posted July 14, 2006 03:23 AM              

Lotus, I was not twisting anything. I just addressed what you said and pointed out the contradiction in your quote.

posted July 14, 2006 03:42 AM              

The beatitudes were not laws or rules. Nor do they teach proper manners. If a person is truly spiritual it is not a matter of WHAT you are but a matter of WHO you are as a person. It is not just a part of you but encompasses all of you, body and soul and how you think, feel, and act.

I think that is where people get messed up about the Christian Scriptures. They tend to look at the Bible as if it were a book of rules and regulations. It's not. Nor was it meant to be a weapon to beat other folks over the head with. Many Christians look at the Bible as a book of rules and a weapon to force others to think as they do. Which makes it so true what Ghandi said, "The only problem with Christianity is the Christians."

Religion itself is not about rules and regulations either and many people look at Christians or anyone who belongs to an organized religion as being brainwashed. That is far from the truth too.

I think this article gives a lot of food for thought and basically it makes the point that someone like Jesus who did question authority and did not go along with the status quo would be considered a liberal, leftist, subversive in the U.S. today. Maybe in all the world. After all that is how those of us who do question and speak our minds about the government and what is going on in the U.S today are treated.

posted July 14, 2006 07:12 AM              

LOve to ALL...

posted July 14, 2006 10:39 AM              

quote:

---

I think this article gives a lot of food for thought and basically it makes the point that someone like Jesus who did question authority and did not go along with the status quo would be considered a liberal, leftist, subversive in the U.S. today.

---

Well, there you go. That's the problem right there. The Liberals think Jesus was one of them. If he were here today he'd be protesting alongside Cindy Sheehan and dishing out lunch at the local soup kitchen. Oddly, the Conservatives think he's strictly in their camp and would spend his time ranting and raving over the world's rampant moral degeneration and general lawlessness a la Pat Robertson. The gays! The abortionists! The R-rated movies!

I think both parties ascribe to Him immediate concerns he clearly did not have. Namely, their own immediate concerns. This is arrogance and a desperate attempt to validate one's own position, I think. Nothing new. Jesus' face changes with each generation. A Victorian Jesus, meek and mild and full of self-restraint? A 21st century hippie, protesting, crunchy Jesus? A late medieval Crucified Jesus, the ultimate self-sacrificing martyr? Etc., etc. Take your pick. We see what we want and/or need to see.

At any rate .... the fact remains - he did not openly protest the Roman occupation. They begged him to. He wouldn't. What would make anyone think protesting Guatanamo is tops on his list now?

posted July 14, 2006 11:06 AM              

quote:

---

Well, there you go. That's the problem right there. The Liberals think Jesus was one of them.

---

Thank you for telling me and other liberals what we think, Tink.

Perhaps that is not the problem at all, Tink. If we do think that Jesus is and was one of us we are right. In fact Jesus was one of all humanity. So maybe the problem is that you don't see Jesus as one of you.

And yes, according to all he did when he was here and all he said, Jesus would be in the soup kitchens dishing out food to the hungry and working towards peace and love in the world.

posted July 14, 2006 11:34 AM              

When you compare America's leaders to other so-called leaders in the world, your guys look like white knights in comparison. Get your heads out of your national arses already, and look around at the rest of the world.

No other country tops you in humanitarian efforts around the world.

You're a society made up of every ethnic group on the planet, so descrimination is against the LAW.

You open the doors of your universities, colleges & hospitals to the rest of the world...and generally try harder than any other nation to make the world a better place.

