Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, April 09, 2007
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
"Why Liberals Revile the Risen Christ"
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Liberals detest the historical fact that Jesus Christ arose from the dead.

In doing so they betray the fact, that while they may attempt to embrace the Son of God as an icon of compassion, they have little actual intellectually honest use for the message or meaning of what He represented while on the earth. This rejection, hate, and rebellion against God neither lessens His reality, nor justifies their actions, attitudes, and behaviors in this life.

The worldview of modern liberalism is dependent upon a central truth- that God is either nonexistent or irrelevant. His mere existence is a condemnation of their thinking, and His involvement in mankind's affairs guarantees their conviction in the court of absolute morality.

As a writer and broadcaster I have never been shy to point to my belief - not just in the God who created me, but also in His Son. In referring to His reality in my life liberals have wrongly presumed that I fancy myself speaking "for God," or "putting words in His mouth." I have been criticized for "pretending to know the mind and heart of God" more times than I can count. But such criticisms are misguided for the substance of the claims is false. I do not now, nor have ever presumed to speak on God's behalf. He does not now, nor has He ever needed my assistance to carry His message. No argument that I have ever put into print was ever based on my self-generated view of what God thinks.

Liberals never cared about the integrity of such claims to begin with. Ultimately their battle has never been with a single thing that I've written, spoken, or broadcast. Rather the struggles within their own conscience, soul, and experience are against the truth that my assumptions rest upon. Most notably that Jesus Christ was dead but is no longer.

If Jesus Christ had stayed buried, the issue of His divine nature would have ended with Him. Yet if he did in fact rise, if he did in fact defy death, and constitute a mockery of sin, Satan, and his fallen angels - then that miraculous act alone would command the attention of the human experience. As it should!

If Jesus Christ was able to do what no other being has ever done - then the argument over whether God exists is concluded, and if God exists then his mere existence demands not merely our attention but our obedience. And if our obedience draws us to belief in Christ's completed death, burial, and resurrection then we obtain permanent relationship with Him. This relationship then grants us life everlasting - and we in response should live our lives based on gratitude for God's gift of life to us.

Liberals dislike words like "obedience" they are only able to associate its meaning to something equivalent to slavery. Yet when you consider what obedience is designed to encourage it is anything but. Would a parent think it unreasonable for a child to obey their instruction when the child is reaching for the hot stove, about to dart out into oncoming traffic, or jump into a body of water without the skills to swim? That instruction is designed to protect, save, and even enhance the child's life. Instructing our children to "study hard, make good grades, and always be prepared to do your best" could in some sense be seen as "slavery to an outdated ideal" but in reality it enables that same child to achieve - sometimes more than even they believe they are capable.

Liberals will attempt to dispute the premise of my claims and refer to their own personal, deep, and life long admiration of Jesus as proof. This is exactly the type of utilitarian relationship godless liberals deceive themselves with. They will speak in glowing terms of how Jesus fed those who were hungry, but will ignore how he instructed those he fed to live righteously. With contempt in their voice they will remind you that Jesus loved the poor, but will ignore His guidance on stewardship and personal responsibility. Liberals will scream shouts of hypocrisy about Jesus' "love for creation" in their demands to drive smaller cars, but ignore His attribute of complete sovereignty which oversees the cycles and the seasons of not just this planet but of all the created solar systems.

Liberals will also insist most assuredly that Jesus would never reduce modern sexual freedoms to old fashioned ideas of morality. They would argue that he would have (and therefore we must) embrace "love for all of man's sexual expression." Yet they purposefully remain blinded to the fact that Jesus said to the adulterous woman who was drowning in "sexual expression" to "GO and sin no more."

If liberals have use for Jesus it is because of a distorted view of His compassion, which they perceive to be softness, and an obliviousness to His strength - which they now view as hateful.

Yet it need not be this way, for if the Son of God can endure temptation, be nailed to a cross, have his bones crushed and broken, be buried for three days -and still rise again, then truly is their any burden to heavy for Him to help you face?

Jesus Christ rose from the dead, fully God, fully righteous, and still wholly in control.

We are called to obey the voice of His Holy Spirit, believe in Him, and be given a new life. As we do - it will impact how we think, the actions we commit to, and the behaviors we engage in. These changes threaten the belief system of liberals who are steadfastly committed to the muck and the mire they now live in. Sin and selfishness often cause blindness.

Liberals like to embrace a compassionate but dead Jesus, they also revile the holy and risen Christ. Both of which are unfortunate.

For in trusting the risen Savior, you can know that His sovereignty is your safety net, His instruction is for your benefit, and His guidance is your gift of grace.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

To Jack
Jack writes: Friday, April, 13, 2007 9:49 AM

"Richie Boy"

Cute. Your best argument?


""If truth is subjective, what can we make of your assertion?"

That it is an accurate formulation of the relative nature of truth."

If truth is relative, any such statement is self-contradictory.

""Why make any assertions at all? Why are you here arguing if it's all subjective?"

Because I believe it is important to help the self righteous come to a higher level of understanding,..."

Ad hominem? But, anyway, if truth is relative, even name-calling fails.

""Only a fool would play a rigged game. I LOVE it when know-it-all's come here to argue that you can't objectively know anything."

That one can't objectively know anything, or at least that objective knowledge is not as easy to obtain as one might think, is a very legitimate philosophical proposition. Not grasping that reveals a limited understanding of philosophy."

Any philosopher who asserts that is also making a self-contradictory statement. Try getting metaphysical with gravity.


Re: Muslims and Christians: "Well, one might be. Neither might be. Both might be."

Impossible for both to be right because they contradict on the dates of the lives of historical persons, and other things. Now, if you believe in re-incarnation.

"If there is a higher truth that encompasses both (or all), then understanding it has to come from confronting cognitive dissonance."

Pure sophistry. (Don't get upset, Jack - that's only a relative opinion.)

"In short, I am just trying to help."

Why? In the end, with your position, it doesn't matter. You're just having "fun".


Allen's man enough to beat my wife.
Allen writes: Friday, April, 13, 2007 5:46 AM

"Rich D
Awwww - so when you can't answer a simple question, you just call people names, eh?

Wussa matter - did I make your wip [sic] quiver when I called Jesus a Zombie???"

You asked me to defend a statement that I didn't make. Are you really that slow?

"Yeah, you are claiming that a human being rose from the dead and that it's a [sic] "historical fact" -be man enough to back it up or don't bother posting."

It has been answered already, and you just don't accept the answer. The people who wrote that history were eyewitnesses.

"And please spare us the lame attempts at humor - you're a witless bore (then again, you are a KM fan -so I shouldn't expect much from you)>"

Ad hominem? (Name-calling for those in Rio Linda.) The humor must have struck home. Nobody forced you to read it.

"As far as "beating my wife", I'm gay - but I'de be happy to b*tch slap yours for being desperate enough to marry you."

[Intelligence Alert: Rio Linda explanation follows. Most of you really don't need this.]

You really are slow at this. The question I asked you was in exactly the same category as the one that you asked me. There is no good answer to it, and the only option is to ignore it. It's also a famous question frequently used in pointing up an argumentative fallacy, and has no personal reference to the receiver. The fact that you, Allen, don't seem to know this and took it personally tells me that you are playing in the wrong ballpark.

For the record, here is your question:

"Would you like to explain how it is a historical "fact" that Jesus Christ rose from a bloody death and became a zombie?""

Point one: I never used the word "zombie" - this is name-calling by you, hypocrite.

Point two: You are most disingenuous in using quotes around "fact". That tells me you aren't serious, i.e., lying again.

Point three: You asked me a question that you already knew the answer to just to yank chains. More dishonesty. Any serious person would do enough personal study first before exposing such ignorance in public.

Point four: My question was exactly the same as yours - no matter how you answer it (yes or no), you admit to something you don't want to, and also never claimed. No matter how I answer yours, I tacitly admit that Jesus is/was a "zombie", whatever the heck that is, even though I never said it. More lying, hypocrisy, and name-calling from you.

Point five: The fact that you have to announce your sexual preference shows oversensitivity, insecurity, and an inability to focus on the point. You could have just as well retorted, "Well, my shirt is green, so I win all debates today." Do you really define yourself by a propensity to buggery?

Point six: You're not "gay"; you're obviously unhappy and angry - at least in most of your posts. You folks really need a more descriptive term.

Point seven: You admit to losing the argument when you resort to threatening violence against an uninvolved person. That's real intelligence and manhood. Why, how brave of you to threaten a woman! Is that what being "man enough" means to you? I'll pass on your challenge. I hope that you are kinder to whoever's around you.

Point eight: You have to resort to insulting a third party (my wife) to deflect the debate from the issue - now that is a true mark of a dunce.

Dunce indeedy :)

You said it.

s.d.g.


Richie Boy

That truth might be subjective does not preclude the existence of truth. It's a relatively high level concept, and you seem incapable of grasping it. Your truth is, I hope, as powerful a force in your life as mine is in mine. But they may be very different truths.

"If truth is subjective, what can we make of your assertion?"

That it is an accurate formulation of the relative nature of truth.

"Why make any assertions at all? Why are you here arguing if it's all subjective?"

Because I believe it is important to help the self righteous come to a higher level of understanding, i.e. that their truth can still be powerful in their lives without them having to assert that other people's truth is nothing but a fantasy or delusion.

Plus, it's fun.

"Only a fool would play a rigged game. I LOVE it when know-it-all's come here to argue that you can't objectively know anything."

That one can't objectively know anything, or at least that objective knowledge is not as easy to obtain as one might think, is a very legitimate philosophical proposition. Not grasping that reveals a limited understanding of philosophy. Even so, there are legitimate philosophical positions that are quite different.

For example. It seesm clear that there are at least two different religious truths in common discussion. Those who are fervent Muslims really do believe with all their hearts that Islam is the Truth. Likewise, really fervent Christians have their own truths. Someone standing on the outside of that debate can easily see that two different truths are in play, but that each side is absolutely convinced in their souls that their truth is the right one.

Well, one might be. Neither might be. Both might be. If there is a higher truth that encompasses both (or all), then understanding it has to come from confronting cognitive dissonance. In short, I am just trying to help.


"They remind me of kids walking around unaware that the back flap of their PJs is open!"

You seem to have an interest in this...

Wait your turn, Jack!
Jack writes: Thursday, April, 12, 2007 11:53 AM

'Immutable Truth?
"Morality and truth are no more subjective than the constants of physics."

Of course they are.'

If truth is subjective, what can we make of your assertion? Why make any assertions at all? Why are you here arguing if it's all subjective? Only a fool would play a rigged game. I LOVE it when know-it-all's come here to argue that you can't objectively know anything. They remind me of kids walking around unaware that the back flap of their PJs is open!

I'm going to have to get more dunce caps and start taking group photos. What size do you wear, Jack?

Indeedy.

