What happened to Jesus?

Remove all ads!

This is a very refreshing story that I came accross in yahoo

An interesting excerpt:

 

If only more so-called christians could read, understand and live with it, although americans are among the worst; it's unfortunate that they don't have a monopoly on it.

 

I actually agree with this article, despite my atheistict views. Jesus (or any other religious figure) should not be used as a way to win an argument about gay rights, or as a way to condemn people, or any of that. Religious figures are religious figures, and are (or should) be there to express faith, and what that faith teaches. Now, I'm not religious, but I don't like what America has done for the fact that they are taking the meaning of something (Jesus), and destroying all that it stood/stands for.

I suggest everyone in America read that article.

 

Didn't you see "The Passion?" He got the livin' sh*t beat out of him. For you. For YOU!!!

 

A rather broad suggestion there, Saber.

Anyway, it's not like this thing is exclusive to Jesus and Americans. Like Che Guevara, for example.

Also, the whole Falwell/Robertson/Phelps seems to be just gone over, well, a lot. We might want to be able to find a new Christian fundamentalist whom we can safely mock.

 

Oh, good heavens.

There are two incontrovertible facts about Christ that both sides of the political aisle conveniently forget.

FIRST -- Christ claimed to be the Lord of the universe. Whether you believe that or not, either way it shows that Christ isn't someone Who can be folded into a political party or position...rather, political parties and positions have to be subsumed under Him. He's nobody's proxy, and we all should be mad when any party or ideology claims Christ as a supporter. Instructive in this regard is Joshua 5:13-14 and Philippians 2:9-11.

SECOND -- If Christ claims to be King, then it's no wonder that He also claims the right to interfere in our lives and make binding moral judgements. Even about politics and hot-button issues like homosexuality and divorce. Again, regardless of whether you believe He actually is who He claims to be, there's no denying that He actually makes such claims. See, for example, Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 22:14-15.

This article accurately emphasizes the American right's problem with the first point. It then wallows in the second point by describing the author's take on the right kind of Christ -- one that gives warm-and-fuzzy family feelings, has quaint traditions, doesn't care how you think about politics, and stays comfortably in the background.

Again, to reemphasize: one doesn't have to believe that Christianity is true to recognize that the Jesus of the Bible is neither the tool of politicians nor a nonjudgemental, noninterfering figure.

Both sides want to put Christ in their pocket, and Christ is unpocketable. Maybe if the crazy fundamentalists and the lazy article writers would take the time to actually read the Bible...no, too much to ask.

 

Hey! Based on Grey's description, Jesus could be GWB!

 

Christ also spoke out against sinners judging other sinners, which means that unless someone without sin is walking around, noone should be using Christ to back their views or write legislation.

That was a really good article. I only wish it were longer.

 

Yes, Drew, Jesus warned us against self-righteously judging others...BUT, he also in the very same sermon (chapters 5, 6, and 7 of Matthew) had this to say:

That part is kinda glossed over...in much the same way that conservative types tend to gloss over the do-not-judge warning.

My concern is that Christ, as presented in the Bible, makes clear that He not only cares what we believe, but cares especially what we teach others to believe. And it is deeply dangerous to all concerned to say -- oh, take two of the hottest-button issues, abortion and homosexual marriage. To say that we should allow both of these and give 'em State protection, and then to claim that to oppose them is to go against Christ's tolerance -- as this article very strongly implies in its closing paragraphs -- falls afoul of the verses quoted above. This supposed "tolerance" is really just teaching, and enforcing, that others break the ultimate moral law. (Or, at least, the moral law as Christ appears to have interpreted it, according to the Bible. But one could claim that the Bible has Him wrong and that He truly is a paragon of 21st century tolerance; that's a tenable position and lotsa people hold it, but it makes it hard to then oppose rightwingers when they selectively reinterpret Christ in their own ideological way.)

To reemphasize:

-- Both rightists and leftists wrongfully exploit the name of Christ. No need to be a Christian to see that, any more than one has to be a Cuban Marxist to agree that Che Guevara's image is misused (as Oaz pointed out).

