may reply, but not vote (please).

Okay, the Jesus you know, were he to return to earth today, politically-speaking, how would others identify him?

Really, no one wants to discuss this?

Political parties are man-made and God/Christ exist outside of them. My answer the above poll would have been "none of the above"
Christ's next return will be in the clouds and he will be gathering his elect from the earth.
If we're being hypothetical and Christ were to return, I believe all of his followers (Christians) would recognize him as who He is, the Son of God (no political party or label needed).

Political parties are man-made and God/Christ exist outside of them. My answer the above poll would have been "none of the above"
Christ's next return will be in the clouds and he will be gathering his elect from the earth.
If we're being hypothetical and Christ were to return, I believe all of his followers (Christians) would recognize him as who He is, the Son of God (no political party or label needed).

I said "others" not his followers. Sure, people would categorize and label him. They do now. Besides, it is just a hypothetical discussion.

hmmm. . . interesting that there have only been two votes.

I said "others" not his followers. Sure, people would categorize and label him. They do now. Besides, it is just a hypothetical discussion.

hmmm. . . interesting that there have only been two votes.

My mistake, I thought you were asking for Christians' views. I misread your post.

All Christ ever did was preach the kingdom of God, a kingdom that has no political parties.
I guess, I can't see how anyone could put him into a political party. It's not like he was ever taking a stand for what he hoped would be law in the world. Political parties are distinct by laws and control they think the government should have in the human world, and Christ never tried to make human laws. If I were to picture him doing what he did when he was on earth (preaching the gospel), I just don't think he could be categorized into any particular political party at all.

Are these not "human" laws?
Love God.
Love one another as I have loved you.

My mistake, I thought you were asking for Christians' views. I misread your post.

All Christ ever did was preach the kingdom of God, a kingdom that has no political parties.
I guess, I can't see how anyone could put him into a political party. It's not like he was ever taking a stand for what he hoped would be law in the world. Political parties are distinct by laws and control they think the government should have in the human world, and Christ never tried to make human laws. If I were to picture him doing what he did when he was on earth (preaching the gospel), I just don't think he could be categorized into any particular political party at all.

jmo but Jesus was VERY politically involved - it is what lead to his crucifiction.

jmo but Jesus was VERY politically involved - it is what lead to his crucifiction.

Could you explain that more? I think I'm just not understanding your viewpoint.

Are these not "human" laws?
Love God.
Love one another as I have loved you.

I consider those God's laws.
And he wasn't out campaigning that those commandments become law (by law I mean written on paper as a decree and physically enforced by men that live on the earth).
Jesus was sharing God's commands and God's laws. Not enforcing them, but sharing them for those who chose to follow them. He was letting free will reign by sharing information and letting those whose hearts were convicted, choose to follow them or not.

Could you explain that more? I think I'm just not understanding your viewpoint.

he was challenging the status quo set forth by the Roman occupation.

Then, think about what a political statement the parable of the Good Samaritan was.

I also have to say I do not believe Jesus would be associated with any political party as he was not a politician. The concept that his crucifiction was political is not true in the sense that HE was in any way affiliated with any political stance./ The only thing political about his crucifiction was that the politicians of the day were afraid of his power - afraid that He would lead people in uprising against current government - afraid that people would seek His leadership instead of theirs. Afraid of the Truth. He in no way planned to or intended to or wanted to challenge the Roman occupation or the politics or government of the day. He simply came to fulfill the promise :)

He was not in anyway political . They tried to make Him so - but thats just not the case if you simply read the history (not biblical history, but the history of that time from a governmental perspective).

From a biblical perspective, He was sent for one purpose - to share the Truth and to die for us and our sins. To give us our Salvation. Period.

I also have to say I do not believe Jesus would be associated with any political party as he was not a politician. The concept that his crucifiction was political is not true in the sense that HE was in any way affiliated with any political stance./ The only thing political about his crucifiction was that the politicians of the day were afraid of his power - afraid that He would lead people in uprising against current government - afraid that people would seek His leadership instead of theirs. Afraid of the Truth.
But He was not in anyway political . He was sent for one purpose - to share the Truth and to die for us and our sins. To give us our Salvation.

no, no, no, I'm not saying HE would identify himself with any political party. I'm saying, based upon his actions what would other attribute his behavior as being most closely in line with which party.