Move over, Allen!
will is the new Poster Child of Logic for next week.

will: "But morality & truth are subjective"

Here he attempts to make an objective statement of truth that truth itself is subjective! Self-contradictory, isn't it?

Put on your dunce cap for the photo and tuck your shirt in. Smi-ile. !click!

OK, Will, back to your jello.

Don't cry, Allen - you'll get another chance.

Two answers for Allen
Allen writes: Wednesday, April, 11, 2007 4:15 PM

"Rich D.
Would you like to explain how it is a historical "fact" that Jesus Christ rose from a bloody death and became a zombie?"

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No.

Your statement is false. That's why you got the award.

"Poster Child indeedy"

Indeedy.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

replies to sjt18 and viruddh
For sjt18: you practically repeat each of my points; you certainly don't argue against them. How in the world, by the way, do YOU know that most liberals engage in immoral practices?

For viruddh: Is your comment an example of argument? You're just saying: "shut up." Although, in conservative-land I guess that counts as an exercise in logic.

Immutable Truth?
"Morality and truth are no more subjective than the constants of physics."

Of course they are. How else can one explain moral codes that are directly in conflict. How do you explain people who say they hold to the same code having such different judgements of certain things.

QUakers vs Fundamentalists on the subject of the war in Iraq?

Remarkable
I just thought about something, will. You ask me questions then blame me for answering with confidence. That does in fact seem like you are trying to evade something in the back of your mind.

Huh will?
"But morality & truth are subjective (& selective) experiences."

That is a philosophical statement that doesn't hold water.

Lying is wrong and has consequences even when they aren't immediate. Promiscuity is wrong and has consequences.

Tell me will. Is murder wrong? Morality and truth are no more subjective than the constants of physics. They can be more difficult to discern... but can be found like scientific constants if one searches diligently.

If you truly believed truth was subjective btw, you would have no reason whatsoever to be in a debate like this much less making definitive statements as you so often do.

As for your examples, the application of truth is an imperfect endeavor by men. Case in point is the Iraq war. A Dem called it a slam dunk. It was a war premised on a defensive notion... but because the facts weren't as they appeared, a whole lot of rationalizing went on afterward.

God gives two general approvals for war. Defense and for the punishment of excessively wicked nations. The second only applied IMO to the theocratic monarchy of OT Israel.

Christ said that divorce was not God's design. It always occurs because one or both parties are self-centered. The biblical model of marriage is total submission by the wife and total self-sacrifice by the husband. Neither glorifies the individual but edifies and glorifies the spouse. The Bible forbids adultery with two exceptions: Adultery and abandonment.

Contraception- Not exactly sure what you're asking. I don't find anything in the Bible concerning the subject- neutrality. I believe Catholics opposed it based on a declaration from the Pope... whose opinion means less to a fundamental Baptist than an atheists does.

will
"sjt18
You manage to turn christianity into a by-the-numbers odious doctrinaire experience."

Nope. Just answering the issues being raised. Doctrine and practice are equally important. God wants us to both pursue truth and do righteousness.

"I am sure if you were Islamic you would be doing the exact same thing with THAT religion (& justifying it, however spuriously, every single step of the way)."

Ad hominum? You are "sure" I would do this or that? You and I have debated several times. You may not agree with my reasoning, rationale, or conclusions. But I really don't think by now you should be inferring that I have not thought it through.

If... you weren't blinded by naturalism... I am sure you would...

That argument isn't a valid one applied to either of us.

"Without any cynicism here, you seem to be overcompensating for something....?"

Yes. In most cases, either ignorance (benign sense) and lack of logic.

"You never seem to be coming from a place of love."

"Seem"? That would "seem" to be a convenient excuse for you not to deal with what I say.

What love would you have me demonstrate here? Boast of what I do? I wasn't even comfortable discussing it before. Would you have me somehow not disagree with people who are contradicting both biblical and "natural" (ie transcendant) truth?

"Only sanctimoniousness. And dogmatism."

I think what I believe through. If that makes me sound dogmatic then I'm very sorry. But... could it be that you feel this way because you are averse to the notion of objective moral truth? Could it be that you are overcompensating for something? Perhaps that missing prime cause for your philosophical belief.

If I believe something is true, I stand for it unless proven wrong. You and others who take issue with my posts seldom get around to actually laying out a rationale for why I am wrong and you are right.

Resurrection
"Would you like to explain how it is a historical "fact" that Jesus Christ rose from a bloody death and became a zombie?

right.."cause the Bible tells me so"

Poster Child indeedy"

Would you believe the evidence if given? I doubt it but here's a starter.

The Bible. It is the best attested document of antiquity. More than 5000 manuscripts or partials exist with the earliest dating to within 50 years of the death of John, its writer. Josh McDowell (whose determination to disprove Christianity starting with the resurrection led to his conversion and apologetics ministry) quoted a scholar's claim that the whole new testament could be rebuilt with just the citations in the writings of early church fathers. Along with the Greek copies, there are 12000+ hand copied translations. Some of the oldest attesting documents for the NT are the Syriac translations.

No other historical writing remotely approaches this level of support.

IOW's, the Bible now says what it has always said. All of the books were written within 70 years of the resurrection.

It is not reasonable to dismiss the witness of more than 500 people with a wave of the hand. Many of those people who were raised devout Jews died rather than deny they saw the risen Christ.

As has been discussed ad nauseum, the witness of Christian enemies supports that they believed in the resurrection from the earliest days and were willing to die for that belief.

The Sunday phenomenon. It would have taken a very special event for Jews to violate the Sabbath by declaring Sunday their day of worship. Yet this was the practice of the church from the earliest days.

The church itself. Many Jewish sects rose and fell during that time. There were many claiming to be the Messiah. So why did this one survive in spite of the fact that they were severely persecuted but didn't raise a hand in self defense?

If you are really open minded, I would suggest either Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" or "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroebel.

Allen
"Conservatives Christians support the war in Iraq and regard dead Iraqi children as "collateral damage" - yet the aborted fetus of a raped 12 year old girl is considered murder."

Are you saying we are targeting children in Iraq? Are you saying these children are dying because US forces aren't doing everything they can to safeguard them?

The fact is that children as collateral casualties in war goes back at least to the first modern war- the US Civil War when the "good guy", Sherman, engaged in total war against Southern civilians.

"huh??"

Huh is right. How can you use the fact that the enemy is targeting and using children as a means of indicting conservatives?

I support Iraq because Saddam Hussein was believed to be a direct and imminent threat to the US and its allies. Bush should have never backed off that rationale into the liberal concept of a "just" war. If we hadn't had very good reason to believe that Saddam had the will and means to supply terrorists with WMD's... we had no business taking him out of power.

However, the best intel sources in the world told Bush that he did. Vlad Putin even said that Saddam had the intention of facilitating WMD terrorism agains the US.

As far as aborting the fetus of a 12 year old goes... a) that is a small % of abortions so if that's all we were discussing I doubt there'd be alot of discussion and b) please explain the rationale for executing an unborn child because someone else committed a heinous crime.

I personally believe that D&C's or related procedures should be available to stringently qualifed rape victims up until the 3rd week.

Once a child has a heartbeat, I don't think you can presume by any reasonable notion that it isn't alive.

"Conservative Christains support the death penalty as a means of punsihment, when it clearly does nothing to deter crime and is a complete act of murder."

It is a matter of justice and not deterence. However it isn't accurate to say it does not deter crime either. The murderer who is executed will not murder again inside or outside of prison.

But let's examine your logic a little better. Prison apparently doesn't effectively deter crime either. Most prisoners have been to prison before. Therefore according to your logic, we should stop sending people to prison and certainly shouldn't make sentences harsher.

It is worse than ridiculous to say that executing justice is a "complete act of murder". It isn't by a long shot. That is the reasoning equivalent of saying that a rapist's right to travel freely cannot be abridged as punishment. Prison takes a part of peoples' lives, right? The death penalty is simply the logical end of that rationale that says that some crimes are worthy of the forfeiture of the whole life.

BTW, for completely religious reasons, I am half-hearted about the death penalty. I know it is justice but it also denies people time in which they might repent and come to know Christ. However the duty of gov't is to execute justice, not grace.

Viruddh...
Since there wasn't much to respond to, in your vacuous response to my posting to Jerubaal, I will answer what you are wondering about:

As to my "brand" of religion, I fashion my beliefs akin to the likes of Jesus, Paul, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Saint Augustine.

You can label it fundamentalism if you want, but just keep in mind, I already stated that I am no fan of Jerry Falwell. So you definition would have to take that into account.

I sincerely doubt you would understand what I believe based on the 7 names I listed above but I listed them anyway.
I felt McCullough's article was pretty much calling a spade a spade with the exception of the fact that Jesus bones were not broken, or crushed, but his body was, for our iniquity.

To DA -- aka, "the Hoot."
You claim Josephus would not have regarded Jesus as the Messiah, even though Jesus was a Jew. Yet you claim he did believe Vespasian to be the Messiah, even though Vespasian was a Gentile and oversaw the destruction of Jerusalem.

I think you need to go back and read those quotes more carefully.

I repeat, DA, you're a hoot!

viruddh
"As for the rest of your post, I don't think it
is worth responding to."

Great answer... wouldn't want you to actually evaluate what you'd answer with.

DA
"You may find it to be a hoot, but it was a direct quote from Joseph's writings."

A direct quote into which you read quite a bit! Vespasian was a Gentile, and oversaw the destruction of Jerusalem. Why would Josephus - or any other self-respecting Jew - regard him as the Messiah?

Which fundamentalist school?
Please define fundamentalist as well if you are able.

BTW, it isn't legalism about hair length, dresses, or popular music.

SJT18
"Quite obviously you are another person who is clueless about what Christian fundamentalism is."

Again, your insights are dead on. I was raised in a fundamentalist home, I went to a fundamentalist college. Most of my family are
still fundamentalists. I know them inside out.

As for the rest of your post, I don't think it
is worth responding to. Besides, I'm off to work.

will
Abortion, subsidizing evil, et al are not a proper Christian stance. I argue also that a Christian supporting the notion that gov't should force others to do what Christ commanded us to do as individuals and churches is also not a Christian stance.

Precisely what is it that you're objecting to? What particular liberal political belief do you believe (as an atheist no less) reflects a "proper Christian stance"?

I can give biblical reasons for believing as I do. Those reasons happen to also agree with the truths of the USC in its primitive libertarian form. I do not believe that "liberal Christians" can do either.

Further, I find it wholly inconsistent to say that conservatives should leave their faith derived opinions behind while liberals espouse big gov't programs as a means of obeying their conception of Christ's commands.

viruddh again
"Paul's comment was a statement, not a command."

And the difference in effect to the conversation we're having is what? The direct implication is that a person that refuses to work for themselves has no right to expect others to provide for them... nor does a Christian have a responsibility to support them if they refuse to work. You've heard "hand up, not hand out", right?

"I am so intrigued by your brand of religion. It
makes me want to change from mine to yours."

What is your religion and how does it put you in such a apex?

""Tony Compolo is a criminal.""

Is he or is he not?

""Putting liberals..in their place.""

I haven't read the book but it would seem that before you react... you'd at least find out what was said and following the reasoning, right? Aren't we to "prove all things and hold to that which is true"?

""single-mother families created by government entitlements.""

Are you saying this isn't true? Whatever you subsidize you get more of and there is an undeniable link between left wing social and economic ideals in practice and the blight of illegitimacy and single mother homes.

"The depth of your philosophy and logic knows no
bounds."

That's interesting. You don't answer the logic. You don't offer an alternative. You don't even take time to learn about what you are responding to... and yet the other person is to be mocked for ignorance?

"No wonder fundamentalism is so well
respected in the US."

Quite obviously you are another person who is clueless about what Christian fundamentalism is.

viruddh
Yes. I got the fact that he was being facetious... and answered the point as taken. He has attempted a straw man so that he can "demonstrate" some ill on the part of conservative Christians. This becomes necessary when you can't actually defend your point.

Clarification
As a side note, Nash also wrote a book against the right as well. It was a two series book going against both ends of the political spectrum.

Heresyarch
Paul's comment was a statement, not a command.

I am so intrigued by your brand of religion. It
makes me want to change from mine to yours.
"Tony Compolo is a criminal." "Putting liberals..in their place." "single-mother families created by government entitlements."

The depth of your philosophy and logic knows no
bounds. No wonder fundamentalism is so well
respected in the US.

I forgot Jerbaal's quote
Jerubaal writes:
"Maybe they don't reach the same conclusions we do. It is NOT biblical to say that government should NOT help the poor. We have no biblical leg to stand on there, so let's not conflate conservatism and Christianity, because they are certainly distinct. (Private charity is encouraged in the Bible, but public charity is never banned except perhaps 'thou shalt not steal'.)"

Paul's attitude in Thessalonians is if you do not work, you do not eat! That is a far cry from what the government has created....incentive to not work!! I have friends (facing depression) who will not work more than x number of hours or their government subsidy is reduced. That is not a biblical standard."

Add to this, the number of welfare - single-mother families created by government entitlements.

The Pilgrims when they tried collective living, were dying off at a fast rate. You should read what Bradford thought of this arrangement after the fact. Bascically called it arrogance and conceit!

Far from it, there is hardly anything that liberals stand for that I would consider biblical, including abortion.

Take the likes of Tony Campolo. This guy is criminal. Talk about a guy that puts his politics first before his faith. I confronted Tony on this years ago after he couldn't support Jerry Falwell's statement that "Christ is the only way to heaven". He couldn't support it because it came from a conservative Christian. Like a typical liberal, he has convictions only when it comes to conservatives (bad, bad). And I am no fan of Falwell, either.

Ron Nash, well known philosopher in Calvinistic circles had to write a book putting liberals like Campolo in his place ("Why the Left is Not Right"), in case you want to read it.

DA
"[S]o you are one of the 144,000 virgin males that are going to be saved?"

Since "unapproachable" means just that, I'll counter with an equally inane question: So, are you another of the manifold, publicly educated Wiki-believers with non-existent reading skills & *a penchant for buggery?


Hint #1--Revelation[no "s"] 7:1-8
Hint #2--I'm not Jewish


*Thanks! to Mike Myers's Dr Evil.

SJT18
Don't you know a put on when you read one!!!
(re: Gestell). I think it is time for you to quit moralizing and move on to another post. Or
take a rest. That would be even better.

Jerubaal.....
As a Calvinist-Puritan right wing Christian, I whole-heartedly disagree with you:

Jerubaal Writes:

Paul's attitude in Thessalonians is if you do not work, you do not eat! That is a far cry from what the government has created....incentive to not work!! I have friends (facing depression) who will not work more than x number of hours or their government subsidy is reduced. That is not a biblical standard."

Add to this, the number of welfare - single-mother families created by government entitlements.

The Pilgrims when they tried collective living, were dying off at a fast rate. You should read what Bradford thought of this arrangement after the fact. Bascically called it arrogance and conceit!

Far from it, there is hardly anything that liberals stand for that I would consider biblical, including abortion.

Take the likes of Tony Campolo. This guy is criminal. Talk about a guy that puts his politics first before his faith. I confronted Tony on this years ago after he couldn't support Jerry Falwell's statement that "Christ is the only way to heaven". He couldn't support it because it came from a conservative Christian. Like a typical liberal, he has convictions only when it comes to conservatives (bad, bad). And I am no fan of Falwell, either.

Ron Nash, well known philosopher in Calvinistic circles had to write a book putting liberals like Campolo in his place ("Why the Left is Not Right"), in case you want to read it.

Gestell again
The founders believed in limited gov't precisely because they trusted religion more than the state to render a peaceful and just society. The gov't programs over the past 80 years have categorically proven them right. When gov't relieves people of responsibility even with the best of intentions, they create irresponsible, dependent people in great numbers, foster downward spiraling morality/duty/civility/ethics, and weaken society as a whole.

The libertarian/founder's model of gov't is the most consistent with biblical Christianity because it leaves man as the responsible, sovereign agent before His Creator... and neighbor.

Gestell
"OK, let's settle this
Now that I've read a lot of posts, it's time for a conclusion. Here it goes:

Only conservatives can be true Christians."

No.

"Christianity is consistent with the entire conservative agenda in all respects."

No. There are "conservatives" who would like to use gov't to force their worldview on others just like there are liberals who would do so... it simply isn't a necessity like it is with liberalism.

"Liberals who think they are Christians are wrong, and conservatives can and do know this with complete certainty, because they know God's will and word."

A person is not saved by being approved by another person. They're saved by their relationship with the Christ of the Bible... and following His commands as lined out in the Bible.

None of us are perfect. Liberal politics are simply contradictory to biblical principles in many regards.

"Liberals are all believers in flagrant immorality and support evil positions on all public issues."

"All" is difficult to say... but certainly the vast majority in my opinion. BTW, liberal Christians are loud to protest when conservative Christians seek to influence gov't... yet they cite Christ's command to feed the poor and be good stewards of the earth as reasons to impose laws and taxes on others... how does that work exactly?

"No liberal position can have anything morally good about it, since liberals can never be Christians."

Statism is not morally good. Abortion is not morally good. Wealth redistribution against the will of the earner is not good. Subsidizing immorality is not good. Using law to force acceptance of immorality on the public is not good.

Protecting the environment in a rational way IS good... however there should be an Amendment to the USC to give the federal gov't power to do it.

"Christianity is the religious branch of conservatism and conservatism is the political branch of Christianity. That about does it."

Genuine conservatism/libertarianism favors the Constitution as a standard. It holds that truth is transcendant and immutable. One is not a branch of the other. However they are mostly consistent with each other. Liberal statism/secular humanism (politically applied) is neither consistent with truth or with the USC.

DA
"stj18
--Certainly it is biblical to say so. This is an intrusion by gov't with an operating philosophy contrary to the gospel's call to rely on Christ. Further, it is biblical to protest that the gov't is very often subsidizing diliquent or immoral behavior.

The gov't has no business rescuing someone from the direct consequences of their own bad moral decisions.

If we could eliminate all abortions after the 3rd week, that would be major progress.--


What a hypocrite. God forbid the govt use your money for those who’ve made choices that YOU disagree with"

You haven't demonstrated any hypocrisy except fo your own.

The gov't DOES NOT have a right to use my money in that way. Not because I disagree with them though. I hold that they are absolutely free to follow their own conscience... however that does NOT mean I should be taxed to relieve them of the consequences they alone are responsible for.

I believe the gov't should stay out of people's business... to include taking responsibility from them when their choices don't work out. I didn't enjoy the "good time" these folks had/have... by what reason of justice do you think I should pay for the consequences so they don't have to stop?

"but you sure are for them telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies."

I'm not. Women are free to make any decision they want about THEIR bodies... to include having irresponsible sexual relations. They do not then get a "super" right to destroy someone else's body if they happen not to want the resultant pregnancy. You aren't asking for freedom or rights. Freedom and rights come with an incumbent, balancing PERSONAL responsibility. Take away the responsibility and you no longer have freedom- you have a system of license that inevitably destroys freedom, the person, the community, and eventurally the society.

"If you want to live in a theocracy move to Saudi Arabia."

If you want to live in a land with no respect for the most basic of human rights, move to N Korea.

My opposition to the legality of abortion is not derived from my religion. I oppose promiscuity from a religious standpoint but have no impulse to try to make it illegal. It is not my right to tell someone what they can or can't do with THEIR body. However, we as a society have not only a right but a responsibility to establish rules for what a person can do with someone else's body... in this case an unborn child.

Again, this is a fundamental matter of human/civil rights... not a theocratic offering. EX. Murder is immoral. Why do you not argue that it cannot therefore be illegal? It is the same exact thing for abortion. It is both immmoral and a violation of one person's right to live by another person... acting selfishly.

Will
"sjt18
"Submitting your political views" to see if they square with the bible seems to me a very bad idea.
Submit your political views to see if they square with our Constitution, that's the real deal."

You presume a fallacy. Truth is transcendant... and many of those who contributed to our founding ideals and laws drew from their religious, biblical worldview.

Thomas Jefferson has three accomplishments on his tombstone... one happens to be that he authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty. If written today, the left would protest that it was written by dangerous conservative Christian right-wingers.

There is NO contradiction between filtering your ideals through the Bible AND USC. There are numerous very apparent contradictions between views filtered through a secular humanist worldview and the Constitution- chief among them being that Truth exists and is objective.

"I now know why you get so disoriented & addled when people challenge your religious beliefs:"

Frankly, I am neither disoriented nor addled. If someone challenges me and reveals an inconsistency in my view of things, I adapt, learn, grow...

"You are NOTHING without your god, your Jesus."

Absolutely true... and neither are you.

"You become invisible, You have wrapped your entire life in that one belief system."

I only wish I were that good.

"What would happen if you found out BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that Jesus DID live but was NOT divine?"

Difficult to say... however I would like to think I would be more open minded to the truth than people who face problems of logic and truth associated with a purely naturalistic worldview.

Certainly though, if Christ is not divine, He is not who He said He was nor is He qualified to redeem men from sin.

"That he was an ordinary human? No virgin birth, no resurrection. COULD YOU STILL FIND HAPPINESS? Could you function?"

Find happiness? Yes. There is happiness for a short time in licentious sin. I would certainly find no reason to obey a moral code without Christ.

Contentment/joy (which is what I think you actually mean)? Probably not. I have known many unsaved people... and none have shared my contentment/joy. I have met many humble, genuine Christians and they do.

Again citing polling data from a few years back, conservatives were found to be "happier" than liberals even when adjusting for income. Committed Christians were found to be happier than the rest regardless of income.

