Jesus seemed to be all about loving everybody. Especially those who didn't deserve love, or didn't get love from anyone else – such as the poor, the sick, the lame, the unfortunate. You never hear of Jesus walking up to some wealthy king and granting him mountains of gold. But rather he'll go to the cripple that society has cast aside and make him walk again. Or he'll go to the hoards of hungry people and miraculously feed them all. And he constantly asked people to give up their worldly possessions and follow him for a greater good.
It's funny, because in today's society there are people who argue on behalf of the struggling masses that can't argue for themselves, people who try to heal the sick and feed the hungry on a massive scale, people who say "Hey America, please don't pass that law, think about all the poor people that's going to hurt." These people are allegedly doing things pretty similar to what Jesus was doing, yet are called "bleeding heart liberals", and usually in a very derogatory manner. And usually the ones doing the calling are people of an alleged conservative nature, are generally pretty well-off financially, and who say they are followers of Jesus.
I think Jesus could be considered the first bleeding heart liberal. He thought nothing but helping other people. He very often said something to the effect of "you will know my people because they love one another". And to top it off, isn't it a standard characteristic in the images of Jesus to show his heart with something like barbed wire or thorns around it, and blood coming out of it? So he quite literally had a bleeding heart in the name of love for people. And I guess we shouldn't forget the part where he actually died. That's a bit more of a sacrifice than us having taxes raised a tad so that poor blind people have an extra meal or two and don't starve to death. So why all the name-calling? Wouldn't everyone who claims to be a Christian be more than willing to give up their possessions to help others? Having a wealthy Christian call someone a bleeding heart liberal because they are standing up for the rights of the poor and the broken just seems a little backward to me. If you are a wealthy Christian, please feel free to enlighten me with a comment.
Very good points.
ReplyDeleteIf you'd like your mind blown even more, check out the tenets of Prosperity theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology) - God WANTS you to be rich, Chris! All you have to do is pray and believe!
The worst part about the greed and hate from the Christian Right is that when they're called on it, or exposed as hypocrites, all they have to do is say "I'm sorry, Jesus has forgiven me!", and it's accepted. Nice little safety net to fall back on...
Well from what I've heard, the forgiveness is always offered to people like that, but it only truly works if they are genuinely sorry for what they did and make real change to stop it from happening again. If they just say they're sorry to win forgiveness from the public, that may gain them another election, but it doesn't count to reconcile with their God. Jesus is supposed to know the difference, let's hope that works out.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but since the only real issue at stake is the new election of the hypocrite, this type of public forgiveness is really just fucking us all over.
ReplyDeleteSo I gotta be downer on this one man, and for that I am sorry. I feel the need to point out that your sort of calling the kettle black in this blog.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand you don't want people not to do name calling and then cast others in a negative light because they are casting others in a negative light. If you look at the distribution of those who do actually give alms to the poor you will find that the rich folk give the most per volume while the poor give the most by ratio. Now with that said it should be pointed out that when a person is said to be "worth 10000000zillion dollars" they may only make 50k a year because their company is the portion of their personal holding that is "worth" that amount. Okay enough of the economics lesson... back to the point...its around here somewhere.... oh here it is..
If name calling is a bad thing then why the need to call a christian a "right" or "left" christian? If the idea of Jesus' message is to love all then we should probably try and refrain from grouping ourselves.
As far as raising taxes "just a little bit" I have a point to make, which is, the income tax has only been around here in America as a constitutional amendment since 1913. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).
Be careful of the "little laws" they tend to grow into bigger eviler laws later, but I'm only talking about history here.
Know your past
know your country
Know Jesus
Know Yourself
Know taxes
no taxes
If it is wrong for me to earn money then how is it any different for the poor to earn money? If you live in America your rich even the destitute have it better in America. I'm not saying its peaches and cream but it is better than living on a heaping landfill providing for your family by wading through sewage. (http://www.foodforthepoor.org/about/topics/spotlight-on/life-in-a-garbage-dump.html)
Bleeding heart liberal or right wing anarchist
I don't personally care so long as you have your Honor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor)
I post the link for honor because it is in our action and I think sometimes we forget the very basic nature of what we can do to truly be as Gandhi said, "Be the change you wish to see in the wold".
Amen Namaste Asalamalakum Shalom
I'm a wealthy Christian (at least in the globally comparative sense, even if I'm not in the Great American Standard sense) and I know very few conservatives or fundamentalists who would consider standing up for the poor and broken a "bleeding heart liberal" enterprise. In fact, from a Christian or conservative perspective (not that those terms are synonymous), Christians and conservatives tend to be more active in advocacy and relief than their, er, anti-conservative or anti-Christian counterparts.
