« Evidence for God | Main | Is the Canon Reliable? »

July 22, 2010

Comments

All one would have to do to answer this question is look in the ‘Religion’ section over at the Huffington Post. You would quickly figure out that Jesus was a Progressive that would understand the necessity of abortion rights and same sex marriage. He would also say we shouldn’t take the Bible too seriously and that we should hold it accountable. Furthermore, he would tell us to get unorganized.

All one would have to do to answer this question is look in the ‘Gospel’ section over at the New Testament. You would quickly figure out that Jesus was a Progressive that would nevertheless encourage women to avoid intentionally dismembering their children. He would also say we should take him extremely seriously and that we should familiarize ourselves with Scripture. Moreover, he would encourage us to baptize people and make disciples.

KWM,

If you're trying to be funny then I didn't laugh.

If you're being serious then all I have to say is where in the world did you come up with that statement?

Ryan,

I wasn’t trying to be funny. I was just trying to state what we are constantly told these days about Jesus. It’s no laughing matter, I agree.

I agree with Malebranche on this one.

Ryan,

By the way, I understand comments like mine don’t help matters. My apologies. Sometimes I just get frustrated. Like when I read this yesterday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-r-braxton/getting-in-front-of-jesus_b_649152.html

KWM,

It's a good thing that you believe that Jesus would have encouraged women to avoid intentionally dismembering their children.

I wonder if you also believe that Jesus would have endorsed the following:

Intending Innocent Human Death: It is sometimes morally permissible to intentionally kill an innocent person by dismembering them.

KWM,

Sorry, meant to write the following:

Intending Innocent Human Death: It is sometimes morally permissible to intentionally kill an innocent human by dismembering them.

Thanks KWM. After reading the article in the link you provided, I wanted to pull my hair out. How can folks like Brad go in so many wrong directions all at once?

KWM, melanbranch...you slay me.

Chris,

If you are an innocent person and I slay you, I assure you that I don't do it intentionally.

My step dad is a far left wing liberal.. Oops I mean progressive. Sorry. I have battled this very thing "Huffington Post article" with him for years. What this really comes down to in a nut shell is accountability. Any time I mention accountability to God we go into DEFCON 1. My Karma loving step daughter is the same. It's all about writing out accoutability to God short and sweet. All the long winded left winf church articles that fill up volumes of page basically say in invisible ink "I'm accountable to myself and I decide my own future",

Progressive, Liberal, and Conservative are all based upon a person's view of the status quo.

Today's Conservatives are liberals when compared to the early Americans, who were progressives in view of English rule.

Jesus was a Progressive or Liberal when compared to the Jewish understanding of the Law.

The only unchangeable foundation to measure Conservatives and Liberals by, is the Sermon on the Mount which if considered to be Conservative Christianity, makes everyone a Progressive, left wing Liberal lunatic, and especially the Religious Right.

Dave said:

"The only unchangeable foundation to measure Conservatives and Liberals by, is the Sermon on the Mount"

Dave, while the sermon on the mount indeed provides key precepts for the lives we followers of Jesus should live, would you agree that there is more to the new testament beyond Matthew chapter 5?

Did Jesus not say he would separate the wheat from chaff, is there not a book called revelations?

Isn't a key point here that either we accept one of the plain fundamental premises of the NT that God came to earth as a man, died and rose again for our sins, and will come again; or we conclude He was merely a socially progressive man with a compelling message?

Veritas,

...is there not a book called revelations?

Actually, there isn't.

Malebranche,

>>”Intending Innocent Human Death: It is sometimes morally permissible to intentionally kill an innocent human by dismembering them. “

When would this be morally permissible? And why dismemberment? Why not death by firing squad?


Malebranche said, "Actually, there isn't."

Please forgive my egregious error, and allow me to humbly ask which version of the name of the last document in the New Testament you prefer:

Book of the Revelation of John
Revelation
The Book of Revelation
The Apocalypse of John
The Apocalypse
Or stick with the Greek, apokalypsis

Great.

