Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
With Wulebgr you extrapolated "what Christ taught" from "religion"

I think that "what Christ taught" is a fairly reasonable spin on the word religion here.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
In 1980 I campaigned for Ronald Reagan as a conservative Christian.

Both the religion and the politics became untenable in the course of the next eight years.

On the other hand, one might just as well conclude, perhaps more accurately, that "what Christ taught" led me away from "conservative Christianity" as it manifested itself in 1980s American politics. Indeed, seeking "what Christ taught," and having sought and found, seeking adherence to those teachings, might well be the cause of my need to oppose Ronald Reagan and his political spawn.

The original statement does not present enough information to be clear one way or the other.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I think that "what Christ taught" is a fairly reasonable spin on the word religion here.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
[b]In 1980 I campaigned for Ronald Reagan as a conservative Christian.

Both the religion and the politics became untenable in the course of the next eight years.

On the other hand, one might just as well conclude, perhap ...[text shortened]... original statement does not present enough information to be clear one way or the other.[/b]

From what was documented of the words of Jesus while He walked the Earth, Jesus taught about righteousness: what is and isn't righteous and that righteousness is required for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

When you say, "'what Christ taught' led [you] away from 'conservative Christianity'", do you mean that it was Jesus's teachings on righteousness that lead you away from "conservative Christianity"? That "conservative Christianity" does not reflect what Jesus taught on righteousness?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From what was documented of the words of Jesus while He walked the Earth, Jesus taught about righteousness: what is and isn't righteous and that righteousness is required for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

When you say, "'what Christ taught' led [you] away from 'conservative Christianity'", do you mean that it was Jesus's teachings on right ...[text shortened]... onservative Christianity" does not reflect what Jesus taught on righteousness?

Are you suggesting that righteousness was the only subject Jesus addressed?

Inasmuch as the conservative revolution that placed Reagan in power is grounded in, and continues to prop itself up on the bases of slander, I do agree that the New Right, the Moral Majority, the Cultural Conservatives--or whatever name they happen to want to accept (we all know who they are)--made it untenable to embrace the term Christian Conservative. They trashed Christianity and the teachings of Jesus with their hatred, bigotry, and gross dishonestly; and they trashed traditional conservatism with their extreme individualism (something Jesus condemned).

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Are you suggesting that righteousness was the only subject Jesus addressed?

Inasmuch as the conservative revolution that placed Reagan in power is grounded in, and continues to prop itself up on the bases of slander, I do agree that the New Right, the Moral Majority, the Cultural Conservatives--or whatever name they happen to want to accept (we all know w ...[text shortened]... y trashed traditional conservatism with their extreme individualism (something Jesus condemned).

For whatever reason many seem to equate "what Christ taught" with whatever "Christianity" they observe and indiscriminately exchange the two which is what whodey seemed to be doing when he said the following:

"Now as far as a lack of truth regarding what Christ taught, I have no idea what you are referring to."

From what I can tell, you don't at all see a "lack of truth regarding what Christ taught". You see a lack of truth in "conservative Christianity" which is a very different thing.

Are you suggesting that righteousness was the only subject Jesus addressed?

That wasn't my intent, but off the top of my head nothing comes to mind that doesn't boil down to defining righteousness, the importance of righteousness, how to become righteous, etc., but that doesn't mean that there isn't. Did you have any particular passages in mind?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
That wasn't my intent, but off the top of my head nothing comes to mind that doesn't boil down to defining righteousness, the importance of righteousness, how to become righteous, etc., but that doesn't mean that there isn't. Did you have any particular passages in mind?

I cannot find anything that doesn't boil down to salvation by grace, either.


Nor can I find anything that doesn't come down to the claim that Christianity is universal truth for all times, all places, all peoples (and on this point, the "truth" is false).


Nor can I find anything that contradicts a mature understanding of the Bible as a fully true account of a people's quest for spiritual understanding, but fully lacking any universal truth (except as a guide to how other truths might be sought in other times and places).

The point is this: broad claims that subsume all of the teachings of Jesus, or the OT kings, poets, and prophets, are easy to make. However, when they say everything, they say nothing.



Back to conservative American politically active Republican Christians: I think they must play hopscotch with a text that should be read another way, or they must cultivate a learned illiteracy,* or they must simply ignore certain passages. Their failure to understand historic Christianity, however, is little more than a footnote to their trashing of American history.