ReplyDeleteTMac recently pointed to a very interesting NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html
It makes the point that the largest U.S.-based international relief and development organization isn't CARE or Save the Children. It's World Vision, a Christian organization.
I didn't mean to turn this into an In-Defense-Of-Christians diatribe, but I've long felt that the biggest thing that Christians truly are awful at is PR. When we're called greedy assholes, the majority of us tend to bow our heads and nod and vow to do better, meanwhile the small-but-vocal minority who genuinely are greedy assholes react with venom and bullhorns, making the problem worse.
I'd highly recommend studying the words and actions of Christ further in the gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for those unfamiliar with BibleSpeak).
I think you make some interesting points, but I'd assert that Jesus is someone who's difficult to generalize. "Jesus was a liberal." "Jesus was only about love." "Jesus always stuck it to The Man." "Jesus was anti-money, anti-rich." While there might be examples from his life to back up those statements, there are many more that show that, mainly, Jesus was complex and rarely fit into general categories that feel nice and sound-bitey. And, by the way, nobody's better than a Christian at coming up with slick "Jesus was" sound bites.
The reason Christians and Christian organizations seem to give more is (at least) threefold: first, they make up 85% of the US - of course they give more than the rest of the population. Second, Christians already have organized groups (churches), making fund raising, organizing and charity giving much easier. Third, a huge number of major charities are Christian-based, meaning that many, many non-Christians give to these groups too.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, none of that matters. Chris's point was that a disproportionate number of conservatives in the US preach strong Christian morals, while at the same time advocating a hardline anti-poor economic and political system, opposing ANY sort of socialized medicine, and generally favoring policies that make it more difficult for the poor to succeed. THIS is what Christ would rally against. Labels aside, Christ of the bible would not support conservative Christian ideals - he's likely be 100% against them.
I'm gonna quote my friend Jon from a comment he gave me on the subject: "Jesus tells individuals to feed the poor. He also tells individuals to turn away from adultery and sexual immorality. If the government therefore has the responsibility to enforce charity, it should also have the responsibility to enforce morality."
ReplyDeleteI think that's a huge difference for some reason. Liberals want the government to enforce charity, but to have fewer laws about sexual morality. And conservatives seem to be the exact opposite – they want laws dictating sexual morality, but would rather pass on the government-mandated charity services.
Didn't really have a point I was trying to make, and I'm not sure how to use this in the current discussion, it's just an observation sparked by my friend's comment.
Michael:
ReplyDeleteThe statistic isn't about the percentage of Americans that consider themselves Christian, it's about how this particular organization positions itself, at least if you're referring to the article.
And how does the fact that Christians already have charity and fund raising mechanisms in place do anything but prove the point that Christians appear to be doing what needs to be done? And anyway, there's no lack of opportunity for charitable giving, Christian-based or otherwise, so I'm not convinced that "ease" is the issue with who gives and why. You're right: many of the charities are Christian-based. You seem to be railing on Christians for doing things right.
The conservative position has been, classically, that the best way to give money to the poor is to give them jobs, education and opportunities. "Give a man a fish" and all that. There are exceptions, but by and large, tax cuts do positively affect employment and reduce poverty.
"Is Jesus a conservative or a liberal?" is a well-worn road and "Jesus" has a habit of skewing his political views to whoever happens to be talking about him. For me, the issue's (no offense, Chris) somewhere between non-starter and dead as a doorknob. People like their Jesus to think just like they do and that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.
It's easy to twist the words of Christ into pro or anti tax cuts, pro or anti universal healthcare, pro or anti democracy, socialism, communism or whatever political issue you like.
It's why I applaud Chris on his decision to actually take it to the source and read who Jesus was and what he said for himself.
Believe me, I've read what Jesus has to say.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, it's all make-believe. There's little historical evidence that Jesus even existed, much less performed miracles. All I know is that I have to deal with Christians, and they don't seem to act much like their God at all.
Actually, Jesus healed any and all who came to Him and had faith. There are lots of passages that say: and He healed their sick (i.e., Matthew 12:15 and 14:14), as opposed to 'and He healed their sick unless they were wealthy'...
ReplyDeleteBut he did not discriminate against those who had money. Note the centurian who had a sick servant in Matthew 8:5-13 and the Jewish leader with a sick/dead daughter in Mark 5:35-43. There may have been others who actually had money, like possibly Lazarus seeing that he had his own tomb, but the Bible doesn't really focus on their monetary status. Though some of the best remembered cases of heal-ifying did happen on behalf of beggars and widows, that is not to say he was discriminatory.
