Christian Values Vs. Traditional Values

[NeverMind]

Would Jesus lynch black people? NO!
Would crazy right-wing "christian" fundamentalists? YES

Would Jesus hate gays? NO
Would crazy right-wing "christian" fundamentalists? YES

Would Jesus give to the poor? YES
Would right-wing "christian" republicans? NO

People are going crazy. REAL christian values are love and kindness, grace for all mankind.
Since when did Jesus start hating gays, minorities, immigrants, the poor?
Many republicans and crazy conservatives are using the word "christian" tagging it to themselves to appear more righteous. They're not following the bible when they send bombs into apartment building in Iraq! They're not doing what Jesus taught when they're stealing money from the poor and giving the rich even more!

People get Christian values mixed up with American values and it pisses me off.
I am a christian and I'm pretty well-read for my age. Nowhere in the bible does it say many of the stuff that it implies when you say "christian"
That word has gotten a connotation it didn't deserve.

[vicente]

Christian values are in direct opposition to American Values
http://skepticreport.com/tools/10command.htm

Christian values are based on hate, arrogance and fear.
For example, look at the Christian stand on abortion. Wouldn't a reasonable person feel it wise for a rape victim or single woman to have an abortion, rather than have a child that can never enter heaven.

"No bastard shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, not even their tenth generation shall see the face of the Lord" Deut 23:2

[NeverMind]

No no no!
Christian values are based on love and peace! Jesus was not hateful or arrogant!

[vicente]

No, no, no!
Christian values are based on conditions.

Most Christians believe the God they invoke while spreading their faith, is Love. However, in the whole of their Holy Book, the Bible, it only suggests the idea that this God is love at the very end, in the late 2nd Century apology 1John. In fact, when viewing the full length and breadth of the Bible, their Patriarch is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional God. And amazingly, a God who is so insecure, that it demands to be worshipped, obeyed and prayed to.

Christian love, like the love of their God, what they often call agape, is merely a conditional love. To better understand this type of love, simply consider the Great Love Chapter of Christendom, Corinthians 13; ie., "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7. Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is more compassionate then passionate, more commitment orientated then fleeting, it isn't Unconditional Love, but the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their beliefs. Thus, no matter how one perceives it, experience born of belief can only be experienced through the condition of that belief. A self-perpetuating delusion.

Passionate or emotional love, is another type of conditional love. This is the love of solicitudal desire and enthralled obsession. Such love is usually, but not necessarily, accompanied by biological, chemical or instinctual love, which manifests a yearning for the welfare, possession and companionship of another. Ordinarily, emotional love is based on something received through physiological or pyschological arousal, and commonly includes, as in Christian love, an attached expectation.

The highest love a human can awaken to, is the amoral intimacy of Conscious Love. This is the Love of the Bodhisattva; the wish for the well being and liberation of all; without predisposition, and indifferent towards the consequences to the lover. Contrary to the thinking of many, Buddhists do not believe in a God; but they do recognize Love.

A wish, in the above context, is not synonymous with hope or desire. Hope and desire belong to an anticipation and expectation of the future. Hope and desire ensues from the thought of lack; that things should be other than they are. A wish on the other hand, is an intention, unencumbered by predisposition; to allow Love to flow, and arrive at its own harmonium.

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by NeverMind@Nov 5 2004, 02:31 AM
Would Jesus lynch black people? NO!
Would crazy right-wing "christian" fundamentalists? YES

Would Jesus hate gays? NO
Would crazy right-wing "christian" fundamentalists? YES

Would Jesus give to the poor? YES
Would right-wing "christian" republicans? NO

People are going crazy. REAL christian values are love and kindness, grace for all mankind.
Since when did Jesus start hating gays, minorities, immigrants, the poor?
Many republicans and crazy conservatives are using the word "christian" tagging it to themselves to appear more righteous. They're not following the bible when they send bombs into apartment building in Iraq! They're not doing what Jesus taught when they're stealing money from the poor and giving the rich even more!

People get Christian values mixed up with American values and it pisses me off.
I am a christian and I'm pretty well-read for my age. Nowhere in the bible does it say many of the stuff that it implies when you say "christian"
That word has gotten a connotation it didn't deserve.

congrats NM- you've figured out what I meant when I said that if Jesus came back today he would not consider himself a christian :)

[NeverMind]

well, there's a reason I put the quotes around "christian"
I dont think those people are real christians
I know what you mean, I just disagree with it.
I still think you're confusing the exceptions for the rule.
In my mind, I'm a christian and so is everyone else who believes that Jesus is their savior, etc. People just take it way too far.

