The"True" Believer

       Last night I had a relatively brief exchange of posts on FB with a person I've never met, responding to an earlier post in which the poster opined that she was worried about "what God will have to say about (insert latest violence in current news here)". It was posted as a reply on a mutual friend's  page. My response was an attempt to point out that,  historically, a great deal of the violence man does to his fellow man has been done in the name of that selfsame God. I went on to offer the opinion (expressed as just opinion) that as long as people, any people,  think that they are ordered , mandated, inspired, whatever, to commit acts of violence against others by some supernatural spirit, the violence is likely to remain unresolved.  At this point, a third party, apparently offended by my tone, jumped in, triggering this exchange:

Here is my initial post:

        XXXXXX,  more of this (violence) has been accomplished in God's name than any other single cause. I believe that we are responsible to ourselves and others for what we do in the here and now. That's why hate mongers like Westboro Baptist, Pat Robertson and the rest are so evil. When they sanction actions like this (they haven't yet) and the Pulse shootings (they did the next day) They are one step away from Jihadists (who also do what they do in God's name). I get that your "version" of God isn't like that; but Moses' certainly was, ordering the death of 3,000 over the Golden Calf incident. We hear this same sad disclaimer every time some vile act like this happens. Without religion to stoke these fires, we'd have a better chance of dealing with each other face to face without being told who and what to hate, shun. or discriminate against.  Examples range from the Hundred Years (actually 116 yrs) War, The Inquisition, The virtual Spanish genocide of Caribbean Indians,  the KKK, Northern Ireland,  to Islamist Terrorism. The one common factor? They all believe(d) that their God told them what was the proper path for mankind and that those who differ were or are enemies, not only of the humans involved but of their version of God.

        The reply?(from the above mentioned third party):

 "It is more appropriate to blame those groups who FALSELY (sic) perform misdeeds in God's name than to blame the word of God itself. Westboro, Pat Robertson, and the like do not preach God's word, they twist and molest it to grandstand their agenda. The bleeding heart liberal population bashes those who paint every Muslim with the same brush, yet Christians are stereotyped and group classified daily without reprisal. It's absurdity at Its finest. I stand behind you XXXX   XXXX, and support your opinion."

Commentary:  In addition to the arbitrary decision that some of those "Christians were Bad Christians and false prophets while He and his friends were, apparently,  Good Christians,  the respondent's use of  the phrase "bleeding heart liberals" in placing some of the blame for current animosity between various groups here in America piqued my interest. It was at this point that I replied to him with a paragraph or two which seemed to upset him.

I responded, in part, as follows:

 "XXXX , you make my argument!  In your opinion, and in mine,  what you say about Westboro is true, however they don't believe that. By definition, If you both believe Yeshua bar Josef (later renamed Jesus by Romans) was the son of God you are both Christians. You think you're right, they think they're right.  Writing "falsely" (or for that matter, any other word in a FB post) in all caps doesn't make it any more  or less valid or persuasive.  And,  just for the record where on the political spectrum of today do you think Jesus, as you seem to understand him, would be? Would he be standing watching a lynching? Would he walk past the homeless?  Would he believe one portion of society deserves health care, but the poor should just "die quietly?" Would the man whose constant companions were men, one of whom he "kissed on the mouth" shun persons of the LGBT community? Would  not  the man who,  according to those scriptures you regard  as "The Word of God," shattered every social convention of his time, and spoke truth to power do the same today?  According to those same scriptures, there were only two rules: "love God; love your neighbor as yourself." 

This apparently oiffended the respondent and we stopped. However, in summary on the subject:  

        Some supremely self absorbed and self righteous persons, like the Kim Davises,  Mike Huackabees and Rick Santorums ,  see themselves as superior Christians who have the real inside scoop on what it's all about. They scorn others' scriptural interpretations, having a somewhat different set of "moral" principles based, not on scripture, but what is, or ought to be,  outside their   comfort zone as dictated  by the shamans who are happy  to tell them  what is evident to anyone who reads on a third grade level.         

        If you consider yourself a Christian, but think the Jesus as described in the Bible would, or could, be  anything  other than "bleeding heart liberal", you're blind, deaf, and ignorant. We've both read the book (at least I have) and Jesus' words and actions make it clear that he was the champion of social outcasts and the downtrodden. I do have an advantage in this discussion, because as a non believer I have the advantage of some degree of objectivity. true believers  having been pre-programmed in one direction.

       It strains my ability to comprehend that any true Christian believer could be anything other than what we today call a " Social Liberal." There is simply no way to read your own technical manual (the New Testament) and arrive at any other conclusion. And if you question the validity of this hypothesis, find an arch conservative "Christian" and post this issue, but stand back first. When they begin railing about OT proscriptions, remind them that their "Savior" only gave them two rules, as mentioned above.