financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Dreadsox said:
To broaden it out is this God the same God as worshipped by Jews, Muslims and other belief systems?
Why does christianity = conservative right wing?
- Thread starter swissair135
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
To broaden it out is this God the same God as worshipped by Jews, Muslims and other belief systems?
Ft. Worth Frog
Acrobat
Wow, this thread has taken some serious twists and turns since it began. I am sure that I will say some things that have already been said, but oh,well.
It seems to me that Jesus was little concerned about political structures in his own time. He acknowledged the Roman presence, but did not advocate its overthrow like many were hoping (probably a part of Judas Iscariots disappointment with him). He said "My kingdom is not of this world" and told the disciples to focus not on earthly political systems, but on "laying up treasures in heaven." How did he say to do this-by denying oneself and taking up the cross by following his commands. What were his commands? Some seem to fall in the Right wing camp, others the left. We cannot just pick and choose what we want out of his sayings and say "Oh these look good. I'll use these for my argument but ignore the other things he said." Both sides are guilty of doing this. However, I do notice that the conservatives (count 'em on one hand) generally acknowledge the whole spectrum of his sayings but disagree that government should be as involved in taking care of the poor. The left/liberal crowd on the other hand generally shoves aside sayings they do not like-What did Jesus say about adultery (simply by lusting in one's heart) or divorce (only in case of adultery)? To sum it up, we must look at the whole of Jesus' teachings if we are to use them for support and not pick and choose like it is a great Golden Corral Buffet (a nasty place I know, but it just came to me).
It seems to me that Jesus was little concerned about political structures in his own time. He acknowledged the Roman presence, but did not advocate its overthrow like many were hoping (probably a part of Judas Iscariots disappointment with him). He said "My kingdom is not of this world" and told the disciples to focus not on earthly political systems, but on "laying up treasures in heaven." How did he say to do this-by denying oneself and taking up the cross by following his commands. What were his commands? Some seem to fall in the Right wing camp, others the left. We cannot just pick and choose what we want out of his sayings and say "Oh these look good. I'll use these for my argument but ignore the other things he said." Both sides are guilty of doing this. However, I do notice that the conservatives (count 'em on one hand) generally acknowledge the whole spectrum of his sayings but disagree that government should be as involved in taking care of the poor. The left/liberal crowd on the other hand generally shoves aside sayings they do not like-What did Jesus say about adultery (simply by lusting in one's heart) or divorce (only in case of adultery)? To sum it up, we must look at the whole of Jesus' teachings if we are to use them for support and not pick and choose like it is a great Golden Corral Buffet (a nasty place I know, but it just came to me).
Ft. Worth Frog said:
The adultery "exception clause" is a mistranslation of the Greek word, "porneia" ("blood mixing," or "incest"), that originated from the KJV. Hence, you will notice that only Protestant Bibles put in that so-called "adultery" exception clause permitting divorce, while Catholic Bibles have never reflected it. Both history and scholarly analysis prove one thing, though: you can't use the Bible to justify divorce because of adultery, but I guess if you accidentally marry a long-lost sibling (hey, it could happen), you would have Biblical precedent to divorce.
With that, conservatives are only interested in preserving their traditions and subsequent prejudices, while choosing to be woefully ignorant of modern scholarship that may prove some traditional interpretations to be false. I think that adhering to "Jesus' message" is only secondary to their zeal for maintaining tradition (and, by extension, fear of anything changing).
Melon
Ft. Worth Frog
Acrobat
Pardon the mistake of "moicheia" v "porneia". I am not a Bible scholar I admit. Your slam of conservatives as being "woefully" behind in scholarship appears to be a matter of opinion though so do not try to pass off your belief as fact.
However, it is still clear that Jesus' commands re:sexuality are not what today's liberals focus on and that is what I was trying to say.
However, it is still clear that Jesus' commands re:sexuality are not what today's liberals focus on and that is what I was trying to say.
Ft. Worth Frog said:
Since conservatives do not recognize "nuance" and everything is either "right" or "wrong" or "good" and "evil," I will say this then: I'm right. Now repent and sin no more.
Conservatives are so obsessed with sex. What's with that? Even Dante's "Inferno" placed lust in the upper echelons of hell, meaning that even the medieval times didn't see sexual sin as the worst. And neither did the New Testament, where the primary emphasis is against idolatry and idolatrous practices.
I wasn't about to start this "liberal vs. conservative" spat here, but since it was started, I will defend my belief system from those who wish to label it (God forbid) "liberal."
Religion, as a whole, became bastardized the minute it fused with politics. If conservatives really think that "smaller government" is a religious tenet, then I need no further evidence to show how messed up those beliefs are. No, it's a political idea.
Melon
Ft. Worth Frog
Acrobat
Where is the lack of nuance? Or obsessing over sex? Just because i mention it I'm obsessed? I am merely pointing out that many liberals will go to the Bible to justify their beliefs on welfare, healthcare, etc. but only for that, and that is just as political as what conservatives do.
Ft. Worth Frog said:
I'm not saying that liberal Christianity isn't prone to political interference, but it is certainly to the same degree as conservative Christianity.
