You should know that I did not intend to say that I research every single charge of contradiction in human history. Only the ones brought to my attention. The fact of the matter is that the entire existence of the Jews and God's protection of them was for the purpose of bringing forth a Christ. Even Jews will tell you that – they are still waiting for a Christ, because the Christ didn't come across as “kingly enough”. They were waiting for another David or Elijah, and what they got was a lowly carpenter who acted as a servant. Even though the Jewish Prophets predicted just that – a lowly servant (Daniel, Jeremiah, etc).

Then came the Kingdom, or Church. There was one Church (and still is) in the first century. Then the “scholars” of which you are so fond, came up with better more interesting ways of doing things. Shortly thereafter, came off-shoots and denominations. First the Catholic Church, then the “reformation”, and so on. There are even “scholars” today that say the Bible just isn't meant for “Today's churches”.

The point I'm trying to make (and it is, indeed, good for your soul), is that you, I, and any other person out there that proclaims Christianity are members of the same Church. (assuming that you are a Christian). People will continue to follow creed books, false doctrine, and men instead of God's Word. As long as they do, they are separated from Him.

However, your choice not to defend the OT is certainly interesting, and I'm sure plenty of people would take umbrage at it, including observant Jews, fundamentalist Christians, and some mainline folks.

But I'm going to stop writing about this b/c it's sort of off topic, and because it isn't good for my soul, frankly, to deal with you.

So….to answer your question. Both Christ the Word and the Word of the Bible are indeed perfect. And there is no contradiction in the Bible. I've studied every supposed contradiction and found it to be nothing more than misunderstanding and lack of research.

Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

The words are also not perfect in the sense of “without contradiction.” There are simply many passages in the words of the bible that contradict each other.

So JD, do you mean Christ the Word is perfect, or the words of the bible?

Except, of course, that churches are tax-exempt in all their profits, unlike any individual or corporation or politician. So we don't really have a choice in that, do we?

As for the govt, unfortunately many of the crooks don't get voted out. Often their corruption isn't seen by the public, and even when it is some people choose to look the other way. And in best case scenario when they are voted out, there's usually damage already done.

The concern about corruption of the Census (and subsequent redistricting and related matters) remains in effect.

This has always been a “living, breathing” lie, and of course is selective — not only in the revised meanings that are claimed to be (such as Nina Totenberg dishonesty describes them as) “modern interpretations” of the Constitution (i.e., substitution of liberal desires for what was actually meant and what the law still means; it has nothing to do with clarification or extension of valid construction of what was made law to modern things like aircraft and their use, for example). Not only that. It is selective; so often what matters is only what certain rights are seen as fit for misapplication (”free speech” constituting any and all kind of degenerate or offensive behaviors) or for deliberate neglect (the Second Amendment being favored for this treatment) while the others are retained (or misused).

“I have yet to hear a liberal deny the writings of the Founding fathers in this debate.”

It's impossible (nobody can correctly say, as so many libs do, that “red” now means or should mean green, and that colors and words and meanings are “living, breathing,” and fully malleable to liberal goals), and inconsistent (actually, hypocritical), since many losers'-resorts include reliance on the First Amendment (”free speech,” except when it's campaigning for the GOP or against the Dems and involves more money than the other side is able or willing to raise and spend; then it should be illegal, as well as any and all pro-GOP-con or anti-lib-Dem speech on the airwaves, which is “unfair”) as well as misconstruction (deliberately) of the “general welfare” clause (often involving low-IQ equivocation), or (the most laughable losers' staple) references to the Preamble, etc.

Of course, deliberate misconstruction (”modern interpretation”) of the Constitution is sought not only as a way of getting the judiciary to function as legislature, too, but because doing things the legitimate way, through the legislative process, first requires that these people actually win plenty of elections. They don't, which is one reason why they misuse the law — a bypass, not only a short cut.

Fortunately, Obama's recent Supreme Court choice doesn't raise decent, intelligent people's concerns too highly when it comes to this threat; it could have been much, much worse.

In all seriousness though, it's interesting that you brought up the corruptibility of Church bureaucracy because that was running through my mind as I wrote some of the comments here. I often wonder why it is that some people see every reason to distrust organized religion (or private corporate bureaucracy, take your pick) even as they turn a blind eye to the same phenomenon as it exists in government. There always seems to be this naive attachment of the idea that our elected reps are simply stand ins for 'we the people' and that the institution of our government can be trusted when we elect people who voice the appropriate concerns.

And didn't teh GOP speak with disdain about community organizers during the campaign? You mean like ACORN??? If the scales haven't fallen from your eyes yet about that organization (which encompasses a wide array of other groups, going under hundreds of other names) and the corruption at their core, then I don't know what to say. You don't think that at least some of the skepticism/criticism of modern day 'community organizers' was apt? Seriously?

The take home point is that groups that are aligned with government gain power and as a result have a propensity for a great deal of corruption, which is why I don't believe that Jesus would have advocated for such a structure (that's the pragmatic reason- theologically there's also a huge, insurmountable problem of abdication of free will- we are called to do works of charity voluntarily to create God's kingdom- not by coercion or rule of law.)