I took action the eighteenth or sixty-fifth time that some close friends that I respected and who were teachers in a local Christian school said to me, "you like history, you'll love The Light and the Glory." I bought it; I read it; I still refer to it from time to time. It is a real piece of work--it's hard to imagine a text that breaks with more conventions of responsible scholarship.

This text alone did not cause me to create distance from my former ignorance, but it helped. Another helpful experience was my temporary embrace of Creationism after meeting Henry Morris and buying and reading his and Duane Gish's books, and subscribing to their newsletter.








* I'm thinking partly of an entertaining hour arguing about Greek terms and competent translations with a Jehovah's Witness, until I learned that neither of us could read Greek. I told him we should argue from what we knew instead of from our ignorance, which left him with far fewer arguments. Two years later, when I studied Greek, I quickly learned that his argument had hinged upon ignorance of Greek syntax--Theon does not differ from Theos as different gods, but as G-d employed as subject and object in a grammatical sense.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
[Two years later, when I studied Greek, I quickly learned that his argument had hinged upon ignorance of Greek syntax--Theon does not differ from Theos as different gods, but as G-d employed as subject and object in a grammatical sense.[/b]

I think it arguable that it is not just ignorance from which his arguments lie, rather, it also stems from his belief. For example, the Creation Museum in Kentucky was constructed with the assumption that evolution and creation were mutually exclusive. One then had to pick and choose between rejecting the truths of evolution or rejecting the truths of Christ and his teachings. However, this choice was a man made construct. In short, they sided with the truth that meant the most to them and rejected and ignored the other. Of course, this is from the Christian right of the political spectrum.

On the left side of the spectrum, we see another example of what I am talking about. Social security going bust. For the liberal, they will argue all day long that it is not going bust even though the facts say otherwise. This is in large part to the fact that they have sold out to the belief that entitlement policies are "good". How then can they be wrong? To reject the legislation as is would be to reject it as being "the right thing to do". You either have to defend the program as is or you have to give up on "doing the right thing" altogether. Again, the mutaul exclusivsity is puerly a man made construct. My guess is that if there were not another massive entitlement policy to replace the failing Medicare/Medicaid programs, this too would be defended to the death.

How then can we arrive at the truth when we have misconstrued beliefs and biases? For me, I recognized my bias and, as a result, saw that I had beliefs to defend for nothing more than self interest. Of course, it is not an easy thing to do. In fact, due to pride and arrogance people will retort that they are 100% unbiased and purely approach things from an objective point of view, however, they are deluded.

To help counter this delusion in my own life, surrendering to the authority of Christ has helped my curb this self interest, although it is a never ending battle. This surrender is due to the belief that Christ IS the turth, the way, and the life. Otherwise, I would continue to walk down the road of what seems right to me according to my own self interests. The only way that you know you have done so, however, is to experience a certain level of pain and discomfort. For example, the word of God is described as a two edged sword. In short, if you don't feel pain, no one or nothing has operated and taken from you what ails you.

BTW: I comend you for your pursuit of truth. May you be able to walk your bias up the alter on the mount and sacrifice it!! My guess is that even if you corrected your JW friend, he would not relent in his beliefs. For him, it is an all or nothing endevour because if you poke holes his his theology, for him you have brought to ruin his trust in the organization that taught him about Christ. Then he is faced with surrendering his faith in Christ, however, this too is a man made construct. The two are not mutually exclusive. Of course, the hell of it is that anything can be aruged. I know, I have been on this sight long enough. No matter the truths you throw in peoples face, they can be argued away if the truth steps on their toes.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
In 1980 I campaigned for Ronald Reagan as a conservative Christian.


Both the religion and the politics became untenable in the course of the next eight years,

I disbelieve that, personally I think it is because people actually left
what those two things actually meant and what is trully untenable is
the watered down version of both.
Kelly

Originally posted by Wulebgr
History

You think Jesus changed in 8 years?
Kelly

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Quite true.

Not only did we succeed in getting Ronald Reagan elected, but he was reelected by a landslide. Then, his major conservative critic, the very man that called his completely ludicrous ideas about the federal budget, "voodoo economics," followed in his wake, pushing some of the ideas he had condemned a decade earlier. Then, that man's son had ei ...[text shortened]... continue, and most self-professed Christians in the USA still embrace the Party of Death.

