Religion – "If Jesus were alive, he wouldn't necessarily be voting Republican," seminar student Tyler Braun said. "Christians are having trouble getting behind everything the Republicans stand for," said Michael Dudley. 15% of white evangelicals, 18-29, no longer identify with the GOP. Older evangelicals are also questioning their traditio
FTA- "I just keep thinking, if Jesus were alive now, he wouldn't necessarily be voting Republican," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~
I said in another thread that Jesus Christ would NEVER be willing to support the Platform of the Republican Party.....HATE. Hate toward..... immigrants (legal or otherwise), homosexuals (wasn't Mary Magdalene a prostitute? Didn't he help leper? Didn't he work for the 'worst of the worst'?)
And I just find it SOOOO ironic that the Republican seem to feel, act and SUGGEST that they are 'standing for GOD's work' when their very position of hate and intolerance COMPLETELY contradicts the LIFE that Jesus lived.
If Republican's ACTUALLY answered the question "What would Jesus do?" their WHOLE platform would be reduced to dust.
Isn't this backward? It should be "Who is on Jesus side". He isn't republican or democrat. As for the candidates, if these are the best, we aren't doing very well.
I agree, Jesus wouldn't be a Republican. My one nitpick is that Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute :P That's just a myth from when the Catholic Church declared her one, then changed its mind.
"My one nitpick is that Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute :P That's just a myth from when the Catholic Church declared her one, then changed its mind. "
It's still debated among theologians.
I agree, however a lot of people BELIEVE that myth to be true and I used it to out a 'face' on the position that were Jesus here today he WOULD be surrounded by gays, and homeless, and prostitutes, and drug dealers.
Jesus would be surrounded by gays prostitutes and drug dealers?
Have you read Leviticus?
"Jesus would be surrounded by gays prostitutes and drug dealers?
Have you read Leviticus?"
Bang. There goes your credibility. Leviticus predates Christ. Christ was regularly in the presence of the marginalized including prostitutes (woman at the well). If you've read the Bible, in particular the NT with an eye towards historical context, you'd know this.
Excepting the Fact that Jesus said he was not here to change the OT laws. That we were to still follow them.
(I have read the Bible. Cover to cover 3 times. Plan to do so again this fall. Even Books like Numbers that most people think drag on.)
"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." Gal 2:15-16, NIV
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(Where in this can be read you can hate gays???)
Mary was of the house of David, she was royalty. Not a theory, absolute fact. The thought that she would be a prostitute is mildly amusing considering her position in society.
She was demonized just because she was a woman, sort of reminds me of how our media has jumped on Obama boat, and are now throwing stones at Clinton.
Clinton was the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party at the outset, and it was her poor choices for campaign leaders, underestimation of the potential and expertise of Obama and his campaign mangers, penchant for employing dirty tricks when realization and desperation set in, and her attitude of brushing it aside when she used her Bosnia trip to give validity to her level of experience, only to be caught in a lie.
She played into the hysteria over Rev, Wright's 30 second sound bites, but cried foul when Obama made a valid criticism of her health care plan. People became turned off and tuned out to her antics. At one point, I would not have been upset if she were to be the nominee; now, I would hurt me to my heart! She's not worthy.
Is her Bosnia trip fiasco any worse than Baracks 57 state comment?
Wouldn't know, haven't heard it, and I would definitely check to verify it, so if you care to share it, also provide the proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7eBTFSv7nE&feat...
I believe that he meant to say 47 and that it was a slip of the tongue. However, seeing how the media (and myself) trashed Clinton for her Bosnia remarks, seeing as how ther media and the left have trashed McCains "100 years" remark, and remembering how Dan Quayle was all but crucified for spelling potato "potatoe" (even though it is a correct spelling) I figure that we should not give Barry a pass.
raats6662
The problem is not what the Republican stand for but what the liberals say the Republicans stand for. Your post says it. You say hate but that is not reality but only your view of it.
Conservatives that are Christians will view homosexuality through the Bible. God calls the actions an abomination. We are to love the person but hate the sin. Therefore you twist it into just hate.
Again the view of people breaking the law and being in the US illegally is wrong. They should conform to the law and leave. Again you twist this into hatred for illegal and legal immigrants.
Your hatred of conservative and family values is the problem. No constructive exchange of ideas just vitriol.
Since God created everything, that means he created good and evil, Adam and Eve and Adam and Steve. Everything means everything.
"Again the view of people breaking the law and being in the US illegally is wrong. They should conform to the law and leave. Again you twist this into hatred for illegal and legal immigrants. "
Seeing as how there are a great deal of Catholic priests that don't see it this way, I think I'll tend to honor their view of what Christ would do over that of the Repugnant Con supporters who go out into the deserts of Texas with guns and beer.
"Your hatred of conservative and family values is the problem."
Hatred is not a family value. Neither is spewing hatred or discrimination against a group of people, especially the marginalized. Here is everything Jesus said against homosexuality: "."
"Conservatives that are Christians will view homosexuality through the Bible. God calls the actions an abomination. We are to love the person but hate the sin."
