What would American Christians do with Jesus?

Scoody · Mar 10, 2010

Don Allen said:
Politically it would be safe to assume that Jesus was far left which would fly in the face of the Christian right. Healthcare, the second amendment, welfare, would all be issues of contention. Abortion would not, as I would suspect Jesus would find a lot of common ground on that issue.

I would disagree. Jesus did not believe in welfare as he dispised charity that was not from the heart. He did not demand that a government or anyone take from someone whether they liked it or not and give to someone else. If you gave, even a pitance, but your heart was in it, God would reward you for it. Having an amount confiscated from your pay and given to someone else Jesus would find repulsive.

The Second Amendment? Jesus says to turn the other cheek. Does not say to turn it more than once.

Abortion? "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

Ruv Draba · Mar 10, 2010

Scoody said:
Of the 23 armed engagements going on in the world today, 22 of them involve Muslims fighting someone else.

A pity that you didn't supply a link listing the armed conflicts, Scoody. But I have one here.
There are presently seven armed conflicts causing 1,000 deaths per year or more. They are in India, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, Mexico and the Sudan. The US by the way, has had involvement in nearly all of them, and has been militarily responsible for one (Iraq) and financially responsible for at least two more (the Afghanistan civil war and the Mexican drug war). There are some twenty others with fewer than 1,000 fatalities per year, but many of them are ethnic or political and not specifically religious.

There is quite a high representation of Muslim countries among the listed armed conflicts, but religion follows geography and so too does national wealth and infrastructure. If we divide it geographically, we find disproportionately high conflicts in South America, Asia and Africa, and disproportionately low in Europe and North America. One interesting correlation is that the countries that hold empire tend to have few conflicts on their home soil, while the countries subjected to empire tend to have more.

Sometimes one has to look harder for cause than simple xenophobia.

Name the last war that Christians went to war in the name of Jesus. I'll ignore the crickets chirping.

As per my earlier comment, wealthy nations tend not to war for religion when they can do it for empire. But how often have the major churches of wealthy nations resisted their nation's push for empire? How often have they incited it, or simply remained silent and benefited?

Don Allen · Mar 10, 2010

Scoody said:
I would disagree. Jesus did not believe in welfare as he dispised charity that was not from the heart. He did not demand that a government or anyone take from someone whether they liked it or not and give to someone else. If you gave, even a pitance, but your heart was in it, God would reward you for it. Having an amount confiscated from your pay and given to someone else Jesus would find repulsive.

The Second Amendment? Jesus says to turn the other cheek. Does not say to turn it more than once.

Abortion? "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

Suffice to say that governmental welfare for the poor didn't exist in Roman times as it does today, therefore your contention that Jesus wouldn't approve is without merit (hence the bolding) Especially since we live in a democracy which votes to have money set aside for the poor and underprivileged. It is not confiscated, thereby your assertion is wrong.

The Second Amendment philosophy would, I'm assuming, be contrary to his message of peace. Since to bear arms assumes a defensive and offensive posture which is the prelude of violence.

I stand that he would be anti-choice,, I don't even understand the context of the quote you list.

ChristineR · Mar 10, 2010

My gut reaction is that they would treat his delusions.

However, the truth is we don't know very much about the historic Jesus, and even the earliest surviving references are full of theological and historical contradictions and problems. One probable correct historical Jesus has him being a claimant to the Jewish Messiah who surrounded himself with twelve followers, one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel. If that's the correct answer, then I suspect most people would just ignore him.

If he really was preaching armed resistance to the existing government, he might get himself in trouble with the law. If he was in fact just a theological teacher, I suspect he'd just become a rabbi and write some books. If he was a miracle worker, then the world would check him out with scientific methods and be amazed.

But it's impossible to say without first deciding what you think the historical Jesus was.

MacAllister · Mar 10, 2010

I'm a bit troubled by a handful of things, here.

First, the built-in assumption that American Christianity is a single monolithic culture is extremely problematic, and more than a bit offensive.

Second, the idea that it's appropriate for people outside the religions in question to use this thread to grind political/religious axes is nothing but flamebait looking for a target.

Third, there's been little effort so far to provide anything approaching textual support for some of the assertions made, so the thread is slowly but surely degenerating into a fairly defensive morass of blatantly subjective personal opinions masquerading as political or religious supported argument.

While I recognize the exercise as an attempt to examine the controversy that occurs around supposedly shared tenets of what we so cavalierly call Christianity, wars have been fought over some of those same questions. If you don't believe me, just look at ongoing Catholic/Protestant conflict throughout history.

Since CG is currently out of pocket, I'm gonna close this one before it blows up.

ColoradoGuy · Mar 13, 2010

I'm going to reopen this thread because, as Mac said, Don's opening question is worth thinking about. However, there are several kinds of comments that are not useful -- flame bait, as Mac also said. For example, a snide (and self-satisfied) barb that Jesus would not recognize current Christianity (defined loosely or not at all) is not cleverly profound -- it is self-evident. The question is not unique to Christianity, either. For example, what would the Buddha say about his splintered and opinionated followers were he to return? It's not even a strictly religious issue. What would Adam Smith say about today's squabbling economists, or Marx and Engels say about what their disciples have done with their theories?

The interesting part of the question, the core that Don is getting at, I think, is how any religious institution can both grow (and presumably evolve) and stay true to the ideals of its founder(s)? Some attempt this by vesting doctrinal authority in successors to the founder; the Catholic Pope is an example of this approach. Others attempt to enable the devout to interpret for themselves what the founder meant. There's freedom in that, but also built-in chaos. The Reformation provided many examples of what happens then. The extreme example of this approach is perhaps my own faith of unprogrammed Quakerism, which completely removes the clergy (or, as is often said, completely removes the laity). Still others (perhaps the majority) try to steer a middle course by investing some, but not all, authority in clergy, synods, conferences, and the like.

So discuss away. But no snide cracks about how "unchristian" today's Christians are. Most are well aware of that.

Lhun · Mar 15, 2010

Ruv Draba said:
I think that's a big call, Lhun.

I don't.

That's even bigger.

Hardly. I'd ask you to show me one example of a believer in any religion, ever, who followed all commands to the letter, but i know it's impossible. It can easily be demonstrated that, over time, as ethics evolved, so did the interpretations of various religious texts, to make them fit in. It is not actually religions which provide the ethics for their followers, it's the followers who try and fit their sense of ethics into the religious writing.
(I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that it's clear i'm only talking about the major book religions here. Obviously the others do not have a book not to follow)

It's hard to imagine that the major prophet of any religion returning would have no impact at all. Setting aside what 'returning' actually means and how one would confirm that, even a widespread belief that Jesus, Mohammad or Gautama Buddha say, were present in person would surely cause a lot of excitement. Even I as an atheist and a skeptic about all things magical would be keenly interested, if only for the social impacts.

I took the OP to mean the return of Jesus without any proof, i.e. the arrival of a prophet claiming to be Jesus (which just happens to be a true claim). If that's not what was meant, i'd first want to talk about what kind of proof he provided, since imo that would be the most important thing in determining the reaction of people in general. I.e. raising a few corpses is pretty good proof of something "supernatural" going on (and that he's not just delusional) but it doesn't exactly prove that he's Jesus. Could be Mithras for all we know.

Bartholomew · Mar 15, 2010

This seems obvious to me, but no one else has said it.

If Jesus was suddenly a physical entity, I imagine we'd pester him to write something. The Book of Jesus seems like it'd fit nicely into the New Testament.

Ruv Draba · Mar 15, 2010

Lhun said:
I'd ask you to show me one example of a believer in any religion, ever, who followed all commands to the letter, but i know it's impossible.

That's trivially easy. A religion may have no commandments at all, such as the religious philosphy of Thelema. But there are others too that either don't have taboos, or their injunctions aren't considered binding. Some Buddhist or Unitarian sects for instance. Or if you consider secular humanism a religion (I don't, but some do), that might also count.

Ruv Draba · Mar 15, 2010

Bartholomew said:
If Jesus was suddenly a physical entity, I imagine we'd pester him to write something. The Book of Jesus seems like it'd fit nicely into the New Testament.

Or... might even replace it. And the clunky prologue that preceded it.

Ruv Draba · Mar 15, 2010

ColoradoGuy said:
The interesting part of the question, the core that Don is getting at, I think, is how any religious institution can both grow (and presumably evolve) and stay true to the ideals of its founder(s)?

A darn good question. But it poses the thought experiment: if Jesus -- the character as-written in whatever version of the Bible you prefer -- had appeared for the first time in any developed country today... So imagine that world history were substantially the same -- with Western empires founded on some other religion -- say a liberalised offshoot of Judaism, so the Ten Commandments were intact... but technology and human knowledge otherwise unchanged.

