How can we get across what Jesus really taught?

To look at what fundamentalists say, Jesus was a hate filled man who was violent. I always thought that the core of Jesus's teachings were spelled out in His two commandments-love the Lord and your neighbor as yourself. He also talked about the blessings of the meek, the peacemakers, and the 'poor in spirit' which I believe means lack of ego involvement. He talked about worrying more about your own faults than those of others, and to be generous not only with your friends (lend not only your cloak but your coat) but with your enemies (love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you).

My question is how we get out the real message of Jesus? Can we get spokespeople who would be willing to go toe to toe with fundies refuting their diatribes with words like "Whatsoever you do to the least of these you do unto Me" or "Judge not, lest you be judged."

to step up to the plate. They don't seem to be fired up by the message of Christ. It gets kind of vague and fuzzy. Christ's was a revolutionary -- his message is very threatening. "If you would be my disciples, give away your possessions." Sure thing.

that the Bible doesn't only paint a rosy picture of Jesus. Mixed in with "blessed are the peacemakers" are such gems as:

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

Jesus says, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. “The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family. I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him. Matthew 11:34

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. Matthew 10:21

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus says he is the only way to salvation yet he purposely disillusions us so that we will go to hell:

Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, “lest... they... should understand... and should be converted, and I should heal them.” Matthew 13:10-15

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark4:11-12

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give your a big reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is abuse, it’s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7: 9

Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come. Mark 4:25

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Jesus must not be as smart as Christians would have us believe, for he was retarded enough to do something this silly. You’d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don’t bear fruit in dry season. Mark 11:13

Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.

(From http://www.evilbible.com/what_would_jesus_do.htm)

Now I'm an atheist so you can take what I say with a large grain of salt, but you do need to acknowledge that there are plenty of Bible verses that appear to justify the right-wing fundie view of Jesus just as there are many that justify yours.

You are doing just what the fundies do, taking snippets of the bible and mixing them all up to make your point.
almost every thing you have quoted by Jesus was what he prophesied for the future
"You think I have come to bring peace to the earth but I come to bring a sword"
That was a prophesies for the future and I think you will agree it was a true one.

"

One that refuted almost of your comments but when I went to post it all that came out was what is above.
I don't know why, probably a miss key stroke or something but it probably is for the best sense you could not, or would not, recognize that you are manipulating the text of the bible for your own purposes just as the fundies do.
But should you really desire to talk about any of what you posted then I am here and will explain each and every passage to you and document the facts in as much detail as possible.

But the bottom line is that Jesus was a man of tolerance and love and he preached that with no contradictions at all and I am willing to take the time necessary to prove it to you.

then there wouldn't be any fundies.

I'm sorry, but until you face the reality that the Bible *can* be interpreted quite differently, you won't make any progress in reclaiming your faith.

Don't waste your time trying to prove differently to me - go find a fundie congregation and convince them. They're the ones destroying this country.

All you have to do is read the words that Jesus spoke, but all of them in context please

The reason the fundies pervert the Bible is because they like you accept the idea that sentences can be lifted from a teaching and used to prove what you want to, with no consideration to the whole story.

And I do not care to convince you of anything, but if you are interested in truth then ether present things that are true or expect some one to correct you. Is the truth as important to you as it is to me?
Isn't that only fair?

If it's truly as easy as you think it is, start road trippin' through the south. Convince the ultra-conservative Baptists that YOU have the correct interpretation of the bible, not them.

Good luck with that.

But I have not the resources the health or the energy.
But it will happen I can assure you, there are people who can do.

is to go to a scholar who has read the words of Jesus in Aramaic and directly translated them into English. Helps if they have a mystical bent as well, as this puts a whole new perspective on things. One fellow who has done this is Neil Douglas-Klotz, who has written a series of books on the subject, starting with Prayers of the Cosmos. In that book, he re-examines (and retranslates) every line of the Lord's Prayer, and includes personal practices and body prayers to do with each line. The Lord's Prayer cycle is one of the Dances of Universal Peace, and is Danced around the world. The Dances are open for anyone to come, and in my time I have seen a wide variety of people come and be moved by the experience the Dances give. Perhaps this is one way of getting through to people. (My Dance circles are in northwest Arkansas and Springfield MO)

But it sounds like another way to promote Jesus teachings, and I will look for that book.

honor all faiths, but there are a lot of Christian dances. Some churches just do the Christian ones, and they love them. Here's the link to the Dance home page:

http://www.dancesofuniversalpeace.org/

I realized after visiting that site I had heard of the dance of peace from some members of the Lama foundation but just had forgotten it
Thanks

Christianity, over its 2000 years, is characterized much more by infighting and schisms than it is by unified views of the bible and Jesus. All I'm saying is that if it were that simple to just point out how someone interpreted the bible incorrectly, Christianity wouldn't be where it is today: splintered into churches, sects, and cults.

That it is hard to accomplish, but not because the words are not there, or that Jesus was unable to speak in a clear concise manner, but because the ruthless and greedy always rise to the top of leadership and do as they please.

