MiddleClassCentrist

How do Conservative Christians ignore that their saviour

146 posts in this topic

As for "some Christians today," I've no doubt that there have been Christians throughout history who have been every bit as "disgusting" as you claim Lou Engle and/or Fred Phelps to be; as far as I know, they haven't killed anyone in the name of Christianity.

I'm sure Fred Phelps has never killed anyone, unless it was through laughter. Lou Engle, on the other hand, is among the American evangelicals who are quite proud of themselves for whipping up anti-gay hysteria in Uganda and getting a "death to fags" law put in place.

I just find it odd when self proclaimed atheists speak of what Jesus would or wouldn't do, making misrepresentations of him in the process of criticizing Christians, stating what they think he would do/feel. I really don't get that.

So hypothetically... would you say that only a Republican should be able to point out when a Republican politician takes positions that are contrary to Republican policies?

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he ran around brandishing a whip and flipping over tables...

-k

If Jesus did this today the authorities would declare orange alerts and the Bill O'Reilly's of the world would have an aneurysm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So hypothetically... would you say that only a Republican should be able to point out when a Republican politician takes positions that are contrary to Republican policies?

Ummm. No. What I'm saying is I find it odd that people who claim not to believe in God make claims about what Jesus, the son of God, would feel/think/do. Non-Republicans don't deny the existence of Republicans. Hence the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jesus did this today the authorities would declare orange alerts and the Bill O'Reilly's of the world would have an aneurysm.

ASSAULT AND LOOTING AT OCCUPY THE TEMPLE JERUSALEM

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it odd when self proclaimed atheists speak of what Jesus would or wouldn't do, making misrepresentations of him in the process of criticizing Christians, stating what they think he would do/feel. I really don't get that.

Don't worry, we get that you don't.

Note this thread is as much or more about what people would do if Jesus appeared today not what Jesus would do.

All the same and strangely enough, it seems it's always a lot more obvious to an atheist what Jesus would do in just about any situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm. No. What I'm saying is I find it odd that people who claim not to believe in God make claims about what Jesus, the son of God, would feel/think/do. Non-Republicans don't deny the existence of Republicans. Hence the difference.

Whether Jesus was the son of god, a normal man who was a respected teacher, a composite figure based on a number of historical figures, or a completely fictional fabrication doesn't matter. The Bible is certainly real, and it is the "policy platform" which Christians have committed themselves. Whether Jesus was the son of god or not, the policy platform is there in black and white.

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. While I personally don't believe Jesus to have been the son of god, people who do believe that had ought to act like they believe it.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, we get that you don't.

Whew. What a relief! I was sooooo worried!! ;)

Note this thread is as much or more about what people would do if Jesus appeared today not what Jesus would do.

And note that my response, my comments, have been in response to claims of what Jesus would do.

All the same and strangely enough, it seems it's always a lot more obvious to an atheist what Jesus would do in just about any situation.

Strangely enough, if it's obvious to an atheist what Jesus would do, said atheist is acknowledging the existence of Jesus. It's impossible to "know" what someone who doesn't exist would do. The two claims are totally at odds with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strangely enough, if it's obvious to an atheist what Jesus would do, said atheist is acknowledging the existence of Jesus.

I have no problem acknowledging the existence of a man named Jesus who was as pissed off at the 1% then as many are today. My problem is acknowledging the existence of Jesus the God.

It's impossible to "know" what someone who doesn't exist would do. The two claims are totally at odds with each other.

Note I claim to know what Jesus would do, not God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whew. What a relief! I was sooooo worried!! ;)

And note that my response, my comments, have been in response to claims of what Jesus would do.

Strangely enough, if it's obvious to an atheist what Jesus would do, said atheist is acknowledging the existence of Jesus. It's impossible to "know" what someone who doesn't exist would do. The two claims are totally at odds with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem acknowledging the existence of a man named Jesus who was as pissed off at the 1% then as many are today. My problem is acknowledging the existence of Jesus the God.

Note I claim to know what Jesus would do, not God.

Note that you're putting your connotation of what Jesus is on his existence - not Christianity's. My point stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that you're putting your connotation of what Jesus is on his existence - not Christianity's. My point stands.

Its not his connotations its Jesus's own words according to the Christian Bible. He was pretty clear on the whole idea of accumulating earthly material treasury. He said dont do it. He was also very clear on the chances of a rich person entering the kingdom of god (zero).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strangely enough, if it's obvious to an atheist what Jesus would do, said atheist is acknowledging the existence of Jesus. It's impossible to "know" what someone who doesn't exist would do. The two claims are totally at odds with each other.

