What happened to Jesus?

Remove all ads!

Good point to both Hack and Grey. The Bible teaches us to learn of Christ through His word, prayer, and the guidence of the Spirit, to work out our faith and spread the Word to all the world, not to overthrow murderous dictators, bomb abortion clinics, or legislate morality to unbelievers. I would love to live in a truely christian country where such problems were not an issue (or not as much of one). Here in the real world, however, those of us who are christians need to know how to handle these issues and those of us who aren't should probably learn to understand our reasons, even if they don't agree.
That said, I repeat that Jesus doesn't teach us to overthrow dictators, bomb clinics, or legislate our morality. These are governmental issues for which we have legal courses of expressing our opinions and positions, but we are not called by the Bible to do any of these things.

 

Then - "let me go off and do the exact oppostite":

The interesting point here is that I could use both Hack's and NOG's argument to make the same point about abortion. But that would be equally absurd of me to do so. Thus, I will continue my search for some consistency in belief. What are my odds?

 

Read the Bible. There's your consistency in belief. Especially if you bother to learn the context in which the books were written, things will start to make a lot more sense.

 

Chandos, your point is well taken.

Christians have done a HORRIBLE job showing the world who Jesus is...they hardly seem like a credible source. When you consider that even the Roman Catholic Church is divided between Latin Rite and Eastern Rite...that there is division between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church...that Protestants and Catholics always manage to persecute each other, sometimes teaming up to go after Jews...that at current count there are over 60,000 Protestant denominations, most of which insist that they have the only truth...that there are modern day revelationists, like Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists that sometimes seem incredibly relevant...that often the most visible "christians" are sheisters like Jerry Fallwel, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker...that even an object so fundamental to Christianity as the Bible exists in numerous editions that often conflict with each other...

It's a mess. Christians have utterly failed at presenting Christ. I'd say "Jesus must be pissed", but that might be a bit blasphemous.

In spite of it all...in spite of the schism, division, deception, diversion and fision that has shrouded the greatest message in all of human history...the truth is out there.

Mulder was right.

 

Returning to the first post. I will be sad with you and keep quit. What can one say?

 

If God wanted every individual to interpret His Words in the exact same way, He would have given us all identical ears.

 

He also would have given us all the same language. Did you know that, in German, there is only one translation of the Bible, done by Martin Luther, back when the Reformation first began? No one has ever felt a need to 're-do' the translation. In English, it seems like we want to re-do it every five years or so. And now, many people are translating to other languages FROM English and not from the original languages. That is craziness if I ever heard it.

 

Well, that pretty much blows away the theory of a viable "personal" interpretation of Scripture and a "personal" Jesus, doesn't it?

If you say that the Bible is Truth...that Truth can't yeild un-truth...yet the fruit of personal interpretation is a shattered Christianity that opposes itself as much as sin...then you're left with one of two choices.

Either the Bible is flawed or the notion of personal interpretation of the Bible is flawed.

Take your pick.

 

I agree that IF there really was a person called Jesus and IF he really was the son of a God and IF he really did do good things for mankind, then yes, he would probably be a bit annoyed that his teachings had been twisted in so many different ways, many of which are contradictory. But who can tell if that was not what he intended? We don't really know for sure, do we?

 

Yes, and I share your feelings. And you make a strong point, HS. But there are many out there who do very well at it. And even in Houston, where there are probably more chruches per person than anywhere else in the country, there have been some great pastors. I know because, I have been to many of those churches. John Osteen was wonderful while he was alive and his son, Joel, has done very well at Lakewood. But in much smaller churches one can find very good men of God, who don't seek out the notoriety, but are just happy going about God's work quietly. The point is, the good ones never preach politics from the pulpit. And the larger point is that politics and religion just don't mix very well. The men who founded this country understood that point very well.

It is often commented on by some in the Christian community of how during the turmoil of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, that Ben Franklin rose up and suggested that preachers be brought in to lead the Convention in prayer, that they "may receive Heavenly Guidance" in crafting the final document. What they fail to mention is that at the bottom of Franklin's copy of his speech, he noted that "only three or four members voted in favor" of his measure; almost all the members of the Convention rejected the idea. Separation of Church and State is an American tradition, not the reverse.

 

Rrgh...

We're erring on the side of the article's author if we pretend that Christ doesn't care about our political positions, and that the best thing we can do is act as if Christ is completely uninvolved and uninterested in politics. The point isn't to conform Christ to our politics, but our politics to Christ; and just because an awful lot of people make a lot of awful mistakes in this regard doesn't mean that NO position can be right...or, at least, that any given position may be closer than another.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong about mixing God and politics; it's dangerous, but so is normal preaching on any subject. (Insofar as Christians are privileged with voting rights, and Christ claims authority over all of a Christian's life, one's vote is like all other aspects of one's life: subordinate to Christ.) There is certainly something intrinsically wrong, however, about exorcising God from politics such that the secular government becomes its own god, especially when He's exorcised in such a way as to make Him no more than cultural wallpaper. Mixing Christ and politics risks violating the third commandment; removing Him risks crossing the first and second.

And if we buy Christ's assertion that He's one with the Father, and then accept the Bible's larger point that the whole Trinity has been involved from the beginning, then clearly Christ is very much interested in politics. Even if you DON'T buy that, non-Christians should be able to accept that the real Christ did at least pretend to that authority.

It's too easy to say "Christ supports my positions, so vote this way!" or "Christ supports no positions, so vote how you want!". Jesus is too complex for either. Kinda like, y'know, a real person.

 

The problem, my friend, Grey, is that America is not just a "Christian" nation; we have many other religions to consider in the political mix as well. Minority views and values must be a part of the mix. Secular power and religious power, as rival institutions, have been at odds since the Middle Ages. A lot of the blood that the earth in Europe has soaked up over the last thousand years has been over whose religion is "right;" the wars are too numerous to mention, including many civil wars.

