Today I called a colleague for advice regarding how to put together a TPS report, or something equally as droll. It ended up a conversation about the syrian refugees and how, according to him, they're not to be trusted because they're not christians. WWJTA -Who would Jesus turn away? -my reply.
Serious question - what happens next? Because you seem to be confronting a lot of poorly-educated, scared conservatives lately and thrusting Jesus at them and as a sales guy, I'm honestly curious as to how you keep that relationship happy and healthy. Had an interesting discussion once with a friend about gang violence, Mexican narco gangs and capital punishment. Her stakes were a little higher than mine as she's a native of Guadalajara whose ex-husband was legit kidnapped by cartels twice while they were married. She also was ENG coverage for Vincente Fox's election, so she'd heard all the bullshit. One thing I never did was throw her principles in her face (of which I'm glad, because the kidnapping/Vincente Fox stuff came out during that discussion, and surprised everyone in the room). I'm not trying to criticize you there - I'm just saying that if I want to keep someone on my side, I gotta pussyfoot like a mutherfucker to keep things civil, and usually I can steer things back to leaving them with a thoughtful "hmm... I hadn't thought about that before" - gazes at the horizon, goes quiet for a while, cogitates at the subject at home, probably tacked a few degrees closer to me without thinking I did it. Straight up bitch-slapping them with their prophet is a rhetorical move I'm not sure I could pull any persuasion out of.
These were two very different situations. First situation: With my in-laws at dinner. They KNOW me by now and expect me to challenge them. They said, half in jest, that maybe we should just nuke Syria. I replied, "WWJN" -they looked puzzled and then I said, "who would Jesus nuke?" -They half giggled and then realized it wasn't meant to be funny. Then they all nodded and agreed. I made the point. They accepted it and we changed topics. Second situation: Guy I barely know at a new company I work with suggests that the syrian refugees are not to be trusted because they're not christian. I took issue with this and wasn't going to let it slide. I said, "WWJTA" or "Who would Jesus turn away?" (you see a theme to how I challenge them) and he replied by asking me if I was a believer. I told him that I'm more of a red-letter Christian and asked if he was familiar with the Jeffersonian bible? He said yes he was and then told me that I couldn't "have it both ways." I said, "I can have it any way I want. For me, if people actually lived in accordance to the teachings of Christ, it would be a good thing." He said, "but Christ claimed to be the son of God." I replied "how convenient for those trying to build a church in his name." The conversation went nowhere. I ended it by saying "there but for the grace of god go i." He sent me an email later saying he hoped he didn't offend me. He didn't. It's all good.
thenewgreen, let me tell you. If someone were to ask me to make a list of people on Hubski I'd want to have an animated yet cordial argument with, you'd be at the top. I don't know why, but every now and again you strike me as someone who would be fun to argue with.
My wife would disagree. In every personality test I take I end up being the equivalent of "the debater." -For some reason I take joy in challenging people. It's great for my profession but not so great for my marriage. Thanks for the compliment.
Actually, Jesus didn't turn away anyone himself. People turned away from him, sure. My point was, Christ, in the bible, was inclusive of everyone. He was a pretty big proponent of disliking the sin and not the sinner. He didn't discriminate agains the romans. How was he militant?
We are speaking about two different Jesuses. I'm a fan of both; they seem cool. Biblical Jesus tends to have a poetic turn of phrase. (Historical Jesus probably did not speak or read any of the languages in which the bible is written, if he was literate at all. But he was presumably a damn good orator if anyone felt like following him.) The historical Jesus likely would not have been big on Rome, given that it "systematically oppressed" its far-flung Jewish population for a hundred years, culminating in the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the mass suicide at Masada a few years later.
The reason that we remember Christ at all as a character is because he wasn't historical Jesus. Meaning, his actions and philosophy ran counter to what conventional wisdom would have you think. This is why people like Martin Luther King will be remembered. The man had every reason to grab a baseball bat and want to beat the shit out of the white man, but he didn't. So, contextual historical clues don't mean much when you are considering someone if their ilk. Imagine if we didn't have the documentation we have of Martin Luther King Junior? Two centuries from now would people be debating the validity of his message? After his people were enslaved and tortured would people buy that he really was so peaceful and loving? "No way." Is what most would postulate.
This is really fascinating. I wonder. "No way" indeed seems like the initial horse to back. And yet the distance of time's passing often lends a certain romanticism -- look at how we remember the Trojan War, or the founding of Rome. We, the hypothetical people of 200 years hence, would probably rather remember Martin Luther King Jr as a brave man of peace, the embodiment of the pen being mightier than the sword, etc. All the things he in fact was. (It's likely, in fact, that we are already doing this to a small extent -- no one is perfect, something we've possibly learned with MLK.) Turn the other cheek, take the moral high ground; these are fundamental positive traits of western society. In short, this is one of the reasons the narrative of the Bible has been so appealing to so many. It speaks to our basic humanity. So -- maybe. Maybe "no way." But there's something deeply awe-inspiring about what MLK was, and that's something people will believe in no matter what.
Regarding MLK, forget about 200 years, try two millennia. Try two millennia without documentation and largely via word of mouth. People would, via context, determine that there was no way he was that tolerant and inclusive. There would be the "historical MLK."And yet the distance of time's passing often lends a certain romanticism -- look at how we remember the Trojan War, or the founding of Rome.
there's a big difference between movements, events and individuals. People tend to romanticize movements and realize individuals.