'Do evangelicals' actions and belief match Jesus'?

[John317]

.... Matthew 25, and a *mass* of other texts makes it very clear indeed that all believers are accountable for the way they treat those less fortunate. What was it Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for? What was it the prophets rebuked Israel for, as well as Sodom and Gommorah.

Yes, and the context of all these texts has to do with individual choices in how they treat people on a personal level, and not with how they vote or what kind of government they have or whether they support the death penalty or whether they have a weapon in their home. Those things are not addressed. What Jesus addresses is the motives people have, whether they steal, don't give anything to the poor, have no sympathy for the poor, the sick, the helpless, the downtrodden. Again, he's not talking about what you or Zucherman are talking about, which are people's political views.

Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because of their gross immorality, not merely because they were selfish. After all, there were selfish people all over the world. But God chose to destroy Sodom and Gommorah. Why?

The angels who went to Sodom went there for the purpose of investigating and reporting what they saw in order to determine whether the city should be destroyed. (Notice they did not tell Lot to come with them out of the city until after the crimes were committed against them by the immoral mob.)

Genesis 18:21

I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know."

What the angels witnessed and the treatment they themselves received at the hands of the the wicked mob who were trying to "know" them, was all the evidence they needed.

The proof that it was Sodom's immorality and unnatural lust that brought about its destruction is found in Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2: 7-8:

Jude 1:7

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

NOTE: Is there any doubt in your mind what "unnatural desire" and indulgence in sexual immorality it is talking about? If there is, read again Genesis 19.

2 Peter 2:6-8

if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; [7] and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked [8] (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard)...

NOTE: Do you really have any doubt about what the "sensual conduct of the wicked" in Sodom was and which tormented Lot as he had to watch and hear their lawless deed?

I'm sure you can imagine the things Lot had to hear from his neighbors. He no doubt had to listen to the same things that his neighbors tried to do on the last night of their lives.

Ellen White makes it clear that it was the people's selfishness and luxorious lifestyle that led to the gross immorality, and as Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2: 6-8 show, it was this which closed those people's probation. Nowhere in Scripture do we find God destroying a whole city because the people were selfish and refused to help the poor. It is clear that it was the attempt to commit rape against the angels of God which demonstrated without a doubt that the people were beyond any help that God might have given to turn them from their lawlessness.

[Gail]

Hmm interesting discussion!

[John317]

Yes, it sure is. :-)

[John317]

How do I know nothing about them? I know the results of the Pew survey, and I talk to them every day right here.

Forget systems of government, that's an American obsession.

The question is how we treat others. And the bottom line is that Christians both treat others worse than unbelievers and actively proclaim that it is right to do so.

All I'm saying is what the Bible says.

Yes, that is right, how do we treat others?

The article by Zuckerman isn't about how we treat others on a personal level but rather he politicizes the issues. Those are issues which, according to the Bible, are moral in nature, not political, yet he talks about voting, political beliefs, whether they favor the death penalty or whether they favor the right of Americans to bear arms. None of that is relevent to the Bible's view of morality.

[Bravus]

'How would Jesus vote?' is a separate but related issue.

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't support torture, though.

Zuckerman did use those voting intentions - which is what the Pew survey asked about - as a proxy for other intentions, that's true.

But again I say, the political/economical vs moral argument is just a smoke screen issue: the true issue is our attitudes toward our fellow human beings.

Tell me that you honestly can't see some disconnect between the attitudes of Jesus toward the powerful and the poor and the attitudes of those who claim to be his followers.

[cardw]

Below is Matthew 25:31-46 for reference. It is really the defining matter for entrance into heaven according to Jesus.

What's interesting is that over and over Christians, when presented with this passage, spend a lot of mental gymnastics to exclude people from this list.

Only the deserving poor. Only the innocent in prison.

And in this country we don't welcome the stranger, even if he or she is working and paying taxes, we throw them in jail or deport them.

This is the attitude of those described as Christians in the study.

Christianity as it is practiced in the country is an absolute failure. What happened when we had a so called Christian republican majority ruling this nation?

We went to war 2 times and are still in the longest war every fought by our nation. The poor got poorer and rich got richer to the point that the gap between the haves and the have nots is the greatest it has ever been. We had the greatest failure of the financial system ever in this country because this so called Christian nation sponsored greed and spent our surplus on a so called Christian crusade against Islam.

