Saw a great bumper sticker today

[TexasProgresive]

"THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT ARE NEITHER"

[HassleCat]

1. I saw one, too

There is one that has been around a while: "Jesus, save me from your followers."

Saw one last week that was good: "Such a nice day. Please don't fuck it up."

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. It's playing off "The Moral Majority is Neither." From the '80s.

That's OK, though.

[roguevalley]

3. awesome and so true. :D

[trotsky]

4. But are true Scotsmen? n/t

[AwakeAtLast]

5. In true "Coffee Talk" style,

Discuss...

[hrmjustin]

6. Very true.

[Goblinmonger]

7. So if they aren't Christian, what are they?

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. That's a good topic. You were born for this.

We'll discuss.

And talk amongst ourselves.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Why the attitude?

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. No attitude. I'm playing-off the "Coffee Talk" post...

Post #5, I believe.

It's an old Saturday Nite Live bit created and done to perfection by Mike Meyers that took-on significant cultural crossover in the 90's.

(My guess is that the "Christian" claim is suspect because .... in some people's minds.... "real" Christianity is inconsistent w. RW ideology.)

[Goblinmonger]

14. My bad.

Loved "Coffee Talk." Don't know how I missed it.

[TexasProgresive]

9. I don't know what they are, but from the words of Christ per Matthew 25

41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’

44 Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’

45 He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’

46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

They can be IDed by how they treat their fellow humans.

[trotsky]

10. So in other words,

it someone takes care of others, they can be a Christian. If they don't, they are a... what, exactly?

Have you always treated your fellow humans perfectly? If not, doesn't that mean you aren't a Christian either?

Are all bad people atheists?

[UrbScotty]

18. The Bible says if you don't love people, you don't love God.

If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+4%3A20-21&version=NABRE

[trotsky]

19. OK, so you're just confirming the religious bigotry in the bible.

Thanks much for spreading hatred against non-believers. Hey wait a minute, by doing that, you're not loving other people, so you...

D'OH!

[UrbScotty]

21. Multiple flags on the play:

[trotsky]

23. You can put up as many of those as you want.

Each one is a reflection of how you treat others: poorly. Use your own logic to figure out what that means.

[UrbScotty]

24. Heh - I'm sure you'd know how I treat others had you ever actually *met* me :-)

[trotsky]

25. Ah, I see.

People on the Internet don't count in your equation. You can be as vicious and nasty as you want to be to them yet still proclaim that you're a Christian.

Understood.

[UrbScotty]

28. LOL - you're making this too easy!

I've thrown that twice in a row now!

[trotsky]

31. I see how you treat others.

I now know that you don't love god.

QED

[UrbScotty]

34. You just acknowledged the existence of a god!

Too bad you're still claiming to "know" something that you don't - that is, how I treat people!

[trotsky]

35. You are a shining example of a True Christian indeed. n/t

[jonno99]

26. Please expand on your comments. Where is the bigotry in the above statement - and how does

it "spread hate"?

[trotsky]

30. "if you don't love people, you don't love God."

Good people - those who love other people (unless they're on the Internet, then it's OK to hate them, according to some) believe in god (and love him).

Bad people, obviously, do not.

That is bigoted against anyone who doesn't believe in a god.

[jonno99]

32. I think your looking at the idea from the wrong angle.

The idea - as I understand it - is a warning against hypocrisy: you can't honestly claim to love God if you don't love people.

If you don't believe in God, then the verse in no way applies to you...

[trotsky]

33. Does it apply directly to me? No.

But it means that GOOD people always believe in god correctly. BAD people don't.

It fosters the continuing idea that religion is always good and pure and wonderful, and that people who aren't behaving according to a religion are the only ones capable of doing bad. It's bigotry against non-believers. How about instead of telling me I'm wrong, try and look at it from my angle?

[Goblinmonger]

11. You do realize the implications of that stance, right?

That you can disqualify them from being Christian because you think they are bad people. You know they do that to you, too, right?

But the implication is that if you are a bad person, you can't possibly be a Christian so, therefore, all Christians are good people. And there is a not-so-subtle jab that if they are bad people they aren't Christians but actually atheists. I doubt you are implying they are Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist. Just wanted to let you know that a lot of your fellow progressives that are atheists feel that that stance is pretty insulting.

Lot's of shitty people are Christian. Lots of wonderful people are Christian. Same with every other religion and non-religion. And even the wonderful people that are Christian do shitty things every once in a while but that doesn't make me automatically think they aren't Christians. Makes me think they are humans like the rest of us.

[TexasProgresive]

15. I agree with you that we are pretty much alike as humans go

One thing that is constant from the Jesus recorded in the 4 Gospels is that he abhorred hypocrisy. The "Christian right tends to discount Jesus' teaching like this one from Matthew 25 with the claim that Jesus is their personal Lord and Savior. Yet it seems they don't have a clue what lord means. You do what the lord commands and he commanded that we love one another as he loved us, that is, to the death. What ever you do to these least, you do to me.

As to myself I believe in God and Jesus and put my hope in that I will be numbered among the sheep even though a good part of my nature is to be a goat. There are no sure things in life. If I am wrong about God then so what, at least I was moved to live in a way that lessened some of the woes of my fellow humans.

[UrbScotty]

16. Well said.

If I am wrong about God then so what, at least I was moved to live in a way that lessened some of the woes of my fellow humans.

