What Do You Do for Jesus?

Mr. Mark:

What did Jesus and his disciples do to put food on the table?

Jesus was a carpenter (Mark 6:3).
Some of his disciples were fishermen (Luke 5:1-10).
Some were tentmakers (Acts 17:33-18:1-4).
Jesus’ disciples shared what they had so that no one was in need (Acts 4:32-37).
Jesus and his disciple paid their taxes (Mark 12:17)
and supported their families ( 1 Timothy 5:8).
Jesus was not a “moocher”. In fact, he is the greatest provider who ever walked the earth.
While on earth he feed the hungry (Matthew 14:15-21) and cured the sick (Matthew 14:14) The greatest gift he gave mankind was his life. He gave his life as a ransom to buy back what was lost to all mankind: everlasting life.
And the Christ keeps on giving and will continue to give- just like his father Jehovah.

Where does it say anything anywhere about Jesus wearing a hair net or selling Klondike bars? Jesus don't need no stinkin hair net to sell anything.

Would you accept a Klondike bar from a guy (Jesus) who didn't wear a hair net? ;)

Well, as long as it was in a ponytail. :D

JJ, i no longer want or desire to read your post, there is emptitness and revenge inserted in them

you are losing your touch~

"What would you do for Jesus?"

I wouldn't do squat for Jesus!

A much better question would be, "What would you do to preserve the Constitutional separation of religion and government"?

But if we must go down this road, I'd ask them to explain how they will use their religious faith to govern without also forcing their religious opinions on those who don't share their beliefs?

Athena writes:

"I don't know what I'd do for Jesus, but I know what I'd do for a Klondike Bar... ;)"

Would you accept a Klondike bar from a guy (Jesus) who didn't wear a hair net? ;)

"What do you do for Jesus?" the good Rev would ask the candidates, thereby disenfranchising all non-Xians in the process.

Posted on August 14, 2008 14:41

ama:
Of course someone who relies upon "faith" would also embrace other positive-sounding abstractions such as "courage" or "bravery." (It's been happening for centuries.) It's what one points to when there's insufficient evidence to support one's belief. It would take "courage" to acknowledge and accept our inability to answer our most important questions. For those who lack such courage, you have a number of unsupportable beliefs to choose from. Go ahead, take the easy way.

I agree. Like Obama's change mantra, the future mantra. I'm an Obama supporter, but I have to say that political discourse has become invisible.

What we have is inspiration, voice-overs, and, as you say, "abstractions." Soon we won't need words altogether. POsters, and tv visuals will do, these and Faith and Values outreach initiatives such as those Berlingblau wrote about a couple of weeks ago.

Where are we headed?

I don't know what I'd do for Jesus, but I know what I'd do for a Klondike Bar... ;)

If candidates thought the electorate liked kiddie porn they would claim to own a production company.

They don't care what it is that gets them elected, if it's lying to the stupid that works, then lying to the stupid they'll do.

if it's showing the same kind of hypocrisy about religion as the electorate, then hypocrisy is the order of the day for them.

Hey, I'm a great guy, and I believe this crap just like you do, and we all know you believe it because you're great people.

Both sides get massaged, see?

Wait... I thought Jesus was omnipotent. What can anyone possibly do for an omnipotent being?

Silly, silly stuff. And really, it's the basic problem with religion. Any deity that needs the service and protection of its worshipers isn't worth bothering with in the first place.

The "no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that:

“ ...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Thanks for playing.

Peter writes:

"There is nothing "christian" about most Christians these days; it is enough to say "Jesus is my personal savior," and then live selfishly. And that passes for spirituality."

I often wonder what Jesus and his disciples did to make ends meet and to put food on the table. After all, none of them had day jobs, did they? Didn't they all leave their jobs and families to "follow me?"

It's most likely that all of Jesus' disciples had families, families that they just up and left to follow Jesus. I wonder how many of those families starved to death.