Huffpost and Salon.com
The very mention of Christian beliefs on the two above-named websites elicits an immediate outpouring of contempt for Christ, Christianity, and religion in general (I know from repeated personal experience).
Are Huffpost and Salon conservative? Certainly not. Are they liberal? Their own posters claim so. The views tolerated, er, espoused on those sites are those commonly accepted as being 'liberal'.
I therefore deduce that liberal Christians are eminently unwelcome in certain fairly high-profile liberal circles (unless Salon and Huffpost are NOT mainstream liberalism?). Which causes me to wonder how it must feel to be held in contempt by so very many members of one's own wing of the political spectrum?

Poster Child Award
....this week for logic goes to Allen.

Allen writes: Wednesday, April, 11, 2007 4:08 AM

"Real Christians also realize that it's a lie and a sin to call the ressurrection of Christ a "historical fact". This is nonesense - the whole point is that you truly believe that this miracle occurred."

Real mathematicians also realize that it's a lie and sin to say that 2 + 2 = 4. If they believe that, how could they call themselves mathematicians?

OK, let's settle this
Now that I've read a lot of posts, it's time for a conclusion. Here it goes:

Only conservatives can be true Christians. Christianity is consistent with the entire conservative agenda in all respects. Liberals who think they are Christians are wrong, and conservatives can and do know this with complete certainty, because they know God's will and word.

Liberals are all believers in flagrant immorality and support evil positions on all public issues. No liberal position can have anything morally good about it, since liberals can never be Christians.

Christianity is the religious branch of conservatism and conservatism is the political branch of Christianity. That about does it.

Greetings Jerubaal
I don't know if you'll get my post, I'm a little late in reading the article and I'm withholding judgement on it.

Predestination, which is virtually confessed by no one these days, yet you gave a pretty good defense of it to AchmedSlayer. I was impressed.

If I came and said to the liberals in your Church, "Predestination is the Heart of the Gospel," would any agree with me?

Do you?

I'm just curious.

Gary Gordon

I need to learn how to spell
Devine? Sheesh........Divine.

It just makes no sense
I can't figure out the logic of believing the magical tales in your chosen religion's "holy" book while at the same time seeing every other religion's "holy" book for what they are. Books of fiction presented as devine truth to frighten and control the masses.

If you need to believe there is an omnipotent supernatural spirit in control of everything in order to make it through your life, I say pray on. Everyone has their coping mechanisms to deal with whatever events come along. If believing in "god" gets you where you want to be, I have no issues with that. All I ask is the same respect for my lack of "belief" in return.

Boring liberals
"self-controlled, sober, and one of propriety"

I didn't know these were liberal or conservative ideals. I would certainly hold them up as a liberal Christian. I think the right imagines that us liberals lead lives of exotic debauchery, when most of us lead pretty boring and uninteresting lives, not really distinguishable from some conservatives. One looks at the home life of a John Edwards versus a Gingrich or Giuliani and this gets born out. If anything my complaint about Bush's use of foreign policy is that there does not seem to be any restraints, congressional or treaties or laws that provide a reign on this administration.

MrsV.Fixed Typo
I said:

"God’s Word –actually-says as the children of God we are not judge all things. We have been given this privilege and weighty responsibility. We are called to make judgments that are merciful, and fair, as much as is in our power as human beings who claim Christ Jesus. Part of this is distinguishing between right and wrong and ways of life a Christian can and cannot live. The Christian who wants to commingle Christ and a true Liberal lifestyle judges himself, and by this lifestyle he is condemned. God may be the final arbiter, but He gives His children His Word, His Holy Spirit, and an ability to see the difference between what is called Truth, and what actually is."

My typo, should read: "God’s Word –actually-says as the children of God we are TO judge all things.."
___________________________________
Does not a spiritual man judge all things? (1Cor 2:15)?

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

The Bible goes on to say:
Test the spirits...
There is wisdom in the multitude of counsel (judgement, discerment)
and on and on the Bible is full with the fact the we must observe a man's "fruit" and by it we may know him we must judge wether the fruit is good or evil based on what Jesus Christ said-- that very act is to judge.

But we MUST love the Liberal, not forgetting what we were delivered from, and that it is only by God's grace that we are saved at all, by the skin-of-our-teeth!

We must ALSO be very prudent about our judgments, and make sure we do all from a basis of the Truth in Love.

In short, mercy must be a part of all Christian's judgments.

But these are not judgments, my comments above, as understood facts, experience, life observation, and the real answers to why Liberalism and -real-Christianity can't-truly-mix..





MrsV's Reply to the "Liberal" "Christian
religiouslib writes:

“mrs v says The point is, Liberals have a skewed and hack kneed gospel, if you will, when they throw off the reason and constraint of the scriptures.”
how many liberal christians do you know? there are millions of sincere devout christians who are liberal. if you don't know them all how can you pass judgement on their religious beliefs.
there is no human litmus test of who is a christian or who isn't. you would agree to that right? i mean God is the only and final arbiter. there are conservatives who are atheists. how do they fit into your world view. you seem to imply that you must be conservative to be a "proper" christian. how do you explain conservatives who are not christians. why don't you attack them as well>”

religiouslib, I don’t know very many Christians who extol the "virtues” of a Liberal life, yet call themselves "Christians", but not for the reasons you’ve shown. I don’t know any at all, except, likely, those who are waivering in their faith, or have made a compromise in their commitment to the full efficacy of the Bible, and God’s will in terms of restraint, and holy (meaning set apart) living.

Having been a Liberal AND a Christian, I can state most definitively that one is hard pressed to be one, and still be the other. The reason I do not know many “liberal” Christians as you call them, is because a lifestyle advocating Liberalism is one that is genuinely at odds with a life that is committed to stepping more away from worldliness, to holiness and commitment to Christ. This is not to say that there aren’t certain aspects of a Liberal’s existence which might make him or her do activities which they might think pleasing to God-social justice, causes, what have you. But, by and large, most people who have seen, or lived the life of an active Liberal, and have seen or understood what Christ requires, will see that a Liberal lifestyle is a direct affront to what God-as Christ-requires.

I honestly don’t understand what you mean by claiming Christ, and then calling yourself a “Liberal”. Because a life with Him will want to shun living in duplicity, mingling with the world, or any hint of a life that is not self-controlled, sober, and one of propriety. Now you may feel you have this kind of life, but then you are either not living as a Christian, or as a Liberal. In short, one can't have two masters here.

God’s Word –actually-says as the children of God we are not judge all things. We have been given this privilege and weighty responsibility. We are called to make judgments that are merciful, and fair, as much as is in our power as human beings who claim Christ Jesus. Part of this is distinguishing between right and wrong and ways of life a Christian can and cannot live. The Christian who wants to commingle Christ and a true Liberal lifestyle judges himself, and by this lifestyle he is condemned. God may be the final arbiter, but He gives His children His Word, His Holy Spirit, and an ability to see the difference between what is called Truth, and what actually is.

As for your final comments, I have not “attacked” anyone here, and never have.

I know a party who considers himself a “Conservative”-to some degree, and is an avowed Atheist. He is a man went to high school with, and it is a safe bet he still considers himself a moderate, though he’s Liberal (He writes for CounterPunch, the last I heard). Ideologically speaking, the man is a Liberal, and has not changed much in that regard since we had classes together in high school years ago. But you are taking this discussion to places that were not even mentioned and taking them to another extent, and saying things I did not say. I never said an atheist can't espouse Conservative values, to some degree. I said that Liberalism is in direct contradiction to a life of Christianity. They are just not the same thing.

I have not met any, or many Liberal Christians, but to suggest that is because I find it not “proper” is indeed a judgment of my words, and by connection, me. But God and His children are not about expressions of faith and the superficial discussions of propriety, although His Word talks about what is right and good, and proper. It is not about some show for mere men’s eyes. This is what you allude to, and that’s quite a different thing.

The reason I do not know many “Liberal” Christians, is because the vast majority of Christians I have met, in my saved 20 years, have been keenly aware of the life God calls them to. This life is one of moral, social and spiritual propriety, holiness, and restraint.

Such qualities have never been prized as those having anything to do with a Liberal lifestyle, and comments suggesting otherwise only confuse and fly-in-the-face of a reality that most Christians know of-the distinctions here- in this, or any, age.

Freebasing?
freebird writes: Tuesday, April, 10, 2007 3:17 PM

"check this out
I find this very interesting. The basic beliefs of the 12 major religions. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddahism, Hinduism, Confusionism, Native American, Taoism, Shinto, Bahai, Zorastrianism, and Sufism. If you look at the main belief of all these you will see they say the same thing in different words."

This ought to be enough to disprove your weird assertion. Look the rest up yourself:

Islam: Agressive religion started by assumed teachings of a pedophilic, murdering, false prophet warlord whose followers worship a borrowed moon god (HBL = Hubal in Arabic and Ha Baal in Hebrew, al-ilah = the god, or al-liah = the one worshipped) and claim commonality with Abraham (Ishmaelites) through a corrupt text comprised of non-historical and self-contradictory statements. There are at least ten differing versions of the text which was made up centuries after the founder's death, but textual criticism is disallowed and is punishable by death.

Buddahism: Rely on yourself, this whole world is a shadow, there is no world, no supreme god exists, self-contradictory beliefs.

Hinduism: We are the greatest god, let us be god, death is a transitory state between incarnations.

Confucianism: Ancestral worship, Heaven God plus spirits in the sun, moon, etc., more a philosophy than a religion.

Shinto: Animistic, many spirtual beings being born, dying, and being reborn.

Baha'i: God is unknowable, man is a son of god, salvation by works, Baha'u'llah is the second coming of Christ, Jesus is one of many manifestations of God, but not God incarnate.

SO:
Judaism: A "gutter religion" (so-called by one Louis "Hitler was a great man" Farrakhan) practiced by many adherents in "Hymietown", NY (a quaint hamlet founded by one Jesse Jackson). From them we got the Ten Suggestions, and have been trying to unload them on an unsuspecting buyer ever since, but they're too heavy for outdoor-carpeted pickup truck beds.
SO:

That's enough.




For those in Rio Linda, SO = sarcasm on/off.

stj18
"If you don't know what a Christian is or is supposed to believe, it is not all that meaningful when you claim to be one."

How is one suppose to a speak to a statement like that. I guess I would just have to say that I have never felt the need to ask someone else if I qualify as a Christian or not. That is
between my Maker and myself. And guess what,
considering how many denominations there are within the Christian religion, I would have to say that there are a whole lot of people who do not rely on either your interpretations of the
Bible or your approval of their brand of religion.

Column on liberals hating Jesus
Great column! One factual error though, according to John 19:36, none of Jesus bones were broken.

A Lesson from Imus!!!
The very first sentence in your column is an
insult of the highest order. And it continues
through paragraph after paragraph of smugness
that is suffocating in its arrogance. Imus' boss
yanked him. I wish someone had the guts to do
the same thing to you.

