'Do evangelicals' actions and belief match Jesus'?

[cardw]

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

Metaphorically possessions do limit our freedom.

We can have fear of their loss. They require repair and upkeep. We have to store them. We have to protect them from decay and theft.

I think the insight that I've gotten from this story is to not attach myself to what I own.

[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?

Originally Posted By: cardw

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.

I'm not even discussiing what Christians do-- I am talking about what a nation does to protect itself in a time of war, when it is being attacked. The U.S. government consists of more than just Christians, and it has a responsibility to represent and protect all of its citizens, irrespective of the people's religious faith or lack thereof.

Your argument would mean that the soldiers of WW II had no faith in God because they took up their rifles to kill the enemy. I beleive there are such things as just wars. They are tragic, yet nevertheless necessary in an evil, dangerous world. The American War for Independence, the War of 1812, and the Americn Civil War were a few of such just wars.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

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.

I'm not even discussiing what Christians do-- I am talking about what a nation does to protect itself in a time of war, when it is being attacked. The U.S. government consists of more than just Christians, and it has a responsibility to represent and protect all of its citizens, irresptctive of the people's religious faith or lack thereof.

Oh, so you're no longer calling the United States a Christian nation after all.

This is quite simple to me.

You are a Christian and you are arguing in favor of torture. That is exactly what the author said Christians do. They support policies that contradict the teachings of Jesus.

[Bravus]

Yep, that's the point. You keep deflecting it onto government, John317, but several Christians here have themselves advocated torture, or things that constitute torture under any sane definition. Can't displace: the point is beliefs and attitudes.

[doug yowell]

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.”

You seem to pretty well informed on what a guy that you don't even know existed taught and expected from His deluded followers. And if you want nothing to do with anything that has the label Christian what are you doing quoting the Bible, and trying to convince Christians how evil they are? This "right wing is the Devil" slander stuff gets old after awhile.

[doug yowell]

Yep, that's the point. You keep deflecting it onto government, John317, but several Christians here have themselves advocated torture, or things that constitute torture under any sane definition. Can't displace: the point is beliefs and attitudes.

Whose sane definition,Brav, yours? Today's liberal interpretation of torture is a disgrace to the reality of real torture and this moral equivalence mindset belittles the effect that real torture has on humanity. If you consider waterboarding under any circumstances the moral equivalent of throwing people into meat grinders, using humans for sadistic scientific experiments, crucifixion,sawing off human heads with a steak knife, ect... then of course we will be always talking apples and oranges cuz I don't agree with the definition.If this form of inflicting the psychololgical pretense of death in order to potentially prevent the deaths of hundred maybe thousands of other innocent people then is the Christian more moral if they demand that the government stick to it's ideals and let those other people die? If this was merely a matter of causing this fear in order to punish the criminal then the principle becomes much less questionable.

[Bravus]

You seem to pretty well informed on what a guy that you don't even know existed taught and expected from His deluded followers. And if you want nothing to do with anything that has the label Christian what are you doing quoting the Bible, and trying to convince Christians how evil they are? This "right wing is the Devil" slander stuff gets old after awhile.

Christians need to be consistent to Christian scriptures. What Jesus said matters if someone claims to follow Jesus. cardw doesn't, but it's entirely appropriate to ask how those who claim to follow Jesus reconcile their attitudes with his actual teachings.

[Bravus]

Don't believe the hype. Waterboarding causes physical agony, not just fear. Try it sometime.

[cardw]

You seem to pretty well informed on what a guy that you don't even know existed taught and expected from His deluded followers. And if you want nothing to do with anything that has the label Christian what are you doing quoting the Bible, and trying to convince Christians how evil they are? This "right wing is the Devil" slander stuff gets old after awhile.

I am well informed because I was a Christian for over half my life.

Another reason the right wing is destructive to this county is that they don't recognize legitimate arguments against their positions.

They simply ignore the point and attack the person just like you are doing here.

If you would address my points I would have respect for you.

But you don't. You simply are a bully. I have absolutely no respect for that approach and I will continue to speak out against your type of tactics.

You are an excellent source for this type of dialog and I refer to your comments often when I have to convince those who are questioning that this type of thing actually exists. It is quite effective. It saves me a lot of time and is one of the reasons that the percentage of non-believers is rising so rapidly in this country.

