Happy Trails to you.

You said it — I didn’t.

When Jesus said, “ You will be persecuted for my namesake, He didn’t add, “And that’s as it should be.” And, He didn’t say, “That’s just fine.”

Are you trying to say that prejudice against blacks, women and gays is a blight on society, but anti – Christian bigotry is acceptable, because some Christians are hypocritical?

http://www.americanatheist.org/smr99/T2/zindler.html

Analogous to hypnosis, religion distorts perceptions, rendering them resistant to correction. Often, strong emotions must be evoked before the spell can be broken: it is like using ice-water to awaken a hypnotized person. The neural circuitry of religion is intimately intertwined with that which distinguishes us as herd animals, as a social species. Surgical attempts to remove the harmful, religious components of this circuitry are quite naturally resisted – as though they were attempts to deprive people of their group identity. Loss of religion produces more autonomy, but this again can increase anxiety levels. Illusions that reduce anxiety will not be given up easily. Not withstanding all I have said here today, fear remains the soil in which the roots of religion feed. Unless better means are made available for reducing fear, religion will continue to feed upon our neuroplasm.

Are you trying to start an argument?

Using your definition (from where, I know not) Jesus would be regarded as both ‘hyperreligious’ and OCD. I am not suggesting there is not a prejudice
against christians from certain quarters of society, nor am I denying it is a form of persecution. But isn’t that just what Jesus prepared his followers for; “You will be persecuted for my namesake.” The fact that it occurs unjustly provides no safehaven for those who bring dishonor to him by their behavior,
which can be seen as contrary to WWJD.

Did you know that in mental health circles today, people who attempt to convert other people to Christianity are called “hyperreligious”, and that “hyperreligiosity” is considered to be “obsessive behavior,” bordering on the pathological?

How’s that for anti – Christian prejudice?

Such hypocrisy is not exclusively the domain of christians.

I am in a position to observe many ethnic groups. Whether Hindu, Sikh,
Muslim or jew, it seems much easier to espouse a belief than it is to live it.

The Sermon on the Mount can answer that question.

Christians are seen by unbelievers as ambassadors of Christ.

Christians who are not living as “the light of the world” while espousing their christian commitment, create a credibility issue for the religion as a whole. If they cannot live by the standard of their namesake, the conclusion, by some, is that they must worship a false god. No, Christians are not hypocrites. Hypocrites are hypocrites. It is for each one to examine their behavior to determine how it reflects the life of Christ.
But others will form opinions based upon their own perception of what it means as well.

0.o

You can tell you’ve really called someone out when the best they can manage is attacking a tongue-in-cheek remark.

At least St. Carlin has a sense of humour.

Frank_B: “To be honest with you, I had never heard of the Jesus Seminar.”

Frank_B: “What s the matter? Couldn t find any non – heretics?”

o.o

Oh-kay then. Let me get this straight.

1) You’d never heard of the Jesus Seminar.

2) Your idea of research is to pull summaries of six critiques, which you haven’t read, off the ‘net…

3) Based on this, you’ve concluded that these 74 scholars are heretics

The question now becomes not WERE you dropped on your head as a child, but how many times?

Frank_D: “Do tell (www.tanbooks.com)”

*rotfl*

You know, while I appreciate the link to “Dressing with Dignity” and the doubtlessly invaluable information about how I can protect myself and my “loved ones from the onslaught of tasteless, immodest clothing”…

Thanks, and yet… no thanks.

So, you re saying – More Registered Voters, more GOP Votes?

Ok

Well in a sense yes, obviously. But that also means more Dem votes. Kerry received more votes than Clinton did. Is this relevant though? No.

Regarding Perot and  96, as I mentioned in my post, I m surprised Dole did as well as he did& . the guy was a terrible candidate.

Well I’ll agree he was a terrible candidate. But are you really surprised he did that well? The 39 of the 40% of the popular vote he got would have voted for him even if he died a week before election day. These are, in all likelihood, the same people who still “approve” of the job Bush is doing. Besides, like I pointed out, elctoral vote-wise, Dole got whupped.

There was a third party candidate in 2000 and 2004.. and at least in 2004, Bush still got a majority.

Yeah and I addressed this point already. The third party candidates mustered 1% of the vote altogether. This includes Nader and the handful of no-names from the more obscure political parties. With 1 point, some one would have to get a majority. Let me also mention that Clinton missed a majority by about seven tenths of a percent. Can you at least agree that had Perot not run, Clinton wouldve gotten that .7 to claim the majority that you hold in such high regards. And why do you keep ignoring the fact that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 since those numbers are apparently so relevant.

However, he did receive lower polls in his presidency than Bush has thus far& although Bush is sinking quickly.

Bush’s first term gave him better numbers than Clinton, mainly based on considerable upticks after 9/11 and in the runup to war. Overall though Clinton’s numbers were better throught his two terms in general. In his second term his numbers hovered around the high fifties to mid sixties for most of the time. Even during impeachment they werent affected. As a matter of fact, they were at their highest points right after the House impeachment vote in some polls. Why? I beleive its because most Americans saw through it for what it was- bullshit- and rallied around him.

I can’t speak for others, but I think anti-christian bigots are born when hypocrisy fathers them.

There’s more to the story than that. The actual split took place, I think, at a “See” discussing Christ’s humanity, where I think it was also determined that Jews and Christians were now separate and distinct. That information I couldn’t find right away. It may have been tied to the “Arian heresy”, and related to the Virgin Birth, an issue that wasn’t finally resolved until the 1850′s.

Here’s more, from the Jewish Perspective.

However, you are approaching the matter from a secular point of view, which is fine. But in order to understand the dyanmics between jew and christian in the theological sense, you must reference the Bible. Anyway I am not arguing either side in the long haul. I was taking an advocacy position because I thought that was your disposition. Was I wrong?

Secular discussions have their foundation in human logic. That talent which places him higher than the animals has limits to it’s effectiveness when discussing the mysteries of life. I’ll leave it at that.

First let me say; thanks for the link. I take back at least some of the things I’ve thougth about you.

According to the pacifist Mennonite Yoder;”Neither Jesus nor Paul rejected Judaism, and Judaism did not reject Christianity, according to Yoder, at least in the first century.”

Frank, this has to be the outer limits of the most radical fringe of thought I’ve seen within Christendom(except mormonism)

The premise that Jesus or apostles never rejected Judaism is correct within limits. The Law was necessary in order for the Jewish Nation to see for themsleves it is an impossible law for imperfect men to live up to. He kept sending them prophets with the message of the spirit of the Law, so they could see the need for the Redeemer. Jesus fulltilled the Law. Therefore he substantiated it. He never rejected it. What he rejected was those who used their religious status (Pharisses/Sadducees) to exercise dominion over the people. Many, misled by the leaders rejected Christ and his teachings. All this culminated in the final destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 by Roman General Titus. Unlike the first destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in the year 600 BC (approx) after centuries of warnings from prophets like Jeremiah, Isiah, Micah, the holy Temple built by Solomon was laid waste. It has never been rebuilt. In point of fact, a mosque(Dome of the Rock) now stands in its place. It is the final monument to both the end of Judaism, and the rejection of Christ by the Jews.

That’s a very interesting idea to just throw down without a single reference to back it up. I’m assuming you’re not so arrogant as to present your own conjecture as an analysis of what Jesus intended–now THAT would be a Messianic Complex–so please… Let’s see the work and research you’re drawing you derived the above-quoted opinion from.

Frank_D: “Secondly, Roman Catholics don t believe that the Protestant Reformation was necessary. Thus, Jesus teachings have already been through two major permutations, whch, for a reasonable person  unlike say, you, Rhys, or Oliver,  would suggest that speculating how Jesus life and sayings would transform into modern politics is best left up to experts.”

Er… Frank…? This is painful. TWO major permutations? Is that what they teach in the Catholic church, or are you merely revealing your jaw-dropping lack of knowledge about history, language, and ancient culture, theological and otherwise?

Furthermore, if the Protestant Reformation hadn’t happened, Frank, you (if you’re indeed Catholic) would have been excommunicated for implying it’s even POSSIBLE to alter the word of God. The Bible is perfect–any version out there at any time in history… pay no attention to the man behind the curtain–infalible, and it is thus because God does not /allow/ it to be altered… at least not in any way that matters or would change its meaning even the tiniest bit.

Protestant Reformation not necessary… Egad. The mind boggles. So there was nothing that needed to change about the Catholic Church when Luther nailed his memo to the door, eh?

Read a book, for the love of God.

And ONE last thing–if YOU had read even a sampling of the scholarly work available on the authenticity of Christ’s word as it exists today, you would know that the Beatitudes (that hippy spiel part of the Sermon on the Mount–blessed are the whossits for they shall stuff-and-things) are one of the passages in the Gospels /most probable/ to have survived garbling in translation and about as close to Christ’s words as he spoke them as we can get without talking to the man himself.

Check out research published by the members of the Jesus Seminar, particularly pertaining to comparisons of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, as well as the Gospel Q “single source” hypothesis. They reflect, as well, much earlier Gospels considered “non-canonical” like Thomas and Magdalene.

Before you shoot down other people’s ideas and assumptions, make sure you KNOW they’re wrong… because rhys was most certainly not, and the experts you invoked back him up.

I didn’t say the beatitudes were garbled in translation, I said the original Church had undergone major changes, that make it nearly imposible to speculate on what political position Jesus woud take. He did say a few more things than “blessed are the whossits for they shall stuff-and-things”.

Everyone would like to believe that try to live their lives according to the Beatitudes (you can read the “whosits” and the “stuff – and – things” here, by the way.

Next time, slow down, and read a word at a time.

Leo, here’s a little something for you to chew on:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_12_122/ai_n14695913

Wysdom: Perhaps you’ve never heard of the Counter Reformation. One of its leaders was the patron Saint of the Salesian Order of Priests and Brothers who taught me in high school — Saint Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church

To be honest with you, I had never heard of the Jesus Seminar. Apparently, it was no great loss:

You do not have to look far to find someone saying something nasty about the Jesus Seminar, from pulpits, in print or on the internet. The Seminar has no desire to dignify such abuse with counterattack. The critiques selected here are those that raise substantive issues that merit an intelligent response.

*
The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus? — Earl Doherty posts essays in radical historical criticism arguing that Jesus never existed; pages include a review of R. W. Funk’s Honest to Jesus.
*
The Gospel according to the Jesus Seminar — Birger A. Pearson’s 1995 critical review of The Five Gospels calls the Jesus Seminar for faulty historiography for ascribing eschatological materials to sources other than Jesus while failing to recognize the eschatology implicit in sayings it recognized as genuine & claims the Seminar produced a non-Jewish secularized image of Jesus. (Expanded version of article printed in Religion 25, pp. 317-338).
*
The Corrected Jesus — Richard B. Hays 1994 critical review of The Five Gospels faults the “attempt to assess the authenticity of Jesus’ sayings in isolation from a more comprehensive reconstruction of the events of his life, ministry, and death” as “methodologically problematic” (First Things 43; posted 12/6/96).
*
The Gospels According to Luke — summary of L. T. Johnson’s critique of Jesus Seminar in The Real Jesus with reaction from fellow Emory scholar and JS Fellow Vernon Robbins (Emory Magazine Fall/96).
*
Jesus Seminar Under Fire — twice updated transcript of Gregory Koukl’s flamboyant 1995 diatribe from the radio show ironically entitled, “Stand to Reason.”

*
The Seventy-four ‘Scholars’: Who does the Jesus Seminar really Speak for? — Craig L. Blomberg argues that the Seminar does not represent a real consensus of scholars except ‘in a small percentage of the issues.’ (Christian Research Journal 1994).

What’s the matter? Couldn’t find any non – heretics?

“Read a book, for the love of God.” Do tell