Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus (not my title choice)

[Kodiak]

This article was co-authored by Dan Cady is an assistant professor of history at California State University, Fresno. He publishes on the history of the American West, music, and religion.

The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-El ... igion.aspx) reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training -- anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

What's the deal?

Before attempting an answer, allow a quick clarification. Evangelicals don't exactly hate Jesus -- as we've provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him. They can't stop thanking him. And yet, as for Jesus himself -- his core values of peace, his core teachings of social justice, his core commandments of goodwill -- most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain.

And this is nothing new. At the end of World War I, the more rabid, and often less educated Evangelicals decried the influence of the Social Gospel amongst liberal churches. According to these self-proclaimed torch-bearers of a religion born in the Middle East, progressive church-goers had been infected by foreign ideas such as German Rationalism, Soviet-style Communism, and, of course, atheistic Darwinism. In the 1950s, the anti-Social Gospel message piggybacked the rhetoric of anti-communism, which slashed and burned its way through the Old South and onward through the Sunbelt, turning liberal churches into vacant lots along the way. It was here that the spirit and the body collided, leaving us with a prototypical Christian nationalist, hell-bent on prosperity. Charity was thus rebranded as collectivism and self-denial gave way to the gospel of accumulation. Church-to-church, sermon-to-sermon, evangelical preachers grew less comfortable with the fish and loaves Jesus who lived on earth, and more committed to the angry Jesus of the future. By the 1990s, this divine Terminator gained "most-favored Jesus status" among America's mega churches; and with that, even the mention of the former "social justice" Messiah drove the socially conscious from their larger, meaner flock.

In addition to such historical developments, there may very well simply be an underlying, all-too-human social-psychological process at root, one that probably plays itself out among all religious individuals: they see in their religion what they want to see, and deny or despise the rest. That is, religion is one big Rorschach test. People look at the content of their religious tradition -- its teachings, its creeds, its prophet's proclamations -- and they basically pick and choose what suits their own secular outlook. They see in their faith what they want to see as they live their daily lives, and simultaneously ignore the rest. And as is the case for most White Evangelical Christians, what they are ignoring is actually the very heart and soul of Jesus's message -- a message that emphasizes sharing, not greed. Peace-making, not war-mongering. Love, not violence.

Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. -- it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow "Christian." They aren't.

So I posted this on my facebook as I thought it was an interesting take on the GOP/Evangelical demographic in America, and then I got an LDS fundie gal (she's pretty extreme, even as Mormons go). Who started in on wishy-washy spinning of "leaps of logic"

Her - The author makes some salient points, but his argument falls victim to the same problem that a lot of these types of arguments have.

He starts with the proposition that "Jesus teaches that we should do X." However, from that, it does not necessarily follow that "Jesus teaches that we should use the power of the state to force people to do X." Jesus Himself said that His kingdom is not of this world. He was interested in people's behavior, not in the policies of governments.

Me - I think you're putting words in the author's mouth. His point was: Jesus teaches x and the overwhelming majority of people who claim to love Him support a political ideology which is opposed to x.

Her - I'm aware that that was his point. What I'm saying is that his point makes an unsupported leap in logic, and I pointed out that unsupported leap.

Me - Where does the author assert Christ advocated "the state force people" to follow His teachings? I don't see the author advocating any attempts at legislating Christianity.

Her - Right here: "Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached."

Basically, the author starts out with a true proposition, namely, that Jesus said we should give our money to the poor. Then the author makes the leap that giving money to the poor requires that the money given to the poor be redistributed through the government (i.e. "socialism"). That's the unsupported leap in logic. There are many ways to give to the poor (or do any of a number of other things that Christians are supposed to do), and Jesus didn't specify which one. That's why the whole argument fails. Just because a specific group of Christians doesn't support redistributing money to the poor through the government doesn't mean that they're hypocrites, that they ignore Jesus, or that they are opposed to helping the poor.

