Who Would Jesus Vote For?

[Michael Tee]

<<But I find amusing that an atheist is arguing for a strict and literal interpretation of the Old Testament.>>

I think the conflict between strict and literal interpretation of a text and a more liberal or flexible interpretation is worth exploring when there is some inherent ambiguity in the text or some inexplicable conflict between one portion and another.  But to pick flexible, liberal or imaginative interpretations of a text that is clear and unambiguous is just frivolous and empty-headed.  Words have meanings, particularly instructional or normative words.  The Ten Commandments are just that:  commandments.  When a ship's passengers read a set of instructions bolted onto the bulkhead of a ship telling them what to do in case of fire, it's not the smartest thing to try to find a flexible, imaginative interpretation of those words.  Best to follow them as best you can and not try to read stuff into them that isn't already there.


<<I think you're getting hung up on the words and missing the possibility of something beyond your expectation or understanding. >>

Well, given the unambiguity of the text and the accompanying veiled threat about a jealous God, it just doesn't sound to me like there are going to be hidden meanings planted there by the Lord to be winkled out by imaginative interpretation.  If it's liberal and flexible interpretation you're looking for, I'm your man, but please, pick the right text for it, something by Andrew Marvell or even Bob Dylan.  Visions of Johanna would be a good place to start.   

<<But this is always the problem with God and language. >>

Actually not.  I found the words we are discussing to be crystal clear.  Moreover I find it highly unlikely that there were any hidden meanings seeded into that particular text or that the good Lord was hoping for some very fanciful interpretations of His words.  Sure as hell doesn't look like that to me.

<<Our words limit our thoughts, and so our thinking about God is limited, yet God is more than we can understand with our words. It is our stumbling stone.>>

A lack of understanding is one thing.  Using that lack as an excuse to fabricate some totally bullshit story and sell it to the suckers who'll believe anything is ludicrous.  Just because our minds or our language may be inadequate instruments for grasping the nature of the Divine is no justification for inventing cockamamie theology out of whole cloth and gambling on "Mystery" or "Faith" alone to validate it.

[_JS]

But his main mission was saving your soul ,which requires your co operation.

Why do you say that was Christ's "main mission?"

[Plane]

But his main mission was saving your soul ,which requires your co operation.

Why do you say that was Christ's "main mission?"

Why else put up with Crucifixion?


http://www.gospel.com/topics/jesus


What do you think was his mission above the salvation of souls?

[_JS]

I'm rather amazed at this entire discussion. Within these pages I've witnessed claims that the incarnate God would vote for a specific 21st century party in a single nation. I've read posts that ridicule people for their religious beliefs.

Of course George Carlin failed to recognize that the likes of Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Kung, Boff, Sobrino, Gutierrez, Bultmann, Barth, Bonhoeffer, Meyendorff...just to name a few believe in God and, with no ill intent towards the late comedian, are some of the most intelligent people this planet has known in recent history.

On the other side of the coin, Christ is not a politician. The only political system he frequently gave mention to was the Kingdom of God and mention was not made of any voting. Besides that, He was a felon and certainly not a citizen of Rome or these United States. If anything He'd likely be purged from the voter rolls by both parties.

If we wish to discuss theology, then let's discuss theology. If we wish to discuss philosophy then let us discuss that. If we wish to discuss Christology, then I'm game. But let's not make jokes about those who believe in God nor drag Christ (or anyone's faith) through the grime of US politics.

[_JS]

But his main mission was saving your soul ,which requires your co operation.

Why do you say that was Christ's "main mission?"

Why else put up with Crucifixion?


http://www.gospel.com/topics/jesus


What do you think was his mission above the salvation of souls?

Did He not proclaim the Kingdom of God?

Luke 17:20-21
20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "The Kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the Kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

[Xavier_Onassis]

Can speaking of Africa , Asia and Austrailia be construed to be speaking of three diffrent planets?

No, a continent is not the same thing as a planet.

 How can one planet have three such diffrent aspects?

They are not different.

