Jesus said the goats would be on the left

[prodigalson2011]

When Jesus said the goats would be on the left he was talking about some time in the future. He didn’t say anything about a donkey in the future. Those on the left typically have strong atheist or relativist tendencies, and they often condemn those on the right for being religious.

It was a joke, but it was meant to suggest you shouldn’t try to draw such literal parallels from Scripture. The terms left wing and right wing weren’t even coined until the 18th century and they referred to the physical position of the opposing parties in the chamber of the French National Assembly. Besides, Jesus’ parable isn’t talking about “some” time in the future of the world, he’s talking about a very specific time beyond the world: the final judgment. His use of left/right imagery is much more likely related to the ancient tradition, present throughout Scripture itself, of the right hand side of a superior being a place of honor (He is seated at the right hand of the father.)

 

[livingwordunity]

The terms left wing and right wing weren’t even coined until the 18th century and they referred to the physical position of the opposing parties in the chamber of the French National Assembly. Besides, Jesus’ parable isn’t talking about "some"time in the future, he’s talking about a very specific one: the final judgment. His use of left/right imagery is much more likely related to the ancient tradition, potent throughout Scripture of the right hand side being a place of honor (He is seated at the right hand of the father.)

What you are suggesting is an either/or way of looking at how to interpret the text. All I’m saying is maybe both ways are possible. Maybe Jesus could have been talking about the Final Judgment and what was happening in the world politically leading up to that Judgment. Since Jesus is God he would have seen and known everything that is going on today back then. One can’t deny that the atheist movement is coming from the political left.

 

[Fragile]

I would say coincidence. The last thing Christ cared about was political parties and their ideologies. Putting too much stock in literal application of Scripture to modern events is just a little too protestant in nature. At least for my taste. It’s the same road as using a phrase from revelations and predicting the end of the world soon.

Although I would not say it’s “too Protestant”, it’s just too “religious right!”

Even John MacArthur wrote a book lamenting the over involvement of Christians in political activism.

 

[prodigalson2011]

What you are suggesting is an either/or way of looking at how to interpret the text. All I’m saying is maybe both ways are possible. Maybe Jesus could have been talking about the Final Judgment and what was happening in the world politically leading up to that Judgment. Since Jesus is God he would have seen and known everything that is going on today back then. One can’t deny that the atheist movement is coming from the political left.

It’s possible, but I would advise you to note that communism and fascism are left and right wing movements, respectively. Neither side is without its problems.

 

[livingwordunity]

It’s possible, but I would advise you to note that communism and fascism are left and right wing movements, respectively. Neither side is without its problems.

I would argue that fascism has more in common with the left since it’s about big government control over the people. The right is against big government control.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I would argue that fascism has more in common with the left since it’s about big government control over the people. The right is against big government control.

That’s a but of an oversimplification, in my opinion. The fascist regimes were conservative in many ways. For example, they did not believe in state ownership of enterprise; Mussolini spoke much of reducing the state to its essential functions. The trick in conservative politics was, as it is today, to intertwine private owned businesses and political power. Hence, lobbyists. Of course, that’s not exclusive to the Republican party. Christ, and by extension, His Church, is neither right nor left. There are elements of both that the Church embraces, but they also both hold to some morally problematic beliefs and practices. The fact that there’s a particularly strong anti religious movement within the ranks of the left is incidental. There is too much political grey area to make such sweeping generalizations.

 

[livingwordunity]

That’s a but of an oversimplification, in my opinion. The fascist regimes were conservative in many ways. For example, they did not believe in state ownership of enterprise; Mussolini spoke much of reducing the state to its essential functions. The trick in conservative politics was, as it is today, to intertwine private owned businesses and political power. Hence, lobbyists. Of course, that’s not exclusive to the Republican party. Christ, and by extension, His Church, is neither right nor left. There are elements of both that the Church embraces, but they also both hold to some morally problematic beliefs and practices. The fact that there’s a particularly strong anti religious movement within the ranks of the left is incidental. There is too much political grey area to make such sweeping generalizations.

That still doesn’t answer the question of why all the hostility to Christianity is coming from the left and why the right is always getting condemned by the left for being Christian and for being against abortion and other things that the Church says are intrinsically evil.

 

[prodigalson2011]

That still doesn’t answer the question of why all the hostility to Christianity is coming from the left and why the right is always getting condemned by the left for being Christian and for being against abortion and other things that the Church says are intrinsically evil.

Well, the answer to that question is quite simple: the left, being the “progressive” party, attracts people of dissident stripes, whereas the right, being “conservative”, attracts those who are steeped in traditional values, etc. I put those terms in quotations, because they are, like most political jargon, loaded terms and very deceptive; the obvious implication being that “conservatives” are uptight, stubborn types who cling to outmoded traditions and don’t want to change anything, ever, whereas “progressives” are the ones who are going to carry mankind triumphantly into the future.

