Evangelicals Call Jesus “Liberal” and “Weak”
MushroomPrincess
Deinonychus
Joined: 26 Feb 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 350
Location: Turtle Island
20 Jan 2024, 3:03 pm
auntblabby wrote:
it would apply to the great unwashed but never to themselves, they deem themselves administrators of the law and never followers of the law. self-aggrandizing bunch of hypocrites IMHO.
Yuuuppp. I grew up in the Bible Belt in a non-Christian household, and I remember the first time I heard the term "The Elect" and didn't know what it meant and I had to have a Christian explain it to me. She smiled and cheerfully went into an obviously well-practiced lecture about how....... uh... well, I don't want to get into specifics about this ugly doctrine, but basically the default belief of all Christians is that if you're one of the "Elect", nothing you do matters; your salvation is guaranteed, it's everyone else who has to earn theirs. So drink and smoke and f**k all you want, Jesus loves you regardless. This is how Christians rationalize literally every sh***y f****d up thing they do: The rapes, the human trafficking, brutal and bloody exploitation of indigenous people... The bottom line is always that the perpetrators are part of the Elect, and the victims are not. This is how they rationalize their actions to each other. This is the "forgiveness" they're always preaching about.
Incidentally I've noticed that the "Elect" are always white. Evangelical Christians would, of course, prefer if we didn't look too far into this, but it sure is something to think about.
auntblabby wrote:
being that their "way" is wholly NOT compatible with MY way, it IS a threat, a tangible one.
I'm sorry but I'm gonna be completely honest here: I don't care one jot about your "way" or whatever imaginary conflict you've imagined between yourself and a marginalized group. This is exactly the sort of "us vs. them" mentality that you were apparently against just a few minutes ago, so.... I don't know, maybe you don't fully realize what you're saying?
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
20 Jan 2024, 3:36 pm
MushroomPrincess wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
being that their "way" is wholly NOT compatible with MY way, it IS a threat, a tangible one.
I'm sorry but I'm gonna be completely honest here: I don't care one jot about your "way" or whatever imaginary conflict you've imagined between yourself and a marginalized group. This is exactly the sort of "us vs. them" mentality that you were apparently against just a few minutes ago, so.... I don't know, maybe you don't fully realize what you're saying?
He's using the term to refer to religious zealotry; while it's fair to have a discussion about whether or not Sharia is a fair term to apply to Christian zealotry, he's not wrong to worry about religious zealotry and their way.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
20 Jan 2024, 5:22 pm
old_comedywriter wrote:
Think about it. Radical right wingers want their own form of Sharia Law.
Christian Reconstructionism is not far off from extreme Islam. I think it'd be more fair to say that it is wanting to take western society back to pre-Enlightenment.
Christian Reconstructionism is not necessarily mainstream, but I do think everyone should be very aware of it, because it has been influential on today's religious right, and as we all know, the religious right has slimy ways of getting into power.
I don't want anyone to panic, but I do think we have to think about this. The religious right is working to undermine democracy and enforce Christianity in the US, and they have lots of dark money backers and influence to achieve that. If they are successful and democracy is dissolved and the separation of church and state is destroyed, then a path of opportunity for reconstructionism could open, if they have the money and the right connections.
Again, don't want people to panic. It looks unlikely right now. But I'm just saying if the religious right wins the US election at the end of the year, all bets are off. They are getting increasingly extreme. Their current rhetoric against transgender people especially. Even if they don't hit reconstructionism, they have rhetoric that is genocidal against LGBT people (and immigrants, too!). So instead of calling for direct execution for all gay and trans people. Notice the call from the right to make trans people in public inappropriate (something a well-known right wing speaker at CPAC said. We're not talking some fringe pastor in Texas who no one knows outside of his town, we're talking about mainstream right!).
I've been saying don't panic, but... I'm totally panicking for trans people (and immigrants).
_________________
Diagnosed with ADHD, Strongly Suspecting I'm also Autistic
Archmage Arcane
Velociraptor
Joined: 13 Jun 2019
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 451
Location: Connecticut, USA
20 Jan 2024, 6:36 pm
MushroomPrincess wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
it would apply to the great unwashed but never to themselves, they deem themselves administrators of the law and never followers of the law. self-aggrandizing bunch of hypocrites IMHO.