You may believe that you are a wonderful symbol
of Christianity, but I could not disagree more.

kathy
admire your sincerety and your religiousity.

not sure if you are ever making a point or just preaching.

may God bless you and keep you

stj18
--Certainly it is biblical to say so. This is an intrusion by gov't with an operating philosophy contrary to the gospel's call to rely on Christ. Further, it is biblical to protest that the gov't is very often subsidizing diliquent or immoral behavior.

The gov't has no business rescuing someone from the direct consequences of their own bad moral decisions.

If we could eliminate all abortions after the 3rd week, that would be major progress.--


What a hypocrite. God forbid the govt use your money for those who’ve made choices that YOU disagree with but you sure are for them telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies. If you want to live in a theocracy move to Saudi Arabia.

Judas Kills Himself
Of course they - the other eleven - could have taken him out and hung him - they were probably pretty peeved - then of course he hung himself - we didn't do that dastardly deed - we is Christians

jerubal
thank you so much for standing up for your brothers and sisters in christ.
i commend you for seeing through conservative dogma and understanding that simply because you are a liberal you can't be a real Christian.

i guess what troubles me the most with that argument is that in and of itself it seems anti-
christian. i mean i have been a Christian and a liberal for 40 years and never have i run across people of Christian faith who are as quick to condemn their brothers and sisters in Christ than on this board.

it was a refreshing to hear your point of view.
i know we will not often agree on politics but

May God bless you and keep you

sjt18
so now conservatives are atheists because of liberal christianity. come on man, that is almost a conspiracy theory.

i could give you website after website of conservative atheists.

what are liberals for.
they are for a quality education.
they are for quality healthcare.
they are for less taxes on the middle class.
they are for competence.
they are for leadership.

i could go on and on.

Movwater
good to see that you are still around. Could have used your input a few days ago on another discussion.

Christ is Risen from the dead....
Trampling down death by death
And upon those in the tombs
bestowing life.

Orthodox Paschal refrain

We just celebrated Pascha, the Ressurrection of Christ our True God in the Orthodox Church Service last weekend.
Indeed, the Leftist Ideology with their veneration for the State, can not tolerate a rival for the hearts and minds of Men and Women.
Jesus Christ did arise from the Dead and He shall come again.
I do pray that our Lord will pour out His Holy Spirit upon a few of the remaining believers so that we may, with all boldness, confront this hopelessly lost and darkened generation.
At least the Networks and media realise who they must discredit, and it all goes to glorify God and no matter how they mock on, they only affirm the great importance of the God-Man Christ Jesus.

The wicked shall be turned into hell
And all the nations that forget God.

Just look around and tell me if things aren't getting to look a bit hellish these days?

http://www.bnr.bg/RadioBulgaria/Emission_English/News/risenineed.htm

KJV
--KJV
but millions experiencing a second birth and communing with the risen Lord is not only factual but unapproachable in argument.--

Revelations
14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.


*so you are one of the 144,000 virgin males that are going to be saved?

josephus
--Your questions about Judas are a perfect example of accounts that are apparently contradictory, but may not be at all.
I watched a documentary recently that threw some light on the Judas question. Ironically, the documentary was not about the Bible, but about the Old West. It seems that hanging was actually quite an art. If the rope was too short, the victim's neck wouldn't break, and he would die by strangulation. If the rope was too long, it would jerk the victim too harshly and decapitate him.
Could the latter not have occurred in Judas' case?--

I've heard this before, and it does not make sense. If he had hung himself and not died, wouldn't they have mentioned that he died after falling later? Also, who purchased the field? You'll notice that one says judas purchased the field and the other says the priests purchased the field.


--P.S. I still love your theory about Josephus believing Vespasian to be the Messiah. I haven't laughed that hard all day. Keep posting, DA. You're a hoot!--

You may find it to be a hoot, but it was a direct quote from Joseph's writings.

BTW
I know alot of Christians who vote Democrat. I also know Heath Shuler (the new Dem Rep from NC) personally and believe he is a genuine Christian. I still think he is wrong on several issues to include his support of avowed pro-abortionists for important positions in the House. Perhaps most notably- Pelosi.

Slightly appeased
When I first read this article, I was bracing myself for the inevitable "yes McCullogh, all liberals are God-less, empty headed good for nothings that deserve the depths of hell" responses that sometimes follow a blame-everything-on-the-liberals piece like this. Instead, I was inspired by the responses and will continue to visit TH in the future because the posters above drew the line on this latest low blow.

Conservatives can call me out of touch with with Christ's teachings because of differences in politics BUT DON'T YOU DARE presume to tell me that because of those political beliefs that I don't believe in God or that Christ died for my sins. That is an insult I find intolerable.

Thank you to all those who pointed out that there are many left-leaning Christians like me that refuse to be pigeon-holed in the typical "left brand" that is not nearly as "anti-Christ" as conservatives would like to believe.

Gestell
I do not hate genuine Christians who are liberal. I actually know some... especially concerning economic issues. I simply don't think they've submitted their political views to the Bible and biblical examples.

FTR, I think there is an argument to be made for not having the earliest stages of development be considered a "legal" life. I wouldn't necessarily agree but there is an argument. I do not think however that such an argument has merit after cell specialization and in particular after a heart beat or brain wave.

If we could eliminate all abortions after the 3rd week, that would be major progress.

jerubaal
"It is NOT biblical to say that government should NOT help the poor."

Certainly it is biblical to say so. This is an intrusion by gov't with an operating philosophy contrary to the gospel's call to rely on Christ. Further, it is biblical to protest that the gov't is very often subsidizing diliquent or immoral behavior.

I had a cousin who I grew up with and cared about. He was homosexual and contracted HIV in the 80's while serving in the Navy. He was the only one who survived for very long out of his group of about 5 "friends" who apparently sleep together.

Not only did he get VA healthcare to treat his HIV, he drew social security from his late 20's until he died at 44.

The gov't has no business rescuing someone from the direct consequences of their own bad moral decisions. OTOH, the church should be helping folks like this and sharing the gospel of redemption with them.

You want the moral dilemna there? There are Christians who pay taxes and cannot afford to send their sick child to the doctor... but people who are victims of their own choices who go for "free" at taxpayer expense. That's wrong. People should be responsible for themselves... but charitable to others.

Gov't in accordance with humanist religiously biased philosophy in direct competition with God and His church.

FTR, I think it was said that Christ didn't teach that Christians should get gov't to help the poor by picking someone else's pocket. Hopefully none of us expect non-Christians to follow Christ's command or limit their choices to His example and teachings. If so, we're bound for disappointment.

comment on jerubaal
I'm please that you don't hate your fellow Christians who happen to be liberals. However, perhaps you're not quite seeing McCullough's (and those who agree with him) point: The real claim here is that no one who is a liberal can REALLY be a Christian. I may regard myself as a Christian, but since McCullough has been given the power to see whose name is in the Book of Life (for you fans of Revelation 22.18), he just KNOWS better. If you can buy into this, then you can agree with him.

You have genuine questions about how liberal Christians can support abortion. Here's at least part of an explanation: Many liberal Christians think that there is a point (and exactly where is clearly a contested issue) in the development of the fertilized egg before which it is incorrect to say that there is a human life the termination of which is morally wrong. Many of us can't really agree that a blastocyst, for instance, should be regarded as a human being protected by law. Yes, given appropriate conditions the process of development will lead to a human embryo, but at this (or some other stage) it is NOT YET a human embryo and is not a human being subject to the protection of law. It doesn't work to say that the blastocyst is "genetically" human here. So are skin cells, and we don't protect them. Does this mean that all of us favor something called "abortion on demand?" No, not at all. And if Roe v. Wade is read properly, it establishes no such right, as subsequent case law has shown.

Bottom line
If you don't know what a Christian is or is supposed to believe, it is not all that meaningful when you claim to be one.

concord
"jerubaal
Thank you! 90 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. 90 percent of Americans did not vote Republican in the last - or any - election."

George Barna did a study that asked people a series of relatively fundamental questions about their faith to see how many professing Christians would self-identify with their answers. Of non-catholic professing Christians, I believe it was about 14% that answered 7 very simple questions correctly according to clear biblical teaching.

Roughly 85% of Americans profess Christianity. Catholicism is about 20-25% of the total population. Meaning that roughly 60% profess to possess biblical Christianity but only about 25% of them actually do.

IOW's, statistics show that saying you are a Christian or believe in the Christian God doesn't mean that you have any real concept of what that means with respect to the Bible or the historic doctrines of the faith.

unm
"The sequence
Sometimes the sequence includes rape, incest, horribly disfigured, extreme poverty, drug and alchohol addiction."

So IOW's, if my wife got raped and you were inconvenient to her financially or otherwise, she should be entitled to kill you, right?

That is basically the logic you're asking me to accept. One person rapes another and so the raped person kills another person.

As for the other things... disfigurement, poverty, drug/alcohol addiction... when did those cease to be individual responsibilities.

If you are poor, abstain from sex. Children aren't cheap.

On what logic do you base the notion that any of those things justify the killing of an innocent human being?

FWIW, the rape/incest question is much more difficult. I could certainly see a compromise allowing raped women D&C's without hassle within the first two weeks. She wouldn't even have to know she was pregnant. OTOH, penalties for rape should be severe. Certainly, second offense rapists should never breath a free breathe again. The recidivism rate is too high. I read a statistic once that said about 90% of rapes are committed by perpetrators who had already raped. The costs/risks are simply too high to ever let them out in public again.

jerubaal
Thank you! 90 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. 90 percent of Americans did not vote Republican in the last - or any - election.

What the conservatives are picking up on
is that fact that theological liberalism and political liberalism often coincide.

But not always. Can you guys please admit that a 100% Bible-believing, Jesus loving person, who for reasons beyond our understanding (because we're conservatives) votes Democrat, is still a Christian?

The Best Christians I Know Are Liberals
Wake up! These are your brothers and sisters. Some of the most theologically accurate and powerful preaching I have heard comes from liberals - and I'm a right-wing fundamentalist Calvinist-Puritan. The only difference between us and them is that they vote Democrat!

Maybe they don't reach the same conclusions we do. It is NOT biblical to say that government should NOT help the poor. We have no biblical leg to stand on there, so let's not conflate conservatism and Christianity, because they are certainly distinct. (Private charity is encouraged in the Bible, but public charity is never banned except perhaps 'thou shalt not steal'.)

The biggest thing I can't understand about our liberal brothers and sisters in Christ is their tacit support of abortion by supporting the Democrats. But I have a list of reasons why they might not change their vote to Republican due to the abortion issue:

1. Elected officials do not have the direct power to overturn abortion.

2. They may not have studied the Torah with sufficient legal precision to understand that killing the unborn is always murder. (In the Bible, a reckless - i.e. unintentional - killing of a fetus resulted in capital punishment of the one whose conduct resulted in the termination of the pregnancy).

