What happened to Jesus?

Remove all ads!

If that was the article's point, Drew, then he was cherry-picking his anecdotes; to quote two recent examples, the head of Italy's Senate just co-wrote two books with the Pope, and Italy's soon-to-be-ousted leader Berlusconi publicly compared himself to Jesus Christ. In both respects, our American politicians have yet to go THAT far.

I completely agree, Drew, that some politicians have hijacked Christ, a direct violation of the third commandment -- "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God" -- which has less to do with swearing than with exploiting God's name in the way you, and the article's author, point out. But I think we're erring on the side of cycnicism if we suppose that every American politician, left and right, who mentions Jesus is doing it in the wrong way.

Sir Fink, if you're interested in a scholarly look at the writing dates for the New Testament -- something a li'l more intellectual than The Da Vinci Code -- check out John Robinson's "Redating the New Testament". The guy is a total liberal and I disagree with him on a lot, but he makes a logical and coherent case that the stories were written down pret' soon after the events in question.

That, of course, is independent of whether or not the events recorded were actually true...but to suppose that Christ is different from what we see in the Gospels kinda gives free license to everybody else, conservatives included, to reinvent Christ as they see fit too.

Look, I'm a polysci major, so let me indulge a polysci example. There's a theory out there that claims that since political writers of the past didn't have free speech, they had to hedge their writings and disguise what they really wanted to say. Sounds plausible! But the result is that professors then "read between the lines" to dredge up all kinds of things that these political writers -- Machiavelli, Aristotle, etc. -- really MEANT to say, but had to hide. And mysteriously, these new analyses perfectly fit the professor's pre-existing ideology.

I just don't want to see that happen with our look at Christ. It's one thing to allow that Jesus said X, Y, and Z, but we're more enlightened now so we can understand where He went wrong. That's intellectually honest. What isn't honest is to deny that Jesus said X, Y, and Z because it violates some comfy portrait of Him -- and then, like this article's author, mock those who dwell too long on the X, Y, and Z parts.

And now for that long-delayed NWN break...

 

Interesting debate - but I fear it's going to be terribly one sides unless a non-christian who's well versed in all this theological/historical stuff arrives on the scene - because where the religious people have studied out of interest, it doesn't seem that the non-religious have done the same (or not to the same extent). Therefore the non-religious just don't have enough information to try and counter the religious here (or agree with them or whatever...).

(Maybe a liberal Christian would be just as useful if they know their stuff ... but there needs to be some knowledgable counterpoint or it's just steamrolling the unarmed opposition )

Personally my image of Jesus isn't one of some wishy-washy hippie, but rather of a militant pacifist revolutionary. I can't see how any politician can use this image because they're just nothing like that ... though I'm sure their own personal images of Jesus work for them. There are so many different images of Jesus that claiming your own one to your side is pretty meaningless. If we can't get rid of Jesus being used as a political tool - maybe if everyone uses it they can cancel each other out

 

There's only one person who could shut them up though isn't there And He hasn't said anything on the subject as of yet

Everyone in America can read?

 

Proponents of abortion, homosexual "marriage" and adoption are trying to have it the easy way, waving away all opposition as abuse of religion. Just because a religion says something is wrong invalidates the other moral, ethical and even practical concerns.

Another curious thing is how people use Jesus to get a fuzzy feeling about themselves and confirm themselves in doing what they damn well please without thinking of the moral side of it. Jesus said, "and I did not condemn you," but He also said, "go and sin no more." No, "go and try to stop sinning," or, "it will be okay if you fail once or twice but try not to." No. Jesus forgives all the time if asked for it but He never says it's OK to do as you want because you want and you like the feeling of it or it benefits you otherwise.

Besides, the analogy sucks on a logical level. It could be referred to persons who commit acts but not to acts themselves. Forgiving the act doesn't mean licence to do it again or any kind of permission, nor does it validate the decision to act that way.

All sides of political debates try to hijack religious, moral and philosophical figures for one purpose or another, usually to claim votes because they are so good, or to support themselves with the authority of a religious organisation (usually against that organisation's wishes).

Not every time when a politician quotes or calls on anything religious it's hijacking, though. It's one thing when he says, "God doesn't want you to kill, steal or lie," and another when he says, "God wants you to support income tax reduction/raise, railway investment plan or immigration procedure."

People may say Bush abuses religion (if we're talking in American terms) and its symbolic, but the same could be said of Kerry, who presented himself as a Catholic but voted the exact opposite of the Catholic teachings. It's not just a disease of conservatives.