Yuuuppp. I grew up in the Bible Belt in a non-Christian household, and I remember the first time I heard the term "The Elect" and didn't know what it meant and I had to have a Christian explain it to me. She smiled and cheerfully went into an obviously well-practiced lecture about how....... uh... well, I don't want to get into specifics about this ugly doctrine, but basically the default belief of all Christians is that if you're one of the "Elect", nothing you do matters; your salvation is guaranteed, it's everyone else who has to earn theirs. So drink and smoke and f**k all you want, Jesus loves you regardless. This is how Christians rationalize literally every sh***y f****d up thing they do: The rapes, the human trafficking, brutal and bloody exploitation of indigenous people... The bottom line is always that the perpetrators are part of the Elect, and the victims are not. This is how they rationalize their actions to each other. This is the "forgiveness" they're always preaching about.
Incidentally I've noticed that the "Elect" are always white. Evangelical Christians would, of course, prefer if we didn't look too far into this, but it sure is something to think about.
auntblabby wrote:
being that their "way" is wholly NOT compatible with MY way, it IS a threat, a tangible one.
I'm sorry but I'm gonna be completely honest here: I don't care one jot about your "way" or whatever imaginary conflict you've imagined between yourself and a marginalized group. This is exactly the sort of "us vs. them" mentality that you were apparently against just a few minutes ago, so.... I don't know, maybe you don't fully realize what you're saying?
My guess is 'the elect' need to read Matthew 24:6-25, especially Matthew 24:24. "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
I'm also a Pagan. Christianity isn't my path, but if the evangelicals take this stuff literally, they might want to pay attention. They're being deceived.
20 Jan 2024, 7:03 pm
MushroomPrincess wrote:
old_comedywriter wrote:
Think about it. Radical right wingers want their own form of Sharia Law.
"Shariah" is just Arabic for "the way", and from what I understand, Arabs really need white people to stop using it as a scare word.
I would say this depends on the context.
There is an underlying valid concern, which is that many people, including many Arabs, really don't want to live in a theocracy, Islamic or otherwise. It is legitimate to object to the idea of a government based on "Sharia Law." (I expect that Face of Boo, a Lebanese Arab here on WP, would agree with me about this.)
It is also legitimate to point out that Christian religious right wingers, here in the U.S.A., are being hypocrites if they object to "Sharia Law" while at the same time trying to impose (their idea of) Christianity on the rest of us by force of law.
However, yes, "sharia" has ALSO been used as a scare word, in ridiculous ways.
During the decade after 9/11/2001, here in NYC, professional Islamophobes tried to scare people into believing that there was a plot by Muslims to impose "Sharia Law" on us here in the U.S.A.
Their evidence for this? Things like Halal food being an option in public schools in districts where there happened to be a lot of Muslims. But that's not imposing anything on anyone. That's just allowing Muslims to practice their religion, similar to serving kosher food, as an option, in schools in districts where there are a lot of Jews. Yet the professional Islamophobes were outraged about halal food, calling it "creeping sharia," as if its mere presence were some kind of insidious mortal threat to the rest of us.
Then there was the thoroughly bigoted campaign against the establishment of a bilingual high school for Arab-American students, similar to other bilingual high schools for other ethnic minorities. The name of that campaign was "Stop the Madrassa!" -- although the school was certainly not an Islamic school of any kind. Indeed the proposed school was to be named after Khalil Gibran, who was Christian.
And then, in 2010, there was the hullabaloo against the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque." (See Wikipedia page about Park51.) I participated in two counter-protests against this campaign.
_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
Last edited by Mona Pereth on 20 Jan 2024, 11:26 pm, edited 4 times in total.
20 Jan 2024, 7:16 pm
MushroomPrincess wrote:
old_comedywriter wrote:
Think about it. Radical right wingers want their own form of Sharia Law.
"Shariah" is just Arabic for "the way", and from what I understand, Arabs really need white people to stop using it as a scare word.
auntblabby wrote:
being that their "way" is wholly NOT compatible with MY way, it IS a threat, a tangible one.
How is it a "tangible" threat here in the U.S.A.? Muslims are a tiny minority here, not in any position at all to impose their religious laws on the rest of us, even if they might want to -- and we shouldn't assume all of them want to, in the first place.
