If Jesus Christ had lived today...

[J. J.]

True, but he was of a specific tribe and that tribe wasn't/isn't black or arab.  Granted that's less important than his Jewishness.

It may very well be Black or Arab today.

[JSojourner]

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

This seems to be the most accurate post on the thread.

Right, because they are always crucifying people claiming to be Jesus.  I dislike the Fundie right as much as anybody, but this kind of thing just makes you guys look like fools.

No, not at all.  They "crucify" people on a regular basis for preaching love, mercy, peace, compassion and inclusion. 

Think about this.

Jesus was all about reconciliation.  He brought a small businessman and a tax collector into his inner circle.  Now, the small businessman was Peter -- a fiery fisherman with a blazing temper.  Matthew was a tax collector.  And unlike today's tax collector, who is collecting filthy lucre for OUR government...Matthew was collecting taxes for Rome.  He was a Quisling.  He was kissing the ass of the occupying power, collecting taxes from his own people (almost certainly cheating them in the process) and then handing the cash over to the Romans (but likely taking a healthy cut for himself).

Jesus goes to Matthew's house for dinner.  In addition to the whores and outcasts in attendance, there are Matthew and his traitor-to-Israel buddies.  Sitting and dining with Jesus.  In Zeffirelli's wonderful Jesus of Nazareth, the scene is imagined this way:  Peter sulks outside Matthew's door.  Peter likes this Jesus.  He wants to follow him.  But Jesus has gone too far.  Now, he's sitting with the kind of Jew who would collect taxes for the Nazis.  He won't come in.  He begged Jesus not to go.  He warned him that he was taking things too far.

But sitting in Matthew's luxurious parlor, Jesus says, "I want to tell you a story..."  And he speaks of the prodigal son.  I don't know if it unfolded exactly as Zeffirelli imagined, but it hardly matters.

People who forgive the sins of collaborators (to say nothing of embracing those who sin differently than the majority) usually end up on a cross.  Either literally or figuratively.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

This seems to be the most accurate post on the thread.

Right, because they are always crucifying people claiming to be Jesus.  I dislike the Fundie right as much as anybody, but this kind of thing just makes you guys look like fools.

No, not at all.  They "crucify" people on a regular basis for preaching love, mercy, peace, compassion and inclusion. 

Think about this.

Jesus was all about reconciliation.  He brought a small businessman and a tax collector into his inner circle.  Now, the small businessman was Peter -- a fiery fisherman with a blazing temper.  Matthew was a tax collector.  And unlike today's tax collector, who is collecting filthy lucre for OUR government...Matthew was collecting taxes for Rome.  He was a Quisling.  He was kissing the ass of the occupying power, collecting taxes from his own people (almost certainly cheating them in the process) and then handing the cash over to the Romans (but likely taking a healthy cut for himself).

Jesus goes to Matthew's house for dinner.  In addition to the whores and outcasts in attendance, there are Matthew and his traitor-to-Israel buddies.  Sitting and dining with Jesus.  In Zeffirelli's wonderful Jesus of Nazareth, the scene is imagined this way:  Peter sulks outside Matthew's door.  Peter likes this Jesus.  He wants to follow him.  But Jesus has gone too far.  Now, he's sitting with the kind of Jew who would collect taxes for the Nazis.  He won't come in.  He begged Jesus not to go.  He warned him that he was taking things too far.

But sitting in Matthew's luxurious parlor, Jesus says, "I want to tell you a story..."  And he speaks of the prodigal son.  I don't know if it unfolded exactly as Zeffirelli imagined, but it hardly matters.

People who forgive the sins of collaborators (to say nothing of embracing those who sin differently than the majority) usually end up on a cross.  Either literally or figuratively.

and that was supposed to be a critique of the religious right?!

1) the tax collectors had to repent of their sins like everyone else, but they were NOT violating scripture by being tax-collectors, which is why Jesus never required them to repent of their occupation. 

Luke 3:12-13  Even tax collectors came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?" 13 "Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told them.

2) to the "whores", as you put it, they were obviously taught to repent of their prostitution, which is why they received forgiveness.

3) the story of the prodigal son is a story of repentance followed by forgiveness.

You can't remove repentance from forgiveness.  You may think you can, but you can't.

[dead0man]

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

This seems to be the most accurate post on the thread.

Right, because they are always crucifying people claiming to be Jesus.  I dislike the Fundie right as much as anybody, but this kind of thing just makes you guys look like fools.

No, not at all.  They "crucify" people on a regular basis for preaching love, mercy, peace, compassion and inclusion. 

Think about this.

Jesus was all about reconciliation.  He brought a small businessman and a tax collector into his inner circle.  Now, the small businessman was Peter -- a fiery fisherman with a blazing temper.  Matthew was a tax collector.  And unlike today's tax collector, who is collecting filthy lucre for OUR government...Matthew was collecting taxes for Rome.  He was a Quisling.  He was kissing the ass of the occupying power, collecting taxes from his own people (almost certainly cheating them in the process) and then handing the cash over to the Romans (but likely taking a healthy cut for himself).

