Published: Sunday, Oct. 16 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT
You are right, but the trappings of organized religion make this virtually
impossible. Churches say they are the true ones, and the competition for
business is keen.
Of course Jesus was kind to everyone. Did chastise people that needed chastised
as well. But I don't think he lost his temper to speak. But Jesus was aslo
baptized by proper authority, A man of prayer, observed the sabbath and did the
will of the father totally.Joseph Fielding McConkie in a book he
wrote told of someone that said his Uncle was the Most Christian man he meant.
But realized though generous his life did not resemble Christ very much in quiet
a few ways. Of Course Christ is generous. But being a true follower of Christ
requires more than kindness. It is thinking what he thinks doing everything he
asks us to do.We do not persecute people who think diffrently than
us. Treat them with dignity. But a true follower of Christ does the will of
Great letter and on the money. So why is it then that people still use religion
to do the opposite? I still don't understand.
And Clark if you know people who don't attend any church, and don't profess any
religious beliefs who none the less are still very kind and considerate, they
would probably appreciate it if you wouldn't call them christians.
Mr. Larsen makes some important points. I hope readers will process them
carefully and dig a little deeper into this rich vein of thought.Where human beings are concerned, which is more important - the label, or the
contents?Is claiming to be Christian a guarantee that you are
honorable, caring, just, charitable and thoughtful?Is being
honorable, caring, just, charitable and thoughtful a guarantee that you will be
called a Christian?A moment's thought makes it clear that the answer
to both questions is "no."If the religious labels you
carry with you and apply to others are not useful in predicting those behaviors
that are most important to us as citizens of this great nation, why then are we
expending so much energy on this pointless and divisive issue of a person's
religious labeling? Thus the wisdom of the constitutional
prohibition of religious tests for public office. Shame on those who
use a candidate's religion, including the lack thereof, as a basis for praise or
People use what would Jesus do all the time to justify any position they take
wether he would or not. Of course he is kind to people. He does punish sinners
who don[t repent. Wants us to willingly help people. It is not
organized religion that causes problems. Since the days of Adam Satan said
beleive it not and people beleived it not. He himself said no one comes to the
father but by me. It is people not believing what he says that causes problems.
True religion does not persecute. Listening to the one that says believe it
not. Not religion.
What would Jesus do? He certainly wouldn't rob Peter to pay Paul. He's suggest
that people get married before having children, and he'd suggest that fathers
live in the same house with their wives and provide financial support for the
children they helped create.
Rifleman, how is it that people who have non-Christian religious beliefs, or no
religious beliefs at all, still love, honor and care for their parents and their
children? What makes you think it's necessary for a person to share your
particular religious beliefs in order for them to be a good and loving
person?Higv, you're saying that people who disagree with your
religious views - which conveniently encompass your political views - are under
the influence of Satan. Really? How can you engage in a meaningful adult
discussion with people who have different religious and political opinions with
that idea in your head?Isn't this whole "God is on my side, not
yours," attitude the very problem Mr. Larsen's letter identifies?
From all the hyper-sensitive whining I've been reading from some LDS members
over the last few days - I'd have to agree, some Mormons are not very Christian
at all.Showing Christian characteristics means showing ALL of
them.For example -- Jesus also said, "Turn the other
cheek." & "Bless them that curse you".So - Ask
youself -- WWJD?If you are a true Christian - then stop your whining
and get over it.
A big "AMEN!"
Jesus said I am the way the truth and the light no one comes to the father
except by me. Is that narrowmindedness on his part? IF Jesus himself says
something than ask him if it is true. How do people know what Jesus would do
without asking the only source of truth. Thing is the Lords house
is a house of order and not confusion so he will not tell one person baptism is
essential and another it is not. Or one person needs to keep these commandments
and another person doesn't.WE can be civil to people that don't
worship like us. Invite them but don't persecute them. However truth is
independent of what people choose to believe. You can't change truth by not
beleiving it.Jesus and Satan will not shake hands. If everyone
chose to find out the will of the FAther and Son and choose to beleive it
everyway this world would be a great place. Including the ordinances he asks us
to participate in by the proper authority. We cannot however do what Jesus says
without offending the Devil. Impossible.
I happen to find that many people who are Christians do not always act in a
Christian way. To see one of these people I need not go any further than the
mirror in this LDS House. I have enough problems in my life that judging others
Christian fidelity is not something in my pay scale.
higvWhat I believe about Jesus must be different than what you were
taught. The Jesus I was taught about loved everyone - including Jesus. I feel
that he would not only shake his hand, but would give him a big hug! It is
Satan that would turn away - not Jesus. Jesus does not like what
Satan does, but he still loves him as a brother.What were you
Jesus does not at all fit in with today's idea of being a Christian.His statements about only coming to the House of Israel, no the Gentiles, not
giving that which is holy to dogs etc I am sure that he would have riled up
today's liberals who try and define Christ for us. Yes he did turn
the other cheek but he also cleansed the temple twice and called the Pharisees
many choice apposite names, labelling them (Oh How could He!!) hypocrites, blind
leaders of the blind, a generation of vipers etc. He even referreds to his main
man, Peter, as "Satan". How on earth did poor Peter get over that
one? Oh that's right he was not one of us pc clones. The people
themselves he called an unbelieving and adulterous generation. I wish that
liberals would read his words - ALL of them I mean. Conservatives would also
have some of their beliefs challenged in doing so. He transcends all our
philosophies, ALL of them.
higv. Attitudes like the one's you bring to this table are the reason for
division. Most people don't worry about if Jesus and Satan will be shaking
hands. Most people want leaders that will do the best for all of our citizens
regardless of religious or non religious ideas. Religion does not belong in
American politics. I will tend to my religious beliefs and my morals and my God,
but I wont stand on a soap box to proclaim things that have no basis in reality
for many Americans. They don't want to here it. I don't care what religion
anybody belongs to, I will vote on the persons ideas for America.Some of
the curent crop of republicans ware their religion on their shirt. I wont be
voting for them.
Gildas | 9:36 a.m. Oct. 17, 2011 LOGAN, UT Jesus does not at all fit
in with today's idea of being a Christian....I wish that liberals
would read his words - ALL of them I mean. ================== I did, that's what made me a Liberal.BTW - The Pharisees
were the ultra-Conservatives 2,000 years ago. The more things change, the
more they stay the same.
Would LDS ever vote for an atheist candidate even if that candidate had a
platform they agreed with on every issue?I doubt it.
LDS Liberal | 2:44 p.m. Oct. 16, 2011 Farmington, UTIf there
was ever an example of whining, read the post from LDS Liberal.
@Owl: LDS Liberal speaks the truth, if you don't agree you call it whining.
LDS LiberalBTW - The Pharisees were the ultra-Conservatives 2,000
years ago.Actually it was the Sadducees that were the true
aristocratic ultra-Conservatives 2,000 years ago.But I see your point!
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments