How do Conservative Christians ignore that their saviour

[GostHacked]

Baby Jesus is still crying. Or is that laughing now that this thread has gone way beyond ridiculousness.

[Guest American Woman]

Baby Jesus is still crying. Or is that laughing now that this thread has gone way beyond ridiculousness.

Yeah, I'm sure he's laughing, because of course if you think it's ridiculous, so would Jesus. Make that "baby Jesus." It's all about you and what you think and find interesting. You've made that quite clear more than once.

[GostHacked]

Yeah, I'm sure he's laughing, because of course if you think it's ridiculous, so would Jesus. Make that "baby Jesus." It's all about you and what you think and find interesting. You've made that quite clear more than once.

It's ridiculous because even among you Christians, you are fighting about 'what jesus would do or say'. We all have the freedom to discuss what Jesus would do, no matter what faith or not you choose to follow. What damn difference does it make? You want to participate in the conversation? Stop being such a crybaby when people don't agree with every damn thing you say.

But I have a feeling I know what Jesus would say to you .....

[Guest American Woman]

It's ridiculous because even among you Christians, you are fighting about 'what jesus would do or say'.

No, we're not. We're saying it's ridiculous for someone else to decide for us WWJD. It's called a discussion. It's called stating what we believe as non-Christians state what they believe. That you find it "ridiculous" is irrelevant. Perhaps you should learn to contain yourself and stay out of threads that you find "ridiculous." There's a thought, eh?

We all have the freedom to discuss what Jesus would do, no matter what faith or not you choose to follow. What damn difference does it make?

Really?? and if I had ever said otherwise, that just might be the newsflash that you seem to think it is.

You want to participate in the conversation? Stop being such a crybaby when people don't agree with every damn thing you say.

Excuse me, but I've simply been engaging in the discussion. If you can show me where I "cried," go for it. Otherwise, STFU.

But I have a feeling I know what Jesus would say to you .....

Of course you do. And of course this post of yours isn't "ridiculous" at all. So do keep butting in whenever you feel a thread is ridiculous - as you admonish people for doing the same in threads YOU find interesting. Apparently that's a privilege reserved for you.

Edited November 14, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

How they figure it out isn't relevant; that they figure it out is. In other words, it's not for you or anyone else to decide and then demand that others live up to it. That would be expecting others to live up to your beliefs.

You've clearly missed the entire point of the discussion. You're basically saying anyone can make up any random thing about the beliefs of Christ and say it's Christianity, whether it adheres to the tenets Christ espoused, as written in the Bible, or not. So long as that's what they believe Christ would do, it's Christian.

[kimmy]

But that's just pushing your own brand of righteousness. There is a Christian ad campaign running in the USA right now that debunks judgement of Christianity based on the actions of some Christians.

That's an excellent idea, and I'm all for it. I'm interested in reading more, or perhaps seeing the videos, if you could point me in the right direction.

I'm envisioning a picture of Pat Robertson's face with an X over it and the caption "Christians: We're not all scumbags!" I have often wondered why Christians are silent when scumbags perform scumbaggery in the name of Christ; perhaps this campaign will show that they are not content to be silent.

I see. So you're the atheist Christian police. Gotcha.You're determining what their beliefs are/should be - based on your beliefs; and expecting them to live up to it. That is pushing your beliefs on them.

Based on my beliefs? No, based on my knowledge of the New Testament. While I admit I am no theologian, I know enough about the guy that Christianity is named after to know that not all answers to the question "WWJD?" are equally valid. You know that yourself, and had no qualms about pointing out that Jesus would not perform physical violence upon Fred Phelps.

I think we can discern that there are right and wrong answers to the question "WWJD?" through the examples provided in the gospels, and one needn't be a Christian to point out some of the obvious wrong answers going around.

If somebody asks themselves "what can I do about the problem of homosexuality?" and the answer they come up with is "get on a plane to Uganda, hold a hate-rally, and support the kill-the-fags law the locals are looking at" I think there are only two conclusions you can draw. Either they didn't ask "WWJD?" at all, or they have a deeply wrecked understanding of Christ.

That's not what Jesus would do. I know it, you know it, Dick knows it, Shady knows it. Anybody vaguely familiar with Christ knows it. Lou Engle ought to know it, since he runs a ministry, but he did that anyway.

So, I read that thousands of Christians went to Lou Engle's anti-Muslim, anti-gay rally in Detroit this weekend. Think they asked themselves whether Jesus would have gone?

Who decides what that standard is? One can ask WWJD? and leave it to the the person to reflect upon, but to tell them what he would do, which is really only what they believe he would do, and expect them to follow their take on it, is simply telling them what to do. There's no "debate" involved in that: it's holding the other person to their own standard.

