Lost in the Bible Belt

[deneb]

I am not sure if the imperalism bothers me as much as the Christian community speaking out about the imperalism of Islam while turning a blind eye to their own past. I am not saying that either one of them is correct - but they are the exact same thing except with modern media and weapons. I think it's the hippocracy - "When you do it it's wrong, but when we do it, it's right." It's justification via religious doctrine.

I am reading the same Bible that they are but I see Jesus as a non-political liberal - not a political conservative. They seem to think that if Jesus were walking the earth today, he would be voting Republican, hanging out in their cleansed churches, protesting gay marriages, and lobbying for moral laws instead of ministering in the places that they would sooner to condemn than visit (read: New Orleans and Nineveh).

I can't find the Jesus that they are teaching about in Church. In the pews and in the pulpit, I see the Pharisee from Luke 18:10-14:
"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men -- extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 'I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' "And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise [his] eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!'
To which Jesus said:
"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

I really threw myself into the spirituality of Chirstianty - and it just seems what came back at Church was nothing like I know in my heart to be true. Have you ever felt a certain way and been told that what you are feeling is not true? After awhile, it kind of makes you crazy. That's where I am at ... ready to dump it all because I can't take the madness.

[CFTraveler]

It sounds to me like you have a few things you could teach that church you're going to.

Not speaking for you, because it would be (at least) silly and arrogant, I would like to speak to what you said. Having studied all kinds of religions, some more tolerant than others, I possibly think that your intolerance could stem from a couple of reasons: The connection that christianity in premodern (and apparently postmodern) times has had with imperialism, and the impact it has had in our culture. Some of us that have been brought up in christianity and want to keep the central idea that Jesus taught (love thy enemy), bristle as this message has been manipulated to conquer and subject other cultures and religions. This hurts, not only the people being conquered/destroyed, but especially those that believe in the principles that Jesus taught, in a very deep and personal way, because those are the people that 'get it.'
As much as I enjoy and agree with some Buddhist principles, I have no emotional connection to Gautama or any of his predecessors, so even though the example isn't even valid (I don't know any buddhist imperialists, but that doesn't mean they never existed) even if they did, they wouldn't offend me because I see them with an intellectual fascination; I have no emotional investment with buddhism, but I do with christianity (as any of you know that have read my religious rants in other forums with religious themes). So when I see certain televangelists spouting hate and intolerance in the name of Christ, it irks me like no other religious fundamentalist hatemonger can.
But that's just me.
Do you think this could be the case with you?

Certainly the Chinese, today, are fairly imperialistic. And most of them are, in fact, Buddhist. I would doubt that Communism could have come to power were it not for links between it and Buddhism.

The same might be said of Communism and the Russian Orthodox Church, of course. I understand that many of their bishops were closely linked to the government.

These things happen...

I am not sure if the imperalism bothers me as much as the Christian community speaking out about the imperalism of Islam while turning a blind eye to their own past. I am not saying that either one of them is correct - but they are the exact same thing except with modern media and weapons. I think it's the hippocracy - "When you do it it's wrong, but when we do it, it's right." It's justification via religious doctrine.

I am reading the same Bible that they are but I see Jesus as a non-political liberal - not a political conservative. They seem to think that if Jesus were walking the earth today, he would be voting Republican, hanging out in their cleansed churches, protesting gay marriages, and lobbying for moral laws instead of ministering in the places that they would sooner to condemn than visit (read: New Orleans and Nineveh).

I can't find the Jesus that they are teaching about in Church. In the pews and in the pulpit, I see the Pharisee from Luke 18:10-14:
"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men -- extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 'I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' "And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise [his] eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!'
To which Jesus said:
"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

I really threw myself into the spirituality of Chirstianty - and it just seems what came back at Church was nothing like I know in my heart to be true. Have you ever felt a certain way and been told that what you are feeling is not true? After awhile, it kind of makes you crazy. That's where I am at ... ready to dump it all because I can't take the madness.

So Jesus would support abortion and free sex? I doubt it.

Certainly Jesus transcended political boundaries. I would not think of him as either liberal or conservative. Why would I? Recently I heard of a modernist 'bible' which has been published recently. It omits Christ's sayings about charity to the poor, etc. The publisher says that no one takes such things seriously. Do the majority of so-called conservative Christians accept that view? I think not, just the opposite.

[CFTraveler]

Certainly the Chinese, today, are fairly imperialistic. And most of them are, in fact, Buddhist. I would doubt that Communism could have come to power were it not for links between it and Buddhism.

I thought communism was against religion and prohibited it when they took over Tibet- but that was not my point- My point is that if buddhism is a religion that encourages imperialism, it wouldn't bother me as much because I have no emotional ties to buddhism and it's teachings.

