Why is Jesus politically incorrect?

[achilles12604]

This question is as honest as I worded it. I really am asking why.

Jesus taught about love, sacrifice, mercy, respect and other "good" and admirable qualities. So why is he now taboo?

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/nationa ... etail.html

PHILADELPHIA -- A 10-year-old boy is suing a suburban Philadelphia school district, saying he wasn't allowed to dress as Jesus during his school's Halloween activities.

The lawsuit said other children at Willow Hill Elementary School in Glenside were allowed to dress up as witches and devils. It alleges that the Abington School District was discriminating against Christians. The boy wore a white robe and a paper-and-twig crown of thorns.

The lawsuit said that the boy was told he could only wear the robe, but must remove the crown and say he was a Roman emperor, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

A lawyer for the school district said the family never approached school officials to try to resolve things before suing.

The suit was filed on behalf of the boy, referred to by his initials, E.D.T., and his mother, Donna Brewer, by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group based in Scottsdale, Ariz. The lawsuit said that the district violated the free speech, religious expression and due process rights of the fourth-grader.

The boy isn't identified in court papers because of his age. He no longer attends Willow Hill.

The problem wasn't with an unsightly costume. They told him to keep it. The problem was with Jesus.

So why do people feel that on in a public place or with a political organization like schools, Jesus is taboo?


Secondary question - How wide spread are these feelings and how often do anti-religious/anti-Christian actions occur? Stats anyone?

[Goat]

This question is as honest as I worded it. I really am asking why.

Jesus taught about love, sacrifice, mercy, respect and other "good" and admirable qualities. So why is he now taboo?

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/nationa ... etail.html

PHILADELPHIA -- A 10-year-old boy is suing a suburban Philadelphia school district, saying he wasn't allowed to dress as Jesus during his school's Halloween activities.

The lawsuit said other children at Willow Hill Elementary School in Glenside were allowed to dress up as witches and devils. It alleges that the Abington School District was discriminating against Christians. The boy wore a white robe and a paper-and-twig crown of thorns.

The lawsuit said that the boy was told he could only wear the robe, but must remove the crown and say he was a Roman emperor, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

A lawyer for the school district said the family never approached school officials to try to resolve things before suing.

The suit was filed on behalf of the boy, referred to by his initials, E.D.T., and his mother, Donna Brewer, by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group based in Scottsdale, Ariz. The lawsuit said that the district violated the free speech, religious expression and due process rights of the fourth-grader.

The boy isn't identified in court papers because of his age. He no longer attends Willow Hill.

The problem wasn't with an unsightly costume. They told him to keep it. The problem was with Jesus.

So why do people feel that on in a public place or with a political organization like schools, Jesus is taboo?


Secondary question - How wide spread are these feelings and how often do anti-religious/anti-Christian actions occur? Stats anyone?

Personally, I think those people who were restricting that kid were wrong. He has every right to express his religious beliefs. It is when the SCHOOL pushes the religious belief it is wrong. Allowing a child to demonstrate their religious belief, as long as it isn't imposing on others, is what part of the constitution is about.

However, I would not be surprised if the whole story is not being told. I have seen a number of these claims where the information came out that not all the story was told by the plaintiffs.

[jcrawford]

This question is as honest as I worded it. I really am asking why.

Jesus taught about love, sacrifice, mercy, respect and other "good" and admirable qualities. So why is he now taboo?

Secular humanists, unethical atheists and sexual perverts are too busy discriminating against Christians to have any time to listen to Jesus.

So why do people feel that on in a public place or with a political organization like schools, Jesus is taboo?

The secular humanists, unethical atheists and sexual perverts seem to believe that it is their legal right to suppress and oppress Christians in public schools and on government property when in fact government discrimination on the basis of religion is as taboo as racial and gender discrimination according to civil rights law.

Secondary question - How wide spread are these feelings and how often do anti-religious/anti-Christian actions occur? Stats anyone?

Forget the stats. Just watch Fox News or try to tell secular humanists, unethical atheists and sexual perverts that the American Revolution against a Catholic Christian King was primarily fought by Christian Protestants and Independents, not pagans.

[ManBearPig]

Yeah I think the school was wrong too.

But I think Jesus is taboo because the Christian Right portrays Christianity as incredibly angry and confrontational. I'm not that old, but I don't think it used to be 30 years ago, did it? Now the Christian Right frames everything as:

God fearing, virtuous, America-loving Republicans
vs.
God hating, evil, America-hating Democrats

Just read jcrawford's posts!

So I'd guess the school was trying to prevent confrontation much more than it was trying to stifle religious expression. Obviously the school failed at that...

[Confused]

I agree, the school was wrong in limiting the boys costume.

In regards to why is Jesus politically incorrect: simple: separation of church and state. Jesus preached good yet continued to uphold oppressive concepts ie: only a man can grant a wife a divorce if she is unfaithful (implying a woman couldn't divorce a man), any person not with me is against me but "judge not lest you be judged" , not only is adultery a sin but if one even looks at another with lust he is to be judged the same.

