CLOSING THE GOD GAP: Leftwing Frauds, Phonies and Flim-Flammers Exploit Religion to Get Votes
|
by Richard Poe Tuesday, August 9, 2005 2:27 pm Eastern Time |
Archives 26 Comments |
Even as leftists condemn the “religious right,” they are rushing to cobble together a religious left before the next election, in order to remain competitive. Hillary Clinton is leading the way. And Hillary’s former guru, Rabbi Michael Lerner, has called for a new “spiritual activism” of the left.
“If it’s true that the Democratic Party is about to get religion, then Hillary Clinton is first at the altar,” notes Village Voice writer Kristen Lombardi. Observing that Hillary began salting her speeches earlier this year with copious invocations of God and the Bible, Lombardi writes:
“Clinton may have been the first leading Democrat to start talking religion in public after the Bush victory. But her recent speeches are part of a growing conversation within the party on how to rebuild after the disastrous 2004 election. Democrats recognize a need to close the God gap among religious voters who’ve come to see the Republicans as their only possible pick.”
Ex-Sixties radical, Intifada sympathizer and editor of Tikkun magazine Michael Lerner has placed himself at the vanguard of the new Religious Left movement, with the launch of what he calls the Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP).
“What’s the alternative?” asks Lerner, whose claim to the title “Rabbi” has been disputed on this blog. “Let the religious right get more and more powerful by being the only political force that can speak to Americans’ hunger for a meaning to life that transcends money and power?” (hat tip, Evergreen Monthly)
“Religious… But Not Religious”
Alternet.org quotes Lerner saying that he is building a coalition of “religious, secular and spiritual, but not religious, progressives.” That’s right – “religious… but not religious, progressives.” Maybe it’s just a typo, but, well, that’s what the quote says. (via Alternet.org)
Perhaps Lerner intends to model his “religious… but not religious” movement after Saul D. Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF). Alinsky (1909 – 1972) was a radical street organizer who excelled at recruiting Catholic and Protestant clergymen into his cause, converting their churches into urban activist centers.
A gifted con artist, Alinsky could wax rhapsodic on the topic of “Judeo-Christian values.” But he showed his true colors in the end. The year before he died, Alinsky published a bestselling book called Rules for Radicals, which he dedicated to none other than… Lucifer! The dedication reads, in part:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
We might say that Alinsky was “religious… but not religious,” somewhat like Michael Lerner’s new “spiritual activist” movement.
Reaching the Masses
Rabbi Moshe ben Asher is another luminary of the burgeoning religious left. Formerly an organizer for the radical cult ACORN, ben Asher today co-directs something called “Gather the People,” described on ben Asher’s bio as a “web-based nonprofit organization that provides education and training resources for congregational community organizing and development…”
Here’s ben Asher’s account of how he got “religion” while engaged in grassroots organizing. He writes:
“I haven’t always had a religious or spiritual life. One night in San Francisco in the early 1980s, I was riding in a car with another organizer and two middle-aged African-American women who were leaders in Citizens Action League. One woman consistently punctuated her comments with the phrase, `Praise God’ — which struck me as inane at the time.
“Within six months I had come to reflect on the fact that, overwhelmingly, the lives of the people with whom I had been working – virtually all low-to-moderate-income people of color and working class ethnic whites – revolved around their religious and spiritual beliefs. Their first organizational loyalty was to their church, whether for religious, spiritual, social, cultural, educational, political, or economic reasons.
“What was inane was that I, along with the majority of my colleagues, was ignorant not only of what religion and spirituality meant to them but in my own family’s tradition as well. How in the world, I asked myself, could I be useful to them in making long-extended life changes? Of course, I couldn’t – which was the impetus to my becoming a rabbi and significantly increasing my understanding of spirituality and religion.
“Subsequently I came to work in the field of interfaith congregational community organizing, which since then has evolved into one of the most noteworthy arenas of grassroots community organizing.”
Like Alinsky, ben Asher realized that the surest way to a potential recruit’s heart is through his faith – especially if that potential recruit happens to be a “low-to-moderate-income” person “of color” or a “working-class ethnic white.”