 

American Catholics have long been divided over abortion. Kerry isn't a special case.

 

That's 'cause when people sincerely study what the Bible actually says, they don't stay non-believers for long!

Seriously, mes amis, the question at hand is VERY limited: are politicos (and article authors) accurately representing Christ as presented in the Bible? Take these two possibilities:

-- The Gospels don't accurately represent Christ, so the question is irrelevant. Anybody can recreate Christ's image however they wish; there's no real concrete evidence that can disprove anyone's interpretation, liberal or conservative.

-- The Gospels do accurately represent Christ, and we can point to concrete examples where politicos and poets are deviating (consciously or unconsciously).

Answering this question doesn't require a lifetime of intense scholarship. The Gospels are very short, even embarrassingly so, and the first three share similar material. Anyone can pick up a Gospel and breeze start to finish in a short afternoon.

I would challenge anyone here who's genuinely interested in how the world misrepresents Christ -- right and left -- to take an hour to read what the Bible actually says. Granted, that does cut into NWN time...which reminds me, now's the time to go back to my SotU game...

 

Yes, especially since George II ripped off John Paul's ideas on the "culture of life" while at the same time leaving out the other half that did not square with his own political aganda, which btw, is exactly what appears to be happening on this thread. Conservative Chritstians love to go on about "vice" and sex, while leaving out the other "hot button" issues: The war in Iraq and the death penalty, as two examples. While I disagree with some of the more conservative stances of the late Pope, nevertheless, I admire the consistency of his belief, and his integrity, especially regarding the CoL.

Taking of another life is morally wrong in Christian teaching, and while a lot of conservatives rant about abortion, they are well in favor of war - in which many innocents are slaughtered - and the death penalty - a situtation where an innocent person may be wrongly put to death. "Be careful what you teach" is something that I agree with: Christian values may be a blade with an edge, which in some instances, cuts both ways.

 

Before taking a well deserved break from work I post this story thinking it was very positive, but come back after a few days off to find that it turns into this...

 

@Cuchulainn, I found the article positive but anything having to do with religion is controversial.

 

What I have been taught about Jesus it seems to me that he rebelled against a religion that seems to have been everything that Christianity is today. Ie the teachings of Christ have turned into what Christ himself tried to change. Isnt it ironic?

 

Though the article was geared towards the US, I would say that it can apply to pretty much anywhere (which is why I did not use the original title of the article).

 

Yeah. I even remember his saying that if we are to err, we should err on the side of life. I'm not so sure if the war in Iraq is on the side of life. Saddam was a mean bastard and exacted a heavy toll of suffering. But what happened during the war and is going on now isn't so much better in a universal opinion. Contrary, it's even worse, according to some. As for death penalty, yes, that would be a classic case of making a convenient exception. If conservatives were to drop death penalty or at least the execution of it, they would be regarded more seriously in what pertains to their opposition to abortion and euthanasia, I think. Conservatives can say it's all fine about justice and moral law but no death penalty is a tad bit too optimistic and too lenient on criminals etc, while liberals can say it's all nice about love and mercy but one should still be able to take the lives of unborn children to make their mothers feel better, in the name of freedom of choice etc. Each side will call the other inconsistent. By the way, yet another thing conservatives miss is that mothers with children and pregnant women are traditionally one of the most important groups entitled to social, public support and special care in Christian tradition. This isn't to weaken my own opposition to abortion or even undermine the conservatives', even in the absence of such care, but the fact stands. As for people who would spend their lives in prison instead of being quickly disposed of, they can work. As can any prisoners. There's a difference between disposing of a dangerous and not so corrigible criminal and disposing of an unborn child who couldn't possibly have done anything wrong, but there is a connection.

 

Polls have indicated, however, that polictical affiliation has less stance on what people really think about abortion. I read a survey (doubt I'll be able to track it down, unfortunately) that showed that party affiliation only had the slightest affect on a persons stance on abortion. As an extremely liberal pro-lifer married to another extremely liberal pro-lifer I've experienced this first hand.

 

By pro-lifer you mean to say you oppose abortion?

 

First off, where does the Bible say that killing of any kind is immoral? And don't quote me "Thou shalt not kill," because that's not what the Bible says.
Second off, I, a conservative republican, don't support the death penalty, but not on moral issues. I say we get rid of it because it isn't cost effective. It costs more to keep someone on Death Row for the average stay than to keep the same person in Max Security prison for life, and I mean the durration of their life, natural or not.
As for the war in Iraq, the death toll from that war is actually not that bad when you look at the mortality rate of people under Sadam for the ten years before it.

