[W:756]Why are Christian conservatives so unJesus like?

[devildavid]

Life is a gift from God.

So all living things have the same exact gift, according to what you say.

 

[devildavid]

And yet atheists expend a great deal of energy dismantling the Constitution in order to obtain the materials they need to build their illegitimate wall of separation between Christianity and American society.

You have zero evidence to support this.

 

[devildavid]

I tend to agree with you that atheists don't have views, but not entirely. They do think but their thoughts are riddled with foolishness about God.

You miss the point. They don't think about god.

 

[devildavid]

Did you know the word is in the Bible? The Hebrew word for “murder” is ratsach,ʹ which means to kill unjustly, clearly refers to deliberate and unlawful killing...

“You must not murder” Exodus 20:13

Do you know that the concept of murder existed well before the bible days?

 

[Daisy]

Do you know that the concept of murder existed well before the bible days?

Couldn't have, since the 1st murder was Cain killing Abel...

 

[Bok Tuklo]

It really helps, especially this late into the game, for you to use the "reply with quote" feature, so that we know who and what you responded to.

I was responding to the subject line in the original post.

 

[devildavid]

Couldn't have, since the 1st murder was Cain killing Abel...

That is not an historically factual event.

 

[distraff]

I don't think so. New York is mostly liberal, and liberals have always been history-challenged. Which is why they keep making the same mistakes over and over again (like socialism).

You missed the point of my example. A writer at the time could hear about a horrible thing happening to a city either recently or in the past. He can then attribute that it displeasing his God. So it is no surprise that Soddom and Gamorrah are real cities. In fact the bible wouldn't have been believable even if it was false, if these cities were obviously made up. It makes more sense to reference real cities and real disasters when writing your mythology if possible.

In fact the reasoning in the bible is kind of flaws. Back then there was a lot of slavery, rape, murder, dictatorship, and genocide going on. Yet when God actually takes out a city its because of people who are attracted to the same sex. And in this same story about Soddom and Gamorrah, Lot actually offers his daughters to the crowd to save the angels. Seems a bit rapey if you ask me. And its hard to believe that in a city with thousands of people, there is only one family that is actually good. If you look at even the worst cities, there are plenty of decent people, at least the children, who are basically nice people. Also, his wife was turned into a pillar of salt for disobeying God and simply looking back. We disobey God every day with worse sins but I have yet to see anyone turned into a pillar of salt. Also, Lot's daughters date-rape him and he has kids with his own daughters. Does God care about that?

 

[jpn]

Human thinking changes. Homosexuality was a crime in America a hundred years ago and now it is a protected irreligious belief and right. But the Bible changes not. It has not changed in 4,000 years.

Not changed in 4,000 years? The books in the New Testament were written less than 2,000 years ago. The Council of Nicaea decided which books to include and which to exclude in 325 A.D. Until then there wasn't an approved version.

The Council basically approved the books that fit their prejudices and organizational desires at the time. Some of the books they declared to be "heretical" were Gnostic texts which discouraged organized church hierarchies and thus made Council members uncomfortable. Others were written by women which the narrow-minded, sick old men of the Council disapproved of.

 

[jpn]

I don't think so. New York is mostly liberal, and liberals have always been history-challenged. Which is why they keep making the same mistakes over and over again (like socialism).

Oh, that explains why conservatives keep moving toward Fascism. They forgot the lessons of WWII.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Human thinking changes. Homosexuality was a crime in America a hundred years ago and now it is a protected irreligious belief and right. But the Bible changes not. It has not changed in 4,000 years.

Those biblical dietary "laws" have not changed either, yet many (most?) Christians seem to ignore them.

 

[jpn]

Everyone, whether rich or poor, can give as much as they like of their own resources to help others, but God does not consider government programs which help the poor to be the fulfillment of an individual's own personal responsibility to help the poor.

How convenient to believe that. That way you can vote against social programs that systematically support the needy and not feel selfish.

It's amazing how convenient the beliefs of some Christians are.

 

[distraff]

Thank God the American founding fathers established laws mostly in accordance with good understanding of the Bible and not misunderstandings of the Bible.

If you actually give the new testament a purely unbiased read and set aside your political views, the views of your church, your personal views, and the views of our society you will find that my interpretation is actually correct. You can google each of the things I discussed and find that the bible does indeed back up what I am saying.

