162 replies to this topic

[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.huffingto...s_b_830237.html
Phil Zukerman

Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus.

Edited by Charles Anthony, 16 March 2011 - 05:36 AM.
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 by bush_cheney2004, 15 March 2011 - 08:47 AM.

[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 by Jonsa, 15 March 2011 - 09:05 AM.

[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 by bloodyminded, 15 March 2011 - 12:52 PM.

[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 by Charles Anthony, 16 March 2011 - 05:38 AM.
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...._"liberal_bias"