Party of death, that the one that supports abortion?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Party of death, that the one that supports abortion?
Kelly

...Democrats.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I cannot find anything that doesn't boil down to salvation by grace, either.


Nor can I find anything that doesn't come down to the claim that Christianity is universal truth for all times, all places, all peoples (and on this point, the "truth" is false).


Nor can I find anything that contradicts a mature understanding of the Bible as a fully true a ...[text shortened]... as different gods, but as G-d employed as subject and object in a grammatical sense.

Well, it seems like you decided you wanted to make a point and make it regardless of what I was saying.

I brought up Jesus' teachings on righteousness because it seemed likely that that was what lead you away from "conservative Christianity". Then you asked if I was "suggesting that righteousness was the only subject Jesus addressed." I said that that wasn't my intent. I also mentioned that nothing immediately came to mind, but that that didn't mean anything. For you to construe this as a "broad claim that subsume[s] all of the teachings of Jesus" is a real reach.

I cannot find anything that doesn't boil down to salvation by grace, either.

It's easy to find teachings of Jesus that don't boil down to "salvation by grace" as I understand it. What's difficult is to find anything that specifically and explicitly supports it. The entire concept flies in the face of all the teaching Jesus did on righteousness. I suggest you consider how the concept of "salvation by grace" allows "conservative Christianity" to all but ignore Jesus's teachings on righteousness. If they believed in "salvation by righteousness" as Jesus taught this would not be the case.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
For whatever reason many seem to equate "what Christ taught" with whatever "Christianity" they observe and indiscriminately exchange the two which is what whodey seemed to be doing when he said the following:

"Now as far as a lack of truth regarding what Christ taught, I have no idea what you are referring to."

From what I can tell, you don't at all ...[text shortened]... that doesn't mean that there isn't. Did you have any particular passages in mind?

That wasn't my intent, but off the top of my head nothing comes to mind that doesn't boil down to defining righteousness, the importance of righteousness, how to become righteous, etc., but that doesn't mean that there isn't. Did you have any particular passages in mind?
---------------------ToOne-------------------------------------

Do you not realise that Jesus saw his death on the cross as the defining moment of his ministry? He talked about himself as if he was the atoning Lamb of God , cleansing from sin. He also talked about forgiveness just as much as righteousness.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, it seems like you decided you wanted to make a point and make it regardless of what I was saying.

I brought up Jesus' teachings on righteousness because it seemed likely that that was what lead you away from "conservative Christianity". Then you asked if I was "suggesting that righteousness was the only subject Jesus addressed." I said that that n "salvation by righteousness" as Jesus taught this would not be the case.

What's difficult is to find anything that specifically and explicitly supports it.
-------------------TOne------------------------

What tosh! Jesus explicitly says that the thief on the cross is saved by virtue of his faith in him. It's implied in his discussion with the thief. Surely you don't think that the thief was saved by virute of his righteousness?

In any case , ALL salvation IS by grace either directly or indirectly. We cannot "attain" eternal life unless it is given to us. We are not eternal. He is. Unless He gives life to us via an act of grace how can we "get" it. We can't even create ourselves or control our ageing process , how can we become eternal on our own without grace?

We can work at it and work with God but the process is always initiated by God. Any compassion or goodness that forms within us does so because it springs from God as it's source. Sure enough we play our part and make choices to live this way or that , but those choices wouod not even come our way if it were not for grace. Infact , we wouldn't even exist without grace.

If we think our righteousness belongs solely to us then we are fools. It's God who puts his righteousness in us (with our participation). We may look down on others who are "less righteous" (supposedly) and wonder why God may grant an unrighteous thief salvation , but if we judge like this we have not understood that utlimately our own righteousness does not really "belong" to us. We have borrowed it from God.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, it seems like you decided you wanted to make a point and make it regardless of what I was saying.

I brought up Jesus' teachings on righteousness because it seemed likely that that was what lead you away from "conservative Christianity". Then you asked if I was "suggesting that righteousness was the only subject Jesus addressed." I said that that ...[text shortened]... n "salvation by righteousness" as Jesus taught this would not be the case.

Do you think "conservative Christianity" or "liberal Christianity" are
real reflections of true Christianity?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you think "conservative Christianity" or "liberal Christianity" are
real reflections of true Christianity?
Kelly

Can you define your terms?