Christianity has become the label for ignorance, bigotry, and rudeness.

That is not the way I wish it would go, but Christians no longer behave like Jesus. There are certainly exceptions, but you don't appear to be one.

[doug yowell]

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.

I'll start with your lack of knowledge of the Japanese in WWII.No Japanese soldier was hanged for waterboarding U.S. soldiers.Japanese soldiers (commanders)were hanged because they actually tortured not only American soldiers but everyone that they had authority over.Men,women,children, citizens, Dr.'s,Chinese,Koreans,Philippino's,Australian's,everybody. Maybe you should brush up on your history before you attempt to redefine it.The Japanese brutally tortured and killed their prisoners because they viewed surrender as weakness and they treated them as sub-human.They tortured their prisoners as a matter of policy and not merely to get information.Even those who were cooperative were tortured.Any waterboarding done to U.S. GI's was in addition to their general daily mistreatment.And the Japanese DID enjoy it.Most evangelicals don't have the same definition of torture as you. Next, I'll get to Zuckerman's Biblical distortions as soon as I can. Too much of this keyboard exercise wears me out.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

You seem to pretty well informed on what a guy that you don't even know existed taught and expected from His deluded followers. And if you want nothing to do with anything that has the label Christian what are you doing quoting the Bible, and trying to convince Christians how evil they are? This "right wing is the Devil" slander stuff gets old after awhile.

I am well informed because I was a Christian for over half my life.

Another reason the right wing is destructive to this county is that they don't recognize legitimate arguments against their positions.

They simply ignore the point and attack the person just like you are doing here.

If you would address my points I would have respect for you.

But you don't. You simply are a bully. I have absolutely no respect for that approach and I will continue to speak out against your type of tactics.

You are an excellent source for this type of dialog and I refer to your comments often when I have to convince those who are questioning that this type of thing actually exists. It is quite effective. It saves me a lot of time and is one of the reasons that the percentage of non-believers is rising so rapidly in this country.

Christianity has become the label for ignorance, bigotry, and rudeness.

That is not the way I wish it would go, but Christians no longer behave like Jesus. There are certainly exceptions, but you don't appear to be one.

I am no bully and you know it. If you distort my views the same way you do other Christian writers and even the Biblical writers, I have no doubt that you will find a receptive audience among those who share your gracious attitudes towards those who you find so morally despicable including the God of the OT.Unlike you,I have neither attacked you as ignorant,bigoted, or rude I have simply rejected your accusations and rejected your caricature of others. And since you have never met Jesus I think it somewhat premature to accuse so many others of not behaving like Him.

[cardw]

I am no bully and you know it. If you distort my views the same way you do other Christian writers and even the Biblical writers, I have no doubt that you will find a receptive audience among those who share your gracious attitudes towards those who you find so morally despicable including the God of the OT.

Address my points. That's all you have to do.

All the rest of this stuff is smoke and mirrors.

[cardw]

Whose sane definition,Brav, yours? Today's liberal interpretation of torture is a disgrace to the reality of real torture.

[Tom Wetmore]

"Love your enemies" strongly implies not killing them.

When Jesus said this he didn't qualify it. There is no "but if" that says if your enemies are threatening to kill even one, not mention thousands, you can set aside that silly love thing and beat the living snot out of them. I suppose you could water board your enemies with tears in your eyes...

(On the earlier "but" discussion elsewhere my first thought was "God doesn't have a but. People have 'buts'.")

Now let's see how many of my fellow Christians speak up and disagree with me or attack me for siding with that "atheist"... again...

[lazarus]

I'll start with your lack of knowledge of the Japanese in WWII.No Japanese soldier was hanged for waterboarding U.S. soldiers.

Yes, we should be happy to have you onboard. I have to admit I didn't serve in WWII and don't have access to any military historians like you. All I have is my trusty Macbook Pro and Google. So lets take a look at what we can find....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...-waterboarding/

Would you like to apologize?

Quote:

Maybe you should brush up on your history before you attempt to redefine it.

You are officially a funny guy! Man, you stuck your neck out just a bit to far. You could have Googled for an extra 60 seconds and then realize you needed to temper your language.