Me - That's true. The entire point of the article is that Evangelical Christians do not support a form of government which is set up to promote Christian ideals i.e. charity or taxing the wealthy to assist the poor. I think taking the Savior's words of "my kingdom is not of this world" to mean "my kingdom has no place in your government" is a false conclusion, especially when the gospel of Christendom advocates being a Christian in every facet of ones life.

If Evangelical Christians are simply against the idea of government assistance to the poor, what other organization have they formed that can rival the scope of the Federal Housing Administration, or the Social Security office? How does one reconcile support for a political party that historically reduces assistance programs to the poor with Christian teachings of Charity?

Her - I didn't say that "my kingdom is not of this world" means "my kingdom has no place in your government". I said that it means that Christ's teachings don't dictate a specific governmental method of achieving His goals.

I don't know the charitable giving habits of Evangelicals. (Incidentally, why do they have to form their own charities? Couldn't they give to secular charities or to charities of other faiths?) And the way one "reconciles support for a political party that historically reduces assistance programs to the poor with Christian teachings of Charity" is by freely helping the poor and encouraging others to do so as well.

Me - So then if Christ did neither endorse nor preach against any one system of government what reason do Evangelicals have for removing Christian practices from government? It would stand to reason that people who fully embrace Christ would want those fundamental principles of brotherly love and kindness to be a fact of life for as many of God's children as possible.

As to your second point, How does limiting federal spending to the poor and shifting the responsibility to individuals and smaller organizations encourage others to "freely help"? That's like shutting off the power to a city to encourage people to buy flashlights- it makes no sense when there's an established mechanism in place that can do it cheaper and more effectively. I can't see what better way to help the poor than by advocating a system of governance where there are persons and resources specifically allocated to help the poor improve their station.

tl;dr - I posted an article about how if Evangelicals love Jesus they should vote Democrat. Now I'm stuck in a debate with someone who keeps saying "just because they don't want the government to be Christian doesn't mean they aren't Christian.

[Kodiak]

ghetto edit - most recent blurbs

Her- I can't speak for the Evangelicals' reasons, seeing as I'm not one. I think you're missing my point. My point is that forcible redistribution of wealth is not a Christian practice, nor is it an anti-Christian practice. And there is more than one way to make "fundamental principles of brotherly love and kindness to be a fact of life for as many of God's children as possible."

I haven't been arguing for or against government programs. I've just been pointing out that Christianity doesn't mandate government programs. As far as your second question, now you're getting into the merits of specific solutions. That's a different topic entirely. It's one thing to say "I think XYZ is the best way to help the poor because..." That's a productive debate. The author of the article basically said "All Christians must support XYZ or they're hypocrites." That is not a productive debate.

I didn't comment on the article to lobby for or against a specific policy. I commented to point out the author's unstated premise. It would appear that we're talking past one another.

Me - Saying "Christianity doesn't mandate government programs" isn't the point. The point the author is making is that Evangelical Christians are more likely than other demographics to support:

1. The death penalty
2. Draconian punishment
3. Punishment over rehabilitiation
4. Use of torture by the government
5. Decreased gun control and the right to own automatic weapons
6. More use of military force in world affairs
7. Reducing federal spending on programs for women and children
8. Decreasing institutional help for the poor.

As the author said "In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace."

No mention of government programs. The article says "These people claim political views and religious views that are in direct opposition to eachother."

[Mayabird]

So does this claim about not wanting their government to be Christian still going to be valid when issues like, say, gay marriage, prayer in schools, and legality of abortion come up? Those same types who want the government hands off their money tend to want those same hands up women's uteruses, after all.

[Carinthium]

I'm somewhat reluctant to do this, but the Evangelical Christian position needs a better defence then it's got at the moment(not, as is clear from previous debates I've had, that I'm very good at arguing...)

Whilst taxes are clearly justified ('Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's'), the Bible also says 'Thou shalt not steal'. Given that most Evangelical Christians do, I think it's fair to classify people into 'proper Christians' and 'everybody else' for the purposes of debate.

'Proper Christians' should probably give all they have the poor (which is an obvious point of hypocrisy). However, they should NOT steal from 'everybody else' and give their money to the poor. 'Proper Christians' will give their money to the poor anyway, so it's not necessary. The government is self-admittedly redistributive- this is stealing, therefore morally wrong.

Whilst going from the Bible alone there is a strong case against the death penalty, an Evangelical Christian could argue that the authority of the Church Fathers for it is a defence, plus the fact that even if God forgives a deterrent is necessary (of which Augustine for one would surely have approved). This is a posistion on thin ice, though.

Punishment over rehabiliation is of course an indefensible position- draconian punishment could be considered deterrent depending on how it works, and God himself mandated a lot of it in Old Testament times and never repudiated it. Torture is also semi-defensible on the same grounds.

Decreased gun control has an obvious defence- the Constitution. It's implicit in Jesus's teachings that the government should obey the law, as an extenstion of the fact ordinary people should obey the law.

More use of force in military affairs could easily set well with Augustine and similiar church fathers- destroy the infidel and force-Christianise the people. The evangelicals are in a difficult middle position- they could consistently advocate that, or they could advocate avoiding war (or at least minimising casualties).

[Gandalf]

Using the reasoning of "It's in the Bible", why aren't you also going for the wackier stuff that's in there too?

[Metahive]

More use of force in military affairs could easily set well with Augustine and similiar church fathers- destroy the infidel and force-Christianise the people. The evangelicals are in a difficult middle position- they could consistently advocate that, or they could advocate avoiding war (or at least minimising casualties).

"Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" - Jesus

Considering how big Jesus allegedly was on non-violence, it shouldn't be a difficult choice for Evangelicals to give ol' misanthropic Augustine the finger and be pacifists.

[Broomstick]

Yes, except that history shows that those who consistently turn the other cheek have a bad tendency to be wiped out by those living by the sword.

[Metahive]

Sure, but what does survival on this fallen Earth mean anyway to a faithful Christian? Certainly those martyrs that died by the sword will be assumed directly into Heaven...which is actually how the early Christians considered it before Constantine and Theodosius elevated them to a seat of political power.

Power corrupts, it's the old spiel.

[aieeegrunt]

To add to the irony of this, Jesus's condemnation of the Pharisees in the bible would apply pretty much word for word on today's "Christianity". You get into any sort of hermenutical discussion with these hypocrits and it's hilarious how the vast majority of them don't know their own fucking bible beyond a few out of context snippets they've been spoon fed. I've demolished more than one accredited minister this way, fun watching them immediately fall back on an appeal to authority and then scramble to terminate the discussion by any means neccessary. Having grown up going to a pentecostal church I can usually run rings around these assholes.

[Simon_Jester]

Using the reasoning of "It's in the Bible", why aren't you also going for the wackier stuff that's in there too?

Because quite few Christians in history ever have. The part of the religion on which there is substantial, consistent agreement that Carinthium is invoking is the basic stuff, not the wackier stuff. Asking a Christian "If you think the Ten Commandments are so great, why don't you also refuse to wear cotton-polyester blends?" isn't a stupid question, but it's a generic one that's totally irrelevant to Carinthium's point.

More use of force in military affairs could easily set well with Augustine and similiar church fathers- destroy the infidel and force-Christianise the people. The evangelicals are in a difficult middle position- they could consistently advocate that, or they could advocate avoiding war (or at least minimising casualties).

"Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" - Jesus

Considering how big Jesus allegedly was on non-violence, it shouldn't be a difficult choice for Evangelicals to give ol' misanthropic Augustine the finger and be pacifists.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, the entire Christian faith wound up following Augustine and not looking back. Really, Augustine was a predictable evolution of the religion once it had spread throughout the Mediterranean and found itself having to worry about actually governing a civilization; would you think better of Christianity if it adopted a value system utterly incompatible with running a society capable of surviving in a rough world?

Rejecting Augustine would be the act of a religious movement with very strong philosophical grounding- which, unfortunately, doesn't describe Christian evangelism, as that has never been pitched on the philosophical plane.

