Jesus, The Liberal of History, Vs. Jesus, The Fascist of The Christian Right's Fantasies

[Demeter]

OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_professo_070401_jesus_2c_the_liberal_o.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 1, 2007

Jesus, The Liberal of History, Vs. Jesus, The Fascist of The Christian Right's Fantasies

By ProfessorPete


Jesus The Liberal of History, Vs. Jesus The Fascist of The Christian Right's Fantasies*


....It is interesting that the antithesis of Christianity has always been Conservatism. In Jesus' cultural and sociological struggles with the Ultra-Conservative, Chief Herodian Priests and the even more Conservative Roman military and governors, Jesus was viewed as the radical, arch-Liberal, the defender of the disenfranchised, the marginalized, the sick and the infected/shunned, (Lepers), by those who profited from the misfortunes of others. Were Jesus living in the flesh, today, like Chavez of Venezuela, he would nationalize all industries which profit from the unfortunate; Oil and fuel and energy companies, the entire medical industry including the legalized drug dealers who advertise on TV, arms dealer and defense contractors (especially Halliburton), water companies and all utilities. Recall the destruction of the booths of the temple profiteers?

His battle's involved requesting the acceptance of those rejected by the Protectors of the Temple, who following Moses ancient rite, banned from entry to the building and inner grounds, anyone with unsightly disabilities and deformities, the blind, lame, poor and visibly ill. Temple guardians viewed these and other physical and cultural disadvantages as the punishment for the wages of "sin" by either the person afflicted or his ancestors. Jesus arguments were hyperbolic debates demanding acceptance of all regardless of physical or mental condition. All these, he insisted were children of God. He argued further that the minions of Satan were like whited sepulchers, gleaming and bright on the exterior, full of maggots and things dead within. He further argued that men of goodness should sell all they have and give it to the poor. I would argue further that if the congress does not either impeach or hire a Special Prosecutor to indict the Bushites we should open the doors of all the jails especially in the Red States and let all out of prison, rather than face judgment by God as hypocrites, Jesus' pet peeve.

........
Denying that Jesus was a Liberal is a hypocritical attempt to excuse one's own support of avarice, bigotry, mass murder, genocide, abortion, capital punishment, torture, Imperialism and worse. Denying Jesus healing mission by calling it anything but widely empathetic and loving of those with an intellect, open-mindedness and good will toward others, is somewhat like denying that GW Bush, Attila The Hun, Stalin, Mao or Hitler are/were not Conservative. The very Act of Creation and of retrofitting man to receive an intellect and a soul is an act of generosity, empathy and Liberality. The entirety of Jesus life was one of giving, never taking, and right up to refusing to defend himself...The truth is that if one acts in a tightly close minded, unforgiving, and acquisitive one-upsmanship, bellicose, shamelessly self-promoting, self gratifying and manipulative, covetous mode, one who supports a regime in any nation or community which is similar and if that one is also is not empathetic and Liberal, that one is not a Christian, but a hypocrite, as Jesus, in so many ways, so often displayed and said. When encountering even strangers who were rivals/enemies, as Jesus demonstrated empathy, as with the story of the Good Samaritan, and the Samaritan Woman at Jacob's Well, as well as his healing of a Roman's slave and a Samaritan or Gentile woman's issue of blood, is the epitome of empathy and generosity, both of which, as a part of a person's character IS liberality. Defending a woman under the threat of Capital punishment for adultery is empathetic and is generous and liberal.


If you also believe yourself to be a Conservative, it might not be a bad idea to Google the freedictionary and read the definition of Liberal and Conservative. However, assuming you have no desire to find out you were wrong, and may not do so, or may not have time, below are such definitions for those who fantasize that they are Christians, but instead are enemies of God. If, after you read the definitions, you still want to cling to Conservatism then it might not be a bad idea to do a complete self-analysis or consult a psychiatrist.