Armed and Dangerous
Last month, Rabbi Michael Lerner held a “Spiritual Activism Conference” in Berkeley, California. He plans to hold a much larger conference in Washington, DC in the spring of 2006, just as the mid-term election campaign gets going in earnest.
Lerner’s tactics have mellowed considerably since his days as a radical revolutionary during the Sixties. In David Horowitz’s autobiography Radical Son (pages 176-178), Horowitz describes Lerner’s enthusiastic embrace of the doctrine of violent insurrection espoused in 1968 by Weatherman terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. Horowitz writes:
“About this time [1968], Michael Lerner approached me with the idea that I should buy a gun. `Michael,’ I said in disbelief, `this is no revolutionary situation. The people aren’t with us. You couldn’t even describe a scenario in which there was a shoot-out with the police that we could win.’ Hardly pausing, he said, `Then you have to buy a handgun and give it to someone else for use in assassinations.'”
Horowitz also notes that Lerner once told him, “Until you’ve dropped acid, you don’t know what socialism is.”
When Lerner married, writes Horowitz, “the couple exchanged rings made from the fuselage of a downed American aircraft. The bride had brought them back from North Vietnam. Their wedding cake was inscribed with a Weatherman slogan: Smash Monogamy. The marriage lasted less than a year.”
by Richard Poe
August 9, 2005 02:27 PM ET
Cross-posted from MoonbatCentral.com 08.09.05
Comments
26 Responses to “CLOSING THE GOD GAP: Leftwing Frauds, Phonies and Flim-Flammers Exploit Religion to Get Votes”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying about this post...Isn’t it a shame that all Richard Poe seems to know how to do is attack, attack, attack.
Since leaving the Republican party August, 2003, I have been dismayed by what people call “the religious right.” I have said for a long time I do not believe “the religious right” is very religious OR very right.
Some of the things I read coming from supposedly “religious” people don’t seem very Christ-like at all. As a student of the Bible, I do not see the same man “the religious right” seems to see in it.
The Bible I read says “anyone who says I love God but hates his brother is a liar.” How about yours?
Until people on BOTH sides of the issues can find a way to sit down and discuss their differences CIVILLY, and find a way to work through to a solution without all this demeaning name-calling, we come off as not much better than all those countries Mr. Bush wants to “liberate.”
Alan Charles writes: “Isn’t it a shame that all Richard Poe seems to know how to do is attack, attack, attack.”
Dear Mr. Charles:
Isn’t it a shame that all you lefties know how to do is lie, lie, lie?
If I had a nickel for every Bolshevist troll who came onto this blog claiming to be a conservative (disillusioned or otherwise), I would have retired in style about four months ago.
I’m going to start charging you people admission, if you keep this up.
Richard Poe writes: “Alternet.org quotes Lerner saying that he is building a coalition of ‘religious, secular and spiritual, but not religious, progressives.’ That’s right – `religious… but not religious, progressives.’ Maybe it’s just a typo, but, well, that’s what the quote says.”
The quote is probably accurate but the phrase should be: “spiritual-but-not-religious.” This refers to a valid and largely unmapped part of the contemporary religious scene: individuals who consider themselves spiritual and/or religious but aren’t drawn to organized religion in any form.
The idea that Michael Lerner has any unique grasp of this constituency is laughable. As is the idea that the left will have any success in putting together a specifically “religious” coalition in which devoutly religious and secular people will find common ground.
Memo to Michael Lerner: The radical redistributionist, enforced-morality, anti-traditional-values left of which you have been an angry leader for over two decades is *itself* a religion.
Mr. Thompson writes: “The quote is probably accurate but the phrase should be: `spiritual-but-not-religious.'”
Ah. A Freudian slip, perhaps?
This is the usual crap we get from lefties trying to cherry pick religion for their own hedonistic justifications. As for the Michael Lerners and Noam Chomskys, and a local “Rabbi” follower of theirs in my neck of the woods by the name of Bruce Warshal, we have a tribe of self-loathing Jews openly attempting to inflict maximum damage and destruction on Israel and traditional Judaism as they try overcompensating for their dreaded birth curse of having been spawned by Jewish parents.