 

Somehow I can't see Jesus aproving of the way the war is being handled.

[ February 20, 2006, 17:05: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

Mes amis, we're getting distracted. (And by a moderator, no less!) The issue at hand is not whether the leftists or rightists have more blind spots, or which blind spots. We can argue 'til we're blue in the face about whether Christ would really support the death penalty, or the war in Iraq, or abortion, or homosexual marriage, or whatever -- actually, we HAVE argued those issues into the ground in other threads.

Our focus is much more limited, or at least should be. Specifically:

-- Did the author accurately judge that rightists misunderstand Christ and misuse His name? Uh, yeah.

-- Did the author completely miss his own glaring blindspots and misunderstand Christ and misuse His name? Heck yeah.

-- Does this hugely extended discussion show, with delicious irony, that we all have our own blindspots concerning Christ? Most definitely.

To repeat my all-too-modest suggestion, if we stopped trying to win Christ's vote for this or that ideological design and maybe actually, I don't know, READ THE BIBLE to see what Christ wants US to do, we might make more progress on this discussion.

 

Your post reveals some of the most convoluted logic I have seen in a long time: First off, if you value life at all, then every life which God has given has value. It's like a killer saying: "Well, I only killed five people, the other guy killed 18, so I'm not so bad. Let's break it down further: Should we have a quota on abortions then as a compromise to end the debate? Let's say so many thousands a year, and stop an some arbritary number, which we perceive to be OK.

But if you don't think that the killing of innocent life is not immoral, then I don't think any book can be much help here. I'm not a Bible quoter; I never have gone in for the practice very much. Anyone can read it and draw his or hers own conclusions for themselves. Yet, I'm reminded of another quote of which I can't recall the source, but it goes something like: "The difference between right and wrong? Do you really need someone to tell you these things?"

 

@Svyatoslav: Yep. I oppose abortion and the death penalty. And I'm really, really liberal in every other sense of the word. There are actually a lot of people like me. My theory of why republicans are pro-life and democrats are pro-choice is that it's all marketing. Democrats look to progressives to get votes. People looking for change. For a lot of them, abortion is a big issue. Most other folks that vote democrat are more or less ambivalent about it. Republicans look to people who want the status quo. These people are often very religious, and very few religious denominations allow abortion. Most of the other folks voting Republican are, more or less, ambivalent about the issue. Ambivalence is the most common stance Americans have on abortion, according to the surveys (of admittedly questionable accuracy) that I've seen.

Sorry about going off topic.

 

To restate what Grey's already said...in the battle to determine who's side Jesus is on there are extraordinarily limited sources from which to gain knowledge. The understanding doesn't come from secular fiction (aka "DaVinci Code), it doesn't come from introspective meditation, it doesn't come from Preacher Bob who can pound the pulpit hard enough to make your ears ring, it doesn't come from historians, it doesn't come from the indigestion that caused you to have strange dreams last night.

A Protestant, like Grey, will tell you that knowledge of Christ comes from one source...the Bible. A Catholic, like myself will expand on that somewhat to include a Church imbued with authority to teach along with certain verified post-scripture revelations. There's no other way.

As a result of this, anyone who tries to equate Jesus with a moral issue based on what they feel is flawed to begin with. That's why I took objection to the article, because the writer was describing the morality of Jesus based on a personal morality with no authoritative basis to back it up.

It's almost impossible to plug Christ into a stance on war or death penalty. Even the Catholic Church, which has probably the strongest stance against the death penalty, doesn't call upon us to fight against it. There are surprisingly few moral absolutes in the Church (abortion being one of them). The Scriptural decree against taking life is specifically pointed toward "innocent" life...this leaves a degree of latitude when dealing with war and the death penalty.

As far as Jesus objecting to the "handling of the War"...I'm not so sure he would even care. He was faced with an oppressive Roman government and still said to "render unto Ceasar...". He still asked slaves to obey their masters...and ordered masters to be just. You see, Jesus never tried to change the world...he just tried to change souls with intentions toward the next world. That's why so many of his Disciples felt betrayed and confused. They wanted him to claim an earthly kingdom to right all the wrongs...which was never the intent of his coming. There's no doubt that if each and everyone of us tried to live as Jesus, the world would be a better place...but that was never the point or the message of his ministry.

This world is a flawed place, and always will be. There's no way to equate a political view on Jesus or God that originates from a flawed existence. I hope that makes sense because I know that we're getting into some fundamental backbones of Christian Theology.

Oh yeah, I find the to be insulting and offensive.