Not at all. Asking what Jesus would do in a situation is no different from asking what Tom Sawyer or Dirty Harry Callahan or Hawkeye Pierce would do: take a character with well-known traits and use that understanding of the character to extrapolate how that character would respond to a given situation. The only difference is, deciding how Tom Sawyer would handle a situation isn't a matter of theological importance to anyone.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not his connotations its Jesus's own words according to the Christian Bible. He was pretty clear on the whole idea of accumulating earthly material treasury. He said dont do it. He was also very clear on the chances of a rich person entering the kingdom of god (zero).

Ummmm. I clearly wasn't referring to his connotation of Jesus' words............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. Asking what Jesus would do in a situation is no different from asking what Tom Sawyer or Dirty Harry Callahan or Hawkeye Pierce would do......

Alrighty then. <_<

You've actually just strengthened my stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty then. <_<

You've actually just strengthened my stance.

haha, no. Christians who ask "WWJD?" are speculating as to how Jesus would handle a situation based on what they've read about him in a book, which is an exercise that could just as easily performed for any other literary character, real or fictional. Such speculation in no way requires a belief in the historical existence of the character, just an understanding of the character as expressed in the literature. You've made a logical error.

-k

Edited by kimmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've made a logical error.

Ummmm. No. Haha. I haven't. As I said, you just strengthen my stance.

But do have a nice day. I'm sure that's what Jesus would want. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm. No. Haha. I haven't. As I said, you just strengthen my stance.

But do have a nice day. I'm sure that's what Jesus would want. ;)

I'm pretty sure if Jesus was posting this he'd include one of these :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speculating how the guy described in the New Testament would respond to Lou Engle or Fred Phelps (or indeed much of present-day "Christian Right" politics) is a hypothetical question (and an easy one) that requires no belief in the divinity of Jesus or the historical accuracy of the bible, just a knowledge of the description we have in the Bible. You haven't (and you can't) argue otherwise.

Not sure what the real issue is here; you seem bent by the idea that non-Christians might have opinions about Christian scripture. Maybe it seems presumptuous or something. Well, we live in nations where everybody-- Christian and non-Christian a like-- has plenty of exposure to Christian theology, and it's not hard to spot instances where the practice doesn't line up with the theory.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one knows for sure what Jesus would really do. Who can say they know what someone else would do? Some people might like to think so.

However based on what's written in the bible let me point out, Jesus was against the scribes and the pharisees. He called the priests hypocrites and a brood of vipers. Looking at the history of the church over the next 1,500 years or so, became the very thing that Jesus was fighting against the most, the Roman empire. They inherited all the violence. The pope and the cardinals, they are like the emperor and the senators. They even wear the same red clothes. And look how they tortured people using the rack, the iron maiden and burning them alive.

Sure some people will say, but they don't do those things now. But that is their historical legacy. For centuries they did that, to oppress humanity. That why they deserve to be trampled into the ground.

So for me, my Jesus does not belong to any church. The kind of things that Jesus spoke about, love and mercy, understanding, forgiveness, you can't institutionalize that or make a system out of it. As soon as you do, you destroy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure what the real issue is here; you seem bent by the idea that non-Christians might have opinions about Christian scripture. Maybe it seems presumptuous or something.

Come on, kimmy - you're smarter than that. I'm clearly not "bent" on the idea that non-Christians might have opinions about "Christian scripture." I've made it quite clear that it's not the opinions about "scripture" that I've been commenting on.

Well, we live in nations where everybody-- Christian and non-Christian a like-- has plenty of exposure to Christian theology, and it's not hard to spot instances where the practice doesn't line up with the theory.

Again, it's not comments on "Christian theology" that I've been responding to. It's the idea that someone who believes there's no difference between Jesus and Pierce Hawk, that there's no difference between Jesus and a fictional character, would presume to tell us "what Jesus would do." That is presumptuous. Or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that you're putting your connotation of what Jesus is on his existence - not Christianity's. My point stands.

For that matter, Christians don't even agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, it's not comments on "Christian theology" that I've been responding to. It's the idea that someone who believes there's no difference between Jesus and Pierce Hawk, that there's no difference between Jesus and a fictional character, would presume to tell us "what Jesus would do." That is presumptuous. Or something.

She didn't say there was no difference between them. She said Jesus can be read as a character out of the text of the Bible, regardless of your beliefs about his existence or divinity. Not once did she say, "there's no difference between Jesus and Pierce Hawk" [emphasis mine].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She didn't say there was no difference between them. She said Jesus can be read as a character out of the text of the Bible, regardless of your beliefs about his existence or divinity. Not once did she say, "there's no difference between Jesus and Pierce Hawk" [emphasis mine].

By comparing them both as "characters out of a book," no more, no less, one is in effect saying there is no difference. One is made up, thus their characteristics are made up, the other isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By comparing them both as "characters out of a book," no more, no less, one is in effect saying there is no difference. One is made up, thus their characteristics are made up, the other isn't.

And so atheists have no business asking WWJD because they're atheists?

How profoundly odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by fellowtraveller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now