It’s a matter of manipulation. Take Obama, with all his empty platitudes… “Yes, We Can!” “Hope and Change”. The liberal party pushes itself as a champion of hedonistic “liberty”, the conservative champions traditional values. It’s as simple as this: there will always be those who want to be allowed to live without any restrictions, save those that are convenient for them. And they will always be loud and belligerent whenever anyone begins talking about morality because it might cause them to think about what they’re doing (I’m thinking especially of abortion in this case.) “The light came into the world, but the world loved the darkness, so it hated the light.” That’s not verbatim, but it gets the gist across. But my point is, the people He’s talking about are going to gravitate towards liberalism, because liberalism shies away from moralism.

So there’s all of that. Ultimately, the explanation is a simple sociological one. But the fact that there is a lot of opposition to Christian morality from the political “left” I just don’t see having any actual bearing on this particular parable. I’m sure there will be plenty of Republican goats on that day. Jesus does not identify with political parties, and people will not be saved according to what their voter registration card read. I won’t deny that it IS an interesting idea, but it’s better viewed in retrospect as a humorous coincidence, which would make for a great bit of polemic, than as an actual prophecy. That’s stretching it a bit.

 

[Lujack]

I would argue that fascism has more in common with the left since it’s about big government control over the people. The right is against big government control.

Then why were royalists the ones sitting on the right in the original left/right arrangement?

 

[Lujack]

That still doesn’t answer the question of why all the hostility to Christianity is coming from the left and why the right is always getting condemned by the left for being Christian and for being against abortion and other things that the Church says are intrinsically evil.

Would you place an authoritarian advocate of a Sunni Muslim theocracy on the right or on the left of the political spectrum?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Then why were royalists the ones sitting on the right in the original left/right arrangement?

Exactly. Sadly, many Republican politicians are unconcerned with state control because they are already in the elite sector of society. They have all the control they need.

Of course, this is not to downplay the concerns of conservative citizens, among whom I would count myself, as hesitant as I am to use the term “conservative.” It’s definitely a lesser-of-two-evils scenario as far as politics in this country go. Every presidential candidate I’ve ever liked gets knocked out of the race pretty quickly. Lobbyists run the election; they funnel all their money into the candidates who best serve corporate interests. So the candidate who is most genuinely concerned with the welfare of his country gets little financial support. And if a candidate doesn’t have enough money, he can’t run an effective campaign and he can’t even participate in televised debates. How’s that for democracy?

I say Alan Keyes in '16. But that’ll never happen.

 

[livingwordunity]

Exactly. Sadly, many Republican politicians are unconcerned with state control because they are already in the elite sector of society. They have all the control they need.

Of course, this is not to downplay the concerns of conservative citizens, among whom I would count myself, as hesitant as I am to use the term “conservative.” It’s definitely a lesser-of-two-evils scenario as far as politics in this country go. Every presidential candidate I’ve ever liked gets knocked out of the race pretty quickly. Lobbyists run the election; they funnel all their money into the candidates who best serve corporate interests. So the candidate who is most genuinely concerned with the welfare of his country gets little financial support. And if a candidate doesn’t have enough money, he can’t run an effective campaign and he can’t even participate in televised debates. How’s that for democracy?

I say Alan Keyes in '16. But that’ll never happen.

Obama got more of the super rich vote than McCain did in addition to having all the propaganda of the mainstream media and entertainment industry on his side. And God knows how much money Obama got from foreign contributors from when he took his campaign oversees.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Obama got more of the super rich vote than McCain did in addition to having all the propaganda of the mainstream media and entertainment industry on his side. And God knows how much money Obama got from foreign contributors from when he took his campaign oversees.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. I’m not an Obama supporter (as should have been obvious from my reference to Alan Keyes, who is probably Obama’s most eloquent and vocal critic.) I was simply commenting on the fact that those candidates whose agendas don’t mesh with the interests of big investors are marginalized and weeded out. It doesn’t matter which ticket they’re running on.

 

[livingwordunity]

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. I’m not an Obama supporter (as should have been obvious from my reference to Alan Keyes, who is probably Obama’s most eloquent and vocal critic.) I was simply commenting on the fact that those candidates whose agendas don’t mesh with the interests of big investors are marginalized and weeded out. It doesn’t matter which ticket they’re running on.

In a way I agree that only those with the most money get elected. But a candidate can get elected if they can get support from the super rich. And that’s how Obama did it. A big part was Oprah’s endorsement which accounted for huge financial and propaganda support. She already has a large chunk of the population brainwashed into doing whatever she says. So all Oprah had to do was say “he’s the one”, and they obeyed.

 

[prodigalson2011]

In a way I agree that only those with the most money get elected. But a candidate can get elected if they can get support from the super rich. And that’s how Obama did it. A big part was Oprah’s endorsement which accounted for huge financial and propaganda support. She already has a large chunk of the population brainwashed into doing whatever she says. So all Oprah had to do was say “he’s the one”, and they obeyed.

Right. I wasn’t denying that at all.