One of the strongest differences between progressives and conservations is the reaction to the suggestion of recent movies the Jesus might be just a guy, outstanding by his life and by his teachings. Another variation is that Jesus is the son of God, in the same sense that all humans are children of God.
That’s right, Grace Kelly, 9/11 truther and habitual liar. Theological debate about the nature, humanity and divinity of Christ started with George McGovern’s nomination. And it’s purely an American debate. Why, it’s not as if debates about the nature and divinity of Christ (to say nothing of Mary, the Saints and the Pope) haven’t led the church to divide, fragment, schism, lather rince and repeat for the past 1,600 years or anything.
And I’d very, very, very much like to see you take that “Christ was a guy” bit into a good black southern baptist church sometime. They might vote “progressive” (I’m puking in my mouth a little as I write that), but you’ll look long and hard for a sympathetic theology, I suspect.
For progressives, the idea if Jesus might just a guy was interesting and not at all challenging to faith. In fact if Jesus – as an ordinary guy – could do such great things, then it meant that all of us could do more in what we do.
It’s the reverse of that idea – that a divine Christ would threaten their faith – that interests me. I wonder if some left-leaning Christians don’t chafe at the idea of a 2,000 year old religious figure competing with their current religious icons, Wellstone and Obama?
I think that “power” is the essence of the conservative’s beliefs. So the important essence of believing in Jesus requires the deity power, not how Jesus lived or what Jesus taught.
Which is, indeed, perhaps the most incredibly stupid generalization I’ve ever read about conservatives, ever.
Indeed as I asked questions at “Jesus” stands in conservative gatherings, they did not engage in discussions of key passages of the bible
To be fair to the unnamed “Jesus stand” operators, I’ve met Grace Kelly, and I wouldn’t engage in a serious discussion with her, either.
“Jesus” was a marketing tool, where one simply invoked the name and was saved. The essence of this religion seems to be “what the religion can do for me!” It is not a do-it-yourself kind of religion.
No – correction: THAT was the most stupid generalization!
But if one has faith, one will eventually find a nugget of truth in even the most (intellectually) desiccated environment:
So what I am seeing is that religion is a projection of what people already believe or want to believe.
Um, yeah. And so Jesus was just a guy, like Wellstone and Franken and Larry Pogemiller.
Theologians and philosophers will debate the nature of divinity until one day we all find out for ourselves.
But the real question that is beating those theologians and thinkers about the face: Would a truly loving God really put writing like this in front of His people?