The difficulty liberals have with Jesus is actually very complimentary to the one that conservatives have, we are mirror image parodies of each other, and it's no surprise we misinterpret our Messiah such since it's the same problem people have had with him right back to the erstwhile Christians of Jesus' own day shouting "Hosanna!" on the original Palm Sunday. We do not expect a suffering servant, we expect a conquering hero. Conservatives expect our Messiah to save the world from political [and religious] injustice, liberals from abject poverty. Elect the right people, and our conquering heroes will get the job done. It's the same difference; we expect to conquer by force, not to persuade by love. They believe "the rich" are ipso facto irredeemable and must be overcome by force; we believe the same of Islamofascist warlords. The common mistake is focus on the temporal, earthly goal to achieve (overcoming poverty, overcoming terrorism) rather than the eternal goal and its methods (reconciling man to God, restoring our love and concern for one another.)

Dissent on my analysis is welcomed. This is a bit serious for a humor site too; parody is also welcomed.

Liberal church makes about as much sense as the fact that there are gay Republicans.

Yeah... well said and convicting. But you should know better than to implicate conservatives... we're never wrong!!! GAAAAHHH!!!

Actually, how does the focus on achievement differ from the focus on "eternal goals?" Aren't we still trying to achieve those by focusing on them? I think there's an important distinction to draw there... I just don't know what it is...

Well isnt that the wonderful thing about the Bible? I mean the difference between the old testament god (all vengeful and absolute) and the New Testament god (all warm and fuzzy)? Given the human ability to percieve and interpt anything to thier individual "perspective", and adding all the built in contradictions within the book itself, is it any wonder there are these contradictions? All that aside, if you look at things from a historical perspective the "church" will advocate whatever is in the best interest of the "church". That is the only consistency within structured religion.

#1 Capitalist_B (if that's your real name):

I resent your assumption that all conservatives think alike. What's more, your identification of conservatives with those crying "Hosanna" is just plain wrong.

The difference between left-wing and right-wing Christianity is that leftists see the Gospel as primarily a social, group thing, while those on the right see it as primarily an individual, personal thing.

The leftists cry "Hosanna" and "Save Us from Them", while we cry "Save Me from Me". We do not expect the Messiah to do away with political or religious injustice, as the leftists do; that's our job.

Liberal churches are hilarious. My kid goes to a Montessori school that just happens to lease space from a hippy church (I think they are Unitarians.) They like the general idea of Jesus; just not all the "thou shalt not..." business. They have food drives and environmental awareness sessions and they make a cute effort to keep their BDS from boiling to the surface. But I think if I showed up for service on Sunday and stuck around for coffee afterwards and tried to strike up a conversation about the Bible, they'd call the cops. If I could get a tape of the 911 call it would be worth the bail money:
"911, what is the emergency?"
"There's some religious nut here trying to oppress us and generally harshing our mellow!"
"Yes, sir. We'll get a patrol there right away, are you calling from [address]?"
"Yeah, that's it."
"Wait a minute, isn't that a church?"
"Well, we don't really like to call it that...I mean it is for tax purposes but...I mean, we don't really, you know..."

Troy is right. The Bible is an inkblot. A man sees what he wants to see.

That being said, I prefer the Conservative's projection of the Bible - where the reader is meant to behave like a hero, and Jesus is more of a moral guide to persons with heroic potential.

The leftist version has Jesus as Santa Claus which is neither helpful or inspiring.

And do liberal Christians have some apocryphal story where Jesus mugs a bunch of people and then gives their money to the poor, ...

Jesus said: "Render unto Caesar what is due historically under-represented, economically disadvantaged minorities and women. You cracker mother &%#~@*!"

Or something along those lines, I think.

Amen Socrates

Tony, have you not read the story of Jonah, or how Abraham pleaded with God not to destroy Sodom(and almost winning), Moses pleading with God not to destroy the Israelites(and winning), many other times God forgave or relented in his punishments.
Have you not read about Hell in the New testament, Jesus condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees?
God is the same, The focus of the message(Mosaic law vs Jesus's law) is a little different, but the end result is the same - love God and keep his commandments = Good ending. Not following = bad ending

The idea that the Scriptures have many different interpretations depending on the individual is postmodernist crap. Yes, we all bring our baggage to anything we read, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have an inherent message whether we get it right or not. The fact that I think everything is grey when I wear sunglasses does not, in fact, make the world grey.