And, I believe that his message - in his time - was a radically political statement, but not that he was speaking as a politician.

i edited my post a bit probably at the same time you were posting but I see your point having re-read. I don't know how others would 'label" Jesus politically...

he was challenging the status quo set forth by the Roman occupation.

Then, think about what a political statement the parable of the Good Samaritan was.

Maybe you could expound on this some more for me?

Maybe you could expound on this some more for me?

well, to start with, he hung with sinners, tax collectors, women, those of differing social classes. That was changing the status quo.

Here's a good article that better states my thoughts:

"The Politics Of Jesus

Jim Evans
04-03-06
Nearly every week I hear from readers with the complaint that I am writing politics under the guise of religious commentary. It's a fair observation though I am almost tempted to say, "Yeah, but the other guy started it!"


By the other guy I mean, of course, the current hyper-politicization of Christianity by the political and religious right.



So let me confess. I do have a political interest in religious issues, and a religious interest in political issues. What I don't have is any interest whatsoever in linking my faith to a particular political party. The good news that Jesus announced is way too important to trust in the hands of mere political parties.



That said, it is necessary to pause for a moment and remember that Jesus' message did have a political edge to it. In fact, one of the great losses to Christianity in the past few decades is an adequate understanding of Jesus' politics.



Fortunately, there is help. One of the best studies ever written about Jesus' message was penned by a Mennonite scholar by the name of John Yoder. The title of his classic work is, appropriately enough, The Politics of Jesus.



The book is not an easy read--Yoder is no Max Lucado--but the message is compelling and well documented. Yoder's basic assertion is that Jesus' politics grew out of his commitment to a social and theological agenda of non-violence.



Israel in the first century was a conquered nation. Rome ruled over all, and paid for their world conquest by means exorbitant taxes. Imagine being taxed for the privilege of being held captive.



Anger and resentment bubbled just under the surface in Israel, and occasionally boiled over into violent resistance. Jesus knew that sooner or later these uprisings would push Rome too far and when that happened, the retribution would be quick and devastating. Jesus told his followers that "not one stone would be left upon another" when that terrible day came.



So Jesus counseled a non-violent response to Roman occupation. His compelling images of "go the second mile," and "turn the other cheek," were aimed at those who suffered at the hand of Roman legions. In essence Jesus was saying, "Don't give them the pleasure of humiliating you. Keep your dignity and rob them of their advantage over you." Rather than giving in to the violence by becoming violent, find creative ways to resist the tyranny.



Jesus' commitment to non-violence had other applications as well. Reading the New Testament makes it clear that Jesus was concerned about the violence inflicted by abject poverty. He called on his followers to care for "the least of these in your midst."



Yoder points out that Jesus invoked the language of the Jubilee found in the book of Leviticus. This ancient custom involved canceling all debt and restoring land to original owners. The Jubilee was God's way of ensuring that poverty would not persist generation after generation.



Underlying all his teachings was Jesus' vision of the Kingdom of God. The expression certainly carries political overtones, especially when uttered in the hearing of Roman soldiers. But Jesus wanted his followers to have an identity based on the values of God's kingdom rather than the values of Caesar's empire. In God's kingdom there is peace and care for the poor. In Caesar's empire, then and now, this is not the case.



So, doing politics in Jesus name is not necessarily problem. Let's just be sure we do the politics he was doing.



