September 1, 2010

Glenn Beck: New Testament better without Jesus

Item: Obama wrong kind of Christian, says Fox News teevee host
It is hardly surprising that neither [W. Cleon] Skousen nor Beck would be a fan of liberation theology, since the latter is based on the teaching of Jesus as recorded in the synoptic gospels. Such teachings are no where mentioned in the work of Skousen and his disciples.
Those — Mark, Matthew, and Luke — comprise the entire Jesus narrative. How could anyone be any kind of a Christian without them?

Maybe Obama just isn't the right kind of Paulian. Or Mormon. And Tiger Woods's Buddhism will not provide him the correctly calibrated measure of "redemption." (That last from a Fox News anchor.)

As if humanity doesn't face enough common adversity without adding all of this pointless sectarianism to the mix. 'No religious tests' is for my money the wisest American constitutional provision of them all.


Heraldblog said...

Jesus was a hippie.

Free Lunch said...

The right hates what Jesus taught. They invented their own form of Christianity (or Mormonism) to deal with that defect.

Clutch said...

That's why Christianity required both the Pauline books and the OT in order to really take off. Taken together, they provide principles and exemplars for every kind and degree of pacifism, warmongery, charity, greed, sympathy, disdain, openness, xenophobia, equity, misogyny, fairness, partiality, egalitarianism, oligarchism, radical tolerance and brutally violent bigotry.

No matter how noble or degenerate one's antecedent moral dispositions, in short, there's something in the texts that will enable one to see those dispositions as enfranchised by divine approval.

And dismissing the passages that disagree -- including, obviously, red-letter scripture -- is not just endemic to any interpretation anyhow, but is apparently cognitively effortless.