The “enlightened” crowd of utopian leftists they associate with are the front lines of the “Unholy Alliance” and will stop at nothing, including assassinations and terrorism, to destroy traditional society and western civilization as it exists today, and is symbolized by their most dreaded arch enemy, Israel.
Lerner, Chomsky, Warshal and their ilk are very active in subversive causes with the phony “peace” tag used for aiding and abetting islamic terrorism. The “God” ruse is leftist takiyya designed to trip up impressionable young people and ignoramuses who can be easily manipulated. This is why the left and islam form such a seemless alliance, and why we must battle them with the utmost vigilance in our struggle for civilization.
This connects to the Peter Jennings story from the other thread, as a leftist enabler like Jennings provides the “legitimate” mouthpiece for the deeper, darker mission the radical left has cooking with the islamic jihadis. In this vein, we must not bow to their twisted cries for political correctness, as PC is a set of rules they invented to shelter them from the rightful criticism and labelling we need to effectively marginalize their depraved fantasy to someday take over the world.
These quislings are very dangerous people who should be considered no different than leaders of organized mob crime and brought to justice under the RICO ACT along with their frontmen in the ACLU.
-MZ
The left is insidious and nefarious in almost everything that they say and do. As I have mentioned in other media and here, it is all about power or lack of power in the case of the leftists. They believe that they can sway the religious fold with their proclamations of morality. This is just another example of “by any means necessary”.
As much as I despise Oliver Stone, there is a line from the movie Platoon that brings this into focus. At the end, as the helicopter flies the character played by Charlie Sheen away from the battlefield, his character pronounces a soliloquy which I will paraphrase badly: “…fighting for what Ra called, possession of my soul…”
To put that in context here, we have two factions fighting for the possession of our souls.
One of the other posters here expressed dismay over the religious right and his perceived view of forcing religion into government and our daily lives. It has been my observation that those who adamantly oppose any religion whatsoever are those who have had a bad personal experience concerning religion.
Essentially, these people have put themselves in a position to judge God. They ask, “If God were so merciful, why would He allow these bad things to happen?” “What about my innocent child? Did God have to let my child die miserably?” “If God is so all-knowing, why doesn’t He stop war and force people to live in peace?” etc…ad infinitum.
These people who decry God are putting themselves above God. They are judging God from their own perspective and they find Him wanting. Most are unable to comprehend that the reason that bad things happen are that men and women are not God. They don’t have infinite patience or infinite wisdom. They can’t imagine or feel what someone else is feeling. They can’t control their urges nor their need for revenge. They can’t stop being envious of what other people have. They can’t stop wanting to control the lives of everyone around them by limiting others’ freedoms. They want to have power over everyone…in essence, they want to be God. The problem is, they don’t know God, so they have no way of imitating God.
All that being said, we are all human. We will make mistakes. We will have wants and desires and will judge other people based on our own perceptions of right and wrong.
The beauty of this country is that we have a choice. We can choose the path that we want to follow and know that we can be happy in that choice or not. This is something that no other country on earth can have. Are other people in the world jealous? Why yes.
Getting back to the topic at hand, the Democratic Party can say one thing and readily do the other. They have proven this countless times. It all comes down to how badly you want the power. Will anyone with an independent mind believe this sudden turnaround by the left? No. Will the mindless sheep of the left believe the rhetoric? Yes. We have come full circle. Yin and Yang.
Alan Charles writes: “I have said for a long time I do not believe ‘the religious right’ is very religious OR very right. … The Bible I read says ‘anyone who says I love God but hates his brother is a liar.’ How about yours?”
To paraphrase Niebuhr; Jesus commanded us to love our enemies, he didn’t say we had to like them.
Lefties aren’t my brothers. Why should I like them? Didn’t Jesus also they the enemy is the one of your household? didn’t Jesus send his mother and sibings away (what was the quote about his real family?), what about the lefty (I guess he was the only one) Judas who betrayed Jesus?
What about the guy who asked Jesus that he wanted to follow him but first he had to go to bury a friend (or was that family?) and Jesus answered: Let the dead bury the dead… Does that sound like love? What about the moneychangers in the temple? Did Jesus love them so much that he beat them up?
What about Peter and his brother? Jesus just told them: ‘Follow me’ and they did that. As good Jews they most probably have been married with kids. Did Peter love his wife, his kids his father and mother?
No, you have to make a decision of what you want to do with your life and then go for it, disregarding everything else. Being Christian isn’t about my brother or my family or how I treat lefties. Do you know the parable of the pearl of great prize?
Jesus that in one of the 7 ‘I am…’ statements in the Gospel of John (actually there are 8 but the last one is only his identification at the trial) I am the truth… To follow what one thinks is the truth is following what Jesus said he is.
Jesus didn’t involve in social engineering his help for people was based on individual feelings and support. Sometimes he helped sometimes he didn’t (noli me tangere…..). Christiantiy isn’t about Medical.
Christianity is not about healing the body it is about healing the mind and the soul. That goes about truthfullness.
As Jesus was in the desert and the devil came to tempt him, guess what he tried to tempt him with? The devil wanted to GIVE him everything he just had to worship him. Doesn’t that sound familiar?
I give you better SS and you vote for me.
Demokrats have to buy their voters (panem et circensis) Republicans are a party of individuals seeing that their affairs are taken care of.
That’s why christians tend to republicans.
greetings
Werner
I honestly do not know how religious progressives are going to attract any true Christians to their new religion. I take it this neo-religion will still have the implacable progressive core belief system based on their notions of gay marriage, infanticide, race baiting and class envy.
Rightminded says: “I honestly do not know how religious progressives are going to attract any true Christians to their new religion.”
Actually, they are not trying to attract true or devout believers. They are trying to attract wishy-washy ones, who are not well informed about the issues. As Kristen Lombardi writes in the Village Voice:
Lombardi seems to imply that Hillary is trying to convince these “middle-of-the-road” churchgoers that she shares their opposition to abortion, gay marriage, government bans against displaying the Ten Commandments and so forth, while in reality Hillary favors these things.
It all sounds very complicated. Lying is a complicated business.
So why do comments seem to sporadically disappear from this site? I am distraught to think of all the brilliant observations which may be forever lost in the ether.
Yes, lying is a complicated business. Also, let me point out one thing to Alan Charles, Mr. I-Read-the-Bible-And-Love-My-Brother.
Remember Jesus saying that, when a man strikes your right cheek, turn to him the left? That turn the other cheek thing was stated in that order for a reason.
Most people are right handed. I’m sure we can agree on this. To strike your right cheek with my right hand, I must strike you from behind. Therefore, the vast majority of people striking your right cheek are striking from behind, a back-attacking type of cowardly move.
So, why do you think you are commanded to turn the other cheek? Why, to defend and retaliate! Jesus never told you what to do after you have turned and identified your assailant, so it stands to reason he intends for instinct to take over, instinct being self-defense. And that is exactly what America did after 911.
And for espousing these beliefs in a philosophy class, a leftie had the nerve to call me the “hedonistic jackass”. How’s that for role reversal?
subtrrn asks: “So why do comments seem to sporadically disappear from this site?”
I’ve done a lot of deleting in the last couple of days because many leftist trolls invaded our blog in response to Mr. Horowitz’s Peter Jennings obit.
The trolls mostly attack at night, so in the morning I delete their posts and, more often than not, I also delete any posts addressed to the trolls, because it would look strange to have posts on the thread addressed to someone who is no longer there.
On this particular thread, I deleted most of Mr. Charles’ posts, but left his first one in place, along with the responses to it. A judgment call.
When it comes to the exploitation of people’s religious beliefs for political gain, I trust only atheists.
Miss Nearing writes: “When it comes to the exploitation of people’s religious beliefs for political gain, I trust only atheists.”
So you would have trusted Saul Alinsky not to exploit people’s religious beliefs for political gain? And Mao Tse Tung? And Joseph Stalin?