James L. Evans is pastor of Auburn First Baptist Church in Auburn, Ala"

well, to start with, he hung with sinners, tax collectors, women, those of differing social classes. That was changing the status quo. Yah, man Jesus is so freaking cool like that. He is all about and always about loving people for who they are inside not who they are in terms of money, class, status. Ya just GOT TO LOVE the guy!
PTL!
God loves the freaks! God loves the sinners :). The song I'm singing at church sunday is "Lord I'm amazed by you... how you love me". Its so cool how you can be just in the deepest darkest crap and He still loves you. Had a plan for you before you even existed. And is there to lift you up out of the muck if you only ask.

ok - sorry. got a bit carried away there but man, Jesus just is so cool like that. I guess thats why I get so revved up. I don't know if it was political again - OTHER PEOPLE saw it as political, but He didnt

HE didn't care if it was or wasn't. He just wanted us to know He loves us - regardless of our pasts, our jobs, our status - that each and everyone of us is special to him and He loves us

OTHER PEOPLE saw it as political, but He didnt

HE didn't care if it was or wasn't. He just wanted us to know He loves us - regardless of our pasts, our jobs, our status - that each and everyone of us is special to him and He loves us

I know. Again, I'm not asking which party he'd register to vote for :lol: I'm asking how others would interpret his actions - just as they interpreted then and continue to do so now.

It's interesting to me that those involved in this discussion (as well as the lack of others) are so reluctant to imagine how others might politically categorize his actions.

I guess I always have a problem trying to imagine how other people might think of Him or of Me for that matter. Cuz I most of the time don't care what other people think of me. lol and Jesus obviously didn't give a hoot what anyone thought of Him~

I'm not reluctant to imagine what others might have thought - the Goverment of the time obviously saw Him as a huge threat to their power, their setup etc. But I don't think theres a way to put Jesus into some political slot. lol. He was seen as a problem by some, as the savior by others, as some guy making up crap by others, as insane by others... I guess I keep posting to this thread cuz I am interested, but I still don't think you'll get any answers that you're looking for cuz I'm not sure they exist. lol

I didn't vote, but I find it hard to identify Jesus as any political label of the present. I guess I htink it is hard to measure Jesus with mans yardstick.

BTW, these are great discussions tonight. I am not going to be around tomorrow at all, and I am going to miss this!

I still don't think you'll get any answers that you're looking for cuz I'm not sure they exist. lol

Okay, so what you are saying - correct me if I'm misinterpreting - is that were Jesus to live on earth in human form today and be Jesus and do what he does - that NO ONE would judge his behavior from a political framework? That NO ONE would say, "Jesus's actions are in support of the X party."

I am not saying that I believe Jesus would register to vote (well, maybe I do think that, but I do not believe he'd register as any particular party, but rather "undeclared").

I think that the reason people aren't voting is because - jmo - his actions back then were more consistent with a socialist/communist platform (if you will) than the republican/conservative platform that most of the conservative Christians identify themselves as being.

but, I'm probably going to be told that I'm off base. That's cool :hippy:

I'm just not getting the political connection.
Webster's dictionary defines "Political" as: 1. of or relating to government or politics 2. involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or political system.
"Politics" is defined as: 1. the art or science of government, of guiding or influencing governmental policy, or of winning and holding control over a government 2. political affairs or business; esp: competition between groups or individuals for power and leadership 3. political opinions

Jesus was not out to set up government nor add to the laws already in place. He wasn't political at all, so I can't see why anyone would view him that way, even if they weren't Christians. Non-christians might view him as a religious loon, but I don't see how they would view him as political. To view him as political (as the author in your above article) one would have to assume his intentions/motives in regards to his message. His message had no political agenda. If his intentions were to change the laws, to change the government that ran mankind, then his message would have been political. But his message was not meant to change the laws, or have any effect on the government. It was meant to change the hearts of individuals. To help them see their sin and their need for a savior. To prepare them for a different world where God was king and His laws rule (the world originally intended for mankind). He wasn't out to set up God's rules on earth and enforce them via programs and such. That was already tried with the 10 Commandments, and mankind failed miserably (hence why Christ as a sacrifice was sent).

Christ challenged people's actions, and their motives for their actions. He challenged their faith, and the motives for their faith. He told them how much God loves them and how God made a way for them to reconcile themselves to Him. He then followed that up by showing God's love, by allowing the government in place to persecute him for crimes he didn't commit, and crucify him on a cross until he died. And he did that all, to save the very people who nailed him to the cross.

