Evangelicals call Jesus "weak" and "liberal"
- Thread starter Bowlmania
- Start date
Whenever this topic comes up, I feel like I sound like a broken record, but Kurt Vonnegut had it about as right about Jesus and the core of CHRISTianity as I've ever seen. He was a self-professed 'Christ-loving Atheist.' Basically he said Jesus teachings, specifically the Beatitudes, are what we should really pay attention to and try to live by.
All the justifications for war and what is 'righteous' evoked by Evangelicals and/or the Christian Right is usually from the old testament or from other people in the Bible. More often than not, actually, truly striving to be Christ-like pokes holes in the modern American version of Christianity.
This quote from Vonnegut says it better than I could:
“For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes (Matthew 5). But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course, that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere. 'Blessed are the merciful' in a courtroom? 'Blessed are the peacemakers' in the Pentagon? Give me a break!”
Meaningless drivel.
The poster makes no 'claims', just same old name-calling gabble..it's all the wannabe bolshi's have..
For those keeping score at home, the only appropriate response to being called a Nazi-sympathizer is "f*ck Nazis."
Not meaningless. You literally blamed "international jewry" for WW2. What label would you prefer other than Nazi sympathizer?
I'm pretty sure he claimed you're a Nazi sympathizer and a raging anti-semite.
If someone calls you a name or accuses you of being something, it's pretty much always assumed that they're claiming you're what their calling you or accusing you of being.
People are fallible. There are those on both sides of the church who don't do themselves favors with how they approach things. And it doesn't even necessarily mean that, religiously, they are compleyely wrong. Your criticism of some of the church is valid. Those you criticize would also have a quibble with the more liberal interpretation of Digital Underground Jesus (Doowutchyalike).
One side is too strident in delivering the rules and that turns people off (potentially leading to them rejecting the whole message which would imperil their salvation from the Christian POV) and the other is so focused on being a good "bro" that they forget sometimes all that acceptance isn't really scripturally backed either and could lead a person to continue in behavior that would also imperil their salvation.
The Sermon on the Mount doesn't stop with the Beatitudes.
I think you're right that there is a pendulum swinging back and forth here. That said, if the two extreme sides that that pendulum is swinging between are defined by using Christian teaching to justify war, political means, and division or, as you say, 'being a good bro,' I think we all would be better off if the pendulum stuck on that latter side.
And besides, I don't think the Sermon on the Mount was addressing people who are ardently Christian (or too strict in their expectation of other Christians). I think it was more about people who co-opt Christianity and scripture to justify their own agendas and means. I have a hard time reconciling politicians and their supporters evoking Jesus/Christianity to justify much of anything they do. In this day and age, it would be hard to get elected/re-elected for high office in the US if you actually let Jesus' teaching guide EVERYTHING you did.
That is your least flattering interpretation of what is occurring though. You go further down that sermon and you get to a discussion about divorce and adultery that are probably pretty uncomfortable for a host of people on each side. Christianity is a religion that strives for perfection on one hand while realizing how impossible that is for humans on the other. The beatitudes start with "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Most interpretations of that I have seen revolve around the idea of knowing you are a sinner and that you alone are not able to be a fully moral person without the intercession of God.
There is no pendulum. It is all or nothing and not using that for your own selfish desires. Which again, impossible to be perfect over a lifetime. The difference that should exist in Christians as opposed to everyone else is the whole poor (humble) in spirit thing. That should allow for some grace when dealing with others. Something we ALL need work on.
I don't agree there. I think it was clearly laid out to be the rules for his followers, he discusses the Law later in the sermon.
I don't think this is generally how it works though. Further up the thread you have people saying (paraphrased) "You can have your religious beliefs but keep them to yourself" and they mean that in how we decide policy in particular. That isn't how that works though. People are made of a whole host of beliefs and experiences that they carry with them into that ballot box. They aren't going to turn off their religious beliefs in the box any more than a feminist woman is likely to turn off hers.
Where we have the clash is where our expectation of what the government should be involved in is not in agreement between the majority of parties. My conservative view is that we should reduce the Government's intrusion into our lives and many of these cultural issues wouldn't feel so life and death.
Craze,
Craze, suspect you would agree that no one can speak for Evangelism and all Evangelicals.