[Lagmonster]

Question; aren't there - for lack of a better term - two Jesuses in the Bible? The nonviolent version of the Gospels, and the genocidal madman of Revelations? I haven't blown the dust off of my copy for a long time, but I'm pretty sure that a Christian looking to define the entity Christ using the Bible would have to include his aspect as Christ the Warrior, too, no?

[Metahive]

That depends on how one interpretes Revelations 19:11-19, which feature Jesus as a heavenly warrior who "strikes his enemies down with a sword coming out of his mouth". That might however also be taken as his rhetoric being just that persuasive rather than him doing some bizarre sideshow trick (or being Orochimaru).

[LadyTevar]

Question; aren't there - for lack of a better term - two Jesuses in the Bible? The nonviolent version of the Gospels, and the genocidal madman of Revelations? I haven't blown the dust off of my copy for a long time, but I'm pretty sure that a Christian looking to define the entity Christ using the Bible would have to include his aspect as Christ the Warrior, too, no?

It's better to say there are two Doctrines, based on Peter and Paul.
Peter's teachings pretty much end with the first half of Acts (of the Apostles). The second half of Acts, Romans, and all the Letters to the Churches are all Paul's writings, and that is where a lot of Evangelicals get their biases. Peter was spreading the word to Jews. Paul was the first Evangelical, spreading his version of Jesus throughout the Gentiles by roaming the Roman Empire.

Revealations was by John, another latecomer like Paul, not one of the 13. No one's quite sure where he got his dream/prophecy.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Magic mushrooms probably. Or lonliness and dehydration from living on Patmos for years.

But Lagmonster is right, Jesus of Revelations is a warrior figure. If not that, then at least a ruler ("King of kings" etc.) That same section also mentions Jesus "ruling with a rod of iron," which is rather incongruous with the "love thy neighbour" thing. And Jesus as a ruler also doesn't fit with what I reember of his Gospel teachings. Makes me wonder why the councial of Nicea or whatever it was bothered to include Revelations at all.

[Carinthium]

They already had four partially inconsistent Gospels- Revelations didn't make it that much worse. In addition, there was a major debate on it.

I'm not going for the wackier stuff in the Bible because with most of the points there the Evangelicals really are indefensible. And as I said, the evangelicals are in a difficult position with regards to Augustine.

[Simon_Jester]

Question; aren't there - for lack of a better term - two Jesuses in the Bible? The nonviolent version of the Gospels, and the genocidal madman of Revelations? I haven't blown the dust off of my copy for a long time, but I'm pretty sure that a Christian looking to define the entity Christ using the Bible would have to include his aspect as Christ the Warrior, too, no?

It's better to say there are two Doctrines, based on Peter and Paul.
Peter's teachings pretty much end with the first half of Acts (of the Apostles). The second half of Acts, Romans, and all the Letters to the Churches are all Paul's writings, and that is where a lot of Evangelicals get their biases. Peter was spreading the word to Jews. Paul was the first Evangelical, spreading his version of Jesus throughout the Gentiles by roaming the Roman Empire.

There is a grave historical irony at work here.

Tthe chief figure responsible for spreading the religion founded by Jesus into the civilization that later adopted it was a tax collector and Pharisee. One who (and this is arguably quite important) offers only his word for ever having encountered Jesus (he claimed to have seen Christ after the Resurrection). Where at least the other apostles are mentioned in documents from multiple sources as having spent an extended period of time traveling with Jesus before spreading out to spread the word.

Arguably, the man most responsible for setting the tone of the Christian faith over the past two thousand years was the least qualified candidate available to do the job.

[Gandalf]

Using the reasoning of "It's in the Bible", why aren't you also going for the wackier stuff that's in there too?

Because quite few Christians in history ever have. The part of the religion on which there is substantial, consistent agreement that Carinthium is invoking is the basic stuff, not the wackier stuff. Asking a Christian "If you think the Ten Commandments are so great, why don't you also refuse to wear cotton-polyester blends?" isn't a stupid question, but it's a generic one that's totally irrelevant to Carinthium's point.