Jesus goes to Matthew's house for dinner.  In addition to the whores and outcasts in attendance, there are Matthew and his traitor-to-Israel buddies.  Sitting and dining with Jesus.  In Zeffirelli's wonderful Jesus of Nazareth, the scene is imagined this way:  Peter sulks outside Matthew's door.  Peter likes this Jesus.  He wants to follow him.  But Jesus has gone too far.  Now, he's sitting with the kind of Jew who would collect taxes for the Nazis.  He won't come in.  He begged Jesus not to go.  He warned him that he was taking things too far.

But sitting in Matthew's luxurious parlor, Jesus says, "I want to tell you a story..."  And he speaks of the prodigal son.  I don't know if it unfolded exactly as Zeffirelli imagined, but it hardly matters.

People who forgive the sins of collaborators (to say nothing of embracing those who sin differently than the majority) usually end up on a cross.  Either literally or figuratively.

If you meant "crucify" originally you should of put the quotes in.  I'm a little slow sometimes you see.  I agree that Christianity, as it's generally practiced today, is pretty far from the way Jesus would like it to be.  I'm not as sure as you that the majority would criticize the guy today, but I agree, an uncomfortable number of them would.

[JSojourner]

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

This seems to be the most accurate post on the thread.

Right, because they are always crucifying people claiming to be Jesus.  I dislike the Fundie right as much as anybody, but this kind of thing just makes you guys look like fools.

No, not at all.  They "crucify" people on a regular basis for preaching love, mercy, peace, compassion and inclusion. 

Think about this.

Jesus was all about reconciliation.  He brought a small businessman and a tax collector into his inner circle.  Now, the small businessman was Peter -- a fiery fisherman with a blazing temper.  Matthew was a tax collector.  And unlike today's tax collector, who is collecting filthy lucre for OUR government...Matthew was collecting taxes for Rome.  He was a Quisling.  He was kissing the ass of the occupying power, collecting taxes from his own people (almost certainly cheating them in the process) and then handing the cash over to the Romans (but likely taking a healthy cut for himself).

Jesus goes to Matthew's house for dinner.  In addition to the whores and outcasts in attendance, there are Matthew and his traitor-to-Israel buddies.  Sitting and dining with Jesus.  In Zeffirelli's wonderful Jesus of Nazareth, the scene is imagined this way:  Peter sulks outside Matthew's door.  Peter likes this Jesus.  He wants to follow him.  But Jesus has gone too far.  Now, he's sitting with the kind of Jew who would collect taxes for the Nazis.  He won't come in.  He begged Jesus not to go.  He warned him that he was taking things too far.

But sitting in Matthew's luxurious parlor, Jesus says, "I want to tell you a story..."  And he speaks of the prodigal son.  I don't know if it unfolded exactly as Zeffirelli imagined, but it hardly matters.

People who forgive the sins of collaborators (to say nothing of embracing those who sin differently than the majority) usually end up on a cross.  Either literally or figuratively.

and that was supposed to be a critique of the religious right?!

1) the tax collectors had to repent of their sins like everyone else, but they were NOT violating scripture by being tax-collectors, which is why Jesus never required them to repent of their occupation. 

Luke 3:12-13  Even tax collectors came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?" 13 "Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told them.

2) to the "whores", as you put it, they were obviously taught to repent of their prostitution, which is why they received forgiveness.

3) the story of the prodigal son is a story of repentance followed by forgiveness.

You can't remove repentance from forgiveness.  You may think you can, but you can't.

Once again, you've made another ludicrous leap.  Do you get so angry when you read my posts that you just respond without thinking?  I never said repentance wasn't part of the equation. I never said tax collectors were condemned by Scripture for anything (aside from those who cheated).

I was attempting to make the point that Jesus was an agent of reconciliation between extreme opposites whose interests were diametrically opposed.  Peter, essentially a small businessman...and Matthew, a collaborator with Rome.  Jesus never said it was a sin to collaborate with Roman oppression.  I get that.  He was more interested in the chasm of separation between Matthew's soul and the Father who tenderly loved that soul and was "not willing that any should perish". 

Peter almost certainly hated Matthew.  You do realize that people who are occupied by a foreign power, especially an oppressive one like Rome, are pretty likely to hate their fellow countrymen when such people help the occupiers.  You know what a Quisling is?  Matthew was one.  Any Israeli who collected taxes for Rome was a collaborator.  Was it a sin?  Jesus never said so.  Peter almost surely thought so.  And yet the Savior brought these two men together in forgiveness, reconciliation and brotherhood.

I am not sure how or where you convoluted my post in such a manner as to accuse me of taking repentance out of the equation, but I guess I am not surprised given the dislike you seem to have for me or anyone else here who might disagree with you on various issues.

[King]

This thread is becoming way too serious.