I suppose it's possible that non believers could turn what he was doing into a political thing (people will see what they want to see). But to me, that would mean them seeing what wasn't there, like the pharisees did when they constantly tried to trip him up and make him look like a regular human with human interests (which he wasn't since he was God's son in human form, spiritually led with spiritual interests). So if we're talking about people seeing something in Christ that isn't there politically, then I couldn't tell you what political affiliation they would view him as having.

Well, no, what I'm saying is that yes - lots of people would indeed try to judge his behavior from a political standpoint and say Jesus is in support of X party. But the thing is that people always see HIM and always will see Him as they want to - so you'd get folks saying He totally was republican and others would say hell no, what a bleeding heart liberal and others would say 'oh, paleeze Jesus was all about socialism you idiot". lol. Humans are all about trying to put things into terms we can understand , relate to, make sense to us and make us comfortable. Jesus was and is WAY out of most peoples comfort zone.

You're not off base in your thoughts that to you Jesus teachings seem socialist. Thats just what you see I spose when you 'listen' to His teachings and I guess thats ok . Thats just not what I hear :)

I believe Jesus lives.
If He were to get up on the top of the Squaw Peek (piestawa peak actually these days I believe) tomorrow and start speaking , preaching, teaching.... I do not believe I would personally hear "socialist" or "republican" or any politics etc - and many many people would also not HEAR politics from His mouth. They would hear the message He was here to speak - and it crosses all political lines - it is more then how we should spend tax money, it is more then our take on war, it is more then if we should provide medical care to all , it is more then should ball players make 50x more then teachers lol , it is more then all of these earthly distractions
Jesus message just overpowers all of that so it seems pretty trivial I guess (not to be rude I swear or snarky) to try to see what political party people would attribute Jesus message to. lol. does that make sense?

Btw, I'm totally enjoying this conversation and I hope you are too and are not upset with me. i know you and I have had our ups and downs - I think its cuz we're actually alot alike ;)

adding that I"m outtie for the night cuz I gotta hot date since both girls are out and Romans crashing right now - but i'm not bailing on the conversation and will check in tomorrow :).

Clearly we will never come to any common ground on this particular issue and that's cool, so I'm going to just do one thing and then quit trying to show you what it is that I'm looking for (I understand your point of view - I do, Absolutely. It is not mine, but I absolutely get what you are saying).

I'm just not getting the political connection.
Webster's dictionary defines "Political" as: 1. of or relating to government or politics 2. involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or political system.

That is EXACTLY what he did. That is EXACTLY what got him crucified. That is EXACTLY why he was seen as so dangerous to the government.

Okay, with that I'm going to :hippy: out, cuz it's probably just beating a dead horse and I won't be able to show you - I'm not saying agree, I'm simply saying have you see - the political connection.

Well, no, what I'm saying is that yes - lots of people would indeed try to judge his behavior from a political standpoint and say Jesus is in support of X party. But the thing is that people always see HIM and always will see Him as they want to - so you'd get folks saying He totally was republican and others would say hell no, what a bleeding heart liberal and others would say 'oh, paleeze Jesus was all about socialism you idiot". lol. Humans are all about trying to put things into terms we can understand , relate to, make sense to us and make us comfortable. Jesus was WAY out of most peoples comfort zone.

We agree!!!! Ding ding ding.