-- This article is as guilty as the wacky televangelist messages, just in a different way.

 

It's glossed over, in my opinion, because it directly conflicts with what Jesus said when he made the statement "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Stoning was prescribed by Jewish law. He obviously was changing it there. There are several other instances along a similar vein that I'm sure you know about. I won't waste your time with them.

 

No conflict at all; mercy infuses the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. One only need think of the David and Bathsheba episode, or Hosea, or...uh, well, yeah, obviously we both know all the usual suspects. Sorry.

But though Christ called for mercy, He also called for changed lives. He embraced prostitutes while rejecting prostitution; went to dinner with self-righteous Pharisees even while demanding that they give up their judgemental arrogance; and in that very passage you quote, about not casting the first stone, Jesus ends by admonishing the woman to give up her adulteries, etc. So there's no conflict, and no need to gloss over uncomfortable parts, because the old cliche holds: hate the sin and love the sinner.

And that was my concern with the article. It seemed to present a Jesus who couldn't care less what people thought or did...only that they meet the 21st century definition of the perfectly tolerant global citizen. Lifting words from the article:

All good things, mind you, but all-too-conveniently close to the author's own ideology. What a mysterious coincidence. Makes one suspect that perhaps he's exploiting Christ's name himself, even if unconsciously.

Meanwhile, in one of the closing paragraphs, he not-so-subtly slaps a) the pro-life movement, b) death penalty supporters, c) opponents of stem-cell research, d) those who question the legitimacy of homosexuality, e) and those who claim Christianity is more true, and thus more good, than its religious competitors. This, despite the fact that three major practical concerns of the Old Testament are child sacrifice, sexual purity, and religious truth.

Sounds to me very much that the article author doesn't see Christ as a merciful and forgiving person -- which the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" incident clearly reveals -- so much as a fellow who doesn't see anything to forgive. Pinned down, I don't think the article author would find, for instance, stem cell research a moral wrong; to the contrary, that opposing stem cell research (in the name of Christ, no less!) is the real moral wrong.

Which brings me back to the original concern about teaching others to do wrong; and, worse, claiming Christ in one's defense for it. Reminds me of another section from that same sermon:

Which is only to say that, if the Bible's true, then there are going to be a lot of shocked rightists and leftists who thought they had Christ's sanction -- whether sanction to beat up on sinners or sanction to pretend that sin isn't sin.

 

The question is one of how far the law should go. Since Jesus was big on mercy, one would assume that he wants the law to be merciful, too. He did not punish the adulterers at all. Using that as a benchmark, a secular state really has no excuse to use religion to make things like adultery illegal.

 

Wow, Grey, where have you been in all our other religious debates? Your absolutely right. Christ brings with Him a solid, unquestionable sense of right and wrong, and so many in America today are trying to paint Him as just another 'good religious teacher'. NO!
1.) Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.
2.) Jesus claimed to be the only redemption for sins.
Based on these two alone, Jesus is either:
A.) A raving lunatic.
B.) A raving cult leader.
C.) Exactly what He claims.
There's no 'good religious teacher, but still just a man' option in there.
Also, remember that Christ said, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matt. 7:1-2 NIV
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't judge, but rather that we should use God's measurements to judge, and not our own. Jesus was teaching against hypocritical judgements, which the world today is rife with.

 

D.) A rabbi preaching against Roman occupation and a "can't we all just get along?" philosophy who, hundreds of years later, was painted as the "son of God" by the Bible's authors.

 

Hundreds of years later? Matthew was probably written c. 50 AD, thats 17 years later, by one of the 12 apostles. Mark was written between 50 and 70 AD, thats 17 to 37 years. Similar for Luke and John. Acts was written around 63 AD, 30 years later. Romans was written in 57 AD, and most of Paul's letters were written between 50 and 60 AD. This is hardly 'hundreds of years later' and these things were written by men who personally witnessed the events in question. Either they are outright lying, in which case you can't even credit any of the quotes to Jesus and secular records are your only evidence that he ever existed, or you believe them and you revisit my previous post.
EDIT: Jesus also didn't preach against Rome, but rather said, "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give unto God that which is God's."