Leviticus, a set of Law Code as laid out by the Priestly writers, calls the actions an abomination. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
You will notice that the same people who use this to justify an anti-homosexual stance almost never follow any other portions of Leviticus (such as planting two seeds in one plot, wearing cloth of two kinds of 'threads', cutting their hair). It's hypocracy to rant and rave about one thing and completely ignore the rest.
If conservatives took the example of Christ as guide rather than the OT, Jewish Law Codes as guide they might find themselves to actually be Christians. Then again they'd have to give up their gospel of greed (also against the word and examples of Christ and early Christians) along with their gospels of hatred and warfare (again against the example and words of Christ and the early Christians).
You say it's hypocracy to rant and rave about things such as homosexuality while ignoing such things as planting seeds and wearing two seperate materials, but I tell you that it is your ignorance of the Bible that makes you feel that way.
What is the punishment for homosexuality according to Leviticus?
What is the punishment for wearing two separate fabrics?
If you knew these answers, you would understand why your argument is an ignorant one.
It depends on if you're depending on Lev 18 or 20 for your death sentence and your reading of the text. If 20, then you have to apply the same to anyone who insults their father/mother (Leviticus 20:9:"If anyone insults his father or his mother, he shall be put to death, he has insulted his father and his mother -- his bloodguilt is upon him" JPS Pentateuch).
However according to Leviticus 20:13 there is no punishment for homosexuality. There is only punishment according to Leviticus for a single act of homosexuals, a particular form (if you look at the original Hebrew you will understand -- I can't post specifics without them being starred out) of a particular act of homosexuality.
Being homosexual and engaging in homosexual acts besides that specific one mentioned in Leviticus 20:13 is absolutely fine.
So to answer your first question: the punishment for homosexuality according to Leviticus is nonexistant.
Just to point out some other interesting Leviticus facts:
Lev 18:19 requires the same penalty for men who have relations with their wives during their period as for men who have relations with men. Lev 18:20 requires the same penalty for men who have relations with their neighbour's wife.
Et Cetera.
When you ridiculous people start calling down the same penalties and rabid hatred for people who commit those same violations of the purity codes maybe you'll get someone to listen to your hate-filled words regarding homosexuality. Which thankfully isn't against the Bible's teachings. Nor Christ's.
Here is the fatal flaws in your argument. Leviticus 18 gives a list of the Lords commandments to the Jews and at the end of the list, gives the punishment for all of the crimes given in Leviticus 18.
The punishment: "For whosoever commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
This covers crimes such as lying with an adulterer, incest, sex during the 'period', taking the Lords name for profane reasons and lying with animals. It does not say the punishment is death as it does with homosexuality.
.
Also, you failed to answer my question so I will do so for you.
Leviticus 20:13 says that if a man were to lie with a man as he does a woman than they have both commited an abomination and they surely must be put to death. Combined with the fact that Leviticus also states that GOd said these punishments also apply to those who have commited the crimes in their soul, I would say you are again incorrect.
Furthermore, wearing two fabics does not carry a punishment. It just means that you are temporarily unclean.
Rating: 0 ( 0/-0) | 2008-05-12 23:51:06 Shadowolf Send Message
(Matthew 22:...)
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(Where in this can be read you can hate gays???)
(Or,for that matter...anybody else???)
For Christians, the new testament is what is relevant.
God's word is the new testament in the actions of Jesus-- The WORD (God's word) was made flesh. Jesus preached tolerance and acted with tolerance. That is the word of God.
The old hellfire and brimstone in the Old Testament is not relevant, except as historical curiosity. Why do you think Jesus came anyway? To refute what was in the Old Testament.
"Here is everything Jesus said against homosexuality:"
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17
The Law called for the execution of homosexuals.
To fulfill, not enforce. It's not meant as a literal interpretation, anyhow. It was written in a high context society for a reason.
If you're going to enforce the OT and the "Law of the Prophets" to the letter then you need to enforce ALL of Leviticus and the other law codes as strongly. Last time I checked, nutjob literalist evangelicals weren't calling for people to stop wearing cloth of two weaves, or for store-owners to remove grass seed packages that contain two kinds of seeds.
Christ also transitioned purity laws from the purity of external purity codes to one of internal purity. (It is not what goes into one's mouth but what comes out...)
Falling back on Matthew 5:17 to justify your hatred and fear of homosexuals is pathetic. Christ always, without fail embraced the marginalized, rather than engaging in marginalization. Try following his example.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
CrawfordBizDev
MaryLynn_
shawnmartinez1960
maneetion
pyuuuke
elliotthicks1965
2jojoyo
romeohoover1968
harleyb761960
blico
leeharris1969
darwinm701977
rylandl831968
yarrkz24
Topiclounge310
obiefrommuskogee
vinatamayo
ind06
daviant701973
tkyrchncs
Helixbuilder
supercynic
CHAM
Georgia-Giatras
micksmeles
whodey08
aust
schristoforides
postaphis
Pretko
CRYMTYPHON
jeepndave
thinkingserious
stephy304
Radiofreeeuropa
picvegita
cosmogenium
lolip
nickjones321
van_victor
Tessylo
alamala
TechnologyExpert
lins_lis
mntnman444
dadesider
jonisiolanas
saltyveruca
wonkydonkey
sarmatt
292)
Interesting article thanks for the submission.