Now that we have that pointless trivia out of the way -- oh, and thanks for bringing it up -- can we return to substantive issues?

1) Would you agree that there is more to the new testament beyond Matthew chapter 5?

2) Will Jesus not separate the wheat from chaff, and is there not a book called revelation?

3) Isn't a key point here that either we accept one of the plain fundamental premises of the NT that God came to earth as a man, died and rose again for our sins, and will come again; or we conclude He was merely a socially progressive man (not God) with a compelling message?

Veritas,

You are forgiven.

KWM,

When would this be morally permissible? And why dismemberment? Why not death by firing squad?

I don't see how any of this counts as an answer to the original question, which was, "Do you believe that Jesus endorsed the Intending Innocent Human Death claim?"

If you wouldn't mind answering that question, I wouldn't mind hearing an answer. Perhaps you'd prefer not to.

Dave

If we hold to the understanding that a conservative is someone who wishes to preserve that which has historically been known to be good, then Jesus, with His many references to the old testament teachings and taking to task the Pharisees for their divergence from those teachings, was indeed a conservative of his time. It was the folks in charge who deviated from tradition that God established, which Jesus pointed out to them on more than one occasion. So, if He was a progressive, he was not so in any way by our modern definition of the word. To us, it is an alien concept to think that a progressive is someone who digs deep into the past teachings in order to move forward in a new way....actually, it is in fact a contradiction.

Wow. just finished the podcast mentioned in Melinda's original post. A great presentation:

1) Many "know" who Jesus is. even Satan does. In fact his orthodoxy is probably more correct than most Americans. (He however, does not follow Jesus, of course.)

2) We have many "unconverted believing" people in the U.S. -- people who are intrigued by Jesus, but they are not changed by the Gospel. They are not followers of Christ.

3) We should not wait til tomorrow to follow Christ. We should act today.

4) Jesus asks us who we say He is ... we must have an answer to this. And the answer is not just intellectual assent, but also a heart-changing commitment to live our lives as if we truly believed who he is.

5) We must distinguish among a melting pot of world views today -- many Christians cannot (or do not -- this is where Apologetics can help) We must be able to recognize and live our lives according to who we believe He is. Jesus the ascendant Lord, asks His church, "Who Do you say I am?" Do we know? Do we believe? Are we living what we know to be true?

Malebranche,

Don’t mean to interrupt your patting your own back, but I don’t see how your question brings any value to this discussion.

An ethical dilemma could always be constructed to allow something to be morally permissible. Your question is nonsense.


KWM,

Alright, just wondering if you thought the abortionist Jesus would endorse the Intending Innocent Human Death claim.

Have a good one.

Malebranche,

Out of curiosity, why did you ask me such a question? Furthermore, I agreed with your initial post.

Malebranche,

Please explain why you think Jesus was an abortionist?

KWM,

Well, after being told that Jesus would "understand the necessity of abortion rights," one might wonder what exactly it is that Jesus is warming up to. For instance, no one in their right mind would say, "Jesus would understand the necessity of child pornography rights." Nevertheless, you seem to think that Jesus would warm up to abortion rights.

Now, in case you don't know, many abortions do involve intentionally dismembering innocent humans in order to kill them. So, a person listening to you discuss the abortion rights Jesus might wonder if, according to you, Jesus would support the right of a person to intentionally kill an innocent human being by dismembering it.

Now, perhaps you were just joking when you said Jesus would "understand the necessity of abortion rights." Or perhaps your view is that Jesus would only endorse those abortion rights that don't involve intentionally dismembering an innocent human. Or perhaps you think that fetuses are not innocent humans. Or perhaps you think that it is not always wrong to intentionally dismember innocent humans. However, what I was initially interested in was simply your answer to this question:

Do you or do you not think that Jesus would endorse the Intending Innocent Human Death claim?

Malebranche,

I'm prolife. Go back and reread. I was being sarcastic.

KWM,

Ahhhhh. Well that's a little more encouraging.

The comments to this entry are closed.