[Changleen]

How is that relevant to the statement that Jesus was a VERY left liberal (by today's standards I assuem)?

Who do you think I voted for?

Bush.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Dude asked a legitimate question, and did it politely without flaming or insults. Plus, he didn't ask you. So if you don't have any useful info why do you feel the need to pipe up?

Thanks E, I appreciate that...................

 

[Andyman_1970]

I mean, whenever he came upon that chick about the be stoned, he was like "Naw, dont kill the b!tch" so he may be against the death penalty, as he's all about some forgiveness.

Actually the larger issue there was sactity of human life, as was more than a few of Jesus' teachings...............

As for Mr. Changleen, if you can provide some examples of where Jesus and His teachings are VERY left liberal, feel free. You enjoy shooting your mouth off about Christians lets see how much you know about Jesus and His teachings..........................or see how much you don't know.

 

[Changleen]

Actually the larger issue there was sactity of human life, as was more than a few of Jesus' teachings...............

As for Mr. Changleen, if you can provide some examples of where Jesus and His teachings are VERY left liberal, feel free. You enjoy shooting your mouth off about Christians lets see how much you know about Jesus and His teachings..........................or see how much you don't know.

Really there's nothing I'd rather not do than get into an argument about a non-existant character from a story book.

However, Jeebus was alledged to heal the sick of his own back without asking for any reward (Under Bush Medicare cost have increased and more people have lost their insurance)

Jeebus also apparantly taught forgiveness. I don't see Bush forgiving anyone. In fact he seems to be an aggresive, hateful bastard.

Is that enough to start with?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Really there's nothing I'd rather not do than get into an argument about a non-existant character from a story book.

How about a non-existant character from the internet, a.k.a. you..?

 

[Changleen]

How about a non-existant character from the internet, a.k.a. you..?

 

[llkoolkeg]

I'll try to curb the profanity, so you goody-goody people might even read this post.

<<<snip>>>

Many more people are going to die for $$$$$$.

Call me a hater, call my childish, what ever. This is a very sad day, and in my opinion, you guys suck. We had a chance to make a great country in big trouble be a safer, better place, and you and the apathetic asses that didn't vote, blew it.

Nite, I'm gonna go home and hug my kid.

Why would you leave a place(RM) simply because some people there do not agree with you? Is that any less of a defeatist attitude than the one held by the "the apathetic asses that didn't vote"? If you don't like things as they are, WORK TO CHANGE THEM. Throwing in the towel and taking your ball home won't make the playground any more agreeable.

I wouldn't call you childish or a hater- perhaps a little simplistic in your world view, but that differs little from most of the voices here or elsewhere.

Not that it matters, but ultimately while staring at the touch screen, I couldn't vote for Bush even though I did last time. The only worse vote, in fact, would have been one cast for Kerry. Perhaps the devil you know is indeed preferable to the devil you don't.

 

[Changleen]

Perhaps the devil you know is indeed preferable to the devil you don't.

In this case I think that's unlikely.

 

[N8 v2.0]

My self-portrait:

 

[Westy]

Really there's nothing I'd rather not do than get into an argument about a non-existant character from a story book.

History shows Jesus to have been an actual person. The Romans invented beaurocracy and documented his existance. Now who he was is a matter of faith.

 

[Changleen]

History shows Jesus to have been an actual person. The Romans invented beaurocracy and documented his existance. Now who he was is a matter of faith.

You mean there was a person called Jeesus around at the time. Not exactly the type of proof I'd rely on. I expect there a few. As for faith, you probably know by now I don't have much time for belief without proof. walking on water, rising from the dead.. it's all a bunch of cr4p if you ask me. Why would you believe it? The very concept of Christain God is flawed on so many levels.

 

[Echo]

I'm not a religious person. But if someone chooses to be a religious person, who the f*ck are we to tell them what to believe?

 

[Changleen]

I'm not a religious person. But if someone chooses to be a religious person, who the f*ck are we to tell them what to believe?

Well, In general I'd agree. It's fine for people to believe whatever they like, just like it's fine for people to do whatever they like provided they're not hurting anyone else.

