Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus

Yes, the in crowd now reject the sermon from the mount, demanding to know what Jesus can do for them. Harper's carried a good piece on that a couple of years back. Thanks for the link.  I'm seeing this also in Marci McDonald's The Armageddon Factor. Scary.

In $ we trust, baby.

I am an evangelical. See how wealthy I am?

This is god's showering his bounty and blessings upon me. A sign I am a "true" believer.

Yeah, this sounds about right.

Quote:

It is He, it is Himself, they say to each other, it
must be He, it can be none other but He! He pauses at the portal
of the old cathedral, just as a wee white coffin is carried in,
with tears and great lamentations. The lid is off, and in the
coffin lies the body of a fair-child, seven years old, the only
child of an eminent citizen of the city. The little corpse lies
buried in flowers. 'He will raise the child to life!' confidently
shouts the crowd to the weeping mother.

The officiating priest who had come to meet the funeral procession, looks perplexed, and
frowns. A loud cry is suddenly heard, and the bereaved mother
prostrates herself at His feet. 'If it be Thou, then bring back
my child to life!' she cries beseechingly. The procession halts,
and the little coffin is gently lowered at his feet. Divine
compassion beams forth from His eyes, and as He looks at the
child, His lips are heard to whisper once more, 'Talitha Cumi' -
and 'straightway the damsel arose.' The child rises in her
coffin. Her little hands still hold the nosegay of white roses
which after death was placed in them, and, looking round with
large astonished eyes she smiles sweetly ....

The crowd is violently excited. A terrible commotion rages among them, the
populace shouts and loudly weeps, when suddenly, before the
cathedral door, appears the Cardinal Grand Inquisitor himself....
He is tall, gaunt-looking old man of nearly four-score years and
ten, with a stern, withered face, and deeply sunken eyes, from
the cavity of which glitter two fiery sparks. He has laid aside
his gorgeous cardinal's robes in which he had appeared before the
people at the auto da-fe of the enemies of the Romish Church, and
is now clad in his old, rough, monkish cassock. His sullen
assistants and slaves of the 'holy guard' are following at a
distance.

He pauses before the crowd and observes. He has seen
all. He has witnessed the placing of the little coffin at His
feet, the calling back to life. And now, his dark, grim face has
grown still darker; his bushy grey eyebrows nearly meet, and his
sunken eye flashes with sinister light. Slowly raising his
finger, he commands his minions to arrest Him...

Some old Russian guy

There are good charities out there, you just have to do some checking up to decide if they're worthwhile. Before I retired I supported the Canadian Hearing Society (I'm very hard of hearing - been a member of CHS since the 1960s) and the Primate's World Relief and Development Fund (PWRDF) of the Anglican Church. If the charity advertises/makes TV appeals, they're likely not going to get support from me. If they can afford TV commercials or entire TV shows showcasing their work, that should raise questions.

I am currently reading Jesus by Geza Vermes. It would probably make most evangelicals heads explode.

Caissa wrote:

I am currently reading Jesus by Geza Vermes. It would probably make most evangelicals heads explode.

I have a small library of Latin American Liberation Theology, and while at Trinity ('77 - '80), I was part of a group (Ecumenical Forum of Canada)  that arranged for one of these to visit Toronto and give a lecture.

LOL!

ps: his name is Jose Miguez Bonino

On another forum, i've ben trying to convince people that Islam is not the reason for "economic stagnation" in Muslim countries. Aside from the unquestioned (and silly) assumptions already contained in the notion of economic stagnations itself, there is an equally silly assumption that the tenets of a religion somehow influence commerce.

If you look at history, the exact opposite is true: whatever power- and wealth-structure was in place, the local religion - any religion! Buddhism, for heaven's sake! - was made to support. Christianity has been yoked to the service of USian money interests, just as it had served European aristocracy. Religion is a tool of the ruling class and does what they want. 

Christianity came over to this continent in three or four flavours and was instrumental in genocide, slavery, rape, pillage, systematic oppression, kidnapping and imprisonment, brainwashing, grand larceny, child-abuse,... etc. The simplest strategem was and is referring to the old testament instead of the new... which was probably why those old guys in Nicea grafted the radical new religion onto a primitive tribal folklore to begin with. Schizophrenic, but infinitely adaptable.

absentia wrote:

Christianity has been yoked to the service of USian money interests, just as it had served European aristocracy. Religion is a tool of the ruling class and does what they want. 

