OK, about this "true" or "real" Christian stuff on DU

[Thtwudbeme]

I see many posts everyday on DU where people point to Bush, What's his name...that weirdo from Missouri (the old AG), Pat Robertson, Rove....that anti abortion fruitloop....pretty much anyone in the news right now...or any Conservative... and writes, "S/he isn't a REAL Christian." Or "Jesus wouldn't say or do THAT, therefore _____ isn't a TRUE Christian."

Does everyone here understand that there is no such thing as a "True Christian?" That's kind of like saying, "well....I might have seen a unicorn in the parking lot last night...." There isn't a test, there isn't a group somewhere, when by joining you attain "real" status.

This is not the "Velveteen Rabbit," there is nothing anyone can do to get "real" when it comes to religious thought.

Conservatives, Fundies, Jainists, Buddhists, whoever...all have the inherent right to give themselves whatever label they choose when it comes to philophies or religious thoughts.

The issue shouldn't be changing the language, but rather working towards educating the public so that the average person might see for him or herself just how unpleasant living under a conservative ideology is, unless one is fortunate enough to have been born in the top caste.

We need to bust traditional myths in America...not worry about whether or not a particular person has labeled themselves in a manner that we approve of.

Stephanie

[BlueEyedSon]

1. "In truth there was only one true Christian, and he died on the Cross"

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. And he was a devout Jew. nt

[BlueEyedSon]

27. LMFAO!

[dogday]

95. I never understood that because his father

was God who wasn't a Jew( I don't think he was, was he?), he mother is Jewish, but back then the heritage was judged through the male line.

He begot him and he begot him, you know by males.

This is where it gets interesting. How do you say he was a Jew? Because his mother was? And what was his father and how do you say he is jewish when you know not of the lineage of the Father....

[Eric J in MN]

108. In the Jewish religion, the mother determines the religion of the child.

Also, according to the Torah, the Jews are God's Chosen People.

(I'm not saying I agree with the concept of a Chosen People.)

[dogday]

151. Then why does the bible concentrate

on the male lineage of the family in the bible? I don't know about the Chosen People thing. I believe all are now God's chosen people and at one time the Jews were, but since then Christ was crucified, making us all chosen in God's eyes....

[orpupilofnature57]

241. Christ, means the anointed one, jesus, superseded laws of the jews, also

saying he was the only christian is a little existential, isn't it. He said "we were there, during creation" him, his father and the holy spirit.

[trotsky]

255. Because the biblical writers

were desperate to establish the "validity" of their savior, and wrote his lineage thru Joseph (who, if the bible is literally true, is not related to Jesus at all) so as to establish Jesus as being of the house of David.

[Behind the Aegis]

251. Chosen people

The "chosen" refers to being 'chosen' to receive His law. Not a 'special' place above others.

[unschooler]

130. Not only was his mother a Jew. He was observant and clearly

defined Himself as a Jew.

[dogday]

153. By what Actions did he define himself?

I understood that the Rabbis were afraid of him. He spoke of things they did not believe in and they would not allow him to preach at the synagogues anymore....

[Tesla]

148. He was at the Temple in Jerusalem, they called him Rabbi.

His mother was a royal, from the bloodline of King David.

[dogday]

152. how come the mother comes from a male lineage

if it was the female lineage that was used?

[Stuckinthebush]

161. Joseph wasn't Jewish?

I think he was very much Jewish, thereby making his son Jewish.

[frankly_fedup2]

246. I thought that was why the Jews wanted him crucified. . .

His deciples called him the King of the Jews and Jesus said he was the son of God.

However, I wasn't there at the time so I cannot give a witnesses account of events . . . sorry. I can only speak of what I have read.

[Tesla]

253. If you call King David's great great great great grandson King....

I think that will be ok. Like calling William king one day.

[jokerman93]

70. Yep. So the legend goes...

But there's no verifiable, contemporaneous historical evidence that this particular "Messiah" ever actually lived. You'd think there'd be something more besides the oral folklore of the "gospels" for such an influential persona. And so maybe Christianity is merely mythological after all. Seems silly to believe that myths are historically true. But I guess that's what spin is all about. Seems the ilk of Pat Robertson is the inevitable logical conclusion of such religious literalism.

And so it goes.

[The Straight Story]

92. Oh I dunno

Eyewitnesses and such have some validity to me. But let's say tomorrow that we got total proof that he did exist - would it change how you feel about things anyway??

[jokerman93]

106. probably

n/t

[unschooler]

131. There were many biographies written of him, and Josephus,

a major contemporaneous historian, mentions him as well. Jesus might well not have been exactly as described in the four gospels that are part of the New Testament or as understood by the Christian churches, but there is very strong evidence that he was an historical person.

[jokerman93]

145. You seem sincere

You seem sincere, so no offense to your faith is intended, but I doubt their's anything more than references to a local preacher named Yahoshua from Nazareth, but I'm willing to check out your bibliography.

Any collaborated descriptions of public miracles, resurrections, virgin birth? Any collaborations on Pilot's washing of the hands? Miracles at the crucification? Those mythological points are the only relevant factors that would qualify a man name Yahoshua as the actual messiah of the religious faith. As far as I've taken my reading, no such documented collaboration exists.

####

By the way, apropos of nothing but a shared fascination with this subject, I thought, if you're interested in Jewish history, you might be surprised to hear that in fact there has been an historically documented advent of a messiah among the Jewish people. (The messiah of course, is a Jewish concept.) The man's name was Sabbatai Sevi - admittedly he was a failed messiah, but the fascinating story is thoroughly documented. Several scholarly works have been written on the subject, and even today there exists an hereditary community of disciples (in Turkey I believe it is). Fascinating stuff!

Here's a link to some sources if you're interested:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0197100120/104-6662262-5122310?v=glance

http://www.donmeh-west.com


Best Regards Fellow DUer!

J

[RaleighNCDUer]

169. The snippet in Josephus that mentions Jesus is questionable.

Scholars say the style of writing does not match Josephus, and the entry is out of context, meaning that if that snippet was removed you would have a smooth textual transition from what was before it to what was after it. It is suspected that it was inserted by a copier in the 4th century, at the time that the church was attempting to pull together all the disparate, conflicting, and contradictory accounts into a single thread. Even at that time there were some who said he never existed, so someone altered Josephus to provide the one and only contemporary mention of him.

[Tesla]

254. Alot have been hidden by the church...

They like to keep their story straight!!!!

[Beaver Tail]

2. They are not real Christians for this

Bush: He is not a believer (that is a pre requisite regardless if you are conservative liberal etc…). He uses religion for a political agenda.

Rove: Did he ever claim to be christian? Even though it is not a sin to lie it IS a sin to bare false witness, something he is pathological about.

Pat Robertson: Where do I start?

Oh and about abortion - the bible says nothing about abortion being a sin, and even suggests it is OK.

Edit:

If you do wrong and you know you did wrong and you are sorry you did wrong than you can be forgiven. None of these assholes believe they did wrong.

[Solon]

4. Basically, using that as a litmus test of sorts...

there has YET to be any "true" Christians ever in power, and that includes Popes, Cardinals, and many other Christian Leaders.

[Beaver Tail]

16. You don't have an argument from me there

What I am pointing out is there are a few basic requirements to claim yourself as a Christian. If you want to call it a litmus test that’s fine.

It’s like calling yourself a Liberal. You can’t say you support freedom of speech if you are trying to run a Fascist or Communist state. There are basic measurements to help define where you stand politically.

Any test of your beliefs weather they are religious, political or other will always be subject to some sort of litmus test.

[Hardrada]

139. No. John XXIII

was a pope who surprised everyone by also being a Christian!

[pitohui]

10. don't know where to start w. robertson -- start here

put on yr pop-up blocker because it's at about.com but here is a very good summary of pat robertson's economic profiteering from his collusion w. war criminal charles taylor

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/rr/blrr_rob_taylor.htm

this is an evil man, to read abt the villagers in sierra leone who were deliberately hacked to pieces by terrorists to bring down diamond prices for likes of robertson & taylor is truly chilling, i had to stop reading a book on the subject because just reading a description of these crimes was too upsetting

i don't believe robertson believes in god, if he did, how could he justify such crimes for cash, he is a bold exploiter of the sheeple

when i say someone is not a true christian, i mean they are faking a belief for profit

robertson fits the description exactly

a wolf in sheep's clothing indeed

[undergroundpanther]

25. But

Jesus himself advocates killing people.Don't belive me? Read the bible.The bible shows two different faces on Jesus .

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

-Luke 19:27 (KJV)

A Domnionist bully like robertson can put on love they neighbor face when he isbegging for money as easy as wrathful god when he wants a political assination,and he knows he will get away with it,it's all there in the bible,all will be forgiven.He does not have to care.

-Mark 3:29 (KJV)

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

-Matthew 12:31 (KJV)
So as long as Robertson does not blaspheme the holy Ghost he will get into heaven and be rewarded for his service to god,and for the conversions..

Jesus said:


Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. -Matthew: 5:17-18


Biblically domninonism generates the kind of coldhearted convert or die zealotness of spiritual warfare that Jesus loved to see in his followers,followers willing to throw it all away to "follow him".



So Dominionism is biblically correct?

Sadly I think so.

Roberston Fallwell Phelps are the true Christians.

[blondeatlast]

47. Falwell/Robertson et al are politicians first and foremost, and powerful

ones at that.

[ShockediSay]

58. powerful money grabbers eom

[grindrail]

117. Those quotes are taken out of context

First, your first quote is not something that Jesus really said. While He did say it, He was talking the part of an evil and cruel nobleman that had just become a ruler. The back story is that a nobleman went to a distant country to get royal power and left 10 of his slaves with 1 pound(money) each. A delegation followed saying they did not want him to be a ruler. When he came back the slave that traded the pound to get 10 got 10 cities, another got 5. Another slave kept the Pound in a cloth "for I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit and reap what you did not sow." (luke 18: 21, NRSV)
The entire quote is
"'I tell you, to all those who have more, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them- bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.'" (Luke 19: 26-27, NRSV)
You also left out the most important part of Mathew 5: 17-18, Mathew 5: 20 which is
"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Phar'i-sees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (NRSV)
Are they true Christians if they do not follow His teaching of love and tolerance?

[Peace Patriot]

144. undergroundpanther, you are leaving out one hell of a lot of text there!

You make a case for Robertson being a true Christian on a couple of odd, out of context quotes--including one that doesn't even fit your thesis ("I am come not to destroy but to fulfill"), and you ignore the absolutely overwhelming message of complete peacefulness and complete generosity to be found in Jesus' words and life story.

Christians--and especially Churches and Prelates--have IGNORED that message down through Ages, and, for more than a thousand years, most people couldn't read the Bible and didn't know what the message was (except as interpreted by Prelates). But that doesn't change the plain, and repeated, and unqualified message of the New Testament: total peacefulness, total generosity.

The discussions here at DU about "real" Christians are perfectly valid. When you have someone slaughtering Iraqis in the tens of thousands, accumulating great wealth, much of it by theft, torturing prisoners, and committing other grave injustices--or supporting those who do--and calling themselves "Christians," and using Christianity as a flag, a banner, for these terrible crimes, what you have is a HYPOCRITE. A liar. Literally, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And it is perfectly fair--and even essential--to point this out, lest others be fooled.

I think I understand the point upthread that this is private, subjective matter. How does one judge the various degrees of sincerity that people may possess with regard to religion? This is not generally a matter of public discussion or judgment. It IS private. I agree! BUT, what we have here are POLITICIANS, and, in the case of Robertson, a prelate who is MEDDLING IN POLITICAL AFFAIRS, who are USING the word "Christian" to JUSTIFY and PROMOTE and SANCTIFY actions that PLAINLY violate EVERYTHING that the founder figure of Christianity said and did. They are HYPOCRITES and LIARS, and the people who may be hoodwinked by them need to hear the views of people who see them more clearly.

[Bluerthanblue]

162. you said that

so clearly, and well- thank you for putting things into perspective, for me to remember and understand too.

blu

[eleonora]

236. wow..interesting bit

That man's twisted. The devil's advocate indeed.

[Thtwudbeme]

11. OK, apparently my post didn't go at all where I wanted it to..

Let me see if I can help you to understand what I am trying to explain:

There is no such thing as a "true" Christian. Ever. Anywhere. Not you, not me, not Bush.

The "one true" myth bullshit needs to end.

[undergroundpanther]

33. Well

The bible started it,with the"CHOSEN PEOPLE" routine that few CHOSEN people get into heaven ..who become citizens of the kingdom of new Jerusalem.

The Elect the elite of god routine.There is bucketloads of elitism in the bible. And to be left out of the chosen means eternal torture and abandonment by god.

[Jo March]

226. Thtwudbeme, I hear what you are saying BUT

what many Christians have been trying to do on DU and in many other places is to clarify, for non-beleivers, the true meaning of Christ and how it has been perverted by people like Robertson.

