44 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Conservatives don't like to think of Jesus as a radical.
Anybody who did something worthwhile is a radical of one
sort or another.
George Bernard Shaw: "The Reasonable Man adapts himself to the World, the Unreasonable Man attempts to change it. Therefore all Progress depends upon Unreasonable Men."
Typical Shaw, to indulge in Topsy-Turvydom, but he's amusing. Wrong, but amusing. (Much progress comes from people who see ways to improve things with minimal effort.)
Oh, that comes from The Revolutionists Handbook and Pocket Companion which was published by Penguin as the last 50 pages of Shaw's Play Man and Superman (Nietzsche, not Clark Kent or George Reeves).
There are quite a number of Maxims for Revolutionists included in the book, the most widely known one of which is: "He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches." That's also wrong. If you don't know how to do something, You can't teach it.
So we should adapt to changes in the mental state
of the world?...but rather than adapt to physical changes we should try to reverse them? Makes a lot of sense.
Jesus was a radical??
Isn't it that Jesus wanted to return things back to the original design rather than create fundamental change? Doesn't that more closely fit a conservative definition?
You will notice the ones that he condemned.
Actually, he was trying to go back to the spirit rather than the letter of the law. That was radical when the leaders would give exactly a tenth of everything to the temple rather than just giving out of a love of giving. He healed and fed everyone that needed it. He condemned those that hoarded wealth and the self-righteous and those that prayed loudly in public and bragged what good Jews they were. In short, he condemned the conservatives.
He condemned the conservatives??
I don't think it was written that he used any such term that could be transliterated or translated into that word as it is used today. It seems to me it as an was an issue by issue teaching rather than a political or social position that he brought to the crowds. I love it when people use the "WWJD?" phrase. The answer is "we don't know" asJesus regularly confounded his own disciples with his words and actions.
actually he condemned them for being "Liberals"
He said they'd bind grevious burdens upon the people while not raising a finger to help anyone themself, which is the purest essence of modern day Liberalism, where the Liberal wants to take from everyone else, burden them with taxes, avoid paying too many taxes themselves, so they could then used the collections to try and buy favor among the people, or in Jesus case, use it for bribes to accomplish their evil ends.
Actually, if you look at the definition of a
conservative, you have done it. They are the ones that want to take away from food stamps and job creation and veterans help and give to the wealthy and corporations where they hoard their money.
I was just giving a name to what he condemned. Would you say that he was bribing the people when he healed the sick and fed everyone without asking for anything? Would you say that he was a conservative when he told the rich young ruler to give away all that he had and follow him? You must be reading a different Bible than I am.
'tender to Caesar only what belongs to Caesar'? ( put BO and the Fed gov in Caesar's name spot)
Diana...what Jesus taught was personal
responsibility. We are all of free will and it's the deeds of each of us that will be graded. I remember nothing being said that we'll be evaluated as a class. When Jesus said we should give to the poor, he didn't mean to take it away from the wealthy first. He even commended the "poor widow" who gave from her need and chided the wealthy who gave from their excess. We, as individuals, have the responsibility to be generous with our own gifts. The promise made that our generosity will be returned in a greater quantity than given didn't have anything to do with money. We should, however, be permitted to have some sort of "feel good" experience when we've helped someone. Where is that experience when the money is taken away from us and given away by the government?
So how much do you give to the needy?
Do you give until it hurts to the food pantries and help the unemployed keep a roof over their heads and pay someone's doctor bills or help a soldier's family put food on the table or do you expect the government to do it?
Nowadays we chide the poor widow for being poor and praise the wealthy and give them even more money.
I give up...I'm not talking about "nowadays"
or what I do personally. I'm not asking the same of you and wouldn't do that. I'm only arguing that Jesus wasn't taking sides politically. He, in fact, avoided it. I'm done.
I thought that is what we were talking - now a days
Not in the sub you started by saying
Jesus was a radical and condemned conservatives. What I wrote, I won't repeat. I'll add this one last link:
are liberals or conservatives the most generous
You can take you pick of which you believe to be true. Frankly, I don't think there's much difference other than in their government approach.
I give at church
and they use it to help the 'saints', which is proper. Even Jesus himself said, "It is not proper to give food intended for God's people, to dogs".