My quarrel with Jesus being labelled a conservative is strictly with the conservative leadership in the Republican Party. And to be clear I think there are plenty of Dem elected officials who fall into the same category as many of the Republican leaders… It just seems to me that the Republican leadership needs to learn the Bible more, especially if they are going to quote it and tell others to live by it (which is not something most Democratic elected officials do).
Baloney. Someone recently analyzed Obama's campaign speeches and showed that he speaks of religion more than GWB did. Many, many Dems have campaigned in liberal churches, particularly black congregations. The distinction you make is a false one based on seeing things on one side that you apparently ignore on the other, and accepting a common narrative among liberals that religion is coapted by the right but not the left.

I have no problem with your taking offense at GOP leaders using religious themes but not practicing them- but I see just as much offense among Democratic leadership. In fact even the vast corruption of community organizers is an example- these groups ally themselves with churches in many cases, and have a facade of caring for the downtrodden, and meanwhile the leaders of those groups are forming unholy alliances with govt officials and in some cases, the leaders of the community organizing groups are fleecing their own (and the taxpayers and donors) as in the case of Rathke embezzling from ACORN. Why is that not an obvious example of hypocrisy regarding the values that the group is supposed to represent?

Second of all, Jesus taught compassion, not judging others, treating others fairly, etc. None of which the current conservative leadership does (though I know many fine conservatives who are average Americans and Christians and do not fall into this category)….. especially when the conservative leadership and their followers believe it is fine to torture innocent people in the name of national security.
I don't think it's quite fair to say that anyone 'believes it is fine to torture innocent people'. I think some people wrongly believe that it is fine to torture people that we already know are guilty, in the name of defense (a wrongheaded application of the principle of self defense in the face of a violent attacker.) Personally I believe that torture is wrong in all cases (though some would define torture more loosely than I would) AND that such people are also wrong to assume that we always know who is guilty and can apply these kinds of interrogations only on the guilty, not the innocent. But I think that if you wish to convince anyone of your way of thinking, it's important not to misunderstand what they actually believe or they will dismiss you without even considering where they are going astray.

Not true in the way you intended. He was an organizer of individuals. For each person to come to Him, not entire communities was His goal. The relationship with the Father is highly personal for every one who believes and obeys. Christ put the plan of savlation out there, and it was each person's responibility to hear it, believe it, repent, confess, and be baptised for that salvation. Jesus did tell his followers to obey the government and its laws “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars – and unto God that which is God's”, etc. In that respect, WE are now Caesar in the Democractic form of government, so one could postulate that we should then be involved in the government – but that's a stretch (and way too many stretches have been made in relation to the Bible).

Christ was love. Each of us should love our fellow man and especially our enemies.

Should the Bible be edited? Absolutely not. The Word is perfect.

Yes and no. His ministry was mostly about how to keep your head down and be true to the Jewish faith while under Roman occupation. His acts of charity were individual, not institutional–closer to the way the right practices it than the left.

Acknowledging the necessity to “render unto Caesar” was about as supportive as he got of government. And the relationship obviously went south from there, until they finally had to kill him.

You liberals bend over backwards attempting to say that our nation was not founded on Christian beliefs. We that's true and false. It was not founded with a Christian theocracy in mind. According to the writings of the founding fathers themselves (Jefferson, Madison, etc), the nation and government should always have God at the forefront, giving Him all credit and praise. They set it up under the Constitution, with a “unitarian” God. In other words, call Him what you want (God, Allah, Yaweh, Vishnu, Jehovah, etc), but just call Him, and worship Him however you choose.

Once again…. I don't expect you to reply. I have yet to hear a liberal deny the writings of the Founding fathers in this debate. They are inrefutable.

First of all, wasn't Jesus a community organizer? And didn't teh GOP speak with disdain about community organizers during the campaign? Second of all, Jesus taught compassion, not judging others, treating others fairly, etc. None of which the current conservative leadership does (though I know many fine conservatives who are average Americans and Christians and do not fall into this category)….. especially when the conservative leadership and their followers believe it is fine to torture innocent people in the name of national security.

So Jesus may not have spoken about government, but given the actions and statements of the conservative leadership, it is clear that Jesus would be considered a liberal, especially since he went out among prostitutes, lepers and other outcasts of society to help them. This is unlike today's conservative leaders who want everyone to be the same and if you're not, then you are banished. Remember the Republicans joke about being the party of “haves and have mores”. The Republicans do not have a place for the “have nots” who were the followers of Jesus. Let's not forget the conservative leadership would sooner bring harm to Americans if it meant a rise in their own political standing and a decline in the Dems (or Obama's) standing.

I always appreciate your intelligent and well reasoned comments. You have a couple of Likes from me on this thread as a result.

In anticipation of our next discussion,

tidbits

I think that statement deserves a gold medal for Best Silver Lining Sighting of the year.