This is quite interesting, as in some ways, we have almost a parallel debate going on in the "freedom of expression" thread.

 

Call me crazy, but I was always taught that the Christian ideal was about kindness, helping those who needed help, not being judgemental (and to an extent, being aware of one's own foibles), showing humility and being truly sorry for the bad things one had done. Nobody's perfect, everyone makes mistakes and sins - the message is one of doing the right thing by other people first, and of apologising for the wrongs you have done, thought or spoken.

Admittedly, I was much too young to understand how complex the world really is at that stage. Plus, I was raised in a Uniting Church family, which has typically been a more progressive branch of the Christian faith. That's only my take on it - I'm just one person who's never read the Bible cover-to-cover, so you can take my opinion or leave it.

Getting back to the article - I think that generally, the people who hold the Christian message closest to them don't seek to use it or claim to speak for Christ. Someone who needs to parade or trample that message to make a point or justify their actions is not someone I believe I should listen to, no matter their persuasion.

 

Well, that's certainly a part of it, but Christ also teaches to do the right thing, whatever the cost. He teaches that there is no excuse for doing wrong and that one can only be forgiven if one repents (meaning turns away from it). Christians cannot just sit back while the world is filled with sin and injustice, we are called to cry out for justice and right, even in the darkest places, but also in the brightest.
No one is perfect, but that's not an excuse to keep doing wrong, or to let others get away with it. There is an absolute right and wrong and there is no grey line between them, though Satan does all he can to blur the line. We are called to spread this word to 'all the corners of the Earth', though we are not called to force everyone to convert. Conversion is something only God can do, we are only called to be witnesses for God.

 

The problem is that Christians can't seem to agree on what is sinful and injust - and so there are a whole heap crying out contradictory things all in the name of the same guy.

So, cry out for whatever you think Jesus was trying to say ... but leave Jesus' name out of it - because seeing Jesus claim mutually exclusive things though thousands of different people gets a bit screwy...

 

Most people claim things in Christ's name without paying any attention to what He actually taught. Read the Bible and decide for yourself. Does God hate Divorce? Yes, He even says so. Does God hate homosexuality? Its taught against in both the old and new testament, so yes, He does, but He doesn't hate the people, only the sin. How about extramarital sex? "If you even lust after a woman in your heart, you have commited adultery with her." That means even thinking about it.

 

God's laws in the Old Testament are less significant than they once were, since they're replaced by the New Covenant. Afaicr it was Paul who said homosexuality is wrong, and he didn't speak God's word, only his interpretation. It's also suggested he was condemning the Roman practice of buying a new male slave purely for recreational purposes. The epistles are generally a look at the emergence and growth of the early Christian church, rather than the word of God. Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality, I think.

Not quite. It means desiring the woman, and knowing within your heart that if the opportunity came you'd take it. And adultery isn't the same as extra-marital sex. It has to involve a married person. And feeling like that about a married person is hardly virtuous.

EDIT: And just to be clear (because I really wasn't), I'm not saying the Bible condemns or allows homosexuality, divorce, or thinking about married women. What I mean to say is that it's clear where these different interpretations come from. The contradictions are just people taking different interpretations of the text.

[ February 23, 2006, 21:37: Message edited by: Alavin ]

 

1.) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disapear, not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disapear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Mat. 5:17 NIV
The old law is just as valid today as it ever was. Christ brought us frogiveness, not a new law.
2.) Yes, Paul speaks against homosexuality in Romans 1, but he is speaking of all humanity, and specifically of the people of the past. His words apply to all people.
3.) It never ceases to amaze me how people can say they believe Christ, but not any of the apostles. Christ gave them, not only the authority to teach His word, and the words to teach, but the mandate to teach His word as He gave it to them. Are there other manuscripts written by early christians that were inspired by God and didn't make it into the Bible, possibly, but not necessarily. Are there any in the Bible that don't belong? No.
4.) Sorry, the actual quote is: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultry with her in his heart." Mat. 5:28 NIV
That means thinking about it. That means appreceating the curves. Now there is a certain beauty to the female body, but any mature guy who thinks he can just appreceate the inherant beauty and not lust is fooling himself. As for the adultry issue, its a translation thing. The greek word used here refers to the act with a woman, not the attack on a pre-existing relationship. I guess "Thou shalt not commit extra-marital sex." was a little long for the King James version.

 

We can all certainly pick and choose which sins we would care to quote from the Bible on, which is why I very seldom ever engage in the practice of playing "holier-than-thou." Anyone can read the Bible who has a 9th grade education. And as I mentioned before, there is a special regard for some regarding sins of sex to be of a "special nature."

Minding everyone elses sex life could seem to be a preoccupation of those who wish to draw attention away from the more important issues regarding life and death. But, rather than worrying about who is having sex with whom, while women and children are dying in Iraq as a result of a policy of naked aggression (and many Americans are dying as well), and one which is supported by some "Christians," there are those who know that Christianity is about much more than just the sexual control of the human race.

 

Hold on, there is a 'special regard' to some sex sins? Like what?
Ok, getting a little to focused on the sexual issues I can see. Its just that American society today bugs me SO much on these issues.
Feel free to quote any portion of the Bible you want, but it never ceases to amaze me how many people who talk like that have either never read the Bible, or done so in such a piece-meal fashion that they have no idea what it actually says.
If you want to talk about whether or not Jesus supports the war, the only things the Bible ever says about government is that you should obey its laws, as long as they don't interfere with God's laws. It never says anything about when to overthrow a foreign government, how much involvement one government should have on the policies of another, or anything to that effect.
As for actual debates on the war, that seems a little off-topic to me.