All in all, I think Jesus would be rather pleased with you, so lighten up on yourselves. In the grand scheme of things, you're actually alright

posted July 14, 2006 11:42 AM              

This a very condensed chapter of the following book by Steve Wilshurst:

Tales of Two Cities: Christianity and Politics

Dr Steve Wilmshurst

THE OPTION OF UNDERSTANDING JESUS IN POLITICAL TERMS HAS OFTEN APPEALED TO THOSE AT HOME IN THE POLITICAL WORLD. THE CLAIMS JESUS MAKES IN THE GOSPELS ARE THE CLAIMS OF THE KINGDOM. IT IS AN UNCOMPROMISING MESSAGE OF UNCONDITIONAL LOYALTY; ITS POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS ARE BEST UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF THE COLLISION OF POWER STRUCTURES. IN A WORLD WHERE THE AUTHORITY OF ROME WAS EQUALLY UNCOMPROMISING IN ITS CLAIMS, SUCH COLLISION WAS NOT ONLY INEVITABLE BUT HIGHLY VISIBLE.

I use ‘political' in its usual sense, to mean ‘relating to public, state or civil affairs' and in particular, public matters against private ethics. Since, in first-century Palestine, there could be no religion without politics, a positive answer to the initial question is almost inevitable. So, ‘How directly does Jesus' ministry address public affairs?' or ‘What claims does the Kingdom of God make on earthly authorities?' In this article we will briefly survey Jesus' historical context and then move on to the gospel account, focusing on a few incidents in Luke.

Powers and parties

Israel's sense of identity lay in being the uniquely chosen, Covenant people of God. The prophets taught them to expect the coming of a new age when God's rule would be made visible and effectual among all nations. God would again break into history; vindicate and establish his own people in their rightful, pre-eminent place; banish idolatry and other sinful, Gentile practices; and make Jerusalem the focal point of his Kingdom on earth. These hopes were overlaid with the traumas of more recent history: the sweep of Alexander's armies, the rule of the Seleucids and the Maccabean revolt. In 63 the Romans under Pompey entered Jerusalem. At the time of Jesus' ministry, the last living memory of Jewish self-rule was fading away.

Herod the Great (37-4 BC) and his successors were client kings under Roman rule. In Jesus' time Herod Antipas ruled Galilee and Perea while Judea was ruled directly by the Romans through prefects such as Pontius Pilate. Pilate clashed on several occasions with the Jews – a case of Roman political demands confronting Jewish religious sensibilities. In this world, politics and religion were inseparable. Meanwhile God's apparent failure to intervene was a massive national disappointment. Some Jews at least concluded that they might as well still be in exile. The apocalyptic writings of the inter-testamental period bear witness to a sense of near-despair.

Judaism, however, was far from unified. Of the three sects identified by Josephus, two are mentioned frequently in the gospels and one appears not at all. The Pharisees observed the Torah strictly and in addition followed a large body of oral traditions. Politically, they were quite prepared to criticise the ruling authorities, but their primary concern was to maintain their own purity and urge it on others.

The theologically conservative Sadducees have left few historical traces outside the New Testament. Their main significance lies in their holding political power in Jerusalem. The High Priests were Sadducees and were quite willing to co-operate with the Roman authorities in order to preserve the status quo and their own position.

The Essenes, the group not mentioned in the New Testament , are usually associated with the Qumran community. They were a strict grouping devoted to the study of the Law. The Qumran sect was presumably an Essene sub-group who had withdrawn into ascetic seclusion in protest against the corruption of the Jerusalem establishment. The Essenes in general rejected the Temple and its ruling group; and even the withdrawal to Qumran was very much a political statement.

A fourth group we need to identify are the Zealots . In Jesus' time they were not yet a defined political grouping, but the term could be used more generally of those involved in or sympathetic to revolutionary activity. Acts 5:36–39 and 21:38 show that Jesus' movement would readily be understood in such terms. Their presence reminds us that violent revolution was an obvious option for anyone serious about changing the status quo. Indeed, since all these groups represent political as much as religious positions, Jesus' refusal to align himself with any of them is politically significant.

The mission of Jesus

When we read the gospels on the lookout for political overtones it becomes clear that much can be understood in political terms.