Btw, I'm totally enjoying this conversation and I hope you are too and are not upset with me. i know you and I have had our ups and downs - I think its cuz we're actually alot alike ;)

I'm not upset in the least. I've enjoyed this discussion as well. And, I would agree with you. In fact, don't know if you remember the thread about who are you most like and I said, probably some of you. Which I would agree is probably why we can sometimes be fire or ice. We're pretty similar in many ways - just different political and religious beliefs :lol:

Were we in the same room at the same time, we'd probably have a very interesting, not at all boring, and very energetic discussion that would either end up with one or both of us huffing out or hugging wildly proclaiming ourselves life-long friends.

dh and i are Christians and also Democrats. he loves to think/talk about this thought posted here, rebecca. anyway, i had to read the post to him (as we sit watching dave letterman. so he wanted to respond...here's what he has to say:

I think that it is hard to identify Jesus' actions with a political point of view because his teachings are certainly closer to socialism within the church, but he seemed to puposefully withdraw himself from the government of the time. That being said, I think the essential underpinnings of the Republican ideology (not necessarily all conservative ideology) would cause Jesus to treat Republicans similar to the Pharisees of his day. I don't think he would fit into the Democrat party either, but I do think he would be seen as having a liberal slant, unless his attitude in the church is interpreted to mean a whole country then it would be seen as very liberal.

However, this is all if people viewed what he said through unbiased eyes. With so many people investing Christianity into their government (as in a Christian nation) I think everyone who is an analyst would interpret his actions to fit thier own political desires, whether subconsiously or consiously.

dh and i are Christians and also Democrats. he loves to think/talk about this thought posted here, rebecca. anyway, i had to read the post to him (as we sit watching dave letterman. so he wanted to respond...here's what he has to say:

I think that it is hard to identify Jesus' actions with a political point of view because his teachings are certainly closer to socialism within the church, but he seemed to puposefully withdraw himself from the government of the time. That being said, I think the essential underpinnings of the Republican ideology (not necessarily all conservative ideology) would cause Jesus to treat Republicans similar to the Pharisees of his day. I don't think he would fit into the Democrat party either, but I do think he would be seen as having a liberal slant, unless his attitude in the church is interpreted to mean a whole country then it would be seen as very liberal.

However, this is all if people viewed what he said through unbiased eyes. With so many people investing Christianity into their government (as in a Christian nation) I think everyone who is an analyst would interpret his actions to fit thier own political desires, whether subconsiously or consiously.

I agree with everything you wrote.

I'm just not getting the political connection.
Webster's dictionary defines "Political" as: 1. of or relating to government or politics 2. involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or political system.
"Politics" is defined as: 1. the art or science of government, of guiding or influencing governmental policy, or of winning and holding control over a government 2. political affairs or business; esp: competition between groups or individuals for power and leadership 3. political opinions

Jesus was not out to set up government nor add to the laws already in place. He wasn't political at all, so I can't see why anyone would view him that way, even if they weren't Christians. Non-christians might view him as a religious loon, but I don't see how they would view him as political. To view him as political (as the author in your above article) one would have to assume his intentions/motives in regards to his message. His message had no political agenda. If his intentions were to change the laws, to change the government that ran mankind, then his message would have been political. But his message was not meant to change the laws, or have any effect on the government. It was meant to change the hearts of individuals. To help them see their sin and their need for a savior. To prepare them for a different world where God was king and His laws rule (the world originally intended for mankind). He wasn't out to set up God's rules on earth and enforce them via programs and such. That was already tried with the 10 Commandments, and mankind failed miserably (hence why Christ as a sacrifice was sent).

Christ challenged people's actions, and their motives for their actions. He challenged their faith, and the motives for their faith. He told them how much God loves them and how God made a way for them to reconcile themselves to Him. He then followed that up by showing God's love, by allowing the government in place to persecute him for crimes he didn't commit, and crucify him on a cross until he died. And he did that all, to save the very people who nailed him to the cross.

I suppose it's possible that non believers could turn what he was doing into a political thing (people will see what they want to see). But to me, that would mean them seeing what wasn't there, like the pharisees did when they constantly tried to trip him up and make him look like a regular human with human interests (which he wasn't since he was God's son in human form, spiritually led with spiritual interests). So if we're talking about people seeing something in Christ that isn't there politically, then I couldn't tell you what political affiliation they would view him as having.

stephanie's dh again:

I totally agree with what you say here that Jesus is so not political. I don't agree that people would not/do not use Jesus in the political realm. They do it all the time. Republicans especially try to enforce God's laws on the country, legislating what is Christian morality (gaw marriage, for example, no matter how you stand on the issue. those in political power in the Republican party use Christian morals as justification for enforcing Christian beliefs on the country).