Because no attempt is made to differentiate between the popular parts of the bible, and the other parts. Carinthium just said "it's in the book!" with no explanation for which parts he was using. That's why I phrased my response as a question, to specifically find out how he's drawing a line between "thou shalt not kill" and "don't wear polyester blends".

Though since he's back, I'll just respond to him.

I'm not going for the wackier stuff in the Bible because with most of the points there the Evangelicals really are indefensible.

What makes them indefensible? Is it something external to the bible?

[Carinthium]

Because no attempt is made to differentiate between the popular parts of the bible, and the other parts. Carinthium just said "it's in the book!" with no explanation for which parts he was using. That's why I phrased my response as a question, to specifically find out how he's drawing a line between "thou shalt not kill" and "don't wear polyester blends".

Though since he's back, I'll just respond to him.

I didn't actually think of this, but Simon Jester has a good point- not knowing the whole of the Bible is stupidity, not hypocrisy, on the part of the evangelicals being discussed.

God himself has ordered people to kill and even done it himself in certain circumstances, so it's clearly not universially evil. Presumably the advocate for Christian hypocrisy would argue that they should claim that only God is permitted to kill (as the most consistent posistion for a Christian).

That's a strong argument, but not one the evangelicals we're discussing would have no answer whatsoever for. They could fall back on Augustine (who says that whilst one should lay down one's life if the only one concerned, one has no right to sacrifice other's people stake or other people's lives if they are under threat. In addition, one could mix modern philosophy by claiming children can't make that choice and thus should be defended to the death), or cite God's own killings to show it's isn't universial.

I'm acting as a metaphorical lawyer for evangelical Christianity in the thread here, not arguing my actual beliefs, so I'll admit I can't think of any arguments better then I have for it.

What makes them indefensible? Is it something external to the bible?

It's because I agree with you insofar as that I have looked through every argument I can think of and can't find a way to defend their positions with regard to them that stands up to much scrutiny.

[Darth Hoth]

Ah, 'tis one of those "Jesus was really a liberal hippie" screeds. I love tearing those apart!

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness.

He preached that his followers should forgive others for sins against themselves. Sins of unbelief or noncompliance with his Gospel, on the other hand, were never to be forgiven:

Wherefore I [Jesus] say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

On the contrary, such offenders would be punished in Hell forever, "where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture.

And Jesus supports all these throughout. One word: Hell Fire.

Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world.

And Jesus supported the right to bear arms for His apostles. He even urged them to do so:

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children.

This he did in fact say, according to the Gospel. However, according to the same Gospel, it is better to give away all your living than to buy food for it. So the poor should simply be glad that they have the opportunity to starve for the sake of the Gospel.

They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached.

Blatantly false. No gospel or New Testament text otherwise speaks favourably of state redistribution of wealth. Although they do heap loads and loads of praise over voluntary contribution to the poor.

Before attempting an answer, allow a quick clarification. Evangelicals don't exactly hate Jesus -- as we've provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him.

Accurately summarised.

They can't stop thanking him. And yet, as for Jesus himself -- his core values of peace, his core teachings of social justice, his core commandments of goodwill -- most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain.

Peace?

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Sounds more like fanaticism to me. It is frankly surprising that bits like this have not caused more suicide bombing in our days.

Social justice? Sure, but in the negative sense that everyone should be equally poor - his message was that everyone should give literally everything away to "the poor" (or, of course, the Temple treasury).

Good will? Once again, Heaven for everyone who agreed with him and Hell for everyone who did not.

Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.

And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

That is, religion is one big Rorschach test. People look at the content of their religious tradition -- its teachings, its creeds, its prophet's proclamations -- and they basically pick and choose what suits their own secular outlook. They see in their faith what they want to see as they live their daily lives, and simultaneously ignore the rest. And as is the case for most White Evangelical Christians, what they are ignoring is actually the very heart and soul of Jesus's message -- a message that emphasizes sharing, not greed. Peace-making, not war-mongering. Love, not violence.