MARY'S SONG (LUKE 1:46–55) While we are probably accustomed to spiritualising Mary's song to Elizabeth, when we read it in context it is very political. Not only will humility be exalted above pride but rulers will be deposed, the hungry (i.e. poor) fed and the rich turned away. Was Jesus political? His mother thought so! The outpouring of God's mercy on ‘those who fear him' (including the faithful poor such as Mary and Elizabeth) will bring about a definite change in the social order. So the mission of Jesus, the Saviour, implies as an essential outcome precisely the kind of social justice called for by Amos and the other prophets – and, of course, the Law itself. However earthly rulers may respond, God will bring this about among the people of the Kingdom.

PROCLAMATION OF JUBILEE (LUKE 4:16–21) When Jesus spoke in the synagogue at Nazareth he claimed to be fulfilling Isaiah's vision of an eschatological Jubilee year. Jubilee was a highly political institution. Properly observed, it would severely limit the concentration of power and wealth. Isaiah's vision expands the concept from a time-bound cycle into a description of a new regime which truly reflects God's justice and where his faithful people receive the full measure of his blessing. And Jesus announces the inauguration of this new age ‘today'.

Read in its context, this must imply the dawning of a new day where God's justice will be seen at work, where wrongs will be righted – specifically the injustices which lead to oppression and captivity. Again, we need to understand these words in a way consistent with their fulfilment ‘today', not in some still future golden age. Does it not strain credulity to believe that Jesus intended to empty them entirely of their most obvious meaning – relationships between men and women here on earth?

THE GOOD SAMARITAN (LUKE 10:25–37) Who is a true neighbour? For the one who wants to inherit eternal life (enter the Kingdom), this parable makes the answer clear. The representatives of the Temple – priest and Levite – fail to be ‘neighbours'. Instead the Samaritan acts as a ‘neighbour' to the Jew in need. In addition to the more spiritual lessons with which we are so familiar, the parable makes two important political points. First, as far as the coming Kingdom is concerned, the Temple is a dead end. Its servants are concerned only with their ritual purity and ceremonies, which were never as important as mercy and justice anyway and which will soon be shown to be completely obsolete. The Temple and its associated power structures are finished.

Second, within the Kingdom, previous national and ethnic loyalties are abandoned. In the Kingdom, the Samaritan is not the enemy. Allegiances to political entities such as nation states are undermined by the claims of the Kingdom, where ‘Love your neighbour' crosses every human boundary. The awkward response of Jesus' questioner in v.37 suggests that he finds this too much to accept.

The Kingdom and politics

It is the overlap of the ages which produces the ongoing collision of the kingdoms and its attendant conflict: the Kingdom inaugurated by Jesus' mission is neither entirely ‘now' nor entirely ‘yet to come'. Thus there are two possible errors here. We could confine the Kingdom largely to the future, denying its effective presence in the world for today and minimising its political dimension. This is the way we are pushed in liberal democracies where the separation of politics from religion has become an article of faith. Evangelicals who want to disentangle the Kingdom of Heaven entirely from the messy world of earthly politics are guilty of this error. Depriving the Kingdom of some of its rightful claims, their tendency is to spiritualise away the statements about the Kingdom which have an immediate, earthly application.

On the other hand, to believe that the Kingdom can be fulfilled within the present age – the dream of certain liberal optimists and Christian socialists – is to ignore the plain teaching of Scripture, supported by our own experience that the power of sin and evil does not look like fading away! This is to attribute too much to the politics of the Kingdom – the error of the social gospel, holding that the Kingdom is active in political movements and human progress even where Christ is not acknowledged. No, we will have to live with evil until the Son of God returns.

Jesus was born into a world awash with political currents. Without exception, every group with whom he interacted had a political agenda, yet he aligned himself with none. His message identified the true enemy of Israel not as Rome but as sin and Satan. And rather than the immediate, visible deliverance which the Jews longed for, he preached a Kingdom with a different identity, both continuous and discontinuous with the hopes of the past. Continuous, in that God would indeed save, gather and rule over his people: discontinuous, in that it would be born and grow quietly, sometimes in secret; and it would co-exist with the kingdom of the present evil age. This Messiah would renounce the sword and conquer through his death.