However, what are some religious tenets upon which most Evangelicals agree, and are they much different from those of other Christian faiths ? If so, what are some differences ?
Craze, suspect you would agree that no one can speak for Evangelism and all Evangelicals.
However, what are some religious tenets upon which most Evangelicals agree, and are they much different from those of other Christian faiths ? If so, what are some differences ?
A lash out. A really unfortunate lash out.
Easy fella. No need to be calling people broke dick, douchebags because they extoll the importance of the nuclear family. We have millennia of human biology and cultural formation that tells this unit is optimal.
No one is being guilted or prayed upon. Before I found my fiancé, I simply understood that women who value trivial things (like abortion access, their career, pets, woke politics) over important things just weren’t going to be a long term match.
That’s was dating is for. To find someone with shared values who you think would make a good partner for child rearing.
The fact that you have such a reaction tells me all your female relationships are likely very shallow.
I don't know if you've ever posted a better explanation of what's wrong with you than this.
There isn't one simple answer and going through all of them would take time. So forgive me if I stick to the comparison that is going to be easiest for me.
The main schism I think you see today is that evangelical churches are overwhelmingly conservative, not just from a religious standpoint but socially as well, in just about everything. (That is broad brush because there are liberal evangelical churches popping up.) So I grew up in a Wesleyan Church which was an offshoot of the Methodists. The original reason for the split was mainly a disagreement over slavery (the Wesleyans were firmly against it while they felt the Methodists were too tolerant of it) and there were disagreements with church governance (in how it was organized).
Most of the mainline churches still carry over traditions and set ups from Catholicism and as you move to the evangelical side that tends to get deemphasized. And I don't mean core tenets, most Christians believe Jesus is divine and died for our sins and all of those things you would traditionally consider "Christian" from a belief standpoint. I have found that the idea of Pope's and Bishops and some of the more man adopted ceremony of like the Catholic or Lutheran Church are not found in most Evangelical sects.
Most of the schism are based around historical events. There is generally that core belief (or was, that isn't always the case now) that remained through the groups as they broke apart but disagreements over slavery broke the Wesleyans from the Methodists in the 19th century like you are seeing disagreements over things like homosexuality being a wedge in the UMC now.
So I guess that is a long winded way of saying that it depends based on who you are comparing them to. There are differences between the different evangelical movements and if you were to pick any two you would find different similarities and differences between them than if you compared them to a third.
Last edited:
Comparatively being the key point. Noticed you left off the rest of the sentence. Really unethical to try and take someone out of context like that, especially for a mod.
Careers are important, obviously. Compared to family formation and child rearing though?
Doesn’t even rate.
No one ends up on their death bed lamenting the fact that they didn’t put in enough hours to become partner. Or proud of the fact that they did.
Pet’s are great. I have a dog, but let’s be honest they’re surrogate children for young couples not ready to take the leap or single women who have no outlet to be nurturing because they’re alone.
I think the problem is when people conflate their political views with their Christianity. Worst yet is when they use their Christianity to justify their political leanings or very non-Christlike decisions and actions. Which is something that has become commonplace in modern politics. I think it's actually impossible to be a good follower of Christ and hold high office in the US.
Yes, we're all sinners. Yes we're all imperfect striving to be more like Jesus. The striving part is key there. I know there is at least a century of evidence in this country of people rationalizing their faith/beliefs with their decisions to wage war, enact policies that might hurt or alienate others, or support corrupt politicians for the 'greater' good. I can't imagine Jesus is good with any of that. And I don't see any evidence that anyone in that arena is 'striving' to make any meaningful change in the name of Jesus.
It's not so much what he prefers. It's more about what suits him. It's hard to see someone who makes that claim as anything BUT a Nazi sympathizer. I get why he wouldn't like that, but I'm sure alcoholics don't like being called alcoholics either.
The feminist lie that a spouse and children will impact your career is a fallacy. At least as far as said career making you more wealthy.
finance.yahoo.com
And the dual income, no children? They’re miserable as hell.
The Wealth Gap Between Married and Single People Is Widening — Here’s What Single Women Can Do
Traditionally, married people tend to be better off financially than those who are single -- and thanks to inflation, this is now more true than ever. Costco's Best Deals? Employee Reveals 10 Standout...