Here in the U.S.A., there is a much bigger danger of Muslims being denied their rights than of Muslims being in any position to deny other people's rights.
Of course, things would be very different for you if you lived in, say, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran. But you don't live there. You live here.
_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
Last edited by Mona Pereth on 20 Jan 2024, 8:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
20 Jan 2024, 7:55 pm
auntblabby wrote:
it would apply to the great unwashed but never to themselves, they deem themselves administrators of the law and never followers of the law. self-aggrandizing bunch of hypocrites IMHO.
History is kind of repeating itself. The old testament pharisees commercialised their temples to fill their own pockets. Ironically MAGA pastors are cut from the same cloth.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,219
Location: the island of defective toy santas
21 Jan 2024, 12:03 am
Mona Pereth wrote:
MushroomPrincess wrote:
old_comedywriter wrote:
Think about it. Radical right wingers want their own form of Sharia Law.
"Shariah" is just Arabic for "the way", and from what I understand, Arabs really need white people to stop using it as a scare word.
auntblabby wrote:
being that their "way" is wholly NOT compatible with MY way, it IS a threat, a tangible one.
How is it a "tangible" threat here in the U.S.A.? Muslims are a tiny minority here, not in any position at all to impose their religious laws on the rest of us, even if they might want to -- and we shouldn't assume all of them want to, in the first place. Here in the U.S.A., there is a much bigger danger of Muslims being denied their rights than of Muslims being in any position to deny other people's rights. Of course, things would be very different for you if you lived in, say, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran. But you don't live there. You live here.
i should have used more precision, i was referring to the amuuurican hyper-religious types dominating the GOP who seem to me to be on similar uncomfortably parallel track as the middle-eastern religious types in terms of micromanaging our private lives.
21 Jan 2024, 1:15 pm
Honey69 wrote:
https://newrepublic.com/post/174950/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-jesus-liberal-weak
Christianity Today Editor: Evangelicals Call Jesus “Liberal” and “Weak”
A former evangelical leader is sounding the alarm about the direction his religion is headed in.
The editor in chief of Christianity Today is warning that evangelical Christianity is moving too far to the right, to the point that even Jesus’s teachings are considered “weak” now.
Russell Moore resigned from the Southern Baptist Convention in 2021, after years of being at odds with other evangelical leaders. Specifically, Moore openly criticized Donald Trump, whom many evangelical Christians embraced. Moore also criticized the Southern Baptist Convention’s response to a sexual abuse crisis and increasing tolerance for white nationalism in the community.
Now he thinks his religion is in crisis.
Moore told NPR in an interview released Tuesday that multiple pastors had told him they would quote the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the part that says to “turn the other cheek,” when preaching. Someone would come up after the service and ask, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?”
“What was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,’ the response would not be, ‘I apologize.’ The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,’” Moore said. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
Moore said he thinks a large part of the issue is how divisive U.S. politics are, which is now spilling over into the church. He pointed to how a lot of issues are “packaged in terms of existential threat,” leading to the belief among everyone, not just evangelical Christians, that “desperate times call for desperate measures.”
It makes sense, then, that evangelical Christians would embrace Trump, who portrayed himself as the answer to many of those supposed existential threats. Trump both campaigned and governed on a largely evangelical Christian platform. He moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; he cracked down on immigration from majority-Muslim countries; and he appointed multiple conservative judges, including to the Supreme Court, which has swung sharply right.
He made good on his anti-abortion promises when the high court removed the nationwide right to the procedure in June. Many LGBTQ protections were rolled back under his watch, and during the June 2020 protests over George Floyd’s murder by police, he tear-gassed demonstrators so he could take a heavily posed picture with a Bible in front of St. John’s Church near the White House.
And as Trump swings ever further right, it makes sense that people who believe he will solve their problems will follow blindly.
Quote:
Christianity Today Editor: Evangelicals Call Jesus “Liberal” and “Weak”
A former evangelical leader is sounding the alarm about the direction his religion is headed in.
The editor in chief of Christianity Today is warning that evangelical Christianity is moving too far to the right, to the point that even Jesus’s teachings are considered “weak” now.
Russell Moore resigned from the Southern Baptist Convention in 2021, after years of being at odds with other evangelical leaders. Specifically, Moore openly criticized Donald Trump, whom many evangelical Christians embraced. Moore also criticized the Southern Baptist Convention’s response to a sexual abuse crisis and increasing tolerance for white nationalism in the community.