[??????????]

This thread is becoming way too serious.

The internet is very serious business.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

This seems to be the most accurate post on the thread.

Right, because they are always crucifying people claiming to be Jesus.  I dislike the Fundie right as much as anybody, but this kind of thing just makes you guys look like fools.

No, not at all.  They "crucify" people on a regular basis for preaching love, mercy, peace, compassion and inclusion. 

Think about this.

Jesus was all about reconciliation.  He brought a small businessman and a tax collector into his inner circle.  Now, the small businessman was Peter -- a fiery fisherman with a blazing temper.  Matthew was a tax collector.  And unlike today's tax collector, who is collecting filthy lucre for OUR government...Matthew was collecting taxes for Rome.  He was a Quisling.  He was kissing the ass of the occupying power, collecting taxes from his own people (almost certainly cheating them in the process) and then handing the cash over to the Romans (but likely taking a healthy cut for himself).

Jesus goes to Matthew's house for dinner.  In addition to the whores and outcasts in attendance, there are Matthew and his traitor-to-Israel buddies.  Sitting and dining with Jesus.  In Zeffirelli's wonderful Jesus of Nazareth, the scene is imagined this way:  Peter sulks outside Matthew's door.  Peter likes this Jesus.  He wants to follow him.  But Jesus has gone too far.  Now, he's sitting with the kind of Jew who would collect taxes for the Nazis.  He won't come in.  He begged Jesus not to go.  He warned him that he was taking things too far.

But sitting in Matthew's luxurious parlor, Jesus says, "I want to tell you a story..."  And he speaks of the prodigal son.  I don't know if it unfolded exactly as Zeffirelli imagined, but it hardly matters.

People who forgive the sins of collaborators (to say nothing of embracing those who sin differently than the majority) usually end up on a cross.  Either literally or figuratively.

and that was supposed to be a critique of the religious right?!

1) the tax collectors had to repent of their sins like everyone else, but they were NOT violating scripture by being tax-collectors, which is why Jesus never required them to repent of their occupation. 

Luke 3:12-13  Even tax collectors came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?" 13 "Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told them.

2) to the "whores", as you put it, they were obviously taught to repent of their prostitution, which is why they received forgiveness.

3) the story of the prodigal son is a story of repentance followed by forgiveness.

You can't remove repentance from forgiveness.  You may think you can, but you can't.

Once again, you've made another ludicrous leap.  Do you get so angry when you read my posts that you just respond without thinking?  I never said repentance wasn't part of the equation. I never said tax collectors were condemned by Scripture for anything (aside from those who cheated).

I was attempting to make the point that Jesus was an agent of reconciliation between extreme opposites whose interests were diametrically opposed.  Peter, essentially a small businessman...and Matthew, a collaborator with Rome.  Jesus never said it was a sin to collaborate with Roman oppression.  I get that.  He was more interested in the chasm of separation between Matthew's soul and the Father who tenderly loved that soul and was "not willing that any should perish". 

Peter almost certainly hated Matthew.  You do realize that people who are occupied by a foreign power, especially an oppressive one like Rome, are pretty likely to hate their fellow countrymen when such people help the occupiers.  You know what a Quisling is?  Matthew was one.  Any Israeli who collected taxes for Rome was a collaborator.  Was it a sin?  Jesus never said so.  Peter almost surely thought so.  And yet the Savior brought these two men together in forgiveness, reconciliation and brotherhood.

I am not sure how or where you convoluted my post in such a manner as to accuse me of taking repentance out of the equation, but I guess I am not surprised given the dislike you seem to have for me or anyone else here who might disagree with you on various issues.

hey, don't blame me bro, I was simply trying to find a connection between the examples you gave and your out-of-the-blue accusations against the religious right.

maybe you should explain your accusation with examples of the actions of the religious right.  Or at least explain how the actions of the religious right run contrary to the example Jesus set.  otherwise, you're simply throwing labels around, which is exactly what the Pharisees did.

Likewise, I have no idea where you get off accusing Peter of hating Matthew, for the scripture never even hints of Peter hating him.  In fact, the only time Matthew and Peter are mentioned in the same sentence is when scripture is listing the names of the Twelve.

Why do you constantly paint images in your mind of people hating other people?  Do you not know, that in doing so, you are smearing them?

[JSojourner]

Again, I didn't said Peter hated Matthew.  I extrapolated.  Matthew was a tax collector for Rome, but an Israeli.  Rome had occupied Israel.  Israelis hated Rome and Romans.  But they particularly hated Jews who collaborated with Rome.  Jewish opinions of Herod, for example, are well-documented historically. 

Can we be 100 percent sure fisherman Peter hated Matthew?  No.  But I never called it a certainty.  I said it was easily imagined that way.  As a small businessman who paid taxes, I suppose it's possible that Peter loved tax collectors like Matthew.  Is that easily imagined?  Is it logical?  Not at all. It's more plausable  that he simply tolerated Matthew and his ilk, but bore them no malice.  I am sure a handful of Poles liked the occupying Nazis and a few more tolerated them and had no feeling one way or the other.