However, I also tend to take particular exception to those who claim to know "Jesus' entire message" and deride anyone who disagrees with them as "picking and choosing." I think all religion is, by nature, "picking and choosing," because it is impossible to synthesize 1000+ pages of text. Plus, historically, religions emphasize different parts of the Bible to suit their ideology. Biblical fundamentalists of today would not likely get along with Biblical fundamentalists of 100 or 200 years ago.
Melon
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Dreadsox said:
Wow that's a load.
As far as the BS part, I didn't think it relevant to this thread, not for it not agreeing with my opinion. I very much wish Klaus and Bama were present. I'm not trolling in this thread and would like real answers not one liners. There haven't been any, except for NBC's last replies.
Do i think Bush is the unmentionable - no. But i am afraid and do think there are similarities in the way our media is acting, the withholding of info from citizenry and even worse Congress inhibiting thier oversight ability, and the infringment on individual civil liberties with the 1930's Germany. Are we a facist militarized state - no. Could be become one of course, it could happen to any government. I am not anywhere near alone in this belief that we are heading in this direction.
As for passing judgement already, maybe. But I sincerely want to understand. Your allowed your opinion.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Ft. Worth Frog said:
I agree with the Golden Corral Buffet *yuck* analogy. My beliefs are not liberal in the traditional sense, though my politics are.
I don't think they are limited to just the gov't and the poor, but politics geared to help the few not the many.
The care for the environment comes to mind, tax cuts for the wealthy (estate- dividends) plus 1.6 trillion new cuts allowing previously unallowed deductions, cuts in education funding while increasing the military budget.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Ft. Worth Frog said:
I never really had any interest in this thread what so ever. I peeked in a few times, but never posted. I usually try to avoid these threads, and this comment is exactly the reason why. This comment is the kind of crap that pollutes FYM. You've grossly stereotyped both sides and not only that but your stereotypes don't even come close to what divides the two sides.
Ft. Worth Frog said:
This is the statement you should have used as your post. Leave your inaccurate stereotypes at home.
Ft. Worth Frog
Acrobat
I'm sorry about "polluting"FYM with generalities. I did say "generally" meaning I knew I was making broad statements. I did not want to have to dig for specifics that late at night. To call my post crap is utterly ridiculous and inane. My observations come from my own experiences not just discussion here on FYM. I think you can disagree with me without beng stupid about it.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Ft. Worth Frog said:
I called your comment crap, not your post. But I remind you, I did not go as far as you by calling anyone stupid.
I do not tollerate generalizations of any kind. Therefore may be a little unrelenting about it, but I stand by that.
In my experience in here and in the real world these issues you speak are not the issues that divide conservative and liberal Christians, and believe me I've seen and experienced both sides throughout my life. But that's a different subject for a different thread.
Last edited:
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
melon said:
Melon,
I think you would agree that this is a very narrow interpretation of the word "porneia". My recollectionis that the word is used in many other passages to condemn sex outside of marriage.
If porneia is limited to incest, then many other passages of Scripture do not make sense.
Ft. Worth Frog
Acrobat
I never said those were the issues that divided Christians I merely pointed out two differences.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Ft. Worth Frog said:
I was speaking more in terms of your notion that one side looks at all scripture why the other seems to throw more out., but like I said another thread.
nbcrusader said:
Well, yes, the problem is "porneia," like most commonly mistranslated words and concepts, has no modern equivalent.
It literally means "blood mixing," which is a reference to Jewish ritual purity codes in the Mosaic Law. "Blood mixing," in practice, were prohibitions against marrying close family members. The Gospel of Matthew, originator of the so-called "exception clause," was Jewish Christian. So where it gets complicated is that Gentile Christianity (the origin of modern Christianity) completely reversed out Mosaic Law, as Paul emphasized conversion and faith over "law." Hence why the Pauline epistles emphasized "faith" and "grace" as the origin of salvation. The Book of James, on the other hand, was another Jewish Christian text; hence, its belief that faith and good works were necessary. The Gospel of Matthew, as analyzed, is known to have at least two authors, the latter which did a good job of editing out and adding things to suit Gentile Christian ideology...but not very efficiently. It's a mess.
Overall? I look at all of the things said in the gospels about divorce, and, overall, it does not support it. This is a very dubious passage, in general, not only having an obscure Greek word referring to an archaic Hebrew concept, then, on top of it, having blatant evidence of the KJV mistranslating it completely. I have to wonder if the Church of England purposely mistranslated it to support its belief in divorce. After all, we're talking about a religion founded solely to grant Henry VIII a divorce from Catherine of Aragon.
Melon
blueyedpoet
Refugee
OK, things are getting heated in here. Let me try to bring some peace into this thread (Jesus did say "blessed are the peace-makers" 
).
Let's focus on what we agree on. It seems that everyone here would agree that Jesus's teachings can be summed up in one word - love.
Everything boils down to that.
So, now that we agree on that (if you don't please explain) we should try and figure out how our politics should reflect love.
).Let's focus on what we agree on. It seems that everyone here would agree that Jesus's teachings can be summed up in one word - love.
Everything boils down to that.
So, now that we agree on that (if you don't please explain) we should try and figure out how our politics should reflect love.
Ft. Worth Frog
Acrobat
And that is a whole other thread