ETA: i'm pretty sure this is what i (stephanielynn) think too, but i just haven't given it nearly as much thought and know little about politics, i feel. so...anyway, dh doesn't ever get "into" amity, but i just had to let him add to the discussion, especially since i think he thinks about this similarly to rebecca.

Maybe you should do a poll asking non-believers to say what political party they would attribute to Christ if he were roaming the earth preaching the gospel. Ultimately you're asking us believers to guess what the non-believers would be thinking. Like Barb said, believers and non believers hear different things when they listen to Christ. I can tell you what I think in my head, but you're asking me to guess at what tons of people think in their own heads about Christ. Like Barb said, there would be multiple answers from multiple people varying by what human interests they each had at that moment in time. I couldn't begin to guess correctly as to what is inside other people's heads.
"I" don't view his message as being political. Non-believers might. But I shouldn't be the one trying to tell you what those people would be thinking.

stephanie's dh again:

I totally agree with what you say here that Jesus is so not political. I don't agree that people would not/do not use Jesus in the political realm. They do it all the time. Republicans especially try to enforce God's laws on the country, legislating what is Christian morality (gaw marriage, for example, no matter how you stand on the issue. those in political power in the Republican party use Christian morals as justification for enforcing Christian beliefs on the country).

I agree with you that "people" choose to use Christ's messages as political, but the message itself from Christ was not a politically loaded message.

Maybe you should do a poll asking non-believers to say what political party they would attribute to Christ if he were roaming the earth preaching the gospel. Ultimately you're asking us believers to guess what the non-believers would be thinking. Like Barb said, believers and non believers hear different things when they listen to Christ. I can tell you what I think in my head, but you're asking me to guess at what tons of people think in their own heads about Christ. Like Barb said, there would be multiple answers from multiple people varying by what human interests they each had at that moment in time. I couldn't begin to guess correctly as to what is inside other people's heads.
"I" don't view his message as being political. Non-believers might. But I shouldn't be the one trying to tell you what those people would be thinking.

but the question rebecca asks is very specifically from christians' point of view. of course i/we (lol!) don't hear Jesus' message and hear *anything* political...of course not! but she is wondering (at least from what i hear her asking), how we, as Christians, would say other people (Christians and non) would judge Jesus. i believe that plenty of Christians judge Jesus as fitting into a political party. why in the heck else would i get so many people that ask me "how can you be a christian and vote democrat?" oh boy, do i hate that question, but it's quite common. there's no way i think that ALL democratic stances fit into Jesus' thinking...(but most does...LOL...JUST kidding ;) )

Ya Rebecca, this probably would've been more easily answered by non-believers. I couldn't vote b/c I don't identify myself as such anymore.

I absolutely believe Jesus would be considered a Socialist. But in a more perfect form, mind you.... b/c he was so anti-class! And his examples were to distribute wealth to the poor. I would've answered the same back when I was a believer. That does NOT mean I ever believed Socialism was the Truth or anything... it just means it's the closest man-made category we have for designating his beliefs. IMO, Socialism will always fail b/c it will never be truly classless... the government heads will always have power, and IMO, most ppl cannot withstand the temptations that come w/power. But.... if Christ was the Head of socialism, assuming his perfection and deity.... socialism just might work?

It is obvious that many Christians just can't separate Christ in the way that you are asking. I can't say I understand why not though. Like you said, he was very political! Such an exteme radical.

Ya Rebecca, this probably would've been more easily answered by non-believers. I couldn't vote b/c I don't identify myself as such anymore.

I absolutely believe Jesus would be considered a Socialist. But in a more perfect form, mind you.... b/c he was so anti-class! And his examples were to distribute wealth to the poor. I would've answered the same back when I was a believer. That does NOT mean I ever believed Socialism was the Truth or anything... it just means it's the closest man-made category we have for designating his beliefs. IMO, Socialism will always fail b/c it will never be truly classless... the government heads will always have power, and IMO, most ppl cannot withstand the temptations that come w/power. But.... if Christ was the Head of socialism, assuming his perfection and deity.... socialism just might work?

