The Religious Left

Of course not!

Natural match-up...The Church Minister and the NDP...They both so Desperately Want to Help People!

*gaak*

For folks (the left) who regularly like to speak on behalf of what all Canadians think, I suppose this would count as a rather small jump in scale for them.

With all due respect to the United Church, it's gotten so bad thse days that they now pray "to whom it may concern."

WWJVF?

(Who Would Jesus Vote For?)

Am still technically a member of the UCC but only because of a particular church, it's Minister and the wonderfull people there.

Whenever the National "Elders" speak, I wince, put my donations back in my pocket and settle in for Sunday football. There is a large group of Dippers who "belong" to the United Church and like every thing else they believe in, they want salvation for nothing. The Church is slowly going broke. Ta Da Dippers

Why would Jesus be a card carrying member of the ndp? The ndp look to government for salvation, not to God. To quote Ann Coulter, " The church of "Socialism", - Godless."

Jesus didn't have any good words for any hypocritical members of society, therefore the ndp would be called "Viper" by Jesus

Jesus would vote for whatever party stood for individuality, the right to get as rich as possible and not spend money on helping those in need. You know, like leppers. God supports Stephen Harper. Now go to church, all you right-wing Satan worshipers.

united church long ago abandoned the tenent of virgin birth.

but without that, ummm, kinda puts the entire work in a bind.

I believe in a world where exceptions abound, a single spontaneous virgin birth out of some 7 or 8 billion or more is a reasonable possibility.

in any event I do believe that part of the new testament story however it happened.

not so the ucc.

so where does that leave them and Jesus' 'membership' in anything they are involved with?

"My Father..." -- offensive

"Our Father..." -- still offensive

"I am the Way, no person comes to the Father but by ME" -- offensive

"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be damned" -- offensive

"Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish" -- offensive

"I am THE Truth" -- offensive

"He who is angry with his brother without cause is in danger of hell fire" -- offensive

"Think not that I have come to bring peace on the earth" -- offensive

"This is the new covenant in my blood... -- offensive

Perhaps the question that should be asked is, "If Jesus applied to be a minister in the UCC, what chance would he have of being accepted?"

J.C. was a capenter and worked for a living, there is no way in hell he would be part of a commie party like the NDP. Anyone who actualy read the scriptures would know that!

ARE YOU KIDDING? Jesus would be a card-carrying member of a church that champions Henry Morgentaler and "a woman's right to choose" (aka abortion), a main plank in the NDP platform?

About children, Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs." (Matthew 19:14)

Children were/are precious to Jesus and in the case of a woman who is pregnant and distressed, I suspect that he would look at the crowd and ask, "Which one of you will take her and her child into your home?" rather than counsel abortion.

So Jesus would belong to the political party that is pushing to remove the term "God keep our land" from our national anthem?

I think these guys have been smoking rocks.

1) I hate that I couldn't resist posting on such a ridiculous thread, but to set the record straight...

2)... Jesus wasn't in the habit of joining clubs. Careful observers will notice he preferred to start His own. Jesus wouldn't have joined the NDP or any other political party.

3) Needless to say, Curtis is a moron. She and the NDP deserve each other.

correction: card-carrying member of a political party

The UCC is too much like a political party for my comfort: yeah, the NDP at prayer (or is that an oxymoron). Anyway, I'm sure that's what caused the little mixup...

Jesus...a new Democrat?

*wretches*

Excuse me....sorry about that...

IMO, in a word, no.

I'm no theologian, but here are my thoughts:

Jesus is most definitely not "the bearded lady" or, as Schwartzenegger would say, "the girlie man" the UC portrays Him as. Who'd want to worship and give up one's life to/for such a wimp?

Jesus was understanding, loving, and caring, but also tough, pragmatic, and REALISTIC. As God and man, He understood self-interest and the power of sin to undermine the integrity and actions of us mortals. He was not afraid to draw lines in the sand. Let's remember His anger at the money changers in the temple and what He did. (Not very "nice", was it? Nice people--and churches--are rarely censured or crucified by the powers that be. NB: The MSM usually lauds the UC for its nice take on issues.)