Jimmy Carter - I believe that he is a "true" Christian. He 1) accepts Christ as his Saviour and 2) he lives his life according to the teachings of Christ

Pat Robertson - I believe that he is a "false" Christian. He uses the mantle of Christianity to futher his own personal agenda, his own political agenda and for money and power.

In my book, Jimmy Carter does not equal Pat Robertson.

It is NOT true that a Christian is a Christian is a Christian. You can't just call yourself a Christian and *poof*, you're magically a Christian.

Yes, there are TRUE CHRISTIANS. There are many who have accepted Christ as their Saviour and are living their lives according to His teachings. They repent for their sins and try not to sin again. According to the Bible, that makes them true Christians.

Whether or not someone believes in the Bible is irrelevant. For those of us who do believe, the Bible is the "litmus" test for what a Christian is.

Edited for stupid wording that did not convey what I was trying to say.

[JanMichael]

229. This is Stephanie, (Thtwudbeme)

I am pretty sure I am on my husbands name, but can't remember until I hit "post."

I very much understand what you are saying here...and, in fact, I was of that same mindset too up until a few weeks ago.

You'll have to pardon me, I will answer you in a bit, but I am skipping a Buddhism class to study for a Latin test on Friday, and my conjugation of verbs is deplorable!

I will be back to this thread...

I am glad to see people discussing this without getting ugly towards one another...might be a DU first for a religion thread! ;)

Stephanie

[Jo March]

257. I am actually glad for this thread and others like it

My mind has certainly been expanded!! Things can get heated in these types of threads but everyone needs to hear others so that we can understand one another.

Most of the time, the ugliness comes from the words that we use. Interpretation happens and then all hell breaks loose!

I do hope that you come back to this. I have learned so much about what people believe on DU. :)

[DJ MEW]

3. Well said

It is much more important to being discussing what they are saying and not what lable we should assign to them.

Instead of saying someone is not a real christian, we should be focusing on what they are, inconsiderate bigots.

(I hate the right wing so much it made me left handed.)

[Solon]

7. Ha, do you one better...

The right wing is so antithetical to my way of thinking that I was BORN left handed! :)

[kenny blankenship]

5. All I know is that they're no true Scotsman[men]

Anyway, yeah the no-true-scotsman fallacy sucks. But you can't deny its appeal. Rush Limbaugh has basically made a multimillion dollar career and empire from no-true-scotsman.

[undergroundpanther]

6. Christians need to read the whole bible

not just the feel good parts and the beatitudes.Jesus is two faced,the whole bible says 2 radically different messages.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm

I used to be Christian and I started out liberal,but as my devotion to learn more grew I was forced by reading the bible to become more conservative over time IF I wanted to have consistency with my "faith".

Now people say the old testament is defunct,according to the bible it is still here,Jesus came to fulfill the law not eliminate it.And God never changes.


Truthfully the fundies have an AIRTIGHT argument for their kind of Christianity biblically.That is why I do not trust or support Christianity,because of the monster it made me into,because all I wanted to be a sincere Christian and I took it seriously. Seriously enough to READ the whole bible,attempt to understand it to the point it offended me morally. THis is how alot of atheists get made,they read the bible and are morally offended.This is the truth. Please Christians read the bible fully and realize the bible is not just love thy neighbor and feel-good stuff.It has some seriously sick and twisted parts in it,parts JESUS HIMSELF support and say ,parts that sociopaths like Robertson can feel good about..http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

If what you read is scary well there is EX christian support
http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2003_09_25_archive.php
testimonies of ex Christians
http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2003_09_25_archive.php

[jonnyblitz]

13. a few I knew who read the whole bible instantly became atheists.

that book has some SICK SHIT in it. :puke:

[undergroundpanther]

14. And CHRISTIANS need

To understand it is Sick,very sick,Crazymaking in fact.

[bryant69]

199. Christians need to, in fact, cease being Christians

Simple.

Some might call it bigoted, but it is easy to understand.

[FlaGranny]

154. That describes my father -

he was given a strict, religious upbringing. Those were hell and damnation days and he hated going to church. When he actually sat down and read the bible as a young man, he was horrified and became an atheist. He was the kindest, gentlest person I've ever known, and he couldn't stomach the bible. He called it a tale of horror.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Which is why I don't believe in Biblical inerrancy. I am a Christian

in the loosest sense of the term, but I identify with what is good in the faith. (You have to understand I think the Bible was written by men not God, which accounts for the twisted parts. I also do not subscribe to the Nicene creed or original sin or levitcal law..... I can take what I want and leave the rest behind. And Pat Roberson can't accuse me of cherry picking since he and Falwell and Dobson do the same thing.)

Here's a cool set of quizzes, if anyone is interested in them.


Politically: I come in to the south and west of Gandhi here: http://poltiticalcompass.org /

Theologically, I come in as a Unitarian Universalist here: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

and here http://beliefnet.com/section/quiz/index.asp?sectionID=10002&surveyID=83 I am a 150 - 249
You are a Hillary Rodham Clinton Christian (a.k.a. "Left-Leaning Traditionalist") although to be honest I didn't think much of this particular quiz.

[undergroundpanther]

29. Than the fundies say

You are not Christian.

Why cling to the label Christian for?

The bible is poison,crazymaking...

Can't you just say I am a good spiritual person with a good character who cares?

That means so much more than Christian.

And it is more honest too.

And throwing away the label Christian does not tie you in with the evil in the bible anymore.Saying you are Christian implies you believe in the biblical God if you do not believe in the bible which claims it's own inerrantcy and it's writing by god,than you shouldn't use that label Christian to describe yourself.

[GreenPartyVoter]

39. I disagree. You are using the fundy litmus test to determine

Christianity. I can be both a good spiritual person with a good character _and_ a Christian, and I can actually arrive at that character through the best parts of Christianity. (Though certainly not only through it.)

I don't see it as an either/or statement. That's for the fundies, not me. ;)

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Agree.

It is not only possible to be an atheist with high moral standards, being an atheist makes it much easier -- you don't need to deal with the contradictory messages you are handed in the bible.

[Bluerthanblue]

21. not true.

Because it is based solely on a BOOK-

And who made the 'book'?

I can put words in God's mouth too- that doesn't make them true.
Jesus Christ lived his faith, and truth.

Man perverted it.

A more accurate and indisputable name for those who claim the 'faith' (oxymoron- faith is NOT tangable) is a Bibletarin.

THE BOOK (or somorgasboarded sections of it) is their God.


BEEN THERE- done with that.

and i don't care if this is spelled correctly or uses too many adverbs etc- when i'm pissed i don't need to add to that frustration by being reminded about my ineptitude with words.

[Midlodemocrat]

103. The 'whole' Bible is not about Jesus.

That is where the fundies are wrong. They spout all the Old Testament crap about homosexuality, etc., etc., under the guise of being 'Christian', well, point me to a spot in the Bible where Jesus condemns homosexuality.

I can't find one. I can however, find where Jesus' teachings and behaviors of treating the poor well, and taking care of the sick are things I emulate.

And that makes me Christian. Because I follow the teachings of Christ in my daily life. Not because I proselytize or condemn people, but because I 'turn the other cheek', and 'judge not lest ye be judged'.

Has worked pretty well for me, although when you are compassionate and giving, you see a side of people that is pretty damned ugly.

[Jo March]

228. WHAT?!? What the heck are you talking about?

Excuse my tone but what are you talking about??? "...but as my devotion to learn more grew I was forced by reading the bible to become more conservative over time IF I wanted to have consistency with my 'faith'. What??

Christians believe in Jesus Christ. We are told, in the Bible, that Christ is the Saviour. Let's start from there.

Where in the world do you find in the teachings of Christ that you should be more conservative? Where, exactly, does the Bible make you into a "monster"? What are you talking about - and don't point me to those links, either. The links that you provided have their own agenda and are hardly impartial.

I have been a Christian all of my life and I find that the more I work to be like Christ, the more liberal I get. Caring for the poor, the sick, the hungry, the needy - that's pretty darn liberal. Not judging others - pretty liberal. Not casting a stone at others unless I am completely free of sin? Pretty liberal. Turning the other cheek? Pretty darn liberal if you ask me. Jesus even preaches that lenders should not practice usury and that money changing should not be done in the church. Pretty liberal. The love of money is the root of all evil & it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven? Yes, that's pretty liberal.

Can't really see where following the teachings of Christ would make you a monster or a conservative.

Maybe you can explain this to me, in your own words, because I just don't understand it.

[bryant69]

8. I disagree

I mean in terms of strict accuracy you are correct. But consider what such people are really saying, when they say "X isn't a real christian."

Such people are likely to be Christians themselves, and such people are likely trying to indicate that X's views that have us all in a dizzy are not representative of Christianity as he or she believes in it.

By my standards Robertson does not live up to the ideals that Jesus Christ taught, and I obviously don't like the idea that, as a fellow Christian, I might be held accountable for what he does.

This may seem like a ridiculous idea, but such arguments have been made on this board. Some feel that by continuing to practice a religion we are lending support indirect to the religious right or to the Robertson's of the world. Therefore there's a need to distinguish one's own beliefs from those of Pat Robertson, so as not to be held accountable for his actions.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Thtwudbeme]

18. I understand what you are saying, but now you are into the territory

of "my unprovable personal beliefs are better than yours, therefore you aren't real."

I saw your post on Solomon's post which was locked, and I know this is an emotionally hard subject for you.

When you right the phrase "by my standards," you are projecting your personal feelings as "right, true and correct," ONLY because that is how you feel, and interpret the scripture.

I am not trying to flame you, only to get you to understand that Christians need to quit arguing over Biblical interpretations, or whether or not someone else is real...and start worrying about the implications of the policies made by conservatives.

IE: you are now arguing on a playing field that your opponent created...do you really want to do that?

[bryant69]

22. Thank you for your sensitivity.

I'm not sure what the best solution is.

I know that I am both an active believing Christian and a Liberal Democrat.

I know there are Christians, plenty of them, who believe that that is an oxymoron, that you can't be a good Christian and a good liberal.

I know there are Liberals who basically agree; that to be a Christian and a Liberal is inevitably going to require betrayal of either your Christianity or your Liberalism.

Maybe they are right, and I should, and all the other Christians on DU and elsewhere should just pick a side. Maybe that's what your last comment "you are now arguing on a playing field that your opponent created...do you really want to do that?" refers to (I admit to be baffled as to what you meant by that).

[Thtwudbeme]

26. You are welcome, and believe me, I understand where you are coming from

The last sentence was kind of a sports reference...

When you play the True Believer Semantics game, (because that is what it is) you are now giving the opponents the home court advantage.

They (Conservatives, Fundies...whatever you want to call them) are used to playing this game. When you play, you are now playing by their rules, and on their turf.

It's really time to stop that.

I was glad to see you on this thread, btw.

Stephanie

[bryant69]

30. I can't agree

Let me ask you a question, what would be the response if I posted something along the lines of "Vocal Atheists hurt the liberal cause. They should moderate their tone, and not speak out on their atheism. Of course they are allowed to speak on other issues, but I really think, for the good of the movement, they should eliminate references to atheism in their language."

What would be the appropriate response?

[Thtwudbeme]

34. I am getting to that point in my thinking, yes

I am married to JanMichael, who is an agnostic, or atheist...

I think it's time to eliminate ALL religious, or lack thereof, references in conversation pertaining to politics, schools...anything public.

Take God out of the pledge, and take God off the money.

Stephanie

[Bluerthanblue]

46. intolerance to the thoughts of others is NOT a 'liberal' position

i don't particularly believe 'god' belongs in the pledge,
or that god would even WANT to be on the paper called money- (it is hypocritical) "'in God we trust' but you better have that on paper", and that paper better be government issued.

You are swinging the pendulum abit too far the other way for my comfort- i won't shove my Jesus down your throat, but don't tell me i can't embrace his teachings. And be free to 'discuss' them without fear-
NOT to force you to accept my thoughts, but to learn, and deepen, pehapes even change my views.

[Thtwudbeme]

49. I am in school studying to be a minister

I did not say "do not discuss your beliefs," I wrote that no beliefs in the hereafter, or lack of, have a place in a discussion on public policy.

[Bluerthanblue]

62. correct my interpretation of your words please-

"I think it's time to eliminate ALL religious, or lack thereof, references in conversation pertaining to politics, schools...anything public."

Nothing there about the 'hereafter'- nothing about public policy' seems to me it DOES speak about 'conversations'.?

If i'm not being too 'invasive' could i ask what 'ministry' you are pursuing? I don't ask that argumentatively, just out of curiosity, and hope.

[Thtwudbeme]

64. I am an Episcopalian

I understand exactly why you are asking the question, and am not taking it the wrong way.