Was Jesus political? Clearly not in the party political sense. Nor was his agenda political, in that it did not aim primarily at changing earthly power structures. And yet he was political. The Kingdom's demands are so fundamental that they replace or transform our adherence to every other group, national, ethnic or cultural.

The Kingdom thus makes two kinds of political claim. Firstly, it summons its own members to a radically new and wholly exclusive commitment to Christ the King. This allegiance takes the place of those we previously held and makes us ultimately indifferent to the authority of others. In the Church – the Kingdom's alternative new society – ethnic loyalties are completely abolished. Nationalism becomes an obsolete anomaly: we are not to confuse the Kingdom and the national flag. Human government we accept gratefully as an institution of God, with a legitimate role to play; but we do not owe it our heart loyalty. It is not ‘ours'. Nor are we to duplicate worldly power structures or attitudes. Jesus renounced violence and coercion in the service of the Kingdom – so must we.

Secondly, the Kingdom issues a political challenge to the world at large. It attacks the very foundation stones of earthly politics by calling rulers to abandon their pretensions to absolute power and to recognise the true source of such power as they do possess. The way of the Kingdom is to scatter the proud and bring oppressive rulers down from their thrones. Thus in the liberal West, the Church will refuse to accept the political consensus that privatises faith and denies any absolute truth claims. At the same time, she will seek out and protect those facing injustice and without a voice, exalting the humble and lifting up the downtrodden. Faced by the rule of tyrants, believers will defy their aspiration to absolute authority over human lives, even if it costs them their own.

The alternative values of the Kingdom are also a positive invitation to think differently, calling rulers away from tyranny and oppression towards its own Jubilee values of justice and mercy. In the shaping of Western society, this invitation has received a response. We do not live under tyranny: our society bears the imprint of the politics of Jesus. The principles of public servanthood and accountability which democracies hold dear are, after all, Kingdom principles. But the Kingdom also bears loud and clear witness to the strict limitations of political salvation.

posted July 14, 2006 11:49 AM              

Mirandee - Telling you what you think? Reread your post. You told me Jesus would be viewed as liberal. You're not the first to state that outlandish theory. I'm sure you won't be the last.

If by not seeing "Jesus as one of me" you mean to imply that I refuse to hang my own political and social views around the man's neck, then you would be quite correct.

While dishing out those lunches would he be repeating his comment that the poor would always be with us? The disciple were toting the Liberal line when they complained about the woman with the oil. Jesus corrected them.

posted July 14, 2006 11:59 AM              

quote:

---

so then..we could say..God..and all our actions..control this world. ...

---

Not only could we say this, Lotus, I did say it when I spoke about how what Jesus taught and did is how we should be trying to live out our lives and make the world a better place...a place of peace and love.

I do believe that we are God's instruments in this world. It's kind of like a glove. Without the hand in the glove the glove alone can do nothing. A glove needs a hand to function. God is the hand. We are the glove. Mostly though our egos get in the way of that hand so the glove doesn't always function as it should. Many of us want to be both the hand and the glove.

It was people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. who did take the message and example of Jesus and Buddah and other spiritual leaders into the world and political arena to bring about peaceful changes for those who were oppressed.

posted July 14, 2006 12:02 PM              

quote:

---

While dishing out those lunches would he be repeating his comment that the poor would always be with us?

---

Yeah but in saying that Jesus did not mean that for that reason we should ignore the poor and do nothing for them. It certainly was not what he did.

posted July 14, 2006 12:19 PM              

changing words to fit your agenda?

posted July 14, 2006 12:32 PM              

I disagree with the assertion that anyone who has earned any kind of success and subsequencial, financial gain, is inherently evil somehow.

posted July 14, 2006 12:34 PM              

For starters Mirandee, calling Constantine a Christian convert is ... generous.

Nevertheless, to state that Christianity brought down the Roman Empire is ludricrous and illogical. The Romans as good Christians! Christianity spread throughout Europe via the Romans. Has it laid waste our Empire? On the contrary, with the spread of Christianity, Europe came into its own in more ways than one. Earthly power not excluded. To what would you attribute this contradiction?

