This just in: Evangelicals Hate Jesus!

[Essence]

No joke:

Evangelicals hate Jesus. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237.html?ref=fb&src=sp)

[Neopergoss]

It's worth repeating:
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
-Gandhi

[Daytripper]

The problem is, many teachings can be explained in any way you like. Then, there is another problem. Did Jesus say all those things that are now in the Bible, is it really all that positive what he said, and do people follow it? I don't have all the sources at hand, but this will do:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them." 

In other words, the older laws still apply, and yet, exceptions were made. Regardless, nobody folllows this to the letter anyway.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

Simple, Americans of whatever denomination do not get to go to heaven. 

“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything by which your brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak” (Rom 14:21).

Curious... I can't imagine it really says you can't eat meat, but speaking out against drinking happens often, so it is quite clear. Do Christians have anything against drinking? Barely. Can this be reconciled with drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his flesh, in the form of bread and wine? Difficult. You're not supposed to drink blood, and even if it's symbolic, you're not really supposed to take alcohol either. So why create a ritual that encourages it?

So, I don't think these conclusions are valid. Evangelicals can usually find Bible versus that support their ideas also. You can say it is too radical based on a different verse, but again, it is no justification. You just think it is too radical. Both parties take the verses they like. If you took all the verses, I don't know what ''Christianity'' is supposed to be. 

[killybob]

the bible is VERY complex and often is very hard to understand or (in this case) contradictory to itself.

i'm both surprised and not at this article. it's true but odd that the people who set out to spread the word should end up as corrupt as this.

[collimatrix]

I'm sure that the author of this piece feels quite clever and pleased with himself.  At any rate, I should hope he is happy with himself for himself because as a writer he is at best hackneyed and mediocre.

Perhaps it would help if he'd actually read the Bible with which he claims such unsullied familiarity.  Might help if he knew some actual evangelical Christians too.

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture.

Bull.

Mark 6:11

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Mind you that's a New Testament gospel that's directly quoting Jesus.

Acts 3:23

And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Anyone who says the New Testament is all about tolerance and forgiveness is a liar, lunatic or illiterate.  There, how's that for a Lewis Trichotomy?

And of course, it'd just be lovely if the world were that clear cut.  It's not, as I'm sure the evangelicals at Christianity Today  (http://"http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/february/23.32.html")would object if only Phil Zuckerman could hear them over the drowning buzz of his unsufferable smugness.

And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world.

Oh ho ho!  Those wacky Southern Baptist megachurch-going cousin-marrying rednecks!

Let's see what Jesus had to say about weaponry:

Luke 22:36

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Huh.  Could it be that the characterization of Jesus as a hippie is in fact a filthy self-serving lie propagated by filthy self-serving hippies?

Nah, couldn't be.  Everyone knows that evangelicals are silent about war (http://"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301436.html") and that Christopher Hitchens, an outspoken proponent of the war is also a well known Christian.

Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached.

No, you illiterate dunce, Jesus preached charity.  Moses Maimonides clarified the Jewish view on charity; that which is given involuntarily is the lowest form of charity.  New Testament views are roughly in line; 2 Corinthians 8:12-14

For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.

For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:

But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:

(Emphasis added)

Oh, and when you look at charity through that lens?  Turns out that believers do give more. (http://"http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577")

The New Testament is extremely ambivalent towards worldly powers, saying that they are not necessarily good, but that they nonetheless exist due to divine providence, and that the faithful should submit to them.  To construe the New Testament as a guidebook for those who have actually become worldly powers takes a bit of doing.  Nietzsche was right; it was very much a slave morality book.

I won't bother with the rest of the article except to say that his history is hopelessly off and warped.  He's trying to pitch it as a story of die-hard (Republican) evangelicals opposing moderate and secular Democrats.  I would love to see how this tool explains the "Solid South's" often overtly religious support of the then pro-segregation Democratic Party, Federal interference in anti-war churches under pro-intervention Prebyterian Woodrow Wilson, and the remarkably progressive foreign policy under Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter.

This is your brain on politics.

[Essence]

The problem with your quotes, and I have a feeling you already know this and were hoping no one would call you on it, is that they all refer to God judging the unbelievers.  Jesus never gave leave for one man to mistreat or even judge one another.  When it came to how men treat themselves, he was more like

the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?

You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye"

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

Do you see the difference?   Jesus was all about the unbelievers getting judged in heaven, but was incredibly clear that man should love one another, even if they were enemies.



Furthermore, the swords quote is taken entirely out of context.  Not two lines later, Jesus tells the disciples that two swords are enough -- two swords for 12 disciples.  And just a few scenes later, when it comes time for those swords to be used, Jesus immediately undoes the damage that the swords dealt:

49 When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.

...so much for not being a man of peace.

Now, let's see, you tried to sidestep the argument that Jesus preached against wealth by saying that he preached for charity.  Let's go to the book again:

:23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. :24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.  42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.  43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.  44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything-- all she had to live on."

Now, your point about compelled charity is a good one, Jesus said several times that compelled charity is basically spiritually useless -- but that point is irrelevant to the fact that Jesus also said on multiple occasions that being wealthy is the opposite of being worthy for Heaven -- that last quote basically says outright that unless you charitably give yourself into poverty, it's not important. 


+Karma for bringing the good fight, but I'm afraid you're fairly provably in the wrong here.

[Glitch]

I only need one bible quote for debates like these.

John 11:35

Jesus wept

Sums up his opinion on all religious debate quite nicely, dun' cha think?

~~why can't weee be frieends~~

[vrt]

I only need one bible quote for debates like these.

John 11:35

Jesus wept

Sums up his opinion on all religious debate quite nicely, dun' cha think?

~~why can't weee be frieends~~

I love you.

[Glitch]

I only need one bible quote for debates like these.

John 11:35

Jesus wept

Sums up his opinion on all religious debate quite nicely, dun' cha think?

~~why can't weee be frieends~~

I love you.

I love you too =D

[collimatrix]

Well and gallantly argued Essence.  I would only respond that unless you're some sort of Pelagian heretic, the guy threatening all the destruction and whatnot is somehow sorta kinda supposed to be the same person as Jesus.  I would also add that Matthew 19:25-26 show a rather more conciliatory view towards the rich.

To argue that Christ's ministry was more or less congruent with the modern US conservative movement is probably possible on some abstract theological grounds, but not on a historical one.  There were plenty of utopians, pacifists and socialists going back to the 1800s and they were all extremely religious.  The emergence of a secular Left is a comparatively recent development.