Progressive tenets of Jesus Christ

Reverend Revelant wrote: I didn't select the thread title, Z did

Not. I suggested the possibility of a thread on this, but did not "select" the thread title. If I had, I doubt I would have titled it as you did.

After having thought about it for awhile, I came to the conclusion that a "religion" type thread might be even more appropriate. I'm no theologian. Nor am I an "expert" on Christ, although I will research till I'm pretty blue in the face to try and find relevant articles and posits on same. Maybe I should start a different thread on religion in that there seems, in research I've been looking at, to be historical misuse of the teachings of Christ right along with misinterpretations, as P has indicated. That being said, I'm not sure his interpretations of same are in line with my own, although we haven't really delved, as yet, into that type of scenario.

In my view, religion has had more to do with death and destruction in this world throughout history than virtually anything else. And, yet, religions virtually all teach and advocate for peace. To me, that is a dichotomy that cannot be denied.

More wars have been fought in the "name of the Lord" than in the "love of the Lord". I'd ask posters here to think about that and respond with their thoughts.

ZHawke wrote:

Reverend Revelant wrote: I didn't select the thread title, Z did

Not. I suggested the possibility of a thread on this, but did not "select" the thread title. If I had, I doubt I would have titled it as you did.

After having thought about it for awhile, I came to the conclusion that a "religion" type thread might be even more appropriate. I'm no theologian. Nor am I an "expert" on Christ, although I will research till I'm pretty blue in the face to try and find relevant articles and posits on same.

I stand corrected about the thread title. You suggested a thread on this topic, not the title.

Anyway, that's precisely what my last long comment was in regards to. I would like to see this topic discusses from a scriptural point of view, mainly from the four gospels since that is where we have the bulk of the words of Christ (or at least writers who are remembering what they heard or what they were told was his words).

Both sides of this issue will be surprised about the possible outcome and answer to this thread question if they stick to those parameters. There is not doubt that theologians recognize that it didn't take long for the early disciples to start interpreting the words of Christ and developing a church that may not have been as true to the source material.

And when Paul came along, he started to filter his interpretation through his knowledge of Roman and Greek philosophy. And he also claimed he had Rabbinic training, a training that stood in direct opposition to the way Christ was "rebelling" against what Temple Judaism had become.

That's why I suggest to stick just to Christs words, as we have them.

(Of course, we could argue what was really Jesus' words. The Jesus Seminar spent years doing that, using critical textual analysis and removing certain sayings as being inauthentic, but that's a whole other topic).

So, can anyone make these points, whether Christ had a "progressive" or "conservative" message for us?

Reverend Revelant wrote: I stand corrected about the thread title. You suggested a thread on this topic, not the title.

Anyway, that's precisely what my last long comment was in regards to. I would like to see this topic discusses from a scriptural point of view, mainly from the four gospels since that is where we have the bulk of the words of Christ (or at least writers who are remembering what they heard or what they were told was his words).

Both sides of this issue will be surprised about the possible outcome and answer to this thread question if they stick to those parameters. There is not doubt that theologians recognize that it didn't take long for the early disciples to start interpreting the words of Christ and developing a church that may not have been as true to the source material.

And when Paul came along, he started to filter his interpretation through his knowledge of Roman and Greek philosophy. And he also claimed he had Rabbinic training, a training that stood in direct opposition to the way Christ was "rebelling" against what Temple Judaism had become.

That's why I suggest to stick just to Christs words, as we have them.

(Of course, we could argue what was really Jesus' words. The Jesus Seminar spent years doing that, using critical textual analysis and removing certain sayings as being inauthentic, but that's a whole other topic).

So, can anyone make these points, whether Christ had a "progressive" or "conservative" message for us?

Thank you for that. When I suggested the thread, I wasn't sure, at that point, if I should even do it, especially here in The Courthouse, given the differences we all have in common with regard to Jesus teachings.