The Bible has lots about the poor. Read the OT prophets sometime (especially those who think the OT is harsh and mean while the NT is all warm and fuzzy). One of the main reasons cited for judgement falling on Israel is their exploitation of the poor. The difference, as someone pointed out earlier, is that conservative Christians believe that biblical injunctions are for individuals, whereas liberal Christians want to carry them out through the power of the government.

Another important point I heard expressed once is that liberal Christianity (meant in the theological sense, but it often tallies with the political) subserviates revelation to individual reason, whereas conservative Christianity elevates revelation above all.

The end results is that when a conservative Christian sees a passage he doesn't understand or like, he is obligated to try to understand or obey it. When a liberal Christian sees one, they are free to ignore it or claim that it "isn't relevant" to today.

#2 - Posted by: MarkoMancuso on March 24, 2008 09:44 AM

Really? Teh gays can't believe in small government and personal responsibility?

I think there's a chapter in Acts where a couple of the disciples (it might have been Stephen or Seldon or something - the Bible's kinda long and I didn't look too hard) have a conversation about how we're supposed to run away screaming like a little girl from any enemy that is historically oppressed or wears goofy clothing. And I think one of the Beatitudes mentions something like, "Blessed are the Grad Students And Their Professors for they shall wind up saving Gaia from Halliburton."

Plus, there's definitely something in the book of Revalation about how awesome and effective an organization called Code Pink would be in combating the Beast.

Isn't the 1st Amendment grand? Don't you love it?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As citizens, we're free to privately combine religion and politics, even advocate publicly for it. Our elected government, on the other hand, is not. Thank God! :-)

#11 - Posted by: AR on March 24, 2008 11:56 AM

No, I just find it curious since supposedly we all hate gays.

Besides, the GOP hasn't been the party of small government and personal responsibility since the 1980's

That's right, Jimmy. The very same document that guarantees our right to own a gun and carry it around with us guarantees the right to hold ideas contrary to anything anyone else believes, or to agree.

The foundational principle is a very liberal one: the Truth will triumph over Falsehood when both are allowed free reign. That is why liberals want so much to keep people from disagreeing with them that they shout "Racism!" or McCarthyism whenever they are opposed. Having experienced a witch hunt in the 1950's, they now reflexively see one behind every disagreement.

And do liberal Christians have some apocryphal story where Jesus mugs a bunch of people and then gives their money to the poor....

It's all right there in the Book of Robin, where Jesus and his band of merry disciples steal from the rich, give to the poor, and hide out in the forest...

#14 - Posted by: MarkoMancuso on March 24, 2008 12:39 PM

Ah, you were making the opposite point I thought you were! I was wondering which way you meant it, but I thought it was more likely that you meant it the other way.

Maybe I should just stay out of religious stuff.

Perhaps Frank is raising a larger point about the "moral authority" to tax. In other words, how can a society simultaneously have 'property rights' while expropriating such property for the 'common welfare?' Such a practice would seem to lead to the politicizing of all human activity. It's a serious contradiction.

I think IMAO is transforming itself from political humor to political philosophy. I mean, how do we make jokes about this, Frank, Harvey, et al?

This is brilliant, Frank! I totally And I must commend Capitalist_B, Socrates, Corsair, and Josh. Your comments were great!

This is brilliant, Frank!
And I must commend Capitalist_B, Socrates, Corsair, and Josh. Your comments were great!

This isn't political philosophy, it's still political humor. I find it hilarious that we pay half our income out again in taxes!

Jesus said: "Render unto Caesar what is due historically under-represented, economically disadvantaged minorities and women. You cracker mother &%#~@*!"

Or something along those lines, I think.
#8 - Posted by: DamnCat on March 24, 2008 11:24 AM

actually, when Christ says "render unto God what is God's" the liberal happily translates "render unto the all-knowing-government-bureaucracy what is all-knowing-government-bureaucracy's"

Here's a thought that has always been special to me. In the Bible, New Testament as a matter of fact, someone, a lawyer I believe is trying to trip Jesus up yet again. He asks what is the GREAT commandment. (Matthew 22)
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt alove the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

While I realize that this is rather vague for those who need to be commanded in all things, it was one of the reasons He came to earth. Along with dying for our sins, he brought the higher law. We are supposed to be better than the ancient people who had to be told how many steps to take on the Sabbath and what and when to go here and what to do when we get there.

