I am sick and tired of right-wing conservatives saying they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo-Christian ethic, of values. We're talking about values? You show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from poor people to give to the rich. The religious right refers to the left as "unholy", and other such nonsense. The truth is if you read Jesus' teachings, he was liberal before the word liberal was even invented.
Religious and Political labels
Kal,
>I am sick and tired of right-wing conservatives saying they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo-Christian ethic, of values. We're talking about values? You show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from poor people to give to the rich. The religious right refers to the left as "unholy", and other such nonsense. The truth is if you read Jesus' teachings, he was liberal before the word liberal was even invented.<
Interesting, but I have not a clue what you are writing about.
Bigger
>I am sick and tired of right-wing conservatives saying they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo-Christian ethic, of values. We're talking about values? You show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from poor people to give to the rich. The religious right refers to the left as "unholy", and other such nonsense. The truth is if you read Jesus' teachings, he was liberal before the word liberal was even invented.<
Interesting, but I have not a clue what you are writing about.
Bigger
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 162
Jesus was liberal???? I'm pretty sure Jesus was a gun toting conservative can of whoop ass, but whatever.
Originally posted by LambdaCalc:
That's the problem with the religious right. They changed what he meant to humanity and use his name to advance their radical right wing agenda. Jesus rejected greed, violence, the glorification of power, wealth without social balance, and judging of others' lifestyles' and beleifs'.
That's the problem with the religious right. They changed what he meant to humanity and use his name to advance their radical right wing agenda. Jesus rejected greed, violence, the glorification of power, wealth without social balance, and judging of others' lifestyles' and beleifs'.
9
9cyclops9
Guest
Kal-el,
I don't really want to get involved in a debate, as politics aren't really my thing, so I'll just say a few things. Firstly, I'm not going to associate myself with either "side," because, as I told millionman the other day, I'm pretty indifferent when it comes to this stuff. Whatever happens, happens. I'm a musician and I will continue to make music no matter the current social millieu. However, I am a Christian, so I feel I should call you out on a few things.
You make it sound like this is a rampant thing. Like all "conservatives" say that "liberals" are unholy and immoral. You're making HUGE blanket statements and generalizations. But I must say, I hear "religious right" far more often than I hear "unholy left" or anything of that sort. Liberals (and I don't intend to generalize, there's just not a "more fair" way to say it) tend to be very condescending toward people who do not share their political opinions. Note: I said opinions because that's what political thought boils down to.
And I hate the term "religious right." Firstly, because it's nearly always used in a negative way toward religious people (usually Christians). You make it sound like religion is a negative thing in our society. Secondly, because the term makes it sound like all conservatives are religious. This isn't the case whatsoever, and I'm sure you'd find just as many people on either side of the political fence (and everywhere in between) that claim to be religious.
Jesus never mentioned "taking from the poor to give to the rich," but he did say people should pay taxes. He was asked what if he thought the people should pay taxes, and he said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's." The thing is, taxes are a fundamental part of society. They have been for THOUSANDS of years. And I seriously doubt there's any way that's going to change anytime soon, at least not in our lifetimes.
My pastor did a fantastic series of sermons last year about the nature of Christ. And don't think "Oh here it comes, some right-wing blah blah" :D because you'd probably like my pastor, regardless of whatever your beliefs may be. He's a professor at a seminary here in Boston, so I assure you, he isn't exactly conservative and he'll speak against Bush as much as anyone else in this city. :D During Christ's life, he challenged BOTH sides. He was neither "liberal" nor "conservative." He was somewhere in between, and yet something altogether different. Sure, you have conservatives who may interpret a passage of Scripture one way, and liberals may interpret it completely differently. But, and it's especially helpful in these cases to look at the original Greek, in most cases, if you look deep enough into what he was saying (and also the social situation at the time), you will find that neither side's interpretation really fits the bill. There is always rationality and balance in every single thing Christ taught. So I disagree with your assertation that he was liberal.
Ok so I got more involved than I intended. That's all, and like I said, I don't want to be dragged into an argument. Take my statements or leave them, because I understand there's not much point debating with someone on a forum (read: a block of text).
I don't really want to get involved in a debate, as politics aren't really my thing, so I'll just say a few things. Firstly, I'm not going to associate myself with either "side," because, as I told millionman the other day, I'm pretty indifferent when it comes to this stuff. Whatever happens, happens. I'm a musician and I will continue to make music no matter the current social millieu. However, I am a Christian, so I feel I should call you out on a few things.