Belief in the unknown hereafter...a vague hope that things will "get better," and that we as believers will be somehow rewarded in the Kingdom of Heaven have done nothing...absolultely nothing...on this earth in recorded history to improve the lot of the living.

I am sorry; I know that sounds harsh--however, think "Religion is the narcotic of the masses," (I just quoted that wrong, but I am trying to get worked up to conjugate Latin verbs...my brain is fried)...

It is time to put our personal beliefs about God aside, and work on what is good and right here on earth. Until we do that, until we quit basing public policy on what might be true...instead of what we know NOW...we are screwing ourselves, and everyone else right along with us.

Stephanie

[Bluerthanblue]

72. thank you- i'm happy

to agree with the TRUTH that we HAVE to work on implimenting what *i* hold as my spiritual TRUTH right here and NOW on earth. I can't agree that we should EVER put our personal beliefs aside- they are indeed a large part of 'who' we are- but we should not IMPOSE them on others.
Jesus is quoted to have said "the kingdom of heaven is among you"- meaning RIGHT HERE- and RIGHT NOW- not negating a 'future' hope, but ABSOLUTELY not advocating just 'letting armegeddon' play itself out, like we have NO role/responsibilities to each other (which pisses me off NO END).

Religion has been used to cover more evil than ANY other 'excuse' i know of.- That doesn't make Jesus complicit- or nullify what each one of us believe to hold true, and follow in our OWN personal walk.-

BTW. i was OVERJOYED that Rev.Gene Robinson had the guts to take his place in his church, and that i have actually heard him- NH isn't known for being a state that takes risks- i honor the way he has, and continues to conduct himself as a man who claims Christ- and lives his life as best as he's able in reflection of his faith.

[blondeatlast]

50. And stop immediately referring to Falwell and the ilk as religious

leaders and instead call them what they are: Politicians.

Take the facade of faith away and that is all they are.

[Thtwudbeme]

52. excellent point!

I am going to use that one! In fact, I am going to plagarize that! ;)

[blondeatlast]

56. Feel free; I've been plagiarizing myself with it all morning!

I WANT people to start thinking that way.

I thought about it responding to another thread and even I thought it was damn good.

[Bluerthanblue]

40. Bryant69, i don't

think we dis-agree, however, how can one embrace what we have learned about the life and teachings of Christ, and NOT be a liberal?
To be a 'follower' or an 'emulator' of his, would mean living what has become known as the 'Golden Rule'- and runs completely AGAINST the notion of corporations, greed, forcing others to 'conform' or be killed.

I DON'T know any people who honestly embrace the teachings of Christ, who can also embrace the current 'republican' thinking.- ESPECIALLY that of capitol punishment, revenge cloaked in 'justice' turning a blind eye to the poor, suffering, and weak, while 'talking the talk'.

As an EX fundie, i know the bible (very well)- and i reject the way it has been elevated to a position above all, which is idolatry, and has become synonymous with 'Christianity'-

[Bluerthanblue]

12. a person who calls themself a New Hampshirite..

..is either a person who was born, or at least lives in NH.
There is a REAL connection.

A person who calls themselves a "Deadhead" is a person who follows or admires the Greatful Dead.

A Liberal is a person who is dedicated, or supports the definable view of liberal thinking- NOT one who SAYS they are 'liberal' but imposes all sorts of boundries, strings and restrictions on others.

The very same holds true for a person who calls themself a CHRISTian.
While espousing, and DOING the very OPPOSITE of all the teachings, and living a life in direct conflict with that lived by Jesus Christ.

You can't claim the association, then not follow up that claim with your living, and not expect to be 'called' on it.

Buddist, Muslum, Jewish, Hindu or otherwise.

[Thtwudbeme]

23. I am sorry, but that sounds good, but is not correct

Let's use your analogy of Deadheads...let's say you and I are both following around Phil Lesh because we haven't recovered from 1995 yet...

We have a basic belief that life is better living in a VW Bus, driving around the country, and grooving out to those long "filler rifts..."

However, that's exactly where the likenesses in our personality ends...we are both Deadheads...but, I despise your patchatouli oil. You on the other hand, think that my taking a shower or two a day is a complete waste because of the water and energy used...therefore I am not a "Real Deadhead" in your opinion.

Who's real here?

[Bluerthanblue]

57. if YOU or I made laws around our

'Deadhead' connectedness, Laws which deprived either one of the the 'right' to live our love of Gerry Garcia, out in the way we see fit, then THAT is where the distinction would end- I could not force you to wear my patchouli (which i love by the way) and if i did, and tried to justify that because i was a Deadhead, you would have EVERY RIGHT to cry 'foul'- Because it's not part of the package.

Jesus' life was SO radical, according to MANY accounts, not simply the overrated bible- and his accepting women, refusing to use violence to counter his enemies, his generosity, compassion, and lack of ..'royalty' are part and parcel of 'following' his example.- THAT is where i build my following.-

If i say i'm a 'Deadhead' yet say, "oh, forget the foolish way that those hippies took our beloved MUSIC- Beethoven is among the 'real' established FOUNDATIONS, Garcia may have had a place but remember, Beethoven didn't use gutiars, or wear that awful 'tie-dye'' would you want me to be 'associated' with you????

THAT is how it is for me- Jesus is being used like a prostute by many- and i find that as offensive as using Gandhi to justify violence, or Mlkjr. to justify the KKK.

[Coyote_Bandit]

19. Actually the Bible tells us

how to identify authentic Christian believers:

1 John 4:20-21
"If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother."
NIV

We should be able to identify Christians because it should be obvious that they love other people. Those who do not love are pretenders. And I think it is more than fair to use the words of the Bible to defend myself against hateful, self-righteous, greedy, manipulative fundies.

[Beaver Tail]

24. It is More than fair to call out the Hypocrite

[Coyote_Bandit]

31. I consider it sport

here in crazy red f*cking JOklahoma, the armpit of the Bible belt.

[crispini]

59. Nice litmus test.

Isn't that kind of what this thread is about? whose litmus test gets used? That's a good one!

[mondo joe]

69. "Love" is not necessarily obvious, and love is none of our business

Policies and laws are the business of government and politics.

Not love.

[Coyote_Bandit]

80. Agreed - but

if somebody else advocates an agenda in the name of the Christian God then I am fully entitled to question their motives and actions based on the criteria set forth within their own belief system.

The issue is whether their proposed agenda is internally consistent with the faith they use to justify and validate that same agenda. And the Bible - which they believe to be the Word of God and the final arbiter of truth - makes love relevant as a test of whether someone is a Christian believer.

If I can show the agenda is motivated by something other than love I can cast aspersions as to whether God Himself does indeed endorse or validate the agenda.

Granted, this form of argument is irrelevant to most folks but it can be quite effective with some of the sheeple here in crazy red f*cking JOklahoma.

For example, consider the comments of Mary Fowler in the blog below:

http://storiesinamerica.blogspot.com/2005/08/conversations-at-gas-pump.html

[mondo joe]

112. Whether they are consistent with their bible is a matter of theology.

And though you are free to do as you will, I do not think theology is proper material for political discourse.

Religion is a matter of belief anyway, and no matter how hard you believe someone is not consistent with their faith, they can believe otherwise. Christianity means too many things for any one group to lay claim to the REAL Christianity.

[Bluerthanblue]

122. the very same comments could be said

about morality, reason, and 'personal rights'.

Politics is a matter of 'opinions' and 'beliefs' anyway, and no matter how hard you believe someone is not consistent with their political views, they can believe otherwise. Politics means too many things for any one group to lay claim to the REAL Politically correct party.

see what i mean?

[mondo joe]

165. That's why reason and rights SHOULD be part of political discourse.

Who is a real Christian is part of THEOLOGY.

I don't see why thatt's hard to understand.

[Coyote_Bandit]

134. Internal and external consistency

within any belief system that is being applied to advocate social policy or political action is always relevant. If such a belief system lacks consistency then it cannot be presumed to be valid.

Political discourse ought to consist of much more than simply putting forth reason and evidence to support one's own agenda. It ought to also include a careful analysis and validation of the reason and evidence used to support contrary positions. To the extent those reasons are philosophical or theological they ought also to be subject to examination and criticism. Failure to apply such analysis allows such reasoning to go unchallenged.

I agree that theology should not be used to advocate social policy or political action. But it is. And when it is, it is certainly fair to challenge whether the belief system used to advocate the action is consistent with the action sought.

One reason fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim) have been so successful in assuming power is that the largely theological reasons their leaders put forth to validate their agenda go unchallenged. When we allow the teachings of some of these leaders to go unchallenged we enable them to manipulate folks.

Certainly I agree that it is inappropriate to use religion to advocate social policy and political action. But when someone else does so, it is wrong to shy away and allow those beliefs to go unexamined and unchallenged. Silence can easily be interpreted as a form of acquiescence or validation.

[mondo joe]

166. No - the reason they've been successful is that there has been an

inadequate response to the idea of these forces intruding into politics.

What do I care if Christian leaders say their faith is about X Y or Z? That's up to the faithful to decide. And frankly they are more in keeping with the historic model of the religion than some of their more progressive fellows are.

There's already been a Great Schism in Christianity. And since there have been plenty of people defining what it is for them.

The claim to Christianity by the biggest assholes is as valid as that of the best people.

[Coyote_Bandit]

232. Faith based decisions

will change for faith based reasons.

And while faith based arguments may be offensive and irrelevant to those who purport to use a purely rational and empirical decision making process they are nonetheless certainly relevant and useful with respect to those who take a more esoteric approach to decision making.

Point is that we all make decisions differently and weight various factors differently. It is a fact of human nature that we have different needs, priorities, desires and motivations. I may think that the sheeple are misguided uninformed irrational kooks. But they are perfectly entitled to divine the future and determine their role in it (e.g. through voting) by analyzing the condition of sheep innards, or using hallucinogenic drugs, or selectively using Scripture. Their reasons are their own - it matters not whether I consider those reasons to have any validity or legitimacy. But if I want to influence their conduct or motivate them to support my agenda then I must address what concerns and motivates them. Science and reason in and of itself will not motivate faith based voters. Why? Because they value and trust their faith more than our reason. We don't have to understand or agree with that choice.

Faith based arguments are not intended to impress or motivate rational empirical decision makers. They are intended to impact faith based and faith motivated voters. Repuke fundies have proven to be quite adept at using faith based arguments to motivate voters. We are ineffective and mistaken if we fail to respond to those arguments. And make no mistake about it, in abstaining from such dialog we do not show ourselves to be superior to those faith based voters. We show ourselves to be uninterested in their desires, unwilling to dialog, and, perhaps, more than a bit elitist, standoffish and aloof.

There is simply no reason why the democratic party and its candidates cannot appeal to faith based voters who seek a moral agenda. The fact is that we don't appeal to them because we choose not to. We did not create the fundie agenda or articulate the faith based reasons used to justify it. We have not yet figured out that rolling our eyes and ignoring the fundies is something less than effective. We dems have spent over 20 years largely ignoring the fundies and the merits of their agenda. During that time they have become more organized, better funded and have attracted far more sheeple who have bought into what they are selling. That in and of itself should indicate that perhaps our response has been less than satisfactory.

[Bluerthanblue]

170. silence is

a form of approval, because it says there is no need, or desire to counter the actions or beliefs being laid out.

It is often deadly- knowing when to remain silent, and when to speak is often one of my own personal pot-holes.

Our own personal beliefs, certainly do play into the social and political policies we hold or reject. At times those beliefs spill over into the public arena- we are all human. I'm thinking in specific of some of the speeches of Lincoln, and JFK which invoke 'god'- Personally i do not find them objectionable. In these instances, their use was, i believe not meant to manipulate, or justify, but overflow, of the individual speakers sincere emotions.

Wish i could say the same about the use of religious language and references being inserted into political jargon today. Personally, i feel like i'm being 'played'- and i find that very offensive.- So i can see how others who want not part of any of it, would shout FOUL-

thanks for making me think.

[Coyote_Bandit]

237. I spent

seven years in a Christian educational institution. I have had ample opportunity to observe various methods used to manipulate the sheeple. And I have had more opportunity than most to study church history, heresies and systematic theology.

What I see in the "Christian" agenda is a hunger for position and the power and prosperity that accompany it.

What I fail to see in the "Christian" agenda is any real consistency with the fundamental Biblical teachings that mandate social and economic justice. The candidates and policies endorsed by Christian leaders have done much to increase poverty, suffering and socio-economic division within this country.

Abortion, homosexuality, and various items relating to the free exercise of religion have been used to inflame passions and manipulate the sheeple. They have become highly emotional issues that are used to rally the "Christian" crusaders of today.

And there is a financial motive that underlies it all. We, after all, live in a country that has a professional pastorate whose survival is largely dependent upon the voluntary contributions of the more prosperous members of their congregation.

