NationStates Jolt Archive

This has got me thinking that has religion been hijacked by the right, and been unjustifyably used for political aims such as abortion, rigid family values and the like. Of course ethical and christian socialism has existed for some time, but I myself feel that social left issues such as unemployment and poverty would be more in tune with a more free and less rigid religious political ideal. Jesus' himself taught the most radical teachings of his time, and indeed helped the poor, so how in Gods name (np un intended) did religion become the shield of pro-business homophobic conservatives and the like, which is so outdated with modern democratic and liberal society. And in particular the 'rampant individualism' that Rudd talks about, I think that leftist christians should make a return to politics myself.
What do people think?

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1753913.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200610/r109423_340384.asx

I think it's primarily the rise of materialism as the new God that has a lot to do with it.

Which is more important? That the government take my money (and waste most of it) before giving to people on welfare (who probably shouldn't be on it) or that I help to prevent unborn babies from being murdered...excuse me, aborted?

Obviously (from a Christian standpoint) it is the second.

Though, we are so concerned with making sure that everyone has a good meal, that we forget that a person needs to be alive so that we can feed him. We're so concerned with getting people housing, that we forget that people need stable families to have the "love instinct" to get along well with others and live in communities.

Instead of raising the banner of the Left (which is correct: they left morality and common sense), join the Right and fight for what is right.

Incidentally, you can feed the hungry and clothe the naked: it's called charity and it uses nearly all the money to do those things, rather than wasting most of it on the bureaucracy.

Which is more important? That the government take my money (and waste most of it) before giving to people on welfare (who probably shouldn't be on it) or that I help to prevent unborn babies from being murdered...excuse me, aborted?

Obviously (from a Christian standpoint) it is the second.

so none of that nasty sola scriptura stuff for you, eh?

so none of that nasty sola scriptura stuff for you, eh?

Oh, Sola Scriptura is one of the essential parts of Presbyterianism. And it is because I believe in Sola Scriptura that I vote against welfare - it's taking more authority and responsibility to the civil government that God has given it.

I think it's primarily the rise of materialism as the new God that has a lot to do with it.

God said "HE who dies with the most stuff wins!"

Oh, Sola Scriptura is one of the essential parts of Presbyterianism. And it is because I believe in Sola Scriptura that I vote against welfare - it's taking more authority and responsibility to the civil government that God has given it.

so you just haven't actually read the bible then

Obviously (from a Christian standpoint) it is the second.


This is an absurd sentence. What you meant to say was "Obviously, from MY standpoint, it is the second." You're entitled to your opinions, but you do not have the authority to speak for all Christians. Many good Christians believe it is morally wrong to force a rape victim to carry her attacker's child to term. Many good Christians believe that part of loving thy neighbor is allowing thy neighbor to love (and marry) whomever he or she chooses. You have every right to disagree with them, but you have no right to declare that yours is the only Christian perspective.

so you just haven't actually read the bible then

Well, show me where I'm wrong, form Scripture and I'll recant. Until then, I'll keep the whole of Scripture.

Many good Christians believe it is morally wrong to force a rape victim to carry her attacker's child to term.

It is also her child too....:rolleyes: Only bone I have to pick about that.

This is an absurd sentence. What you meant to say was "Obviously, from MY standpoint, it is the second." You're entitled to your opinions, but you do not have the authority to speak for all Christians. Many good Christians believe it is morally wrong to force a rape victim to carry her attacker's child to term. Many good Christians believe that part of loving thy neighbor is allowing thy neighbor to love (and marry) whomever he or she chooses. You have every right to disagree with them, but you have no right to declare that yours is the only Christian perspective.

Then, they have rejected Biblical infalliblity and are not Christian, or they are very confused.

It is not the Christian perspective because I say it. It is because it agrees with God's perfect Word.

Then, they have rejected Biblical infalliblity and are not Christian, or they are very confused.

It is not the Christian perspective because I say it. It is because it agree with God's perfect Word.

God's perfect Word defined by whom? Humans. And just as humans can define the Bible as infallible, we can also define it as fallible and man-made.

God's perfect Word defined by whom? Humans. And just as humans can define the Bible as infallible, we can also define it as fallible and man-made.

This is not what this thread is about, so I'll be quick. If you want to discuss it more, start a thread on it and I'll be happy to discuss it more in depth.

If Scripture is not infallible, we have nothing: just our notions about what is right. Scripture points to it's own infallibility and without that infalliblity, there is no basis for any Christian thought.

Without infalliblity of Scripture, there is no assurace of any of the basics of Christianity: most importantly Jesus death and resurrection.

dont see how you could think unemployment is an issue that the lefties have under thier belt. it is usually the right-wingers that have better solutions to that problem.

This has got me thinking that has religion been hijacked by the right, and been unjustifyably used for political aims such as abortion, rigid family values and the like. Of course ethical and christian socialism has existed for some time, but I myself feel that social left issues such as unemployment and poverty would be more in tune with a more free and less rigid religious political ideal. Jesus' himself taught the most radical teachings of his time, and indeed helped the poor, so how in Gods name (np un intended) did religion become the shield of pro-business homophobic conservatives and the like, which is so outdated with modern democratic and liberal society. And in particular the 'rampant individualism' that Rudd talks about, I think that leftist christians should make a return to politics myself.
What do people think?

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1753913.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200610/r109423_340384.asx

To tell you the truth, to be in tune with Jesus and the like, Christianity would most likely be a mix of both social conservatism and leftist economics (help the poor, etc). Just my two cents.

To tell you the truth, to be in tune with Jesus and the like, Christianity would most likely be a mix of both social conservatism and leftist economics (help the poor, etc). Just my two cents.

arrg no leftist economics doesnt help the poor. ideally yes. realistically no. name one rich lefty country.

arrg no leftist economics doesnt help the poor. ideally yes. realistically no. name one rich lefty country.

Sweden. Norway.

To tell you the truth, to be in tune with Jesus and the like, Christianity would most likely be a mix of both social conservatism and leftist economics (help the poor, etc). Just my two cents.

Gasp! Jesus was a social conservative!

No, I must say that the civil government is only there for the protection of its citizens (as in from criminals, other nations, etc.) and enforcing God's Law (the parts common to all Man). So the helping of the poor, etc. is the reponsibility of the Church, individual and other non-governmental agencies. Plus those agencies are just much more efficient with the money. Most of the money going to social programs in the civil government is spent on keeping the program going: very little goes to the people who need it.

Then, they have rejected Biblical infalliblity and are not Christian, or they are very confused.

It is not the Christian perspective because I say it. It is because it agree with God's perfect Word.

The belief in Biblical infallibility (which isn't exactly a requirement for Christianity, but we'll let that pass for the moment) is not at all the same thing in the belief in the infallibility of a specific interpretation of the Bible. Presumably you are aware that there exist quite a few sects of Christianity which disagree on various doctrinal matters, and hopefully you're not so arrogant as to assert that only your sect is actually "Christian."

In the Gospels, Jesus Christ does not once discuss abortion to my memory, and I'm quite certain he never discusses gay marriage. It is not illogical to assume that Jesus cared a wee bit more about things he actually talks about extensively (most of which could be loosely summarized as "don't be a jerk") than things he never in three years of preaching saw fit to mention, no? (Paul, admittedly, may have mentioned homosexuality, though not gay marriage, in an ambiguously-translated passage. Leviticus, of course, also mentions it, but unless you've forsworn eating cheeseburgers, Leviticus is rather irrelevant.) There is no clear mandate from God that indicates unambiguously that He wants you to vote Republican, despite what many American Christians seem to believe. The Bible is necessarily subject to interpretation, and nothing makes your interpretation better than anyone else's.

Sweden. Norway.

not an expert on either. but my understanding is that they are usually very pro-corrporate. being socially liberal doesnt necessarily mean lefty as a whole.

going to bed. tomorrow i will look more into this and have a better responce.

In the Gospels, Jesus Christ does not once discuss abortion to my memory, and I'm quite certain he never discusses gay marriage. It is not illogical to assume that Jesus cared a wee bit more about things he actually talks about extensively (most of which could be loosely summarized as "don't be a jerk") than things he never in three years of preaching saw fit to mention, no? (Paul, admittedly, may have mentioned homosexuality, though not gay marriage, in an ambiguously-translated passage. Leviticus, of course, also mentions it, but unless you've forsworn eating cheeseburgers, Leviticus is rather irrelevant.) There is no clear mandate from God that indicates unambiguously that He wants you to vote Republican, despite what many American Christians seem to believe. The Bible is necessarily subject to interpretation, and nothing makes your interpretation better than anyone else's.

