next »

[anthroid]

That was the title of a commentary by Randall Balmer in CHE last week.  In another thread, a number of people mention that they are religious studies/biblical studies scholars.  I'm curious what they--and everyone--thought of the Balmer commentary.  I must admit to some prejudice--I went to high school in Wheaton, Illinois, and Wheaton C. seniors used to come around and try to "save" my devout Roman Catholic mother, since she wasn't, according to them (and even today to many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians) a "real" Christian.

[case_insensitive]

Neither is Jesus a democrat, or whig or tory or liberal or labour party member, I suspect. :o)

[fiona]

Jesus was a dangerous radical, like Socrates and Joan of Arc.

[t_folk]

What's the point of this thread beyond attracting views through a somewhat cheeky subject line?

[invinoveritas]

Maybe there isn't a point, but maybe there is.  I agree with the title.  If Jesus were alive today, well...what (I think he would be fascinated with technology)?  Anyways, its true.  He wouldn't be a republican.  No sane person is a republican.  Was Jesus sane though?....is there any proof of that?  Does it say so in the Bible?  If Voldemort were real, he would vote republican.  Seriously people....republicans are evil but they don't know it.  So have pity on them.....but not too much.  Stupid people only deserve so much pity.  Pity is not a virtue.  Read Nietzsche.  Wake up.  C'mon now...seriously. 

Here's the test: am I joking or not?

Here's the answer: liberals can tell...republicans can't, or wait...is it the other way around?

umm....what?

[invinoveritas]

I'm sorry, I take back the last post entirely.

Jesus would support unjustified war.  He would support our lavish lifestyle in the face of rampant absolute poverty and the starvations of millions each year while we drive SUV's and ignore AIDS and the rest of the world's troubles.  He would support the oppression of homosexuals.  He would support big oil.  He would definitely give tax cuts to the most wealthy people on the planet.  Yes...he would be a CEO.  He would eat domino's pizza and big macs while getting fat on his recliner watching football and american idol.  He would rally against any civil freedom that goes against his beliefs.  He would ignore all the suffering in the world so he could focus on his own self-interest.

Yes....Jesus would definitely be a republican.

[invinoveritas]

What's the point of this thread beyond attracting views through a somewhat cheeky subject line?

yes t_folk...let's not open discussion on politics or religion.  God forbid!!!

[t_folk]

What's the point of this thread beyond attracting views through a somewhat cheeky subject line?

yes t_folk...let's not open discussion on politics or religion.  God forbid!!!

Now your just being daft. Are you a child?

[invinoveritas]

t_folk,

I was being a bit foolish before....maybe it was funny, maybe it wasn't.  But who is more childish?  Someone who jokes around a bit with a topic or someone who asks the point of something right after it is clearly stated? 

The original poster seems to want an answer from religious folk about their views and their thoughts on Balmer's article (which was very good by the way).  Your response to his request seems to be an attempt to shut down any conversation of it.  Now why would anyone want to do that?

Hmm...

[t_folk]

Well, it's quite ludacris, isn't it. I mean, what kind of Republican are we talking about here. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Today we have John McCain Republicans - more libertarian than anything. On the other hand we have Pat Robertson Republicans and George W. Republicans. Very different beasts all together. Same can be said of the Democrats - stark contrasts between Zell Miller's brand of Democrat and Hillary Clinton's or John Kerry's. Hell, even Clinton and Kerry are very different. It was a silly post and silly title for Balmer's article. It's just sensationalism and outright intelligencia silliness. Well-intentioned liberals will stand around, nodding their heads in agreement - of course, Jesus wasn't a Republican. Meanwhile, the conservative minority of academia will look at it and dimiss Balmer. In either case, it accomplishes nothing other than affirming one group's ideas and dismissing another's - how does that facilitate discussion? America is polarized enough as it is. Do we really need to perpetuate that kind of thing in the academy - supposedly a haven for open discussion and free thought?

[john_proctor]

. . . it accomplishes nothing other than affirming one group's ideas and dismissing another's . . .

I've not read the article and probably won't.

T-Folk, however, hits a major idea here.  We can only approach Jesus as a character in a text.  The "real" Jesus is not accessible to us any longer.  Even those who would assert his divinity and the "truth" of the Gospel accounts must concede that the Gospels are a selected text designed to persuade or reinforce (John 20:30-31).

The modern "quest for the historical Jesus" began with the book by Albert Schweitzer.  Schweitzer (in the very early 20th century) surveyed and evaluated historical reconstructions of Jesus by scholarship.  Most of these described a "Jesus" who addressed contemporary issues, parties, politics and needs.  Each was presented as definitive, absolute, and final.  Nearly all, however were irreconcilable with one another.

He argued, very persuasively, that "Jesus" was nearly always reconstructed to fit contemporary needs and agendas.  Most all  these reconstructions described a character using biblical text, and so were, to a degree, "defensible."  The "real" or "historical" Jesus, however, always remained elusive.

He famously wrote that we have gazed into the well of history, only to discover that the face which we glimpsed at its bottom was our own.

Modern "historical Jesus" quests have taken the debate back yet a further step.  If later Christian communities have constructed a Jesus in keeping with their own needs and debates (and drawn from the Gospels), might the Gospels themselves reflect the ancient communities' reconstructions of Jesus (drawn, this time, from oldest oral tradition and testimony).

The point of all this is that Jesus can be (and has been) crafted as a proponent of nearly any political, social, or personal agenda.  Inversely, Jesus can be (and has been) shown to be a strong opponent of nearly any political, social or personal agenda.

The CHE editorial is but one of a long line of attempts.

[adhoc]

t_folk asks, "what kind of Republican are we talking about here[?]" and john_proctor asserts that he has "not read the article and probably won't."

I would ask john why not?  From t_folk's most recent post, it appears that he has not read it either (although in an earlier post he implies that he has).  I would suggest that anyone wishing to comment on this first read the article in question.  Whether you agree or disagree with what it says, at least then you will know what it is that you are agreeing or disagreeing with. Perhaps then we would also be spared the many completely irrelevant postings.

[john_proctor]

. . .  john_proctor asserts that he has "not read the article and probably won't."

I would ask john why not? . . .

I suppose I could come up with some argument, perhaps hone it to elegance, maybe even invoke a precedent or two, but basically the reason is fairly simple:

I don't want to.

My post was not intended to comment on the article (thus the preamble-caveat).  It was suggesting that debates as to whether Jesus is/is not on my/your side are both ancient and infinite.

Perhaps, then, that's the reason behind my reason:

Same song, second verse.

[case_insensitive]

Perhaps then we would also be spared the many completely irrelevant postings.

Surely, not in this forum!

:o)

[adhoc]

[My post] was suggesting that debates as to whether Jesus is/is not on my/your side are both ancient and infinite.

Fine.  My point is that the article in question says nothing at all to that effect.  In fact your comments, though interesting, are enough removed from the topic of the article that they could be an independent thread.

For what it's worth, you might want to consider reading it.  It is actually quite well written and thought provoking -- much more so than I expected it to be.