Now he thinks his religion is in crisis.
Moore told NPR in an interview released Tuesday that multiple pastors had told him they would quote the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the part that says to “turn the other cheek,” when preaching. Someone would come up after the service and ask, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?”
“What was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,’ the response would not be, ‘I apologize.’ The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,’” Moore said. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
Moore said he thinks a large part of the issue is how divisive U.S. politics are, which is now spilling over into the church. He pointed to how a lot of issues are “packaged in terms of existential threat,” leading to the belief among everyone, not just evangelical Christians, that “desperate times call for desperate measures.”
It makes sense, then, that evangelical Christians would embrace Trump, who portrayed himself as the answer to many of those supposed existential threats. Trump both campaigned and governed on a largely evangelical Christian platform. He moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; he cracked down on immigration from majority-Muslim countries; and he appointed multiple conservative judges, including to the Supreme Court, which has swung sharply right.
He made good on his anti-abortion promises when the high court removed the nationwide right to the procedure in June. Many LGBTQ protections were rolled back under his watch, and during the June 2020 protests over George Floyd’s murder by police, he tear-gassed demonstrators so he could take a heavily posed picture with a Bible in front of St. John’s Church near the White House.
And as Trump swings ever further right, it makes sense that people who believe he will solve their problems will follow blindly.
I think turning the other cheek has always been generally unpopular, and in a sense if evangelical "sheep" are rejecting a bit of scripture, that at least shows them thinking for themselves, though I don't suppose they'll follow through and drop their belief in scriptural inerrancy. A cunning enough pastor could probably fix it by using the ideas in my next paragraph:
One school of thought is that the whole idea of cheek-turning was a tactic, a means to an end - something about turning the cheek would force the guy who slapped you to choose between escalating it into an "unclean" assault (I don't fully understand it but it's said to be about left/right cheeks and hands, and backhanders in relation to ancient Jewish ethics) and backing down.
In the Sermon-On-The-Mount it seems to be a personal rather than a political idea, with Paul later adding something interesting of his own - something like "it'll set their heads on fire" - but Gandhi seems to have used the tactic as a political thing against the British in India - forcing the authorities to either allow disobedience or punish it with something so horrifically draconian as to lose face as India's civilised and rightful authority. It's a form of martyrdom I guess is quite common in political activism and it probably works in some situations, though it can be risky.
21 Jan 2024, 7:36 pm
^^^ Turning the other cheek was completely foreign concept to all ancient societies at the time of Jesus (including the Jews). There is a clear demarcation with Jesus that prior to his "coming" that god's law required one take an "eye for an eye" in order to gain justice.
This adds to the "holiness" of Jesus and his bona fide as the son of god, ushering in a new era (which happen to coincide with the astrological age of Aquarius). But the sect Jesus was affiliated with (the essenes) were actually quite violent and involved in insurrection against the Romans which is itself contradictory.
So how did this concept of non-violence that inspired thousands of his followers to martyrdom suddenly appear? The concept of non-violence was already well known in India. Hinduism had a principle of "ahimsa" which is do no harm. There is one plausible theory (not verified) that Jesus may have travelled to Southern India by sea/ship where mysteriously Christianity sprung up almost at the same time it appeared in the levant. There was a roaring trade by sea at the time of the Romans and South Indian Tamil kings (Cholas, Cheras and Pandyans). The Kings of southern India sold spices, ivory and textiles/cloth to the Romans. Jesus may well have taken a round trip from one of the Dead sea ports and sailed to India and back.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Jan 2024, 8:32 pm
cyberdad wrote:
I never thought I would be saying something in support of a far right pastor, but....
He doesn't actually Jesus liberal and weak. He says in Christ's sermon on the mount, turning the other cheek "no longer works" and claims "times have changed" and he wants his followers to fight back.
A pastor simply could not directly call Christ "weak" because the Christ' character in the bible is anything but weak.
He doesn't actually Jesus liberal and weak. He says in Christ's sermon on the mount, turning the other cheek "no longer works" and claims "times have changed" and he wants his followers to fight back.
A pastor simply could not directly call Christ "weak" because the Christ' character in the bible is anything but weak.
