Did Jesus "shack up" with a w**** or did He just treat her as a human being? Don't take the "love" thing too far! I have a couple of friends who, regrettably, were unfaithful to their wives for brief, idiotic periods. We are still friends. Most of us are capable of forgiving and forgetting when a real and earnest effort is put forth by the offending party. The problem with the egotistical and sanctimonious Jesse Jackson is his self-invitation to be a leader for his people all the while capitalizing on his moniker "The Reverand Jesse Jackson." He is a race-baiter and he lives LAVISHLY off the money he squeezes from his followers. I'm so glad he took a 4 or 5 days off before returning to the public eye when this scandal broke. I'm sure he needed a few days to launder some money or something! His ability to heal so fast makes me skeptical of the sincerety of his apology. That is a JUDGEMENT that I feel I must make. The Biblical injunction is something like "Judge not lest you be judged." I don't think it is an absolute prohibition against making judgements. By the way, judgements can be reversed.... when they deserve to be reversed!
Rich, I respect your opinion, but c'mon? So, I guess there isn't an absolute prohibition against homosexuality, abortion, adultery, murder, etc.? All of these things have one thing in common when it comes to Christianity (and other religions as well): there are consequences to your actions. If you choose them, you may or may not be subject to whatever punishment God chooses to serve up. "The Lord thy God is a jealous God visiting iniquity on the fathers and sons of those that hate thee, but showing love to those who love thee and keep thy commandments." That's pretty clear I think. I'm not saying I agree with that, personally, but, if you do, you can't really have it both ways.
RichRocket What are you implying with your "shacking up" like it is any different than sleeping in the same room? btw: finalsbound, it is ludicrous to pair politics and religion together and citing your religous Bible without citing your political bible (the glorious Constitution). Correct me if I'm wrong, but "it is deemed necessary in the" Contitution to separate our Union from the pratfalls of history by dividing Church and State. <b>Doesn't that make your whole argument one big political oxymoron.</b>
You do know that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, right? The actual wording is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....". The intent of the framers of the Constitution was to prohibit congress from establishing a religion or "adopting" a religion for the U.S. citizens. It also provides all with the opportunity to persue their own religious devotion.
Jeff: Judging does not involve hating and can, in fact, involve loving. Judging does not equal condemning. Doesn't judging really just involve an assignment of responsibility? A negative judgement does not mean a complete dismissal. I have to judge my children's actions and I may even have to discipline them because that is one of MY responsibilities as a parent. But that doesn't mean I don't love them; in fact, it means I DO love them. If I DON"T do it, you may well JUDGE me to be a lousy parent. On a grander scale, we judge people's actions because it helps keep them accountable and helps make society function just a little bit better. Okay, maybe I'm really ignorant about this, but is there a commandment NOT to judge? Is it one of the seven deadly sins? To the best of my knowledge, no. Correct me if I'm wrong. The world is not a U.S. courtroom. Innocent until proven guilty only applies in the court of law. We are not judging people in such a way or manner that we have any control over them (unless it is like the example of my children). We judge them because it helps keep social order in the world, like it or not. bobrek/crispee: I believe that I read somewhere once that the actual verbage "separation of church and state" arose about 1942 or so. Rocketman95: If I throw Gary Condit in with Jesse and Slick, can I have back Gingrich, Giuliani, Burton, and Packwood and you also toss in Livingstone? By the way, you got shut down because of "thread inflation."
I was just trying to point out the general concept of absolute "right" and "wrong" that is often used on this BBS. Maybe there was more irony than I intened. The point is that your decision on what you do is based on a set of beliefs that aren't always consistent. As I pointed out earlier, the Bible didn't say, "Thou shalt not kill 'humans with the exception of just wars and criminal executions.'" That was a subjective reasoning placed on that "law" by humans. By the same token, the decision to judge Jesse Jackson or any other person for his or her actions is subjective. I think it comes down to (to use a common anagram) WWJD. Would Jesus find it acceptable for society to judge anyone based on their sins or smugness or whatever, or would he (to quote a great song) simply say, "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."?
From your response, I don't think we mean the same thing when we say "judge." To me it a pedestrian, passing experience. There is nothing ultimate about it-- life is not a court of law. We all make judgements every day all along the way and thus our lives take one course or another. Somewhere along the way, being judgemental was made the equivalent of being snobby. "He did wrong" is not the same as "I'm better than you." The judgement that I speak of only has power in MY life. It has no power over anyone or anything else. Life IS subjective. Regarding the WWJD: the very people you would expect to NOT be judging Jesse Jackson the hardest (Conseratives >>> Christians) are in fact the very ones who probably do judge him the hardest. Does that make them failures as Christians? Or does it make them responsible observers and critics of an out-of-control leader who doesn't know where his privilege ends? Although, I don't see many defenders of him anywhere in this thread coming from ANY persuasion.
I believe that this is a regional/cultural thing. I grew up around the Eastern Orthodox church (along w/ several other denominations) and I doubt that you would ever hear people of the Eastern Orthodox faith trying to pull one person down to pull themselves up (or basically make statements as to their own personal beliefs... how ever you want to phrase that). And the Eastern Orthodox faith seems far more conservative than most sects of Christianity (even fundamentalists... but Eastern Orthodox people seem to be conservative in action, not in word as in my experience). Anyways, perhaps it's an American/competitive thing. BTW, the people in the Eastern Orthodox church were usually Russian/Eastern European/Greek. BTW2, I guess Christians are caught in some sort of mentally abusive catch 22. If you're going to be an ardent member in a community like Christianity, it's easiest to keep your energy up if you practice the whole 'in-group/out-group', "we're better" mentality. Unfortunately, Christianity seems to suggest that you're not supposed to do this. That does beg the question though RR, aren't you most impressed w/ those Christians that go about their business and don't worry w/ other people's affairs? Those people are 'examples'.
This reminds me of my Sheila Jackson Lee story. My family usually does some charity work around the holidays, usually helping to feed the homeless. Well, one year here we are for a few hours already, helping out feeding the homeless and then ole SJ Lee shows up. She gives her speech, does an interview, and she is gone like a mofo. This seems to happen frequently with her. One of the Comets parades I saw her mugging for her media op. Like WTF does she have to do with the success of the Comets? Gotta get her camera time I guess. Our very own Houston jokester, Sheila Jackson Lee.
Vengeance, I'm pretty sure that Jesse Jackson did march and stand beside MLK in the 1960s. I'm not defending the man for his recent screwups, I'll be the first to call him an idiot. I just think the guy's been maligned so much that people have forgotten that he has done good for the African-American community. Of course, he's brought most of it on himself. BTW, Clarence Thomas is a joke. He can make unwanted sexual advances against one of his submissives. <B>This just furthers my opinion that Republicans and Christianity is an oxymoron</B>. <font size=-2>happy now Timing, sorry I was so childish before
LOL Rocketman95, nice! Well as my grandmother used to say, this thread went down "Quick, fast, and in a hurry!"
You do know that finalsbound quoted nothing from the Bible....in fact he was merely suggesting what was "deemed necessary" from the Bible....isnt' that exactly what I did with the intent of the Constitution. sigh. Notice how he forgets the constitution of our Union for political gain...fancy that!
Good points. I think I get what you mean now. The funny thing is that whole judgement thing is an endless circle anyway. If I judge you for judging someone else, that's judgement too... Oh, my head hurts!
Achebe: "BTW2, I guess Christians are caught in some sort of mentally abusive catch 22. If you're going to be an ardent member in a community like Christianity, it's easiest to keep your energy up if you practice the whole 'in-group/out-group', "we're better" mentality. Unfortunately, Christianity seems to suggest that you're not supposed to do this. That does beg the question though RR, aren't you most impressed w/ those Christians that go about their business and don't worry w/ other people's affairs? Those people are 'examples'." EVERYONE belongs to a community whether it is easily defined or not, whether it fits into a building or not. Are you saying that you are not subject to the in-group/out-group syndrome? Why do I get the impression that I would not be included on your "A" party list?!!! Even a lone wolf is subject to this same kind of inclusive/exclusive worldview although his in-group is very small!! That phenomenon is pandemic and, yes, it can be destructive but it is not always so. Most of the time it is just a rock on the Harmony Trail. No one said it would be easy to be Christ-like. I'm not sure that "not worrying" about other people's affairs is exemplary. In instances of just being meddlesom, yes, of course that is an example worth following. In many cases, though, it is just irresponsible-- especially in a case like Jackson where he promotes himself so relentlessly. We do live in a social group. The best kind of Christian is the kind that attracts others NOT the kind that hunts down others, for sure.
I am of the opinion that, for the most part, many aspects of political and religious beliefs are oxymoronic, hence finalsbound original statement may, in some ways, be accurate. However, I can see how he didn't say it quite like I just did and putting it in bold did higlight its seeming ignorance. Jesse Jackson is an idiot though. And those sotries about Sheila Jackson Lee are interesting, if true. Who can African Americans look up to today? Are there any poiticians, either black or white, that look out for the itnerest of everyone in society equally? What about religious leaders?
I worked with a political campaign last year and made quite a few friends in the business of politics - not the politicians (well, maybe a couple) but more the workers. I'm probably going to be working on another this year. The fact is that it is almost impossible to be involved in politics and be successful while maintaining your highest ideals. Politicians are asked to be everything to everyone while offending and upsetting no one. The one's who do speak their minds and hold onto whatever principles they have are run out of the game for being "too idealistic" or "out of touch with the people" or "an extremist." I have come to the conclusion that it is a practical impossiblity to create a leader out of a politician in the true sense of the word "leader." To be a leader requires standing for beliefs, following them and not backing down while being empathetic to the plight of others. There are VERY few of those in the world and none of them are politicians.
There is a saying about Ms. Lee in the political world: "The most dangerous place in the world to be is between Shelia Jackson Lee and a television camera." I have friends in the media who will absolutely confirm that one for you. She has even been voted "media hound" two years running in the Congress' annual silly awards. Lee, in practical terms, hasn't been a horrible rep for her district. Many of the people I've spoken to in her district's key areas are happy with the results. But, she is far more often away from her buttons when votes hit the floor than she is there ready to do her job. She has had staff turnover, which isn't unusual in Washington, but nothing like they rate she seems to turn people out. Her long-time aid recently bailed too. Someone told me that he, a really nice, very detail-oriented man, just couldn't take Lee anymore. Knowing of him what I do, if he couldn't take her, I can't imagine how anyone else could.
okay, small pet peeve of mine. The reason clarence thomas made it through that process was because of one simple reason, there was NO evidence, NONE, the only evidence that anita hill even ever claimed existed was that she saw a pubic hair on a soda can once. It was 100% he-said she-said, that's it, her case was so flimsy that a democrat controlled congress who didn't want a conservative on the supreme court couldn't put enough water in her case to deny him a seat on the high court.