Richard, I’m certain that Grace was pointing out how it’s atheists like you’ve mentioned above who are the first ones to exploit religion for their own political gain.
-MZ
Rightwinger,
That was an interesting story about turning the other cheek. I heard a Biblical scholar describe something similar once on tv. He said that it was standard practice to backhand people as a sign of contempt and that turning the other cheek forced them to treat you like a man. Or a woman with self respect too, I guess. I dont know what the truth is but Jesus advising the devout to take a beating for no good reason always seemed out of character to me. It’s obvious that the right cheek is specifically mentioned for a reason so I dont buy into the old line about allowing yourself to be slapped silly.
Glad to hear you spoke your mind in philosophy class. What hedonism has to do with your story I’ll never know.
I don’t know guys, Christ was the Son of God, and I know based on some of his teachings that I will most likely hear, soon after my death, “Rightminded, you got some esplanin to do, just like Lucy!”
Luke Chapter 6 verses 27-31
27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Although the following is not a Catholic interpretation of the Bible, I have found it very useful, and I am appreciative of the fact it is there.
The Linked Word Project!
Read
Matthew 3:7 – But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Do you think Jesus turned the other cheek? No, he not only did NOT turn the other cheek but he slapped the Pharisees in the face by calling them names ‘generation of vipers’
If you read through the bible about his dealings with Pharisee and local Rabbis you come to the conclusion that he was a fierce debater who didn’t back up the fraction of an inch.
One has to see the recommendation of turning the other cheek with some relativity. It definitely didn’t mean to give in to the evil.
Jesus very much turned the other cheek when it came to things God demanded of him, to that he yielded comlpetely and did more as was asked of him, in that circumstance it makes sense.
If we consider Alan who comes here and sports that attitude then it is funny that he doesn’t use it for himself (why would he come then here?) No, he recommends that to us. Hey, turn the other cheek that I may slap you.
What a fool.
greetings
Werner
Werner says,
“Do you think Jesus turned the other cheek? No, he not only did NOT turn the other cheek but he slapped the Pharisees in the face by calling them names ‘generation of vipers’”
Based on the Book of Matthew it is John the Baptist that said the above.
Matthew
Chapter 3
1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Werner, I believe The Prince of Peace will take into consideration my life long struggle between my love of his word and him, love of family, and love of country, come the day of my judgment. I AM CONFIDENT HE WILL UNDERSTAND!
I am also confident that he does not want his word spun to suit my struggle. To try and do so, is akin to mocking him, in my way of thinking.
Dear rightminded,
I did not mean to offend you.
I have a different picture of how Jesus has been like. In my reading he was not a softhearted man who loved peace over everything.
My picture is based on certain information which is given in the bible. How to interpret it is something of individual thinking. I interpret those things different than mainstream christians.
here are some quotes which support my view of Jesus:
Matthew 12:24
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?
Matthew 23:13
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses
Or just put in ‘hypocrite’ into any bible search engine.
Jesus also said he did not come to bring peace but the sword.
His disciples have been afraid of him.
His main disciple had a sword at the time Jesus was arrested. Does that sound he taught his disciples to be peaceful?
Jesus condemned a figtree who didn’t bear fruit, he beat up moneychangers in the temple and so on.
If you really want to know the traits of Jesus then read through the bible again. There are many surprising findings.
If you read again how Jesus dealt with Pharisees then you will see that the strive for truth has a higher priority then to ‘turn the other cheek’.
Mosaic law was ‘an eye for an eye’ and Jesus said it did not come to abolish the law he said he came to fulfill it. Moses got a lot of teachings from the egyptians, a lot of the bible are based on egyptian texts.
To understand jewish and christian teachings one has to study the roots to understand more.
Jesus himself said that the parables he uses are keyed that the parables taken on facevalue is somekind of watered down understanding.
To understand christianity one also has to study the Philokalia, the teachings of the early christians.
To find the keys is tantamount to understand the real meaning of what Jesus and others in the bible said.
To see Jesus as he is seen by the mainstream christianity is (excuse that word) naiv.
As a simple example take your own attitude: is that turning the other cheek?