It is obvious that many Christians just can't separate Christ in the way that you are asking. I can't say I understand why not though. Like you said, he was very political! Such an exteme radical.

I will say it again, we must get together for a good long dinner or something without anyone else - kids or parents or men or women - and discuss life and religion. I think that with regard to religion at least we probably are very much in line.

I will say it again, we must get together for a good long dinner or something without anyone else - kids or parents or men or women - and discuss life and religion. I think that with regard to religion at least we probably are very much in line.

:heart: I would LOVE that. I honestly find you one of the most fascinating ppl I "know." :) I love how you think.

I don't think we're in line religiously though... didn't you say you believe in God? I'm a humanist. I have intellectualized god away. :) But, I love that we come from the same religious background and in that sense, we'd have more than enough to talk about for an evening! In fact Rebecca... and this is along the lines of the friendship posts you've had... I still find that I prefer to be w/ppl who come from the same religious background. My dream man is a humanist who was raised LDS. :)

I love this thread! Thanks for a good read!

:heart: I would LOVE that. I honestly find you one of the most fascinating ppl I "know." :) I love how you think.

I don't think we're in line religiously though... didn't you say you believe in God? I'm a humanist. I have intellectualized god away. :) But, I love that we come from the same religious background and in that sense, we'd have more than enough to talk about for an evening! In fact Rebecca... and this is along the lines of the friendship posts you've had... I still find that I prefer to be w/ppl who come from the same religious background. My dream man is a humanist who was raised LDS. :)

oh, I don't know that I believe in God. I'm not sure what I believe. My current religious beliefs would require a long thread. I guess what I currently am is someone who chooses to intellectually practice a philosophical orientation following my personal interpretations of Jesus. So this Jesus guy said some cool things about how to treat others. So, that's kind of the guidelines that I follow, but as far as whether there is some wise old greybeard in the sky, not so sure about that.

I've been coming close to posting my current firm life decision that there is no mainstream christian religion that fits and that I've decided that I will absolutely positively NEVER be catholic (though Catholics don't have it nearly as bad as some of the other ones, it's just that dh is Catholic and I really wanted to try and like it but after seven years of being totally open minded toward the good in it - shoot, I've been far more active than my dh - I've decided that it will never be a fit for me).

and :hug:

and, I TOTALLY hear you on your dream man. That was absolutely mine as well. I think the lds background is part of what makes me feel an absence of fit from other christian religions.

oh, I don't know that I believe in God. I'm not sure what I believe. My current religious beliefs would require a long thread. I guess what I currently am is someone who chooses to intellectually practice a philosophical orientation following my personal interpretations of Jesus. So this Jesus guy said some cool things about how to treat others. So, that's kind of the guidelines that I follow, but as far as whether there is some wise old greybeard in the sky, not so sure about that.

I've been coming close to posting my current firm life decision that there is no mainstream christian religion that fits and that I've decided that I will absolutely positively NEVER be catholic (though Catholics don't have it nearly as bad as some of the other ones, it's just that dh is Catholic and I really wanted to try and like it but after seven years of being totally open minded toward the good in it - shoot, I've been far more active than my dh - I've decided that it will never be a fit for me).

and :hug:

and, I TOTALLY hear you on your dream man. That was absolutely mine as well. I think the lds background is part of what makes me feel an absence of fit from other christian religions.

Well bring on the dinner then! Where do you live? Kansas?? Oh I hate driving through Kansas LOL.

I understand what you are saying. I could even live the LDS lifestyle if I were married. I will never ascribe to the sex prohibitions (other than chosen monogamy after marriage). :) I follow the WofW though not for religious reasons, more for genetic. :rolleyes: Hey! If you ever wanna chat on MSN I am hadalamb @ juno.com :heart: