Jesus was the first peace-loving liberal.... - Mothering Forums
1 2 
Religious Studies > Jesus was the first peace-loving liberal....
candiland's Avatar candiland 04:02 PM 05-02-2004
Wouldn't you agree?

Based on what Jesus supposedly taught, he was all about bucking the system and not judging others - which boils down to a philosophy of emotional, as well as physical, peace.

So why are so many supposed followers of Jesus supporting the killing of thousands of fetuses, children, men, and women?

Why do so many followers of Jesus wish to legislate morals based on their own judgments about what's right and wrong?

It seems to me that Jesus was no different than Buddha or Ghandi... the only way to true peace, true compassion, and true Love - which is what God is, IMO - is to shed light, not to master. Basing a society on a punitive justice system is NOT Jesus-like. It's not GOD-like.

So I am totally confused by the two irreconcilable belief systems...... they should not simultaneously exist in the same person's head. It seems like the definition of insanity, to me.

Can you enlighten me? What are your beliefs on this?

kama'aina mama's Avatar kama'aina mama 08:12 PM 05-02-2004
I don't think he was the first. Read some of the old testament prophets. Hard core leftists, many of them.

As for the dicotomy in thinking you point out... yeah... that's a tough one. I am on my way out to church (my friend just called, told me "Say 'Hi!' to God for me!") so I will be brief, but I think there are differences of interpretation in play and also... it is easy to talk the talk. Walking the walk is REALLY hard. Ghandi once said something to the effect that Christianity was an amazing, wonderful religion and if more Christians practiced it he might give it a try.
spero's Avatar spero 09:38 PM 05-02-2004
I'm thinking that candiland is referring to the war in Iraq.
lab's Avatar lab 10:31 AM 05-03-2004
I am of the opinion that Jesus was actually a zealot who was armed.

I just finished reading a book called Appointment in Jerusalem and it seems to me that Jesus was VERY specific in his ambition to 1) free Jews from Rome and 2) convince people he was the Messiah by self-fulfilling prophecy from the OT

Anyway, just my .02 and JMHO!


cappuccinosmom's Avatar cappuccinosmom 06:25 PM 05-03-2004
I'm with Nursing Mother.

I don't think today's liberals would like Jesus much.

Yes, he bucked the system. But not because he was against religion and right/wrong and just wanted everyone to get along. The Bible actually says he is the ultimate Judge. And he *did* judge people. He didn't allow the adulturess to be stoned, but he judged her action as sin and told her to quit it. He did eat with sinners, etc. but he didn't advocate thier sinning. He sure as goodness judged Judas. And judged the Pharisees as hypocrites, because they made rules but didn't keep them. Or required keeping the law but did it in a way as to keep the letter but not the spirit.

Jesus wasn't about non-judgementalism. He was about grace in the face of judgement.

That's what I think, anyway.
hotmamacita's Avatar hotmamacita 09:33 PM 05-03-2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom
I'm with Nursing Mother.

I don't think today's liberals would like Jesus much.

Yes, he bucked the system. But not because he was against religion and right/wrong and just wanted everyone to get along. The Bible actually says he is the ultimate Judge. And he *did* judge people. He didn't allow the adulturess to be stoned, but he judged her action as sin and told her to quit it. He did eat with sinners, etc. but he didn't advocate thier sinning. He sure as goodness judged Judas. And judged the Pharisees as hypocrites, because they made rules but didn't keep them. Or required keeping the law but did it in a way as to keep the letter but not the spirit.

Jesus wasn't about non-judgementalism. He was about grace in the face of judgement.

That's what I think, anyway.
Me too.

The woman at the well. He saw her sin, her adultery and promiscuity and did not shame her. Neither did he ignore it. But most importantly, He loved her well and then told her to go and sin no more. He freed her burdened heart by seeing her deepest heart.