But isn't it more logical to infer that a Jewish fisherman with a fiery temper (if both Biblical and extra-Biblical accounts are to be believed) resented paying taxes and resented, even more, the thought of paying taxes to Matthew (or Levi, if you prefer), a collaborator?

Which is more likely?

I do realize many scholars, more theologically liberal than me, don't believe anyone named Matthew or Levi ever wrote the Gospel.  Some of them attribute it to St. Mark. But it's my conviction the Gospel of Matthew was written by Levi the tax collector, whose life was changed forever when a raggedy carpenter named Jesus bar Joseph invited himself over for dinner.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Again, I didn't said Peter hated Matthew.  I extrapolated.  Matthew was a tax collector for Rome, but an Israeli.  Rome had occupied Israel.  Israelis hated Rome and Romans.  But they particularly hated Jews who collaborated with Rome.  Jewish opinions of Herod, for example, are well-documented historically. 

Can we be 100 percent sure fisherman Peter hated Matthew?  No.  But I never called it a certainty.  I said it was easily imagined that way.  As a small businessman who paid taxes, I suppose it's possible that Peter loved tax collectors like Matthew.  Is that easily imagined?  Is it logical?  Not at all. It's more plausable  that he simply tolerated Matthew and his ilk, but bore them no malice.  I am sure a handful of Poles liked the occupying Nazis and a few more tolerated them and had no feeling one way or the other.

But isn't it more logical to infer that a Jewish fisherman with a fiery temper (if both Biblical and extra-Biblical accounts are to be believed) resented paying taxes and resented, even more, the thought of paying taxes to Matthew (or Levi, if you prefer), a collaborator?

Which is more likely?

I do realize many scholars, more theologically liberal than me, don't believe anyone named Matthew or Levi ever wrote the Gospel.  Some of them attribute it to St. Mark. But it's my conviction the Gospel of Matthew was written by Levi the tax collector, whose life was changed forever when a raggedy carpenter named Jesus bar Joseph invited himself over for dinner.

"Now, eventually you do plan to have Religious Righties on your Religious Right Tour, right?"

[JSojourner]

Again, I didn't said Peter hated Matthew.  I extrapolated.  Matthew was a tax collector for Rome, but an Israeli.  Rome had occupied Israel.  Israelis hated Rome and Romans.  But they particularly hated Jews who collaborated with Rome.  Jewish opinions of Herod, for example, are well-documented historically. 

Can we be 100 percent sure fisherman Peter hated Matthew?  No.  But I never called it a certainty.  I said it was easily imagined that way.  As a small businessman who paid taxes, I suppose it's possible that Peter loved tax collectors like Matthew.  Is that easily imagined?  Is it logical?  Not at all. It's more plausable  that he simply tolerated Matthew and his ilk, but bore them no malice.  I am sure a handful of Poles liked the occupying Nazis and a few more tolerated them and had no feeling one way or the other.

But isn't it more logical to infer that a Jewish fisherman with a fiery temper (if both Biblical and extra-Biblical accounts are to be believed) resented paying taxes and resented, even more, the thought of paying taxes to Matthew (or Levi, if you prefer), a collaborator?

Which is more likely?

I do realize many scholars, more theologically liberal than me, don't believe anyone named Matthew or Levi ever wrote the Gospel.  Some of them attribute it to St. Mark. But it's my conviction the Gospel of Matthew was written by Levi the tax collector, whose life was changed forever when a raggedy carpenter named Jesus bar Joseph invited himself over for dinner.

"Now, eventually you do plan to have Religious Righties on your Religious Right Tour, right?"

And this means.... 

[JohnFKennedy]

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

Oh yes, Christ would be terribly "un-Christian", I'm sure

After all, He might support absurd things like gay marriage, or welfare! Imagine that!

Jesus would not support either of those things, hate the sin love the sinner.  He didn't tell Mary Magdeline to keep whorin herself out, he told her "straighten out ho"

I disagree that 'sin' and 'sinner' are so easily separated as you seem to think they are but even from your perspective, how is that applicable to welfare? Is poverty suddenly a sin? Last I checked, it was the rich guy who had problems getting into heaven, not the poor guy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

Oh yes, Christ would be terribly "un-Christian", I'm sure

After all, He might support absurd things like gay marriage, or welfare! Imagine that!

Jesus would not support either of those things, hate the sin love the sinner.  He didn't tell Mary Magdeline to keep whorin herself out, he told her "straighten out ho"

I disagree that 'sin' and 'sinner' are so easily separated as you seem to think they are but even from your perspective, how is that applicable to welfare? Is poverty suddenly a sin? Last I checked, it was the rich guy who had problems getting into heaven, not the poor guy.

Yeah, but down built a big needle. A very big needle.