[Plane]

Can speaking of Africa , Asia and Austrailia be construed to be speaking of three diffrent planets?

No, a continent is not the same thing as a planet.

 How can one planet have three such diffrent aspects?

They are not different.

Earth has City , Desert and Ocean.

But if you are in one of these aspects you are not in the other.

"They are not different."

How right you are! And so you do understand the Father Son and Holy Goast concept.

 Earth is one planet but you can't stand on all of its continents at once because you are a bit smaller than the planet.

So are we a bit smaller than God and cannot experience all of Gods aspects at once.

This doesn't imply a discontinuity between Continents , under the ocean there is just one Planet Earth.

Nor need we speak of three Gods just because we have seen him in three diffrent guises. He says he is one entity very emphaticly.

[Plane]

But his main mission was saving your soul ,which requires your co operation.

Why do you say that was Christ's "main mission?"

Why else put up with Crucifixion?


http://www.gospel.com/topics/jesus


What do you think was his mission above the salvation of souls?

Did He not proclaim the Kingdom of God?

Luke 17:20-21
20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "The Kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the Kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

I suppose so , but why consider this to be more important than the mission he gave to his Deciples?

Didn't he tell Peter that if Peter loved him , he should feed his sheep?

Although Jesus spoke on other subjects , the emphasis on salvation of souls is so extreme that it eclipses the rest and I think this was purposefull.

[Universe Prince]

Michael, I think you're missing my point entirely. I'm not saying words don't have meaning. Of course they do. And I'm not saying the passage of scripture to which you keep returning means something other than what it says. But you do seem to be hanging a whole heap of theology on this one passage. At one point in Exodus, God says to Moses, "Depart and go up from here, you and the people whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt," (italic emphasis added) and while I don't think that language is unclear, I doubt God was telling Moses to take credit for being the God who brought the people of Israel out of Egypt. Words do have meaning, in themselves, but also in context.

Anyway, I've explained my position on this matter, and you and I will just have to accept that we don't agree. If I came across as insulting you in this thread in anyway, that was never my intention. My apologies if it happened.

[Michael Tee]

<<Anyway, I've explained my position on this matter, and you and I will just have to accept that we don't agree. If I came across as insulting you in this thread in anyway, that was never my intention. My apologies if it happened.>>

No harm, no foul.  Not only was I not insulted, I had to review the posts to see what might even remotely resemble an insult.  The only thing that even remotely came close was the "I find it amusing . . . "   I guess that was the chance for me to pull my Joe Pesce imitation, "I amuse you?  Like a clown?  I'm a funny guy?" but shit, I blew it.  No offence taken, Prince, no apology necessary.

[_JS]

But his main mission was saving your soul ,which requires your co operation.

Why do you say that was Christ's "main mission?"

Why else put up with Crucifixion?


http://www.gospel.com/topics/jesus


What do you think was his mission above the salvation of souls?

Did He not proclaim the Kingdom of God?

Luke 17:20-21
20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "The Kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the Kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

I suppose so , but why consider this to be more important than the mission he gave to his Deciples?

Didn't he tell Peter that if Peter loved him , he should feed his sheep?

Although Jesus spoke on other subjects , the emphasis on salvation of souls is so extreme that it eclipses the rest and I think this was purposefull.

Why does the Kingdom of God necessarily exclude the economy of salvation?

[Plane]

But his main mission was saving your soul ,which requires your co operation.

Why do you say that was Christ's "main mission?"

Why else put up with Crucifixion?


http://www.gospel.com/topics/jesus


What do you think was his mission above the salvation of souls?

Did He not proclaim the Kingdom of God?

Luke 17:20-21
20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "The Kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the Kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

I suppose so , but why consider this to be more important than the mission he gave to his Deciples?

Didn't he tell Peter that if Peter loved him , he should feed his sheep?

Although Jesus spoke on other subjects , the emphasis on salvation of souls is so extreme that it eclipses the rest and I think this was purposefull.

Why does the Kingdom of God necessarily exclude the economy of salvation?

Exclude?  Aren't they necessacery for each other?