I think it is best not to use theology to validate and advoate one's agenda. Social policies should be subject to validation outside the realm of theology and philosophy.

However, I think it is wise to test and confront those who would use religion in and of itself to justify a political or social agenda. Silence regarding such matters can easily be misinterpreted.

And, yes, it is alwyas easier and more comfortable and more rational to avoid challenging an agenda put forth for faith based reasons. The point to remember I think is that such criticism is not an attack on another individual or on their beliefs. Rather it is questioning the validity and/or methodology of applying those beliefs to society as a whole. Questioning motives, internal and external consistency of the agenda and the veracity of the leaders advocating the agenda can be effective. The point isn't to demean someone else but to give reason and tools to question.

Thanks for the compliment. I admit to having my own biases regarding the issue. It has taken me some thought and some time to come to the conclusions I have stated here. I have long been offended by the idea of religious discussion regarding social and political issues. But I have come to see that sometimes it is necessary in order to rebut and confront the assertions of others.

[Bluerthanblue]

81. policies and laws devoid of

'love' are devoid of any value- You cannot seperate the two-
Compassion is quite honestly "love", kinship- the notion that we ALL must live together in community- not as self oriented, selfish beings.
Society without any positive or empathic feelings for others is impossible. Not talking about romance, or anything like that- just a lack of TOTAL 'self interest'.

[mondo joe]

91. Incorrect. Policies and laws must be ethical and fair, not

"loving".

No one said anything about creating a society devoid of empathy.

[Bluerthanblue]

94. bear with me...

can one have empathy without love?-(a positive emotion)

ADDENDUM - Interview granted to the National Post, Toronto, Canada, July 2003

Q. How important is empathy to proper psychological functioning?

A. Empathy is more important socially than it is psychologically. The absence of empathy - for instance in the Narcissistic and Antisocial personality disorders - predisposes people to exploit and abuse others. Empathy is the bedrock of our sense of morality. Arguably, aggressive behavior is as inhibited by empathy at least as much as it is by anticipated punishment.

But the existence of empathy in a person is also a sign of self-awareness, a healthy identity, a well-regulated sense of self-worth, and self-love (in the positive sense). Its absence denotes emotional and cognitive immaturity, an inability to love, to truly relate to others, to respect their boundaries and accept their needs, feelings, hopes, fears, choices, and preferences as autonomous entities.


Anti-social behaviour and Narcissism are destroyers of a 'workable' community- and the emotion of 'connectedness' and ability to CARE is essential- Can you honestly imagine a world full of bushs?

[mondo joe]

101. One can have love. But policy is not the place for it.

Love is a personal matter, and even a matter of conscience. It is not part of proper policy.

When you start to shove LOVE into the mix you end up with everyone's subjective ideas about love - you know, like LOVING the unborn, or LOVING homosexuals (but hating homosexuality".

I'll take policy predicated upon reason, fairness and autonomy, and I'll decide for myself about love.

[Bluerthanblue]

105. a rose by

any other name would still be a rose, and smell sweet.

Caring? acceptance? the opposite of love isn't hate it is apathy-
If you care, if you desire that we govern with reason, fairness, and autonomy, rather than looking out for yourself and saying everyone else can go cheeny themselves- you demonstrate what i would call the capacity for caring,-kinship- community- a form of love. not the mushy kissy, pretend, or excuse hatred under 'tough-love'- but a desire not to deprive others of their right to be who they are, as long as they don't harm you or others.

Love is a word many people really stumble over.- Pick one that sits better, you STILL have the ability to see beyond yourself- and that is in my 'book' a kind of love.

[mondo joe]

107. To the contrary: faiirness, reason and autonomy ARE self interest.

If I wish to have those things the surest way to guarantee them is by promoting them for others.

[Bluerthanblue]

114. you just hit

the 'golden rule' nail on the head.

[mondo joe]

115. And it doesn't require love as part of law or policy.

I have had enough of people who say they love me while trying to strip me of rights.

Respect my rights, uphold fairness and reason. I'll take care of love on my own.

[Bluerthanblue]

121. i'm not attempting to strip you of ANYTHING-

rather you might entertain the notion that that is exactly what you are doing to me- i have a right to hold my beliefs, and do not want to 'take' anything from you.

NOTHING- no expectations. No forcing ANYTHING on anyone. Believe or not believe anything you want.

[mondo joe]

124. I don't think YOU are. But when people place LOVE in policy that's one of

the potential outcomes.

Keep policy about fairness and reason. I'll handle love on my own, thanks.

[Bluerthanblue]

126. peace-

lets agree to that? i hope?
thnks,
no offense or coercion intended.
blu

[Coyote_Bandit]

234. Laws are not intended to be "loving"

But according to the Bible, love is the test as to whether someone is a believer.

When a religious leader uses his position and his faith to advocate a political agenda then I am well advised to question (1) whether that leader acts in a manner consistent with his own faith and (2) whether the agenda in question is consistent with the teachings of that faith. If I can cast aspersions on either of these issues then I can question the validity of the agenda when debating faith based voters.

[sepia_steel]

20. I am sick of

so-called Christians strutting around, proud of war and predjudice and lies. It's hypocritical. And when I see it I will complain about it.

[BlueJac]

202. Me Too

I can't stomach it anymore. :puke:

[Bluerthanblue]

28. using your 'rule' there are no 'real' Democrats or Republicans

either.

After all, it's only 'thought'- NOT actions you are saying we should be held accountable to, and for???

hogwash-

bushit-

[Terran]

45. That's it exactly.

Thanks. I was trying to distill why I thing the OP is full of it, and you said it better than I could.

And I'm not a religious person. I feel that I am a spiritual person, but I ain't no Christian, so I have no agenda in saying this.

[Bluerthanblue]

86. thank you- i don't often communicate my thoughts well. n/t

.

[Sunkiss BlueStar]

32. To be Christian is to be like Christ

but some religious people who act like Christ arent Christian
Mother Theresa for example

[sepia_steel]

35. right on the mark. nt

[Thtwudbeme]

37. Not really. We don't know what Jesus

was like.

At all.

See the problem?

[Bluerthanblue]

41. Where is the concrete evidence of what Ceasar was like?

or that HE existed?

History- books- legend-

maybe he is simply a myth too???

[kenny blankenship]

83. Nope

Doubting the existence of Gaius Iulius "Caesar" is about as irrational and non-credible a stance as doubting the historical existence of George Washington.

[Bluerthanblue]

84. for a man that

belittled 'ownership' of anything- and didn't value possesions at all, it's hard to counter that. Jesus didn't desire, or encourage people worship his human-ness. But rather to emulate his actions, like washing feet, helping the helpless, eating with the scum of the earth- breaking the taboo's.
Perhaps that is where 'faith' has to come in.

I don't have any personal belongings of my ancestors that came over here from Scotland, but that doesn't make them any less real than Ceasar- unless you count freckles, red hair and a gut reaction to pipers.- but those are hard to use as 'evidence'-

[mondo joe]

90. But you do have something of your ancestor's.

You have your genes.

And you must have some ancestors.

That doesn't mean there was a Jesus.

[Bluerthanblue]

98. i don't have a tangible object i can

photograph that would give proof positive that my ancestors who were forced out of scotland during the clearances existed. i have the 'history' as passed down by word of mouth- most possessions were destroyed, and the ones that replaced them have fallen into different hands than mine long, long ago.

That doesn't mean they didn't live- even the ones who had no progeny-
i am living proof that some of them lived- but not of their life.

[mondo joe]

102. Your body is tangible.

And it means you have ancestors.

The details of their lives as you know them may or may not be correct. But you do have ancestors, as evidenced by your existence.

There is not similar evidence that Jesus lived, and far less of what he was like or what he did if he DID live.

Caesar on the other hand has considerably more historic evidence, and though some of it may even be inaccurate there is enough to be certain about some things.

[JanMichael]

113. There is zero...zero...tangible evidence that Jesus lived

none whatsoever.

No writing, no archeological finds, no DNA...nothing.

In fact, there isn't evidence for many people in the Bible.

I am sorry, but you are talking about "faith," not history.

Stephanie

[Bluerthanblue]

119. presto chango

are you familiar with "Meeting Jesus Again for the first time" by Marcus
Borg, and the Jesus Seminars?
i went and dug out my book- As for tangible evidence, there is no tangible evidence of MANY things- that doesn't make them untrue. Nor does it make them non existant.
Were you to have lived in the time before Galleleo, you would have said that there was no tangible evidence that the planets didn't revolve around the earth, or that an egg and sperm were necessiary to form life in the womb- or that man could fly-
We aren't at the end of learning all there is to know, no matter how enlightened, and learned we may believe ourselves to be. Evidence is the result of seeking. If you believe there is nothing to be found, you will never find it, because you wouldn't recognize it if you did.
An open mind is a mind that can grow- a closed mind never 'learns' anything new, because it doesn't believe that something might exist, that has not been 'proven' YET.

History is based in part, on faith, that those who came before, and those who 'recorded' it are believed to be 'trustworthy'.

[mondo joe]

157. Incorrect. History is our best understanding based on a preponderance

of evidence.

And unless someone is digging up MORE evidence that Jesus lived, there's not enough to make the case he did.

[Bluerthanblue]

160. i don't know about you

but the history i was taught about Colombus, and especially the settling of America is quite different than the TRUTH that has come out since.
History is an odd thing. Often the 'history' of one culture is entirely different than the history told by another- the truth, i believe, lies somewhere in between.
The dead sea scrolls offer some of the evidence you seek. And they didn't show up till long after the KJV bible was written.

[mondo joe]

163. I'm talking history - not the little tales told to kids in 2nd grade.

Actual history has been pretty clear for those who are serious about it.

And the dead sea scrolls don't provide evidence of anything more than already existed.

[Bluerthanblue]

172. actually, the history

i was speaking of concerned things i was taught in jr and sr high school- (guess i'm really old).

And the Dead Sea scrolls ALSO speak of the man JESUS- evidence that he did in fact exist.

and i'm gonna let you win this regardless Joe, i've enjoyed exercising my brain, and examining my 'stand' on things with you. But i've got much work to get caught up on.

Again, i apologize if in my desire to express myself, i came on 'preachy' or as if i was 'evangelizing'- HONESTLY- that would be the last thing i would desire to do, to anyone, if you knew me, you'd know that to be sincere.

peace,
blu

[mondo joe]

175. Like I said, the actual history has been there for those serious enough

to look into it. I can't account for a poor high school experience.

The dead sea scrolls do not provide any additional evidence of Jesus - they're just preserved early transcripts of material that was already known to exist. They are no more evidence than the gospels.

[Sparkman]

212. Is any evidence from Jesus' time about people's acts SOLID?

Buildings, battle field victories and good deeds could all be accomplished by unnamed people, and from even later periods. Histories can be incorrectly attributed to ruler-class glory hogs that are warping history, much like today. Did early Jews exist? Or did a group claim an ancient history, undeservidly?
Early Chrisian church traditions mimic many other ancient religious practices, which is a form of tracer to an old history.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO DENY THE WISDOM OF CHRIST'S TEACHINGS.
ALL major religions of today share much if not most of the tennates of Christ, even more so those of His that clarified the Jewish tradition. Read Mathew chapter 7, to see forgiveness and non violence and love admonishments, to the Jews.

[mondo joe]

213. Yes, about a few people.

What's your point?

And depending on what you believe to be Christ's teachings they can be denied. Depends on which teachings yuo want to hold up and which you want to set aside.

[Thtwudbeme]

36. But, what was Christ like?

We don't know actually. We don't have any concrete evidence of his existence.

See? This becomes a circular argument...

[sepia_steel]

71. We don't NEED proof.

The Christians claim to fashion themselves after Christ, whose life story and teachings they get from a book called the Bible. And when they go against the teachings in the Bible, I'm gonna call 'em on it, period.

[undergroundpanther]

38. Not everyone thinks Mother Theresa was good

http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/genocide/christians/teresa.html

http://www.sarahlawrence.org/Articles/MotherTeresa.html

Check these links and think about what you are saying...

[Bluerthanblue]

63. she walked like a duck, quacked like a duck..

.. doesn't matter what anyone 'labeled' her, or did NOT allow her the card-carrying membership into- she lived her faith.

And was more a 'Christ'ian than most who claim the title.

She was a Catholic Nun, why do you say she wasn't Christian? Because fundementalists reject her??? They aren't the 'judge'.

[Thtwudbeme]

66. And that's the point. Nobody is the "judge"

Mother Theresa did much good in her life, nobody is disputing that.

The problem comes from her lack of progressive thinking towards the damaging doctrines of the Catholic faith.