I don't know stats on how wide spread anti-Christianity is but I would be willing to bet it isn't even close to how wide-spread anti-semitics is.

[achilles12604]

I agree, the school was wrong in limiting the boys costume.

In regards to why is Jesus politically incorrect: simple: separation of church and state. Jesus preached good yet continued to uphold oppressive concepts ie: only a man can grant a wife a divorce if she is unfaithful (implying a woman couldn't divorce a man), any person not with me is against me but "judge not lest you be judged" , not only is adultery a sin but if one even looks at another with lust he is to be judged the same.

I don't know stats on how wide spread anti-Christianity is but I would be willing to bet it isn't even close to how wide-spread anti-semitics is.

Before I mention that the culture of the day was quite different (oops . . . I just did), lets look at these sections.

ie: only a man can grant a wife a divorce if she is unfaithful (implying a woman couldn't divorce a man)

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

This is an increadibly modern statement considering the times. During this day, women were property, so to equate them with men "as one" was a very radical idea.

Also in Mark we see

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

So be sure of what the words are before speaking about them. This is something not many people do, and it leads to MANY misunderstandings. Misquoting scriptures can even cause a person's understanding of the faith to be altered into something it is not, even something evil.

any person not with me is against me but "judge not lest you be judged"

What is wrong with telling people not to judge each other but to leave it to God to determine a person's heart? Seems like if this was happening more often, we would have a lot less violence.

not only is adultery a sin but if one even looks at another with lust he is to be judged the same.

Let me ask all the women on the forum. You are married. You are fairly happy, even though you are married.

Now you find out that your husband is fanticising and masturbating over pron models he watches on TV on a regular basis.

Would anyone here feel even a little hurt? (guy's you don't count in this question because I know your opinions for the most part).

I don't see the problem with honoring ones spouse with both their body, AND their desires. What is wrong with this teaching?

[Confused]

I agree, the school was wrong in limiting the boys costume.

In regards to why is Jesus politically incorrect: simple: separation of church and state. Jesus preached good yet continued to uphold oppressive concepts ie: only a man can grant a wife a divorce if she is unfaithful (implying a woman couldn't divorce a man), any person not with me is against me but "judge not lest you be judged" , not only is adultery a sin but if one even looks at another with lust he is to be judged the same.

I don't know stats on how wide spread anti-Christianity is but I would be willing to bet it isn't even close to how wide-spread anti-semitics is.

Before I mention that the culture of the day was quite different (oops . . . I just did), lets look at these sections.

ie: only a man can grant a wife a divorce if she is unfaithful (implying a woman couldn't divorce a man)

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

This is an increadibly modern statement considering the times. During this day, women were property, so to equate them with men "as one" was a very radical idea.

Also in Mark we see

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

So be sure of what the words are before speaking about them. This is something not many people do, and it leads to MANY misunderstandings. Misquoting scriptures can even cause a person's understanding of the faith to be altered into something it is not, even something evil.

any person not with me is against me but "judge not lest you be judged"

What is wrong with telling people not to judge each other but to leave it to God to determine a person's heart? Seems like if this was happening more often, we would have a lot less violence.

not only is adultery a sin but if one even looks at another with lust he is to be judged the same.

Let me ask all the women on the forum. You are married. You are fairly happy, even though you are married.

Now you find out that your husband is fanticising and masturbating over pron models he watches on TV on a regular basis.

Would anyone here feel even a little hurt? (guy's you don't count in this question because I know your opinions for the most part).

I don't see the problem with honoring ones spouse with both their body, AND their desires. What is wrong with this teaching?

1) your first scripture is from the OT. If man cannot separate, then how is your Mark passage even relevant? Mark is a good passage, but under what terms does Jesus say a woman may divorce her spouse? But if the first scriptue is correct, then why even bother mentioning divorce since it isn't possible. Jesus says a man can divorce an unfaithful wife, but then says if he remarries, he commits adultery. Do you not see the problem here? You are first saying it is impossible to separate them, but then you are saying a man may if X happens, but though he is allowed to divorce her, he cannot remarry without committing adultery.

2) He is already giving Christians leave to judge by saying if one isn't with Him, they are against Him. So a Christian judges anyone not with Him, to be against Him. And rightfully so since Christ says it so specifically, but then the Christian is to be judged the same for believing that anyone who isn't with Christ is against Christ.

3) I am not married, but if it was me, I would join right in. I see no reason to consider this adultery. To me, adultery means something different. It is one thing to give your body to another (though I would likely kick your arse out for it) but to give you heart to another is the worst thing one can do. That is what I consider adultery. Porn, its just actiing naked. Big deal. If your spouse has no issue with it, then why should it be considered a sin? Both parties agree. How is this dishonoring the other?

[achilles12604]

I agree, the school was wrong in limiting the boys costume.

