h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I agree the teachings of Jesus do lean to-wards Liberal Democrat. I mean Jesus, not those of the Christian Churches. They tend lean to-wards the neo-con brand of persuasion, the politics of fear. Do as I say or your going to Hell!


He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

If a man strikes you, turn the other cheek.

A camel will sooner pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man through the gates of heaven.

Hardly anything you are likely to hear from a Republican. Its not a case of belonging to any political party, more a philosophy on life.

Donald

Mr X, hi.
<>

Many of Jesus' words admit of little other than the plain sense interpretation, and as Moth said, he'd probably be a pretty unpopular 'trendy liberal'
Luke 12:15 = 'Look out and be careful not to be greedy, for even a rich man's life is not assured by his posessions.'

John 13:34-35 'I give you a new commandment: Love one another...'

Matt 23:11-12. 'The greatest among you shall become your servant. Humble yourselves...'

Matt 5: 38-42 '...If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn also the other to him...Give to the man who begs from you, and turn not away from the one who would borrow.'

<>

*Some* Christian churches, I think, Donald... There are the neocon political right ones, and in NZ anyway, far more of the 'liberal lefty' (but still involved believer) type.

Fortunately, not all Christian churchs are right-leaning Republican hotbeds. I went to a liberal, open-minded church when I was younger. Because I was encouraged to think independently about religion, I became an agnostic. Go figure. I think that's what many Republican Christians are afraid of - independent thought will create social humanism, and they just can't be having with that.

Mr. X, the New Testament isn't just about the life of Christ. It's the story of how Judaism evolved into Christianity in a time of slavery and occupation by the Romans. There's many more books that the Council didn't include. Usually they're collected into what's called the Apocrypha. It's an interesting read - take a look if you find a copy.

I don't really care.

Ah, Mr X but you do care enough to reprimand anyone for making Jesus type assumptions
Perhaps what is wrong with Americans, is the way they interpret biblical stories, as it seems that 'most' problems that impact on the rest of the world stem from the neo Christian click.
I've even read an interesting theory that George Bush , in invading Iraq, is attempting to fulfill a biblical prophesy, the return of the Jew/Gentile to that region of the world (what was Iraq called in biblical times, I forget now)
Yes, the Dead Sea scrolls also portray Jesus as a political figure during Roman occupation. Particularly important as being a descendent of King David ( & Solomon) He was of the lines of the last truly Jewish kings and would therefore have been a very important figure to those dedicated to returning a native king to the throne. Some theories suggest that the wise men didn't follow an actual star in the sky, but were advised of the birth by Joseph a member of the Family of David which had and still does have the insignia of a star. The star of David= Joseph.

I think modern day Iraq was Babylon in biblical times. I think that theory of reclaiming Iraq stems from the Arameans inhabiting the region. They were related to the Israelites, and also Semitic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramean

>> I think modern day Iraq was Babylon in biblical times <<

"By the rivers of Babylon, where we sat down..." The rivers of Babylon were (are) the Tigris and Euprates, in modern-day Iraq.

RF

Yes Babylon and I think that the prophesy has something to do with revelations, that the kingdom of god would be heralded by the return of the Hebrews to Babylon, I'm just looking for a google reference.
I think this outlines the conspiracy/prophesy thing.

http://www.presence.tv/cms/babylon-iraq.shtml

Interesting, Moth...

~*~Ah, Mr X but you do care enough to reprimand anyone for making Jesus type assumptions~*~

The Bible is the only source of information about him there is, and since everyone interperates it their own way it seems pointless to use him in a political argument.

~*~Perhaps what is wrong with Americans, is the way they interpret biblical stories,~*~

It's not like all of us do it the same way. There's just as much diversity of opinion here as anywhere else.

~*~as it seems that 'most' problems that impact on the rest of the world stem from the neo Christian click.~*~

I'm not arguing with that.

~*~I've even read an interesting theory that George Bush, in invading Iraq, is attempting to fulfill a biblical prophesy, the return of the Jew/Gentile to that region of the world~*~

Not bloody likely. He's not that vain.

~*~I've even read an interesting theory that George Bush, in invading Iraq, is attempting to fulfill a biblical prophesy, the return of the Jew/Gentile to that region of the world~*~

Not bloody likely. He's not that vain."

Sorry Mr X but Mr Bush is a member of a fundamemtalist Christian sect. If this organisation tells him that he's doing god's will and his actions will result in the second coming, why wouldn't he believe it? I don't think vanity comes into it. It's not something perhaps you and definately I might give credibility to, but please remember that these people (and I did quantify that this was neo christian american thinking) believe their interpretation of the bible, no matter how crazy it seems to the rest of us.
If some religious leader who has the presidents ear, tells him, "look George invading Iraq will not only bring those gorgeous oil revenues but also pave the way for Jesus's second coming" (as told in revelations) is he going to say 'No I think that would be wrong.' In return he gets their vote. don't forget George is always pulling god out of the bag to impress the nation and believes that God is on his side. That's a bit vain I think.