It's patently obvious that my claim that Jesus would express profound disgust at the Lou Engles and Fred Phelps of the world was just my opinion, but I think it's a very solid one that I doubt anyone here would disagree with. If any Christian does disagree with it, I'd have to question whether they've actually read the New Testament. I'm not holding them to my standards, I'm holding them to Jesus' standards. If they're not happy with those standards, perhaps they ought to re-evaluate whether they're really Christians.

-k

[Shady]

It's patently obvious that my claim that Jesus would express profound disgust at the Lou Engles and Fred Phelps

I don't even know who those people are. Does that make me less of a Christian?

[kimmy]

I don't even know who those people are. Does that make me less of a Christian?

Easily found with a little googling, Shady.

Last time you talked about your religious beliefs, I thought you denied being in the "Christian right" because you weren't Christian. Has that changed recently?

edit: "Who cares. I'm not Christian. I don't care what Christ would approve of." -Shady

-k

Edited November 14, 2011 by kimmy

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm pointing out that a prominent, loud minority of Christians aren't following their own "policy platform". They act nothing like that guy described in the New Testament taught. Some self-proclaimed Christians conduct their affairs in a way contrary to what the guy who is supposed to be at the center of their belief system taught them to act.

Totally agree, although it may be a "loud majority" rather than a minority. Nobody's perfect, nobody can follow the New Testament to a "t", but there's a lot of hypocritical Christians out there. A lot of good Christians too I might add.

[Shady]

Easily found with a little googling, Shady.

Last time you talked about your religious beliefs, I thought you denied being in the "Christian right" because you weren't Christian. Has that changed recently?

edit: "Who cares. I'm not Christian. I don't care what Christ would approve of." -Shady

-k

No it hasn't. So why do we need to google these people?

[dre]

Totally agree, although it may be a "loud majority" rather than a minority. Nobody's perfect, nobody can follow the New Testament to a "t", but there's a lot of hypocritical Christians out there. A lot of good Christians too I might add.

In fairness...

The bible doesnt really say that people have to live by Christs teachings. You can do whatever you want as long as you accept jesus into your heart at some point before you die and apologize for all the terrible shit you did in your life, and you should be allowed into the kingdom of god.

Based on the story, Jesus did not put a whole lot of trust in our moral conviction, and set the bar pretty damn low. When he comes back, hell probably just be thrilled that people managed to exist for this long! If you ask him if hes dissappointed with the failure of his followers to live by his teachings he'll say...

Shit man! I said that shit thousands of years ago! Youd have to be a total tard to try and live like that today.

After Christ returns and tours the modern world the Christians can finally get a new, revised, third-testament that provides much needed guidance from Jesus on todays complexed world and unique moral dilemnas

[fellowtraveller]

fellowtraveller, on 12 November 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

Most of the Christians I know are from sects like United, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic and they are not conservative or Conservatives.

How do they feel about atheists who ask inconvenient questions at opportune times?

Is there ever an opportune time for an inconvenient question, or what you perceive as incovenient?

I reckon most would just shrug and say ' don't know, don't care about not knowing'. It is the nature of faith.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

fellowtraveller, on 12 November 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

Most of the Christians I know are from sects like United, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic and they are not conservative or Conservatives.

We aren't talking about them

We are talking about Christians who are Conservatives.

[BubberMiley]

We aren't talking about them

Would you like to help him out with the quote function too?

[BorderLord]

Also read about Sabbath Economics... a solution for modern times?

Voluntary redistribution of wealth? Get real.

[BorderLord]

fellowtraveller, on 12 November 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

Most of the Christians I know are from sects like United, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic and they are not conservative or Conservatives.

How do they feel about atheists who ask inconvenient questions at opportune times?

Is there ever an opportune time for an inconvenient question, or what you perceive as incovenient?

I reckon most would just shrug and say ' don't know, don't care about not knowing'. It is the nature of faith.

it's just hard to have any respect for the views of people "who don't know, and don't care to know".

[eyeball]

Also read about Sabbath Economics... a solution for modern times?

A Jubilee? I'm kind of leery of economic systems that are laced with religious overtones myself. I think the Potlatch would make a better modern, reality-based model of voluntary wealth distribution. Interestingly enough Ottawa and Washington outlawed the practice at the behest of Christian missionaries.

Within it, hierarchical relations within and between clans, villages, and nations, are observed and reinforced through the distribution or sometimes destruction of wealth, dance performances, and other ceremonies. The status of any given family is raised not by who has the most resources, but by who distributes the most resources. The hosts demonstrate their wealth and prominence through giving away goods.