Would he still have been sacrificed? Assassinated? Why? How? How would the world react? And how would that change Christianity?
What would he teach? For how long? In what languages? Why? Would he write anything down this time? Why or why not?
How many disciples would he admit? Why that number? From what walks of life? Why? How many would be male? Female? Jewish? Gentile? Divorced? Gay? Criminal? Adulterers? Alcohol or drug-dependent?
What would he have to say to people of religions he'd never seen -- like Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? Animism? Why?
What would he tell the countries that were colonised by Western powers, and are still finding their nationhood?
What would he tell people like African Americans, whose ancestors had been enslaved? Why?
What would he tell scientists about the origin of the earth, and the development of humanity? Why?

In the light of all that (whatever your answers are), how much Christian rite and belief do you think exists because of Jesus, and how much is there because of when and where he is believed to have lived?

Lhun · Mar 15, 2010

Ruv Draba said:
That's trivially easy. A religion may have no commandments at all, such as the religious philosphy of Thelema. But there are others too that either don't have taboos, or their injunctions aren't considered binding. Some Buddhist or Unitarian sects for instance. Or if you consider secular humanism a religion (I don't, but some do), that might also count.

Not having commandments to follow is not at all the same things as following commandmends.

wrangler · Mar 15, 2010

i think he'd fit in nicely if he kept his mouth shut about the real meaning of christmas.

Ruv Draba · Mar 15, 2010

Lhun said:
Not having commandments to follow is not at all the same things as following commandmends.

Many cultures have taboos, and not all are religious. Cultures which have taboos sometimes break them. This happens in both secular and sectarian life. Sometimes the taboo is more in word than in deed.

But the taboo doesn't necessarily define the culture or its values. It's just custom made sacred. To judge the devotion people have to a culture, we need to look further than just adherence to taboos; else it's like judging a marriage by who the couple doesn't sleep with.

AnkleSneeze · Apr 12, 2010

No different

The religious leaders of his day were squabbling about interpretations and human philosophies, more worried about their political standing with the current power structure than pleasing their maker. (Mark 7:7) They had replaced the scripture with their own set of rules and interpretation. The simple message of love God and love neighbor totally missed them.
People are ignorant today, ask them to explain the model prayer (lord's prayer, our father etc) Matt 6:9,10.and they can't begin to do it.(Dan 2:44)
The bible interprets itself for a person who is humble, honest, and spiritually hungry. Jesus is already 'here' and people are totally ignorant of him because his 'coming' was not what they expected since he has not returned in the flesh but the spirit.(1 Pet 3:18) Nor is his message one that fits with popular opinion. (Matt 24:37-39, Matt 7:13,14)
The clergy have turned the majority of people against God by their hypocrisy, backing of corrupt human governments, and greed for personal gain. They teach love but cave to nationalism. (John 13:35)

ColoradoGuy · Apr 12, 2010

AnkleSneeze said:
It's easy to find an excuse to not search for truth and many people have found excuses not to do so. Some of which I see here.

That's unfair.

AMCrenshaw · Apr 12, 2010

AnkleSneeze said:
It's easy to find an excuse to not search for truth and many people have found excuses not to do so. Some of which I see here.

Matthew 7:3

Matthew 16:18

flutecrafter · Apr 12, 2010

Don Allen said:
As the practicing agnostic I'am, my sister (a practicing Christian, with a very open mind) and I frequently debate some different aspects of religion and over the weekend she posed an excellent question for debate.

Would American Christians follow the words of Jesus if he were alive to preach today?

I deleted my observations, felt they were to slanted, i'm more interested in others opinions.

Much like christians in any other country, yes, we would follow him.
Some with much trepidation as they realized how many things they
had misunderstood from His Word and their church traditions.
Some with great rejoicing that He is here with them.
Some with confusion as to why He was here when His word
says the next appearance is at the end of times on Earth.

Now as to how the Church would do.... that depends upon the individual
fellowship. Some have a larger percentage of actual christians within
their membership than others do.

Mark

swansongunsung · Apr 13, 2010

I am a Christian. My faith dictates my life. But I believe faith is something each individual has to discover for him- or herself. The following is what I believe.

Jesus died for our sins 2000 years ago. Why did he die? Because God was angry with the human race. Jesus interceded on our behalf. He gave his life for us.

What has happened since then? Have we shown ourselves worthy of Jesus's confidence? Hardly. We have churches that are abominations, we are destroying God's earth. and God's Ten Commandments are treated with contempt.

Jesus will return. And we are very lucky, because we do not deserve it. Jesus will save us. And everyone will see that he is The Messiah. It will no longer be a question of faith. But there will be a price for being saved in this way. Humanity will realize, because they do not yet know, what the terrible cost has been of continuing to sin during the last 2000 years.

Just my two cents...