And the dual income, no children? They’re miserable as hell.
Last edited:
Oh man.
Don't take this the wrong way, but before you met your subservient, submissive, ready-to-child-rear fiance, my gut tells me you probably did a lot of hate/rage masturbating because all these career minded, pet loving, abortion supporting, commie women weren't giving you the time of day.
But that's just my personal opinion. I could be way off. I don't know.
I think some of that depends on your interpretation. Take the LGBTQ movement as the massive elephant in the room. You may view their opposition as not-Christlike. They would disagree. This becomes a contentious issue because, despite protestations to the contrary, the government does impose beliefs about that topic onto people who disagree. When the government is in a position to pick and choose winners based on a vote, voters will react accordingly.
Jesus doesn't care about human politics. Put that out there up front. As to the rest, any ideology can be used to do the things you claimed in that paragraph. I would argue that it isn't Christianity or really any of the ideologies doing this per se. Instead it is man, because man is fallen. That is the separation that you tend to see between secular humanists and religious types. I don't believe that people are deep down "good". There are those who are better than others but we all have our things whether we want to admit them or not. That is the issue.
Why do you associate women who plan to have kids with subservience?
I think I can boil this down to where we'll have to agree to disagree.
1) I actually do believe people are good at their core. Yes we're all prone to sin and halos most certainly slip from time to time, but most people genuinely want to do good and help others.
2) I think politicians and leaders need to be called to the carpet for hiding behind Christianity when shaping public policy or making decisions that impact thousands or millions of people. Most everyone's relationship with Jesus and God is personal and individualized, but that all changes when someone in high office makes a decision about going to war or somehow negatively impacts thousands or millions of people. I'm not interested in that pretzel logic that justifies that. At some point people have to give up the ghost. Or Ghost.
To avoid an endless back and forth I agree to disagree. Appreciate the respectful conversation.
My Cousin Tom considered himself to be a Drunk rather than an Alcoholic to avoid having to go to all those meetings
.
When it comes to government and the LGBTQ, it is more of one of the following choices
1) Forcing acceptance that people are allowed to be L, G, B, T and/or Q and possibly forcing accommodations for them as necessary.
2) Allowing people to discriminate against LGBTQ and/or not be accommodating to them. (at least we are past banning them from marriage)
With option 1, no one is forcing anyone to become L, G, B, T or Q so I don't understand how it is forcing anyone to go against their religious beliefs. Does baking a wedding cake for a LGBTQ person mean that the baker must be LGBTQ or even mean that they approve of the marriage/lifestyle? Not at all in my opinion as it just means they were doing their job. I don't see God saying "well you baked that sinner a cake, so you can't come to heaven." No one is being forced to assist the LGBTQ community in the actual sin (as some religious people see it - i personally don't see it as a sin).
With option #2, people's reasoning for being against the LGBTQ community is often based on religious beliefs. But the whole freedom of religion should prevent that. Plus, other people being LGBTQ has no effect on anyone else's ability to live their life (other than business owners having the cost of potentially needing to put in a unisex restroom). This is textbook religious people forcing their beliefs on others through legislation.
Last edited:
Libs love the word 'choice'.
It's everywhere in the lexicon.
But a woman who lives a life centered around Church, family and home, bearing, educating and nurturing children, working in concert with her husband, is 'subservient '.
So, her 'choices' make her subservient.
Hypocrisy..
Why did you put choices in quotes? Being subservient to their husbands - which is a tenant of traditional Evangelical Christian values - is a choice. And for what it's worth, if someone wants to live like that I'm not saying we should stop them. As long as they're all in - and made that choice - I have no problem with it.
Why do you assume conservative women are subservient? It’s complete nonsense. If a woman wants to stay home and raise children, good for her. It doesn’t make her subservient, submissive , or a 2nd class citizen.
he was referring to comments made by a specific poster.
I could toss in an insult like you would do but i'll refrain
Which one of my comments indicated I believe women should be subservient?he was referring to comments made by a specific poster.
I could toss in an insult like you would do but i'll refrain
I wasn’t projecting, you literally typed it.
No I didn't. I never typed 'conservative women are subservient' other than right now.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Bellarmine transfer center Langdon Hatton commits to Indiana- Latest: WhyisIUBBcursed