Look up the definition of Conservative in a good dictionary, and then look up the definition of Liberal. After doing so, who in the Hell would want to be known as a Conservative? In addition, who in the Hell would not want to be known as a Liberal? Only a fool, as we have/shall seen. See below for dictionary definition culled from 5 college and graduate school dictionaries.

From several college and free-dictionary sources
Lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. More likely to rebel against dictatorships or authoritarian rule.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded, like the framers of American laws, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. More likely to die for a cause, vis-ed-Jesus
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous, empathy for the lame, sick and poor: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5. Respectful of women, sensitive to the problems of others, empathetic to the woes of others

con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Fears innovation, favoring of "the old ways" stale views ; tending to oppose and fear change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: seemingly paranoid about differences, likely to be bigoted, untrusting of things new
3. Moderate, cautious, timid, socially fearful, unadventurous
4. Unlikely to be innovative, fearful, seldom intellectual, more likely to be hubristic, and accepting of authoritarian and dictatorships, out of fear of being ostracized from prominence
5. Threatened by things they do not understand or comprehend, which are many, vis-ed: Homophobic and denigrating of women. Unsympathetic to the lame sick and poor.
6. Envious of those smarter than they and often slanderous of that which they are incapable of comprehending.
7. Uncharitable, selfishness, fear and avarice tends to make them unmoved by the suffering of others.


*From The Book, The Gift of Gnosis, by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo, ©1994, LOC






Authors Website: http://www.BagnoloArt.com

Authors Bio: Professor Bagnolo is a Renaissance man: Architectural designer, painter, sculptor, writer, novelist, toy/game designer and inventor. As a child prodigy, abed with polio for almost two years, with an off the charts IQ, reading at the graduate level by 5th grade, offered an opportunity to skip three grades at age 8, his parents allowed only a one grade skip, however. Later He was a recipient of an Art Institute scholarship at age 11, a Ford Foundation Fellowship and merit scholarship in art, and was appointed a Graduate Research Assistant position in college. He holds a triple bachelor's degree in Painting and Drawing, Anthropology, Architectural Design Advertising. He taught; architecture, anthropology, Theology, advertising, painting and drawing, entrepreneuring and seminars on Creative Profit Making. He produced a star-studded Music festival, had a radio talk show in Chicago, and cable TV show. Now, retired from Teaching, he paints, writes, and pursues other ventures. The above bio harvested from the comments of Deans, colleagues, students, clients and collector's.

Back

[Igel]

1. It's sad, on this night to be much remembered,

to see someone so earnestly condemning one set of people for insisting on worshiping themselves by making Jesus into their image, only to be just as guilty of precisely the same thing himself. Denying that Jesus is exactly what Professor Pete, on independent grounds, believe he should be like is wrong ... of course, there are aspects that Pete disagrees with, so we can ignore those. For example, Pete seems to be defending his views ... while his Jesus would never defend himself; Pete seems to want to take from people in the name of his righteousness, even though Jesus never took. Pete wants others to do what he's too weak or impious to do himself, holding others to a standard higher than he holds himself to--that's not to say if everybody was better he wouldn't try maybe a bit harder.

Jesus, if the Gospel accounts are at all correct, was, to a large extent, a Restorationist at heart. He complained at those presenting a God in their image, and said that a simple, childlike understanding of God's will was all that was expected--not elaborate arguments as to why it was essential not to carry something over certain weight. He wanted the rabbinical elaborations of the Law stripped, so that it was what God said, not what man said. You see, the leadership had gotten too hung up in their fear of being wrong that they hobbled those that would be right. Jesus observed the Law; his followers observed the Law long after his death (the poor, deluded souls). But there was concern, because taking the Law as he said it was intended to be taken was difficult, for the Law was good, and indeed the definition of righteousness. Don't call your brother a fool--but actually, don't even think it. Don't screw your neighbor's wife, or take what your neighbor has is hard for some people ... but Jesus said not to even think about screwing your neighbor's wife, or even think about taking what your neighbor has. Envy was completely un-Jesuslike. You feed the poor out of compassion, not because you're forced to; if others don't, and they don't make others feed them, their action is none of your concern. Jesus said what good was; he didn't say to go around judging people. Unless I'm (or Pete is) the Judge.