[Boris]

"Now, eventually you do plan to have Religious Righties on your Religious Right Tour, right?"

lmao

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"Now, eventually you do plan to have Religious Righties on your Religious Right Tour, right?"

And this means.... 

it's an alteration of my favorite line from the movie Jurassic Park when Jeff Goldblum was supposed to be on a dinosaur tour but he saw everything but dinosaurs.

and in the context of this thread it means...after making the initial comment of:

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

…you've spent a lot of time either 1) spewing things that are obvious (e.g. Jesus is in the business of reconciliation) or 2) creating biblical fiction (e.g. Peter hated Matthew)...

...but you've never backed up your original comment about the religious right and you’ve failed to bring your disjointed argument full circle, and I getting a little tired of waiting for you to make a point.

You’re like one of those girls who have been dumped on by some guy in her past, and now she is forever emotionally damaged.  You need to place a period at the end of the sentence and get on with your life.

[JSojourner]

"Now, eventually you do plan to have Religious Righties on your Religious Right Tour, right?"

And this means.... 

it's an alteration of my favorite line from the movie Jurassic Park when Jeff Goldblum was supposed to be on a dinosaur tour but he saw everything but dinosaurs.

and in the context of this thread it means...after making the initial comment of:

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

…you've spent a lot of time either 1) spewing things that are obvious (e.g. Jesus is in the business of reconciliation) or 2) creating biblical fiction (e.g. Peter hated Matthew)...

...but you've never backed up your original comment about the religious right and you’ve failed to bring your disjointed argument full circle, and I getting a little tired of waiting for you to make a point.

You’re like one of those girls who have been dumped on by some guy in her past, and now she is forever emotionally damaged.  You need to place a period at the end of the sentence and get on with your life.

Okay Sigmund Freud, let me re-state what I have said ad infinitum over the last two years -- often in response to you.  I am certain you have no interest in or intention of fairly hearing me, but I'll offer this for the benefit of those who might.  

First, you say I spew things that are obvious.  That Jesus was in the business of reconciliation is the most recent example.  I'm delighted you consider this true.  I freely admit to doing a lot of this.  I also spew things like:  "Jesus was true God from true God", that he died for the sins of the world and that he longs to be in a personal relationship with broken humanity.  Oh yeah, and that risen from the dead thing -- I spew that a lot too.  I'll never stop.  It may be "milk" to you.  Hell, it may be simple Christianity 101...and you, being the dean of Evangelical Christians among us are surely far beyond all that simplistic, basic truth.  But not everything posted in this forum is for your benefit or with you in mind.  So take pity on the rest of us spiritual midgets.  Many of us are still dumbstruck and in utter awe of the fact that "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son..."

Second, you say I create Biblical fiction and your example is that I said Peter hated Matthew.  You either don't read what I write or you simply wanted to insult me, rather than offer anything constructive.  Because I did not say Peter hated Matthew.  Anywhere.  I said that conclusion was a logical one, not a certain one.  You have yet to respond to my question to you.  What is more likely?  That Peter loved Matthew?  You don't dispute, I take it, that Peter was a fisherman in Capernaum?  I also suppose that you would not dispute the Biblical and extra-Biblical record that Levi (or Matthew) was a tax collector in Capernaum.  For whom did Matthew collect taxes?  The Egyptians?  He collected taxes for Rome. Is it your contention that Roman occupation of Israel was welcomed by the Jews?  Did they love paying taxes?  Did they merely tolerate it?  Or did they curse, spit and resist Rome any way they could?  I guess it depends on your understanding of history and culture.  There were collaborators with Rome, no doubt.  Matthew was one.  Was Peter?  Maybe.  Or maybe he just didn't care either way.  My only statement was that Zeffirelli -- in a movie of all things -- imagined that Peter and Matthew were sworn enemies.  And that Jesus brought them into reconciliation.  Is this true?  I never said so.  I said it was imagined that way and that it was easily plausible, perhaps even likely.  That's not the same as saying that it was.  I don't expect you to concede this, because it would mean admitting that you misread me and therefore, made a mistake. But I am hoping others reading this thread will see clearly what's going on here.

Third -- my original comment about the religious right stands.  The religious right is mostly an agent of hate and intolerance.  I've proven this (as have a dozen other posters) over and over again.  But let's review.  Who are the principle, driving forces in and behind the religious right?

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family.  He has argued repeatedly that homosexuals are dangerous.  He insists they are a threat to heterosexual married couples and to children.  He has repeated the erroneous information that gay men are prone to be child molesters and are likely to devolve into bestiality.  That is hate.  It is intolerance.  It is pure, unadulterated ignorance.  