Not all of them were in the back pocket of the power brokers, and for that matter not even every person in the big established churches was, either.

You only have to look at Quakers and Anabaptists as an example of people who were deported and executed because they resisted militarism and stood for a more fair society.

I am absolutely with you on the idea that organized religion has been the major cause of much of the misery in the world, but the notion that Christianity is just one monster with many heads is false. Sorry, but there is plenty of historical evidence to the contrary.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You only have to look at Quakers and Anabaptists as an example of people who were deported and executed because they resisted militarism and stood for a more fair society.

By whom were they deported and executed? Doesn't that just prove that the dominant religion serves the prevailing power? Any sect or group that tried to remain tru to the spirit of Christianity, from about AD 20 onward, has been declared heretical and ruthlessly wiped out. 

There are decent people in churches, and even in fairly high adminstrative positions, i grant you. There are decent people everywhere; people who are true to whatever system of belief or rationality or philosophy they profess. And i didn't say that religion was responsible for the atrocities - only that religion never stopped, or even slowed down, the atrocities. Power elites simply do what they like and bend the practice of religion to their will.

Christianity as one monster with many heads? No, not exactly. It was originally a more or less coherent mystical cult, the adherents of which (whether there was a single, physical Jesus person or not) spread ideas like: the accumulation of worldly possessions is bad for the soul, while helping widows and orphans is good. Once the Roman military leaders got hold of it, the thing was utterly changed. When the popes got hold of it, changed again. When the present bible was faked and forged, mistranslated and plagiarized and cobbled together, it made an odd creature (monster wasn't my word, but it fits): a fresh, radical young creed of equality, forgiveness and tolerance, grafted onto a mythology of patriarchal privilege, racism and revenge. A very uncomfortable fit, but they needed both the popular appeal and the authoritarian tradition. Christians of many stripes and degrees have struggled with the contradiction ever since. The rulers have no problem at all, choosing the bits to emphasize and making up punishments for non-comformity with their view.

That slavery business has been flogged to death. Yes, Christians were instrumental in abolishing something that Christians should never have been practicing in the first place. Christians have built hospitals, orphanages and soup kitchens, as well as residential schools and sweatr-shops; have included mendicant friars, as well as crusaders. Christians disagree, fight one another, kill one another, destroy continents full of non-Christians and then cry over it. They're not all the same. And their belief, whatever shade of belief, whatever their particular version of the book professes, have never, never once, actually prevented the military or the wealthy, the kings or the industrialists, doing whatever the hell they wanted to do.

I'm sure some people here saw Michael Moore's documentary on capitalism.

He interviewed some priests,bishops and other clergymen who declared capitalism goes against the teachings of Christ.

Evangelicals on the other hand,are vocal in their disdain for 'compassion' ,'empathy', the poor and justice.

All the while hiding behind their bibles and their firearms.

Evangelicals embrace totalitarism,intolerance and fascism.

They are not christian...They are a cult.

They are despicable putrid little maggots.

Sigh!

All religions are cults. Some cults are more pernicious than others; some are lovely and benign, at least until they're destroyed or perverted. Most have good and bad members, believers and cynics, leaders and followers of various levels of intelligence, faith and goodwill.

I don't blame religion - neither Christianity nor any other - for the domestic and foreign policy of any society, in any age. Religion is neither the victim nor the culprit: belief systems are something people seem to need, so they always have one. The dominant state religion is always used as a tool of social control by the most powerful elements. The divine right of kings was a religious invention, when kings and popes were necessary allies; once the nobles had demoted the king to secondary power, the cardinals (who were nobles anyway) went with that. When America seceded and declared itself a republic, the Puritans became Republicans. The Catholic church, as well as all the others, went along. Michael Mooer's friendly priest didn't hie himself up onto any mountains to preach against capitalism, nor return the coins in the collection plate that had a president's face on them. Very few clergymen refuted social Darwinism in public, though they were pretty quick to stomp all over the real thing. Power shifts, religious organization shifts with it. All part of politics.

Malcolm wrote:

Caissa wrote:

ETA: I'm sure you had a large turnout from Wycliffe.

 

Please.  We refer to it as "the other place; the one with the nice view."