Considering that Jesus got crucified for his message, and that so many of his disciples died horrendously, I'd say today is a wee bit easier to get away with Christ's message than it was 2,000 years ago.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Jan 2024, 8:35 pm
MushroomPrincess wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
it would apply to the great unwashed but never to themselves, they deem themselves administrators of the law and never followers of the law. self-aggrandizing bunch of hypocrites IMHO.
Yuuuppp. I grew up in the Bible Belt in a non-Christian household, and I remember the first time I heard the term "The Elect" and didn't know what it meant and I had to have a Christian explain it to me. She smiled and cheerfully went into an obviously well-practiced lecture about how....... uh... well, I don't want to get into specifics about this ugly doctrine, but basically the default belief of all Christians is that if you're one of the "Elect", nothing you do matters; your salvation is guaranteed, it's everyone else who has to earn theirs. So drink and smoke and f**k all you want, Jesus loves you regardless. This is how Christians rationalize literally every sh***y f****d up thing they do: The rapes, the human trafficking, brutal and bloody exploitation of indigenous people... The bottom line is always that the perpetrators are part of the Elect, and the victims are not. This is how they rationalize their actions to each other. This is the "forgiveness" they're always preaching about.
Incidentally I've noticed that the "Elect" are always white. Evangelical Christians would, of course, prefer if we didn't look too far into this, but it sure is something to think about.
auntblabby wrote:
being that their "way" is wholly NOT compatible with MY way, it IS a threat, a tangible one.
I'm sorry but I'm gonna be completely honest here: I don't care one jot about your "way" or whatever imaginary conflict you've imagined between yourself and a marginalized group. This is exactly the sort of "us vs. them" mentality that you were apparently against just a few minutes ago, so.... I don't know, maybe you don't fully realize what you're saying?
Needless to say, that's a very erroneous version of divine election that those people teach and cling to.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
22 Jan 2024, 4:34 pm
The thing about parishioners finding Jesus' teachings to be weak or woke, and inappropriate for our times is that Jesus was living under a foreign rule dictatorship, surrounded by a virtual theocracy of fundamentalists. Romans to the left of him, Pharisees to the right. And his response was the Sermon on the Mount and Love Thy Neighbor.
And these 'Christians' complaining about immigrants need to remember that the bible (OLD Testament) says to welcome them and treat them as your own.
As for fear of pushing Muslim influence in schools... I notice these fundagelicals are trying to push food for poor kids OUT of schools, and prayer and the Eleven Commandments* into schools.
Beware a prominent heresy in the fundagelical community. The Seven Mountains Mandate seeks to gain influence, and control where possible, over these seven areas of life: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government. This agenda is what allows them to gloss over Trump's embracing all seven deadly sins. He's given more to them, promised more to them, than any other president.
*Eleven Commandments: A lot of modern Christians follow the Pauline doctrine that following religious law doesn't save anyone. That Christ's substitutionary death on the cross frees gentiles from the need to follow Jewish religious law. So they can eat pork and get tattoos.
But they keep the Ten Commandments... and they keep the anti-gay rules. Even though it's part of the same level and in the same section of the bible as don't eat pork. Even though Jesus NEVER mentioned it.
But because it bothers them, then they figure it must bother God. So it's their Eleventh Commandment.
Pass the bacon please.
_________________
assumption makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'mption'.
22 Jan 2024, 8:53 pm
DoniiMann wrote:
But because it bothers them, then they figure it must bother God. So it's their Eleventh Commandment.
Pass the bacon please.
Pass the bacon please.
The idea In the beginning, Man created God in his own image seems to me more plausible and sensible than anything religious fundamentalists say about this God of theirs.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/ ... ady-review
That's from 2012. See also the album cover of "Aqualung" by Jethro Tull for an earlier and much simpler discussion of the concept. It's probably older than that, but when I searched for "Man created God" on the Web, practically all the hits were for "God created Man." I'm surprised it isn't a more widely-discussed idea.
23 Jan 2024, 2:59 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Considering that Jesus got crucified for his message, and that so many of his disciples died horrendously, I'd say today is a wee bit easier to get away with Christ's message than it was 2,000 years ago.
I think the earliest converts were very devout to the point they willingly died for their faith. often fairly gruesomely in a Roman colosseum. That must have impressed upon those watching how strong this christian faith is.