Then, there's Jesus the Moocher. Who paid for that Last Supper? In fact, who paid for all of those breakfasts, lunches and dinners for 13 guys (plus, female entourage!) who worked up quite the appetite roaming the country for a year (according to Mark) or three years (according to Matthew)?

Sounds a bit selfish to me. Mooching off a bunch of poor people who had the character to NOT run out on their families.

But then, Jesus' whole ministry was about HIM, wasn't it?

I won't count how many angels dance on the head of a pin, but I will skewer all your imagined angels all together with a single pinprick.

Ya Ya , Y O Y O. "WE (the People) need Less Pre-Apocalyptarian Nationals, never ever more!"

Att: Yo Yo. Ya Ya!

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

HALALUYA!

Praise the Hol{i}-NO-Men, by 1,000 Names, and no-more 999. (not inverse 666 thinking Pleaaaaza).

VOTE: APOCALYPTARiAN-NATiONAL(s), U.S.A 2013+

Of course someone who relies upon "faith" would also embrace other positive-sounding abstractions such as "courage" or "bravery." (It's been happening for centuries.) It's what one points to when there's insufficient evidence to support one's belief. It would take "courage" to acknowledge and accept our inability to answer our most important questions. For those who lack such courage, you have a number of unsupportable beliefs to choose from. Go ahead, take the easy way.

I think it's sad that we can't just ask, "what would an intelligent, rational person do?".

Yours in Santa,

billm

Doubt in the existence of the old white bearded sky god is the only sensible position to take,outside of actually rejecting the whole religious thing as completely ridiculous. In fact one would have to be intellectually remiss NOT to doubt such an unlikely hypothesis.

Religious belief presents more difficulties than it solves.(Like did God have a mom and dad?)
To imagine is to be human.And out of fear we imagined up a God to give us comfort, and an after life to take away the fear of death.

So why on earth do we want our politicians to be even more religious than they already are? It's like wanting them to believe in astrology, or alchemy.
I would prefer them to be intelligent, rational, and without belief in ancient myths.

We don't need more religion in politics. We need less. Religion is archaic nonsense that continues to make the world irrational and dangerous.

I have faith that people of the future will look back in amazement at what fools we were to believe in the religious claptrap force-fed into our heads when we were children; mainly for the benefit of the clergy.

Jesus? A philosopher? We have seen the Christians in the Whitehouse. Sorry, Reverend Professor at Columbia and Yale or whatever, you have to own the Bushes along with the rest of the crazies. You're all brothers in Jesus, no? I and most Americans could care less about a politician's "faith." I am entirely sick of hearing people like you whine about it. Religionists only will take us back into a new dark age. How do you think Bush would answer your simple-minded question? He would say all the right things and the dummies of the Jesus wold vote again for him. And then he would commit further war crimes and break another several dozen laws in office. Give me an atheist with a brain and a true concern for humanity and the planet we live on any day.

Religion is just a matter of convenience for anyone seeking elective office. Since when have the beatitudes or ten commandments ever truly guided the actions of politicians once they are elected. Don't look to them for salvation.

"ama:
I would ask this question: What burden of proof would you apply to a claim that a particular individual was the child of god? For example, would you be looking for (1) evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) clear and convincing evidence, or (3) a preponderance of the evidence."

That's a tired old repost to religious belief. You can't possibly imagine these questions haven't been asked endlessly for, by now, hundreds of years (in the West, at least), or that they actually give pause to anyone serious about their faith.

That's the key word, "faith." Faith takes infinitely more courage than accepting a set of facts under a system of so-called "proof." Systems and definitions of proof are in the eye of the given culture and time period. The last couple of hundred years we've been in love with science and logic. They seem like "the truth" to us.

It's easy when you "know." It's a much braver and richer journey to "believe."

Reporters, interviewers and their superiors know what sells. They know what the lowest common denominator of the electorate is interested in, to the extent they have anything you could define as an interest in a subject (any subject). You'll never hear these kinds of questions.

That's nuts. Making candidates say anything about religion and faith makes them liers or fools.

Tj

I am increasingly uncomfortable with the easy way in which American hypocrites proclaim faith, particularly evangelical "Christians," but then act with impunity to further their own interests. What kind of christian is George W. Bush? He invented reasons to start a war and reigned chaos and death on hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq, while he and his cronies busily transfer the remaining wealth of this country to the richest.

There is nothing "christian" about most Christians these days; it is enough to say "Jesus is my personal savior," and then live selfishly. And that passes for spirituality. The best people I know are secular humanists, who truly do care about teh poor and vulnerable - much the way Christ did.

What are the flaws and errors in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism???

I would ask this question: What burden of proof would you apply to a claim that a particular individual was the child of god? For example, would you be looking for (1) evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) clear and convincing evidence, or (3) a preponderance of the evidence.

I assume you mean proclamations, not protestations?

The question for Senator Obama is affirming and expansive, i.e., say more about how your faith informs you compassion for the poor and those afflicted with AIDS. The question for Senator McCain is combative and confrontive, i.e., what's your alibi for embracing torture? When a person of Dr. Balmer's caliber and integrity frames questions in this way, is there surprise that civil and informed discourse are so elusive in our culture?

"Do 'YE' (you & world) believe-in preserving "PLURALiTY" of All [man-made] religios competing for a name for 'Thier' god as ReLiGiON(s) instead of O.U.R. genuine inate G-D system???

---
From: iNHERiTOR(s), LOVER(s) & DEFENDER(s) of Holy Cosmic Nebula-Built Space-Ship EARTH(s), not Bible(s), Not GiTA(s), Not QURAN(s), Not TENACH(s), not KANGYUR(s) etc..!!!
---

---
From: iNHERiTOR(s), LOVER(s) & DEFENDER(s) of Holy Cosmic Nebula-Built Space-Ship EARTH(s), not Bible(s), Not GiTA(s), Not QURAN(s), Not TENACH(s), not KANGYUR(s) etc..!!!
---

Please ask each candidate This:

"DO YE (Obama & McCain respectfully) believe in a SiNGULARiTY or the UniTing [opposite of Division] all [man-made] Planet-Earth's Religion SYSTEMs into a O.ne U.niversal R.eligion Book[O.U.R.]???

OR,

"Do 'YE' (you & world) believe-in preserving "PLURALiTY" of All [man-made] religios competing for a name for 'Thier' G-d as ReLiGiON(s) instead of O.U.R.???

This way: We [APOCALYPTARiAN JOKTAn Nationals of U.S. of A.,) will knowth "WHAT TO DO NEXT!"

WHEREFORE: Hark MON(s)!

Let the Battle Begin:

GOG(s), aka REALiSTS [True-Mono ONE-"G-D" System, 1-Earth??]

.Vs

MAGOG(s), aka iLLISiONALs,DEllussionals [Phony Poly >1 "god" Deity's System competing for a name foer ELAT+"i"=LiFE/Photons awareness??]

iMPORTANT: We cannot, have a Double-Edged Answer!

MUST, MUST, MUST be either a

"YEA!"

OR, a

"NAY!"

---

We ECLAT{i}ON's Nationals are Waiting for a YES or a NO to the above Question or SiMiLAR asked!

THANK YOU ALL!

It's hardly surprising that, as you say, "Americans have allowed our politicians to get away with blithe platitudes about faith.", since even the vast majority of supposedly religious Americans have similar approaches to faith.

Only a tiny minority of Americans actually allow religion to influence their lives in significant ways. The rest of us - Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and so forth - pretty much live our lives the same way. Religion has very little impact on our day-to-day choices.

This is a good thing. Countries in which religion does have a large impact on people's daily lives are universally repressive, impoverished, and dysfunctional. Now we have to learn to extend the lessons of the enlightment which allowed us to escape our medieval religious shackles to help us to understand our dangerous collective impact on our world.

The barely glowing embers offered by religion can't help with this. It is light that drives away the dark.