spent years trying to understand religion, and I think it's safe enough to say that you did spend quite a bit on Christian doctrines, and of course I assume that includes the Bible.

Well, didn't you read it in the New testament? All those things you criticse Evangelical preachers....Jesus criticised their ancient Jewish counterparts - the Pharisees! In fact, the New Testament holds a lot of passages wherein Jesus castigated, lambasted, and blasted away at the Pharisees. He even pointed out the very thing you're pointing out about the Evangelicals - their hypocrisy! So, nothing new here.

As for those "Christians" who don't follow the teachings of Christ - whether they be Evangelicals or just your regular citizens - you got that right. They aren't.

So I don't really understand what your point is other than to say that "Christians" who don't follow the teachings of Christ are not Christians. I'm sure those Christians - especially the born-again - will only agree with you.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[scouterjim]

Jonsa, you said you've spent years trying to understand religion, and I think it's safe enough to say that you did spend quite a bit on Christian doctrines, and of course I assume that includes the Bible.

Well, didn't you read it in the New testament? All those things you criticse Evangelical preachers....Jesus criticised their ancient Jewish counterparts - the Pharisees! In fact, the New Testament holds a lot of passages wherein Jesus castigated, lambasted, and blasted away at the Pharisees. He even pointed out the very thing you're pointing out about the Evangelicals - their hypocrisy! So, nothing new here.

As for those "Christians" who don't follow the teachings of Christ - whether they be Evangelicals or just your regular citizens - you got that right. They aren't.

So I don't really understand what your point is other than to say that "Christians" who don't follow the teachings of Christ are not Christians. I'm sure those Christians - especially the born-again - will only agree with you.

I defy ANYBODY to show me a "true" Christian. There is no such animal.

[betsy]

I defy ANYBODY to show me a "true" Christian. There is no such animal.

Of course you do realize the time, effort and money involved to get in on that adventure. You're not just thinking of your immediate surrounding I hope....or the high-profile celebrities/leaders or anything you just see in the media, do you? Besides, you cannot just rely on the media to get to the full story! Heck, you cannot even rely on a good movie that's based on a true story to give you the real thing without any embellishment or editing or refining!

But for a high profile individual, I think Mother Theresa (and the likes of her that work in anonymity away from the trappings of material wealth) is one true Christian. Another couple (the elderly from BC who are Missionaries in Africa: the man was attacked and left for dead, the woman was tortured, raped and also left for dead. Both survived. Both forgave their attackers and went back to Africa to continue their mission) is another. A group of doctors flying in remote places in Africa to administer and at the same time spread the Gospel. I'm sure there are numerous others who do their share of duties as Christians....quietly doing the works of Christ. After all, it is not for Christians to voluntarily trumpet to the world the Christian works that they do.

I hope you understand that your demand involves scouring every inch of the earth?

Anyway, in the end...it is only God who knows what is in everyone's hearts.

Edited March 16, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Btw, just to let Jonsa know that I've posted a reply on his thread The Nature of Evil, just in case he didn't see it. I also want to apologise the way that thread ended up more focused on abortion. I'm thinking if Charles Anthony can somehow separate the abortion part of it and place it on a new thread.

Going back to Jonsa's original post regarding evangelicals...

Christ Himself said: Many are called but few are chosen.

Edited March 16, 2011 by betsy

[segnosaur]

I defy ANYBODY to show me a "true" Christian. There is no such animal.

Have to disagree here...

A "christian" is someone who believes in Jebus as the "son of god" and their "personal savior". That's really all that's needed for someone to be a "true christian".

We might complain that someone isn't following the "teachings of christ", but there is no particular requirement for a "christian" to do so. (And, as I pointed out before, the bible is a complete pile of random junk that can be used to justify almost any action/moralistic view.)

[segnosaur]

But for a high profile individual, I think Mother Theresa (and the likes of her that work in anonymity away from the trappings of material wealth) is one true Christian.

Great...

You do know that Mother Theresa was one of the biggest sacks of crap to ever walk the earth, don't you?

She collected millions upon millions of dollars in order to "help the sick", but her "hospitals" were nothing more than rooms with cots in them where people died. (Instead, most of the money she collected went into the general revenue of the Catholic church. If you gave to her thinking you'd be helping save people, your money was probably just as likely used to cover up sexual abuse by Catholic priests as it was to actually save lives.

And she actually liked people to suffer. She felt it make them "closer to god".

Another couple (the elderly from BC who are Missionaries in Africa: the man was attacked and left for dead, the woman was tortured, raped and also left for dead. Both survived. Both forgave their attackers and went back to Africa to continue their mission) is another.

Greeeat. They base their life on trying to convert people from one false religion to another, and we should somehow praise them for it.