I am not defending a religious position. But, as I was researching the information about this thread, it just occurred to me that Jesus had a lot of ideas which would be considered liberal today.
For example, one verse by Jesus... "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
That doesn't sound like a conservative concept to me. A conservative would be gathering up his possessions for himself and his family and to hell with the poor people. The inheritance tax would illustrate this activity.
While the conservatives would say, let those poor folks pull themselves up by their own bootstraps...Jesus said, "When you give a banquet invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind and you will be blessed."
I want to make it clear that I do not represent any religion. In fact,I am an atheist.
This shift in the Baptist position, toward a conservative and fundamentalist philosophy, would probably disappoint Jesus if he were alive today. Isn't that ironic?
posted on June 19, 2001 01:18:43 PM new
Before we get derailed on this topic, let me point JLPiece to a RT URL titled "Christ Was A Bleeding Heart Liberal" before he came onboard http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=44835&id=44835. After a re-reading of it, where this issue was seemingly settled, maybe JLPiece would care to show how Christ was not a Liberal?
Maybe we could shift this conversation to that thread? Thanks!
posted on June 19, 2001 04:09:08 PM new
IMHO, Jesus was/is liberal. He was progressive for his time (and ours also it seems). He loved the sinner not the sin. He crossed many boundaries that we SB can't/won't/don't cross. What keeps many people from accepting Christ as their Savior is the example that way too many Christians (myself included) put forth.
posted on June 20, 2001 07:29:23 AM new
"...maybe JLPiece would care to show how Christ was not a Liberal?"-borillar
Try convincing Jesus that all of these girls giving it up to every Tom, Dick and Harry, and then getting mad because Tom "really didn't love her", so she wants an abortion. Jesus would have loved that.
There is no question that the teachings of Jesus if properly understood (which rarely are) are beautiful and teach above all respect for your fellow man(woman) and to not be judgemental because we all have flaws. I don't find any group of people - conservative, liberal or anything else to be very good at that. All of these groups, especially political groups fall short. However, to say that Jesus was a liberal because he loved his fellow man is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Allow me to point you all to the Al Sharpton for President thread, as evidence. Apparently, liberals have a rather distorted self-image if they think they have a monopoly on caring for their fellow man. I know of very few church organizations, or sponsored soup kitchens, etc run by liberals. I don't know of any abortion clinics run by followers of Christ either, and beg any one of you to show me how Jesus would approve of our abortion as a form of birth control society that we have here today. Where would I find that in the Bible again? Matthew? Mark? Revelation, maybe? I also didn't see anywhere that Jesus said that homosexuality is acceptable, and a good way of life. Perhaps that was in one of Pauls letters? Lets also not forget that Jesus was a little on the anti-oppresive government taxation side, too. And finally Jesus taught that the only way to God was through him. A liberal would argue a little differently, to say the least.
I guess I could go on, and quote scripture, but the non-liberal scripture would be so much that it would crash AW servers, and I have auctions up right now, so I'll just ask that since I have clearly shown why Jesus was NOT a liberal, perhaps somebody could tell me why what I have pointed out is innacurate. You all asked for it, now you got it. You will lose this argument, but then again, winning isn't everything...
posted on June 20, 2001 08:18:42 AM new
They say that all internet discussions, if they last long enough, will degenerate into disputes regarding abortion or gun control.
posted on June 20, 2001 08:30:56 AM newThey say that all internet discussions, if they last long enough, will degenerate into disputes regarding abortion or gun control.
He speaks wisdom.
At most, the only Biblical reference to abortion is a verse in Exodus (Ex. 21:22) that states that if two men fight and inadvertantly hit a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry the penalty is money. There is simply no other reference to anything like abortion in the entire Bible. What this verse shows at least is that ending the life of a fetus doesn't share the same Biblical penalty that murder does i.e. death. This would indicate that abortion and murder aren't judged Biblically to be the same thing.