Reverend Pat Robertson of The 700 Club and CBN.  His insane ravings are legion.  He has said that Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Episcopalians are possessed by the spirit of Antichrist.  He  insisted, in his books and on his broadcasts, that the Clinton administration attempted to do to Christians what Hitler and the Nazis did to Jews. He suggested that Democrats, liberals and homosexuals were to blame for American persecution of Christianity. Robertson said Orlando, Florida would be punished by God with a hurricane or other natural disaster for Walt Disney World's refusal to admit homosexuals to the park during a so-called "Gay Day" event, organized not by Disney, but by the Gay community. He said feminists practice lesbianism and witchcraft. Robertson said it might be a good thing if someone set off a nuclear bomb at the State Department. He and fellow religious rightist Jerry Falwell both said 9/11 was God's punishment on America for our "tolerance" of homosexuality and liberalism. He believed God punished Ariel Sharon with a stroke. There are more, but I don't want to waste any more bandwidth on one nut case.  Because he's one of many.

John Hagee is another leader of the religious right.  I can't say enough about how proud I am of John McCain for finally disavowing this hatemonger.  He says the author of, and readers of, the Harry Potter books are under the influence of demons, if not demon-possessed. He has said homosexuals are perverts who should be punished for their sins if they do not turn and become heterosexuals. He calls Roman Catholics heretics, mass murderers and the great whore of Babylon. He has said that Muslims wish to murder Christians and Jews.  Not some Muslims. Not a few crazy Muslims.  Muslims. In his 2006 book, Jersualem Countdown, he writes of a nuclear strike incinerating the United States as though it was God's will and a good thing.  Because the U.S. was not sufficiently pro-Israel or anti-gay and anti-liberal. In the same book, this "friend of Israel" says Jews themselves are to blame for the Holocaust.

Gary North, The Chalcedon Institute, the Institute for Christian Economics and other Christian Reconstructionist thinkers are groups are less prominent, but no less influential.  The Christian Reconstructionist movement and train of thought were (and are) a major force in the religious homeschooling movement, the private Christian school movement and represent one wing -- possibly the most powerful wing -- of the Presbyterian Church in America.  North, David Chilton, Greg Bahnsen and others in this movement believe the state bears the responsibility to execute "sodomites", abortive women and people who practice witchcraft. North, specifically, recommends that such people be stoned under the supervision of the county sheriff.  He recommends stoning because it is Biblical, it is inexpensive and it would allow the entire community to participate.  He does, however, suggest that children not be allowed to take part.  Rather, they should simply watch and observe as Mom and Dad stone the queers to death.  North believes this would provide youth with additional incentive to avoid "sin". People like Francis Schaeffer, Franky Schaeffer and D. James Kennedy have been significantly influenced by North and his mentor, the late Rousas Rushdoony.

Televangelist Rod Parsley is another influential voice in the religious right, credited by Kenneth Blackwell and numerous Republican leaders with delivering Ohio for George W. Bush in 2004.  Now, there's nothing wrong with that at all and I credit anyone, religious or not, for attempting to influence and engage the electorate.  But Parsley did so by calling gay and lesbian people "deviant".  He says Christians are obligated to destroy Islam and Muslims.  If not by conversion, then by force of arms. While not a particularly political view, both Parsley and the aforementioned Hagee have also said that people who are disabled or sick are so as a result of personal sin or -- more likely -- a lack of faith.  They teach that someone in a wheelchair can just get up and walk if they "claim victory in Jesus".  If that is not hateful, I don't know what is.

(More in next post)

[JSojourner]

(...continuing from prior post...)

Douglas Coe and The Family are incredibly powerful and influential members of the religious right.  The Family has repeatedly expressed support for and even invited into membership -- some of the world's most heinous dictators.  Among those praised by Coe and his followers are Papa Doc Duvalier, Mobutu Sese Seko (another friend of Pat Robertson), Siad Barre of Somalia and Efrain Rios Montt of Guatemala. The group has praised the activities of The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.  And Coe has routinely praised Adolph Hitler for "taking necessary action" to accomplish his mission. One member of The Family, Senator James DeMint of South Carolina, proposed legislation as a state lawmaker to prohibit gay and lesbian people from holding jobs working with children.

Tim LaHaye, co-author of the horribly written Left Behind series of books holds a number of hateful views.  In his book, The Unhappy Gays, LaHaye asserts that the Old Testament practice of capital punishment for homosexuality was more compassionate and merciful than "tolerance" and "acceptance". His wife, Beverly, is president of Concerned Women for America and host of a popular, daily talk radio broadcast.  She calls lesbians depraved and says they are openly attempting to recruit young girls into lesbianism and young boys into sodomy.  Both have written that a shadowy, Satanic organization known as The Illuminati is engineering world and American affairs. Tim LaHaye has referred to Roman Catholicism as a false cult which practices pagan, demonic rituals. In his Left Behind books, Jesus gleefully throws liberals, homosexuals, college professors, humanists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims and witches into the flames of hell while the "saints" cheer and celebrate.

Do I need to go on?  Do we need to revisit the late Jerry Falwell?  Fred Phelps? Don Wildmon? Randall Terry? Chuck Colson? Marvin Olasky?  Sun Myung Moon?

Oh I know.  They don't really represent the religious right.  You've said that in the past.  But you have never explained who is sending them hundreds of millions -- probably billions -- in donations?  Who is buying their books?  Liberal Jews?  Hindus?  No, the folks in the pews -- like people from my own family.  Like people all over the south and midwest who believe Christianity is best defined and bounded by standards of who and what we hate and fear...as opposed to who and what we love and worship.

Are there Evangelicals who are not hateful?  Absolutely.  Millions of them.  Billy Graham may be the best known.  If there is a more wonderful representative of our faith, I have not encountered one.  If I am the bitter, jilted lover your say I am...I'd be picking apart every Evangelical, every conservative and all but the most liberal Christians.  Yet even a cursory reading of my posts over the years show I have tremendous respect for numerous Christians -- including Evangelicals.  I've started numerous threads praising the missionary work of people like J. Hudson Taylor and Gladys Aylward.  I've repeatedly credited the mercy ministries of George Verwer and The Salvation Army. 

What I have failed to do is blindly accept that the religious right is harmless.  Perhaps you accept this because you share their views.  Fine.  Just admit it and stop pretending to be an unbiased observer.  Perhaps you (and I think this more likely) are uncomfortable with some tenets of the RR, but are comfortable with others.  That's great.  I celebrate your right to believe as you do.  But stop taking what I say out of context and above all -- please don't accuse me of not proving my various points.  I clearly, unimpeachably do that. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

First, you say I spew things that are obvious.  That Jesus was in the business of reconciliation is the most recent example.  I'm delighted you consider this true.  I freely admit to doing a lot of this.

My point was that you never tied “reconciliation” back to your point about the Religious Right.  And since you never tied it back, you might as well have stated that the sky is blue.

---

Second, you say I create Biblical fiction and your example is that I said Peter hated Matthew.  You either don't read what I write or you simply wanted to insult me, rather than offer anything constructive.  Because I did not say Peter hated Matthew.  Anywhere.  I said that conclusion was a logical one, not a certain one.  You have yet to respond to my question to you.  What is more likely?  That Peter loved Matthew? 

Your whole Peter/Matthew theory is pure conjecture and is therefore irrelevant to me.  If you’re looking for a person to debate with you whether or not Adam had a bellybutton, I’m not that person.

Worse still is the fact you never tied it back to the Religious Right, which leaves the reader (me) wondering if you’re attempting to give a simple example of Jesus’ skills of  reconciliation (which you also didn’t tie back) or if you’re attempting to claim that the Religious Right hates all those who work for the IRS.

---

Third -- my original comment about the religious right stands.  The religious right is mostly an agent of hate and intolerance…[because they refuse to stop preaching that homosexuality is sinful]

Next time, form your argument this way:

“If Jesus Christ had lived today, he would be crucified again by today’s Religious Right because they continue to preach against homosexuality and their so-called “leaders” are notorious for making ignorant comments on TV.”

It would save us all several headaches and make your argument more concise.  Also, please don’t attempt to enter law school; you’d make a lousy attorney. 

[JSojourner]

First, you say I spew things that are obvious.  That Jesus was in the business of reconciliation is the most recent example.  I'm delighted you consider this true.  I freely admit to doing a lot of this.

My point was that you never tied “reconciliation” back to your point about the Religious Right.  And since you never tied it back, you might as well have stated that the sky is blue.

---

Second, you say I create Biblical fiction and your example is that I said Peter hated Matthew.  You either don't read what I write or you simply wanted to insult me, rather than offer anything constructive.  Because I did not say Peter hated Matthew.  Anywhere.  I said that conclusion was a logical one, not a certain one.  You have yet to respond to my question to you.  What is more likely?  That Peter loved Matthew? 

Your whole Peter/Matthew theory is pure conjecture and is therefore irrelevant to me.  If you’re looking for a person to debate with you whether or not Adam had a bellybutton, I’m not that person.

Worse still is the fact you never tied it back to the Religious Right, which leaves the reader (me) wondering if you’re attempting to give a simple example of Jesus’ skills of  reconciliation (which you also didn’t tie back) or if you’re attempting to claim that the Religious Right hates all those who work for the IRS.

---

Third -- my original comment about the religious right stands.  The religious right is mostly an agent of hate and intolerance…[because they refuse to stop preaching that homosexuality is sinful]

Next time, form your argument this way:

“If Jesus Christ had lived today, he would be crucified again by today’s Religious Right because they continue to preach against homosexuality and their so-called “leaders” are notorious for making ignorant comments on TV.”

It would save us all several headaches and make your argument more concise.  Also, please don’t attempt to enter law school; you’d make a lousy attorney. 

That may be the highest compliment anyone here has paid me and I thank you.  I would make a horrible lawyer.

As to the quality, content and depth of my argument here -- or in my other posts -- I'll let the rest of the people in the forum decide if they think I don't know what I'm talking about.  Or if you are someone who refuses to face facts.