He WAS and IS about GRACE & MERCY in the face of judgement and I am so thankful for Him in my life.


spero's Avatar spero 09:51 PM 05-03-2004
Amen, sisters!
DebraBaker's Avatar DebraBaker 10:59 PM 05-03-2004
I think Jesus would be pissing off both the liberals and conservatives.

Anyone who would use Him to justify their agendas.

DB
shantimama's Avatar shantimama 11:37 PM 05-03-2004
The more I read here and in other places, the more I notice that liberals are sure Jesus was one too and that conservatives are absolutley convinced that Jesus would back all of their views. You will hear about one Jesus from one group and another person altogether from the other. And the attitude of superiority these two groups throw back and forth with one another is terrible.

The whole conversation just makes me sad these days. It is making me more contemplative all the time.
hotmamacita's Avatar hotmamacita 12:57 AM 05-04-2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by DebraBaker
I think Jesus would be pissing off both the liberals and conservatives.

Anyone who would use Him to justify their agendas.

DB
I TOTALLY agree!!!!

I believe He would also be in relationship with both. Anyone who wants to know Him, He'd be right there for them.
its_our_family's Avatar its_our_family 01:24 AM 05-04-2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom
I don't think today's liberals would like Jesus much.

I agree. And most "fundamental Christians wouldn't like him either. It makes you wonder that if he were on earth today how many would actually accept him.
Rainbow's Avatar Rainbow 02:08 AM 05-04-2004
I think for sure if he existed he made waves... and for his day, maybe he was liberal. But not liberal as we grasp it. Consider Matthew 15:22-28 where he basically tells a woman that he is only there for the children of Israel and that it isn't his goal to take their food and throw it "to the dogs" to which she said "yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
Well you know, most would consider that pretty racist. I don't think the image of Jesus is all bad... most of the gospels are very enjoyable to read and inspiring. But there are some things I still can't see past- like what is mentioned above.
hotmamacita's Avatar hotmamacita 03:04 AM 05-04-2004
Rainbow--can you explain more about why you see racism in the matthew scripture you mentioned? Thanks, .

I have NEVER read anything to support racism in this passage. What I have read from believing and non-believing scholars and preachers are other interpretations but never such that you imply.

I would like to know more about why you conclude this?

In Peace and off to BED

(can you believe it? it is 10pm and I am going to bed. mark this day down mamas. could this be the beginning of an era of sleep for me?)
Rainbow's Avatar Rainbow 03:34 AM 05-04-2004
Well the non Israelite here was likened to a dog based on the fact that she wasn't an Israelite.
Maybe it wasn't racism... I don't know... but it isn't extremely liberal imo....
hotmamacita's Avatar hotmamacita 06:12 AM 05-04-2004
AH darn. I woke up and couldn't get back to sleep. So here I am. Boy, I love MDC, don't you?

Okay, Rainbow. Cool. Thanks for explaining that. I see where you are coming from.

Although, I do not think that is what is going on in this passage. It goes much deeper than that. Plus, I don't think racism would be consistent with his entire life, words, or other relationships.

I'll post more tomorrow or Wednesday on this. Okay?

I am going back to bed. hopefully.
spero's Avatar spero 10:08 AM 05-04-2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by its_our_family
I agree. And most "fundamental Christians wouldn't like him either. It makes you wonder that if he were on earth today how many would actually accept him.
Well, that's kinda the whole point, isn't it?

History is doomed to repeat itself, and all.....
Boobs's Avatar Boobs 10:19 AM 05-04-2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by candiland
Wouldn't you agree?

Based on what Jesus supposedly taught, he was all about bucking the system and not judging others - which boils down to a philosophy of emotional, as well as physical, peace.

So why are so many supposed followers of Jesus supporting the killing of thousands of fetuses, children, men, and women?

Why do so many followers of Jesus wish to legislate morals based on their own judgments about what's right and wrong?

It seems to me that Jesus was no different than Buddha or Ghandi... the only way to true peace, true compassion, and true Love - which is what God is, IMO - is to shed light, not to master. Basing a society on a punitive justice system is NOT Jesus-like. It's not GOD-like.