On another note, he did make condemnations of the rich and the wealthy, which was not to say that he thought them evil, but only that the wealthy tended to develop an unhealthy mindset that made them more tone-deaf to God, not that they had money (see the tale of the rich young man in Luke 18:18-23 - NOTE the commentary He makes on the situation in verses 24 and 25:
[24] Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! [25] Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
).
And it has been a commandment heralding back to the Old Testament that we are supposed to take care of the poor and defenseless. But note, that when Jesus walked the earth, He did not stand on corners with picket signs yelling for Caesar to do it, but rather did it Himself. He told the people to be charitable, not the government.
In any case, if this was a genuine note, I'd say that Jesus was a-political at best. He urged people to do the good themselves, not to rely or depend on anyone else for it. As for Christian conservatives, there have been a few studies that show that they tend to give quite freely to charities, moreso than their liberal counterparts, so the studies say (e.g., http://www.gordon.edu/ACE/pdf/Spr07BRGrinols.pdf).
Personally, I think it's just good policy to live in the macro like a conservative and in the micro like a bleeding-heart presuming that, in my 'arrogance', I'm better able to distribute my own money than the government who can't buy a toilet seat without a special committee. Be sympathetic, give to charity, but do it yourself, don't demand a middle-man. But that's just a personal defense.
In the end, I'd say that Jesus had no commentary whatsoever on government except to say we should pay taxes as required by law (Matthew 22:20-21). His ministry, however, was primarily on the kingdom of God and personal relationships and accountability, which is not the same as declaring that the government needs to redistribute the wealth of everyone at all. Frankly, it seems the opposite, seeing that He was so concerned with us making conscious sacrifices as opposed to having the option taken from us.
And, for the record, Mr. Doss, historians have concluded that Jesus existed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
WhinterSong, that wikipedia page really doesn't say "historians have concluded" - it lays out some extra-biblical "evidence" of which there is very, very little. Different historians and scholars have concluded many different things.
ReplyDeleteA better question, in two parts:
A: Does Jesus still heal today?
B: If so, why doesn't he heal amputees?
So for people who read the bible... (pronounces bibb-ly) :-p
ReplyDeleteMark 12:17:
"And Jesus said to them, Give to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's. And they were full of wonder at him."
How to interpret it? Well now, that is a bit subjective.
Granted this is after someone asked if you should pay taxes not so much about alms, but yea.
You wanna be a good person? It's simple just do and be what you think a good person is and should be.
Its an opinion not the truth. :)
hope it helps!
A few thoughts to add. First myself...I believe Jesus is real, believe he walked the earth, is/was God and died to save humankind from the punishment for their sin. I'm middle-class American aka rich everywhere else in the world.
ReplyDeleteTo start things off. I would argue that Jesus was a liberal. Liberal being someone who was "willing to discard traditional values." During his time, the great moral teachers and those that made and followed the Jewish law were the Jewish Pharisees If you look at the Bible, Jesus pissed them off most the time because he didn't follow their traditions and laws. Pharisees cared about following the law, but they didn't care about people. Jesus cared about people and in such, made the law complete... This explanation is going to get too long. All I really wanted to say is that if you know something about Jewish culture and then you look at Jesus in it...he was liberal.
Second, I think the whole issue of giving to the poor and caring for those in need ought to be about compassion. Do we genuinely care for people with less than ourselves? I would argue that if we do, the following will happen: We will see any help being extended to the poor as a good thing. This can come from an individual or the government. If I really care about people than even if the gov't screws up half the time and doesn't always do what's best, if there are times when they take my money and provide health care or whatever for the poor, I'm thankful for that because my interest is that the poor be helped. So when the gov't takes my money and says it's for the poor, I won't complain, though I may attempt to make my voice heard so that the money I take is spent wisely. I will also take individual responsibility and give myself because if I really care and I see a need and a way I can help, I'll be compelled to do so. Also I'm not going to waste my time defending Christians, or myself as I fall in that category. You see I recognize that there are Christians that care and give, but there are also those that don't (and from what I've experienced there are more in latter than the former) and so instead of saying..."oh don't bash the Christians" I simply agree that caring about people in need and giving to them is good, and we should do it, and those that don't, Christian or not, should be encouraged to change their hearts and help the poor. If I really care about the poor then I don't give trying to get people to say how I'm such a good person and so when you look at the group I'm in and say they don't give to the poor, or they don't act like Jesus, I say, hmm yeah I agree let's try to convince them to change. I don't need to defend myself, I know who I am and what I care about.
Eh, not sure that made any sense at all...sorry...