Actually he overturned the tables of the money-changers
who crowded around the Temple in Jerusalem. If the money changers, who had been there for centuries, represent anything they represent the moneyed and corporate elites, i.e. Conservatives. The parable of the rich man being a camel unable to climb through the eye of a needle says the same thing.
If the passage you quote, generally referred to as "Woe unto the Scribes and Pharisees", represents anything it represents the binding of burdens on others by the established functionaries of the old Religion, the Old Guard, the Conservatives clinging to old ways and insular beliefs and identifications with a small group of like-minded people. It certainly doesn't represent the "LIberal" desire to share the burdens in society according to the ability to bear that burden.
Now you can gerrymander Jesus' words however you wish, Conservatives have been doing that for 1500 years, but if there is a class of people who will not stoop to help a fallen person, it's the Conservatives who consider themselves part of a "Chosen" elite, and everyone else as failed "Sinners". They seem to skip over the "Judge not lest ye be judged." part.
or maybe racketeers, pawn brokers,
dealers in usery, but we don't know how long they'd been in the temple. I suspect it was some time AFTER Judas Macabees days.
What I don't understand is why so many
people seem to think Jesus was some sort of leftist but criticize those who call themselves Christian by referring to them as rightists.
Didn't the Romans ...
find Jesus so revolutionary that they gave him a death sentence? They didn't like what he said and did. The term 'leftist' wasn't yet invented then.
Pilate, a Roman, wanted nothing to do with the case and turned Jesus over to the local Jewish folks who wanted him gone. We can only speculate as to why. Mob rule isn't always that clear as to its motive. All I've been saying in this conversation is that Jesus wasn't a political figure. He didn't lead marches, go speak with rulers, or have anything to do with social justice issues as we think of them today. It was in one-on-one conversations or sermons to crowds that Jesus delivered his message and it was always about individual rather than collective responsibility and he led by his own example rather than demanding it of others.
Isaiah 42 & Matthew 12
"Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his teaching the continents will put their hope."
Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. A large crowd followed him, and he healed all who were ill. He warned them not to tell others about him and ordered them not to make him known. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he has brought justice through to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope."
So are you saying that Jesus was a conservative?
I would be interested in his conservative values.
He was not "a political". He was "apolitical"
ergo he was neither of the terms we hear in today's squabbles. Isn't it about time we dumped that labeling system? If one wants to identify themselves as conservative, liberal, progressive, whatever, let them stick that label on by their own choice and let them be fully ready to define what it means.
Only if you take the Gospels as ... Gospel.
The Gospels aren't historically accurate. Crucifiction was reserved for political opponents of the Romans. Jesus in denying the divinity of Nero Caesar got into hot water. The Jewish elders could never have persuaded Pilate to crucify Jesus, nor do I think that they would have been permitted to mount the sort of delegation as a group that is attested in the New Testament.
If Jesus followers were represented by the Essenes under James the Just, his brother, then they were in conflict with the mainstream of Jewish observance, but because of their hyper-conservative beliefs. The term radical can mean extremist in either direction, both left and right. The Tea Party, for example, is a radical Conservative group whose beliefs in no way reflect the beliefs of the Founding Fathers despite their posturing and statements to the contrary. Read the historians who have done the research. Real historians. While David McCullough isn't an academic or a "real" historian, he does offer a good look at the development of beliefs in the pre-Revolutionary and Revolutionary periods, and he does match reasonably well with contemporary (meaning now) understanding among historians of the issues and reason for resolutions of those issues.
What has slipped our minds was that Jesus was a practicing Jew, whose beliefs and observances were rooted in Jewish observances, ritual and context. It was Paul who took Christianity outside the purely Jewish community and began to "spread the Word" to people of other religions and ethnicities, primarily to the Greeks of Asia Minor: Galatians, Ephesians or Greeks:Corinthians etc. before moving on to Rome. The trouble his beliefs excited there is a matter of record.
you so eloquently express your deliberate ignorance
on the entire matter. Both of those crucified were "thieves" so not all crucifixions were just for political crimes. As for radical, Jesus is the one who admonished "veering neither to the right nor the left..." There is no evidence James his brother had anything to do with the Essenes, which would make one wonder why he'd do so anyway if he was a follower of Christ? Instead he'd be trying to win any Essenes over to Christ, the same as Paul who met some of John's disciples and baptized them into Christ. You'd have it going backwards, not forwards. So, you believe Paul's writings of his troubles in Rome, but discount the Gospels? Another logical faux paux on your part. I really had to laugh how just after telling everyone to hear the "real" historians, you immediately introduce one who you apologetically admit isn't a "real" historian to try and make some point.