So I am totally confused by the two irreconcilable belief systems...... they should not simultaneously exist in the same person's head. It seems like the definition of insanity, to me.

Can you enlighten me? What are your beliefs on this?

I completely understand what you are saying and have often thought the same.
I feel like I have a relationship with Jesus and when I think of him, I don't think of judgement. To me he was the ultimate hippie. He was about peace and love and understanding and forgiveness.
I love the bumpersticker that says, "Jesus, save me from your people." That's how I feel!


Tracie (who loves Jesus, but doesn't care to go to church)
DebraBaker's Avatar DebraBaker 10:41 AM 05-04-2004
Count me in the ranks of people who love Jesus but have been burned by people who claim to represent him.

DB
its_our_family's Avatar its_our_family 11:44 AM 05-04-2004
"Jesus Save Me From Your People"

Where can I get that bumper sticker :LOL

Have any of you read "A New Kind of Christian"? It is by a guy named Brian McClaren. It is an awesome book! Basically it is talking about the ideas of modernist Christians and Post-Modern Christians. It has really made a lot of things make sense and made me realize that I'm not as loopy as I thought!

I always wondered why I didn't "get along" with fundamentalists and why everyone in my family considers me liberal. And why my pastor growing up always called me the anti-Christ. It wasn't because I was wrong it was because I beyond what they saw christianity as being. Anyway, it has brought on a whole new world of discovery for me. Where things and ideas that I thought threatened what I believed really only makes what I believe richer (does that makes sense??)

Read the book...its awesome!
Rainbow's Avatar Rainbow 11:44 AM 05-04-2004
I know what you mean, the sermon on the mount is utterly beautiful. If he actually lived, he taught compassion for sure.
I definately agree with you that his life "theme" if you will was a beautiful one, but there are some aspects I think are non-liberal. If you accept the trinity, that Jesus and God are distinct yet one you have to accept that he has non-liberal aspects to him. Including exclusiveness. Liberalism is all about inclusiveness. I mean the entire base of Christianity is on an exclusive God to the Israelites by birth.
hotmamacita's Avatar hotmamacita 02:58 PM 05-04-2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow
I know what you mean, the sermon on the mount is utterly beautiful. If he actually lived, he taught compassion for sure.
I definately agree with you that his life "theme" if you will was a beautiful one, but there are some aspects I think are non-liberal. If you accept the trinity, that Jesus and God are distinct yet one you have to accept that he has non-liberal aspects to him. Including exclusiveness. Liberalism is all about inclusiveness. I mean the entire base of Christianity is on an exclusive God to the Israelites by birth.
Okay, I see where you are coming from. But I don't agree with the post-modern interpretation of Scripture.

Ookay this is going to be crude but I am typing fast and can't cite anything for you...

See, God creates adam and eve, right? They are the first and only race--the human race. They, their children, their children's children, and so on--all have the freedom to trust and lvoe God or not. Period. Those that followed God were termed Israelites. Israel means God. Those that didn't became gentiles.

Man and society created races and division. The Bible later addresses that in many old and new testament stories.

Okay, I gotta go. My time is up, IYKWIM. DIAPER time. I hope this makes some sense.

Oh, I have been burned by Christians so awfully you'd cry. Thank God that Jesus is not defined by his followers. There have been times where I haven't been able to step near a church. There have been times where I have gone b/c I want to worship God despite my anger at people. And there are rare times where I exprience deep fellowship with people. I am thankful for those times. I never know what each week will bring, though. Only God is faithful.
Elzabet's Avatar Elzabet 09:08 PM 05-04-2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotmamacita
Oh, I have been burned by Christians so awfully you'd cry. Thank God that Jesus is not defined by his followers. There have been times where I haven't been able to step near a church. There have been times where I have gone b/c I want to worship God despite my anger at people. And there are rare times where I exprience deep fellowship with people. I am thankful for those times. I never know what each week will bring, though. Only God is faithful.
Thank God that Jesus is not defined by his followers. Only God is faithful.