3. They may not believe that all Torah moral standards should be enacted by a secular government. Just because something is wrong does not mean it has to be illegal.

4. They may be ignorant of how abortion law is created, or they may genuinely believe the line that there is a Constitutional right to abortion, such that there is nothing we can do about it without a constitutional amendment, which doesn't require political parties at all.

I'd pit the deeds, theology, and love of my church full liberals against anyone's church any day. And remember, I'm not a liberal.

Freebird,
You accuse Mr. McCullough of throwing labels around, yet I seem to see some label throwing by you. I am not sure what you mean when you say that “Christianity does not have a monopoly on God.” What does it mean to have a monopoly on God? Nobody owns God nor does anyone control God; however, we can understand and follow God according to His word, the Bible.

Yes, there are many faiths; however, these faiths are contradictory at their core, even though they may have some superficial similarities. What that means is that all faith systems cannot be true – since they contradict one another. The Bible and Jesus Christ make truth claims that are either true or false. Jesus claimed that he would be put to death and rise again three days later (we celebrated that event this past weekend). He proved that he was God by first claiming to be God (“I and the Father are one” (one essence, the same stuff)), and also by dying and rising from the dead. Show me any other belief system in which the founder claimed to be a sin-bearer, lived a sinless life, died for the sins of others, and rose again. You will look long and hard and never find one.

Why did God require a blood sacrifice? Because man has offended and rebelled against a holy God whose standard is perfection. Man died, spiritually, because of that rebellion and needs that sin to be paid for. God said that when Adam sinned it would lead to death. The Bible says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22). That passage goes on to tell us that we will all die and face judgment (v. 27). When we face God, we will either be responsible for our own sin and face eternal punishment for rebelling against an eternal God; or we will have our sin covered and paid for by the eternal God Himself who came to earth in the flesh, lived the sinless life, and took God’s wrath for us. You may have asked that question of your god; however, your god is not the God of the Universe as revealed in the Bible.

If I were you, I wouldn’t take a chance on some god in your image; rather, I would trust the God who made us and knows us and paid the penalty that we deserve.

LNC

religiousLib
You've never heard a liberal Christian deny Jesus rose from the dead? You're biggest spokesmen include:

How about 1) John Shelby Spong
2) John Dominic Crossan

There are thousands, if not millions of Spong, Crossan followers. Probably anyone who agrees with the Jesus Seminar.

Of course folks like J. Gresham Machen would deny they are Christians, but that is another matter that is irrelevant that many liberals who consider themselves Christian deny the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

CaptnNed
"You lost me on historical fact. Belief is opinion not fact and not truth."

Your edict notwithstanding, philosophers and judges know that there is no bright line between opinion and fact. Also, both are proper objects of belief. Was the Declaration of Independence signed on July 4, 1776? Can you believe it and disbelieve it? Wouldn't either position you take be your opinion?

"Not that this comment will make any sense to you."

It made sense - but it came across as arrogant, false, and not robust philosophically.

The sequence
Sometimes the sequence includes rape, incest, horribly disfigured, extreme poverty, drug and alchohol addiction.

Amazing pretentiousness
McCullough is amazingly pretentious; he knows, absolutely knows, that all liberals revile the risen Christ. I spent Easter in my chuch, filled with those awful liberals, celebrating our risen Lord as Christians have done for a very long time now. Is McCullough REALLY so filled with the Holy Spirit that he has been given the power to look into the human soul to determine that I revile Christ because I vote for liberals? How in the world can he ever prove this, and why in the world are there conservatives who accept such lunacy?

I think I know what McCullough is really filled with, but I'll be polite and not name it.

Yeah, but...
...there's still no disputing that Jesus gives life--a proveable, seeable, knowable, & obvious new life now as well as a promised eternal life for those who trust Him as outlined in John 3:3. If ONE unbeliever were converted, it would definitely be a coincidence--even 10,000 might be suspect, at least in the eyes of those looking to disprove Him--but millions experiencing a second birth and communing with the risen Lord is not only factual but unapproachable in argument.

If you haven't stepped into the pool, you haven't a logical leg to stand on. But, keep kicking against the goads: All that "lawyerly" experience will really pay off when arguing your case on That Day.
~KingJeffVersion

DA
Your questions about Judas are a perfect example of accounts that are apparently contradictory, but may not be at all.

I watched a documentary recently that threw some light on the Judas question. Ironically, the documentary was not about the Bible, but about the Old West. It seems that hanging was actually quite an art. If the rope was too short, the victim's neck wouldn't break, and he would die by strangulation. If the rope was too long, it would jerk the victim too harshly and decapitate him.

Could the latter not have occurred in Judas' case?


P.S. I still love your theory about Josephus believing Vespasian to be the Messiah. I haven't laughed that hard all day. Keep posting, DA. You're a hoot!

unm
"Here's One
>Please name one thing liberals are "for" where they aren't trying to impose their will.

Pro-choice"

Conceivably the greatest misnomer in all of history. If you could say a liberal was "pro-choice", abortion would be the only thing. However, the sequence goes like this: The woman makes a choice. That choice has potentially undesirable but knowable consequences. The woman's choice results in an undesired (irresponsible) pregnancy. Liberals then allow that she has the right to impose her will upon another person... to die.

Ken
--You claim the Bible is full of contradictions. You can find apparent contradictions in any two accounts of history. Yet if you do some research, you'll find the two accounts are not contradictory at all.--
For instance,

How did Judas kill himself?
Matthew
27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Acts
1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

--Quite frankly, you're grasping at straws. I don't expect this message to make much of an impression on you. Like most "open-minded, free-thinking" skeptics, you're already made up your mind, and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.--

My mind is not made up on the NT anymore than on the Baghavad Gita or the Quran or the book of Mormon. If any single holy book can provide real evidence; I’ll be happy to change my mind.

Andrews
--
That it later proved to have historical consequences is irrelevant. At the time, in Rome, even if the stories of miracles attributed to Jesus reached them, I doubt they paid much attention, as stories of wonder workers were nothing new, most of them coming from remote locales such as Palestine. (Think of the miracles supposedly wrought at every shrine of Askelpios, and reports of the wonders attributed to Jesus seem pretty mundane. To the Romans miracles and tales of miracles were nothing noteworthy.)
In addition, historical significance is never obvious at the time. I doubt any newspapers ran the headline "Atta attends flight school", though in retrospect that is a major historical event.--

*I think even the Romans would pay attention to all of the dead rising when

check this out
I find this very interesting . The basic beliefs of the 12 major religions. Christianity,Islam,Judaism,Buddahism,Hinduism,Confusionism,Native American,Taoism,Shinto,Bahai,Zorastrianism, and Sufism. If you look at the main belief of all these you will see they say the same thing in different words. God is too big for one religion and way too big for one to say they are the only truth. To say there is only one way is a form of extremism which is ego and desitre to control.
God Bless Our World Everyone Included

Not one
utahnotmormon writes: Tuesday, April, 10, 2007 2:26 PM

"Here's One
>Please name one thing liberals are "for" where they aren't trying to impose their will.

Pro-choice"

You mean where one person imposes her will on another who doesn't even get a say?

DA -- Are you kidding???
Josephus regarded Vespasian as the Messiah??? You've gotta be kidding!

movwater

Just not too carefully.
2 Peter 3:8 (New American Standard Bible)

And your point is what? That you are unable to comprehend literature.

2 peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This says that one day in heaven, with the lord is as a thousand years and vice versa. It doesn’t mean that ‘nigh’ or near can mean one day. That is a pretty lame answer.

josephus
Josephus could not have written the 2 references in the Testimonium flavum for several reasons. The reason I am going to outline is very simple. In the testimonium he writes "He was the messiah." However, if he believed this to be true; he would have been obligated to convert to christianity. Also this conflicts with his other writings. Specifically this section from his "wars of the Jews" where is states his belief that Vespasian is the jewish messiah.

VI.5.4. Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square." But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.

Also, with all of the christian apologists writing throughtout the 2nd and 3rd centuries (Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen [who critisized Josephus in his writings]), no one mentioned these quotes. There was no mention of these pro-christian quotes by Josephus until the 4th century.



Here's One
>Please name one thing liberals are "for" where they aren't trying to impose their will.

Pro-choice


religiouslib
"robert e. lee
if you have read the posts you would realize more conservatives are arguing than liberals.
kind of blows your theory out of the water huh."

Not really. The fact that they're wrong doesn't mean you are right. Much of what these absolute skeptics depend on is the work of "liberal Christians". Not liberal in the sense of political but theologically.

Regardless of their belief or disbelief, there is still no evidence whatsoever that Christ would agree with the modern liberal political position on social or economic issues. The small minority of Americans that are actually liberal do indeed have a god complex... and are jealous of God. Liberals thrive on the notion of their own supposed morally superior dictates about how people should think and act. They're perfectly willing as a rule to use gov't to force others to act according to THEIR moral opinions.

I realize this is painting with a broad brush but if you think I am wrong about this being fundamental to liberal politics, please cite one thing liberals propose to do through gov't that doesn't not impose their view of right/wrong on others. Every liberal initiative I know of right now calls for gov't to control and suppress the expression of rights by others.

Please name one thing liberals are "for" where they aren't trying to impose their will.


RE: Rev 1:1
So what you are saying DA is that since you have read an English translation and decided what the only literally acceptable interpretation is... that means the Bible and not you must be wrong?

It is the epitome of blind pride that you would seek to discredit the inerrancy of scripture by assuming that your critical, skeptical, biased interpretation is infallible and inerrant.

There are probably some folks with knowledge of Greek here that can lay it out more clearly for you. I don't have my references with me. But I am fairly certain that the verb translated "come" is aorist- meaning that it is irrespective of time.

It sounds as if the natural understanding would be that fulfillment was to begin shortly. In effect, the beginning wasn't distinguished from the end in terms of time. It was the fulfillment of a single prophecy without respect to time.

DA --- Yawn!
"Ps. Ken, I have read the bible."

Sorry, DA, but I'm not so sure. You sound more like you're rehashing what others have said about the Bible.

You claim the Bible is full of contradictions. You can find apparent contradictions in any two accounts of history. Yet if you do some research, you'll find the two accounts are not contradictory at all.

Case in point: some historians tell us that Teddy Roosevelt was the youngest man to serve as President. Others say John Kennedy was the youngest man ever elected President. Which one is right? Actually, they both are. The key words are "served" and "elected." Likewise, many of the so-called "contradictions" in the Bible can be traced to semantic differences.

I remember reading an article by Lady Bird Johnson in which she recalled holding the Bible when her husband was sworn in as President after Kennedy's assassination. I've seen the famous picture of Johnson being sworn in, and Lady Bird clearly was NOT holding the Bible. I assumed her memory was faulty, but I was wrong. The famous picture was simply a reenactment for the cameras. The official swearing-in had taken place some time earlier, and Lady Bird had indeed held the Bible.