This is true, but it may be safe to assume that like many people during that era Jesus would have looked down on homosexuality and abortion. He wouldn't dare, though, align himself with some of the nutjobs who say "hurricane katrina occurred because of our tolerance of gays" or cheer at the funerals of homosexuals. but I'm not christian, so I wouldn't know. But you're right...issues like gay marriage and the like really shouldn't be too much of a concern.

The belief in Biblical infallibility (which isn't exactly a requirement for Christianity, but we'll let that pass for the moment) is not at all the same thing in the belief in the infallibility of a specific interpretation of the Bible. Presumably you are aware that there exist quite a few sects of Christianity which disagree on various doctrinal matters, and hopefully you're not so arrogant as to assert that only your sect is actually "Christian."

Of course my "sect" is Christian. There are other Christian "sects" but mine is the most perfect. And before you scream against my arrogance, why would I be part of a denomination when I believed that another had more correct?

In the Gospels, Jesus Christ does not once discuss abortion to my memory, and I'm quite certain he never discusses gay marriage. It is not illogical to assume that Jesus cared a wee bit more about things he actually talks about extensively (most of which could be loosely summarized as "don't be a jerk") than things he never in three years of preaching saw fit to mention, no? (Paul, admittedly, may have mentioned homosexuality, though not gay marriage, in an ambiguously-translated passage. Leviticus, of course, also mentions it, but unless you've forsworn eating cheeseburgers, Leviticus is rather irrelevant.) There is no clear mandate from God that indicates unambiguously that He wants you to vote Republican, despite what many American Christians seem to believe. The Bible is necessarily subject to interpretation, and nothing makes your interpretation better than anyone else's.[/QUOTE]

Jesus spoke to the audience (and to all audiences, but we have to look at the context). He was speaking to the Jews (with a few exceptions) who were upholding the Law, but were using it as a "Get out of Jail free" card. "As long as I do the sacrifices and punish the really horrible sinners (like those homosexuals), then I'm good." What Jesus was telling them (and what God was telling them through the Prophets in the Old Testament) was that what matters more is spiritual circumcision, though you ought to be physically circumcised as well.

Paul was speaking to those people where homosexuality was a problem. So, does Paul disagree with Jesus? No. So we look at what Paul has to say on the subject when Jesus is silent. And one of the things Paul tells us is that the ceremonial Law was abrogated with Jesus' death and resurrection. So, the kosher laws and the sacrificial laws are no longer binding. Indeed, it would be a sin to follow them still for spiritual reasons. The rest of Leviticus (the moral Law) is still in effect and will be until the world ends.

God never says that it is a sin to vote Democrat. But, it would be a sin, depending on your motivation for doing so.

This is true, but it may be safe to assume that like many people during that era Jesus would have looked down on homosexuality and abortion. He wouldn't dare, though, align himself with some of the nutjobs who say "hurricane katrina occurred because of our tolerance of gays" or cheer at the funerals of homosexuals. but I'm not christian, so I wouldn't know. But you're right...issues like gay marriage and the like really shouldn't be too much of a concern.

All "bad" things happen as God's punishment on us (even to us Christians, from my runny nose, to my cancer). All "good" things happen to us as God's mercy (even to the heathen).

This is true, but it may be safe to assume that like many people during that era Jesus would have looked down on homosexuality and abortion. He wouldn't dare, though, align himself with some of the nutjobs who say "hurricane katrina occurred because of our tolerance of gays" or cheer at the funerals of homosexuals. but I'm not christian, so I wouldn't know. But you're right...issues like gay marriage and the like really shouldn't be too much of a concern.

I'd actually suggest that the famous "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story could serve as a persuasive argument that Jesus believed that people's sex lives were no one's business but their own and God's. Given that Jesus also seems to believe in some degree of separation of church and state ("Render unto Caesar..."), it is not terribly "out there" to extrapolate that Jesus might well oppose constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. :)
And given the perpetual hammering of the general "don't be a dickhead" message of the New Testament, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that the Jesus depicted therein would be shaking his head in despair at Fred Phelps and his ilk.

(I actually don't consider myself Christian, either, but I was raised a good li'l Catholic girl, with a big, devout Catholic extended family, and so I have a reasonable working knowledge of scripture.)