So well said.
Artisan's Avatar Artisan 10:08 PM 05-04-2004
I agree with the idea that both liberals and conservatives would have difficulty with Jesus's ideas. The idea that Christianity should be used to support a modern conservative political rhetoric would bother him greatly, I think. Look at who Jesus associated himself with. It was NOT with the powerful, rich, mighty, and respected of his day. He made it his mission to heal the sick, forgive the unforgivable, and love those who no one else would love. Hardly fits with many Republican ideas related to social policy in the US.

However, I also think liberals would have a difficult time. Jesus taught that there are moral absolutes, there is one path to salvation, and there are standards to live by. He was not an "Everyone do what you feel like and I won't judge you" kind of person.
candiland's Avatar candiland 11:38 PM 05-04-2004
Hmmm..... very interesting, ladies.

It gives me a lot of food for thought.

Shantimom, just for the record, I would never use "Jesus" to say "Na, na, na, NA, na! I'm right and you're wrong!" It's just that from my own understanding - which is limited, I will be the first to admit - I don't think Jesus would be into megaconglorporations, global politics, Dems or Repubs, whatever word you want to insert in there.

I would assume that most of what gov't stands for nowadays would really turn Him off. That's what I meant by my original post.

FTR, I do believe in Jesus and Christianity. I also believe in a lot of what religious and spiritual teachers from around the world taught. It is, in essence, the same message. I guess it will take a lot of time for humanity's consciousness to be raised to the point where we will not harm one another - eye for an eye, so to speak; where we will not judge and condemn; and where we won't legislate morals through a punitive justice system. I just feel that if the Rapture came, Bush and Co. would certainly not be riding the wave of peace, love, and purity. And I'm confused as to why people really believe that they are "good", God-loving ppl.
Rainbow's Avatar Rainbow 02:25 AM 05-05-2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotmamacita
See, God creates adam and eve, right? They are the first and only race--the human race. They, their children, their children's children, and so on--all have the freedom to trust and lvoe God or not. Period. Those that followed God were termed Israelites. Israel means God. Those that didn't became gentiles.
People were born into the chosen group though- one couldn't convert to being an Israelite. kwim? I could be mistaken on that, but that is how I have always understood it. You had your Israelites, your egypttians, your babylonians... it wasn't a religion that anyone could take part in- it was a cultural group based on birth.
This isn't the only thing that I'm not fond of in Jesus' ministry. There was much good, but there was also a dark side. Yes, he taught some peace but he also taught some things that did not incite peace. I can't see him as the first peace loving liberal. Some other examples of why I think there was both dark and light in his teachings:


Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.
Luke 19:27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.'
Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not [himself], neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes].
Matthew 10:35 For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'
Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."
Luke 22:51-53 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Luke 9:59-62 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.



I just want you to know though, that I am not trying to deny you your right to view him in a liberal and peace loving light. I believe it is admirable for Christians to view him as liberal- because it allows them to have a more open mind to liberal views of our day. I definately think there were liberal aspects to the biblical Jesus. I only disagree to some extent based on my own reading. I honor your right to disagree with that, and I appreciate the wonderful, calm, discussion we've been able to have about this hotmamacita!
hotmamacita's Avatar hotmamacita 04:19 AM 05-05-2004
Me too rainbow. I TOTALLY respect your posts and I am deeply thankful for your honest heart. Let me just say that you have an OPEN invitation in my home, anytime! I don't feel any judgement or attempt to control from you.

YOU ARE RIGHT, imho, he wasn't a peace-lovin' liberal. (I didn't intend to imply that I thought that) Again, postmodernism has brought us that. But that doesn't mean he is racist. Or that God is racist. Or that Jesus Christ will not bring Peace to us one day.

And the scripture you quoted? Right on. You hit the nail on the head. He pisses people off. He is divisive. Truth is divisive and I believe that Truth is more than a concept to be understood but a Person to be Known. But I find, Christ's goal is Love and Relationship and He invites ALL. Not some, but ALL.