If you wanna believe Jeebus walked on water, go right ahead. you're only deluding yourself.

The line gets close to being crossed when because of your (not yours but you see what I mean) irrational, unprovable beliefs you elect an official whose actions impinge on my freedoms as a non believer, for example, abortion rights. I know it hasn't happened yet, but if it does, everyone who didn't vote for Bush nd his story book morality has every right to really pissed.

 

[Silver]

I'm not a religious person. But if someone chooses to be a religious person, who the f*ck are we to tell them what to believe?

Believe whatever you want. Don't try to legislate your religious beliefs, especially the ones that have zero scientific basis, into law for the rest of us.

If someone said that Santa Claus didn't like gay marriage, we'd laugh at them. Why is that rationale any better if you substitute God?

 

[Changleen]

Believe whatever you want. Don't try to legislate your religious beliefs, especially the ones that have zero scientific basis, into law for the rest of us.

If someone said that Santa Claus didn't like gay marriage, we'd laugh at them. Why is that rationale any better if you substitute God?

I think Silver and I are saying the same thing here.

"Keep your religion out of my Uterus" as I saw on a protestors sign once.

 

[Silver]

I think Silver and I are saying the same thing here.

Yep. Your post wasn't there when I started typing

 

[Andyman_1970]

Really there's nothing I'd rather not do than get into an argument about a non-existant character from a story book.

Ok then don't, the question I first raised wasn't directed towards you anyway.

However, Jeebus was alledged to heal the sick of his own back without asking for any reward (Under Bush Medicare cost have increased and more people have lost their insurance)

Jeebus also apparantly taught forgiveness. I don't see Bush forgiving anyone. In fact he seems to be an aggresive, hateful bastard.

I'm not comparing Jesus to what W did or didn't do, the statement was "Jesus and His teachings would be VERY left liberal today", and I asked for some examples, not a comparison to what W does or doesn't do.

How is helping someone and not asking for a reward either a liberal or conservative idea............this question I pose to everyone since Changleen doesn't like to talk about make believe people.

 

[Freak]

I said screw it, ban me for all I care, I'll flame at will. In fact i asked to be removed. RM won't eliminate my user name.

Well if you don't care then I don't care....I have no problems fullfilling your request of being removed.

 

[Andyman_1970]

You mean there was a person called Jeesus around at the time. Not exactly the type of proof I'd rely on.

There is actually some pretty convincing historical evidence (other than Flavius Josephus) from Jewish (not Christian) sources that tell of this rabbi named Jesus, who taught what we see in the Bible..............the Jews don't even deny He was a rabbi, and those folks were/are sticklers for documenting stuff in ancient times.

Anyway..............sorry to post about a make believe person.

But again, I'm interested in this idea that Jesus would have been a VERY left liberal...............I'd still like to see some examples.

 

[Changleen]

There is actually some pretty convincing historical evidence (other than Flavius Josephus) from Jewish (not Christian) sources that tell of this rabbi named Jesus, who taught what we see in the Bible..............the Jews don't even deny He was a rabbi, and those folks were/are sticklers for documenting stuff in ancient times.

Anyway..............sorry to post about a make believe person.

But again, I'm interested in this idea that Jesus would have been a VERY left liberal...............I'd still like to see some examples.

Hey, In America today, if you don't agree with Bush then you're a Liberal. Say it ain't so.

 

[Silver]

Healed the sick, fed the hungry, and told his followers to give your coat up to someone who doesn't have one if you have two. Drove the moneylenders out of the temple (anyone ever watch TBN?) and exhorted his followers, who wanted him to be a Jewish revolutionary to give to Ceasar what was Ceasar's. Forgave Peter for denying him, forgave Thomas for doubting him (nice little meme there...but that's another story.) Declined to stone a woman who was caught in adultery.

Read the beatitudes, and tell me how exactly that little group of sayings fits in with conservative philosophy.

 

[T-Dog]

Believe whatever you want. Don't try to legislate your religious beliefs, especially the ones that have zero scientific basis, into law for the rest of us.

If someone said that Santa Claus didn't like gay marriage, we'd laugh at them. Why is that rationale any better if you substitute God?