Nobody is doing that, unless he has a reason which overrides common sense.
greetings
Werner
Werner writes,
“Dear rightminded, I did not mean to offend you.”
Believe me Werner you did not offend me, I simply was correcting you with respect to what you said pertaining to the Book of Matthew Chapter 3 verse 7.
You really have a unique take on the words and actions of The Son of Man. I certainly am not a theologian, but I also am not a run of the mill tyro.–I TAKE MY FAITH SERIOUSLY.
You are familiar with a New Testament that I am not. Case in point:
You state, “His main disciple had a sword at the time Jesus was arrested.”–Which one was the main disciple in your view, and are you sure it was a disciple that drew the sword and cut off the ear of a high Priest’s servant?–You should carefully read the following Chapter and verse!
Matthew
Chapter 26
50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
Luke
Chapter 22
45 And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,
46 And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.
47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.
Actually Christ wanted a sword at the place of his arrest so he could teach, by example, one of the key tenants of his word.
You stated, “he (Jesus) beat up moneychangers in the temple and so on.”
You will need to show me the Chapter and Verse that tells of Christ beating someone up, and “so on.” Whatever so on means.
You state, “To see Jesus as he is seen by the mainstream christianity is (excuse that word) naiv.”
To see Jesus as you do Werner, (excuse the words) is ignorant, and not well schooled on the subject.
You also state to me,
“As a simple example take your own attitude: is that turning the other cheek?”
Hmmm! I took the time to explain that to you and obviously you got it wrong. Perhaps you should re-read what was said, and think about it.
A question for you Sir with respect to your writing, “To understand jewish and christian teachings one has to study the roots to understand more?
Why do you never use capital letters when writing Jewish or Christian?
MORE TO FOLLOW………
Dear Werner,
You did not offend me. I simply do not agree with most of what you wrote.
Let’s leave it at that, there would be no purpose for my trying to write any more.
Keep in mind, I do agree with much of your political thought.
Regards,
Rightminded
A person can not be both a liberal, and a true Christian!
It is virtually impossible.
It is like trying to mix oil, and water, it hasn’t, and never will happen.
Take the issue of abortion(birth control)
You can’t be a Christian, and also believe that abortion, for the purpose of birth control, is OK!
You can’t be a Christian, and not believe in capital punishment.
You can’t be a Christian, and believe in unfair taxes.
You can’t be a Christian, and hate Israel.
Most leftists hate Israel, with a passion.
You can’t be a Christian, and not work hard.
You can’t be a Christian, and truly help another human being, while thinking of yourself.
I can give at least 100 other reasons why liberals can’t be true Christians, if need be.
You can’t be a Christian, and be a liberal.
To be a true Christian, you must have the ability to repent, honestly, and sincerely, and to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
liberals can’t, and won’t do that, at least while they are practicing liberals.
Period
True Christians know exactly where liberal politicians stand, on every issue.
I have said it before, even though the liberal media is trying to paint a picture of Hillary, as being “moderate”, the liberals forget, that most people don’t judge others by what they say, but how they act, and vote, in Hillary’s case.
The left will never win over any true Christians.
They may win over religous people who claim to be Christian, but they won’t be true believers.
Regardless if it’s Hillary, or any other left wing candidate, the only continuous commercial that the GOP and any other GOP backing 527’s need to keep showing, is Hillarys, or any other left wingers voting record, even their very most current voting record, on issues of,
abortion
partial birth abortion
gun control
truth in sentencing, especially with every child molester being given outragously weak sentences
taxes
the issue of separation of Church and State
gay marriage/civil unions
I don’t care what kind of propaganda they drum up, to try and get back toward the “middle”, on of these key issues,even luke warm religionists, have the ability to easily see through this dishonesty.
It will take years of changed voting habits, for the liberals to actually get back towards the middle, and that would mean they would actually become moderates, which they will never allow.
In other words Hillary, we can hear that you are singing a different tune, unfortunatly for you, we can see that you have your fingers crossed.
Nice try, it won’t work.
[…] Cross-posted from MoonbatCentral.com 08.09.05 […]