[Torie]

First, you say I spew things that are obvious.  That Jesus was in the business of reconciliation is the most recent example.  I'm delighted you consider this true.  I freely admit to doing a lot of this.

My point was that you never tied “reconciliation” back to your point about the Religious Right.  And since you never tied it back, you might as well have stated that the sky is blue.

---

Second, you say I create Biblical fiction and your example is that I said Peter hated Matthew.  You either don't read what I write or you simply wanted to insult me, rather than offer anything constructive.  Because I did not say Peter hated Matthew.  Anywhere.  I said that conclusion was a logical one, not a certain one.  You have yet to respond to my question to you.  What is more likely?  That Peter loved Matthew? 

Your whole Peter/Matthew theory is pure conjecture and is therefore irrelevant to me.  If you’re looking for a person to debate with you whether or not Adam had a bellybutton, I’m not that person.

Worse still is the fact you never tied it back to the Religious Right, which leaves the reader (me) wondering if you’re attempting to give a simple example of Jesus’ skills of  reconciliation (which you also didn’t tie back) or if you’re attempting to claim that the Religious Right hates all those who work for the IRS.

---

Third -- my original comment about the religious right stands.  The religious right is mostly an agent of hate and intolerance…[because they refuse to stop preaching that homosexuality is sinful]

Next time, form your argument this way:

“If Jesus Christ had lived today, he would be crucified again by today’s Religious Right because they continue to preach against homosexuality and their so-called “leaders” are notorious for making ignorant comments on TV.”

It would save us all several headaches and make your argument more concise.  Also, please don’t attempt to enter law school; you’d make a lousy attorney. 

That may be the highest compliment anyone here has paid me and I thank you.  I would make a horrible lawyer.

As to the quality, content and depth of my argument here -- or in my other posts -- I'll let the rest of the people in the forum decide if they think I don't know what I'm talking about.  Or if you are someone who refuses to face facts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The most disturbing thing here JS is the implication that your interlocutor is a lawyer.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

please don’t attempt to enter law school; you’d make a lousy attorney. 

That may be the highest compliment anyone here has paid me and I thank you.  I would make a horrible lawyer.

As if all lawyers were dirty, right?  Believe it or not, there are some lawyers who are both competent and judicial, neither of which describe your argument. 

As to the quality, content and depth of my argument here -- or in my other posts -- I'll let the rest of the people in the forum decide if they think I don't know what I'm talking about.  Or if you are someone who refuses to face facts.

You speak of “quality, content and depth” and “facts” of your argument?  Well, what about “corruption”?

You have gone to great lengths in this thread to discredit a group of people, having placed on public display many of their flaws from information you have obtained through your unhealthy obsession of them.  And you have painted a picture for this whole forum to gaze upon, depicting Christ Jesus being crucified by the Religious Right. 

But in the closing argument of your prosecution of the Religious Right before the jury, if you had taken a closer look at the painting you have presented to them, you would have found yourself in it nailing Christ to the cross. Because, as a Christian, you yourself should understand that you had an equal role in crucifying Jesus.

[afleitch]

You have gone to great lengths in this thread to discredit a group of people, having placed on public display many of their flaws from information you have obtained through your unhealthy obsession of them.  And you have painted a picture for this whole forum to gaze upon, depicting Christ Jesus being crucified by the Religious Right. 

He hasn't actually. He simply laid out examples, none of which you can really dispute as being factually incorrect though you can debate the cause and effect of them and indeed whether or not they are relevant. He has not made these people up, nor has he made up these situations. You asked him to name them and he did.

Comment on them.

[JohnFKennedy]

Just thought I'd add a little anecdote to the obviously joke poll. I was in Edinburgh last summer at the festival and I was given a flyer for a play entitled 'Jesus: The Guantanamo Years'. It gave a blurb for the plot: Jesus Christ returns to Earth but unfortunately he's a bearded Middle Eastern guy willing to die for his religion so he doesn't get through US immigration.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You have gone to great lengths in this thread to discredit a group of people, having placed on public display many of their flaws from information you have obtained through your unhealthy obsession of them.  And you have painted a picture for this whole forum to gaze upon, depicting Christ Jesus being crucified by the Religious Right. 

He hasn't actually.

oh, then I guess you didn't read the beginning of this thread:

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

---

He simply laid out examples, none of which you can really dispute as being factually incorrect though you can debate the cause and effect of them and indeed whether or not they are relevant. He has not made these people up, nor has he made up these situations. You asked him to name them and he did.

Comment on them.

You want me to comment on them?  How would I know enough about them to comment on them?  I'm not the one obsessed with them; that would be JSojourner.

What does it matter if all the charges JSojourner makes are true?  Does the truthfulness of the charge change the hypocrisy of JSojourner’s charge?

Heck, if I spent as much time as JSojourner studying people I don’t like, I too would forgot that we are ALL accomplices to Jesus' crucifixion.