I remain skeptical of why the Old Testament and the New were tossed together and called one. Just as I wonder why the Gnostic writings (amoungst others) were left out. The only answer I seem to get is that those who chose were *Guided by God* in their work. Awfully convenient it seems to me.

Anyway, I don't trust any leader who is guided by one particular interpretation of one particular religious writing, be he Christian, Musilim, Hindu, or whatever. Give me good empirical data, solid facts, and real diplomacy any day.

Just my

First of all, I'm an American, so Americans' opinions on religion certainly do differ.

Second of all, Bush *is* that vain. He believes that God chose him to be the president. He thinks that God speaks to him. And he's a born-again Christian.

> The Bible is the only source of information about him there is, and since everyone interperates it their own way it seems pointless to use him in a political argument.

I suppose so, but anybody who's actually *read* the bible would agree, I think, that Jesus would have been a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat. This is the guy that said if you want to follow me, get rid of your worldly belongings. Can you see a Republican doing that? Can't be a Republican unless you have that gas-guzzling Buick with the fish on the back.

> I remain skeptical of why the Old Testament and the New were tossed together and called one. Just as I wonder why the Gnostic writings (amoungst others) were left out. The only answer I seem to get is that those who chose were *Guided by God* in their work. Awfully convenient it seems to me.

Zoomer, when the Council of Nicaea got together in 325, they took all the writings that they had in the church at the time. They decided on a few basic truths that they could all agree on, then they took all of those writings and tried to weed out the ones that they couldn't document as being a historical document. I think they also threw out the ones that didn't uphold their interpretation, but that's debatable.

http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0401150/christian.shtml

My Old Testament teacher in college told me that Revelations isn't actually meant to be a prophecy of the future. It's disguised as prophecy, but it's actually political commentary on current events (or what was current at the time, don'tchaknow...) Nero's name in the Hebrew alphabet - if you take the letters as they appear in the dictionary, and number them, you'll get 666. The beast of many heads was Rome. I think many Christians that take the bible literally are just being misled.

http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au/~hyndman/666.htm

Sorry, but *tried to weed out the ones that they couldn't document as being a historical document* is about as vague as using numerology to spell out any number of things from 666. I don't mean to challenge you on this or insult your faith past or present but I see nothing of value in the Old Testament in today's context. Other than richness of language which was added by King James' boys when they further translated a much translated series of documents. I agree that the tone and message of the New Testament would be a much better model to base one's life and indeed an ethical (but not moral) underpinning of government. But I still believe in absolute separation of church and state, which the US government has at this time and others ignored.

I agree, and I don't feel insulted. Most bible scholars accept the Nero Caesar = 666 theory, so it's not as vague as it sounds. The Council picking and choosing which books go into the bible isn't all that well documented, and yes, it sounds vague. I think they tried to redefine Christianity at that meeting. But I'm not a bible scholar, and know very little about it.

As an agnostic, I really hate that everywhere I turn, there's something Christian-flavored. The founders of our country were Deists - not Christians.

Going back to there being nothing of value in the old testament - I think that any religious tome has something of value for those who are open-minded enough to read it. I'd read the Koran if I could read Hebrew. I'd read the Satanic Bible if I could find a copy. But I'm weird, and enjoy learning about all sorts of things. Most people in their day-to-day lives don't need the Bible or Christianity to tell them what's right or what's wrong.

>> I'd read the Koran if I could read Hebrew. <<

Reading Hebrew wouldn't help you a lot with the Koran Lentilla, although Arabic definitely would. Hebrew would help you with the Talmud though. As it happens, both books are available in English.

Donald

Yes Lentilla, I believe that the New Testament is an 'encoded' historical political document, written by people under Roman rule to disguise the message.
the dead sea scrolls have a way of decoding these messages of Revelations to make them more pertinent to the times, such as you say about Herod and I suggested about the Star of David.
Above the crucifix was the sign, 'King of the Jews' in a sort of Roman mockery and the reason for the crucifixion. Jesus, being the heir to the throne of David, through birth, could rightly have claimed that title; something an invading force wouldn't have wanted. there were many Jews, at that time, committed to getting Jesus on the Throne, not of heaven, but Israel.
Unfortunatly these encided histories have been interpretated as something different and infinately more dangerous by those who want power/control themselves.

As Kris Kristofferson sang:


Jesus was a capricorn
He ate organic food
He believed in love and peace
And never wore no shoes

Long hair, beard and sandles
And a funky bunch of friends
Reckon we’d just nail him up
If he came down again

’cause everybody’s gotta have somebody to look down on
Who they can feel better than at any time they please
Someone doin’ somethin’ dirty decent folks can frown on
If you can’t find nobody else, then help yourself to me