Repub Party
Comments
-
"Jesus" (who I'm not even totally convinced even existed btw) was 100% against organized religion altogether - that was really the whole point behind everything he supposedly did. But that isn't relevant, since literally any politician who embeds the whole "I'm Christian" thing into his platform is going off of all the twisted organized shit that came after so-called Christ's life, and that does technically include the New Testament IMO. If anyone REALLY followed "Christ's" supposed teachings, they wouldn't even own a Bible and wouldn't really be able to call themselves Christians.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.0 -
mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
Why would you encourage that or do that? What about separation of church and state? Including all the religions doesn't promote that very, very important concept. Government doesn't need to reference religion to be moral and rational. Plus, doing that opens up a disturbing door, because you'd still only be alluding to the major religions of the world, and the vast majority of people within those religions, it is VERY much about religion, not some random, subjective idea about spirituality without religion even though you're referencing what are very specifically teachings from organized religions. Also, those who follow minor religions and cults would probably cry foul too. Like, oh, hey, you forgot about Ron L. Hubbard's teachings!! And Osho's! Oh, and you did forget all the Hindu deities. I believe they have 33 million of them.
No, religion in politics simply does not work on any level, no matter what direction you try to take it, no matter how good the intentions. Total separation of church and state is the only logical way to go, as well the the way that would best promote peace and diversity.
Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
The concept of separation of church and state in our Constitution is that the government cannot establish an official religion. This was a direct contra to Henry VIII's establishment of the Anglican church as the official religion of England. What I would do as a politician doesn't come anywhere near that line. Perhaps we just disagree, but I think many of these historical writings offer true wisdom that needs to be remembered. If done properly, and the lessons are universal, it can bring people together, not compartmentalize them.PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter. Why would you encourage that or do that? What about separation of church and state? Including all the religions doesn't promote that very, very important concept. Government doesn't need to reference religion to be moral and rational. Plus, doing that opens up a disturbing door, because you'd still only be alluding to the major religions of the world, and the vast majority of people within those religions, it is VERY much about religion, not some random, subjective idea about spirituality without religion even though you're referencing what are very specifically teachings from organized religions. Also, those who follow minor religions and cults would probably cry foul too. Like, oh, hey, you forgot about Ron L. Hubbard's teachings!! And Osho's! Oh, and you did forget all the Hindu deities. I believe they have 33 million of them.
No, religion in politics simply does not work on any level, no matter what direction you try to take it, no matter how good the intentions. Total separation of church and state is the only logical way to go, as well the the way that would best promote peace and diversity.
For example, the Good Samaritan is clearly a lesson that the Islamophobes need to remember. If making a speech about the need for immigration reform and acceptance of minorities, why not tie it to a classic parable? Matthew said, " For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me..".
You have to remember that religion is still a central part of lives here in the States. I would try to use the true teachings to bring people together, rather than the wedge it is today. And ignoring the central role cedes the ground to the Right. I am sick of the perverted Christianity like the alt -right and the "prosperity gospel".
0 -
The historical Jesus existed. There is very little controversy about that.PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.0 -
even if that is true, and it might be (I read conflicting things about that all the time), the idea that Jesus of the Bible is the same as Historical Jesus is conjecture at best.mrussel1 said:
The historical Jesus existed. There is very little controversy about that.PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
I'm not arguing that he is the Son of God. But that doesn't make the parables any less universal. That's my point.HughFreakingDillon said:
even if that is true, and it might be (I read conflicting things about that all the time), the idea that Jesus of the Bible is the same as Historical Jesus is conjecture at best.mrussel1 said:
The historical Jesus existed. There is very little controversy about that.PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.0 -
There is actually a lot of controversy about that. But even if that weren't true, Christianity has very little relation to anything Jesus is reported to have preached. He was anti-establishment, and that is literally the only reason he did anything, really, whereas Christianity is the exact opposite of that. If Jesus really did exist, he must be rolling in his grave! (HAHA)mrussel1 said:
The historical Jesus existed. There is very little controversy about that.PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
There are pretty well-established arguments against him existing outside of him being the son of God. Many think Jesus was never just a man either. As I mentioned, I'm not convinced either way (yet) ... but some of those arguments are pretty good.mrussel1 said:
I'm not arguing that he is the Son of God. But that doesn't make the parables any less universal. That's my point.HughFreakingDillon said:
even if that is true, and it might be (I read conflicting things about that all the time), the idea that Jesus of the Bible is the same as Historical Jesus is conjecture at best.mrussel1 said:
The historical Jesus existed. There is very little controversy about that.PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I don't know what you mean.... Jesus showed up in contemporaneous writings soon after his death.PJ_Soul said:
There is actually a lot of controversy about that. But even if that weren't true, Christianity has very little relation to anything Jesus is reported to have preached. He was anti-establishment, and that is literally the only reason he did anything, really, whereas Christianity is the exact opposite.mrussel1 said:
The historical Jesus existed. There is very little controversy about that.PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
You guys are getting hung up on the history of the Church and the crimes, vs the teachings. I'm focused on the teachings.0 -
wait folks so Jesus was a republican lol lets get back to todays GOP party the one who said they would balace the budget the one with boy wonder Ryan who professed to be the savior the one that the whole GOP put on a pedestal take a look at where the deficit will be come 2020 ....jesus greets me looks just like me ....0
-
They started showing up maybe 50 years after his supposed death (again, all that is questionable).mrussel1 said:
I don't know what you mean.... Jesus showed up in contemporaneous writings soon after his death.PJ_Soul said:
There is actually a lot of controversy about that. But even if that weren't true, Christianity has very little relation to anything Jesus is reported to have preached. He was anti-establishment, and that is literally the only reason he did anything, really, whereas Christianity is the exact opposite.mrussel1 said:
The historical Jesus existed. There is very little controversy about that.PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
You guys are getting hung up on the history of the Church and the crimes, vs the teachings. I'm focused on the teachings.