Want to stone an adulterer? No. He didn't enforce squat, and he didn't condemn people apart from those entrusted with guiding his people. But he said that the woman in adultery (if it is an original part of the text) should go and sin no more--people should be righteous without compulsion. In like manner, he said that a man he healed should go and offer a dove as an offering, indicating that the man was poor ... but that Jesus was a stickler for righteousness. After all, thirsting after righteousness is up there with making peace. Even if it was a sacrifice that, as the Paschal Lamb (executed hours before the night to be much remembered would have begun), he would shortly make irrelevant.

Professor Pete seems to assume that the US is a temple to God--after all, arms dealers are defiling the Temple. In this, he goes far beyond what Dominionists and Reconstructionists would ever think to say. Because Jesus got rid of the money changers not because they were bad; they took advantage, to be sure, even they did an essential business ... but he said God's Temple should be respected unconditionally. What is Caesar's belongs to Caesar, but what is God's belongs to God. "Take it outside, boys."

Professor Pete must think Jesus was evil. Here was an oppressive empire that had conquered Palestine and other places. Herod wasn't a nice guy, Roman soldiers weren't exactly what UN peacekeepers should aspire to be. And yet Jesus was too much of a coward to say squat about the Romans, it seems. Petey's much braver, well, except that the FBI isn't much like a Roman centurion. Perhaps Jesus was in league with the Romans? But, no. Not his purpose. He said little about how the Pharisees and Sadduccees governed: Remember, it was still run as a theocracy, so the secular and religious leadership were the same people. He didn't mention the secular bits, however, no matter how much he spoke about the religious obligations the rulers imposed and how they (falsely) presented themselves. He paid his taxes as all the other citizens of Israel did, and didn't complain about secular matters. *, Pete thinks, must be imposing standards of religious righteousness on us that * himself doesn't meet, to equate him with a hypocritical Pharisee. If not, Pete is mixing categories that his object of worship took pains to keep separate, and Pete is saying Jesus was all screwed up. And if Jesus was that wrong, why bother quoting him at all?

I can only assume we will be hearing no more from Professor Pete. After all, he, no doubt, believing that a good Christian should sell all he has and give to the poor, has sold his computer and his house and given the proceeds to the poor. Otherwise he condemns himself with his words, and stands revealed as a hypocrite no better than those he lambasts. Then again, he seems to assume that Jesus was unable to explain what he meant to his disciples; they seemed to get it. But Jesus certainly failed at explaining it to Professor Pete, assuming he even tried.

Now, the Peter is right in that the traditionalist/conservative Xians do very similar things, as well. Both say that God has to emulate them, both say that those that do no worse are infinitely worse, condemning without measure in the name of their own self-righteousness. They make the same fundamental mistake: They believe Jesus said, "Go forth and rule, for my kingdom is of this world, and you are sent to enforce my words on the countries you live in." In this, they worship the Christ as much as Buddhists and Muslims do. Jesus, in his life, wouldn't have enforced anything. Kill somebody, jailtime isn't an option. Rape somebody, he wasn't concerned about the secular punishment. Somebody steals what you have? He's concerned, lest you go hungry; but having the police round up the perps isn't his gig. Have the navy (a purely humanitarian force, naturally) get bombed, and have your allies invaded? Turn the other cheek. Jesus would have his followers submit to Hitler than fight back. Jesus' followers go, preach, and know that his kingdom--however much * and Pete might disagree--is not of this world. In this Jesus is both an arch-conservative and vastly more liberal than Pete will ever be.

Have a good Sabbath, the first day of unleavened bread. The liberal Jesus would have, and would have called its observance "righteous" and good, since, well, he's Lord of it. Just not Pete's Lord, any more than he's *'s. If words and actions have any meaning, that is.