Of course someone may choose to find some distinction that I've missed, but all that will show is that you really can prove nearly anything from the Bible so don't bother trying to convince anyone.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Jun 20, 2001 08:31 AM ]
posted on June 20, 2001 09:18:33 AM new
Thank you, JLPiece for posting that info. That thing about the soup kitchens, though: as a Freemason, I do an awful lot of volunteer wrok as I can. A lot of Freemasons are copnservatives, but in the old sense of what it means to be a conservative -- not this new-fangled theological fascism. Back in the Depression era, both conservatives and liberals together helped one another out. I don't see any conservative actors or actresses promoting world peace or any of that touchy-feely stuff -- just anti-gun control, anti-abortion, and anti-homosexuality.
As far as Jesus having a hernia over homosexuals, he would have to have a hernia at the breaking of over 100 laws in Leviticus, each one an "abomination" to break ("Abomination" in those days meant the breaking of Jewish Law). Seems to me that all Jesus did all day long was to puke His guts up at the nearness of society and lay in bed too weak to see anyone. At least, that's how it reads from your interpretation.
posted on June 20, 2001 09:46:14 AM newI don't see any conservative actors or actresses promoting world peace
I never understood why being an actor made one's political opinions any better than mine, or Borillar's.
There are various apologists for various political themes. Some of those apologists are actors, but few if any of the best articulations of political thought have ever been uttered by an actor in any context. Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith is the only example I can think of.
posted on June 20, 2001 11:52:04 AM new
The marriage and abortion religious positions we currently ascribe to Jesus, were brought into being by the early Popes.
It seems the asthetisism of Jesus took hold in the early church and too many men refused to marry and left to live as hermits in monasteries and abortion was freely practiced.
The tax base, number of those available to support the church, fight wars, and populate the church were declining.
Abortion was decried, marriage elevated, and monks and monasteries taxed. The trend was reversed.
posted on June 20, 2001 07:00:35 PM newreamond, you are right about that. While I am not a real Historian, I've always been the one that was curious enough about WHY we believe the things that we do to go track it down in history. I came across one professional historian, Reay Tannahill, who wrote a most fascinating book called "Food in History". I saw that this historian had written another book, "Sex in History" and I got a copy of it (ISBN 0-8128-2580-2).
In this book, it covers the whole world history as Sex influenced history. In the section on the Catholic Church, one reads that the Popes did indeed do as you said. Furthermore, without looking up the exact quote, there was a pope in the 8th century who was celibate. His spiritual idea was that to be the closest to God while alive was to spend every single waking moment and thought upon God.
Of course, sexual urges being what they were, they played havoc on this quest for perfection. And since what most men think of when a woman appears is sex, therefore not only was sex a bad thing, but women were the cause of Man losing his salvation! Women became the instrument for the downfall of men and were perceived as carnal creatures whose purpose was to arouse sexual passions in men and thus, make them fall from grace. This lends a lot of the western attitude towards women and is reflected even in our modern, American culture (without pages of explanation of what that constitutes).
It is only to say that men were encouraged to forego their erotic thoughts and sexual passions so that they could think about God more; but if they just had to, they were to get married and only have sex when the pressure built up too much, and only then not to enjoy it, but to procreate. The women, seen as the kin of the Devil, was to become "free of sex", where we get this Virginity Cult and the notion that women are not supposed to be sexual creatures with sexual needs, desires for fulfillment, and can actually enjoy sex!
Anyway, so the priests, who up until then had been both women as well as men, married or single, it was decreed that women could no longer be priests, citing biblical passages. Moreover, since Priests were supposed to be leading the flock by example, it was ordained that all priests were also to become celibate and to encourage men to be the same.
Unfortunately for the church, stifling sexual passions is not mentally healthy and, the near presence of men who were not full of sexual sin the way women were began to engage in homosexuality.
For that reason, becoming a priest in the emerging Catholic Church was laughed at throughout Europe! Because of this ridicule and how it kept the church from being taken seriously, later popes in the 11th century placed a ban on homosexuality within the ranks, citing biblical passages (see a pattern here?) Where before Europeans thought not much about homosexuality, one could now be imprisoned, tortured, and killed for it -- an attitude that exists today in America.