In regards to why is Jesus politically incorrect: simple: separation of church and state. Jesus preached good yet continued to uphold oppressive concepts ie: only a man can grant a wife a divorce if she is unfaithful (implying a woman couldn't divorce a man), any person not with me is against me but "judge not lest you be judged" , not only is adultery a sin but if one even looks at another with lust he is to be judged the same.

I don't know stats on how wide spread anti-Christianity is but I would be willing to bet it isn't even close to how wide-spread anti-semitics is.

Before I mention that the culture of the day was quite different (oops . . . I just did), lets look at these sections.

ie: only a man can grant a wife a divorce if she is unfaithful (implying a woman couldn't divorce a man)

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

This is an increadibly modern statement considering the times. During this day, women were property, so to equate them with men "as one" was a very radical idea.

Also in Mark we see

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

So be sure of what the words are before speaking about them. This is something not many people do, and it leads to MANY misunderstandings. Misquoting scriptures can even cause a person's understanding of the faith to be altered into something it is not, even something evil.

any person not with me is against me but "judge not lest you be judged"

What is wrong with telling people not to judge each other but to leave it to God to determine a person's heart? Seems like if this was happening more often, we would have a lot less violence.

not only is adultery a sin but if one even looks at another with lust he is to be judged the same.

Let me ask all the women on the forum. You are married. You are fairly happy, even though you are married.

Now you find out that your husband is fanticising and masturbating over pron models he watches on TV on a regular basis.

Would anyone here feel even a little hurt? (guy's you don't count in this question because I know your opinions for the most part).

I don't see the problem with honoring ones spouse with both their body, AND their desires. What is wrong with this teaching?

1) your first scripture is from the OT. If man cannot separate, then how is your Mark passage even relevant?

Where does it say man CANNOT spearate? It says that they shouldn't be seperated. But it doesn't say CAN NOT. You say this again in a second.

Mark is a good passage, but under what terms does Jesus say a woman may divorce her spouse? But if the first scriptue is correct, then why even bother mentioning divorce since it isn't possible.

Once again, where does it say it isn't possible? It says it shouldn't happen. But hardly says divorce is impossible.

And the Gospels don't record Jesus specifically perscribing the rules a woman should follow in divorcing a spouse. However, he makes it very clear that a man should only divorce in the case of marital unfaithfullness. I feel it is safe to assume the same for Women. Jesus certainly doesn't indicate this isn't true.

Jesus says a man can divorce an unfaithful wife, but then says if he remarries, he commits adultery. Do you not see the problem here?

No, sorry. I don't see the problem.

You are first saying it is impossible to separate them,

No I didn't and neither did Jesus.

but then you are saying a man may if X happens, but though he is allowed to divorce her, he cannot remarry without committing adultery.

Correct. Perhaps this should have been part of Jesus confusing words.


Here is what this passage means for me.

1) When people get married they should do so for life.

2) They should remain loyal to each other even to the point of not looking at other people in a sexual manner.

3) If one spouse cheates, THEN the other spouse is allowed to get a divorce for their own well being.

4) If they divorce, they probably shouldn't get married again.

(this last one I believe is true, however I am guilty of re-marriage. So I guess I'll have to lump this sin on top of my other 400,000,000 sins and ask for Jesus forgiveness yet again)

2) He is already giving Christians leave to judge by saying if one isn't with Him, they are against Him. So a Christian judges anyone not with Him, to be against Him. And rightfully so since Christ says it so specifically, but then the Christian is to be judged the same for believing that anyone who isn't with Christ is against Christ.

I don't believe that Jesus words "anyone who is not for me is against me." should be taken as a command to be followed. I take it as a truth. A philosophical statement, and one that has been echoed many times in history. However I don't agree with the leap you make from a statement meant to describe his interactions with other people, to a command for his followers to judge others to determine if they are for or against. Even Jesus states that judgement is for God alone. Only God can see a person's heart.

3) I am not married, but if it was me, I would join right in. I see no reason to consider this adultery. To me, adultery means something different. It is one thing to give your body to another (though I would likely kick your arse out for it) but to give you heart to another is the worst thing one can do. That is what I consider adultery. Porn, its just actiing naked. Big deal. If your spouse has no issue with it, then why should it be considered a sin? Both parties agree. How is this dishonoring the other?

Because I am aware of MANY women who are or would be extreamly hurt by their spouse looking at porn. My fiance is one of them. She told me she wouldn't speak to me for a month if she caught me doing that. And she isn't alone. Many of my female friends have said similar things to me or in my presence. So your opinion is valid, but I can see how it would very much hurt someone else, and this could easily be what Jesus was refering to.

He could also have been refering to in general. If no one lusted after someone who wasn't their spouse, what would the rate of adultery be?

[ManBearPig]

In regards to why is Jesus politically incorrect: simple: separation of church and state. Jesus preached good yet continued to uphold oppressive concepts...

No no, I don't think that's it. Like Achilles said, Jesus was downright enlightened for his day, and certainly a thousand times less oppressive than a Roman emperor...