The PHC student that emailed Hanna struck me as having missed a very important aspect of the life of Jesus. He is quoted as follows:

"So, I think maybe Kuo should go back and read the Jesus stories again before he claims that Jesus is such a nice, tolerant guy. Jesus was lots of things, but "nice" and "tolerant" aren't really ever vibes I picked up on."

This is a Jesus that many evangelicals and particularly the ones in the book try to present. The only example of Jesus acting in anger by cleansing the temple of money changers came because the activities were in the temple. A very nice illustration of the seperation of church and state if you ask me.

The difference between Jesus and most of these evangelicals is that Jesus presented his message, deeply caring for the people he encountered, and then left them to their decisions. The rich young man came to Jesus and asked what he should do. When Jesus told him to give away everything and follow, Jesus let him walk away when the young man could not bring himself to do this. Jesus let people walk away even when he knew they were choosing a different life than the one he wanted for them.

The Christian right cannot stand to watch people choose a different path. That is where they no longer mimic Christ. Jesus was willing to let people choose sin, no matter how much it hurt him to do so.

I think the "vibes" that were picked up on at PHC were the ones everyone else was giving off, not the ones Jesus gave off.

As an aside, if Jesus had had Republican followers there would never have been a miracle with the fishes and loaves. The Republicans would have told the crowd that they were responsible for their own food and would never have taken the personal property of that poor boy that was actually prepared. Even if the miracle had taken place, how would they justify the disciples gathering the leftovers for themselves. That is pretty close to communism.

You want separation of church and state? There are so many examples. "Give unto Caesar." "Leave (stop what you're doing) and follow him" "Treasure is in heaven"

Christian cannot stand to see their family go to hell. I suppose that's a bad thing. Clearly, living according to Jesus' teaching is basic common sense. It does free you, if you really understand what freedom means.

Your example of Republicans doesn't make sense. Republicans would not interfere with Jesus, but I'm sure the Democrats will set-up a blockade and prevent Jesus from entering. SEPARATION, of course. No food from a Christian. It would be refused.

Two misguided points in your post. Liberals do not want Christians to be prevented from entering. They don't want them basing government policy on religious teachings, but they do not hinder their gatherings. The ACLU fights to keep churchs from being zoned out of neighborhoods and for Christians to be able to use their rights to free speech.

The other point that you are confused about is the common sense of Jesus' teaching. I never said that Jesus' teaching was a negative thing. I grew up in about as fundamentalist a church as one can attend. The majority of members believe that you will actually go to hell if you are a registered Democrat. The reason that I no longer attend that church, even though it saddens my family, is that the conservative agenda of those members puts the free market above compassion for individuals. I noticed that there is less and less ministry to the downtrodden and the least among us as the primary issues became abortion and gay marriage. As I near 50, this was a heart-wrenching decision. When I was young, we would go on "missionary" trips to help those less fortunate, we would have our young people sign up to give rides to church to poor people. Not so much anymore.

My point is that if Jesus taught the way the student at PHC "picked up on" then he would have let the sinful woman be stoned, he would have shouted down the woman at the well and berated her into salvation, and he would have told the rich young man to incorporate and contribute to Ceasar's PAC.

The ACLU fights to keep Christians from expressing themselves on public property. They would refuse Christian assistance because they will be proselytizing at the same time. Jesus is feeding and preaching. This is anathema to liberals.

As for the lack of compassion for poor, I can say there is a definite lack of compassion for conservative Christians. It is a wash. Pick your battles, I suppose, but I disagree that being conservative means you lack compassion. And, Conservative Christians, like myself, have other ideas that does include a welfare state. Nonetheless, the poor are NOT being denied public assistance. The deficit remains high. What more do you want? My taxes are high and I can expect even higher taxes with a Democrat Congress.

Let's be clear. Jesus did not want government to be the surrogate to Christians. Unfortunately, liberal Christians are calling for government intervention... its a theocracy in itself. It's too bad that liberal Christians are blinded by their compassion that they don't see the double standard.

HUH? AFTER READING YOUR POST I CAN'T HELP THINKING THAT YOU ARE EITHER DELUDED OR ,sorry caps was on,just not from this planet.The aclu does not fight against christians "expressing thier view"they fight to stop them from demanding obedience to thier dogma.Since when is stopping religious nuts from turning this country into a trash heap in the name of christ stopping religious people from worship?WE FEAR THE THOECRATIC LEANINGS OF SOME CHRISTIANS BECAUSE HUMAN HISTORY PROVES OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT ANYTIME A SCOCIETY OR GOVERMANT,sorry damn caps again, is even partly controlled by religion it always becomes a tyranny.There are no exceptions to this .Just point to one that hasn't.You can't.As madison said when govenor of viginia "THE ONLY THING THAT SEPERATES A JUST SCOCIETY FROM THAT OF THE INQUISITION AND IT'S AHEARANTS IS DEGREE AND TIME.TO ALLOW ANY POWER TO FALL TO THEM IS THE BEGINING OF DESPOTISM AND SHOULD BE STOPPED BEFORE MAN IS AGAIN ENSLAVED"

I think your selfishness would offend Jesus

Sorry, directed to my friend mashup

"They would refuse Christian assistance because they will be proselytizing at the same time."

mashup3:

If the assistance was truly from the heart, truly a charitable act then there would be no proselytizing, no preaching--just giving. If the purpose of giving is also to preach then the gift is diminished. There is a string attached. The generosity won't be remembered--just the string.

"As for the lack of compassion for poor, I can say there is a definite lack of compassion for conservative Christians. It is a wash. Pick your battles, I suppose, but I disagree that being conservative means you lack compassion. And, Conservative Christians, like myself, have other ideas that does include a welfare state. Nonetheless, the poor are NOT being denied public assistance. The deficit remains high. What more do you want? My taxes are high and I can expect even higher taxes with a Democrat Congress."

mashup:

I concur just because one is conservative does not mean one is compassionless. Some conservatives and some liberals do good things for others. Some do not.

However your comment about Democrats and taxes must be addressed. I know this is not the topic but you brought taxes into the discussion.

I remember Reagan building up a great deficit. I remember Clinton working the deficit to zero (or nearly zero). I remember working hard and sacrificing to achieve a worthwhile goal. Now the village idiot has gotten us back into a serious debt. This debt will cripple America in the future if for no other reason than people will really begin to worry about it and change their spending and investing habits. Likely another Democrat will have to get us out of it by either raising taxes or cutting military spending, social security, or something. I seriously doubt your Republican friends will fix it.

A few years ago my wife and I made many sacrifices to get ourselves out of debt that I brought to our marriage (something my wife will not let me forget either). It was such a relief to get out from under that heap. We felt uplifted. Can you imagine how we would have felt if we got back into debt? This is how I feel about your Republican friends. They could have done something good with that zero deficit but they wasted all of our good efforts. If taxes are raised to pay off the new deficit you have no one to blame but the Republicans.

J.MADISON:

HUH? AFTER READING YOUR POST I CAN'T HELP THINKING THAT YOU ARE EITHER DELUDED OR ,sorry caps was on,just not from this planet.The aclu does not fight against christians "expressing thier view"they fight to stop them from demanding obedience to thier dogma.

Caps isn't nearly the problem with your post than your incoherent use of grammar and spelling. It takes a lot to figure out what you're trying to say.

The ACLU is ridiculous. Your definition of what they do differs with my understanding. You inaccurately describe what they do. They are NOT "fighting obedience to their dogma." Try getting a lawsuit in court with this!!! It sounds like they are suing a religion for their doctrine or for denying membership for insufficient devotion.

Whatever, I don't have time to respond anymore to your ridiculous assertions.

Sideriosis, you're definitely right that "the village idiot," as you called him, has squandered the benefits of a budget brought to balance by Clinton. This squandering was done, of course, to placate rich Republicans who don't like paying their fair share of taxes (as the rest of us must do) and to finance our senseless war in Iraq. Only a Democrat will be able to fix the debt problem, because the Republicans really don't care if we're in debt. All the Republicans I know are up-front about it: "debt isn't really a bad thing," they say. What they hate is taxes.