The rise of the religious left in America

[The Marquis de Leech]

Jesus wasn't telling Caesar to tax people more, and then to give that money to the poor. He was saying that people should choose to help the poor on their own.

Jesus was all about private charity, not the government.

Jesus was saying "help the poor". He wasn't saying how to do it, and the distinction between charity and government is rather disingenuous given that modern conceptions of social welfare systems didn't exist two thousand years ago.

(I'm an atheist myself. However, if religion motivates people to do good things, good on them).

[Sci-2]

Well, if you have a daughter you might think differently about a sexually liberal lifestyle and all its associated risks, compared to when you were a teenager or in your twenties yourself. Kind of like "Yeah, I was like that too, before I learned better. If only I can pass on some of that wisdom to my daugther without her having to go through my mistakes herself."

I think that's quite a natural part of growing older. And wiser.

But then we begin to examine nuances of what "sexually conservative" means.

Which is fine but seems to me that wanders away from the current political connotations of what "progressive" and "conservative" mean...admittedly those are nebulous terms themselves.

[MisterOJ]

Yes there were. Rome had subsidized grain for the poor for centuries. The politics over just this subsidy could fill volumes.

I am mistaken then. And Jesus didn't decry this as a bad thing. But instead, He told people that they should pay their taxes, which I assume helped to support this program.

ETA:

To me his focus was far more on the hereafter, and all the stuff about how to live life now were just incidental and in support of the cause of converting everyone to the truth, the way, and the light.

The fate of your soul was far more important than the fate of your body.

And yet religious liberals seem to focus almost exclusively on the here and now, and kind of let people follow their own conscience without much comment as far as the fate of their souls are concerned.

The Gospels aren't a charity manual. They are a roadmap to saving your soul. Surely that is quite apparent from a thorough reading thereof.

Jesus spoke often about what it meant to follow Him. And those instructions often had to do with how you should help people here on earth. He also demonstrated that time and time again through His actions and the way He treated other people. We're supposed to follow His example. And He did a lot of feeding the hungry and healing the sick and treating outcasts with love and respect. Surely you don't disagree with that.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I am mistaken then. And Jesus didn't decry this as a bad thing. But instead, He told people that they should pay their taxes, which I assume helped to support this program.

He didn't talk about it at all. Because he wasn't interested. He only talked about taxes because he was forced into it.

When it came to mixing money with religion, his reaction was to beat people with a whip.

[Sci-2]

I've never heard that shepherds were despised in Jesus' time. I've heard that same argument, but usually with prostitutes and/or tax collectors in place of the shepherds.

I'll have to see if I can dig up the thing about shepherds, IIRC it had something to do with grazing on other people's land which led to the assumption that shepherds were shady.

I would say that people retain the social views they had as youths, but the "progressive" views of yesteryear are not the "progressive" views of today. They have been superseded by new causes.

Yeah, that seems inevitable. Makes me wonder what liberal/conservative will mean 200-300 years from now.

[Free Northman]

I am mistaken then. And Jesus didn't decry this as a bad thing. But instead, He told people that they should pay their taxes, which I assume helped to support this program.

ETA:

Jesus spoke often about what it meant to follow Him. And those instructions often had to do with how you should help people here on earth. He also demonstrated that time and time again through His actions and the way He treated other people. We're supposed to follow His example. And He did a lot of feeding the hungry and healing the sick and treating outcasts with love and respect. Surely you don't disagree with that.

I agree.

But what I find difficult to understand is how the religious left can proclaim to still be adherents of him, while not really caring much about the far more important message which is YOURE GONNA DIE ETERNALLY IF YOU DON'T CONVERT.

Sure, you might have a full belly tonight, due to us giving you some bread, but if you don't convert, you will BURN ETERNALLY.

What I'm commenting on, is not what humanity at large chooses to do with that message. But what people who profess to be Christians do with that message.

Because much of the religious left proclaim to be Christians and do charity because Jesus told them to, but don't really care about the whole reason he says he came here in the first place.

I just find it somewhat paradoxical.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Frankly, I think helping the poor is far more Jesus-like than going around saying "I believe in Jesus" whilst simultaneously championing massive tax cuts for millionaires and cuts to social welfare.

[Sci-2]

Because much of the religious left proclaim to be Christians and do charity because Jesus told them to, but don't really care about the whole reason he says he came here in the first place.

I just find it somewhat paradoxical.

Wouldn't this depend on how much you believe in the veracity of the Gospels?

I mean, the Orphics proclaimed Orpheus as some kind of universal messiah, and then decided that was a mistake and unbelievers would suffer in the Bogs of Hades.

Couldn't something similar have happened here?

[All-for-Joffrey]

But what I find difficult to understand is how the religious left can proclaim to still be adherents of him, while not really caring much about the far more important message which is YOURE GONNA DIE ETERNALLY IF YOU DON'T CONVERT.

Sure, you might have a full belly tonight, due to us giving you some bread, but if you don't convert, you will BURN ETERNALLY.

Who's to say that the religious left doesn't do or believe these things? I've meant plenty of religious lefties that say these things. They're just as useless and irksome as the righties that say them.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

I want to give my Christian perspective on some of what I've read in this thread. Some have said that the Christian religious left cherry picks what they want to believe about the Bible and blots out the test. I find this to be true because in my experience, I constantly find younger, liberal Christians to say things like "The Old Testament doesn't count anymore!" But they'd be wrong, because Jesus said:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:18, 19 KJV)

At the same time, the Christian Right is not at all as progressive as they should be and their old time values stifle society. The Bible says about free will:

A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps. (Proverbs 16:9 KJV)

When people support laws and movements that harm other people, they're violating Gods Word.

There are assuredly those that will come along and say "Your God is against homosexuality and if you support it, you're a hypocrite." I will never pretend Gods Word is not clear on issues of fornication between any man or woman. But ultimately, it is Gods will that man and man or woman and woman never lay together. I think it is an insult to homosexuals to imply they can't be together and refrain from sexual intercourse.

But even if we assume God will strike down those who engage in homosexual acts, why do we rank sins? You can't claim to be a Christian and ask questions like "How can a person be gay and be a Christian?" and you have tattoos, or you're a drunk or you engage in premarital sex. All men have fallen short of the glory of God.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 KJV)

So really, we should be for anyone who speaks righteousness and against anyone who doesn't, be they believer or non-believer. I personally consider myself more of a moderate for a few reasons:

1. I will not vote for the Democratic Party when its history of overt racism is so readily apparent and, in my opinion, has gotten to the point where it no longer discriminates on race, but on economic class so that it can keep down ALL people who don't have money.

2. The Republican Party is just too far behind on social issues for me to say I identify with them. I do agree with conservative economics, though.

3. There is just too much corruption from both sides of the fence.

The religious left, to me, is not really all that relevant in terms of differentiation because they still represent what I see as a problem with the Left at large. Luckily, this community has shown me that not all left wing minded people are hypocrites and oppressors. Maybe even most aren't. Doesn't mean I agree with some majority opinions around these parts, but I think we all can agree there is a such thing as an honest dissent.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

But ultimately, it is Gods will that man and man or woman and woman never lay together.

Actually it's just man and man. The Bible makes no prohibition against lesbian sex.

you engage in premarital sex.

Also not prohibited anywhere in the bible.

[MisterOJ]

I agree.

But what I find difficult to understand is how the religious left can proclaim to still be adherents of him, while not really caring much about the far more important message which is YOURE GONNA DIE ETERNALLY IF YOU DON'T CONVERT.

Sure, you might have a full belly tonight, due to us giving you some bread, but if you don't convert, you will BURN ETERNALLY.

What I'm commenting on, is not what humanity at large chooses to do with that message. But what people who profess to be Christians do with that message.

Because much of the religious left proclaim to be Christians and do charity because Jesus told them to, but don't really care about the whole reason he says he came here in the first place.

I just find it somewhat paradoxical.

You know, as Christians we're supposed to tell other people about the gospel of Jesus Christ so that they have a chance to be saved.

Done.

Seriously, who in America hasn't heard that? Once people know that, I believe it's up to them to make a decision about what they want to do with it. Now, I think as Christians we are supposed to live our lives in such a way that others want to become one of us. I think the best way to do that is by being a good person. Loving our fellow man. Heal the sick. Feed the hungry. Give shelter to the homeless. Et cetera.

In short, by showing God's grace in our daily lives, others should be able to see that and seek out Christ for themselves. I try to live like this, but I fail miserably every single day. Luckily, Jesus doesn't require his children to be perfect. But He wants us to try and He wants our heart in the right place. I do try, and I strive to do better - even if I fail often.

Now, I know a lot of people think we should be saving souls by haranguing the unconverted masses. Scare them with stories about hell and damnation and so on. That's not my style. I think it may work for some people, but in my opinion, it turns more people off to the message than on to it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

At the time, there was no such thing as government programs to help the poor and sick.

Uh, you never heard of the bread/corn ration?

If there were, I have a hard time believing Jesus would have spoken against them.

Who knows? He may have thought that such programs were full of waste and more designed to employ bureaucrats than actually help the poor, and that private people would have done better. But we don't know because he never talked about it.

I'm not saying that advocating more such legislation is "unChristian". But those who push for more legislation to help the poor are advocating something Jesus never did. He wasn't leading marches calling on the government to feed people. He was encouraging individuals . or the churches, to help the poor.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Actually it's just man and man. The Bible makes no prohibition against lesbian sex.

Also not prohibited anywhere in the bible.

man and man is a clear implication that God is against same sex sexual relations.

And the above scripture I quoted I provided from 1 Corinthians sites fornicators as those who won't inherit the kingdom of God. So I don't know how you'd argue that God is not telling us we shouldn't fornicate.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Frankly, I think helping the poor is far more Jesus-like than going around saying "I believe in Jesus" whilst simultaneously championing massive tax cuts for millionaires and cuts to social welfare.

What about if you are also giving lots and lots of money to the poor via private philanthropic efforts, by supporting a church that does so, etc.?

[sologdin]

as if all readers of scripture don't select those things they find most salient for the support of their extra-scriptural ideology.

[drawkcabi]

I always called myself agnostic in my beliefs but I until a few years ago I always felt unsure of myself in a spiritual way, unbalanced.

Then I had a hugely powerful dream.

Jesus came to me and told me in his name I would know wisdom, knowledge, and above all else love. And I felt loved. A love so powerful like I never felt before. Jesus told me to use him - the idea of him - to represent the power of love, wisdom, and knowledge. But also it was fine for anyone who wanted to value those concepts without associating them with him or attaching them to another figure. What the bible and scriptures say or anything else wasn't as important or important at all beyond academic and historical significance. What mattered most importantly is to gain knowledge, value wisdom, and most of all, feel loved and love all others.

Jesus would be to me a symbol of love, knowledge, and wisdom and that's all I needed him to be for me. He told me all this and that it was ok to believe anything else I wanted to believe or not believe regarding life and death, creation, and what happens in the afterlife.

Waking from the dream I felt a profound change within me. I still identify as an agnostic, I still think it most likely that the dream was something my subconscious crafted, but I hold out there's the possibility there was something more to it. But that part of it doesn't really matter, it came from somewhere, either it was inside me or it came from outside me, or it was some of both, but what matters is how loved I felt, the power I felt, and I can't forget it. Since that time I've felt my spirit and soul in harmonic balance like never before. A comfort spiritually like never before. I found my religion, it's mine and it's personal, and no one else needs to believe it, just as long as I do.

[thecryptile]

Actually it's just man and man. The Bible makes no prohibition against lesbian sex.

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Seems like it's condemning lesbianism.

[MisterOJ]

man and man is a clear implication that God is against same sex sexual relations.

And the above scripture I quoted I provided from 1 Corinthians sites fornicators as those who won't inherit the kingdom of God. So I don't know how you'd argue that God is not telling us we shouldn't fornicate.

If you're talking 1 Corinthians, a person could make the argument that it's actually the Apostle Paul telling folks that fornicators won't inherit the kingdom of God. Because that was basically from a letter Paul wrote to the church in Corinth.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Jesus was saying "help the poor". He wasn't saying how to do it, and the distinction between charity and government is rather disingenuous given that modern conceptions of social welfare systems didn't exist two thousand years ago.

Ever heard the phrase "bread and circuses"? Governments of the time often handed out bread rations/food rations, especially to keep urban populations content. The concept would not have been unfamiliar.

Again, I'm not saying that advocating government help for the poor is unChristian. Likewise, opposing government aid but supporting private aid is not unChristian either.