P is an authority. Of that, there can be no doubt. However, his "authority", or knowledge if one wants to label it as such, ostensibly comes from a more Catholic perspective. That does not, nor is it intended to, mean that P isn't knowledgeable beyond his Catholic faith. That would be disingenuous of me to an unacceptable degree, and my comments are made with all due respect toward religions and denominations of all stripes.

I'm not Catholic. I know some people who will tell you they grew up as Catholics, but they're better now (meant with tongue in cheek here - I'm actually married to one).

I was reared in the United Church of Christ, as arguably a conservative bastion of the teachings of Christ as one can find anywhere. And, yet, when my own Mother sometimes challenged and questioned the males who dominated the "tenets" being espoused therein, they almost always looked deep within and came up with some sort of a viable solution to the issue, albeit with some major grumbling involved.

For example, my Mom trembled noticeably whenever faced with something, anything that made her even slightly nervous. Taking communion was problematic for her as a result. She always felt excluded because at that time women and men took communion separate from each other. They even sat on opposite sides of the aisle in the church, itself. She tried a couple of times - taking the wafers wasn't a problem, but when it came to the "blood of Christ", she spilled it every single time.

The solution? The church elders decided, when this was brought forth as an issue (and, please keep in mind these were Germans from Russia we're talking about here), to "mix" the congregation and allow my parents and all other husbands and wives to sit together throughout the service right along with accompanying each other to the altar so my Dad could help my Mom while taking communion. When that didn't work, because she still got so nervous she spilled every time, they also decided instead of having everyone come to the altar to receive communion, ushers would take the wafers and "the blood of Christ" down the aisle and send them down the rows. That way, Mom, and anyone else having a problem going up front could partake in this sacred rite.

My point here is that no one, not even church elders, are required to remain rigid in how they do things. That's why I posted the "open mind" meme in an earlier post. If some of the more staunchly aligned, based in ritual ideology elders of a church can change the way things are done to accommodate even one person in their wish to partake in a sacred rite, they, IMO, must be basing their willingness to do so in a more "progressive" attitude as espoused by Christ, himself.

That's my view, and I'm stickin' to it.

ZHawke wrote: From John Fugelsang - a "think about it":

Are we going to have an intelligent discussion or post up ignorant memes?

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote: From John Fugelsang - a "think about it":

Are we going to have an intelligent discussion or post up ignorant memes?

Oh, c'mon, P. This isn't any less intelligent than some of the stuff I've been seeing from those of a more conservative bent in other social media. Putting "spin" on who Jesus Christ was and what he espoused is something pundits, pastors, self-appointed experts, and, yes, even comedians constantly do. The meme was intended to help illustrate a point, nothing more. Being offended by it (which is, I'm assuming, why you responded the way in which you did) is your choice. I just happen to agree with the "message". Far too many, IMO, choose to look at Christ as being of a more "white" lineage than being from the birthplace of Judaism (which is also the birthplace of Islam, a religion sharing the same God as Christians). The "message" of the meme was also intended to help illustrate a more "progressive" ideology that Christ may have had (in my opinion he did have it). Sometimes, illustrations and quotes help make those kind of points a whole lot better than anything I might be able to say.

Adding priests to the list mentioned above, as well.

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: OK, I'll give you some more fat to chew on in the meantime. The other thing Christ never, even once, preached is forcibly taking money from others to provide for the poor, which goes to my earlier statement about a growing welfare state.

Sweet dreams Z . . .

Finally getting around to addressing this one, P.

I'm not so sure I agree a "welfare state" actually exists or even "forcibly takes money from others to provide for the poor". The only way this would apply is if you consider taxation as "forcibly taking money".

Instead of focusing on what Christ did NOT say about taking care of the poor, why don't we try to focus on what DID Christ say about taking care of the poor?

Because the thread is discussing the core values of "progressive" doctrine mentioned earlier as they pertain to Christianity and many of those core values involve expansion of the welfare state, which, according to "progressives" is about taking care of the poor.