And how do we respond to that? We destroy our education system, we allow corporations to be people, we give tax breaks to the rich, we make decisions on sound bytes, and we continue to stupidly listen to people like Glen Beck as if they actually know what they are talking about.

The Christian right has ruined this country. It sponsors bigotry, hatred, and ignorance, and calls it good. I want nothing to do with anything that has the label of Christian and I know many thinking people who feel the same way.

Quote:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

[Bravus]

Keith Green did a fantastic and affecting musical version of those verses, well worth seeking out.

Jesus seemed to think there'll be a fair few surprised folk on both sides.

[John317]

So you like Keith Green's music too.

[John317]

But again I say, the political/economical vs moral argument is just a smoke screen issue: the true issue is our attitudes toward our fellow human beings.

But that isn't what Zucherman said. He wasn't talking about the attitude of individual Christians toward their fellow human beings. He's talking about the things that you rightly call is a smoke screen. Why does he do that? Because he wants to make political hay out of it. So let's leave politics and economic theories and systems out of it.

Speaking of attitudes toward our fellow human beings, have you looked closely at the attitudes of the founders of socialism and communism?

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Tell me that you honestly can't see some disconnect between the attitudes of Jesus toward the powerful and the poor and the attitudes of those who claim to be his followers.

Who and what exactly are you talking about?

[Bravus]

Take torture for a start

[John317]

Who's torturing people? Are you? I'm certainly not.

It seems to me you are talking again about political viewpoints. Do we want to talk about what a government should or shouldn't do-- or do we want to talk about what we do in our actual lives in relationship to people we know and come in contact with?

[Bravus]

Supporting torture is an action

[Bravus]

We had a long discussion here on the topic. Many, many of the Christians here actively support torture. Sure, governments carry it out, but that is very much a moral question about how we regard other human beings.

[doug yowell]

'How would Jesus vote?' is a separate but related issue.

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't support torture, though.

I've been a voter here in the U.S. for a few elections now and I can never remember seeing a torture initiative on the ballot. And (to resort to an old pro-choice argument)I don't ever remember Jesus saying anything about torture. (Betcha forgot about that one, huh?)I would never personally torture anyone myself but I wouldn't condemn anyone else who chose to do so. The church should stop trying to impose their moral beliefs on the government.

[karl]

Did we define "torture?" Is the administration of unpleasant consequences in response to uncooperative behavior "torture?" If so, all discipline is torture.

We do not try to induce cooperation in those who are already cooperative. Only in those who are uncooperative. When faced with the alternative of cooperating versus no consequences, the uncooperatives are going to choose "no consequences" every time.

It seems to me that the question is whether we should try to induce cooperation in those who are uncooperative. Once we answer that, we can proceed to the question of how hard we should try.

[lazarus]

Japanese soldiers were hanged for Waterboarding US soldiers but now we ask "what is torture?"

So I guess those Japanese soldiers were simply making the uncooperative cooperative. We don't torture we just induce cooperation. I like it.

So I guess Qaddafi is just seeking cooperation from his people right now.

It is interesting to see that no one has provided any scriptural argument for refuting Zuckerman's position. Could it be that there is none. Let's not make our cultural, political and social preferences the preferences of God.

[CoAspen]

[Bravus]

OK, so on that one issue, I think the gap is pretty clear. Can you imagine Jesus quibbling about the definition of torture?

[karl]

Assumptions all above.

You must still define what is unacceptable torture. Physical, mental, etc. I suspect that everyone is going to have a different threshold.

Do we, as a society, have the right to try to induce cooperation from those who are a threat to the society? Do we have the right to apply pressure? Threaten incarceration? Hard labor? Sleeping in tents in the Arizona sun? Forcing them to wear pink uniforms? Listen to Nancy Sinatra? Eating only bread and water? Not getting any Twinkies for din-din?

What kind of pressure is OK and what is not? And why?

[aldona]

Quote:

Jesus' teaching leads to greater, not less, individual human freedom.

Being commanded to sell all that you have and give the proceeds to the poor, increases your "individual human freedom"...how, exactly?

AJ

[Bravus]

The issue of politics is actually pretty much a side issue: the issue is attitudes. "Let this mind be in you which is also in Christ Jesus". Voting intentions are just one measure of attitudes.

So, are the attitudes those of Jesus? Do you really, seriously think that Jesus put time into deciding when the intentional infliction of suffering and fear on another human being was 'torture' and when it was just 'gaining cooperation'? Or did he seek and save the lost, counting each one precious? What did he do when Peter took up arms in his defense? Told him to put down his sword, and healed the wounded.