Bartholomew · Apr 13, 2010

swansongunsung said:
I am a Christian. My faith dictates my life. But I believe faith is something each individual has to discover for him- or herself. The following is what I believe.

Jesus died for our sins 2000 years ago. Why did he die? Because God was angry with the human race. Jesus interceded on our behalf. He gave his life for us.

What has happened since then? Have we shown ourselves worthy of Jesus's confidence? Hardly. We have churches that are abominations, we are destroying God's earth. and God's Ten Commandments are treated with contempt.

Jesus will return. And we are very lucky, because we do not deserve it. Jesus will save us. And everyone will see that he is The Messiah. It will no longer be a question of faith. But there will be a price for being saved in this way. Humanity will realize, because they do not yet know, what the terrible cost has been of continuing to sin during the last 2000 years.

Just my two cents...

I'm sorry.

DrZoidberg · Apr 13, 2010

Don Allen said:
As the practicing agnostic I'am, my sister (a practicing Christian, with a very open mind) and I frequently debate some different aspects of religion and over the weekend she posed an excellent question for debate.

Excuse my ignorance but what is a practising agnostic? Do you go to church on alternate Sundays?

Zoombie · Apr 13, 2010

I'd prolly track him down, say hi, ask him how the big man is doing up there, ask him to tell Einstein that quantum theory has, for the most part, been proven true.

In all seriousness, though, Americans aren't a bunch of blood thirsty lunatics. If someone like Jesus showed up, he'd be a good and kind and caring and noble person, and that kind of person attracts other people seeking to do good.

Now, the problem is that a single nutjob with a gun can do way more damage than a legion of Roman soldiers, though I'm pretty sure the Roman soldiers would give us a run for their money...

Either way, I'd stay an atheist.

Cause I'm contrary that way.

Paul · Apr 13, 2010

All religious groups can only disconnect to the original impulse, if that impulse comes from one individual. It has to. THis is the achilles heel of truth / the mystique understanding of the universe - it's an individual journey - impossible to communicate fully.
I've often wondered why Buddha and Mohammad came down off the mtn, or Jesus out of the desert. Truth is an individual experience - nontransferable.

Religious groups form because of a human desire for certainty - a reasonably robust viewpoint is better that facing uncertainty.
In short, the return of the original can never fit into the resultant religion and never could.

Paul · Apr 13, 2010

AnkleSneeze said:
The religious leaders of his day were squabbling about interpretations and human philosophies, more worried about their political standing with the current power structure than pleasing their maker. (Mark 7:7) They had replaced the scripture with their own set of rules and interpretation. The simple message of love God and love neighbor totally missed them.
People are ignorant today, ask them to explain the model prayer (lord's prayer, our father etc) Matt 6:9,10.and they can't begin to do it.(Dan 2:44)
The bible interprets itself for a person who is humble, honest, and spiritually hungry. Jesus is already 'here' and people are totally ignorant of him because his 'coming' was not what they expected since he has not returned in the flesh but the spirit.(1 Pet 3:18) Nor is his message one that fits with popular opinion. (Matt 24:37-39, Matt 7:13,14)
The clergy have turned the majority of people against God by their hypocrisy, backing of corrupt human governments, and greed for personal gain. They teach love but cave to nationalism. (John 13:35)

Some nice quotes.
But I have a big problem with the embolded bit. Always was amazed at that use of language by some people I've encountered.
The technique (or habit) of suggesting the bible as an entity onto itself - a sentient being, I find fascinating.
Because the next assertion is "if only you would listen to what the bible is telling us/you"
Is a beautiful piece of footwork, because it's no longer me, the mere fallible human telling you what truth is, but rather the bible itself.
And therefore how could one possibly ignore the all-knowing sentient being which 'speaks' to us?
The frail hand of man is removed from the equation, only Oz himself remains.
Fascinating.

semilargeintestine · Apr 13, 2010

Lhun said:
Ever seen someone on a corner with a "God hates mixed fiber clohtes" sign? If it was Sasha Baron Cohen it doesn't count.

That's because Jews don't care if other people try to follow commandments that don't apply to them, nor do we openly berate Jews who don't with public protests. However, you will not find a single Orthodox Jew wearing wool and linen together, as they follow ALL of the commandments (except the ones that are not applicable to them, such as the ones only for men/women/priests/kings/etc).

What would American Christians do with Jesus?

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

What happened?

Tired and worried.

I've seen worse.

New kid, be gentle!

Comic guy

New kid, be gentle!

Dearest Strumpets and Knaves:

Old guy, be rough

I've seen worse.

...

Comic guy

aka TomOfSweden

Dragon of the Multiverse

BassGirl 5000