Yes, Jesus came to fulfill the law. He himself said not a bit of it would pass away till all had been fulfilled. Of course that happened upon his death and following ressurrection. It was then he gave them the Great Commission to go out into the world and preach the gospel. Not to preach Judaism, because it was to be done away with, but the good news of Christ. When the temple was destroyed, that's when Judaism was supposed to fully end. It's continuance by some after that serves only as a testimony against them, as the Bible says it would.
"After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth...Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ...But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, 'Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.'" Acts 18:1-6;
Matthew 10, Jesus;
"And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!"
Matthew 20, Jesus;
"Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will hand Him over to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up."
From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."
Luke 19 - Jesus;
"For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."
After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.....Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
So the Jewish wanted him gone.
And that probably was not because he was a nice (religious)law abiding conservative Jew. On the contrary.
But I agree, left and right aren't the right terms for that. Conservative and progressive or revolutionary (in the context of religion more than politics, if there was a difference then) seem suitable to me.
It might depend upon how one looks at
religion and politics. It would be one thing to see each as a system and another to see each as a practice. The view would also be quite different for those looking from the outside and those looking from the inside. The two speak different languages. This is one reason why trying to blend politics and religion can be a minefield. There can be no arguing biblical scripture between two persons when one of them believes them to be works of fiction. When this happens, the person citing scripture as evidence has just given his debate foe a weapon to use against him.
There are plenty
of millionaires/billionaires who are 'left/liberal/Democrats'......and most are political by either backing them such as Tom Steyer (my post about him went ignored by you) or actually are seated in Congress (or have been previously such as the Kennedys) such as Pelosi et al. The only one I can think of off-hand who absolutely believed in people being responsible for themselves was JFK........and he targeted the youth with that belief.
If that were true,the Democrats would never lack for funding
There do appear to be more Democratic supporters with pockets now than during the Seventies, but they are notoriously changeable in their allegiance, often funding both sides so as to purchase access to the winner regardless of who it is.
Outside of your favourite bug-bear George Soros, name me 3 more.
On the other hand, let me do the work for you.
" Romney-backing super PAC Restore Our Future counted 38 members of the Forbes 400 rich list among its donors. Obama-backing group Priorities USA Action, by contrast, had seven billionaire backers."
That looks about right, and if you'll notice the Koch Brothers aren't even in the list, therefore they contribute to some other PAC. The ratio is roughly 5.5 times the number of bills support Republican PACs versus Democratic PACs.
I will confess that the whole PAC thing wasn't well developed when I moved up here, and I have had no reason to better inform myself, knowing that it would just make me angry.
" ... there's every chance that these millions are being funneled through nonprofits that don't have to disclose their benefactors.
" It's for this same reason that the two billionaire bogeymen of the left, industrialists Charles and David Koch, do not appear on the list below. They're well-known for their antipathy towards the President, holding biannual summits of like-minded rich conservatives to discuss his overthrow. David held a fundraiser for Mitt Romney at his Hamptons estate this summer, inviting his wealthy peers and neighbors to cough up $50,000-a-plate.
" Officially, though, neither of America's richest brothers has donated to a political group — at least, not one with a paper trail. The right-wing think tank David founded, Americans for Prosperity, has spent $30 million so far on ads supporting Republican candidates and condemning Obama's record. As a nonprofit, AFP isn't required to disclose its donors; the Kochs could have donated some of those millions, but we'll never know."
(same article from Forbes noted above)
Post Citzens United, the SuperPAC's began to be the primary way to funnel funding to the Republican Party. And then there are the "Not for Profit" PACs who don't have to release donors' names While Sheldon Adelson is known to have contributed $93 Million, he said he'd give "Whatever it takes" to defeat Obama in 2012. The remainder, whatever it is, went through Non-Profit PACs. Talk about a joke designation. If there weren't profit for them in it none of these creepazoids would donate a nickel.
personal $50M with $50M more promised from donors to defeat the Republicans? No comment.....How about Michael Moore and his band of merry men called MediaMatters.org and MediaMatters for America (their newest chapter)?
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)