But anyway, bringing "Christ's teachings" (as defined by Christianity over the past 2000 years) into politics is a terrible, terrible mistake being committed daily by politicians - that's the main point I think. I mean, one doesn't ever need to think of, speak or, or even know of Jesus to focus on what I assume you're talking about: don't be a greedy lying asshole, don't let others suffer in the face of abundance, don't hurt others, and don't be a bigot. Yeah, that stuff is easy to understand and to work towards in politics without referring to Jesus.
Although we should keep in mind that those things are not compatible with capitalism. That's a bit of a problem.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Also no controversy that he was jewish.mrussel1 said:
The historical Jesus existed. There is very little controversy about that.PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
And how do we know that?
Because he lived at home till.he was 30 and his mother thought he was god.
Ba dum bum
0 -
I'm not hung up on anything. I think that using Jesus's teachings, to the general populace, would be indistinguishable from the Christian Jesus.mrussel1 said:
I don't know what you mean.... Jesus showed up in contemporaneous writings soon after his death.PJ_Soul said:
There is actually a lot of controversy about that. But even if that weren't true, Christianity has very little relation to anything Jesus is reported to have preached. He was anti-establishment, and that is literally the only reason he did anything, really, whereas Christianity is the exact opposite.mrussel1 said:
The historical Jesus existed. There is very little controversy about that.PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
You guys are getting hung up on the history of the Church and the crimes, vs the teachings. I'm focused on the teachings.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
The left has ceded the ground to the right and it has hurt the left. Yet, Jesus's teachings were completely liberal. Now I'm being a cold, calculating political bastard here, but if his teachings align with progressive ideals (which you lined out above), then this is way to find commonality between the left and right and heal the rift! And try to build the base! That's my point.HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not hung up on anything. I think that using Jesus's teachings, to the general populace, would be indistinguishable from the Christian Jesus.mrussel1 said:
I don't know what you mean.... Jesus showed up in contemporaneous writings soon after his death.PJ_Soul said:
There is actually a lot of controversy about that. But even if that weren't true, Christianity has very little relation to anything Jesus is reported to have preached. He was anti-establishment, and that is literally the only reason he did anything, really, whereas Christianity is the exact opposite.mrussel1 said:
The historical Jesus existed. There is very little controversy about that.PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
You guys are getting hung up on the history of the Church and the crimes, vs the teachings. I'm focused on the teachings.0 -
That is a terrible, awful stereotype.Bentleyspop said:
Also no controversy that he was jewish.mrussel1 said:
The historical Jesus existed. There is very little controversy about that.PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
And how do we know that?
Because he lived at home till.he was 30 and his mother thought he was god.
Ba dum bum
0 -
My point was that you need to do that without referring to religion, because religion is necessarily divisive. Keep Jesus and every other religious character, including God, out of it, and everything would go much more smoothly. I don't feel like pandering to the right's religious fanatics is a viable plan, personally. Separation of church and state should be just that, even for the right wing nutters. Until America learns that lesson, the chances of things getting better are slim to none.mrussel1 said:
The left has ceded the ground to the right and it has hurt the left. Yet, Jesus's teachings were completely liberal. Now I'm being a cold, calculating political bastard here, but if his teachings align with progressive ideals (which you lined out above), then this is way to find commonality between the left and right and heal the rift! And try to build the base! That's my point.HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not hung up on anything. I think that using Jesus's teachings, to the general populace, would be indistinguishable from the Christian Jesus.mrussel1 said:
I don't know what you mean.... Jesus showed up in contemporaneous writings soon after his death.PJ_Soul said:
There is actually a lot of controversy about that. But even if that weren't true, Christianity has very little relation to anything Jesus is reported to have preached. He was anti-establishment, and that is literally the only reason he did anything, really, whereas Christianity is the exact opposite.mrussel1 said:
The historical Jesus existed. There is very little controversy about that.PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, that's a much better idea!HughFreakingDillon said:
I would tie my policies to inspirational humans from history, not beings that may or may not exist and cause so much political and ethical polarity.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting point, because you use the word "religion". I think of it as spirituality which would include Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed (where appropriate, but admittedly not familiar with his true teachings), and even Ghandi. And I would highly encourage Democrats to pin their messages to the spiritual teachings of the aforementioned people. If I ever ran for office, I would absolutely tie my policies to those teachings.PJ_Soul said:
Agreed. Politically, the left shouldn't reference any religion at all, unless they're talking about how it's irrelevant.HughFreakingDillon said:
religion is not the solution. it is part of the problem.mrussel1 said:
Exactly! That's why the left should not shun Christianity, rather take it back from the Right.oftenreading said:
Well, sure. The Christ as described in the bible was an activist and a socialist. Hard to imagine the right today embracing these principles.mrussel1 said:
I won't argue that religion should be a part of political life. I will argue that if we lived the New Testament and the actual Word , we would have a better world. Your alarm bells are triggered by centuries of corruption of His teachings.PJ_Soul said:
(replying to old post) True, but this is not where my head goes when any politician names his religion as a quality voters should be considering. Just that alone rings the alarm bells. I don't think any politician should ever mention their religion as a part of their campaign, because doing so necessarily indicates they intend to apply their religious beliefs to governance, and that is wrong IMO.mrussel1 said:Christianity is not incompatible with freedom, not when you read the actual New Testament. In fact, Christianity is directly incompatible with the alt-Right. Jesus's teachings on the poor, the humble and "strangers" run directly counter.
You guys are getting hung up on the history of the Church and the crimes, vs the teachings. I'm focused on the teachings.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help