Quote:

Most evangelicals don't have the same definition of torture as you.

Do they have the same definition of torture as Jesus. How would Jesus define it?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

I'll start with your lack of knowledge of the Japanese in WWII.No Japanese soldier was hanged for waterboarding U.S. soldiers.

Yes, we should be happy to have you onboard. I have to admit I didn't serve in WWII and don't have access to any military historians like you. All I have is my trusty Macbook Pro and Google. So lets take a look at what we can find....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...-waterboarding/

Would you like to apologize?

Quote:

Maybe you should brush up on your history before you attempt to redefine it.

You are officially a funny guy! Man, you stuck your neck out just a bit to far. You could have Googled for an extra 60 seconds and then realize you needed to temper your language.

Quote:

Most evangelicals don't have the same definition of torture as you.

Do they have the same definition of torture as Jesus. How would Jesus define it?

I'll be quick to apologize after I read the transcripts of the Japanese trials.My point was not that the Japanese didn't waterboard but that they weren't hung for merely waterboarding. If I'm wrong you'll be the first to hear from me,ok? I'm a vegetarian but I'll be willing to try a little crow if warranted.Since Jesus never defined torture I can't give you His exact outlook, but this we all know, that Jesus opposed any form of retribution or (it seems)resistence of personal attacks by His followers. If this principle were literally applied (as it is selectively applied by those who use His teachings to oppose capital punishment and other legal sentences) it would require all Christians to oppose all judicial sentences at all times,not just the ones they feel are over the top.When Christians are Ceasar this teaching takes on a unique challenge.This is a question the opponents of the death penalty and other government practices never seem to grapple with, it's always easier to attack those who 'support' the policies they disagree with. I'll get to the teachings of the Bible regarding Zuckerman's assertions later. I got work today.And thanks for the WWII update, I'll check it out.

[phkrause]

This "right wing is the Devil" slander stuff gets old after awhile.

And so does "left wing is the Devil" slander stuff. It goes both ways.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

This "right wing is the Devil" slander stuff gets old after awhile.

And so does "left wing is the Devil" slander stuff. It goes both ways.

I agree.

[doug yowell]

[Yeah, I want to know exactly how did he misrepresent evangelicals considering the following quote from the article....

Ok, I'll start with the easiest. Zuckerman misrepresents Jesus teachings on the issues he selects by ommitting the general meaning of His teachings. He does this by failing to mention the other qualifying things that Jesus said about the relationship that His followers should have with earthly government. First, Jesus never criticized the government's use of the death penalty,in fact, He by His example validated it's legitimacy by willingly subjecting Himself to it. The Bible( which is supposed to be the moral guide for both Jews and Christians)reveals that it was Jesus Himself who instituted the death penalty for human governments in the first place;"Whoever sheds man's blood, By MAN his blood shall be shed. For in the image of God He made man." (Gen.9:6)Jesus again validated this practice when giving Israel laws by which to govern themselves after they were to enter the Promised Land (Ex.21,Lev.20, Num.15,ect...)

Those who carefully adhered to and advocated these laws,including the death penalty statute, would have a reputation of;"Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." Zuckerman's assertion that those Evangelicals who support the government's use of the death penalty are Jesus haters not only ignores the Biblical record but distorts it.The NT teaching by Jesus or the other apostle writers also give support to the state's right to impose the death penalty.Zuckerman simply makes up a Jesus teaching and accuses those who disagree with it with being anti-Christian hypocrits.He offers no biblical proof that Jesus actually opposed the death penalty.He ommits the historical fact that the founders of this country,as professing Christians, also gave it's government the right to enforce the death penalty under certain circumstances. I guess this would also make deists like Tom,George and others anti-biblical as well? There is a very strong Biblical and practical case for the death penalty and a very strong argument for "thou shalt bear no false witness against thy neighbor",Mr. Zuckerman.

[cardw]

Quote:

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture.

Ok, I'll start with the easiest. Zuckerman misrepresents Jesus teachings on the issues he selects by ommitting the general meaning of His teachings. He does this by failing to mention the other qualifying things that Jesus said about the relationship that His followers should have with earthly government. First, Jesus never criticized the government's use of the death penalty,in fact, He by His example validated it's legitimacy by willingly subjecting Himself to it.