I'd actually suggest that the famous "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story could serve as a persuasive argument that Jesus believed that people's sex lives were no one's business but their own and God's. Given that Jesus also seems to believe in some degree of separation of church and state ("Render unto Caesar..."), it is not terribly "out there" to extrapolate that Jesus might well oppose constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. :)

Except that since Jesus is God and God is immutable and God's moral Law requires the civil government to execute who commit homosexual activity.

And as for that wonderful example of Church and state, it is taken out of proportion on one hand and totally disregarded on the other. We can't have Christians medling in civil government, never mind that the civil government is there to uphold God's Law. And we must have the civil government doing things like welfare. Never mind that that it the responsibility of the Church.

And given the perpetual hammering of the general "don't be a dickhead" message of the New Testament, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that the Jesus depicted therein would be shaking his head in despair at Fred Phelps and his ilk.

Very few people don't shake their heads. I don't know Fred Phelps, but he has done some very unChristian things and needs to repent and seel God's forgiveness.

(I actually don't consider myself Christian, either, but I was raised a good li'l Catholic girl, with a big, devout Catholic extended family, and so I have a reasonable working knowledge of scripture.)

No offence to you or your family, but I know very few Roman Catholics who truly have that. Many more just spit up catechism, but if you have that, good for you.

All "bad" things happen as God's punishment on us (even to us Christians, from my runny nose, to my cancer). All "good" things happen to us as God's mercy (even to the heathen).

.....yeek. You honestly believe that having a happy life demonstrates God's pleasure with you, and having a life filled with misfortune demonstrates one's failure to please God? That's...messed-up, and rather frighteningly close to arguing that rape victims deserve to be raped, abuse victims deserve to be abused, and so on and so forth.

.....yeek. You honestly believe that having a happy life demonstrates God's pleasure with you, and having a life filled with misfortune demonstrates one's failure to please God? That's...messed-up, and rather frighteningly close to arguing that rape victims deserve to be raped, abuse victims deserve to be abused, and so on and so forth.

I never said that they deserve those things. They deserve far, far worse. We all do. That's what it means to be sinful: we deserve the eternal fire. But God is merciful and doesn't give that to us, at least not before our deaths.

If we have a happy life, then God is merciful and gracious. We have not earned that life, otherwise it would not be mercy. Mercy is not giving judgment deserved. Grace is the giving of something unmerited. We did not deserved it, even through our "good" works.

I guess my point is, I think God would care infinitely more about helping the suffering of the poor and dislocated of society (I mean read the gospels please) than if same-sex couples get to marry of not. I mean it's those kind of non-issues which make such christian groups so irrelevant, christians should be involved in the community stuff like combating poverty.

And they support these politicians who hijack religion for their own right-rigid conservative views which have NOTHING to do with religion and are more a way for them to state their hatred of gays and those who do not adhere to the so called 'family values' that they espouse. Even fore discusting is that these people are pro-business, politians who would feel no guilt from making books like 'Gods financial plan for your life' and would endorse exploitation of the lower classes.

God is about mercy and forgiveness, not rampant individualism, selfishness, intolerance and rigidity, which is just about all the right represents.

I guess my point is, I think God would care infinitely more about helping the suffering of the poor and dislocated of society (I mean read the gospels please) than if same-sex couples get to marry of not. I mean it's those kind of non-issues which make such christian groups so irrelevant, christians should be involved in the community stuff like combating poverty.

I have read the gospels. Have you read the Gospel? It's the whole point of the Bible. And it says that if we are truly saved, we will follow God's commands. And if they say that marriage is between one man and one woman, we are to support that. It's hardly a non-issue.

And they support these politicians who hijack religion for their own right-rigid conservative views which have NOTHING to do with religion and are more a way for them to state their hatred of gays and those who do not adhere to the so called 'family values' that they espouse. Even fore discusting is that these people are pro-business, politians who would feel no guilt from making books like 'Gods financial plan for your life' and would endorse exploitation of the lower classes.

And that's something that the religious right is trying to change.

God is about mercy and forgiveness, not rampant individualism, selfishness, intolerance and rigidity, which is just about all the right represents.

Why don't you look at the Right instead of what the Left says about it? You will see what you say, but many times more, you will see the same concerns as the Left (in regards to poverty and the like) but we just disagree about the solutions.