I think it might be hard, or undesirable to some people to abide by any orders.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 22, 2009 7:17 AM You guys, as westerners, in the year 2009, are free to interpret Jesus's statements, relativizing them.

In fact, I tried to express serious doubts about the effectiveness of the Leader-disciples model... It doesn't work in the long run even if today's preachers or commentators make an effort to revitalize old parables the way it was done in what looked like an online sermon from which I drew my exegesis of John's chapter 15. In the beginning was the Word, sure, but that Word has been long dead and disconnected from people's lives. There are many, many exceptions but they seem to confirm the rule.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 21, 2009 6:08 PM "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." {John 15:4-5 RSV}

Something to think about...

Europe," [Karen Armstrong] says, "is about the only place where religion does not matter much. People in Europe might need to rinse their minds of all their bad and lazy theology. People in Europe have not yet asked the big questions about religion; they have tried get rid of primitive forms of religion, but very often what we see in the churches today is exactly the kind of religion that these people are trying to get rid of... Jesus would be horrified by the practices of the church today. I would love to show him around the Vatican, when Christians cannot even share a church together. He would be appalled, much as Mohamed would be appalled if he knew that September 11th was done in the name of Islam." 

AND below - From another interview with Karen Armstrong 

[snip]The traditions all insist that it is not enough simply to show compassion to your own group. You must have what the Chinese call jian ai, concern for everybody. Or as Jewish law puts it: “Honour the stranger.” “Love your enemies,” said Jesus: if you simply love your own kind, this is purely self-interest and a form of group egotism. The traditions also insist that it is the daily, hourly practice of compassion -not the adoption of the correct “beliefs” or the correct sexuality- that will bring us into the presence of what is called God, Nirvana, Brahman or the Dao. Religion is thus inseparable from altruism.

So why aren’t religious people compassionate? What does that say about them? Compassion is not a popular virtue. Many religious people prefer to be right rather than compassionate. They don’t want to give up their egos. They want religion to give them a little mild uplift once a week so that they can return to their ordinary selfish lives, unscathed by the demands of their tradition. Religion is hard work; not many people do it well. But are secularists any better? Many secularists would subscribe to the compassionate ideal but are just as selfish as religious people. The failure of religious people to be compassionate doesn’t tell us something about religion, but about human nature. Religion is a method: you have to put it into practice to discover its truth. But, unfortunately, not many people do. …

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/mediaculture/287/interview_with_karen_armstrong?page=3

This is absolutely true, Nanna, most of the above. Sometimes the more devoted people to their church are the less compassionate. This is some kind of a paradox, but I think it is true in many cases.

To better illustrate my point, one devoted woman in the Unites States, a school bus driver left a handicapped child in the bus for the night in freezing temperatures, because she was in a hurry to her church meeting and could not deal with the problem of getting him out of the bus and taking him home.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 22, 2009 12:23 PM  one devoted woman in the Unites States, a school bus driver left a handicapped child in the bus for the night in freezing temperatures, because she was in a hurry to her church meeting and could not deal with the problem of getting him out of the bus and taking him home.

I find it interesting how, once we engage in any practice that is likely to help us grow and become more aware, we often end up being very aware not only of the beams but also the motes ... Most of us would not leave a child in a bus overnight (where was his parents, I wonder?), but a host of lesser crimes does not necessarily make for a more compassionate state of being.

Nanna

Originally written by John Bunch You guys, as westerners, in the year 2009, are free to interpret Jesus's statements, relativizing them. But I think that in the time and place that he spoke them, people did not take a "metaphorical" view of that. When he said that those not abiding in him would be "cast into the fire", people believed that not metaphorically, but literally, for about 1500 years. Read the history of the Catholic Church. They burned "witches" in America in 1650, based on such quotes. The Catholic Church burned people at the stake - literally "casting them into the fire", until about 1650. The Church, from 400 AD to about 1650 AD, took a very, very literal view of that.

There have always been people who have understood Christ's teachings metaphorically.  His teachings are essentially one parable after another, and he is constantly making explicit use of metaphors.  It is true that soem have taken him "literally" (or that is, they have taken a translation "literally," for few fundamentalistis who claim to put so much stock in the words of Christ bother to worry about the difficulties of how modern or King James English might reflect a 2,000 year old Greek text that purports to record words which were likely uttered in Aramaic), but there has always been a divergence of views as to how to interpret him, be it the year 2009 or the "Year One."  The unfortunate deeds of mainstream Catholic and protestant churches over the past two millenia are rather beside the point.

All language is relativistic, John.  It is relative to a speaker, audience, and point in time.

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 10, 2009 11:14 AM Originally written by Jacek K. on June 10, 2009 10:15 AM I don't think fascism is what we should worry about now, but euroscepticism: Watching the eurosceptics (available in 10 languages)  Maybe so, but the eurosceptics with their 'close up the borders, forget about the EURO, we must keep our opt-outs', coupled with their far right fascist rhetoric could just as easily stay home and do their own thing. I think they are dangerous. Do I want a little fat, bleached troll to represent me in the EU? No I don't! Neither do I want a doe-eyed heiler to speak for me.

Back to the future

Apparently, there are limits to the folly, even for MEPs...

According to this: http://politiken.dk/politik/article737561.ece (Danish)

DF er ikke 'mainstream' »Vi har aldrig haft formelle forhandlinger med Dansk Folkeparti, og vi har ingen intentioner om at begynde dem«, siger James Holtum,.

(DF) The Danish Peoples' Party is not mainstream. We have never initiated formal discussions with the Danish People's Party and we have no intentions of starting any … "says James Holtum,

Morten Messerschmidt has not been invited to this group: The European Conservatives and Reformists Group includes 55 MEPs from across eight member states. … 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4665818.stm

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 10, 2009 10:15 AM   I don't think fascism is what we should worry about now, but euroscepticism: Watching the eurosceptics (available in 10 languages)

Conservatives unveil anti-federalist European alliance

By Jean Eaglesham in London and Joshua Chaffin in,Brussels

Published: June 23 2009 03:00 | Last updated: June 23 2009 03:00

David Cameron yesterday unveiled the Tories' anti-federalist European parliament alliance, prompting rivals' accusations he was trading influence for ideological isolation.

The European Conservatives and Reformists Group has been formed as a result of Mr Cameron's promise when he stood for the Conservative leadership to pull his party out of the mainstream centre-right European People's party.

The new alliance is set to be the fourth largest grouping when the parliament convenes next month. It will have 55 MEPs from eight countries.

The membership is heavily skewed towards three parties - the Conservatives, the Polish Law & Justice party (PiS) and the Czech Republic's Civic Democratic party (ODS) - with the other five countries having only one MEP each.

The Tories expressed optimism yesterday that more MEPs would join the grouping before the parliament, elected earlier this month, meets for the first time on July 14. Mr Cameron's nervousness about the move was reflected by the decision to launch the alliance without a press conference on a day when the British political agenda was dominated by the election of a new Commons speaker.

But the Tories said they were confident the alliance could withstand scrutiny. Despite Labour accusations they were throwing in their lot with "racists, fascists and climate change deniers", the Tories insisted members had been vetted. The Italian Liga Nord and the Danish People's party are both understood to have been rejected because their far-right views would cause political embarrassment for Mr Cameron.

In Brussels, the alliance's debut drew mixed reviews. Rival political groups sought to highlight its members' allegedly extreme views - from the Poles' hostility to homosexuals to the Czechs' disregard for global warming. …

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b294fa82-5f8d-11de-93d1-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Originally written by David Kallans on June 11, 2009 2:28 PM The vast majority of Denmark's territory is also not in Europe, but rather in North America (i.e. Greenland, which has a unique constitutional status within Denmark and has been explcitly placed outside the EU).

Greenland, ruled by Denmark since 1721, replaced the national language, Danish, with the Inuit dialect of Kalaallisut and began to use the island's Inuit name, Naalakkersuisut, in government documents. “It's a new relationship based on equality,” said prime minister Kuupik Kleist, who compared Greenland and Denmark to partners in a marriage. “From today, the man in the house has as much say as the wife.” (Harper's Weekly Review) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/world/europe/22greenland.html?_r=1&ref=global-home