Its interesting that you bring up the founding fathers because their most famous act, the American Revolution, is a clear violation of the bible's commandment to obey your ruler in Romans 13.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

This take is a little too modernized and you could say that is a minor part of the problem. The good news is your intentions are minuscule against the much larger problem of today's interpretations of Christianity across the various splinters all lead by people with their own questionable motivations and entirely devoid of the central teachings of Jesus.

It was right for others to mentions John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke but the clearly picture about the difference from John was more that cosmic and authoritarian stance where as Matthew and Luke probably used Mark's version in writing their own interpretations of these stories. The important distinction here is no one involved in the writings of John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke ever met or viewed Jesus. Roughly two generations later these four were written estimated around 70 to 100 CE, all from prevalent stories from the period before. It is such an important point that we can conclude beyond all debate that interpretation from bronze age stories, and those meanings do not always line up, is the central source for what Christianity is today.

The reason for me going through this is between the 4 there are distinct differences, but some of the conclusions of the teachings of Jesus had just enough similarity.

Jesus was a nonviolent revolutionary, but his fight was against all the political turmoil at the time including how the Jewish faith had become so involved with their Roman occupiers. Religious customs and expectations were what Jesus was rebelling against including some central themes he promoted of being against harsh judgement of others, loving your neighbor and enemy to a fault, and taking care of those without.

The harsh truth is the central teachings are not just incompatible with Republicans or social conservatives, they are incompatible with just about all modern ideologies across the spectrum including just about every splinter of "Christianity" today.

There are plenty of things so epically important to today's "Christian family values" and social conservatism that were so monumental... Jesus never mentioned them.

There are plenty of things so critically important to today's common political fights between ideologies that are also so monumental... you have to make things up from various religious text just to begin to manufacture an answer (meaning again, Jesus never mentioned them.)

To your point the core teachings of Jesus would have never sat back and promoted today's understanding of market or planned economics, today's understanding of social climate, international relations, susceptibility to warfare and cruelty, what have you. Nothing in today's ideological motivations from really anyone really takes care of the most vulnerable and poor, and more often than not the answer is an appeal to authoritarianism in total ignorance for the history what these things end up giving us.

To your last point, even at the risk of being just as anecdotal as your own, I know absolutely no Christian who acts as John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke claim you should based on what they understand from Jesus. In fact, more often than not it ends up being "Christians" that are the most likely to judge others harshly, use others for personal gain in some regard, create litmus tests for inclusion, manufacture reasons do dislike, expect recognition for rare acts of kindness, and ultimately take care of their own motivations above others... entirely contradictory to the teachings of Jesus.

Ironically the most Christian people I've met, are not religious in today's manufacture standards by those with the most questionable motivations.

I mean this, sincerely without judgement. You came no where close to answering the simple question. “Why are Christian Conservatives advocating in a way that contradicted the teachings of Christian dogma?

The answer is just as simply. and brief, as the question.

It is because the agenda of the current leadership of the Christian Right, which is setting the tone of its members, is vastly different than those of Jesus Christ in his day.

Bring the agenda back to base purpose, realigning the teachings of Christ with the agenda of the Body of Christ, His Church(s), here on earth resolves the problem.

 

[Daisy]

Not changed in 4,000 years? The books in the New Testament were written less than 2,000 years ago. The Council of Nicaea decided which books to include and which to exclude in 325 A.D. Until then there wasn't an approved version.

The Council basically approved the books that fit their prejudices and organizational desires at the time. Some of the books they declared to be "heretical" were Gnostic texts which discouraged organized church hierarchies and thus made Council members uncomfortable. Others were written by women which the narrow-minded, sick old men of the Council disapproved of.

Not true and I really wish people would get their facts straight before speaking...the Council of Nicea was convened to resolve a religious matter unrelated to the books of the Bible, which were already well established within the 2nd century...the trinity was the reason for CON...

while there was plenty of discussion in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the "major" writings were accepted by almost all Christian authorities by the middle of the second century.

Development of the Christian biblical canon - Wikipedia

The Hebrew Scriptures were well established long before that, since Jesus and the apostles often quoted from them...

 

[Digger]

No. It is for the simple reason that most adult humans are not worth saving.