Quite frankly, you're grasping at straws. I don't expect this message to make much of an impression on you. Like most "open-minded, free-thinking" skeptics, you're already made up your mind, and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.

robert e. lee
if you have read the posts you would realize more conservatives are arguing than liberals.
kind of blows your theory out of the water huh.

as far as liberals and karl marx please join the rest of us in the 21st century.


correction
It was Tertullian that was an apostate later in life not Origen he only had a falling out with his Bishop in Egypt.

Why do Liberals...
... revile the Risen Christ? Precisely because Christ, unlike their hero Karl Marx, did rise while poor Karl will never.

To forestall complaint
"See with one eye" is not a literal translation of synoptic, which is "see the same", but is so often used as a losse translation that I can't help but hear that phrase when saying or typing "synoptic".

So, my Greek is not that bad, I simply used a phrase I had heard far too many times.

DA
One other correction: You say all the Gospels depend on the Gospel of Mark. Actually only the 3 synoptic gospels do. The Gospel of John records events not found in the synoptic gospels and omits others that appear in the synoptic gospels.

(By the way, that is why they are called synoptic, the "see with one eye", that is, Matthew, Mark and Luke all record very similar events, while John is notably different.)

DA
Yes, to the Romans Jesus no doubt seemed inconsequential. Even assuming the Romans heard reports that someone in Palestine was raising the dead or walking on water, they no doubt wrote it off as yet another story of prodigies and miracle workers.

That it later proved to have historical consequences is irrelevant. At the time, in Rome, even if the stories of miracles attributed to Jesus reached them, I doubt they paid much attention, as stories of wonder workers were nothing new, most of them coming from remote locales such as Palestine. (Think of the miracles supposedly wrought at every shrine of Askelpios, and reports of the wonders attributed to Jesus seem pretty mundane. To the Romans miracles and tales of miracles were nothing noteworthy.)

In addition, historical significance is never obvious at the time. I doubt any newspapers ran the headline "Atta attends flight school", though in retrospect that is a major historical event.


ken/valiantfortruth
--Ken
DA Yawn! Is that the best you have to offer? Why don't you try reading the Bible for yourself, instead of rehashing nonsense that you found on some website? It is painfully obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. --
--ValiantForTruth
Nor do they know that this world is reserved for judgment according to II Peter 3. This is the ultimate global warming that will end all controversy, but not until the Day of the Lord.--

Ken and valiant fortruth this is a question for you. How could the NT written 2,000 yrs ago by a, supposedly, infallible god be full of errors and contradictions. For instance, vft, you refer to judgement. The 1st line of Revelations is WRONG. It says:

Revelation

1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: (king james version)

Or

Youngs literal translation

1A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify [it], having sent through his messenger to his servant John,
2who did testify the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things also as he did see.
3Happy is he who is reading, and those hearing, the words of the prophecy, and keeping the things written in it -- for the time is nigh!

Notice that both say that THE END OF THE WORLD WAS SUPPOSED TO OCCUR 2000 YRS AGO.

Ps. Ken, I have read the bible.

Ken
So much hatred from you, Ken. One this is refreshing: that you say the "same old critical theories are purely speculative." Of course they are; so are all the theories that support resurrection. It's ALL speculative, because there's no concrete evidence that it happened - or didn't happen. You believe that it did, I believe that it didn't. Of course, thinking what I do makes me "pathetic" in your eyes, but that says more about you than it does about me. And "The DaVinci Code"? Huh?

DA
If you know anything about Josephus you know that he was a Pharasie and more than that he left and was more of an oppertunist than anything, read hid autobiography and compare to other known facts of the time to see that he writes to make himself and those that might advance him look better than they were. This said it behooves me to see that you seem to think that the early Christians would keep all the poor and cowardly behavoir of St. Peter and the apostles but would doctor up other pegan documents and writtings to support their own claims. This doesn't seem to be the motus aporandi of the Christians. As another post stated, maybe you should try reading the Bible in its entirety to see that the Christians never hid the fallen nature and acts of our early leaders. So since Josephus was an opportunist, couldn't he have written what he did in reference to Jesus to explain the tumoil and divisions taking place in Jerusalem that made for a Roman justification in their subsequent destruction of the Holy city? As for Origen, he later in life became an apostate and joined a sect that among other things started denying the divinity of Christ and was closly asoiated with the early nostics. I believe the inference to him comes from the last ten years of his life and the writtings he made uring this period are influenced by the sect or cult he was now apart of, I would however have to read his writtings more closly to be sure. In any case it doesn't hold water that the Christians would write about their own mistakes and short comings only to doctor up other documents of which they had little or no use for, and the presumption that they were acting out of intent to decieve future generations that may read this pagan document is more far fetched than believing the appostles , who for the most part died professing that Christ is risen!
God bless

DA
The tradition in those times was that the day BEFORE the Passover was called the Preparation Day (John 19:31) in effect the first three day weekend. No work or business was conducted on the Friday prior to the Passover. There would have been no trial or crucifiction occuring on that day and under Jewish law, Jesus' body had to be removed from the cross by dusk on THURSDAY, NOT FRIDAY.

A Thursday execution adds up to three days and three nights in the grave, also. Jesus rose on the third day, Sunday, the first day of the week.

Much misinformation and disinformation has been written in 2000 years, by those with their own agenda, therefore I still rely on the Bible as my ultimate source. Am I no different than someone who only refers to that which backs up his beliefs (or lack of)? Yep, and the Bible explains that also.

DA Sounds Like A Good Case
Ken just yawns - hey nothing that DA says will dissuade the faithful – hallelujah!!!! More action then when Annie writes - but not surprising

Woody's submitted evidence
Besides his historical facts, and they cannot be disputed as such, I would add to Woody's list that those in power, who exercised almost total control on that society, had a huge vested interest in disproving the fact that Jesus had defeated death. The Romans and colluding Jews were desperate to undermine this insurrection of Jesus' followers because it posed such a danger to them. Not only the Holy Scripture, but contemporary accounts by others tell us of the many attempts of intimidation, bribery, threat of and actual execution, yet the powers that be experienced a complete failure at quashing witnesses. There were simply too many people, Romans, Jews and Gentiles, who saw Christ with their own eyes, before, during and after.

There have been so many avowed atheists and skeptics in the last 2000 years who set out to disprove the resurrection but ended up being converted to Christianity, they're almost uncountable. I personally know a few Christians whose faith was severely tested and they retreated into denying God and his Son; He who took our sins upon himself, surrendering his life in the ultimate sacrifice and establishing a new covenant whereby we could be re-united with the Father. His gift of free will means we're able to choose our own path to walk, with Him or without.

Everyone has their own life to live, but only the One person to ultimately answer to for it. You're free to say I'm stupid, believing in a myth or fairy tale, but guess what? Your judgment matters less than nothing to me.

But I do pray your ignorance, hatred and bigotry is shown to you and that you may see the Light. It's a truly wonderful thing! And no one can force you, against your will, as He has designed it to be between you and Him.

Thank you Kevin
for bringing up such a "controversial" subject as Christ. Thank you liberals for reaffirming my faith in the King.

i want my conservative christian
friends to notice that much of the opposition to Christianity on this post is coming from conservatives not liberals.

that kind of destroys the thesis of this anti-liberal author doesn't it.

DA
Yawn! Is that the best you have to offer? Why don't you try reading the Bible for yourself, instead of rehashing nonsense that you found on some website? It is painfully obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

Next
Roman census in Jesus birth story
While the Gospel of Matthew makes the only mention of the "Star of Bethlehem", the Gospel of Luke makes the only mention of a census of the whole Roman "world". The Gospel of Luke states:

Luke 2:
1 In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 All went to their own towns to be registered. 4 Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. 5 He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

The first issue here is that Quirinius definitely was not even governor of Syria during the reign of King Herod, so the possibility that Jesus was born while Herod was king and also during the governorship of Quirinius is completely impossible.

The second issue is that there was a census taken under the rule of Quirinius, but it was nothing like the one described in Luke, and it took place in 6 CE, some 9 or 10 years after the death of Herod.

The third issue is that no census has ever been recorded that resembles the one described by Luke.

The important thing to note in all of this is that we do have records from this time that do describe Roman censuses and the Jewish historian Josephus recorded the census of Quirinius. According to Luke the census required everyone, or at least males, to go to the town of their ancestors. The problem here should be apparent. Which ancestors? Joseph went to Bethlehem because this is where David was from, but David lived over a thousand year prior supposedly, so Joseph went to where his great, great, great, .... etc., grandfather was from?

Not only does this not make sense, but no census would demand that anyone go to a place of their ancestry, that would defeat the whole purpose of a census.

Indeed, even Christian scholars recognize that there is no confirmation of this census, and that it in fact raises major contradictions. The Harper Collins New Revised Standard Edition Study Bible states in relation to this census:

Luke 2.1: A general decree of this sort is not otherwise attested.
Luke 2.2: ... According to Josephus, Quirinius became governor of Syria only in 6 CE, while Luke's story is still set in the time of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE.

This is a major irreconcilable contradiction, but how did this problem arise? Well, there is growing evidence that the writer of Luke used the writings of Josephus as a source for his Gospel, indeed the evidence for this is now quite strong and is accepted by some scholars. The source material for Luke, then, is probably the Gospel of Mark, "Q", Josephus, and perhaps the letters of Paul. These four sources can account for pretty much every detail of the material in Luke, and this would explain why the writer of Luke, probably writing some time in the early 2nd century, would make this mistake. This was old history by the time that the author of Luke got around to writing his story and he didn't have anything but other writings to go by and presumably didn't realize that Quirinius was governor after Herod had died.

Josephus talks about the census during the reign of Quirinius as an introduction to events that befell the Jews, and thus the author of Luke probably read Josephus and picked-up on this theme and used it for his story about the birth of Jesus as well.

Massacre of the Innocents
According to the Gospel of Matthew, King Herod ordered all of the male children two or younger around the town of Bethlehem to be killed when he learned of the birth of Jesus. As with the Star of Bethlehem, the author of Matthew is the only person in all of ancient literature to record this supposed event. The Gospel of Matthew states:

Matthew 2:
16 When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the magi. 17 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:

18 ‘A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.’

We can see here that the author of Matthew explicitly references Jeremiah 31:15, but he also implicitly makes reference to the Exodus story about the birth of Moses. In the story of Moses the Pharaoh says that the Israelites are increasing in number too rapidly, so he requests that midwives kill the boys who are born. They decline to do so, so the Pharaoh orders all of the boys to be killed.

Exodus 1:
22 Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born to the Hebrews you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live."

According to the story a Levite women then placed her son into a basket and put him into the Nile, where he was found by an Egyptian woman and raised. This boy was Moses.

In the typical fashion of Matthew, the event draws multiple parallels to the older scriptures, crafting a story that draws on familiar themes in the Hebrew stories, but changing them to create a new narrative.