 

...or Roman authors wrote that into the Bible putting those words into Jesus' mouth. Rather convenient for them, eh, especially when that Roman tax collector came 'round to the Jewish villages.

And you're right about the "hundreds." Decades then. That changes everything I guess, since stories never change and facts never mutate in mere decades. Centuries? Sure! Decades! Never! Totally pinpoint accurate.

 

First off...let me shout a big "Welcome Back" to the Grey Magistrate. I'd forgotten how devastating a logical debate can be .

Second...I read the article and am left with the conclusion that the writer couldn't find the "old Jesus" if he was slapped in the face with him. The writer has no idea who Jesus is or what Christianity is about. He's guilty of the same crimes that he charges against the religious right.

Yes, there are indeed ultra conservative fanatics who want to use Jesus, God or the Bible as some sort of holy WMD. They're wrong. They're also not America. No way. Don't even have the nerve to insult Americans with that stereotype. People who understand Jesus pay no heed to them, and although they control a degree of influence over their coven of supporters, they don't speak for, stand for or represent America.

The writer of this article is just as bad, at the other end of the spectrum. He pulls out only Christs messages of mercy, tolerance, acceptance and love and uses them to support a view of Jesus that's just as dangerously warped as the fanatics.

Jesus physically and violently threw people out of the temple who he felt were profaning it. Jesus allowed people to leave his ministry, often wealthy and influential people who could have saved him, simply because he wouldn't soften the "hard" teachings that so many couldn't accept. He spoke not a word in his own defense, when it would have been so easy to save his own life.

The classic example of the woman caught in adultery is often used to teach the distorted view of "universal mercy and acceptance". Wrong. When Jesus stepped in between the woman and her would-be executioners he wasn't demonstrating tolerance...he was accusing her accusers! He looked at each one of them and asked who was without sin...and since he was God, he knew the sins of each and every one who held a stone...and I suspect that each one of them knew he knew. This isn't soft and wuzzly. This is strong, dynamic, uncompromising and bold...confronting each one of them with their sins and challenging them to change, even the prostitute herself. This story doesn't teach acceptance, as the "Jesus Left" would have you believe, but the exact opposite.

This is the same problem that's always encounted when someone who has no clue what Christ is all about, tries to talk like they do. Both sides do it. Both sides try to put Jesus in their pocket (great analogy, Grey). Both sides try to have Jesus in their corner. Both sides are so far away from the true Jesus that he'd be forced to say, as so elequently demonstrated in the parable of the wedding feast, "I don't know who you are, get away from me".

I plan to print out several hundred copies of this article so I have ample material to line the bottom of my birdcage for many months to come.

...wait...I don't have a bird.

...and if I did, I'd be afraid he'd learn to read that crap.

 

I think you guys are missing the point he's trying to make with his article. He's talking about the fact that our politicians have hi-jacked the King of Kings to push their political agendas and that, while Italians are just as religous as we are, this doesn't happen there. I'm fairly certain that's all he was trying to say.

 

Unfortunately, liberals have hijacked the teachings of Christ, and distored the Holy institution of the Church.
That's a very good book: http://www.ucmpage.org/articles/mdodaro.html
Christianity was never meant to be this crappy hippie love show. It has always been a martial instituion, with iron clad discipline and rules.

St. Benedict:

Christ used a whip to drive out money-changers from the temple. He commands the apostles to buy weapons. His words of attack against the Pharisees, hardly fit the depicted Christ some people misleadingly portray. And many others thousands of examples.
It is all in the process of feminization of society some people want to push into the world.

[ February 19, 2006, 17:05: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

Angostic here.
Why do you insist with a book writen so long ago, for a different culture, for a different lifestyle, and for a different I-don't-know-what-else?
Pick up what's appealing to you, leave what's not, continue reading other books. Probably if you try to find a truth in the bible, you'll find so many contradictions you'll end up insane. Besides, who can assure you it hasn't been changed in the middle ages? One word, and its meaning changes completely (Snatch, by G. Ritchie, 2000).
PS: yeah, but the Che is so cool, he doesn't mind his face on a shirt in Walmart.