Certainly the Chinese, today, are fairly imperialistic. And most of them are, in fact, Buddhist. I would doubt that Communism could have come to power were it not for links between it and Buddhism.

I thought communism was against religion and prohibited it when they took over Tibet- but that was not my point- My point is that if buddhism is a religion that encourages imperialism, it wouldn't bother me as much because I have no emotional ties to buddhism and it's teachings.

And my point is that people generally do what they have to do to manage their lives. Soviet Russia never prohibited the Russian Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church was persecuted openly, but not the Orthodox Church. They infiltrated it and marginalized its members. I have heard it said that all the Russian Orthodox bishops were really KGB agents. With the fall of Communism there was no purge of the ranks. So I guess all those Communist bishops continued to function as bishops. I would suspect that some of them today would be happy to welcome a return to the old regime.

Red China, likewise, did not eliminate religion. They merely try to control its expression. Thus they persecute the Catholic Church, but allow Catholics to belong to their so-called Patriotic Catholic Church...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Pa ... lic_Church

It's not really Catholic, not recognized as such by the bishop of Rome. But it allows some catholic rituals to be performed and give some people a feeling of being catholic, even though they are not. It is strictly controlled by Beijing's Religious Affairs Bureau. And one must consider its priests as agents of the state. Real Catholic priests in China may exist secretly. Otherwise, they will end up in jail.

I would imagine that the same is true of Buddhism. I doubt that any major Buddhist leader is free of the long arm of the Religious Affairs Bureau. Most likely they, too, are agents of the imperial Red Chinese state. It is amazing how flexible religious belief can be when it meets real life. I suspect that they can quote Buddhist scriptures like parrots and make Mao's Little Red Book sound like something the Buddha, himself, himself may have written.

So when you imagine Christianity being imperialistic you should consider carefully whether you are looking at real Christianity or at a tool for powers behind the throne.

Christ had no particular message for Caesar. He and Caesar did not hobnob in the same circle of friends. There was probably a reason for that.

Look at the Catholic Church, today. She is 98% liberal. Yet people complain that she is too conservative in her ways. How little they know...

[deneb]

So Jesus would support abortion and free sex? I doubt it.

Wow! Where did I say that in my post?

So, Jesus would be into big oil and tobacco companies? I doubt it.

Interesting ... our own interpretations of liberal and conservative. To me liberal is more social minded and conservative is more business minded.

I consider helping the poor, social & education programs, and decent health care for everyone to be liberal ideas. I also don't consider these things to be political issues in the same vein as gay marriages and abortion.

I'm still stuck on your 'free sex' comment. Where does that even come in? Are you thinking gay marriage is the same as free sex? Hetrosexuals and homosexuals can be promiscuous ... I am guessing you are thinking hippies are liberal and hippies are into free sex, so therefore liberals must be into free sex? Well, I'm liberal, male, and not into free sex for myself. I must be that one liberal who has decided to settle down with one partner and raise a family.

[xxhealinghandxx]

I think what Deneb is feeling is what I'm feeling a bit too, so I can relate.

The dismisal of prayers at a football game is understandable, some of them might not even be christians. It is hard sometimes because everyone has turned christianity into rules. Yes the bible is rules, but their are guidelines too, and I believe they should be taken to the heart. It is what God wants us to do, and we should follow it, not just because we're gonna "get burned in hell" or something if we don't, but because we should care if we do the right thing or not. People today just make prayer at football games a "tradition" and they might not even believe in God, much less act like a christian. But prayer is personal and should be displayed as such, there are so many fakes out there that it is hard sometimes for people to accept christianity, and would much rather accept buddhism, because buddhism is making a serious life style choice, as christians do, and most of the buddhists for some reason stick to their rules. That is probably why an incantation or spell and what not, might seem a better alternative to you, it is because at least that is more real than some people who go to bed and read the "And Now I Lye Me Down To Sleep" prayer off a print they got off the internet.

Maybe there are some fakes/poor christians in your church Deneb, if you truly wish a relationship with God you should pursue one at home and in church. Church is fellowship with other christians, which is ok, but if people don't agree with what you believe in, it is ok to "agree to disagree". I think, instead of making a heated argument. But then again it could be the other way around, don't be afraid to get into a discussion, and be patient with the people you share opinions with, raised voices shouldn't be present among fellow christians; you should be subjective (is that the word?) and receptive.

Goodluck.

In my humble opinion, most economic liberal politicians are also social liberals. Most economic conservative politicians are also social conservatives. Yet there are exceptions. Barry Goldwater, for example, was an economic conservative but a social liberal.