Stephanie

[Sunkiss BlueStar]

73. WoW she was Catholic

im not religious at all. I always thought she was a muslim because of her dress. she seemed like a regular sane sweet old lady to me

thanks for the info

[Bluerthanblue]

79. no, thank YOU-

she was a truly delightful woman- who did what most only talk about-
not expecting, or desiring anything in return.
Her reward came in the 'giving'- and that reward is succulently sweet.
She hated abortion, but that went part and parcel whith the kind of person she was- a woman who believed that every single life mattered, and should be treated with love, nurturing, and equal value.- While i hate the 'need' for abortion, i could never condemn anyone for making what i believe to be an extreemly difficult, and personal decision.

She was human just like us, and did much good. I admire her love and dedication. (and i'm not, and have never been Catholic)

[mondo joe]

158. But are you the "judge"? Is anyone here?

[Bluerthanblue]

179. we ALL do Joe,

call the 'judgment' what you like- when a person lies and deceives, and then speaks truth, they are likely to be dismissed because of their lack of credibility, their history. Sad, but true. And reason for us to think hard about our words and deeds.
I've been 'told' alot about the rape rooms and torture of Saddam, i've heard selected 'news bites' about OBL- those stories are used to influence public opinion. Stories that people who left Iraq tell, and are either accepted or rejected based on the sincerity of the person telling them. One thing that i've rarely heard mentioned by anyone, is that it would not be difficult to find a WEALTH of people and stories that other countries could use to make a very 'convincing' case against America, and the notion of the 'goodness' of THIS country.

Perception, and whether we find a person credible, or a fraud is essential to living in society, and functioning. Condemning others to death, based on our own personal perceptions would be entirely wrong.

We all 'judge' the actions and deeds of each other, to some degree, and When a person justifies themselves by pointing to their 'religion' or 'belief system' as their guideline they are opened up to being held accountable by others who share in that 'religion' or 'system'.

Where there is opportunity to defend their position, and in so doing educate others- or re-think and re-examine, and make adjustments, or right their mistakes. Sometimes, ia person who is actually exploiting a 'cover' to deceive people is exposed for what they are.- Sometimes people learn something very new and important about long accepted and formerly unquestioned concepts. I'm not articulating this well, but it's the best i have.-

[mondo joe]

185. Then you shouldn't have written THEY AREN'T THE JUDGE

"She was a Catholic Nun, why do you say she wasn't Christian? Because fundementalists reject her??? They aren't the 'judge'."

If they're not the judge, why am I? Why are you?

[Bluerthanblue]

196. of her eternal,.

religious 'soul'. It goes to that place you don't want to go Joe-
The judgment i refer to is her 'godly' fitness. Within the 'religious community'- not as a fellow human being, living in harmony with what she espoused.

Religious people talk alot about eternity, and often claim to know who, and who will not 'be there'- THAT is something i don't get into. And don't belong in. Unlike many 'religious' groups and 'religious' people. I speak of her life being in harmony with her words, Her life underscoring what she claimed to believe. And my 'assessment' or 'perception' or 'judgment'(mine alone) doesn't impact her eternally either way says, "she was real, genuine, and consistent in her words AND deeds". Period. Many fundamentalists would say she died in sin- i don't care what they say- they CANNOT judge her eternal life. And that is what i referred too.

(yikes, tell me to shut up and go to work, i'm getting stuck here!!)

[mondo joe]

208. Now you're rewriting what you posted earlier.

"She was a Catholic Nun, why do you say she wasn't Christian? Because fundementalists reject her??? They aren't the 'judge'."

Now you say you were talking about her "eternal value", not whether she was "Christian" or not.

Which is it?

If you can judge who is a REAL Christian, why can't others?

[Bluerthanblue]

214. no i'm not Joe-

i'm saying that whether she will end up in what many refer to as 'heaven' is NOT MY CALL- it is no-ones. I specifically asked why the poster said she was not 'christian'- because in this f-d up 'fundie' society those whose voice speak loud, and claim divine seats- (mr.bush believes he is today's moses, by his own admission) ALSO claim to be able to tell who will gain entrance into 'heaven' and who will not- Catholics are on the s-t list within american fundementalsist believers.
As are Mormons, JW's, many Pentacostals, and ALL 'liberal' believers.

i said, as i will say again. Mother Theresa lived a life in harmony with the teachings and life of Jesus Christ. Therefore, i DO say she lived 'good' and a "Christ"ian life.

Her eternity isn't mine to have any say in- nor do i want to. People who aren't religious, quite often say "they are going to rot in hell for eternity for what they did"- it's a very human response to hurt and anger, and frustration. The desire for 'revenge'- i have no idea where folks will end up- as i said before, i hope, that we ALL end up 'fixed' and 'good' and 'eternal'.

I'm not changing my position here at all. MT was a very genuine, human, giving woman. Not perfect, not a godess, in my opinion a woman of very great beauty and genuine devotion. And i admire the way she chose to live her life here on earth.
She, lived true to what she professed a belief in. PERIOD.

Eternity???? that ain't my call-

[mondo joe]

217. Why do you say "why do you say she wasn't Christian? Because...

"why do you say she wasn't Christian? Because fundementalists reject her??? They aren't the 'judge'"

Who is the judge?

[merh]

42. You are entitled to your opinion and others that have "faith" or

believe in their own form of spirituality are entitled to their opinions.

The issue shouldn't be changing the language, but rather working toward educating the public so that the average person might see for him or herself just how unpleasant living under a conservative ideology is, unless one is fortunate enough to have been born in the top caste.

Glad to know that you think re-educating the masses is the answer. Seems to me you share more with them than you think.

:think:

[Thtwudbeme]

43. I think there is a difference between re-education, and education

Perhaps you can explain the fault that you find in the sentence you chose to highlight from my post.

[JVS]

44. Thank the Lord and sing his praise. Tell everyone what he has done.

Let all who seek the Lord rejoice and proudly bear his name. He recalls his promises and leads his people forth in joy with shouts of thanksgiving. Alleluia, Alleluia.

/LBW LW mode

Sorry for the disturbance, your post kind of knocked that loose.

[blondeatlast]

48. Amen (as in its literal meaning, "so be it!") You are spot-on, sister.

Thanks.

[raysr]

51. True-Real is Bullshit

This is Christianity. Look at history, don't take my word for it. If you're a Christian you might start looking for something else, because THIS is what they do.

[jonnyblitz]

53. yep...look at what christianity has wrought througout history...

it ain't pretty...

[Thtwudbeme]

54. I understand what you mean

and you are historically correct.

However, now, because of population size, and lightning fast communications, we are seeing "Christians" breaking down into even smaller groups--while communicating with each other.

See the problem?

[noiretextatique]

55. not that i disagree

but i think you are mistaken in your belief some americans want to live under a consertive theocracy simply because they are ill-informed. i saw that horrid phyllis schafly on bill maher's how the other night and was AMAZED by how much support she got from the audience. her DUMB argument: gays are finding "activist" judges to push their agenda (instead of following the precendent of the constitution), vs. using the legislatures to create new laws or expanding exisiting ones. but in reality, just as with civil rights, the judiciary was forced to act (within the guidelines of the constitution) because of the acceptibility of race, gender and sexual orientation prejudice in the culture. as we fgund in the last election: little has changed in the culture as a whole with regard to gays and lesbians. those traditional myths you mention are being pushed by people like schafly because they are the people who are in vogue right now. on the program with maher were asa hutchinson, some blond nazi clone (perhaps laura ingraham?)...and for 'our side': a comedian, chris rock.
the blonde nazi clone made several outrageous statements, about immigration, for exmaple, and though chris and bill gave her looks, her bs was pretty much allowed to stand unchallenged. the same with hutchinson....the same with schafly. meanwhile...maher came off looking like a racist idiot for supporting profiling of "arab-looking" men, something hutchinson, a politician, calimed to be against. i was wondering why maher failed to mention the white guy recently stopped from boarding a plane with guns :shrug:
so much for education...too many on 'our side' are as brainwashed by those traiditional myths as followers of robertson, etal.

[JPZenger]

60. God's Politics

Rev. Jim Wallis, is the founder of Call to Renewal, an evangelical ministry to the poor and the author of the best seller God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It." He was also interviewed on the Daily Show.

Wallis says that the Bible has 3,000 verses that mention helping the poor and, so far, he has not found any that talk about capital gains tax cuts for the rich.

"It is almost as if Jesus' top priorities have become a capital gains tax cut and the occupation of Iraq," he says. "It seems that religion has been hijacked and it is time for a rescue operation to take back the faith."

[Modem Butterfly]

61. Battle of the Xians

The ironical thing is that all the right-winger type Xians are busy calling moderate and liberal Xians fakes. So each side is pointing at each other going "Faker! No real Xian would do XYZ"

To hell with both of them, I say (pun fully intended). You can never know what's in someone's heart or head. If someone says they're a Xian, I'll take their word for it. I'm no psychic and I refuse to pretend I am.

[Thtwudbeme]

67. Right!

Exactly.

[Greyhound]

78. this sums up my position on the issue

A Wiccan dies and is standing outside St. Peter's Pearly Gates. St.
Peter looks into the book of life and he says, "Well I'm sorry. You're
not listed. You'll have to go to hell I'm afraid." The Wiccan says,
"Well that sucks, jolly good though." He steps into the elevator and
descends downward.

He steps out of the elevator and out onto a warm beach. The wind is
softly blowing the sand around him keeping him just cool enough to
enjoy
the weather. He looks out and sees people swimming in an ocean
oblivious
to life's problems.

Satan walks up to him hands him a drink and says, "Hey buddy, welcome."
The Wiccan looks at the drink and Satan reads his mind, "Here you can
drink as much as you want and you won't be feeling the effects in the
morning."

The Wiccan and Satan continue to talk and Satan is a lovely man. The
Wiccan can't believe all of the hype he's heard.

All of a sudden lightening cracks and the sky opens up. The Wiccan
looks
up in shock. Through the hole he sees a man falling. He's on fire and
screaming.

He plunges toward the earth and at the last second the earth swallows
him whole with a belch of fire and brimstone.

The Wiccan is stunned, "What the hell was that?" He asks Satan.

Satan looks at the Wiccan and says, "Christians. They wouldn't have it
any other way."

[Bluerthanblue]

85. if i tell you

i love children while i am busy molesting a 4yr old, and saying how 'right' i am, and how happy this makes the world, and how GOOD humans are all supposed to do this, would you feel the same??? or would you want to not only STOP me- but clarify that while some humans may 'do' that- it is not ok- nor is it good, or something all humans must do to be a part of society???

Our actions speak pretty clearly about what is in our heads- not the 'why's perhaps, but we may talk a good line, and negate it completely with our deeds.

By our 'fruit' you will know us.- religious or not.

[Modem Butterfly]

164. "You're not gay, you only THINK you're gay,"

"I know you say you don't want children, but your opinion will change,"

"You may call yourself an atheist, but secretly in your heart-of-hearts you believe in God,"

You can't know what's in someone's heart of mind. If someone tells me they're gay, I'm not going to respond with, "But you've dated the opposite sex before!". If someone tells me they don't want children, I'm not going to say, "Oh, you don't really mean that," and when I tell someone I'm an atheist, it's with the hope that they don't say, "No you're not, you're just trying to be contrary,"

[Bluerthanblue]

194. i'm not sure if you are agreeing

with me or trying to help me see things differently Modem.
If i am claiming a stand with my lips while living in complete discord in my life, i would hope you'd call me on it-! If someone tells me they are gay, that is fine- i don't care what they do in their bedroom or any where else, (as long as it is consentual). If someone tells me they they don't want kids, that is ALSO fine.
But, if someone says i'm a pacifist, and proceeds to beat the living shit out of another in public, while continuing to scream, "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN VIOLENCE, I AM A PACIFIST" with each blow, then my lord, i'd hope anyone would see the hyprocricy in that. And i especially think those who sincerly embraced pacificism would want to be sure that what this person is doing does not represent their view of what being a pacifist is.
I'm not saying anyone has to conform to my own personal convictions. But if someone is claiming to belong to a very broad and diverse group, and is taking actions very public, and drastic actions, while naming that 'group affiliation' as the reason and justification for their actions- the group not only has the right, but the responsibility to denounce, or distance themselves from actions which violate the very basis of the group. And CHRIST is the 'root word' of Christian.- hence, the teachings and history of Christ, are the basics of what one would look to as basic guidelines. Killing, making war, greed, and cronisim are not the hallmarks of Christ. And i want people to know i don't share what todays media 'christians' are defining 'me' as- and associating Christ with.

I'm not asking anyone to 'join' me- i'm clarifing the Christ i follow. And distancing myself from what is against everything i stand for. Just as bush doesn't represent me- as an American. And his deeds go against EVERYTHING i believe to be what 'america' is all about.

But then, maybe this is what America has become- and i don't belong here- and maybe that is what Christianity has become- and i don't belong there either- if so, we've gone belly up, and lost out to the very opposite of what we began as. On both scores.