On so many other issues, the same divide exists. What did Jesus say, consistently, about the rich? And what do most modern US evangelicals say, consistently, about the rich?

I wish Zuckerman had chosen a more accurate and less inflamatory title for his piece. It's not about hating Jesus, but it is about having *vastly* different attitudes - and perhaps a little about hating those who held attitudes closer to the attitudes of Jesus.

So, rather than deflecting, how about reflecting?

[CoAspen]

[John317]

Japanese soldiers were hanged for Waterboarding US soldiers but now we ask "what is torture?"

Japanese soldiers were hanged, yes, but not for waterboarding US Soldiers. If there's any evidence that such occurred, I would like to see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March

Here's some of the facts about the Bataan Death March:

Quote:

The Bataan Death March (also known as The Death March of Bataan) took place in the Philippines in 1942 and was later accounted as a Japanese war crime. The 60 mi (97 km) march occurred after the three-month Battle of Bataan, part of the Battle of the Philippines (1941–42), during World War II. In Japanese, it is known as Batān Shi no Kōshin ,with the same meaning.

The "march", or forcible transfer of 75,000 American and Filipino prisoners of war,[1] was characterized by wide-ranging physical abuse and murder, and resulted in very high fatalities inflicted upon prisoners and civilians alike by the armed forces of the Empire of Japan.[2] Beheading, throat-cutting, and shooting were common causes of death, in addition to death by bayonet, rape, disembowelment, rifle-butt beating, and deliberate starvation or dehydration on the week-long continual march in the tropical heat.[citation needed] Falling down or inability to continue moving was tantamount to a death sentence, as was any degree of protest.

Route of the death march. Section from San Fernando to Capas was by rail.The treatment of the American prisoners was characterized by its dehumanization, as the Imperial soldiery "felt they were dealing with subhumans and animals."[3] Prisoners were attacked for assisting someone falling due to weakness, or for no reason whatsoever. Trucks were known to drive over those who fell or succumbed to fatigue,[4] and "cleanup crews" put to death those too weak to continue. Marchers were harassed with random bayonet stabs and beatings.[5] Accounts of being forcibly marched for five to six days with no food and a single sip of water are in postwar archives including filmed reports.[6]

Philippines Campaign (1941–1942)

Bataan – Death march – Corregidor – Mindanao

The exact death count is impossible to determine, but some historians have placed the minimum death toll between 6,000 and 11,000 men; other postwar Allied reports have tabulated that only 54,000 of the 72,000 prisoners reached their destination — taken together, the figures document a rate of death from one in four up to two in seven of those on the death march. The number of deaths that took place in the internment camps from the delayed effects of the march is considerably more.[6]

[John317]

But the issue is not as simple as you seem to be portraying it. It is easy to say no one should ever "torture" anyone, but what if your child is being tortured by someone and the only way you could save her life is to use water-boarding?

How moral is it to allow her to die when you could save her by waterboarding someone?

Or let's say someone has information about a planned attack but they refuse to cooperate and tell what they know about the people involved. Do you let the attack go forward and kill perhaps thousands of people? Or do you waterboard someone and save all those thousands of people's lives?

The United States was faced with the moral choice of either prolonging the war and seeing over 1 million people killed, or else dropping the bomb so that the Japanese would surrender.

If we hadn't dropped the bomb but had instead invaded the island and lost hundreds of thousands of our own people as well as a million Japanese, would that have been preferable to dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nakasaki?

See why Truman drobbed the bomb:

http://www.essortment.com/did-president-truman-drop-atomic-bomb-61496.html

[cardw]

But the issue is not as simple as you seem to be portraying it. It is easy to say no one should ever "torture" anyone, but what if your child is being tortured by someone and the only way you could save her life is to use water-boarding?

How moral is it to allow her to die when you could save her by waterboarding someone?

How often do you think this is going to come up? And we know that torture is really not that reliable as far as getting information. And since we don't even know if an individual knows the information the torture may be inflicted on the person with no chance of result.

What this tells me is that Christians really don't believe that god with take care of them. They would rather put their faith in torture.

What happened to all this selfless love that Christians have for their fellow men?

What happened to do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

What happened to love your enemies?

What happened to Christian morality that you talk about when we are talking about sexual issues.

Over and over again Christians place their emphasis on sexual purity and seem to have no problem with all forms of violence.

You guys really do hate the teachings of Jesus.