And we would have gotten away without being tortured for all eternity, if it wasn't for jesus. Amiright?

 

[nota bene]

Fortunately, maybe, for hedonist atheists those wicked preachers will not be successful in creating a Christian state in Houston as long as its powerful fascist homosexual mayor is still sitting on her throne.

City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons | Fox News

Your article is from 2015. Houston's current mayor is Sylvester Turner.

 

[Digger]

Just to clarify for everyone. The topic of this thread is the disconnect between the doctrine of jesus and the political philosophy of Christian conservatives. Not the Christian persecution complex. Marke, I suggest that you start another thread to talk about your topic.

 

[Digger]

Everyone, whether rich or poor, can give as much as they like of their own resources to help others, but God does not consider government programs which help the poor to be the fulfillment of an individual's own personal responsibility to help the poor.

So God doesn't want the church getting involved in public policy regarding charity. Why does he want the church getting involved in public policy concerning who gets to marry under secular law?

 

[jpn]

Not true and I really wish people would get their facts straight before speaking...the Council of Nicea was convened to resolve a religious matter unrelated to the books of the Bible, which were already well established within the 2nd century...the trinity was the reason for CON...

Huh. You're right. Thanks for the correction.

It appears that the compilation of the canon was less structured that I thought. The Old Testament is particularly chaotic: "The differences between the modern Hebrew Bible and other versions of the Old Testament such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Pe****ta, the Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint, the Ethiopian Bible and other canons, are more substantial. For a more comprehensive discussion of these differences, see Books of the Bible."

It is interesting to note the books that were not included in the New Testament such as the Gospels of Thomas and Judas. They promoted a gnostic (“inward knowing) form of theology, which was incompatible with the doctrinaire and authoritarian approach favored by church leaders.

 

[jpn]

So God doesn't want the church getting involved in public policy regarding charity. Why does he want the church getting involved in public policy concerning who gets to marry under secular law?

Because She doesn't care about the needy, but boy, She is obsessed with what people do in their bedrooms! Just exactly like what we'd expect from an all-powerful deity. :roll:

 

[Josie]

Those biblical dietary "laws" have not changed either, yet many (most?) Christians seem to ignore them.

Because they were Jewish law.

 

[Daisy]

Huh. You're right. Thanks for the correction.

It appears that the compilation of the canon was less structured that I thought. The Old Testament is particularly chaotic: "The differences between the modern Hebrew Bible and other versions of the Old Testament such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Pe****ta, the Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint, the Ethiopian Bible and other canons, are more substantial. For a more comprehensive discussion of these differences, see Books of the Bible."

It is interesting to note the books that were not included in the New Testament such as the Gospels of Thomas and Judas. They promoted a gnostic (“inward knowing) form of theology, which was incompatible with the doctrinaire and authoritarian approach favored by church leaders.

There is a valid reason for that and it's not what you think...research it...

 

[jpn]

Jesus supported personal sacrificial giving of one's own money to help the poor, not stealing the money from someone else to help the poor.

If we're to believe the Gospels, he said if you want to be perfect, give up all of your possessions and follow me.

I'm guessing you don't really want to be perfect in the eyes of Jesus. Because you're too selfish. Agreed?

 

[jpn]

There is a valid reason for that and it's not what you think...research it...

I've read the explanation of Gnosticism being the reason in many sources. Wikipedia:

Orthodoxy and heresy
See also: Diversity in early Christian theology
The Christian heresiologists, most notably Irenaeus, regarded Gnosticism as a Christian heresy. Modern scholarship notes that early Christianity was diverse, and Christian orthodoxy only settled in the 4th century, when the Roman Empire declined and Gnosticism lost its influence.[71][69][72][70] Gnostics and proto-orthodox Christians shared some terminology. Initially, they were hard to distinguish from each other.[73]

According to Walter Bauer, "heresies" may well have been the original form of Christianity in many regions.[74] This theme was further developed by Elaine Pagels,[75] who argues that "the proto-orthodox church found itself in debates with gnostic Christians that helped them to stabilize their own beliefs."[70] According to Gilles Quispel, Catholicism arose in response to Gnosticism, establishing safeguards in the form of the monarchic episcopate, the creed, and the canon of holy books.[76]

"Valid" reasons often are in the eye of the beholder.