And yes Z, taxation is using the force of government to take money from the citizens to support the government. There are voluntary forms of taxation, such as government run lotteries, or the boxes you can check on your tax forms when you file, but by and large taxes are involuntary in nature, particularly hidden taxation such as the taxes levied on business (income tax, employee excise taxes) and fuel taxes that find their way into every service or good you purchase after the government has extracted its "fair share" from your earnings prior to your receiving any of what you have worked to earn.

One thing Christ did say about the poor is that they would always be with us. And he charged us as individuals, which is what Pope Francis is also saying, with tending to their needs, making them an equal part of our society rather than cast offs from it. You see Z, back in Christ's time, and continuing into today, people tend to look upon the rich as favored by God over the poor. In essence, God loves the rich more than He loves others. That is the view of the poor that Christ himself teaches is wrong. To expand the power of government by making the government the largest "charitable" organization is not something advocated for by Jesus, in the Gospels, or by the current Pontiff either.

What the welfare state is actually about is control. What Franklin noticed 200+ years ago is also true today. The more that is done for the poor, the less they do for themselves, which of course makes them poorer, in monetary terms and, more importantly, in spiritual terms. The "progressive" purpose of expanding the welfare state is to purchase loyalty and make it difficult and painful to leave the ranks of those subsidized by it. How many "working poor" find that getting that next raise, or that extra job, or working more hours, will actually reduce their effective income because they will lose their subsidy from the government? How many families are single parent ones because the subsidy is lower if both parents are in the home? How many parents are not held accountable for supporting their illegitimate children because the child support would be less than the welfare subsidy is?

PrintSmith wrote: Because the thread is discussing the core values of "progressive" doctrine mentioned earlier as they pertain to Christianity and many of those core values involve expansion of the welfare state, which, according to "progressives" is about taking care of the poor.

I'll address the rest of your post later (gotta go cut me some firewood), but I'll address this part now.

So, you would rather focus on what Christ did NOT say rather than on what he DID say? And you'd like to keep it focused solely on "progressive core values as they pertain to Christianity"? Does that mean, then, we cannot also address "conservative core values as they pertain to Christianity"? Just wondering.

ZHawke wrote: Oh, c'mon, P. This isn't any less intelligent than some of the stuff I've been seeing from those of a more conservative bent in other social media. Putting "spin" on who Jesus Christ was and what he espoused is something pundits, pastors, self-appointed experts, and, yes, even comedians constantly do. The meme was intended to help illustrate a point, nothing more. Being offended by it (which is, I'm assuming, why you responded the way in which you did) is your choice. I just happen to agree with the "message". Far too many, IMO, choose to look at Christ as being of a more "white" lineage than being from the birthplace of Judaism (which is also the birthplace of Islam, a religion sharing the same God as Christians). The "message" of the meme was also intended to help illustrate a more "progressive" ideology that Christ may have had (in my opinion he did have it). Sometimes, illustrations and quotes help make those kind of points a whole lot better than anything I might be able to say.

Apart from the obvious, that Jesus wasn't American, the balance of it is pure malarkey. Jesus wasn't anti-death penalty, far from it. Instead, he recognized that God gave to the State the authority to use it as a punishment. Remember what he said to Pilate during His Passion? He told Pilate that Pilate would not have power over Him, the power to put Him to death, unless that power had been bestowed upon Pilate, representing the State of Rome, by His Father? Nor was he anti-wealth, remember Joseph of Arimathea, the one who gave up his own tomb to lay the body of Jesus in? Nor was he anti-public prayer. Sermon on the Mount ring a bell? Did Jesus encourage, or discourage, prostitutes and crooks in their current occupations while he was "hanging out" with them? He wasn't just chillin' with them Z, he was there to encourage them to alter their evil ways.

No, I'm being kind by using ignorant to describe that meme, ignorant only scratches the surface.