That King Herod would have had hundreds or thousands of infants killed in Bethlehem without anyone recording the event aside from the author of Matthew is well beyond our expectation of history. Josephus provided a very detailed account of the reign of King Herod, even listing the bad things that he did. Other writers also gave accounts of the rule of King Herod and yet neither Josephus nor anyone else recorded anything about a mass slaughter of infants, something that surely would have been worthy of note. There is also no archeological evidence to support this event either.

Once again, the best explanation for this event is that the author of Matthew is writing fiction based on the Old Testament, he isn't writing history.

John the Baptist
The death of John the Baptist is described in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. The Gospel of Matthew basically copies its story from the Gospel of Mark, but truncates it slightly. In both cases John the Baptist is killed by Herod fairly early in the story, and of course before the death of Jesus.

Mark 6:
17 For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." 19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, 20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.

21 Finally the opportune time came. On his birthday Herod gave a banquet for his high officials and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. 22 When the daughter of Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests.

The king said to the girl, "Ask me for anything you want, and I'll give it to you." 23 And he promised her with an oath, "Whatever you ask I will give you, up to half my kingdom."

24 She went out and said to her mother, "What shall I ask for?"
"The head of John the Baptist," she answered.

25 At once the girl hurried in to the king with the request: "I want you to give me right now the head of John the Baptist on a platter."

26 The king was greatly distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her. 27 So he immediately sent an executioner with orders to bring John's head. The man went, beheaded John in the prison, 28 and brought back his head on a platter. He presented it to the girl, and she gave it to her mother. 29 On hearing of this, John's disciples came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.

Not only do these Gospels make it clear that John the Baptist is killed before Jesus, but they describe the killing of John the Baptist as being related to a dinner party transgression and say that John the Baptist was beheaded.

The Jewish historian Josephus, however, also records the death of John the Baptist, and not only is his account different, but the timing of his death is different as well. According to the account given by Josephus (the only other account of his death outside the Bible), John the Baptist would have died in 36 CE.

1. ... So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gamalitis. So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves; and when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas's army.. So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

The war between Herod and Aretas took place in 36 CE and thus Josephus' mention of the Jews blaming Herod's defeat by Aretas on his killing of John the Baptist implies that Herod had John the Baptist killed some time within a year or so of the war. This means that John the Baptist was probably killed in 35 or 36 CE, some 2 or 3 years after the latest proposed date for the death of Jesus based on the Gospels. Pilate's last year as governor of Judea was also 36 CE.

The apologetic criticism of this dating of John the Baptist's death is that we can't be certain how recent the death of John the Baptist really was. They claim that perhaps John the Baptist was killed 4 or 5 years earlier, but the public still associated his death with the bad fortunes of Herod. While this is possible, it is unlikely, and it does nothing to address the contradictions in the reasoning provided for the killing of John the Baptist.

The Gospel account of the killing of John the Baptist by Herod portrays the reason for his execution as a moral failure of Herod. Conniving women use guile and sexuality to bring about the killing of a holy man. Once again we see in the Bible women being responsible for the downfall of a great man, recalling the themes of Genesis and so many other Biblical stories where women are the villains and men fall from grace by being seduced or deceived by women.

The account given by Josephus makes much more sense and is much more typical of the real reasons why such actions took place in the ancient world. John the Baptist, Josephus states, was seen as a political threat by Herod so Herod had him killed.

It's interesting that the Gospels don't give this as the reason for the death of John the Baptist, because in the Gospels it is Jesus who is killed for being the supposed political threat. The death of John the Baptist is a moralistic side element in the Gospels, used to dispose of John the Baptist (Elijah) once he is no longer relevant to the story, but in such a way that does not make him a martyr for a cause, which, in reality, he was. John the Baptist was the real martyr but if he were martyred in the Gospels that would only draw attention away from the "ultimate sacrifice" of the main character Jesus.

Death of Jesus
The Gospels provide us with four accounts of the death of Jesus. Of these accounts only the three synoptic accounts, all based on the Gospel of Mark, provide us with claims that we could reasonably expect to be able to verify against the historical record. The one major claim that is repeated in all three synoptic accounts is the darkening of the sun from noon to 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The Gospel of Matthew also makes two other claims that we should expect to be able to verify via the historical record, the claims that there was an earthquake when Jesus died and that many dead people were brought back to life, rose up from their graves, and went into the cities to tell people about Jesus.

If any of these three things happened, the darkening of the sun, an earthquake, or the raising of the dead, it's reasonable to expect that other people would have also documented these events.

Let's see exactly what the four Gospels state:

Mark 15:
33 At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah."

36 One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down," he said.

37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the son of God!"

40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.

Matthew 27:
45 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."

48 Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49 The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"

55 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

Luke 23:
44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

47 The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man." 48 When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. 49 But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.

John 19:
28 Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," 37 and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."

As has already been discussed, each of these accounts is based heavily on the Hebrew scriptures. Virtually every event in each of these accounts alludes back to the earlier scriptures, and this is the case for each of the three potentially verifiable claims that we find in the synoptics. First let's look at the scriptural basis for each of these claims.

1) Darkness over the land:

The Gospel accounts all state that darkness came over the land from the sixth hour until the ninth hour. The sixth hour, according to how they told time, was noon and the ninth hour was 3 o'clock pm. We find the scriptural basis for this story element in Amos 8:

Amos 8:
9 "In that day," declares the Sovereign LORD, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.

The book of Amos talks about how God will destroy Israel because its people have forsaken the poor and are no longer holy. It talks about various things that will happen on the day that God decides to destroy Israel, and then goes on to say that after God has destroyed Israel he will restore Israel through "David's fallen tent".

2) The earth shook:

Only the Gospel of Matthew mentions an earthquake that accompanied the death of Jesus, but the scriptural source for this claim comes from the same place as the darkness claim, Amos 8:

Amos 8:
8 Will not the land tremble for this, and all who live in it mourn? The whole land will rise like the Nile; it will be stirred up and then sink like the river of Egypt."

3) The dead rise:

The only place where the rising of the dead upon the death of Jesus is mentioned is also in the Gospel of Matthew. As with the other claims, this claim also has a scriptural basis, Ezekiel 37:

Ezekiel 37:
12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.' "

Of course there are no records from anyone else that document a day when dead people rose from their graves and began going into the cities. It is reasonable to expect, however, that if this really happened someone else would have written about it. Instead, this claim is made by only one person, the author of Matthew, and we can see that there is a scriptural basis for this story element.

The issues of the darkening of the sun and an earthquake are more complex however. We have no clear primary source attestations to either a darkening of the sun or an earthquake anywhere around the time that Jesus supposedly died, between about 27 and 33 CE. There are, however, some claims made by Christian apologists that records of these two events were made by non-Christians.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Next
*“Star of Bethlehem” - No record of such a celestial event outside the Gospel of Matthew.
*Roman census in Jesus birth story – No record of any census that matches this description.
*“Massacre of the Innocents” - No record of this event outside the Gospel of Matthew.
*John the Baptist – Killed early in the Gospels, died in 36 CE according to Josephus.
*Death of Jesus – Accompanied by blackout of sun, earthquakes, and raising of the dead in the Gospels, no record of this by others.

jesus
Next.

Jesus was supposedly crucified on Passover and was judged by the jewish sanhedrin on passover eve. This would never be done, for it was strictly forbidden to hold court on the eve of passover.

Concord 2123
"If you want to rely on secondhand writings by people who weren't witness to the event and were writing to advance a personal agenda, that's your business"

On what basis do you make such a claim? People like you would really amuse me if you weren't so pathetic. You claim to be such "free, enlightened" thinkers, and yet all you can do is rehash what you're heard other critics say.

The writer of the gospel of John claims to have been an eyewitness. On what basis do you discredit his testimony? I hope you will not give me the same old critical theories, as I happen to know such theories are purely speculative. I also hope you won't insult my intelligence by citing "The DaVinci Code" as a source.

andrews
--Actually you are incorrect about the lack of Roman records. Many records do survive from the early imperial period, they simply don't take note of anything as seemingly inconsequential as the execution of a single man in a remote province. But we do have records for the early imperial period beyond the works of the historians.--

Seemingly inconsequential???

Wasn't he supposed to have healed the sick, created wine from water, raised the dead and performed numerous other miracles?

Now for the arguments against Jesus
The Gospel of Mark was the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it
The Gospel of Mark shows clear signs of being written as an allegorical fiction
Virtually every detail of the life of Jesus comes from "Old Testament" scriptures
Some of the details of the life of Jesus are based on mistranslations of the Hebrew scriptures
Jesus' crucifixion on Passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically
The Gospels make many claims that are contradicted by the historical record
The earliest writings about Jesus, from Paul and others, contain no details of his life
Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person
There is not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime
Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea
All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims
There is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied) prior to the Gospel stories
There were many conflicting beliefs about who Jesus Christ was in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, including beliefs that he had never existed on earth "in the flesh"
The Catholics made purely theological arguments as to why Jesus Christ had to have existed "in the flesh"

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Not a safety net

The last thing I think of Jesus is a safety net. It's interesting that this is what he is reduced to. He was not safe for his followers (take up your cross and follow me). Someone nailed to a cross tends to be that way. Christian faith should be unsettling, to your beliefs, to your norms, to your ideals, to your ways of life because whatever our politics or notions(liberal or conservative) they are finite, limited, prejudicial, they pale before the infinite God. When they get divine sanction, when we are comfortable, we're no longer talking about God (except for the ones of our own making)

lestat
i find it interesting that you have such knowledge of Christians who are liberal.

exactly what texts and documentation do you have to back up your suppostitions.

i have been a Christian and a liberal for over 40 years and the liberal Christianity you describe is simply a myth.

liberal Christians believe in the same bible, sing the same hymns and say the same prayers as you do.

the main difference in my mind is liberal Christians don't use the bible to justify immoral behavior the way some conservatives do.

example: you make a statement that many Christians believe in the death penalty.
well every protestant denomination and the catholic church have all come out against it.
what exactly is your denomination that believes it is ok to kill another human being based on secular laws.

slavery was biblically justified in the 19th century and into the 20th century some christians believed the death penalty was appropriate for a black man who flirted with a white woman.

recently the supreme court outlawed the death penalty for mentally disabled individuals. did you support that or is that more liberal coddling.

you say you take the bible literally but then you want to downplay literal interpretations that are contrary to your world view.


do you believe Jesus Christ would support pre-emptive war against countries that "might" threaten the US. i personally don't think Christ was much into nationalism, but if i could be wrong.

the problem is you believe you are right in every aspect and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
if you are so certain you must publish books so we can all be enlightened as your self.

Movwater - Gore Went to Seminary
Gore went to the seminary to cover his fourth point of contact - he had duffed out of Vietnam and the army to attend divinity training - he had his ticket punched as he could always say he served in Vietnam - that was the extent of it - he didn't flunk out due to his beliefs or non-beliefs - the devil - that oily guy - did not have anything to do with it