I'm just sick of the "christian right" always being such hypocrites!
Jesus once said "it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than a camel to get through the eye of a needle" and yet these harcore "christians" are passing their greedy self-centered morals off as christian and I HATE that! Because when most people think about Christians they think of those hypocrites and it infuriates me!

Christianity is NOT about what so many people think it is! Just goin to church and giving your little "fire insurance" (get it, hell, fire, heh heh) and then turning around and living the same way they always have. Christianity is about change! its a good thing! Christianity is more liberal than a lot of people think. Jesus was a socialist! And WASPs take him and make him their little symbol to justify their greed and exploitation! It makes me mad! :angry:

[nronesquid]

If what everyone seem to be saying is a Truth, not necessarily my or your truth, but a truth. Then we are all going to hell in a hand basket, and this one is loaded on a bullet train. Most of our arguements and wars over the last several millenia have been caused by or mounted by what we so challenging call our Christian Brothers. I would say then to all christians, your bound for the glory of Hell because of your right wing attitudes and the manner in which you accept certain things people and concepts as being Right, when we should be looking at the whole picture of this earth and it inhabitants and loving them all not matter who what where or why they are the way they are.
Then again i am not about to lay my weapons down just because some whacko says to Love everyone. There are just way too many other crazies out there for me to play that silly game. so i would agree that christian and Traditonal values are nothing but word games and I will sit over here to see which one of the crazies will start the next big dance that is surely coming at us and it is not going to be pretty when it hits us...

Multiple (ICC"s)

:P :D :P

[Thomas Knierim]

I'd say Nevermind has basically understood what is going on. Jesus was not a Christian. - Guess what, Buddha was not a Buddhist. - Such is the state of affairs with the established religions. They become externalized, hollow, and in some extreme cases, even perverted. When you look at the Christian church and its history, one of the most terrible things that ever happened is its amalgamation with political power. This phenomenon is carried into the present -although in a somewhat toned down form- in today's Republican movement. It is impossible to love Jesus and power. Jesus and money. Jesus and the world. It is a contradiction in itself. Thus theAmerican Republicans have removed themselves from the original Christian values. This is nothing new, however. The Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages is the prime example of alienation from Christian values. It happens when religion becomes externalized and blind.

Cheers, Thomas

[NeverMind]

YES TOMMY!
Jesus said something like "you should not point out the sliver in someone else's eye when you have a plank in your own" That is what I think the Christian Republicans need to do. Jesus was homeless, completely poor, completely humble. Yet these conservatives love money and power, they are GREEDY and yet they put their Jesus on parade against gay marriage and abortion. They act righteous but they have wicked, greedy hearts. They are hypocrites.

[shingrid]

so if you're a true christian as well, why do you judge those, who in your eyes are hypocrites?

as a christian, one's very prone to becoming proud (since God calls everyone who's saved "set apart"--meaning, they're special) and it takes a lot of humbling and wisdom/understanding to be what you call a true Christian. let me ask you this: what does the Bible say one must do to be a christian? isn't that simply to believe and accept jesus christ? well, even those hypocritical christians have done that, and that makes them just as christian as the unhypocritical. i think you are measuring their amount of knowledge and devotion, not their christian-ness.

ask a "true christian"--meaning that they don't judge other christians like you do--how they came to be like that, and they will probably say that God has broken and remolded them over and over again.

[vicente]

In todays "theraputic Society" http://www.wie.org/j22/gurupandit.asp?page=3&ifr=srch personalized interpretation of the only source on Christianity, the New Testament, is that the NT really doesn't say what it says, but what one needs to do is extract those (few) cutesy verses which appeal to them, that is, play pick-and-choose, and expound on those, while tossing the rest (most) away.

Personally, I'm not into any of the narrow-minded viewpoints on Christianity.
http://www.christianitymeme.org/

But what is it to be a Christian?

John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio, said that despite many variations, Christians generally adhere to four core beliefs: the Bible is without error, salvation comes through faith in Jesus and not good deeds, individuals must accept Jesus as adults and all Christians must evangelize.

In those beliefs is the irrefutable evidence that Christianity is in opposition to Buddhism. Where Buddhism points to ways in which everyone can have a direct experience, Christianity steps between individuals and the possibility of a direct experience.

The truth is, it is impossible for a Christian to realize enlightenment,...for as long as they cling to Christianity for their identity, they will be cloaked from reality. Buddhism is about Uncloaking.

Vicente
:)

[rich]

Vicente should be concentrating on his own faults, rather than concentrating on the faults in the Abrhamic religions.

Btw, I guess I should practice what I preach, so I will now concentrate on my faults. ;)

[vicente]

Vicente should be concentrating on his own faults, rather than concentrating on the faults in the Abrhamic religions.

But I don't force people (Theodosius, Justinian, Gregory, etc) to use my faults to filter their experiences through.

Anyone who comprehended just 10% of my above post should have grasped that.

:)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by shingrid@Jan 5 2005, 03:09 AM
let me ask you this: what does the Bible say one must do to be a christian? isn't that simply to believe and accept jesus christ? well, even those hypocritical christians have done that, and that makes them just as christian as the unhypocritical. i think you are measuring their amount of knowledge and devotion, not their christian-ness.


actually Jesus' real name was not Jesus Christ, it was Joshua bar Joseph, bar Joseph meaning son of Joseph. Jesus is the English/español version of a Latin form of Joshua, & Christ is the Greek for Messiah. So a christian is a person who has accepted a christ or messiah. So yeah, the hypocritical christians count as christians since they have apparantly accepted dubya as their messiah. Or the Almighty Dollar. Or something equally hypocritial, if not more so.

[abba]

Hello again Richie, and Vicente. Today's Christianity derives primarily from Paul, and only secondarily from Jesus. Paul did not know Jesus, yet he contended with the Apostles for church leadership. Paul's banner was "faith" because he could not speak from direct knowledge. It is upon Paul's writings that the "major" elements of church doctrine were formed.

When John the Baptist was in prison & sent representatives to Jesus to ask "Are you the one? ", Jesus didn't say "Have faith in me." He said See the good works that I have done - Blessed is he who is not offended at what I have done.

I am a Christian, but I am one of many who are not "fundamentalists"... which has become a synonym for "literalist" . It is sometimes difficult for non-fundies, who are trying to live according to Jesus' teachings, to raise our voice against "scripture"... but when an issue has clear delineation of "scriptural exclusion" versus "loving inclusion", we can sometimes make our voice heard. I'm lucky to have found a church with a woman Pastor who has fought exclusivity first-hand, and leads our congregation lovingly - as I believe Jesus taught.

[Thomas Knierim]

Hello Abba/Bapu!

Nice that you dropped by. It's been a while, right? What have you been up to?

Cheers, Thomas

[abba]

Thanks.

As I mentioned in a Culture thread, I've been spending time at the Darwin Awards Forum - which is currently down for updating. I'm pleased to see some of the posters, whom I considered to be posting shallowly before, now have some good content in their posts (or perhaps it is I who have moved a little further along the wheel and can now appreciate them).

The DAF board is populated with a lot of militant atheists and some good logicians, so I've had my hands full over there. I've tried to bring them some peaceful non-confrontational discussion as I learned from BV, but I'm afraid the interchange was 2-way & I have been contaminated with the virus of instinctive scepticism to any post. Perhaps I'll mellow-down a bit by being back here.

I was here in 2000-2001, I believe. My first nic was MiddleWay. Your administration here seems quite good - I like the appearance, & your server is quite speedy. I'm on broad-band now, so I can tell the difference. I'll be around for awhile - at least until I can get a good look at what's going on here now, and become re-acquainted with some of the people and their Views.

[CSwriter1]

How does Jesus save anyone?

What is meant by traditional values?

[todd]

When are we going to stop making confusion between church and religion?
The church, dogma, can be accused of infinite sins, even the Bible itself is the creation of the church, but religion is just a belief in some ideas of good and evil, and the values that form the foundation of Christianity are common to the most other religions, a set of basic rules that make possible human life in a society.

[Kether]

I agree that ethics are neccessary to create some kind of consensus in society, but religious ethics are too closely associated with supernatural forces which probably don't exist - they distort reality, drawing attention away from real evil. They prevent people from doing real good in society, and instead preoccupy them with fruitless hopes of salvation in another life.

[todd]

What ethics, what reality, what real evil? mine, yours?
We live on postulates, everything we know is built upon them. Religious ethic is just a set of postulates on good and evil, not better nor worse than any others.

[Kether]

I think that the ethics that rule our lives should be calculated to bring the greatest possible benefit (ie happiness) to humanity. Logical methods of analysis that govern the inferences between empirically verified premisses are the best means we have of calculating how ethics work psychologically and of finding codes and ideals that will lead to 'good' (as stated above).

By the 'real evil', I meant the social, psychical and other dynamics that bring unhappiness to human beings.