You make it sound like this is a rampant thing. Like all "conservatives" say that "liberals" are unholy and immoral. You're making HUGE blanket statements and generalizations. But I must say, I hear "religious right" far more often than I hear "unholy left" or anything of that sort. Liberals (and I don't intend to generalize, there's just not a "more fair" way to say it) tend to be very condescending toward people who do not share their political opinions. Note: I said opinions because that's what political thought boils down to.
And I hate the term "religious right." Firstly, because it's nearly always used in a negative way toward religious people (usually Christians). You make it sound like religion is a negative thing in our society. Secondly, because the term makes it sound like all conservatives are religious. This isn't the case whatsoever, and I'm sure you'd find just as many people on either side of the political fence (and everywhere in between) that claim to be religious.
Jesus never mentioned "taking from the poor to give to the rich," but he did say people should pay taxes. He was asked what if he thought the people should pay taxes, and he said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's." The thing is, taxes are a fundamental part of society. They have been for THOUSANDS of years. And I seriously doubt there's any way that's going to change anytime soon, at least not in our lifetimes.
My pastor did a fantastic series of sermons last year about the nature of Christ. And don't think "Oh here it comes, some right-wing blah blah" :D because you'd probably like my pastor, regardless of whatever your beliefs may be. He's a professor at a seminary here in Boston, so I assure you, he isn't exactly conservative and he'll speak against Bush as much as anyone else in this city. :D During Christ's life, he challenged BOTH sides. He was neither "liberal" nor "conservative." He was somewhere in between, and yet something altogether different. Sure, you have conservatives who may interpret a passage of Scripture one way, and liberals may interpret it completely differently. But, and it's especially helpful in these cases to look at the original Greek, in most cases, if you look deep enough into what he was saying (and also the social situation at the time), you will find that neither side's interpretation really fits the bill. There is always rationality and balance in every single thing Christ taught. So I disagree with your assertation that he was liberal.
Ok so I got more involved than I intended. That's all, and like I said, I don't want to be dragged into an argument. Take my statements or leave them, because I understand there's not much point debating with someone on a forum (read: a block of text).
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
The problem arises when "religious" beliefs are used to manipulate the public in the name of politics. I don't want to get into tonight, but really there is a concern whenever (and it is not a new occurrence obviously..it's just happening in my state currently so it's heightened my attention) religious figures side with one political agenda or group. In 06 I doubt Ohio will have a fanatical republican Christian governor, but then again Taft does blow like NO OTHER. Should I want one of these guys to win...Nah. Seriously though does anyone like Taft? I mean seriously? Does anyone? Republicans? Do they really like him? Dems? Greens? Libertarians? NO!
There's hell to pay in Ohio BLACKWELL, TAFT, BUSH/CHENEY! sonsabitches
There's hell to pay in Ohio BLACKWELL, TAFT, BUSH/CHENEY! sonsabitches
Last edited:
9
9cyclops9
Guest
iwant8inches said:
Agreed, with emphasis on the quotation marks. Most times, if not all, throughout history, in a situation like this, the "religious beliefs" were taken way out of context or distorted to say something that really isn't there. I think the most obvious example would be the Crusades.
Of course, then there are those beliefs and traditions that are in the Church that really have nothing to do with Christianity. For instance, the "rule" in Catholicism that says priests can't marry. That was a law made by a king that got tired of having to give out land to the clergy, so he put a halt to their reproduction by making a law against marriage, which became ingrained in the Catholic religion and for whatever reason is still there today. It really has nothing to do with "keeping the mind off the flesh" like most Catholics think. But that's a different thread, I guess. :D
Originally posted by 9cyclops9:
Well, Cyclops, everybody has their opinion, but the truth is that Jesus contradicted basically everything that existed. If you say he wasn't liberal, are you implying that he was conservative? Or maybe you're saying he was somewhere in between. But when you follow his teachings, I just can't see how one can come to the conclusion that he was leaning toward the right.
Here's all the proof you need:
http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/
Well, Cyclops, everybody has their opinion, but the truth is that Jesus contradicted basically everything that existed. If you say he wasn't liberal, are you implying that he was conservative? Or maybe you're saying he was somewhere in between. But when you follow his teachings, I just can't see how one can come to the conclusion that he was leaning toward the right.
Here's all the proof you need:
http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/
9
9cyclops9
Guest
Kal-el said:
You're agreeing with me and disagreeing at the same time? Did you even read what I wrote?
me said:
Not only did I say he wasn't liberal, I also said he wasn't conservative, yet you seemed to miss that part. Yes, he contradicted EVERYTHING, the liberals and the conservatives. And where did you get that I was saying he was leaning toward the right? We are talking about the same post, aren't we?
BTW, it's fine with me if we disagree, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. But I don't like my words being twisted to mean something completely opposite from what I said.
Last edited:
9
9cyclops9
Guest
No prob at all bro. I have a feeling we have the same views about it, but simply use different terms.
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
I think the main point of the post was that the Republicans/Conservatives seemed to have the market on morality which is backed by Christian leaders who would have us believe those to the left do not have the same morals/are incapable of sharing the same morals. So, really the point is no matter what the topic is it has nothing to do with your political views. Whether it's the spectrum of morality or actual religious beliefs like with the Catholic Church and priests not allowed to marry anyone can hold these to heart.
This was key in the 04 elections because it got tens of thousands of people in Ohio alone to vote against something like Gay marriage, which is certainly not exclusive belief held by Republican Conservatives, but it tends to be that way it'd seem. It's funny how most of the states that passed laws against same sex marriage and civil unions like Ohio are not really states that would be known for their high population of openly gay people. It makes me wonder just how many gay men and women are out there if people are that against something like marriage for two men or two women. There's got to be a lot people in denial pushing such laws (quite a few have been found out also recently in the last year or two) or there are more gays out there than I thought that are making these people nervous for whatever reason.
This was key in the 04 elections because it got tens of thousands of people in Ohio alone to vote against something like Gay marriage, which is certainly not exclusive belief held by Republican Conservatives, but it tends to be that way it'd seem. It's funny how most of the states that passed laws against same sex marriage and civil unions like Ohio are not really states that would be known for their high population of openly gay people. It makes me wonder just how many gay men and women are out there if people are that against something like marriage for two men or two women. There's got to be a lot people in denial pushing such laws (quite a few have been found out also recently in the last year or two) or there are more gays out there than I thought that are making these people nervous for whatever reason.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
Bush frequently invokes the name of god during major speechs, and usually in the context of either America being on the right side of the world view (axis of evil, ect.) or when discussing morality and national character. The people that write speechs are very intelligent, and every single word is selected for a reason, and they know very well what they're doing with the frequent god and spirituality references. The idea: god is on their side, so they must be right. So god is against the other guys? Or they're against god (liberals and terrorists, both holding hands on the naughty list!)? It's not a very subtle tactic, yet it doesn't garner anywhere near enough criticism, in my opinon. God needs to be left the hell out of US policies and especially the white house. Countries ruled by religious influenced policies and leaders (Bush is considered by many to be the the de facto head of the religious right, and the first president ever to have such a religious connection and significance) are generally the countries we end up having problems with.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
I'm sure Jesus would speak out against many things the Republicans are pushing, but the "Jesus was a liberal/would be a stoner" crowd speaks a lot of shit.
Jesus taught how to live on an individual basis; how one man should treat another. Jesus DID NOT teach nations how to implement either domestic or foreign policy. For example, as unjust as some wars might be, to say that war is unbiblical because of the "turn the other cheek" passage is nothing short of heretical.
Jesus taught how to live on an individual basis; how one man should treat another. Jesus DID NOT teach nations how to implement either domestic or foreign policy. For example, as unjust as some wars might be, to say that war is unbiblical because of the "turn the other cheek" passage is nothing short of heretical.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
iwant8inches said:
Gee...California? Massachusetts?
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
Swank said:
1. Yes, Jesus would in no uncertain terms consider the regimes of the Axis of Evil to be evil.
2. Bush may exploit the "religious right" for his political gain, but only a "scholar" with a radical left agenda would say he is the first President with a strong religious belief system, if you even buy that one. For starters, I would begin with Lincoln.
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
penguinsfan said:
How many areas allow civil unions or have a fairly high population that is in favor of them I should have said? The courts have been awash pretty much so to keep up with what the hell is going on has been on my back burner. Many states that would go that far as to pass a law banning it or actual right to marry are focusing on something that really wouldn't be noticed otherwise because well let's face it most governors/representatives aren't going to go against the "tradition" or "sanctity of marriage." These issues are dumb. Why does it concern people who have sex with the opposite sex whether or not people that have sex with the same sex can marry or be together legally/officially?