[mondo joe]

178. I agree. Fight it out with each other in your churches, but keep it out

of political discourse.

[ultraist]

65. They are "Christian" Fascists

Speaking of which, my mother in law sent my kids an O'Reilly book for kids and told them she'd send them a surprise if they read it!

She's well aware of the fact that my husband and I are liberal Democrats and volunteered for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Where do these people get off? Unreal!

[Thtwudbeme]

68. She would hate my t-shirt!

"Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly"

;)

I am wearing it to the protest march in DC.

[ultraist]

75. Perfect! Did you buy that online?

I'd love to get for her as a "gift." HA!

[Thtwudbeme]

76. Here's the link!

http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/

I have never had anything but positive comments on my shirt!

[ultraist]

110. Thanks! I'm ordering one for my mother in law. LOL! n/t

[mondo joe]

74. I agree. It's none of my business who is a REAL Christian or not.

We've got the right saying leftist Christians aren't REAL and we've got the left saying the rightist Christians aren't real.

This is a matter of THEOLOGY, and I'm not interested in adopting theology as a part of political discourse.

[ultraist]

77. But it is of concern to us to discuss who is abusing religion

It's of our concern to understand and discuss those who are abusing religion for political purposes. Many of those people are pushing religion out of the religion realm, into the political realm.


Christian Fascists
May Harper's Magazine

"Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters" by Chris Hedges

"I can't help but recall the words of my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, Dr. James Luther Adams, who told us that when were his age, and he was then close to eighty, we would all be fighting the "Christian fascists." He gave us that warning twenty-five years ago, when Pat Robertson and other prominent evangelists began speaking of a new political religion that would direct its efforts at taking control of all major American institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government, so as to transform the United States into a global Christian empire. At the time, it was hard to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously.

But fascism, Adams warned, would not return wearing swastikas and brown shirts. Its ideological inheritors would cloak themselves in the language of the Bible; they would come carrying crosses and chanting the Pledge of Allegiance. ... too many liberals failed to understand the power and allure of evil, and when the radical Christians came, these people would undoubtedly play by the old, polite rules of democracy long after those in power had begun to dismantle the democratic state. ... He knew how desperately people want to believe lies told by totalitarian movements, how easily those lies lull moderates into passivity.

Adams told us to watch closely the Christian right's persecution of homosexuals and lesbians. Hitler, he reminded us, promised to restore moral values not long after he took power in 1933, then imposed a ban on all homosexual and lesbian organizations and publications. ... Homosexuals and lesbians, Adams said, would be the first "deviants" singled out by the Christian right. We would be the next."

[mondo joe]

87. But I do not agree that that extends to matters of theology.

People should not be placing their religion in policy, regardless of whether it is "real" or not, regardless of whether they "abuse" it or not.

The problem is not people abusing their religion - that's for their church or whatever to sort ut - but whether they are abusing POLICY.

[ultraist]

111. I agree

That's really what I meant, but you said it better!

[Bluerthanblue]

82. do DINO's bother you?

why are folks so comfortable questioning the real affiliation of those who step so CLEARLY out of the stance of Democrat, or Liberal??? Why is it offensive when those who label themselves Democrats or Liberals- and act or speak in ways that differ with what 'we' accept as the 'real/true' Democratic, or Liberal value system so different???

(Our political affiliations, when you come right down to it are indeed more connected to our own personal agendas, or for some spiritual beliefs than you might like- HOW we decide the way we 'should live' as a society is pretty complicated, and personal, yet we don't see that as somehow ....suspect...? )

Please help me understand.

[mondo joe]

89. I don't use that term, I don't worry about it.

But we do know there is a party platform and we can see how far people deviate from it. That's something.

Religion is a matter of conscience and faith, andcan be interpreted MANY different ways. It's not my business which is "real" or not.

I am, however, a member of the democratic party and I am part of the process that determines who we are. But I'm not a god - I don't know what's in anyone's "heart".

[Bluerthanblue]

96. KEY issue here is the word 'Religion' i'm not talking about

"Religion" i'm talkind about people who claim to base their actions, and shape their thoughts and deeds around the Life of a living being called JESUS CHRIST- who DOES have historical 'footprints'.
There is a book about the historical Jesus written by a man named Borg. That he lived is true- That his message has been perverted is also true. Constantine had more to do with what ended up in the bible than any other person- and he was a mere man, one i wouldn't set my sails by.

[mondo joe]

99. Again, these are issues of theology, not policy.

Churches can argue who is more like Jesus, what Jesus was like, what is abuse or not.

It's not the role of policy or law to do that. I believe in the separation of church and state.

[Bluerthanblue]

104. WE TOTALLY agree

in the separation of church and state Joe-
i don't for a millisecond advocate mixing the two. But to be honest, the 'spiritual' side of each and everyone of us, enters into our views and the decisions we make, and the morals we hold.

i'm incensed when people SAY they represent Christ, and live lives that speak the total opposite. In LARGE part, because those who kill and hate and abuse under the 'cover' of a man who advocated living the flip side of that kind of life- are dragging me into their slop.

As an American, i can and SHOULD say- "NOT in MY NAME" when bush and Co. act in complete contrast to what i believe 'American' means- Same with any 'affiliation'- Woman, Mother,Human,Adult,- if it contrasts my understanding of what it means to BE any of those, should i not be prepared to defend the ground i stand on??- That doesn't mean you have to stand there with me, but it does mean you cannot 'speak' for me. (nor i you).

peace-
we're splitting hairs- i think we actually have more in common than dividing us.- Speaking for myself.

[mondo joe]

109. I do not have a spiritual side.

But if I did it would still be none of my business who calls themselves by what religion.

Speak for yourself all you like, but when you say others aren't REAL Christians you're doing the same speakking-for-others you they do.

[Bluerthanblue]

116. we all have

a side that is not 'logical' or 'physical' a 'consiousness' that can stop, manifesting itself even when the physical body continues on - call it what you like- i've watched the 'life' leave a persons body- while their physical shell continued.-

And when i say that others who claim the name Christ, but deny him with their lives, that they have no crediblity. I'm NOT speaking for them, they are speaking with their deeds. I cannot 'control' them, nor do i desire to, but neither will i let them 'control' me- and by my 'deeds' i will either be 'credible' or not- when i say i desire to 'honor' the life and teachings of Christ. Judgement is not mine to 'give' or 'take'- but i can say that those who kill in the name of Christ, and Hate in the name of Christ, do not live as the Christ i follow encouraged, and instructed us to-

When Christians claim that 'you will burn in hell' they are passing 'godly judgement' on others- i don't know what will happen to them, but i DO hope for the best- for everyone. Even people i don't like.

[mondo joe]

118. Please don't foist your religious beliefs on me.

I'm no more interested in your claims of spirits than I am Jerry Falwell's of Hell.

And you can follow your idea of Christ just as Falwell does his, and both be Christians. You're both just finding what you want to find in it.

But I'd prefer you both keep your theological differences out of public policy and political discourse.

[Bluerthanblue]

120. i'm not attempting to

foist ANYTHING off on you- but neither will i allow you to tell me that my 'view' of life is any less credible than yours.

And saying that i believe someone, or dis-believe them based on their behaviour is INDEED my prerogative- You have no right to dismiss me, or tell me not to speak my own peace, while demanding your right to do the same. Your claim that what i believe is non-existent, is no more valid than my claim that i do not share the same belief as mr.Falwell.

The difference here is, i do not condemn him OR anyone else because they do not live by my own personal standards- And i say that there is NO 'credible' or 'implied' history to give even lip service to the notion that Jesus would have encouraged his followers to Assassinate any political leader, or had ANY part in waging war on another country invoking his name as justification.

I'm not attempting to 'convert' anyone- i'm clarifing the 'Christ' that i hope to follow, and embrace.

[mondo joe]

125. When you insist I have a "spiritual side" based on your religious beliefs

it's no different than Falwell telling me I'm going to hell because of his, or that we should teach about Adam & Eve in science class.

Believe whatever crap you want, but if you want to insist it applies to EVERYONE expect some kick back.

[Bluerthanblue]

127. poor choice of words on my part-

and i'm sorry to have offended you.
Not my intention, but intentions are no excuse.
I apologize for causing you to feel uncomfortable, or pushed- towards anything other than seeing another persons perspective.

blu

[txaslftist]

88. "..and they will know we are Christians by our love, love, love...

...they will know we are Christians by our love."

[Canuckistanian]

93. Good point, what is objective "truth" in religion

Especially with the Bible being open to so many interpretations.

Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Mennonite,Lebanese Druze, Ethiopian and other churches all claim the Bible as their source of belief. And look how different they are from each other.

[Bluerthanblue]

97. what is the objective 'truth' in politics?

it varies with the party, country, populace-
We are united by our common 'humanity' but we diverge greatly in where we go from there.

[Canuckistanian]

123. I was going to say

"Wow, man, cosmic, got any Cheetos?", but thought better of it.

*sigh*

Such a serious topic isn't it? Dreary. Too many emotions, too much passion. Can't penetrate it. Logic over over chaos improbable.

Truth is a mathematical equation that produces acceptable results in the long run.

Anything else is ultimately un-knowable.

[Bluerthanblue]

128. uh oh, math-

now youre taling over my head.
i'm fine till you start mixing numbers and letters. Though i aced geometry. Naming a line or an angle is ok, but algebra still stymies me.

it is passionate- but what is life without passion, for something? for anything, that would be dreary-

not looking for enemies, and now is wish i had some cheetos... or at least some popcorn.-
guess it's time to head to bed-

so much is un-knowable. Maybe there's a really important reason for that- i hope so.
peace,
blu

[ComerPerro]

100. If you don't say "true Christian"

then you get flamed for attacking the religon.

But you are exactly right.

[unschooler]

129. Imagine Dick Cheney started calling himself a "democrat."

People get really annoyed when jerks co-opt their personal labels

[tuvor]

132. I think all they're saying is that bush is a God-damned hypocrite.

Literally.

If you're going to dissect like this, also consider reading between the lines.

[Douglas Carpenter]

133. one basic point please...and I say this as a convinced secular humanist

There are many, many, progressive Christians. The civil rights movement and probably the peace movement would have never gotten off the ground without them.

If we are serious about building a progressive majority, it will never, never, never, never and again I say never happen without the support of progressive Christians.

[Lerkfish]

135. REv. Martin Luther King Jr., for one.

I'm just saying.

:shrug:

I guess if someone feels the need to lump all christians together, he has to go in the "go to hell all christians of any stripe" pot also.

kind of a shame, though, taking back the "I have a dream" speech and all.

I guess if progressive christians are not allowed to be on the same side with other DUers, then that's that.

However, we will still work for peace, and equal rights, and choice, and a host of other progressive causes. If you don't like it, I guess you'll have to close your eyes, because our hearts tell us these are the right things to do.


peace.

[DerekG]

136. A list of progressive Christians

Alas, the following puts a bit of a damper on the whole "opiate of the masses" diatribe.

Levi Coffin
David Walker
Rev. Elijah Lovejoy
William Lloyd Garrison
Frederick Douglass
Harriet Tubman
Gerritt Smith
Theodore Parker
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Henry Ward Beecher
Leo Tolstoy
Dorothy Day
A.J. Muste
Thomas Merton
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Senator Robert Kennedy
Senator George McGovern
Pope John XXIII
Fathers Daniel/Philip Berrigan
Rev. William Sloane Coffin
Bill Moyers
Archbishop Oscar Romero
Archbishop Desmund Tutu

[Douglas Carpenter]

140. those who bash progressive Christians are not serious about building a

progressive majority...they cause more harm to the cause of peace and justice than a thousand freepers.

Again I say this as someone who grew up gay in rural fundamentalist Pennsylvania in the 60's and knows by personal experience more than anyone the dark side of Christianity.

My own personal beliefs are not religious. But somethings are more important than myself.

All progressives should be jumping with joy and rolling out the red carpet.

To all progressive Christians, WE NEED YOU -- MORE THAN EVER!!

[Douglas Carpenter]

252. ,

.

[Thtwudbeme]

147. At what point in the original post

did you think I was bashing Liberal Christians?

I wish this thread could get back to the point: Playing the Religious "I am a better Christian than you.." is not going to get Liberals anywhere.

The semantics games we have been playing for decades ISN'T working; never has, never will.

Stephanie

[Lerkfish]

149. I wasn't referring to the original post.

but rather an amalgam of subsequent posts.
My comments are to the thread in general. I could point to the particular posts, but that would be counterproductive to my point.

as far as your point that playing the religious "I am a better Christian than you", I think you've misunderstood the lament of progressive christians. It isn't that we think we're better christians, its that the attitudes of the rightwing christians at this point in time is antithetical to Christ's teachings, in fact diametrically opposed. Christ did not make jokes at torture, avocate war or herald bigotry or support falsehoods in the pursuit of gain.