Edited for sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Jun 20, 2001 08:37 PM ]
posted on June 20, 2001 07:06:58 PM new
well, I can't talk about the tools of my past trade "stripping" on auction watch because a certain poster who keeps cursing me and accusing me of being a slut to the moderators. Do you think he is a conservative fundemental southern hypocrite baptist male? he sure acts like one. Oh yes, and WITCH HUNT? please... the inquisitor of auction watch. What some people hate about me as that I can show them what hypocrites they are with their own words.
[ edited by artdoggy on Jun 20, 2001 07:10 PM ]
posted on June 20, 2001 08:48:07 PM new" a certain poster who keeps cursing me and accusing me of being a slut to the moderators."
artdoggy, what I just pointed out above your post may well be the very reason why women who enjoy sex are considered "sluts" and when they have more than one partner they are also marked as "whores" as well. When men do it, it is considered to be perfectly natural for them to be over-sexed and trying to seek multiple partners. Even early sex researchers did not see the historical (hysterical?) connection, assuming that it was "Man's Proclivity" to run around and impregnate as many women as possible, while women were "better off" with a single mate to provide the necessary sperm. Not once did they even believe that it was simple a matte of male-dominated Western cultural thinking with ancient roots in the philosophy of religious leaders. Typical.
"Do you think he is a conservative fundemental southern hypocrite baptist male?"
Without a poster's name to refer to, I'd have to say it would only be a possibility. The Protestant Movement in America does retain certain puritanical beliefs that it likes to pass among its members, although I would doubt that they are directly being told to label women by such vulgar, biased terms.
posted on June 21, 2001 01:38:17 AM new
Borillar- If interested try Will Durant's History of Western Civilization. It is I believe 14 vols., but each vol stands alone.
Caesar and Christ and another vol I think is called the Age of Faith are very good. All are scholarly works and well footnoted and have sitations and bib, but his works read very well.
P.S. They are a well kept secret and can generally be had used at very reasonable prices.
posted on June 21, 2001 09:50:20 AM new
"Of course, sexual urges being what they were, they played havoc on this quest for perfection. And since what most men think of when a woman appears is sex, therefore not only was sex a bad thing, but women were the cause of Man losing his salvation! Women became the instrument for the downfall of men and were perceived as carnal creatures whose purpose was to arouse sexual passions in men and thus, make them fall from grace. This lends a lot of the western attitude towards women and is reflected even in our modern, American culture (without pages of explanation of what that constitutes)."-borillar
The fact that women have been thought of as the downfall of men has little to do with an obscure 8th century Pope, but more likely because that message is infused throughout the Bible itself, starting with Adam and Eve. This attitude is NOT Western. In fact, it is so much more Eastern, or have you never been East? Go forth and be enlightened. Women are considered to be lower creatures throughout the East, and treated as such for the most part. Women enjoy greater freedoms in these parts than anywhere else in the world.
"Anyway, so the priests, who up until then had been both women as well as men, married or single, it was decreed that women could no longer be priests, citing biblical passages."-borillar
That sounds beautiful and all, but it is not based in historical fact. Cause this guy wrote or you quoted it doesn't make it so. There is no historical record of any women being priests up until that point. Details...
On another note:
"They say that all internet discussions, if they last long enough, will degenerate into disputes regarding abortion or gun control."-roofguy
Not sure what gun control has to do with this discussion, but anyway. As far as the discussioj turning to abortion (amongst otherthings), this has nothing to do with a predetermined degeneration of this thread. If you had read any of this thread you would have seen that the comment was made that Jesus would have been deemed a liberal by a few of the posters. I rebutted that this was jaberwocky, and went on to explain why. Since the question was loosely about Jesus potential political affiliation, the only way to determine such would be to examine Jesus' beliefs against the key differences in the party platforms - abortion being one of these key differences in the two parties if you hadn't known. So there you have it. Degeneration by design.