Last edited:
Iwant8,
>Why does it concern people who have sex with the opposite sex whether or not people that have sex with the same sex can marry or be together legally/officially?<
For me, and I think many others, it simply has to do with the history, and indeed, the definition of marriage. Where did the act of marriage begin? It was a religious ceremony, defined as exactly a union between a man and a woman. Anything else would not fit the definition, or would tend to broaden the original definition. This to me would lessen the sanctity of marriage. Make it less special, or in fact not special at all.
I would feel the same way if there were calls for the legalization of polygamy. Or for redefining marriage as a reltionship between any two or more entities, flora or fauna, mineral or vegetable. That the call is for redefining it between two men or two women makes no difference. The word marriage should continue to mean the bond between a man and a woman. If other relationships are found to be legal, then some other word, perhaps a new word, could be used to define that relationship.
With any other relationship, you cannot have the exact structure, interaction, etc, that is found in the relationship between a man and a woman. For example, you cannot have a child in the natural way, with any other relationship. It is particular, and unique, and is defined by the word 'marriage'.
As far as other relationships go, I care not a whit. Anyone can do whatever they wish, as long as it does not affect me in things such as taxes (polygamy), or in anything else significant. But make up your own word for these relationships. Marriage, in meaning, thoughts, and feelings, is already taken.
On the original subject, which I now understand, the left beats Bush over the head saying that the Iraq invasion was against Christ's teachings. Then, they acuse him of being too religious. I don't get it. Just some more weird logic I guess.
Bigger
>Why does it concern people who have sex with the opposite sex whether or not people that have sex with the same sex can marry or be together legally/officially?<
For me, and I think many others, it simply has to do with the history, and indeed, the definition of marriage. Where did the act of marriage begin? It was a religious ceremony, defined as exactly a union between a man and a woman. Anything else would not fit the definition, or would tend to broaden the original definition. This to me would lessen the sanctity of marriage. Make it less special, or in fact not special at all.
I would feel the same way if there were calls for the legalization of polygamy. Or for redefining marriage as a reltionship between any two or more entities, flora or fauna, mineral or vegetable. That the call is for redefining it between two men or two women makes no difference. The word marriage should continue to mean the bond between a man and a woman. If other relationships are found to be legal, then some other word, perhaps a new word, could be used to define that relationship.
With any other relationship, you cannot have the exact structure, interaction, etc, that is found in the relationship between a man and a woman. For example, you cannot have a child in the natural way, with any other relationship. It is particular, and unique, and is defined by the word 'marriage'.
As far as other relationships go, I care not a whit. Anyone can do whatever they wish, as long as it does not affect me in things such as taxes (polygamy), or in anything else significant. But make up your own word for these relationships. Marriage, in meaning, thoughts, and feelings, is already taken.
On the original subject, which I now understand, the left beats Bush over the head saying that the Iraq invasion was against Christ's teachings. Then, they acuse him of being too religious. I don't get it. Just some more weird logic I guess.
Bigger
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
iwant8inches said:
Why do we suddenly have to change marriage after 200 years in this country and thousands of years of human history? I could explain why this issue is important to me when I have more time. I'll just say I support measures such as a partner being able to make medical decisions and similar civil issues, but I am firmly opposed to marriage.
Look, this a losing issue. Gay marriage didn't even come close to passing in the liberal states and took a huge beating in the conservative states when it was voted on by the people. In case you didn't notice, the Democrats (a party I am considering switching to) have gotten hog-tied and buttfucked in no uncertain terms for about the last ten years in elections. Yes, the jackass has hardly been able to stand after the last few poundings from the elephant. HINT: The plays in the playbook are not working. Now, this may change with Howard Dean, but not if he keeps pushing the things that are not appealing to mainstream America. He is a brilliant man, despite torpedoing his Presidential aspirations with his "I Have a Scream" speech and his hypocrisy on Iraq.
If you think it will continue to work, try it again. But I suspect you'll be left with little more than trying to figure out how another election was "stolen" rather than acknowledging glaring failures.
Originally posted by penguinsfan:
We have had other religious speaking presidents', but no other President has so clearly thought of his calling in such epic biblical terms. For example 2 years ago when W said, "God told me to strike at Saddam", serves as further proof that he is a fanatic.
We have had other religious speaking presidents', but no other President has so clearly thought of his calling in such epic biblical terms. For example 2 years ago when W said, "God told me to strike at Saddam", serves as further proof that he is a fanatic.
Similar threads