Yes, Jesus saved the adulterous woman from death by stoning. He admonished her accusers, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." They went away and the woman lived. That's where the United Church stops the story. "See," the UC says. "Jesus was kind to the woman. That's what we need to be."

So far, so good.

BUT, the UC ignores the fact that Jesus admitted that the woman had sinned. (The word "sin" has effectively been removed from the UC lexicon.) Yes, Jesus had mercy on this poor woman and he saved her life--in more ways that one!

On with the part of the story, which the UC ignores. (So does the Anglican Church, most of the time.) Jesus then said to the woman, who was truly grateful for her salvation, and listening: "Go and sin no more."

The UC cannot deal with the full truth of this story. And, IMO, a church that denies sin cannot help people overcome it. I believe that such a Pollyanna church is anathema to Jesus: He loves the members of the UC but I believe He would reject it as a true part of His body here on earth because it rejects the heart of His teaching: that we are SINNERS in need of His grace.

Well, they've done a fantastic job of diminishing the legitimacy and support of trade unions - the NDP needed a church to pick on next.

The UCC is a fascinating example of what happens when you found a church on a bureaucratic conceit. I wonder if all the Methodists, Congregationalists and Presbyterians who woke up one day back in the 1926 to discover that they were part of a "United Church" could have predicted this, and that their religious heritage was being sold so cheaply.

Toronto - once a thriving centre of the Methodist Church - is full of former United Church buildings being turned into condos, nightclubs, temples and mosques.

The United Church's watered-down version of Christianity diminishes the supreme sacrifice Jesus made for us.

Also, I think Jesus would be against any institution that supports abortion.

I once attended a Christmas Eve service with family members at a United Church (we normally go to a Baptist one). A student minister was trying to say a politically correct, meaningful prayer.

So she began it, on that holy night: "O God, Father of Jesus"--pause, and then for good measure she threw in "mother of Jesus, we thank you for this night".

I got the giggles, so did my husband, and we had to pinch each other to stop. Because I always thought Mary was the mother of Jesus. But of course, we have to add female references to God, right?

We're talking about an imaginary person and who he would vote for.
Weird

God and the ndp? I could just see it now. Go in peace my ndp followers, and enjoy your same sex marriages.

I like the way Jesus busted up the Temple. The UCC management are like the Rabbis of that day. The story can applied to any tired old bureaucracy. I often think of Sheila Fraser busting up the Librano$ when I hear that story in church. Then I start giggling, until I get an elbow.

LMAO!!!

Dave M.

Charitably, you're an ignoramus. Whether you believe Jesus was the Son of God is debateable. That He existed--He actually did!--is not.

So, smarten up!

If the United Church could travel through time they would ensure that Christ did not die on the cross. This woudl be accomplished by ensuring that He died in childhood of starvation, because His earthly father's carpentry business would be boycotted.

If you are a libcomsimp and want your sillyassed world view reinforced from the pulpit this is the place for you.

UCC has been hijacked by politicllay correct moonbats. Those that are not card carrying dippers or left leaning Liberals are probably communists.

They have removed many traditional reference from prayer books and hymnals ( poltically correct versions are now inplace ) and it is not at all uncommon to get a lecture in progressive socialism from the ministers during church services.
OMMAG

Dave M.

When I saw this quote by the Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke (1729-1797) on someone's blog, I thought of you:

"The writers against religion, whilst they oppose every system, are wisely careful never to set up any of their own."

-- A Vindication of Natural Society. 1 Preface, vol. i, p. 7.

Jesus as a socialist? Possible. Jesus as a right-winger? Unthinkable, if any part of the New Testament is true. So where does this leave neo-cons and their fundamentalism?

agitfact: YOU call us right-wingers, as a pejorative, no less.

I don't call myself or the others on this blog "right-wingers." I just happen to think that we're right thinkers, in the sense that as opposed to the ideas of socialist, let-the-State take-care-of-everything, moonbats, our ideas tend to be more in keeping with reality and with the way the real world operates--you know: marriage, kids, work hard, pull your own weight with a little help from God...

I don't call that fundamentalism.

So, what on earth are you talking about?

James Godamn Whittingham said, "Jesus would vote for whatever party stood for individuality, the right to get as rich as possible and not spend money on helping those in need. You know, like leppers. God supports Stephen Harper. Now go to church, all you right-wing Satan worshipers."

James, judge not... Only a myopic socialist would pretend that people cannot be charitable unless they give all their money to the government to redistribute. It is not the function of government to nanny all, or even to provide for those in need. That is the function of Charities -- always has been. Free men can AND DO freely give to the charities of their choosing.

agitfact, your post is undocumented nonsense.

Please read what I said and make a thoughtful response.

agitfact
Tag if cat
A fact git (I like this one the best)

german beam

Jesus confronted the UCC in His own day when he faced off against the Sadducess who were extremely liberal in their theology. Even though they controlled the temple they denied almost all aspects of the Jewish orthodox beliefs and we have records of Jesus silencing them several times with His profound wisdom and knowlege of Scripture and Jewish orthodoxy.
I once studied to become a member of the UCC before I became a Christian and discovered their entire Bibilical focus was on the book of James.

Jesus wanted to teach a man to fish, thereby providing for him and his own. The NDP would rather give a man the fish and subsidized housing and free education and a higher wage for less work and pensions and benefits etc.

Federally, Jesus would be a member of the Christian Heritage Party. If you are any kind of conservative - even a non-Christian conservative - you should consider voting CHP. Reason: even if teh religion grosses you out, does it gross you out more than the crime and "punishment" stories we read every day in the news, such as killers, pedophiles, and thieves who receive little or no punishment for their crimes? How is this grosser than God, who is already enshrined in our constitution and anthem? It is critical that we respect and value our Christian heritage, whether one is Christian or not, because secularism has proven to be a highway to hell, sans Angus Young as wingman.

What is the CHP in a nutshell?

The CHP is Canada's only pro-Life federal political party, and the only federal party that endorses the Judeo-Christian principles enshrined in the Canadian Constitution:
'Canada was founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God' - capital 'G': the God of the Bible -'and the rule of law.'

Is the CHP trying to impose Christianity on those of other faiths?

Absolutely not! We're politicians, not evangelists. Our purpose is to place ourselves under the authority and guidance of the principles of the Gospel - principles like justice, honesty, compassion, diligence, thrift and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The Secularist minority in Canada dominates four powerful institutions that shape all our lives: governments, courts, the public education establishment, and the major news and entertainment media. The best defence of the religious freedom and intellectual liberty of the minority faiths (which at 4% all together total only about 1/3 the 12% who are Secularists) is to make common cause with the 83% of Canadians who identify themselves as Christians. We are thus a bulwark defending religious liberty - for everyone - against a militant Secularist juggernaut that seeks to exclude all faiths from the public square."

I must be getting old because a) I think America needs a good Mormon President like Mitt Romney (seriously); and b) the fact that ex-Alliance MP/hardline heterosexualist Larry Spencer is the CHP's party president is actually a big plus:

Author of the newly-released book: “Sacrificed? Truth or Politics” — This book details the inside story of Mr. Spencer’s rapid rise in federal politics, and his summary political ‘execution’ by his own party leadership, including the man who is now Canada’s Prime Minister: Stephen Harper.

www.chp.ca/

Jesus would probably say that government wouldn't even be necessary if people weren't so evil.

Bob, what's your point--in your own words, please?

United Church openly endorses political party, going so far as to speculate ast to Jesus' political affiliations = OK

Evangelical Protestant says "politics" = Vast Righy-wing conspiracy.

lookout - my own words, for clarity's sake. You have 2 questions left :-)

"Federally, Jesus would be a member of the Christian Heritage Party. If you are any kind of conservative - even a non-Christian conservative - you should consider voting CHP. Reason: even if teh religion grosses you out, does it gross you out more than the crime and "punishment" stories we read every day in the news, such as killers, pedophiles, and thieves who receive little or no punishment for their crimes? How is this grosser than God, who is already enshrined in our constitution and anthem? It is critical that we respect and value our Christian heritage, whether one is Christian or not, because secularism has proven to be a highway to hell, sans Angus Young as wingman."

"I must be getting old because a) I think America needs a good Mormon President like Mitt Romney (seriously); and b) the fact that ex-Alliance MP/hardline heterosexualist Larry Spencer is the CHP's party president is actually a big plus:"

I doubt it.
Jesus was into fishing, as opposed to dippers who are into phishing.
They didn’t have fishers in those days.
They had Fishermen.

1) "Jesus would probably say that government wouldn't even be necessary if people weren't so evil.
Posted by: The ArchAngel at August 17, 2006 09:18 PM"

Nope.

Jesus recognized the legitimate authority of temporal powers--remember, He wasn't familiar with the Librano$! He said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

And He wouldn't be a member--at least not in 2006--of the UC!

2) Good night, Bob.

The reverend better watch out. Its been my experience that lefties are mostly non religeous and non church goers.

She might just be out of a job.

Horny Toad

Christian philosophy follows socialist philosophy. Helping each other. Not just one passage that Western Christian College follows. Really helping the less fortunate. What do you blogging Tories pray for? More money??? To win the lottery?? I don't think you pray for peace and prosperity for everyone. I like socialism because it helps everyone and the NDP do not try and pitch the farmers against urban voters not like the Religious kooks in the Sask Party. Pillars of christianity. Jesus was a socialist. Everything he did was very social democratic.

Oh, loosen up, looky baby, you're too tight. Jesus would vote CHP. Secularism is bad. Libertarians are goofy and I want a peanut.

Some commie: "I like socialism because it helps everyone..."

My sternum. Canadian socialism is 80% of society ganging up on the other 20% of society who produce 95% of the wealth. Yeah, that's sustainable and just.

ok4ua, the NDP does one better than your trumped up fiction that religious kooks "try and pitch the farmers against urban voters": It pitches moms against their own children.

Now that's a pretty fundamental(ist) agenda and a sin against hospitality at its most basic.

"The Lord helps those who help themselves"

That's rather anathema to the NDP philosophy.

Apples and oranges, ok4ua. And really sad for the state of the nation. (Considering your very tenuous hold on reality, perhaps you'd consider not voting next election.)

Re Jesus: He's above politics--He was "in, but not of the world"--but still loves all of us who aren't.

So, He's DEFINITELY not NDP--or UC, which is a political entity, if ever there was one.

Sorry to pull a maz2 here, but this is too good to resist: from the liberal.ca website

Liberal Members of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-de-Grâce -- Lachine, Marlene Jennings, and the Liberal Critic for Indian Affairs, Anita Neville, MP for Winnipeg South Centre, were very surprised to learn this morning that the Conservatives had reportedly tried to recruit psychiatrist Pierre Mailloux to run as a candidate in the next federal election.

“I was shocked to learn that the Conservatives had tried to recruit “Doc” Mailloux two months ago. This implies the Conservatives endorse the psychiatrist’s statements that black people have a lower I.Q. than white people, that Sikhs are bozos, and more of the same,” said Ms. Jennings.

Moreover, the official Critic for Indian Affairs, Anita Neville, was also outraged by the Conservatives’ attitude towards First Nations. “After trashing the Kelowna Accord, the Conservatives have the audacity to court Dr. Mailloux who has said in the past that Aboriginal people were less intelligent than white people.”

********Both MPs believe the Conservative Party must explain itself: has it tried to recruit Dr. Mailloux, and if so, do his controversial statements reflect the Conservative vision for Canada?******

---

Oh, and what vision would that be liberals? The one in which the Conservatives establish slavery of Balck Canadians? The one where vast cottonfields stretch across western Canada?

What a bunch of race baiters. It's disgusting.

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.

Seems they forgot about that part of that booky thing, you know it's called bubble or something like that.