Time: "I want my Christianity back!"

a reply to: adjensen

A conservative you say?

Wasn't he supposedly sent to change things?

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Wasn't he supposedly sent to change things?

He didn't change the Law.

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:2-11 NIV)

"Liberal hippy Jesus" would have said "Go now and do whatever the hell you want," but I don't see that in the passage, do you?

originally posted by: adjensen
"Liberal hippy Jesus" would have said "Go now and do whatever the hell you want,"

Ah! This is what you know about "liberal hippies"!

a reply to: adjensen

Yet prevented her from being stoned.
A "conservative" of the time would have wanted to keep the old ways.

con·serv·a·tive
kənˈsərvətiv/Submit
adjective
1.
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

See?

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

You need to re-read that passage. He never said that she shouldn't be stoned. He never said that she wasn't guilty. And he never said that she could just go back to sinning.

He didn't change the Law.

I don't think this guy ever had his own Christianity, only what was passed down to him by other men. Christianity has been corrupt from the start so I'm not sure what this guy is trying to "save" exactly, unless it's an institution that has held man back for the past 2,000 years. If that's it, why would you want to save that?

a reply to: adjensen

Then you forget the tenets of your own religion.
You guys claim we're all sinners.

So, in effect, he was saying do not stone her.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

You're completely missing the point in your misguided attempt to claim that Jesus was some liberal hippie who didn't think that people needed to live by the moral guidelines of the Law. Whether or not he thought that stoning was a fitting punishment for adultery, he never said adultery was okay.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20 NIV)

a reply to: adjensen

When did I ever say he was a liberal hippy?
Not that I don't find your use of these terms absolutely hilarious.
And completely misguided in the sense of a mind wedded to a foolish false dichotomy.

He wasn't a "conservative" though either.

I think you need to analyze your attachment to these terms.
Might help you see how silly you look.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Here's an interesting book I read once.

Paul The Mythmaker
www.amazon.com...

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

He wasn't a "conservative" though either.

By your own definition, a "conservative" wants to resist change and preserve tradition. By the Biblical record, Jesus did not change the Law and insisted that it would remain. I see nothing in either your definition or the Biblical record to indicate that he was not morally conservative.

As I said earlier, Christianity is socially liberal and morally conservative, and is not well represented by either political party in the United States. People, like the guy in the article, wanting to believe something else doesn't make it so.

a reply to: adjensen

You mean by Webster's definition.

And, regardless, the guy in the article is saying what I am pretty sure is right.
Christ would be *if he actually existed* against legislating Christian mortality andģor forcing and expecting others to live by it.
You know that whole judge not thing.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

And, regardless, the guy in the article is saying what I am pretty sure is right.
Christ would be *if he actually existed* against legislating Christian mortality andģor forcing and expecting others to live by it.

Neither you, nor the guy in the article, has any way of knowing that, so it's a matter of wishful thinking. If we pick up the Jesus of the Bible and drop him into modernity, it makes no sense to think that he would suddenly transform into a moral liberal, just because society has become morally depraved.

You know that whole judge not thing.

Jesus was actually a pretty judgmental person, and rightly so.

a reply to: adjensen

You intentionally misunderstand I think.
I was talking about his claimed call for Christians NOT to judge.

As you're misjudging the author, he's calling for you people to stop being judgmental, at times downright hateful, and controlling gits.
Because as your Jesus supposedly said it's not YOUR place.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I was talking about his claimed call for Christians NOT to judge.

It is a common misconception or misrepresentation that Christians are not supposed to judge others. The Bible is full of passages that say that we ARE to judge people and their actions, and let them know when they are in the wrong. When Christ talks about not judging, he's talking about not condemning, because that's not our place, as well as making sure that we judge correctly.

Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly. (John 7:24 NIV)

Paul says that we are absolutely to judge other Christians, and when they refuse correction, to avoid associating with them.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13 NIV)

Of course we are to judge. How else are we to differentiate right from wrong and correct others when they err?

a reply to: adjensen

Yet another passage from Paul which makes me dislike his writing...

Do not even eat with them?

That's rather disgusting to be honest... This is one of the reasons Christians feel they're better then other people...

blame Paul for Christianity's shortcomings

a reply to: Akragon

Do not even eat with them?

That's rather disgusting to be honest... This is one of the reasons Christians feel they're better then other people...

It's an early version of "tough love", which has been shown to be an effective method of getting people to change their ways. Paul taught that if someone refused correction, refused to give up lying, stealing, adultery, or whatever, they should be kicked out of the community but welcomed back with open arms if and when they repented.

I see nothing wrong with that. If you had a brother who was drinking himself to death, would you say "rock on!" or would you do everything you could to get him to stop, even if that meant letting him hit rock bottom?

a reply to: adjensen

I can see what you're saying... but I still do not agree with the methodology in use...

IF I saw my brother drinking himself to death... No I would not say rock on buddy...

BUT...

Kicking my brother out of the house or community only forces him into the hands of people who accept him as he is...

Which means he will hang with the people who drink with him, and start to resent me for giving him the boot

bloody Paul *shakes his fist*

Jesus said resist not evil... Drank and ate with sinners of all kinds... and Certainly did not go around booting people out of the party that would not listen...

We don't give up on those who will not listen... though Paul likely did

a reply to: Akragon

I think that Paul saw Christians acting in an abhorrent manner, because they thought they were "good" because they believed (reference our other thread on Sola fide) and he realized that they needed radical correction.

Remember, Paul wrote the letter to the Corinthians because of divisiveness in the church, and the appalling instance of a church member who was having sex with his father's wife, with the church leaving him as a member of good standing.