Part of the beauty of Christianity is that there are so many ways to reach the same conclusions about God and Jesus. Humankind has so many different personality types (just start with Meyers-Briggs) that one religious (or political, or psychological) practice/belief/theory would not work for every single person. Example: Catholics believe in saints and works and sacraments, Lutherans cut some of that out, other Christian religions worship differently, but have the same inherent sense of belief.

I've posted elsewhere that one can read the Bible as an evolutionist (as I am) or as a literalist and reach the same place. God is wonderful in that we can ALL reach where he wants us to be, no matter our backgrounds.

As to other points: Regarding Jesus' saying.

Make sure you look at the cultural and political settings of each saying. Jesus was much smarter than a casual glance would appear, as the words he uses are ones that hit at the heart of universal issues, and local time/place/political issues. Brilliant, actually.

Plus, remember the point of view behind some of these sayings: Mankind has entered with sin. Sin and God cannot co-exist (think matter/anti-matter. A big chunk of Leviticus teaches about this). Therefore a sinful mankind cannot co-exist with God. It is destined for destruction (or Hell). Sin can be atoned for (See Leviticus for long answer on this part), but mankind will continue to sin. The lesson is that there is nothing mankind can do to save itself from death (lack-of-God). God, instead, atones for ALL OUR sins (Through Jesus, following the rules set forth in the OT). The only way not to be saved is to deny God. This means that Jesus is saying all of this out of love, since everyone is considered dead already that rejects him. His offering of a loving way to be saved is his message. So, yes, if you love your parents more than God, you could have some problems (prophecy). This doesn't mean to not love your parents, but if you love your, for example Baal worshiping parents more than Yahweh, and you follow there practices instead, you will be in trouble.

Hopefully this helps,

-Brentos, the Freshmaker

"Sin and God cannot co-exist"?

God is ultimately responsible for sin. Either God did a poor job of creation and sin is a defect of it, or he built sin into the equation deliberately as part of his "plan."

So we have to atone for something that is either God's mistake, or that God built into the system? Did we get asked to be put into this conundrum where if you aren't convinced by the "evidence" that you get thrown into the lake of fire?

Let me rephrase....

Sin cannot exist with God. Sin is the absence of God; the lack of God.

Logically, yes, if God created everything, he created Sin. Or is Sin that which was not-created. The darkness before the light? Or...was Sin first created by Lucifer? I wonder if this just is a semantical argument?

By giving humans a choice between God and Sin, there obviously has to be a choice. If there were no Sin, there would be no free will, thus no point.

So, yes, we have to atone for our attraction to Sin over God (according to this interpretation).

Great debate! (You are making me think!) :-)

Thanks,
-Brentos, the Freshmaker

Is there free will in heaven?

Once acceptance is given and the final judgment day is passed, and one enters Heaven (whatever that actually means), my posit is still that Sin cannot co-exist with God (based on Biblical evidence), therefore, there is no Sin in Heaven, therefore there is no longer a choice between God and Sin. I don't profess to know if we stay as discreet beings, or enter a spiritual collective, or what. If we are discreet beings, maybe their is free-will on some level, but never to the point of rejecting God.

Although, maybe their is. Lucifer and his followers apparently had free-will to rebel against God? This is one point that I am still searching for answers about, and I probably won't find out until I am there.

So maybe desire to Sin is so foreign in Heaven, that it takes someone of the highest beauty to sway others, and then since they have now sinned, they no longer exist in Heaven.

Or, maybe this accounts for multiple reality theories of the scientific realm, maybe their are many cycles souls can go through and live multiple lives based on their choices in Heaven. I don't know, but it is an interesting theory to think about.

Thanks for the questions!
Brentos, the Wonderer

Earth is supposed to be the place where we have free will to make our decision between God and not-God. The price of free will is sin, as evidenced by the innocent suffering on earth. Never mind, for the moment, how the free will of victims gets overruled by their assailants. Free will is supposed to be so precious that God allows it to run its course.

But what you say is that heaven is a place where we either have no free will (a disturbing thought) or a "limited" free will where all choose to live in God and thus have free will in everything else.

The problem them becomes - why does there need to be an Earth at all? Why couldn't God just create heaven, reveal himself personally to everyone, and if they choose to reject him, THEN cast them away?

Here on Earth it is unbelievably easy for people to not get a clear picture of God, whether it be from being raised in false teachings, or subject to an abusive priest or minister, or what have you. Many "souls" could easily be lost that way, through no fault of their own. Is it fair that very few people actually get to have that clear personal revelation of God on which to base their decision?

Wouldn't it be easier then to simply skip the Earth part and just have heaven? If free will and the lack of sin can exist in heaven, doesn't that demolish the reason why we have to endure Earth?

Great points! I consider these issues the equivalent of figuring out what happened before the big bang, or why is their anything, anyway. The simple answer to both is that we have no way of knowing, we can only philosophize about it. That is also why I don't feel as urgent a need to understand it (the unknowable) but it is always an interesting mental exercise to think about (God and big bang version).