[cardw]

Here is a more specific reference to Jefferson and he clearly sees the unreasonable aspects of the death penalty coming from the Bible as evidenced by his autobiography.

Quote:

But then how does the punishment of maiming and disfigurement suggested for the crimes of rape, polygamy, and sodomy become a part of a bill whose aim is more humane and equitable justice? Though the ninety page report presented to the General Assembly was produced by committee, Jefferson appears to have been the chief architect of Bill 64, as the outline for the bill is entirely in his hand. In his autobiography, he gives considerable attention to the Revisions of Laws and mentions the Crimes and Punishments bill specifically:

"On the subject of the Criminal Law, all were agreed that the punishment of death should be abolished, except for treason and murder; and that, for other felonies should be substituted hard labor in the public works, and in some cases, the Lex talionis. How this last revolting principle came to obtain our approbation, I do not remember...It was the English law in the time of the Anglo-Saxons, copied probably from the Hebrew law of 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,' and it was the law of several ancient people. But the modern mind had left it far in the rear of it's advances."[4]

The inclusion of the lex talionis, or retaliation in kind, bothered Jefferson even as he worked on the bill. By letter he consulted with fellow committee member George Wythe and wrote, "I have strictly observed the scale of punishments settled by the Committee, without being entirely satisfied with it. The lex talionis, altho' a restitution of the Common law,...will be revolting to the humanised feelings of modern times. An eye for an eye, and a hand for a hand will exhibit spectacles in execution whose moral effect would be questionable...This needs reconsideration."[5] Despite Jefferson's reservations, the ninety page Revisal Report was submitted with the punishments for rape, polygamy, and sodomy unchanged.

[cardw]

One more Jefferson quote..

Quote:

It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislature to frame laws in opposition to the laws of nature, and to arm them with the terrors of death. This is truly creating crimes in order to punish them.

[doug yowell]

It's interesting that you use the most famous injustice in all of history to defend the death penalty. I would think that this would argue against the death penalty.

The injustice of Jesus punishment was not the extent of His punishment but rather the injustice of His being declared not guilty of crimes He didn't commit and being executed as though He had been guilty of committing them.Omitted from Zuckerman's criticisms was the teaching and testimony of the most influential Christian apologist in history.The apostle Paul declared that there were certain crimes that were deserving of death saying,"...for if I...have committed anything DESERVING OF DEATH,I do not object to dying..." (Acts 25:11). Notice that Paul was addressing a secular government and did nothing to condemn their practice of inflicting the death penalty under the proper circumstances.Also note his defense of the secular government's God given right to impose the death penalty on society,"...But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister,an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." (Rom.13:1-7)Also omitted from Zuckerman's critique was Jesus command to "render unto Ceasar the things belonging to Ceasar,and unto God the things that are God's." Since Jesus created the moral imperative for governments to invoke the death penalty, and since His own government has historically executed the death penalty, and will in the future do the same, it would seem perfectly just for the death penalty to be supported by Christians under proper circumstances.

[doug yowell]

"Love your enemies" strongly implies not killing them.

When Jesus said this he didn't qualify it. There is no "but if" that says if your enemies are threatening to kill even one, not mention thousands, you can set aside that silly love thing and beat the living snot out of them.

Are you suggesting that the U.S. government should now adopt Jesus teachings when formulating it's policies on how to treat criminals? Since Jesus allowed no qualifications would you be willing to do away with all punitive sentences for criminals and advocating the disbanding of all defenses against the enemies of the United States?

[doug yowell]

And how do you deal with Jesus' direct command to not follow the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth which is exactly what the death penalty is?

Why the fixation on the death penalty? Any inflicted penalty would also constitute a violation of the above command. It would also abolish any legitimacy of human government and violate God's command for instituting any lawful response against evil in the world (if applied to the kingdoms of this world). Life imprisonment,5 years,restitution, probation, anything that remotely resembled a form of punishment would be forbidden. This would mean that Tom could kill your daughter and you would be required by law to commit your son to clean the blood from his boots.By his omission this distortion is exactly what Zuckerman is suggesting that Evangelicals should support.