While this is overwhelmingly true in most cases, it is no more or less so for right-wing evangelicals who want their Supply Side Jesus than for the left-wingers who want their Liberal Hippie Jesus.

Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. -- it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow "Christian." They aren't.

Except the greed, they are perfectly in accord with the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, as recorded in the Gospel.

And then, of course, the guy also forgets that the New Testament includes not only the Jesus stories, but also Acts, Revelation (ooh boy) and a whole corpus of letters, each of which is considered equally divine and inerrant by fundamentalists. And that the Bible includes not only the New Testament, but the Old. All of which conspire to tell a message exactly the opposite of what he envisages.

[Darth Hoth]

Question; aren't there - for lack of a better term - two Jesuses in the Bible? The nonviolent version of the Gospels, and the genocidal madman of Revelations? I haven't blown the dust off of my copy for a long time, but I'm pretty sure that a Christian looking to define the entity Christ using the Bible would have to include his aspect as Christ the Warrior, too, no?

They are pretty much the one and the same. If you look through a given Gospel, you will see that Jesus teaches essentially what Revelation says all along - he will come with his angels on Judgement Day and cast all the reprobates and unrepentant into Hell. Only that those are not so popular to emphasise nowadays, so many people forget that they are there in between the "turn the other cheek" and "give away your money" sermons.

He does generally (although with exceptions - e.g., 22:36) tell his followers that they should do no violence to anyone. But not because violence is intrinsically wrong, but because that is God's and His own job to come back and smash the sinners to bits, not theirs. And Revelation says the same thing, right in the middle of all the fire and brimstone: "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." (13:10)

It's better to say there are two Doctrines, based on Peter and Paul.
Peter's teachings pretty much end with the first half of Acts (of the Apostles). The second half of Acts, Romans, and all the Letters to the Churches are all Paul's writings, and that is where a lot of Evangelicals get their biases. Peter was spreading the word to Jews. Paul was the first Evangelical, spreading his version of Jesus throughout the Gentiles by roaming the Roman Empire.

Revealations was by John, another latecomer like Paul, not one of the 13. No one's quite sure where he got his dream/prophecy.

Minor correction: Letters Romans through Hebrews are traditionally ascribed to Paul (though modern scholarship doubts the authorship of about half of them); the letters of James, Peter, John, and Jude are not Pauline, and have traditionally been associated with these respective characters. John of Patmos (the author of Revelation) has also generally been thought to be the same as the apostle John in the past, if not nowadays among liberal Christians. (Conservatives, of course, still think so.)

But Paul, of course, is indeed the favourite of the evangelicals. "Grace, not works" is arguably their chief principle nowadays.

[Rabid]

*scratch his head*

So... Jesus really was the Emperor of Mankind, then ?

[Spoonist]

Blatantly false. No gospel or New Testament text otherwise speaks favourably of state redistribution of wealth. Although they do heap loads and loads of praise over voluntary contribution to the poor

Remember that a similar thing to rule 34 exists when it comes to the bible, so never make such categorical statements. While I agree that a congregation isn't a state it's form and function would essentially be the same if taken to modern similtudes.

I don't have time to go through the gospel but here is the fellowshop of the ring believers stuff from acts. There is plenty more if one can be bothered.

The Fellowship of the Believers
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

The Believers Share Their Possessions
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Ananias and Sapphira
1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. 3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. 7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?” “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.” 9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” 10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

[Carinthium]

That was, however, amongst Christians. Ananias had gone back on his word after promising to donate everything he had to the Church.

[Spoonist]

That was, however, amongst Christians. Ananias had gone back on his word after promising to donate everything he had to the Church.

what are you on about

[Carinthium]

That was, however, amongst Christians. Ananias had gone back on his word after promising to donate everything he had to the Church.

what are you on about

Acts 5- you're the one who quoted it. I've checked out the context, and Ananias and his wife had decided to become Christians but dishonestly held back property which they had promised to give to the Church. That's not the same as forcing non-Christians to donate all they have to the state or church.