I can’t believe I missed this! I’m going to have to do some more reading me thinks….

That's where theologians and institutional churches step in. They tell you how to fill in the answers to the questions in the gaps between the words that are there.

It is quite possible for two people to equally believe in the sancitity of the Bible and to infer toatlly different meanings from 'what is there.'

We haven't even touched on the literal vs allegorical aspect of 'what is there'.
Could Jesus have sometimes spoken in parables (the forty fishes)?

Look, if you're comfortable with the theology of tha Catholic Church. that's fine and dandy.. I get the comfort in that, and I have no interest in nudging you out of your comfort zone (do unto others, you know). I just don't see grounds for claiming a superior understanding of 'what is there' in relation to other theological interpretations.

That's where theologians and institutional churches step in. They tell you how to fill in the answers to the questions in the gaps between the words that are there.

It is quite possible for two people to equally believe in the sancitity of the Bible and to infer toatlly different meanings from 'what is there.'

We haven't even touched on the literal vs allegorical aspect of 'what is there'.
Could Jesus have sometimes spoken in parables (the forty fishes)?

Look, if you're comfortable with the theology of tha Catholic Church. that's fine and dandy.. I get the comfort in that, and I have no interest in nudging you out of your comfort zone (do unto others, you know). I just don't see grounds for claiming a superior understanding of 'what is there' in relation to other theological interpretations.

So IOW, that part of the discussion is really a different subject IMO and that's why I still stand by my statement about “reading things that aren't there”- because I'm talking about people who do accept the Bible as the authoritative collection of our knowledge about Jesus, but they claim that there's more there to support political ideology than there really is.

So IOW, that part of the discussion is really a different subject IMO and that's why I still stand by my statement about “reading things that aren't there”- because I'm talking about people who do accept the Bible as the authoritative collection of our knowledge about Jesus, but they claim that there's more there to support political ideology than there really is.

I think somwhere there we actually agree on some basic level. I certainly don't think that any political movement, even one I might support, has the right to claim the one and only true interpretation of Biblical teachings.

I just have a problem with your reference to 'what is actually there'. What is there is not Jesus speaking for himself, it's what other people said Jesus said and these other people did their reporting over a very long period of time, sometiimes relying on secondary sources, sometimes writing under pseudonyms, and writing under varying conditions and in various stages in the history of the Christian movement.
Very early on, Christianity took on the organizational form of an institution, and the presevation of the institution became as much a motivational force as the spreading and understanding of Jesus's actual words per se. That self-preservational interest is a part of theological teachings that should be taken into account, from my pwepective.

So, while I agree with you that politics should not co-opt Jesus as the banner bearer, I think the tendency to do so is natural and predibtable. This is, in fact, the major reason why I thnk politics and religion should be kept as far apart as possible.

In personal life, to each his own. .

I think somwhere there we actually agree on some basic level. I certainly don't think that any political movement, even one I might support, has the right to claim the one and only true interpretation of Biblical teachings.

I just have a problem with your reference to 'what is actually there'. What is there is not Jesus speaking for himself, it's what other people said Jesus said and these other people did their reporting over a very long period of time, sometiimes relying on secondary sources, sometimes writing under pseudonyms, and writing under varying conditions and in various stages in the history of the Christian movement.
Very early on, Christianity took on the organizational form of an institution, and the presevation of the institution became as much a motivational force as the spreading and understanding of Jesus's actual words per se. That self-preservational interest is a part of theological teachings that should be taken into account, from my pwepective.

So, while I agree with you that politics should not co-opt Jesus as the banner bearer, I think the tendency to do so is natural and predibtable. This is, in fact, the major reason why I thnk politics and religion should be kept as far apart as possible.

In personal life, to each his own. .

I have no problem with the concept that some people DO espouse political organization for that purpose, and even as a conservative I don't completely reject that. But it's just wrong to act as though Jesus' words indicate that he'd be a registered Democrat. I am not trying to coapt Him as a spokesperson for the GOP, and I'm asking that others similarly refrain from doing so for the Dems. I can see where people could find justification for either form of politics- so all I'm asking is that we all agree that it's our own interpretations of how to best enforce the goals that lead us to our political inclinations- not Jesus' teachings directly advising us one way or the other. I'd think that you would agree with that, no?

So what I meant by people having imaginative musings was that they are pretending that what they believe about the writings is what is definitively stated there, and that's not the case.

I have no problem with the concept that some people DO espouse political organization for that purpose, and even as a conservative I don't completely reject that. But it's just wrong to act as though Jesus' words indicate that he'd be a registered Democrat. I am not trying to coapt Him as a spokesperson for the GOP, and I'm asking that others similarly refrain from doing so for the Dems. I can see where people could find justification for either form of politics- so all I'm asking is that we all agree that it's our own interpretations of how to best enforce the goals that lead us to our political inclinations- not Jesus' teachings directly advising us one way or the other. I'd think that you would agree with that, no?

So what I meant by people having imaginative musings was that they are pretending that what they believe about the writings is what is definitively stated there, and that's not the case.

And there you have the beginnings of religious animosities, if not wars.
The meaning you take from the Bible is what Jesus really meant,, while a contrary meaning someone else finds in the Bible is an “imaginative musing.,”

The difference is not determined by the Bible but by you and that someone else.

I, for example, am inspired and motivated by the 'do unto others…' maxim, a theme that runs through many religions and secular philosophies. The choice of inspiration is mine and how I apply that maxim in real life decisions is my personal responsibility. Otherwise, it would be too tempting to use the source of the inspirational words as justification (an excuse, if you will) if I apply them badly. and cause someone pain with my good intentions.

And there you have the beginnings of religious animosities, if not wars.
The meaning you take from the Bible is what Jesus really meant,, while a contrary meaning someone else finds in the Bible is an “imaginative musing.,”

The difference is not determined by the Bible but by you and that someone else.

I, for example, am inspired and motivated by the 'do unto others…' maxim, a theme that runs through many religions and secular philosophies. The choice of inspiration is mine and how I apply that maxim in real life decisions is my personal responsibility. Otherwise, it would be too tempting to use the source of the inspirational words as justification (an excuse, if you will) if I apply them badly. and cause someone pain with my good intentions.

You are aware, aren't you, that the Catholic Church has been a leading force in opposing the death penalty?

You are aware, aren't you, that the Catholic Church has been a leading force in opposing the death penalty?

If someone wants to pick and choose or read between the lines, that's their prerogative, but I don't see how their imaginative musings on what Jesus really meant would carry more weight than what the people who were historically closer to Jesus would have written down as His actual words.

If someone wants to pick and choose or read between the lines, that's their prerogative, but I don't see how their imaginative musings on what Jesus really meant would carry more weight than what the people who were historically closer to Jesus would have written down as His actual words.

As far as Capital Punishment, there's the “let those without sin cast the first stone” epigram.

I find it funny that pro-lifers are also for the most part pro-death ( capital punishment.) I think this feeds off the whole guilt thing-”oops lets fix it by killing em and then let's go make more! ”
He consorted with lepers, outcasts, the homeless. I don't think he wore an Elvis cape or funny hat or drove a Christmobile. No, he rode into town on a mule.
Cuz that's how he rolled.

As far as Capital Punishment, there's the “let those without sin cast the first stone” epigram.

I find it funny that pro-lifers are also for the most part pro-death ( capital punishment.) I think this feeds off the whole guilt thing-”oops lets fix it by killing em and then let's go make more! ”
He consorted with lepers, outcasts, the homeless. I don't think he wore an Elvis cape or funny hat or drove a Christmobile. No, he rode into town on a mule.
Cuz that's how he rolled.

[The angel on my right shoulder told me to shut up. But the devil on my leftt shoulder won out. So, with apologies to all good Catholics celebrating the Pope's visit, what follows is my rsponset o the above.}

Jesus left nothing in writing and what he said was reported by others, many decades later. Much, much room for interpretation, addition and omission, even at the time(s) his words were first .recorded.

Christianity, in all its forms is the source for many good lessons. So are other religions. So are secular philosophies. That's great, but arguing contemporary politics based on scanty information is a purely academic exercise. In the end, Jesus can only teach people what and as much as they want to learn.
Now, as in the above quote, what he didn't say (or what wasn't recorded in the official Bible) is also interpreted. That brings us to contempalting the various answers to the meaning of silence, or the meaning of the absence of recorded words, and dangerously close to the absurd.

We, each one of us, choose what Jesus or certain teachings inspire us to believe or how that inspiration translates into action. The responsibility for the choice is ours.
It's ,a question of personal responibility.

The reason I think it's important to point this out is that we ought not to claim Jesus for the Democrat or Republican team. There are elements of both party's ideology which are consistent with Catholic social justice teaching, and elements of each which aren't, and perhaps more importantly, there are ways in which each party corrupts the goodness of policies which could promote just conditions but don't once they are put into effect in ways that are self serving for the political classes.

Personally I find conservative politics to be more consistent with the teachings, but often have problems with the way the more conservative of our parties practices its 'conservatism'. I also realize that conservative politics means that much more of the social justice teachings have to be borne out by concerned citizens acting as brother and sister to those who need a hand up. And of course, when we fail to do so, we give reason for others to believe that liberal politics are the answer.

I just think it's important to note that Jesus obviously shared the goals of liberalism, but never did he advocate use of government to acheive those goals.