{joke}

On the other hand, I might be mistaken.
Perhaps Bev Oda actually made the right decision in cutting Kairos funding. After all, do we really want to have a bunch of sky fairy worshippers in charge of an organization claiming to be socially progressive?
Sure they make one or two decisions that happen to be good, but can we really trust them so long as the only take their marching orders from their big daddy in the sky?
They might seem find today, but who knows when they might just decide to start sacrificing goats, or building a big boat?
I'm not sure we should have anything more to do with them unless they turn the reins of their organization over to people who can prove they are completely secular, and not under the spell of those dangerous fairy tales.

{/joke}

milo, go to any city and see who is doing the the back-work when it comes to feeding and clothing the poor. It may not be the majority everywhere, but I would wager a significant proportion are church groups.

And sorry... I don't buy the line that they are all doing it just to hook people into converting.

And as for ethics being separate from that belief, by that logic you absolve all religions from the evils that have been done in their name, because those people would have done bad things anyway. You can't have it both ways.

alan smithee wrote:

Evangelicals on the other hand,are vocal in their disdain for 'compassion' ,'empathy', the poor and justice.

 

They do have their use for say, televangelist "ministers."

"Please donate what you can right now so we can send a mission to spread the word of Jesus christ, our lord and savior, our salvation to the poor and needy, to the suffering of (say) Haiti."

This is literally translated to read: "Please donate what you can right now so we can send our people for an all expense paid vacation to an exotic Caribbean resort where we will assault these godless communist atheists, devil worshippers and heathens with our religious bullshit. Bibles rather than secure employment with a living wage and food. The reason why these people suffer from poverty, unemployement or poor paying jobs, homelessness, malnutrition, poor health, illiteracy, crime and natural disasters is because this is god's way of punishing them for not accepting Jesus christ into their hearts as their one true savior. The remaining profit after expenses, and there always is remaining profit, all goes to me, minister of the church of [insert name here.] Tax sheltered religion means 'No Taxes', 100% profit after expenses. The reason why I am rich - look at the homes I live in, look at the cars I am chauffeured in, look at the Gucchi business suits I wear, look at all the jewell encrusted gold rings I wear on my fingers - is because I accept Jesus in my heart and these are the outward material manifestations of god's wondrous bountious blessings."

One more time: I do not blame religion for anything that's done in its name. I do not blame the faithful, nor the belief system to which they adhere. I do not disrespect political allies, either in person or on principle.

The things that are done in the world - both good and bad - are done, not by gods but by people. People belong to organizations and organizations have leaders. Most of the things that are done are done at the command of leaders, by people who obey the leaders. Whether the things that are done are good or bad, you can judge for yourself, in each case, and you can measure and compare the magnitude of various acts. I've said that organized religion never stopped the rulers of nations from behaving as they wished, and that the dominant religion of a state adapts to and supports the political elite and tends to persecute its rebels, often to extinction. I can't take back any of that without proof to the contrary of everything i've read of history.

As for definitions of cult, i may be wrong: maybe the evangelicals are and all the others aren't, or some are and some aren't -  the religious can sort it out among themselves.

Frmrsldr wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

I think you are oversimplifying several things here - though admittedly a discussion thread post doesn't leave time for a lot of nuance.  But just to look at this one point, I'd suggest that the Puritans (or their spiritual descendents) didn's become Republicans because America became a republic, but rather that the anti-monarchism of the Puritans was a significant factor in America's choice to become a republic. 

(There were discussions about establishing an American monarchy, either by electing an American as first monarch [most likely George Washington] or by inviting a European royal to become king.  Washington explicitly turned down the opportunity.  The most likely candidates in the latter scenario were Heinrich of Prussia, Charles Edward Stuart or Edward of Kent.  Either of the latter could have created interesting issues.  Charles Edward Stuart was the legitimist claimant to the British thrones, and an American throne might have given him the necessary capacity to retake his British thrones, reuniting the British and American sovreignties.  Edward of Kent was a younger son George III, but it since both George IV and William IV died without legitimate issue, it was Edward's daughter who became Queen Victoria - which would also have served to reunite the British and American sovreignties.)

Wow! I am very impressed!

You really dig that monarchy stuff, don't you?

He doesn't dig the monarchy at all.  He just knows his history.  Would you say that anyone who was up on the history of the Third Reich "really digs that Hitler stuff"?

(...other than David Irving, I mean...)

Fact is, anti-monarchism is a much more pressing issue for the Brits(at one point in the Eighties, the Labour Party had a manifesto commitment to abolish the monarchy) than it is for Canada.  Malcolm is just as anti-monarchist as you are.  He just doesn't believe that that is the SINGLE most important issue for the Canadian left.  Why can't you just accept that its an issue Canadian leftists can legitimately disagree about?  Fighting globalization and ending support for the imperial ambitions of the U.S. are, arguably, far more pressing concerns for Canada's left than putting paid to the Windsor Germans.  Canadian troops are dying in Afghanistan.  Nobody's dying because Liz is still on the money.

Malcolm wrote:

I think you are oversimplifying several things here - though admittedly a discussion thread post doesn't leave time for a lot of nuance.  But just to look at this one point, I'd suggest that the Puritans (or their spiritual descendents) didn's become Republicans because America became a republic, but rather that the anti-monarchism of the Puritans was a significant factor in America's choice to become a republic. 

(There were discussions about establishing an American monarchy, either by electing an American as first monarch [most likely George Washington] or by inviting a European royal to become king.  Washington explicitly turned down the opportunity.  The most likely candidates in the latter scenario were Heinrich of Prussia, Charles Edward Stuart or Edward of Kent.  Either of the latter could have created interesting issues.  Charles Edward Stuart was the legitimist claimant to the British thrones, and an American throne might have given him the necessary capacity to retake his British thrones, reuniting the British and American sovreignties.  Edward of Kent was a younger son George III, but it since both George IV and William IV died without legitimate issue, it was Edward's daughter who became Queen Victoria - which would also have served to reunite the British and American sovreignties.)

Frmrsldr wrote:

Wow! I am very impressed!

You really dig that monarchy stuff, don't you?

Ken Burch wrote:

He doesn't dig the monarchy at all.  He just knows his history.  Would you say that anyone who was up on the history of the Third Reich "really digs that Hitler stuff"?

In a word, "Yes." Other people who would study the Third Reich to the extent it appears Malcolm has studied British and European monarchy, would do so to oppose nazism, neo-nazism, the Third Reich and all it stands for.

Aside from the occassional lip service to republicanism followed by an excuse for why not to try to achieve it (as you yourself provide), Malcolm has otherwise said absolutely nothing about opposition to monarchy. So, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, feels like a duck, smells like a duck, chancs are, it's a duck.

Ken Burch wrote:

Fact is, anti-monarchism is a much more pressing issue for the Brits(at one point in the Eighties, the Labour Party had a manifesto commitment to abolish the monarchy) than it is for Canada.  Malcolm is just as anti-monarchist as you are.  He just doesn't believe that that is the SINGLE most important issue for the Canadian left.  Why can't you just accept that its an issue Canadian leftists can legitimately disagree about?  Fighting globalization and ending support for the imperial ambitions of the U.S. are, arguably, far more pressing concerns for Canada's left than putting paid to the Windsor Germans.

If you think abolishing (the suzerainty) of the British monarchy in Canada is the single most pressing issue with me, compare the number of antimonarchy posts with the number of Afghan war posts I've made.

This binary thinking is a fallacy. It's not a case of Canada's left either invests all its energy into abolishing the monarchy or it invests all its energy into fighting against globalism, (American) imperialism and the Afghan war.

It is not impossible, in fact it's quite possible to do all these simultaneously and successfully, even when allocating time, effort and resources appropriately.

Ken Burch wrote:

Canadian troops are dying in Afghanistan.  Nobody's dying because Liz is still on the money.

In fact, the absolute contrary is very much the case.

As a Canadian soldier, one swears an oath of allegiance to the "... queen, her heirs, successors and representatives."

In other words, as a Canadian soldier, one swears an oath of allegience to a foreign sovereign - the British crown.

A foreign sovereign, the British queen is the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Canadian soldiers are fighting, dying, maiming and murdering innocent Afghans and every other evil act they are committing in this immoral, unjust and illegal war in the name of a foreign sovereign (head of state) - in the name, that is of the BRITISH QUEEN. (Yes indeed, the face that adorns Canadian legal tender whenever Canadians make financial transactions.)

How does that grab you?

On that note, I am sure most of you have heard of this book from 2000:

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

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/Jabez.htm