Therefore, what we are saying is that these people are NOT christian at all. We're not just saying we're better christians, we're saying they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Do you understand the difference? It is more fundamental than sematics. It goes to the very core of the intent of the religion: peace, compassion, charity and humility.

[Thtwudbeme]

150. Yes, I very much understand the difference

Do you understand that anybody has the right to label themselves a Christian, and interpret the Bible, or other religious texts, as they see fit?

In other words, your statement, "...these people are not christian at all" is fundamentally false. I understand that you are probably reading this and thinking something along the lines of "but I know what the prince of peace said, this woman is wrong..."

Try to understand this: the Bible is just a sacred text to a large group of people who call themselves Christians--that text can and has been, and will be interpreted many different ways--so who has the right to call themselves "christian?"

[Lerkfish]

156. respectfully, please do not put words in my mouth.

and also do not do so in a condescending and mocking way of my religion, thanks.

but yes, you are wrong in this regard: "christian" means to be christ-like. by definition, these people are not christian. Their actions and attitudes are 180 degrees from his teaching. Similar to Zell Miller calling himself a democrat, but having actions and attitudes that are 180 degrees from that. If we as democrats can make the assessment that Zell Miller is a democrat in name only, then similarly progressive christians can make that assessment of those who call themselves christian, but ignore christ.

Yes, of course I realize anyone at all can and will label themselves christian. Whether that's a "right", I'm not sure...do you mean in the legal sense? Or do you mean as a religious right?

But you appear to miss the basic portion of what I'm saying: being antithetical, diametrically opposed to a text is not the same thing as varying interpretation. Its negating the text and intent completely.

I honestly don't know why you're making your patently obvious point, that anyone can call themselves a christian, or what you think it avails you?

If progressive christians feel that rightwing christians are not following Christ's teachings, I'm confused why this upsets you and further why you think they are not qualified or allowed to come to that conclusion?


Who put you in charge of how I decide to define christianity, and why do you care?

what IS your agenda here, besides sowing seeds of discord?

[mondo joe]

155. Indeed. But Progressive Christians have long been a part of the party

WITHOUT turning it into a Progressive Christian PARTY.

Is a committment to peace, equality and justice not enough? Do Progressive Christians need something more?

[Lerkfish]

159. I have not seen any progressive christians doing that...

care to cite some examples?

Instead, what I see are a lot of threads attacking progressive christians, smearing them with the same overlarge brush with rightwing nutjobs, and then suggesting we should not be part of the progressive movement.

All we're asking is to not be attacked when your attacking the Pat Robertsons of the world.
And, we're continuing to fight the same fight with you.

Please point out where ANY progressive christian here has suggested turning this into a christian party?

ANYWHERE.

I have not seen it.

[mondo joe]

168. Doing WHAT?

How can I cite examples when I haven't claimed Progressive Christians DID anything?

I asked a question.

[Lerkfish]

184. my bad, I misread your post.

apologies.

to answer your question: nope, we don't anything except not to be lumped together with the Pat Robertsons, or told we don't belong. other than that, we're fine.

[jbnow]

137. Don't think the message we need to spread is

"This is not the "Velveteen Rabbit," there is nothing anyone can do to get "real" when it comes to religious thought."

We don't need to bust the myth as you say.
First-you really might not be correct. Your certainty does not equal certain truth.
And second, that just feeds into "the left wants to ban the bible" story
And third, fourth, fifth and so on...you might not be correct. Your view of reality, however sure you are, might not BE reality.

Same goes for those who are religious. I don't want them trying to "bust the myth" that nonbelievers have.

[rucky]

138. It's kinda like debating over whether Green Day is a "true" punk band.

eom

[TWiley]

141. If they call themselves a Christian, then they are.

There is nothing that really distinguishes a Christian from a different type of believer except that they claim that they are one.

[mondo joe]

190. Yes! At least Catholics have a system by which one can be judged a

TRUE Catholic or not.

But otherwise, all you need do is say you're a Christian.

[TWiley]

142. .

.

[Thtwudbeme]

143. Once AGAIN, a conversation on religious language on DU

has turned into mostly a conversation on whether or not Jesus really existed.

Can we please turn this back into a conversation on the language used by the Right Wing, and the language used by the Left to counter those points?

One poster here told me that I might not be "right." "Right" about what?

I also read the comment that "myths don't need to be busted," or something to that effect. When you see the word "myth" try not to automatically think "God" or "Zeus." The myths that I was referring to were the US myths that are so ingrained in people's heads...the welfare queens driving cadillacs...the homeless people that make so much money begging off the same corner for years...the American Dream home ownership crap...

Those myths have become somehow closely tied with this Christianity stuff...and the Liberal Christians are so busy trying to prove that "Jesus wouldn't have said this or that" that harmful legislation damn near ignored.

If you guys want to play the Outraged Liberal Christians who are Trying to Be Just Like Jesus, that is fine...but, as I wrote to somebody else closer to the top, you are playing on a field that you aren't familiar with, with a rule book that you can't quite understand.

Stephanie

[Thtwudbeme]

146. And!

This post was not ever written to question anyone's "faith."

I personally do not care, however I do respect, whatever anyone on this board chooses to believe. One of my favorite posters here, Khephra, posted about his beliefs in Wicca (I THINK it was Wicca...might have been Pagan, but it was something other than traditional Christianity.)...my husband is an agnostic, leaning towards atheism.

Hell, the head of the Religion Department at UNC-Chapel Hill came out and told his students that he now considers himself an agnostic.

Nobody needs to prove their "faith" on DU--especially on this thread.

Stephanie

[kentuck]

167. I think most of the posts question the Repubs use of Christianity...

to validate their political beliefs. Most of America has a general knowledge of Sunday School teachings and the basic teachings of Christ, in my opinion, whether or not they are believers. So it is not about "Christianity" as much as it is about hypocrisy...

[quiet.american]

171. Weighing in

Does everyone here understand that there is no such thing as a "True Christian?" That's kind of like saying, "well....I might have seen a unicorn in the parking lot last night...." There isn't a test, there isn't a group somewhere, when by joining you attain "real" status."

Here are my thoughts on your statement:

If one perverts and distorts the teachings of a religion towards one's own manipulative ends, one is not a true proponent of that religion, whether it be Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Wicca or any other.

The Bush-tians that I see called out by DUers clearly often go against the teachings of the New Testament while they purport to be the only true followers of Christ in America. They need to be called out on this, as they do not represent the teachings of Christianity any more than Osama bin Laden represents the teachings of Islam.

[mondo joe]

173. And who is the impartial judge of what those teachings are?

Who is the earthly judge?

[quiet.american]

174. No judge needed.

The words of the teachings speak for themselves.

[mondo joe]

176. Really? There's no interpreting to be done???

Then shall I take this to mean Pat Robertson is right?

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

How about this argument for slashing welfare to increase defense spending:

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Do these words speak for themselves?

"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

[quiet.american]

181. Here we go :)

We could trade scriptures all day in this usual argument, however, the point remains -- it's the distortion and perversion of scripture that speaks to whether one is a proponent of one's religion. If Pat Robertson is a proponent of an eye for an eye, he must also square that with "turn the other cheek." It's rare that we see any of these Bush-tians following the way of peace, of forgiveness, or of "with all thy getting, get understanding."

[mondo joe]

183. Why should I decide one group is perverting it and another is not?

I don't see why YOUR interpretation is more sincere than Rick Santorum's.

Is there interpretation to be done or not?

Even in interpreting the much more direct and practical Constitution there are significant disagreements in interpretation. Why would interpreting parable be less divisive?

You're no different than the far right who say YOU're not a REAL Christian.

[Lerkfish]

186. You're no different than the far right who say YOU're not a REAL Christian

"You're no different than the far right who say YOU're not a REAL Christian."

If you cannot tell the difference, then leave it to us who can?
how about that?

[mondo joe]

188. The bible is a Rorschach and different people see different things in it.

In this way you ARE no different than the Pat Robertsons who also insist theirs is the REAL interpretation.

And though you first said it could be judged by its words you then went on to admit that there is interpretation.

So congratulations - deep down you understand it's interpretation, even if you don't say so.

[quiet.american]

191. Thanks for the congratulations :)

It's worth noting in the New Testament Jesus consorted with all sorts of people who were considered unsavory by society and looked upon them with love and compassion, but those who made him fiercely angry were those he deemed religious hypocrites.

But who was he to judge and interpret? :)

[mondo joe]

192. That's one interpretation.

Another would be that those people CHANGED what they were doing.

You guys and the fundies both like to ignore the parts you don't like.

[quiet.american]

193. Huh? Changed what? n/t

[mondo joe]

204. Changed from their "sinful" ways. n/t

[quiet.american]

209. Are you referring to the religious hypocrites changing their ways?n/t

[mondo joe]

210. You can say Jesus hung out with "unsavory" persons, which per

the Christian mythos is accurate. But what would also be accurate is that they changed their ways after encountering him. You know, the "go forth and sin no more" thing.

[quiet.american]

221. Yes.... I agree with you.

My point is: he was roundly condemned for keeping company with people "the religious" routinely marginalized, and he did so with compassion. The ones who more often than not were the recipients of sharp words from him were the religious hypocrites of the day.

[mondo joe]

224. But the Falwells are happy to use the same model: "ex-gays".

they don't say "oh no you can't hang out with us". They say "hang out with us and sin no more".

Now the whole ex gay thing is a big fat crock of BS.

But scripturally they're as on target as any progressive Christian.

You all adhere to some teachings or passages and ignore others.

[frankly_fedup2]

245. You "guys" and the "fundies" ?????

Seems like you are doing a lot of "interpreting" yourself. Also, I find you're bunching everyone into certain groups to be a rather bigoted comment.

Why does hateful speech have to be a part of this discussion? Usually when someone is losing a debate is when the "hateful speech" comes out.

Are you getting insecure in your comments or just confusing what you are doing as different from what you claim "us guys and the fundies" do?

[Lerkfish]

197. LOL, pat yourself on the back all you want...

you're still putting words in my mouth that aren't there. This makes you think you've won the argument by being supremely obtuse to what I'm saying.
...and you're missing the point.

I maintain still there is a difference between variation in interpretation and diametric opposition.

And I still don't know what you prove by your own assertions?
I will agree that rightwing christians say they are following christ's teachings, as do progressive christians. I suppose for an outsider, it would help if you compare what christ actually taught to the actions of either group. If you conclude, after that, that both groups are exactly the same, then I can only conclude that was your desired outcome all along, and you wished to "fix the intelligence" to arrive at it.

well, at any rate, you have your opinion on this, and I have mine, so we'll just have to leave it at that.

[mondo joe]

206. I'm well aware of what's in the bible. Moreso than most believers.

I simply don't adhere to it.

And I can make determinations about who is more aligned with MY interpretation of the material. But I don't make the mistake of thinking MY interpretation is the REAL one.

The bible is a lot of vague text about many issues and it frequently contradicts itself. As I said, it is an inkblot test and you're seeing your values in it, just as the Falwells see theirs.

And so long as you each want to insist yours is the REAL image in the Rorschach you will continue to be the same, on that count.

[frankly_fedup2]

247. I'm sorry, my comments were meant in reaction to Mondo Joe's

choice of words. However, when everyone cannot agree, and before feelings are hurt, it is best to agree to disagree.

It's like my dad use to say, "Opinions are like a**holes . . . everybody has got one."

Doesn't mean you're wrong and I'm right or vica versa.

Religion is like a loaded gun on this board and everyone that gets involved is playing Russian Roulette.

[quiet.american]

187. You love the word "interpretation" don't you?

Let me ask you this:

Is it your *interpretation* that, generally speaking, the spiritual objective of churches, temples, synagogues, and others is to teach love, forgiveness, peace, and tolerance -- or to spread hatred, intolerance, prejudice and violence?

Would you be surprised or not to enter Christian church after Christian church where the pastors or priests gave sermons exhorting the congregation to go out and kill people?

Naturally, everyone's spiritual path involves their own perceptions of what it means to them. But when one uses one's religious path to deliberately harm others, that's a perversion of the principle of spirituality.

[mondo joe]

189. My interpretation is that churches etc are a vehicle for people to

ascribe too a divine figure whatever they want to believe. Some go for prejudice, some for peace, some for violence, some for forgiveness.

You have your idea of what "spirituality" is for, others have theirs.

It's a Rorschach, and in the ink blot some see 2 dogs eating a bean, others see a cat laughing. I don't care what you see in the ink blot, but it's tiresome to have the two groups always saying what the other sees in the inkblot is the wrong thing.

[Lerkfish]

198. here: buy a clue

if its tiresome, stop listening. You've already arrived at your conclusion absent actual information.

Just walk away with that, smugly and confident in your perceived cleverness. Then you don't have to listen to it anymore.



that's the best advice I have for you.