As a Nuu Chah Nulth chief explained it to me the Potlatch amongst other things was also a demonstration of a clan, village, and nations confidence in it's ability to produce and replace the wealth it had accumulated and distributed. In that light I can only point at the oft-repeated claim that the economic models our global economy is expected to follow is the surest and best way to produce wealth. That being the case it should be easy enough to prove by clearing the economic decks and everyone starts from scratch. It seems to me we've launched ourselves into this global economy carrying most of the old disparity intact and tried to pretend we are starting on a level playing field and it's just not true.

[jacee]

Nonsequiter ...

With the 1% in my mind these days, it occurred to me that if, as many believe, there are predatory greed monsters victimizing the rest of us ... it would make sense that they would have invented religions like Christianity and its values to mold the masses to their purposes:

- Give away your wealth to the poor

... so 'we' (the superrich) don't have to be concerned that they'll steal from us,

... because it's easier for 'us' to steal it from the poor than from the middle class

- The meek shall inherit the earth

... so put up and shut up while we steal the common wealth

- Your reward will be in heaven

... so put up and shut up while we steal you blind here on earth

- Don't steal, don't kill, don't covet for yourself

... only if we tell you to make war for our profit, 'in the name of God and for His glory'

- ETC ETC ETC ...

Not to say that God or faith doesn't exist outside of the avarice of the oligarchs ... but if it didn't exist, they'd invent it, I think, as a key mind control strategy to free the oligarchs from constant and expensive direct control, confrontation and conflict.

Some suggest that Christianity was co-opted to the purposes of the oligarchs at the time of Constantine and for the Roman Empire (which then descended into gross depravity and decline).

Just a thought ...

[Guest Manny]

Just to clarify, the point I raised about Sabbath economics was not to emphasize the religious aspects or to say we need to pray to solve our problems, but rather to suggest the idea of a universal debt forgiveness. If everybody owes everybody, then we just pick a day when we get out the giant bottle of white-out, and erase...

From the link:

In the Year of Jubilee, every 50th year - the "Sabbath of Sabbaths" - all debts are cancelled, and all property returned to the original owners.

[cybercoma]

Nonsequiter ...

With the 1% in my mind these days, it occurred to me that if, as many believe, there are predatory greed monsters victimizing the rest of us ... it would make sense that they would have invented religions like Christianity and its values to mold the masses to their purposes:

- Give away your wealth to the poor

... so 'we' (the superrich) don't have to be concerned that they'll steal from us,

... because it's easier for 'us' to steal it from the poor than from the middle class

- The meek shall inherit the earth

... so put up and shut up while we steal the common wealth

- Your reward will be in heaven

... so put up and shut up while we steal you blind here on earth

- Don't steal, don't kill, don't covet for yourself

... only if we tell you to make war for our profit, 'in the name of God and for His glory'

- ETC ETC ETC ...

Not to say that God or faith doesn't exist outside of the avarice of the oligarchs ... but if it didn't exist, they'd invent it, I think, as a key mind control strategy to free the oligarchs from constant and expensive direct control, confrontation and conflict.

Some suggest that Christianity was co-opted to the purposes of the oligarchs at the time of Constantine and for the Roman Empire (which then descended into gross depravity and decline).

Just a thought ...

You're talking about a very particular conception of Christianity. Calvinists, for example, believed there was no way to "buy" God's grace, unlike Catholics. The various Puritan sects believed God's grace could be revealed through one's success in worldly endeavours, but they did not believe in partaking in leisure and entertainment that did not reflect the glory of God. Weber argued that it was, in fact, their religious values that developed into the spirit of capitalism. Now, his work is heavily criticized because I think many people mistakenly believe that he's saying the industrial revolution happened because of religion. It's not quite that simple. However, it is possible to see that perhaps there may be some truth to the notion that particular religious values developed into the necessary spirit for capitalism, in the sense of profit for profit's sake, to emerge. In this way, religious values are not necessarily meant to keep the working classes oppressed, although they do benefit the "bourgeoisie" by providing the workers with a set of values that requires them to prove their devotion by toiling and being successful in their work. It is this same ethic that encouraged the capitalist class to hang on to their wealth and reinvest it into their endeavours, living a life of asceticism for the grace of God (meaning they couldn't spend their money on hookers and blow, sports cars, and other large shows of wealth).

These, of course, are all Weber's arguments, which again are rightfully criticized. However, if we're going to talk about religion and its effects on the capitalist system, he's the guy to go to.

[betsy]

Who says there's anything wrong with socialism in theory? It's when it's controlled by greedy or corrupt people....that's when it becomes a problem.

Anyway, helping the poor, kindness, etc.....those aren't confined to political ideologies.