found online by Raymond
From North Carolina pastor John Pavlovitz:
And though it’s popularity has ebbed and flowed in past decade, the seemingly elemental question of What Would Jesus Do?, is one the professed religious folks running this country right now and those applauding them from pulpits and pews, would be wise to resurrect.
Ironically today in America, Republican Christians are putting on a master class in missing the point of our faith.
Mr. Pavolovitz is correct that Republicans should indeed try to ask themselves, “What would Jesus Do?” and then endeavor to follow that example. So should Democrats. So should independents and apolitical folk.
There is a lot of room for improvement with Republicans in trying to follow Jesus’ example. So too, is there for Democrats.
Oh, and by the way, Mr. Pavlovitz is correct, Jesus did not explicitly say anything about the sinfulness of homosexual acts in the gospels. Neither did he say anything explicitly against pedophilia or necrophilia, but I think it is very safe to say that he is absolutely against those practices as well.
This doesn’t mean that Christ condemns those with same-sex attraction, and neither should we. He would not condone the sinfulness of homosexual activity, however. That goes against his very design of creation of male and female.
Just as the crowd that brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he chastised the crowd and then told the woman to “Go, and sin no more!” He did not condone her sinful behavior either.
This new age anything-is-permissible-as-long-as-we-are-tolerant version of Christianity is also something that Christ would not recognize or accept. Christ does not condone sinfulness either. While it is not our place to judge and condemn others, we should still ALSO follow Christ’s example and not condone sin either.
The point Mr. Pavolovitz is making is the the party that panders most to evangelical Christians has the most anti-Christian agenda. He lists where the party of religion has no compassion. They don’t care if the poor go without healthcare, and in fact actively work to make that happen. Their agenda seeks to give more to the rich, take more from the poor. Their reverence of, and service to, wealth and the wealthy shows us their utter lack of respect for equality.
Did Jesus say the rich deserved more wealth and power? Did he revere the money changers and declare they were “over regulated”? Did he glorify violence like the con-servatives who cheered, winked, and nodded at the Republican thug who assaulted a journalist?
No.
Instead Jesus called out hypocrites. There are no greater hypocrites than con-servatives and their Party of Mammon.
Is anyone else tired of conservatives conflating consenting adult gays with pedophiles and necrophiliacs? The latter are criminal acts of sickness and deviance. Intended or not, it is a great way to reinforce hatred and bigotry. That’s up there, or actually “down there”, with the Right invoking slavery and insulting Blacks with their far-Right “Democrat plantation” meme.
God created gays. To borrow the song title, they were made that way. Just like he made authoritarian personalities.
The difference being gays are are subject to hate crimes for their private lives, while authoritarians are allowed to lead us to war, promote torture and brutal law enforcement, and apply racist voter suppression.
And none of that is “sinful” for some reason…
As a Christian, I have an obligation to help out the poor. I have done so and do so now with my time and money. I don’t simply relegate it to the government to take care of it so I don’t have to be “bothered” with it. We DO have an obligation to take care of those that are unable to take care of themselves. We do NOT have an obligation to take care of those that don’t want to work to provide for their own needs. Scripture also says that those that refuse to work should not eat.
Anecdotally, I know a lot more “compassionate” conservatives that actually help with time and treasure to help the poor than I ever have met amongst the progressive ranks. I guess that, once again, is because many progressives want the corrupt and inefficient government to provide for the poor instead of doing it themselves through their own families, communities, and organizations.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.
And I don’t know where you hang out, Mr. Dubya, but I condemn such violence as that perpetrated by the Montana Republican against the antagonistic Guardian reporter. I know I can count on you to also condemn along with me the violence perpetrated by the antifa crowds in Portland. Neither one of us thinks that is the proper way to handle political issues. Both parties should be punished according to the law. Right?
As for pop culture’s continuing the normalizing of sinful or deviant behavior, well… you can re-characterize it anyway you want or couch it in more sensitive euphemisms but that doesn’t change sinful behavior into something righteous just because our new “enlightened” society says so. We all need to continue to hate the sin and love the sinner, instead of embracing the sin in “tolerance” while projecting hateful epithets at those that refuse to condone the sin.
It is my personal belief that we are each created by God with some sort of cross to carry. One person might have a predilection towards alcoholism; another might be inflicted with diabetes; and yet another may be afflicted with same sex attraction. Does that mean that we should chug Wild Turkey while eating a box of Crispy Creme Donuts with our gay lover in one sitting? I think we are given these “thorns in the flesh” in order to turn to God in prayer when we are tempted so that we can try to do what is right with His strength and grace, my friend.
Just as I would not encourage an alcoholic to drink a beer, I would similarly not encourage a friend considering a gay relationship. Neither is good for those fellow children of God. Such is my thoughts on the matter, anyway.
Mr. Paine.
Thank you for condemning the Republican thug. I wasn’t suggesting you approved. A casual search will reveal many conservatives joking about it, or outright supporting the crime. This is the fetid fruit of conservative demonization of our free press.
Thank you for supporting the poor in your own way. However this doesn’t go far in helping the millions of people who will lose health care and food stamps, stripped away from them by cruel Republican hypocrites. Your resentment for a few can hurt the many in need. We need government and private contributions. Either alone cannot do it all. Perhaps you didn’t know that.
I realize you need to frame live-and-let-live tolerance as “embracing the sin”, but it is false. Just like when you attribute those who accept climate science as being “Pro climate change” and “zealous climate changers”.
If I made such false and demeaning characterizations I would be quickly accused of spreading hate.
Let’s be clear. Those who deny the reality of greenhouse gases and oppose environmental regulations are the real “Pro climate change zealous climate changers”.
And the greenhouse gas effect IS settled science.
But not in your worldview.
You choose the far Right’s open and politically motivated denial of fossil fuel enhanced climate change. It is your political correctness that you cannot see as political correctness. And it feeds into the Right’s campaign of undermining other “politically incorrect” science, educators, journalists and universities.
I have to wonder, anecdotally, how many liberals you really know. How do you personally know about their charitable support for poor Americans? You seem to readily judge us as a whole as not being charitable.
It is a self serving conservative myth, of course.
“Who Really Gives ?
Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States”
Voluntary contributions from individuals are the lifeblood of nonprofit organizations, which in turn fund a large portion of social services in the United States. Given this reliance donor generosity, it is important to understand who contributes, and to where. In this paper, we argue against the conventional wisdom that political conservatives are inherently more generous toward private charities than liberals. At the individual level, the large bivariate relationship between giving and conservatism vanishes after adjusting for differences in income and religiosity. At the state level, we find no evidence of a relationship between charitable giving and Republican presidential voteshare. Finally, we show that any remaining differences in giving are an artifact of Republicans’ greater propensity to give to religious causes, particularly their own church. Taken together, our results counter the notion that political conservatives compensate for their opposition to governmental intervention by supporting private charities.