Maybe He came to the Earth too soon. I'm not sure there are many people today who can measure up. I know that I struggle. Liberals don't have a clue, they are still trying to work in the world with what they learned in kindergarten. They need to grow up, face reality and get a grip. Maybe they should buy some gloves or a wrench or two. Couldn't hurt.

#5 Socrates: well written. "Capitalist_B" isn't my real name :) and I agree that "save me from me" is very important to Christianity. And you are correct that I'm stereotyping horribly (blushes).

#10 -- while it's similar to what #5 said, I think that's the point -- it's about how we as *individuals* choose to acknowledge and obey God and encourage each other to do so, not how a *collective* either does so for us or forces us to do so.

#23 -- you mean I have to think for myself?! (shudders) jk, good point.

The founding principles of Republicanism is opposition to polygamy and slavery. So being gay is fine, in Republicanism (just stay committed). But if you want a three some, like McGreevey, then you have to be a Democrat.

As for liberal Christians: keep in mind that the ancient world is not our world. The New Testament was written by outsiders who feared the original Fascist state, which would be Caesar's Rome. They also didn't like "the rich", who tended to get rich through corruption (a "tax collector", in those days, was a licensed extortionist who got to keep a cut of what he took). The NT idea is that individual Christians should live virtuous lives, keep the Church going, and help the less fortunate. I seriously doubt any of the NT authors would have thought, "hey! let's write to Caligula for a government program!"

As for that "virtuous lives" thing, therein lieth a tale. What you have to remember here is the order of Paul's authentic epistles: Philippians, 1 Corinthians, Romans. Got all that?

In Philippians, Paul took Jesus's preachings of coming doom literally. He was still taking it seriously enough, by 1 Cor, that he said not to have sex. At all ("Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife"). Unless you were totally hard up, in which case marriage was better than outright sin (1 Cor 7). He also preached that in God's kingdom - which was here and now, for Christians - there wasn't any distinction between male or female (Galatians). But that turned out not to work too well either, because they seem to have had a cross-dressing problem in Corinth (1 Cor 11:4-5).

Paul eventually sorted out that women and men are different and complementary so. He had to ban teh ghey along the way (Romans 1), probably because of the crazy Christian orgies.

Yeah, they had those. Massive bisexual orgies were a big part of Christianity's appeal in delta Egypt. The "Christians" there followed a heretic by name of Harpocrates; he was known for his "lamp parties" where they'd kick over a lamp and, well, it got dark.

But whether the full force of pre-Harpocratianism was a problem already by Paul's time, or if Paul foresaw it and was trying to forestall it, I don't know for sure. On that much I'm speculating.

So, one gets to liberal Christianity by selectively reading Paul. One can define it as Roman state-worship, with chlamydia.

It always tickles me when people point to the folks in the Bible and intimate that they should be perfected. Just because they lived at the same time as Christ does not mean they had to accept him, listen to him or worship him. Agency, agency agency. It all comes down to choice. Individual choice and accountability.

These folks were trying to overcome their previous habits, beliefs and attitudes. I guess that when they were baptized they were supposed to be perfect on the spot, but even as advanced as we are today, no one is able or expected to do that. We've had 2000+ years to learn Christian doctrine and how many folks today are lying, stealing, fornicating, Godless wonders, even though they have been taught correct principles.

Just look at the current crop of politicians including the governors? of New York. 'nuff said.

It's all right there in the Book of Robin, where Jesus and his band of merry disciples steal from the rich, give to the poor, and hide out in the forest...

#16 - Posted by: Master Shake on March 24, 2008 12:48 PM

Isn't that one of those Gnostic Gospels? I don't put much credence into those. :D

Actually, you should re-read your Old Testament. God has no problem whatsoever with slaughtering the unbelievers or the sinners, or sending them to hell for all eternity.

Liberals want to believe, against all facts, that God is some ever-forgiving hippy pacifist dude. Of course, denying reality is sort of a prerequisite for being a liberal in the first place...

"As citizens, we're free to privately combine religion and politics, even advocate publicly for it."

Sure, but a church will (and probably should) lose their tax-exempt status over it.

I'm not sure if that has anything to do with what you were saying, just thought I'd mention it since no one else did.