Look, rainbow, the whole Gospel is crazy. If He did exist, and I believe He did, then He was either a Flippin' lunatic, a Liar, or LORD.

If He didn't exist, there are some pretty amazing fiction writers out there over thousands of years compiling the Bible somehow in coordination with each other to produce the most amazing tale of redemption and love that I have ever read. (and pre-twins, I read A lot!) Although, I am partial to Kafka.

Love,
DaryLLL's Avatar DaryLLL 11:31 AM 05-05-2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotmamacita
the whole Gospel is crazy. If He did exist, and I believe He did, then He was either a Flippin' lunatic, a Liar, or LORD.
That popular CS Lewis statement? Why only 3 options? It really misses the boat. IMO.

Quote:
If He didn't exist, there are some pretty amazing fiction writers out there over thousands of years compiling the Bible somehow in coordination with each other to produce the most amazing tale of redemption and love that I have ever read.,
Now, the New Testament was written over only a couple-three hundred yrs, not thousands. The Tanakh was compiled after the exile to Babylon, ca 500 BCE, from some written and some oral sources. The Tanakh does not talk about Jesus the Christ, but about YHWH and the Hebrews. Let's not over-generalize and insult our Jewish friends. I see the gospel narratives as a midrash of Exodus, with a few psalms thrown in.

Biblical writers were not co-ordinated. Their opinions/visions/theories/theologies vary widely. Certain redactors (of both Hebrew and Greek scriptures) made the effort to harmonize them, but their efforts are transparent.
Rainbow's Avatar Rainbow 11:57 AM 05-05-2004
No, I don't think the bible is a racist book. Racism was the wrong word- I think I was going more for "exclusive" or "partial". There are many scriptures in the new testament about the chosen people being from every nation, tribe, and tongue. That first scripture I shared does bother me- but I do realize the overall theme of the NT is not a racist theme.
hotmamacita's Avatar hotmamacita 04:22 PM 05-05-2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL
That popular CS Lewis statement? Why only 3 options? It really misses the boat. IMO.
I didn't know it was a CS lewis statement. I've never read that statement anywhere. Regardless, I am interested to know where CS lewis wrote about it?





Quote:
Now, the New Testament was written over only a couple-three hundred yrs, not thousands. The Tanakh was compiled after the exile to Babylon, ca 500 BCE, from some written and some oral sources. The Tanakh does not talk about Jesus the Christ, but about YHWH and the Hebrews. Let's not over-generalize and insult our Jewish friends. I see the gospel narratives as a midrash of Exodus, with a few psalms thrown in.

Biblical writers were not co-ordinated. Their opinions/visions/theories/theologies vary widely. Certain redactors (of both Hebrew and Greek scriptures) made the effort to harmonize them, but their efforts are transparent.

DaryLLL--c.mon. thousands was a typo and anyone who knows me here KNOWS i would not dare insult anyone who is jewish. I was saying that a bit tongue-in-cheek and I think you know that. And could you be any more condescending or patronizing?

But because you chose to make an issue of this, let me just say very clearly....

I AM NOT INTENDING TO INSULT ANYONE! Period.

And because I woke up on the wrong side of the bed, my dh has been gone for 4 weeks now and I got an hour and a half of sleep last night.....let me just say.....that I need to stop here in my response to you.
hotmamacita's Avatar hotmamacita 04:27 PM 05-05-2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow
No, I don't think the bible is a racist book. Racism was the wrong word- I think I was going more for "exclusive" or "partial". There are many scriptures in the new testament about the chosen people being from every nation, tribe, and tongue. That first scripture I shared does bother me- but I do realize the overall theme of the NT is not a racist theme.
Yeah, it dows seem "exclusive" in that sense. The whole concept of, what men have termed, pre-destination, is something I have wrestled with for years.

The Matthew verse that bothers you? It IS a disturbing one. I'd love to know more about your insight and reaction. Are you up to a dialogue offline?


1 2 

Up