"If your statement above is true, could you tell us please how you are an authority and understand his teachings more than other people?"-chococake
Gladly. I spent 3 1/2 years of my life studying ancient scriptures everyday. As a result I can read ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, and have a lesser understanding of the Greek, but well enough to get by. I have studied the scriptures in their truest form, not one of the many English translations. That's why.
"At most, the only Biblical reference to abortion is a verse in Exodus (Ex. 21:22) that states that if two men fight and inadvertantly hit a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry the penalty is money. There is simply no other reference to anything like abortion in the entire Bible. What this verse shows at least is that ending the life of a fetus doesn't share the same Biblical penalty that murder does i.e. death. This would indicate that abortion and murder aren't judged Biblically to be the same thing."-jamesoblivion
Wrong. Firstly, the word that you are reading as miscarry, is rponounced 'yeledh', I obviously can't write the characters themselves, but that noun simply means "child or offspring". The only thing unusual about it's usage in that verse {Ex. 21:22-25} Is that it is in the plural form 'yatsa', which usually means "to go out or come forth". It is most often used to refer to the ordinary birth of a child. Examples of the former usage can be found in {Gen. 15:4, 46:26; 1 Kings 8:19; and Isaiah 39:7 to name a few. The usage of the latter can be seen in Gen. 25:25-26, 38:28-29; Job 1:21, 3:11; Eccl. 5:15 and Jer. 1:5, 20:18}
In each of these cases, it refers to the ordinary birth of a child. In no case does this refer to a miscarriage. Thus, the verse does not refer to a miscarriage, but a premature birth. This can be evidenced if you read further down the passage where it goes on to give the penalty. I'll even quote the English version from the NIV, a more recent and more accurate translation than the King James. "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury the offender must be fined whatever the womans husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." I'm pretty sure the death of the baby would constitute a serious injury to it.
Furthermore, without getting too Theological, let me qoute Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Not gave birth, but conceived. How could an unthinking clump of tissue be "sinful"?
"As far as Jesus having a hernia over homosexuals, he would have to have a hernia at the breaking of over 100 laws in Leviticus, each one an "abomination" to break ("Abomination" in those days meant the breaking of Jewish Law). Seems to me that all Jesus did all day long was to puke His guts up at the nearness of society and lay in bed too weak to see anyone. At least, that's how it reads from your interpretation.borillar
Wrong. There were 4 sets of laws that were given in the Old Testament: Civil, Criminal, Dietary and ceremonial. All of these laws were set in place for the betterment of the people, but each had a stated purpose. The Civil and Criminal laws were for the protection of the fabric of their society and were pronounced everlasting. The dietary laws were set into effect for health purposes to some degree, and also for purity during theor ceremonnies. Their ceremonial laws(ie sacrificing a lamb etc. were symbolical and set into motion for the purpose of man remembering who he owes his existence to. According to Christianity, all of this changed when Jesus came, since he was "The ultimate sacrifice", "The lamb of God". Once Jesus gave his life, the ceremonial laws were declared by him to be unnecesarry. What was the point? He had made the ultimate sacrifice, why keep slaughtering lambs and bulls? He also as a result did away with the dietary laws since there was no longer this need for the ceremonial purity in food, and man had by then learned why certain foods when not prepared properly made them sick - such as pork. But He specifically commanded that not one title should change from the law pronounced by His father (ie the civil and criminal code that we still for the most part use today) That is in a nutshell why the ceremonial and dietary laws of Leviticus that you are referring to are not followed by Christians, but are by Jews - cause they didn't accept Christ, so they are still waiting for their Messiah, and until then their dietary and ceremonial laws are supposed to be followed. The civil and Criminal is known by all to be everlasting according to the Old and New Testaments - even the imperfect English translations!