[mondo joe]

203. I have no choice but to listen when people try to shove it into political

discourse.

And if I'm absent any "actual information" you're welcome to point it out. But you haven't managed to yet, and I find your attitude about it no different than that of the Falwell's.

All you people who talk about who has the REAL Christianity remind me of fundy Muslims and fundy Christians fighting about who has the REAL God.

[Lerkfish]

205. thanks for proving my point.

[mondo joe]

207. If you have something meaningful to contribute, please do.

But throwing out empty assertions keeps you well in the Falwell territory.

Thanks.

[quiet.american]

215. It's not a matter of what your faith is ---

-- It's a matter of what you do with it. Is it being used to deliberately harm others? Do you use it to justify killing, thieving, intolerance, hatred, violence, ignorance? The Bush-tians are not the first to pervert religion for these purposes and certainly won't be the last.

[mondo joe]

218. I don't know who is perverting the religion. The Bushistas are

certainly in line with the HISTORY of Christianity.

But I don't care who is perverting it - that is a matter of THEOLOGY not political or policy discourse.

Argue with each other all you like about it.

[quiet.american]

219. No, they're in line with the history of perversion of Christianity. n/t

[mondo joe]

220. That's what they say about you, and you say about them.

In 2000 years there's been nothing but fighting about what REAL Christianity is.

As I've said repeatedly, argue theology in your churches all you like. It doesn't belong in political discourse.

[quiet.american]

223. Who's saying that about me? :)

I'm being facetious, however, the silence of good men enables the wrong actions of others. If the Bush-tians want to kill and thieve in the name of religion, while professing to hold the higher moral ground, they can expect to be called out on it.

[Bluerthanblue]

211. THANK YOU-

Quiet-when you speak you speak well.

[quiet.american]

216. Thanks, Blue! :) n/t

[OnionPatch]

177. Sorry but

they are not true Christians. I consider myself a Christian but I would never claim that my kind of Christianity is the only "true" kind. So, although I'm not sure what exactly a "true" Christian is, I sure as hell know what it isn't. Someone who advocates needless wars and killing is not a true Christian. Christ's whole message was about peace and love. I'm not going to allow a bunch of murdering thugs to go around claiming that Jesus wants them to kill (Muslims, South Americans, etc.) without speaking out against them.

[mondo joe]

180. How am I to know whether or not Jesus wants someone killed?

How am I to know his position on a variety of things?

Even when it comes to interpreting law - which is much more practically and explicitlly written - there are diifferences of interpretation.

Why should I assume in interpreting parables that one side is RIGHT and another wrong?

[Ron Green]

195. I believe there's been enough evidence over the past 2000 years

to substantiate that the message of Jesus is one of tolerance, love and honesty rather than hypocrisy and enmity. There's also sufficient evidence that many people and groups have behaved badly under the banner of Christ, and even today assholes like Pat Robertson and his ilk are doing the same thing. They are criminals, not reasonable people, and reasonable people agree that the message of Jesus of Nazareth is a peaceful and loving way, albeit counterintuitive (turn the other cheek, etc.)

So to know his position on a variety of things, just remember "love others as yourself." It's quite simple.

And yes, calling Pat Robertson an asshole is not a Christian thing for me to do, but that's my own failing and it's up to me to work on my own self in that area. I'm called upon to forgive even him, Bush, and all the others.

[mondo joe]

201. I'd say the 2,000 year history is the opposite.

From Constantin to the Inquisition to the Crusades to witch hunts to the KKK the HISTORY of Christianity lies more with the Jerry Falwells than with any progressive Christians, or with love tolerance and honesty.

Certainly there have always been streaks of what we might call a PROGRESSIVE nature. But it's far from the whole story.

At best you could say there has been 2,000 years of disagreement about what it means to be a Christian. So this is nothing new.

[Ron Green]

222. I'll clarify my point....

which is that the MESSAGE of Christ is very different from normal, fear-driven human behavior. The message, as has been studied and handed down throughout the centuries, is love. Fear, love's opposite, is the natural human condition, and has always (and always will) cause people to behave badly, and lie about it, often in Christ's name. This doesn't detract from the message itself, which is to act courageously (and counterintuitively) to love others as oneself, and to even see another as oneself. In this, other traditions such as Buddhism and the Tao share the perception of oneness, or Atonement, with Christianity.

There has been a 2000 year tradition of disagreement, not only about what it means to be Christian, but what it means to be human. The fact that people call themselves "Christian" and act badly doesn't diminish the clarity of the message, IMO.


edited for typos.

[mondo joe]

225. The "message of love" means different things to different people.

And I'd say you're looking at that message to see what you want to see, as the Falwells look to see what they want to see.

The bible is a vague, internally inconsistent document in which you can find anything you care to find. Think Rorschach or seeing images in clouds.

[Ron Green]

230. I'm not talking about the Bible. I'm talking about the message of Christ,

which has gone 'way beyond the Bible over these many centuries. People still use the Bible for their own purposes, some divine and some nefarious. However, the message of love, which is to connect to others rather than to control them, to seek understanding rather than dogma, is as universal as a smile, throughout the world. Anyone who's not loving is not following Christ, in my opinion. Regardless of the Bible, which is a book.

[mondo joe]

231. Forgive my asking, but where am I to find this "message of Christ"?

Especially the part that is "way beyond the Bible"?

Thank you.

[Ron Green]

233. No problem. You find it throughout your experience and your study,

in the great literature of the world, in everyday interactions with other human beings, in the truths of timeless art and music. Some of it is set down in print (like in the Bible) and some of it is found in the hearts of people who are learning to love themselves and each other.

If you're looking for corporeal or scientific proof of this, I certainly can't provide it. But anyone who lives a thoughtful life on this earth for 5 or 6 decades should know what I'm talking about.

[Thtwudbeme]

235. That could very well be the message of Shiva,

or Buddha-

I am not trying to piss you off, I am trying to make you understand that not one of us can put our fingers on exactly what the "truth" is..or who is "real" and who isn't.

Stephanie

[Ron Green]

239. As I mentioned in a post above,

many traditions share the essence of Christ's message. And although not ONE of us can put our fingers on exactly what the Truth is, ALL of us AS ONE can and indeed certainly do just that.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

[Thtwudbeme]

243. Mulder? Is that you?

OK, just kidding....

This is Stephanie, the OP, Thtwudbeme....I am quite sure I am posting under JanMichael...he's my husband, and is out walking Scout, the Wonder Dog.

I disagree with you; I wanted to believe that...it's kind of a new-agey idea that I like.

However, there are too many different religions, too many different philosophies for that statement to be accurate. It's not going to happen in our lifetime (I am in my forties)-

Steph

[Bluerthanblue]

250. it won't happen

for you Stephanie, if you aren't willing to look for it, or accept it.
Close yourself off if you need to, or want to, but don't presume to speak for everyone else.

And you are completely WRONG about there not being evidence of Christ's existance. Despite the fact that any evidence that existed prior to the Councils of Nicea were destroyed by those who didn't tow the 'corporate line' The Gnostic gospels spoke out very loudly in Egypt when some guys were out looking for fertilizer. They found it, not in the form they expected, but in the secret gospels of Thomas and others.
The gnostic teachings were ones that speak about a faith that makes those who need touchable 'evidence' very uncomfortable.
I find them fascinating.

And draw hope from their discovery, and message.

peace,
blu
"Are you a good Christian? Then you're a good Buddhist." --Thich Nat Han

[mondo joe]

238. So somehow this abstract study and feeling will tell me how to

distinguish between a REAL Christian and a FALSE Christian?

I find your criteria to be no better than than used by the Falwells to tell others (like gays, or peace activists) that THEY aren't REAL Christians.

And frankly, to associate interactions, art, music and literature with CHRIST's message to be rather exclusionary and creepy.

[Ron Green]

240. If you find my criteria (of love, acceptance, and connection)

to be no better than Robertson and Falwell's criteria (of condemnation, rules and fear), then I suggest you are missing something here.

Christ's message is about truth, as I understand it, and so are the arts. And so is love among human beings. I think whatever divides us is false, and wherever we are united is reality. Of course, this means that while you and I may disagree about who might be a "real" Christian, I believe that we are indeed one on the deepest level, so that our argument is insignificant compared to the real Truth of things.

[mondo joe]

242. No. Your criteria, like theirs, is: whatever you want it to be.

Which is the same as no criteria - just "whatever I say it is".

[Ron Green]

244. It's not just what I say it is, but people throughout history have shown

love, just as others have shown fear and loathing. I believe this difference is understood and acknowledged by people of good will. You and I disagree about this, but we're probably in agreement when it comes to the harm done by Pat Robertson and his kind.

[bvar22]

182. My sign at the PEACE vigil tonight on the Lake St Bridge:

You CAN'T BE
CHRISTIAN
&
Pro-WAR!

Pick ONE!

The above sign will also have a picture of the Christ figure (probably on the cross)

So I guess I won't be conforming to the OP. I've never carried a sign that made ANY reference to religion or god, but I like the content of the above sign.
When confronting someone's belief system, it is helpful to be able to speak their chosen language.

I am not Religious, and find most of the fights over over Religion, Christ, and Holy Books to be a "BLOODY" waste of time and energy.



One of my favorite prophets summed it up nicely for me:
"All I really want to know is:
Are you kind?"
---Jerry Garcia, Grateful Dead "Uncle John's Band"

[Festivito]

200. No words to express those feelings?

True and real invoke some sense of assuredness, perhaps over the top. People here feel that Pat Robertson represents a form of Christianity that is either self-deluded or, worse, faked.

Yes, he has a right to self-delude and even to fake it. So, what do we call it? Is not real, or not true too absolute, too self-assured?

None can judge whether Pat truely or really believes except God. When humans use true and real these words automatically fall from absolute to inexact, but expressive.

We need to use these budgeons we call words. Give us some to use, but do not take them away.

When discussing perfection/absolutism I prefer Zen's those who know do not tell, those who tell do not know, rather than a unicorn. But, what use is not to tell?

You are right, we have a lot to tell. Let's get it said.

[Bluerthanblue]

227. SPEAK THE TRUTH

as you know it to be in LOVE- and let your life do the shouting.

The bible itself puts alot of words in Jesus Christ's mouth-

Like many of Paul's teachings, being held as equal to those quoted as coming from Jesus himself.

Maybe there needs to be a new name for those who worship the bible-
personally i do not. The CHRIST as told of in the bible- THE CHRIST as he lived according to the bible- is not the same as the 'god' who ordered babies slaughtered, and killed indiscriminately, and rejected those who were born deformed, or female, or anything other than what was seen as 'ideal'-

Jesus lived a life of service, peace, unselfishness, kindness even in the face of hatred and ridicule. While you JOE may believe you have a good understanding of the 'bible'- remember it NOT the same writing that those scribes put onto papyrus so long ago. I'd rather the history have stayed 'oral' because it would have undergone changes that didn't have much to do with 'Politics'- Constantine, all the Kings of England, France, and all sorts of other people with other agenda's have influenced the 'truth' that is there- to be found by anyone who desires to look for it- or reject it.

Maybe the energy of this entire post- all the passion and thought would be put to better use decrying the notion that Pat Robertson speaks for ANYONE other than himself- and CLEARLY not for 'god'- as anyone believes 'god' to be.
And for those who tell me to shut up about my faith, when it comes to my 'politics' all i can say is HYPOCRITE-. I may put a 'face' on some of the reasons i hold the beliefs i do- and that face may be one of Jesus Christ- but i do NOT need to defend my right to do that- i only need to refrain from claiming the 'high-ground' because of it.
YOU, who would tell me to hide my faith- (no one in specific) or PROVE with evidence which is an oxymoron, are the one who needs to reign-in your own prejudice, and climb down off your own 'high horse'. We all shape our opinions and beliefs on things that we hold dear- no one's is any more valuable or important than another's.

end of a rant, and i'm quitting this for now- because i'm feeling very alienated from humanity as a whole based on the way we insist on behaving, even as people who desire to 'unite' behind a common cause-

screw it- i'm making no sense, and pissed- going to go take it out on the 'things' ive been leaving waiting.

[GoBlue]

248. Could we bust a few non-traditional myths also?

Like the implicit myth that God needs religion. Or that spiritual faith comes from someplace other than the soul. Or that the soul can be led. Just for starters.

[quaker bill]

249. you are incorrect, sir.

While it is hardly my place to judge, a Christian is what a Christian does. One that follows the teachings of Christ warrants the label, the others are mere "professors".

Many claim the cross, few carry it.

[ultraist]

256. Hate speech and other crimes committed under the name of "Christianity"

Religions are free to teach what they wish, but when they cross the line of breaking the law, we DO have a right to put a stop to it. Operating under the guise of a tax exempt church, does not give them license to break the law. As of late, hate speech and seperation of church and state, are the two primary legal arenas where the radical Christians have crossed the legal line.