But as much as I enjoy debating the Church and the historical process, it's a tangled topic and not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. Suffice to say that if some feel comfortable dragging such a Light down into the mundane and tedious, so be it. We all have different goals, different reasons for being here. Personally, though I know full well that Light willingly descended into dark matter, I feel it was for purposes of dragging us back up with it ... not to expound on Augustus or Bush.

I've seen the Vatican btw. I've seen the spot where the great Charlemagne was wrongfully crowned. These are the direct works of men, not Christ. I wouldn't be so proud.

posted July 14, 2006 02:53 PM              

I wanted to address your comment...

quote:

---

I think if Jesus were to come to earth today, America is not the place that would concern him the most. Africa, the Middle East, China, etc..those would be the places he would want to devote his attentions to, as they are in the most dire need of some 'help from above'. There are much much more corrupt governments out there than yours.

---

What you say may be true.....however, the article wasn't about Jesus coming back with 'help from above' for the corrupt governments on earth...........

The article was about HYPOCRICY!

It was about Jesus coming back and not recognizing any of his wise teachings in a SO CALLED "Christian government" - our good old U.S.A. *sigh*

Granted (as I said before) all mankind is no doubt a big disappointment and if the article's main theme had been based on Jesus coming back "to help"....I'm sure it would have him helping everybody who needs it....as surely he would....

But instead, the author was merely drawing attention to what a FARCE it is that our goverment could call itself "Christian."

posted July 14, 2006 05:25 PM              

But, sure - the basic value system has it's roots in Christian principles. It's a government of the people, for people, etc... and the majority of the people, at least at the time of founding of the nation, were/are Christian.

posted July 14, 2006 09:41 PM              

Just makes me look at the one dollar bill
Pyramid with Eye of Horus..
An Eagle..Our United States two sided seal..
is that ChriStian???

posted July 15, 2006 12:40 AM              

quote:

---

Is the Government Christian..
Just makes me look at the one dollar bill
Pyramid with Eye of Horus..
An Eagle..Our United States two sided seal..
is that ChriStian???

---

You tell me, lotus.....you seem to know....

but...

....if you look closely at all our paper money and coins, you'll see "In God We Trust" on them.

Let's see now.....

.....when testifying in a court of law......

you swear....with your hand upon the....the...

koran?

naw!

...the Bhagavad Gita?

I don't think so...

The Book of Mormon?

Nope

The Book of Shadows?

Nosireee...

Linda Goodman's Sun Signs?

Wrong again...

Try the Bible....and you'd be correct.

Why is that, I wonder?

posted July 15, 2006 12:52 AM              

quote:

---

I don't think your government DOES call itself Christian.

---

Well Okay then....let's try for the shrub...

HE "claims" to be a born-again Christian, which is like the prostitute on a street corner claiming to be a "virgin."

posted July 15, 2006 01:23 AM            

In America, more than 50% of the entire federal budget goes to pay for social programs; programs for the homeless, programs for the hungry, programs for the elderly, programs for education, programs for housing, programs for disaster relief, programs for job training and retraining, programs for medicine, programs for health care...social programs for everything under the sun.

But if the US was spending 110% of tax revenues on social programs for the needy and unneedy, it would not be enough for leftists. Leftists know they're lying through their teeth when they complain about the level of social program spending by the federal government but that's not really their problem with the United States.

Leftists problems with Uncle Sam is that they despise the United States and everything we stand for. If that were not true leftists wouldn't embrace evey enemy we have in the world and take every enemy's side in every dispute.

Leftists real problem is that they are either outright traitors or insipient traitors attempting to destroy the United States. The difference is only one of means and opportunity. Those who can commit treason against the US do so and the others would if only they had the means and opportunity to do so.

posted July 15, 2006 01:41 AM              

Juniperb Im all ears (well eyes make more sense here)...have you created a thread on llamas before?...maybe that can be resurfaced.

posted July 15, 2006 02:59 AM              

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " – Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat