Evangelical left - Wikipedia

[bobby1933]

While members of the evangelical left chiefly reside in mainline denominations, they are often heavily influenced by the Anabaptist social tradition.
Evangelical left - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIncluded is a list of seventeen persons who fit the category

Comments

“If they give you ruled paper, write the other way”

[baron_waste]

You realize that not so VERY long ago your opinion would get you killed in some gruesome fashion…?  Yes, you do know, I recall you mentioning it - and you were sure that an “enemies list” today would feature you prominently as well.

To both of which I say, Good on ya, mate!

- I once had a surprisingly friendly discussion with a devout Christian over what might seem an odd question:  Was Jesus illiterate?  Sure, he read at the Temple (and proceeded to hack off the rabbis by offering, um, unsolicited commentary) but he might have already known the Book's contents, pre-programmed into him you might say, without actually knowing how to read it - for as a carpenter's son, his “earthly education” would have been hands-on apprenticeship, not penmanship.

[Not so odd as it sounds, if you recall that medieval troubadours could recite entire epic songs having heard them once.  I myself once had occasion to roll out, from memory,

The world was fair, the mountains tall,
      In Elder Days before the fall
      Of mighty kings in Nargothrond
      And Gondolin, who now beyond
      The Western Seas have passed away:
      The world was fair in Durin's day.

A king he was, on carven throne
      In many-pillared halls of stone
      With golden roof and silver floor,
      And runes of power upon the door.
      The light of sun and star and moon
      In shining lamps of crystal hewn
      Undimmed by cloud or shade of night
      There shone for ever fair and bright…

&c.  https://youtu.be/Tz9cETyteww

- tho' it had taken me more than one hearing to learn it!]

You have to admit, a “Jesus' Letter to the Romans” would have been far more useful.  As is, one of the chief advantages claimed by Islam is that the Qur'an is straight from the horse's mouth in the original language, none of this “village storyteller” stuff taken from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English.

(Yet it's still literally hearsay twice removed, for it is NOT the Word of God, it is the word of Mohamed writing what he says the angel Gabriel said was the Word.  Uh huh.  Plus, immediately upon his death others began offering their own custom-revised versions, and it was not until several decades later that an “official version” of the Qur'an was collated and agreed upon as being reasonably authentic. ذلك الكتاب لا ريب فيه هدى للمتقين (“This is a Book which contains no doubt,” Al-Baqarah 2:2) - wanna bet? )

Re: “If they give you ruled paper, write the other way”

[bobby1933]

If Jesus was literate, there is no evidence that he ever wrote anything (nor, in fact did the Buddha). His writing in the sand at the "trial" of the adulteress was apocryphal. But Galilean society was probably pretty literate as ancient peoples went.

Mohammed was, i believe, illiterate, and his revelations were memorized and later transcribed by others.

But at least the Koran was written over a 22 year period while Mohammed was still alive. The New Testament took about 100 years and was not begun until twenty years after the death of its major subject, (a man whom, incidentally, i greatly admire.)

Re: “ruled paper”

[baron_waste]

whom, incidentally, i greatly admire

Well, yah, and King Arthur is admirable also, and depending on your politics, so is Robin Hood.  But as you point out above, there's just one small problem with those larger-than-life heroes - they've improved considerably in the telling!

- While Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet, the Qur'an has Gabriel repeatedly pointing out that it's simply absurd to claim that God Almighty had a son - it's akin to saying He Himself comes down the chimney on Christmas to leave presents!  Well enough, but the point is also made throughout that God can do absolutely anything He wants.  Anything.  Plus, that He created mankind originally.  So why could He not do so again?  Logically there's no reason for Islam to deny that Jesus was the Son of God - he gave as good evidence for it as could be expected, what with miracles and such - but Mohammed was angling hard for acceptance by the neighboring Jews and played to his intended audience.  Problem was, the “stiff-necked people” weren't having any, and matters quickly went murderously sour and stayed that way.  I don't know why he made no overtures to Christian Byzantium, but it's just as well - they didn't call themselves the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” lightly, and would-be upstarts who claimed visitations by angels could expect short shrift - or a grim death.  (If I claim close friendship with or even to be the agent of a superstar celebrity who ignores me completely when he comes to town, I'm a laughingstock at best and might even face civil repercussions from my neighbors.  If the Archangel Gabriel came visiting - repeatedly! - but ignored the Emperor… yoww. )

Re: “ruled paper”

[bobby1933]

I know that i know almost nothing about Jesus. They say that his mother's name was Mary (how they know that i don't know), that he taught for about eight months (or maybe 2.5 years), and he was executed by the Romans.

But i have a pretty good idea of what his teachings were (see my reply to blue eye), and so far as i am concerned his image was debased by Christians, not inflated. He did not, imppo, make any claims about himself (except that he that he thought he was wise) or say any thing that other teachers of wisdom did not say. A couple of Sufis were beheaded for proclaiming that that they were God. Their executioners did not know what they were talking about either.