Why shouldn't they try to legislate what they believe strongly in- whatever their source of inspiration? You get your moral values and opinions somewhere....so do religous folks. You wouldn't like it if someone said to you "Don't you try to legislate your non-religous beliefs". It comes down to what the majority wants.....through the officials they elect that they feel represent what they think. It's worth noting that in all 11 states where it came to a vote, gay marriage was nixed. Whether you like it or not, the majority of voters in those states don't think it's right. (and it didn't matter a whit if Santa Claus whispered that to them or they got it from their church.)

 

[Silver]

Why shouldn't they try to legislate what they believe strongly in- whatever their source of inspiration? You get your moral values and opinions somewhere....so do religous folks. You wouldn't like it if someone said to you "Don't you try to legislate your non-religous beliefs". It comes down to what the majority wants.....through the officials they elect that they feel represent what they think. It's worth noting that in all 11 states where it came to a vote, gay marriage was nixed. Whether you like it or not, the majority of voters in those states don't think it's right. (and it didn't matter a whit if Santa Claus whispered that to them or they got it from their church.)

Fine. Don't bitch when religious terrorists blow up buildings then. After all, why shouldn't they legislate thier moral values? And when legislation doesn't work, other tactics are acceptable, because they are strongly held beliefs.

My non-religious beliefs aren't awarded instant reverence. I have to defend and argue for them. And, if the evidence doesn't stack up, I can and will change them. A rational belief leads you to examine it when doubt arises. A religious belief reinforces itself in the face of doubt.

I don't give a sh!t that a majority of voters don't like homosexuals and wish to discriminate against them. The same thing was true of blacks and women before them.

 

[Changleen]

Why shouldn't they try to legislate what they believe strongly in- whatever their source of inspiration? You get your moral values and opinions somewhere....so do religous folks. You wouldn't like it if someone said to you "Don't you try to legislate your non-religous beliefs".

The point is that one does not legislate on any 'beliefs' - We legislate on hard, demonstrable facts.

It comes down to what the majority wants.....through the officials they elect that they feel represent what they think. It's worth noting that in all 11 states where it came to a vote, gay marriage was nixed. Whether you like it or not, the majority of voters in those states don't think it's right. (and it didn't matter a whit if Santa Claus whispered that to them or they got it from their church.)

Bad example as 'Marriage' is a religious institution. If that religion says marriage can only exist between a man and women, fair enough. However, if you legislate that same sex couples do not have the same rights as hetro couples then you are an asshole.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Healed the sick, fed the hungry, and told his followers to give your coat up to someone who doesn't have one if you have two. Drove the moneylenders out of the temple (anyone ever watch TBN?) and exhorted his followers, who wanted him to be a Jewish revolutionary to give to Ceasar what was Ceasar's. Forgave Peter for denying him, forgave Thomas for doubting him (nice little meme there...but that's another story.) Declined to stone a woman who was caught in adultery.

Read the beatitudes, and tell me how exactly that little group of sayings fits in with conservative philosophy.

Good job Silver...........I knew you could do it.

I totally agree that these teachings are for lack of a better word "liberal" - but I would argue God is neither liberal nor conservative. The funny thing is, I'm with my beliefs considered "liberal" by my Christian friends, and yet you guys consider me almost a nazi.............too funny.

Now consider Jesus' teachings on adultery, marriage, sancity of human life. He defines murder as saying you hate someone, or call them a loser. He defines adultery as looking at a woman lustfully, and a divorce for anything other than adultery is adultery. Jesus has a pretty narrow, focused definition of what sexual immoraility is, which would not line up with the gay-marriage, pro porn, pro condom handing out crowd. Jesus also has a pretty narrow focused definition of human life and it's value, which I would argue would not line up with the pro-choice, pro-euthinasia, pro-death penalty crowd (see He's not "one or the other", I even stepped on some conservative toes).

Look at His teaching in Matthew 6, where God takes care of our needs. The example He cites is the birds of the air. Now are they fed worms that fall from the sky, nope, the work for their worms. This totally lines up with the OT, where a farmer would leave the margins of their feilds un harvested so the poor, fatherless, widows and aliens could eat, they could gather their own food.............not a hand out.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I don't give a sh!t that a majority of voters don't like homosexuals and wish to discriminate against them.

How is not agreeing with a certain behavior considered discrimination?

 

[Silver]

How is not agreeing with a certain behavior considered discrimination?

It's discrimination as soon as you try to codify it into law.

There's no law against adulterers getting married. No one's forcing you to marry a gay partner. But there's no good reason that they shouldn't have the same civil benefits the rest of the populace gets.

 

[Changleen]

Good job Silver...........I knew you could do it.

I totally agree that these teachings are for lack of a better word "liberal" - but I would argue God is neither liberal nor conservative.

Me to. I'd argue he does not exist.

Now consider Jesus' teachings on adultery, marriage, sancity of human life. He defines murder as saying you hate someone, or call them a loser. He defines adultery as looking at a woman lustfully, and a divorce for anything other than adultery is adultery. Jesus has a pretty narrow, focused definition of what sexual immoraility is, which would not line up with the gay-marriage, pro porn, pro condom handing out crowd. Jesus also has a pretty narrow focused definition of human life and it's value, which I would argue would not line up with the pro-choice, pro-euthinasia, pro-death penalty crowd (see He's not "one or the other", I even stepped on some conservative toes).

I've gotta say those are your interpretations. A lot of people take the bible in a looser or more literal way than you do.

 

[Changleen]

How is not agreeing with a certain behavior considered discrimination?

On top of what Silver said, I expect there is also a more literal expression of this discrimination if you were known to hold these views in certain areas of the US.

 

[T-Dog]

Sorry I don't equate terrorists/bombs/buildings with legislating. Illegal tactics aren't ok when the usual processes don't work....anti-abortion fanatics go to jail when they toss bombs and shoot doctors. It's as wrong as it would be for an atheist to blow up a church.

Like it or not, this country was founded with religion as a guiding principle-it's in the bill of rights. And I'd say that being free to practice your religion (within the laws of the nation) includes voicing your opinion and trying to shape laws that reflect how you feel and what you believe to be right. (not that you care- I'm not a religious person, and I am for the womans right to choose.)

 

[Andyman_1970]

I've gotta say those are your interpretations. A lot of people take the bible in a looser or more literal way than you do.

Those aren't my interpretations, that is the rabbinic Hebrew understanding of those Texts. I agree ALOT of people look at the Text from the point of view of a Christian in the year 2004 rather than as a 1st century Jew.............which IMO is fundamental to some of the problems modern Christianity has at least here in the US.

 

[Slugman]

Healed the sick, fed the hungry, and told his followers to give your coat up to someone who doesn't have one if you have two. Drove the moneylenders out of the temple (anyone ever watch TBN?) and exhorted his followers, who wanted him to be a Jewish revolutionary to give to Ceasar what was Ceasar's. Forgave Peter for denying him, forgave Thomas for doubting him (nice little meme there...but that's another story.) Declined to stone a woman who was caught in adultery.

Read the beatitudes, and tell me how exactly that little group of sayings fits in with conservative philosophy.

Looks like I got beat to it... sorry I was doing my work.

I totally agree that these teachings are for lack of a better word "liberal" - but I would argue God is neither liberal nor conservative. The funny thing is, I'm with my beliefs considered "liberal" by my Christian friends, and yet you guys consider me almost a nazi.............too funny.

Actually you are one of a handful that I completely respect on this board... at least with the religeuos thread neaky:

Look at His teaching in Matthew 6, where God takes care of our needs. The example He cites is the birds of the air. Now are they fed worms that fall from the sky, nope, the work for their worms. This totally lines up with the OT, where a farmer would leave the margins of their feilds un harvested so the poor, fatherless, widows and aliens could eat, they could gather their own food.............not a hand out.

I personally see the republican mentality as harvesting that extra part for profit. These are people who are repealing enviromental laws in order to allow corporations to make moer money. Money that will be a bonus to the CEO.

 

[Damn True]

Hey, In America today, if you don't agree with Bush then you're a Liberal. Say it ain't so.

4th time you've dodged the question.