All that from a non-Christian - It's amazing what a quest for truth will bring you.
posted on June 21, 2001 10:20:31 AM new
The point stands: the bible says nothing whatsoever about abortion. Jesus in particular had nothing to say about abortion, so it's not applicable to cite Jesus' position on abortion as being either liberal or not.
posted on June 21, 2001 10:24:08 AM newjlpiece When I read more of what you have to say, it just makes me wanna go to church all that much more. If your girl ever decides to leave ya, look me up, will ya? I'd be happy to be your lowly lil' girl servant. (as long as you will allow me the pleasure of giving you a back massage, and anything else that you may desire, every night). After all, isn't that the least a good Christian girl should do?
posted on June 21, 2001 10:35:45 AM new
Jlpiece, while it's obvious that you have at least a cursory knowledge of Hebrew, its also obvious that it's fairly shallow. In other words, you evidently can't read unvoweled Hebrew, as you've tried to do. The word reads "yiladeha" means "her fetus" and not "yeledh".
What you've done is seen that the letters are "yud, lamed, daled, yud, hey" but you read the word inccorrectly. Also, you left out the possessive, namely that the one word reads "her fetus" (the word does mean "child" as well, however there wasn't a separate word for 'fetus' -- language wasn't so sophisticated 3000 years ago.) Actually, the entire verse reads (transliterated, of course) "V'chi yinatzu anashim v'nagfu isha harah v'yatzu yiladeha v'lo yihiyeh ason anosh ye'anesh ka'asher yashit alav baal ha'isha v'natan b'flilim".
Anyway, after having looked up in your concordance and finding out that "yatzu yiladeha" normally means a normal birth, you overlook that in none of those cases were the births precipitated by blows struck to the woman. Clearly the verse isn't calling for daddy to get paid because mommy had a premie, but rather because his child was born dead. That's certainly the plain sense of the verse. As for there being "no serious injury" that means to the mom, of course. If there was serious injury to the mother then we would be dealing with the consequences incurred for injuring a person, those are spelled out in the following verses.
And without getting too theological, the correct translation Psalm 51:5 is "with iniquity I was formed and with sin my mother conceived me". "Avon" and "chet" do not both mean 'sin' as they are two separate words. That you translated them the same (as 'sin') shows that you haven't looked up the verse in the original Hebrew. The reference to sin is on the mother and not David himself. If you know Hebrew, read it and you shall see. A Christian Bible translates it the way you wrote out because it illustrates a Christian theological point when translated that way.
You ask "how can an unthinking clump of tissue be sinful?" and I ask you "how can an unthinking and unborn fetus be sinful?". Mere semantics.
I don't think the Bible sanctions abortion as a method of birth control at all. On the contrary. But there isn't any reference to abortion in the Bible aside from the verse in Exodus (and there are references to darn near anything you can think of, from cross dressing to castration). If you think it refers to a healthy but premature birth, then we're left with no reference to abortion in the Bible at all, so you have no Biblical source for what abortion is or isn't beyond your own personal viewpoint that it is murder. But if I'm right, we do at least see that the penalty for abortion isn't death, unlike 'murder'.
posted on June 21, 2001 10:50:21 AM new"have you never been East?"
From age 4 to age 10, I lived in Laos. In addition, from age 10 to age 12, I lived in Thailand. After getting out of the US Navy in 1980 and settling down in the Pacific Northwest, I discovered the rich world of middle-eastern to Afganistani peoples living here in exile from their home countries, all of them Muslims. Today, as it has always been since, most of my friends are Islamic (although I am not) and I spend my time with them in their culture.
Does that answer your question?
I will say that how women and sexual purity are perceived in Muslim culture is not how it is shown in the media. I have seen these people treat their wives very well, although they do not think of women who enjoy sex as being evil in the same way that we do in western civilization.
"Anyway, so the priests, who up until then had been both women as well as men ..."
"That sounds beautiful and all, but it is not based in historical fact. There is no historical record of any women being priests up until that point. Details..."
JLPiece, I realize that most Americans have never taken the time to learn the HISTORY of the Bible and the history of the Catholic Church, and now we see that you are among them. I was hardly quoting from a single source.
"Wrong. There were 4 sets of laws ..."
Oh, boy - this should be a long lesson for you in the history of Jewish Law, but I won't go into it here as it is not likely to be interesting to many posters. All I will say is that you can live with those notions and interpretations if you wish it -- just don't expect everyone to believe it.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