I'll start off the subject with science. I love the idea of the multi-verse (not the Star Trek type where there are infinite parallel universes with only one tiny difference each, example an evil "me" with a goatee") where a continuum of universes pop in and out like soap bubbles from a different dimension, thus this one, luckily, had the correct forces for eventual life. But, take it back further...where did the multi-verse come from? Start from? Has it always existed? The Alpha and Omega? Circular? Fun thoughts. It also leads to God for me, as both religion and science eventually lead far enough back-wards or for-wards to faith in something.

Now, back to the Heaven paradox. This subject I'm only a neophyte on, so I'm hoping someone with more knowledge here could help. This has always been my biggest struggle. Same with science. Once the forces of the universe were "wound up" through science, God, or both...the rest, conceptually makes sense to me. I have troubles with the beginnings of both.

If, as usually taught, angels have no free will, how did Lucifer rebel? If they do, why was earth needed? Good question and one I'm not afraid to say I don't have an answer to. Maybe God has needs, emotions, wants we can't understand.

Man, if I knew this answer, I could probably have my own Sunday morning religious show! :-)

Sorry for the ramble...I'll have to think about this one some more.

Thanks for the questions!

-Brentos, the Questioned

there are some really weird things. I like to remember only the positive stuff.


I went with my siblings to see Godspell a few months back thinking that I had liked it when I was a teenager. (I haven't been to a preaching type church in ages).

And I left thinking :wtf: because of all the stuff that sounded to me like "do this or you're going to hell" - "do that or you're going to hell". All performed with a big smile and dance.

---

I looked up the first ex. and that is exactly the message and worse.

... than your snippets suggest. The written materials lag fifty or a hundred years behind the oral tradition and have been subsequently shaped by power struggles which were ultimately enshrined as "theological points."

Let us consider, for example, Mark 5:12-13, some significance of which I think you may have missed.

What is this Gerasene demonic?

The historical context is the imperial Roman occupation of the Middle East. Although the Romans certainly resort to exemplary brutality whenever expedient, their tactics are relatively sophisticated and as far as possible they usurp existing local institutions to serve their purposes. Thus, governance in the conquered territories often continues to maintain familiar traditional forms, and appears to reproduce long-established social relationships -- but with the not-so-subtle difference that these forms and relationships now serve Rome.

In this environs of intrigue and violent threat, thought itself becomes disordered. So the poor man is oppressed and possessed by a demonic multitude. And this possessing Gerasene demonic willingly identifies itself: "My name is Legion, for we are many."

It is, of course, perfectly clear from the history exactly what Legion is discussed here. And in historical context, it is clear why nothing is said directly, why speech is carefully elliptical, suggestive, and full of double meanings.

A fundamental meaning is the theological message of liberation. It is given to us in the image of this poor man, taken over by a Legion, who have not only conquered his country but have effectively posted its guards deep within his soul: if he is to be free, that Legion must first be driven out of his personal being ...

Jesus was not into being the "left behind" God that the fundi's are selling.

And Jesus, once known, is an easy sell.

But you ask about a "crossfire" first coming believer advocate - and do we want one -or do we need one?

The various orders produce great minds that can sit and explain why the fundi's are wrong to the fundi's.

But I am not sure folks want to hear or watch that.

There really are folks that only respond to hellfire and fear, I'm correct and you are wrong unless you agree with me.

I would have to say that we would have to get on TV, just the way that they do, and deliver the truth instead of the lie.
And it would have to be tough truth,one that openly challenges the fundies and talk back to them, and even embarrass them, if possible, for their lack of knowledge of the one they say is the Lord.

...is to quote the Bible. That's what they do - and mostly believing it is inerrant, they see it as the ultimate authority. This might devolve into a scripture quoting contest, but if they take the Bible seriously, I suspect that some points may get through, and cause them to take a closer look and reconsider.

is to figure out just what it was that Jesus actually taught.

Christianity is, first and foremeost, a religion. It is the worshipping of God and acceptance of God's grace. The social stuff is secondary-- it is not a guide for living or ethical treatise.

Christians have been debating the meaning of every verse in the Bible for 2,000 years, and have come to very little agreement on the divine and theological aspects of the religion, much less the social aspects that the religion should lead us to.

Jesus did speak much about social problems and ethics, but even there we have so many interpretations of what he really meant that it is still difficult to come to a consensus, or to "prove" what he meant. Much of it was in the context of Jews living under a Roman occupation that we don't fully understand.

Underneath the claptrap and dogma, most Christian sects do believe that Christianity is a religion of peace and love, and the Beatitudes speak clearly of this. Some say that we are instructed to live in a certain way, and others simply say that if we truly believe, we will be lead to live in a certain way. Then, what those ways are is not agreed upon by everyone.

So, the "real" message of Jesus is pretty tough to get out there. "My" message of Jesus depends solely on how well I can get it past the others.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" comes from Deuteronomy.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" comes from Leviticus.

The problem is how to make your point without falling into the exact same trap. We need to set our own houses in order before going after anyone else.

To put it another way...

"How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? "