 

[T-Dog]

The point is that one does not legislate on any 'beliefs' - We legislate on hard, demonstrable facts.

Bad example as 'Marriage' is a religious institution. If that religion says marriage can only exist between a man and women, fair enough. However, if you legislate that same sex couples do not have the same rights as hetro couples then you are an asshole.

There's a hell of blurry line there with marriage, as it also involves the state and a contract. And the courts are involved if you want to dissolve that contract or have a problem with it. But I would guess that most people voted it down, because they just don't think it's right. I'm sure there are atheists that don't think it's right either. (IMO there needs to be a better alternative for people to approve of, that gives same sex couples all the rights-the contract- it just isn't called "marriage".)

Yeah I know you'd like cold hard scientific facts to prove every point, including a posting from Jesus himself, but there are some issues that need to be decided that don't fall into that category...like the right to choose or gay marriage- no way to prove it right or wrong, it's comes down to your opinion.

 

[Damn True]

Healed the sick, fed the hungry, and told his followers to give your coat up to someone who doesn't have one if you have two. Drove the moneylenders out of the temple (anyone ever watch TBN?) and exhorted his followers, who wanted him to be a Jewish revolutionary to give to Ceasar what was Ceasar's. Forgave Peter for denying him, forgave Thomas for doubting him (nice little meme there...but that's another story.) Declined to stone a woman who was caught in adultery.

Read the beatitudes, and tell me how exactly that little group of sayings fits in with conservative philosophy.

So being a nice guy is strictly the domain of liberals?
Bwahahaahhaha! Sorry, that was funny stuff.

Healed the sick. - So all doctors and Pharmacists are apparently liberal.
Fed the hungry. - Most of the soup kitchens Im aware of are run by churches.
give up a coat. - Salvation Army.....religious group
Drove moneylenders out. - Do you want a bunch of loan officers in your "house" (had to make a joke out of this one because I cant see how it relates to liberalism/conservatism)
Forgiveness. - When did this become a purely liberal concept?
Declined a stoning. - This wasn't about being against the death penalty. It was about peoples right to condemnation.

 

[Transcend]

Why shouldn't they try to legislate what they believe strongly in- whatever their source of inspiration? You get your moral values and opinions somewhere....so do religous folks. You wouldn't like it if someone said to you "Don't you try to legislate your non-religous beliefs". It comes down to what the majority wants.....through the officials they elect that they feel represent what they think. It's worth noting that in all 11 states where it came to a vote, gay marriage was nixed. Whether you like it or not, the majority of voters in those states don't think it's right. (and it didn't matter a whit if Santa Claus whispered that to them or they got it from their church.)

well this seems like a good juncture to post this.

Alos in those 11 states, the majority of voters were apparently 2 faced bigots.

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will

 

[Transcend]

Sorry I don't equate terrorists/bombs/buildings with legislating. Illegal tactics aren't ok when the usual processes don't work....anti-abortion fanatics go to jail when they toss bombs and shoot doctors. It's as wrong as it would be for an atheist to blow up a church.

Like it or not, this country was founded with religion as a guiding principle-it's in the bill of rights. And I'd say that being free to practice your religion (within the laws of the nation) includes voicing your opinion and trying to shape laws that reflect how you feel and what you believe to be right. (not that you care- I'm not a religious person, and I am for the womans right to choose.)

Guess what? The bill of rights is supposed to PROTECT rights, not limit them.

 

[Changleen]

well this seems like a good juncture to post this.

Alos in those 11 states, the majority of voters were apparently 2 faced bigots.

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will

LOL

 

[Silver]

So being a nice guy is strictly the domain of liberals?
Bwahahaahhaha! Sorry, that was funny stuff.

Actually, the way I read it, Jesus declined to stone the woman to get himself out of a slightly sticky situation with the Sanhedrin.

I never said it was strictly the domain of liberals. I'm merely trying to make the argument that "Jesus" as a biblical figure has been co-opted by a bunch of people who don't really stand for what he stands for.

 

[Damn True]

Wow.....it's less than 48 hours and the lefties are allready taking the media's "bait" that this thing was about gay marriage.

Sheep.