[Goblinmonger]

17. And those of us without god

just have to live our lives with that god-shaped hole in our heart and make the world a shitty place.

[cleanhippie]

20. Do you read what you write?

[UrbScotty]

22. Uh, do *you*?

[Hortensis]

51. Umhm. If they were the only ones flinging absolutist insults, their faults would be far clearer.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

27. Here's another one I like

[UrbScotty]

29. Another good one! (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Christianity's association with militarism goes back to at least emperor Constantine.

You can pretend that christ the warrior god is not one aspect of this religion, but you would be wrong.


Onward christian soldiers, etc.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

37. Not if you read the New Testament

[Warren Stupidity]

38. I suppose you are going to either delete or 'splain away everything in revelations, right?

Plus you have approximately 1700 years of christian history that disagrees with your assessment.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

39. I refer specifically to what the bumper sticker said;

'Get Real- Like Jesus would ever own a gun and vote Republican'- the fact that people have used Jesus to further their own aims changes nothing. Jesus would never own a gun or vote Republican- imho and also I refer to the Gospels which are considered to be the words of Jesus (whether they really are or not is something else). Revelations is not part of the that.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. where in the NT does it state that Jesus would never own a gun?

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

43. Hmmm....

Methinks, Warren, you are looking for some sort of discussion. It doesn't say anything about guns in the NT. Or do you know somewhere in there that it does? Why are we having this 'conversation' anyhow? What exactly is your issue with my original posting of a bumper sticker?

[Warren Stupidity]

47. You made a specific claim about the NT

that if one read it there was no association with the christian god and militarism. I then responded that revelations would not be compatible with that assertion and you shifted to a new claim that you were only discussing the christian god and gun ownership and republicanism. Fine, you conceded my first point, now we are on to jesus and guns. How is gun ownership incompatible with christianity? Again I refer you to 1700 years, more or less, of a warrior christ tradition along side the peaceful christ. The NT describes both aspects of this god, and the OT describes a massively violent angry god who is exactly the same god as your christ.

[rug]

56. Where in the NT does it mention a gun?

[trotsky]

41. Well duh, guns didn't exist at that time.

But you do have this:

Luke 22:36 ► He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

45. Duh, you say ?

Is that some sort of remark meant to display that I am stupid? Ha! I don't need you to tell me that. But the sword thing is a metaphor- according to this anyhow-These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said, as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this: but his meaning is, that wherever they came, and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries, and these powerful, and would be used with great violence, and be followed with rage and persecution; so that they might seem to stand in need of swords to defend them

[trotsky]

46. That is merely one interpretation.

It's no more or less valid than another which says that Jesus told his followers to prepare to defend themselves, with violence if necessary.

Unless we are to accept that you and you alone are the sole authority on what the bible does or does not say? Is that the case?

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

50. Well, it's an exhausting game

to try and discuss this. I have not claimed to be the sole authority on the bible (or anything else for that matter) but base my remarks on the fact an entity often referred to as "The Prince of Peace", directly related to another entity called "God" that handed down the 10 Commandments, one of which says 'Thou shalt not kill' could ever, ever, ever, own a gun and vote Republican.
Geeze, don't you folks have any sense of humor or satire or parody?

[trotsky]

52. Yes, it is exhausing. I hope you're beginning to realize why.

You'll never win a battle of "so-and-so isn't a TRUE Christan" or "so-and-so doesn't really follow the teachings of Jesus!"

"Thou shalt not kill" - not even in self-defense? Or if someone were about to attack your child with a knife, and you had a gun in your hand, would you shoot the attacker?

See how things are shades of gray, rather than the black-and-white you are portraying?

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

53. It appears the fact a statement like this;

'Get Real, like Jesus would ever own a gun and vote Republican' creates a great deal of consternation for you.

I think it's aimed at R's who have co-opted Jesus and God and use them to intimidate, bully and push people around. The bumper sticker was a way of slyly giving them the needle, because they don't seem to have a sense of nuance.

How we went from that to defending a child attacked by someone with a knife is beyond my ability to figure.

I am not interested in proving/dis-proving your point of view on this. I ask the same of you.

[trotsky]

54. The consternation I feel...

is for anyone who claims divine support for their agenda. I don't think Democrats or Republicans should do it.

You can try and walk away by claiming this was all just a joke, but please realize the seriousness of invoking religion when arguing policy. It's been the source of tremendous conflict and violence throughout history. President Obama warned of this way back when he was a senator.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/us/politics/2006obamaspeech.html?pagewanted=all

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

I am sorry you didn't want to take this discussion seriously. But that does not change the fact that it is a very serious issue.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. You know what happens when you actually read the New Testament?

You realize Jesus Christ was a guy living in first century Judea, and that it is impossible to accurately shoehorn him into our modern, two-party political paradigm. You can't pretend to know where he would stand on gay marriage, on the environment, or on health care, because he didn't say fuck-all about any of that.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

44. so what are you trying to tell me?

that when the R's use Jesus or God to advance their cause or idea we should let it lay because I can't PROVE they are wrong?

[Warren Stupidity]

48. no, that their interpretation of christianity is just as valid as yours.

[Act_of_Reparation]

49. No. I'm saying they shouldn't be using Jesus to advance their cause.

And neither should you.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

55. See what you started?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=211525