Twisting Jesus around to suit your own biases is a proud Christian tradition dating all the way back to Saul of Tarsus.

I was surprised not to see Rick Romero as one of the authors. They also verified that water is wet, fire is hot, and nighttime is dark.

All snark aside, I do find it amusing that we now have scientific proof that social conservative fundies are massive hypocrites.

KiltedBastich: I was surprised not to see Rick Romero as one of the authors. They also verified that water is wet, fire is hot, and nighttime is dark.

All snark aside, I do find it amusing that we now have scientific proof that social conservative fundies are massive hypocrites.

To be fair, they also "discovered" that liberals are massive hypocrites. Nice to know that both sides suck. Oh, wait, I already knew that.

This belongs on the politics tab.

Nothing worse than a floppy PNAS

Excluded were those who fell in the middle and those who, oddly enough, thought the Fox News channel was more liberal than the CNN news channel.

What?

ChubbyTiger: KiltedBastich: I was surprised not to see Rick Romero as one of the authors. They also verified that water is wet, fire is hot, and nighttime is dark.

All snark aside, I do find it amusing that we now have scientific proof that social conservative fundies are massive hypocrites.

To be fair, they also "discovered" that liberals are massive hypocrites. Nice to know that both sides suck. Oh, wait, I already knew that.

Peer reviewed citation from reputable journal required.

Part of the reason is Christians spend way too much time taking 'lessons' from the Old Testament.
Going by stories written in there, God was portrayed as being pretty much a dick.

RevLovejoy: the Fox News channel was more liberal than the CNN news channel.

What?

It's another way of saying they excluded the mentally retarded.

I pissed off someone when I asked "Did Jesus ask for proof of Insurance when he healed the lepers and the blind?"

ChubbyTiger: KiltedBastich: I was surprised not to see Rick Romero as one of the authors. They also verified that water is wet, fire is hot, and nighttime is dark.

All snark aside, I do find it amusing that we now have scientific proof that social conservative fundies are massive hypocrites.

To be fair, they also "discovered" that liberals are massive hypocrites. Nice to know that both sides suck. Oh, wait, I already knew that.

From TFA: Of those, the researchers focused exclusively on those who said they were Christians, and who self identified themselves as being either politically conservative or liberal.

Conversely, many of those who identified themselves as liberal felt that Jesus would likely feel stronger about morality issues than they do and would probably be better about building bridges between those who disagree with them.

In other words:

1) These are liberal Christians only. I know a great many liberals (myself included) who are not Christians. I do not know many social conservatives who are not Christians, and the ones I do know tend to be of another conservative religious denomination like Muslim or Mormon. Come to think of it, I don't know any deist or atheist social conservatives at all.

2) The liberals thought Jesus would be more liberal than they are, not less. In short, they thought he would go further than they have, and be more forgiving and tolerant. That is consistent with the stories of Jesus. The conservatives thought he would be more conservative than they are, which is not consistent with the stories of Jesus.

Remember that this is the guy who in the stories associated with theives, whores and lepers by choice, who was always about forgiveness, acceptance and understanding, no matter what, and reserved his wrath exclusively for hypocrites and perpetrators of egregious religious legalisms - most of whom were wealthy and privileged.

Ghandi would have understood this study quite well, I think.

KiltedBastich: ChubbyTiger: KiltedBastich: I was surprised not to see Rick Romero as one of the authors. They also verified that water is wet, fire is hot, and nighttime is dark.
...


From the abstract: "In a large-scale survey, the relevant views that each group attributed to a contemporary Jesus differed almost as much as their own views. Despite such dissonance-reducing projection, however, conservatives acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to "fellowship" issues (e.g., taxation to reduce economic inequality and treatment of immigrants) and liberals acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to "morality" issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage). However, conservatives also claimed that a contemporary Jesus would be even more conservative than themselves on the former issues whereas liberals claimed that Jesus would be even more liberal than themselves on the latter issues."

Please note, both left and right believed that there were discrepancies between their views and what a contemporary Jesus would have believed. Both sides were being hypocritical wrt their view of Christianity. Also, if you don't believe that there are lots of very liberal Christians, you're seriously delusional.

KiltedBastich: Remember that this is the guy who in the stories associated with theives, whores and lepers by choice, who was always about forgiveness, acceptance and understanding, no matter what, and reserved his wrath exclusively for hypocrites and perpetrators of egregious religious legalisms - most of whom were wealthy and privileged.

Who also told people to pay their taxes, accept and treat well immigrants, love thy neighbor, stand up to the establishment when they are out of line, help the poor, etc. If he were alive today, can you imagine the vitriol from the far right for this guy?

ajt167: Who also told people to pay their taxes, accept and treat well immigrants, love thy neighbor, stand up to the establishment when they are out of line, help the poor, etc. If he were alive today, can you imagine the vitriol from the far right for this guy?

The taxes part is a given.

The rest of it... that's exactly what conservatives believe. Liberals don't believe in those things - liberals believe in the government doing those things for them. A liberal doesn't have to love his neighbor if the government will love his neighbor for him.

Why do I keep hearing that acronym in Lupe's voice...

/"You like PNAS?"

ChubbyTiger: KiltedBastich: ChubbyTiger: KiltedBastich: I was surprised not to see Rick Romero as one of the authors. They also verified that water is wet, fire is hot, and nighttime is dark.
...


From the abstract: "In a large-scale survey, the relevant views that each group attributed to a contemporary Jesus differed almost as much as their own views. Despite such dissonance-reducing projection, however, conservatives acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to "fellowship" issues (e.g., taxation to reduce economic inequality and treatment of immigrants) and liberals acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to "morality" issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage). However, conservatives also claimed that a contemporary Jesus would be even more conservative than themselves on the former issues whereas liberals claimed that Jesus would be even more liberal than themselves on the latter issues."

Please note, both left and right believed that there were discrepancies between their views and what a contemporary Jesus would have believed. Both sides were being hypocritical wrt their view of Christianity. Also, if you don't believe that there are lots of very liberal Christians, you're seriously delusional.

Jesus never addressed abortion or gay marriage at all. He had rather definite things to say about tolerance, forgiveness and fellowship, not to mention economic issues (camel threading the eye of a needle, render unto Ceasar, tossing the moneylenders out of the temple, etc.). The morality issues cited are all edicts of the church added on centuries after the fact, not part of the prinicple teachings of Jesus. The bits about loving everyone regardless of creed or origin are very clearly part of his central message - do recall that the parable of the good Samaritan was told in a context wherein Samaritans were suspect outsiders considered religious and cultural inferiors. A modern day equivalent would be to use a Mexican illegal immigrant.

So when a liberal Christian says he thinks Jesus would be more liberal (tolerant, accepting, nonjudgemental) than he/she is, this is consistent with the stories and teachings of Jesus as presented in the Bible. When a conservative Christian thinks Jesus would be more conservative (traditionalist, exclusionist, judgemental), it's flying against all the evidence (such as it is) presented in what is supposed to be their inviolate and divinely true repository of wisdom. The latter is much greater hypocrisy than the former.

And of course I know that there are lots of liberal Christians. That was not my point. My point was that social liberalism is not typically limited to Christians (or the religious more generally), but that social conservatism is largely restricted to the religious.

You're trying to make a case for BSAB. It's not working.

ChubbyTiger: Please note, both left and right believed that there were discrepancies between their views and what a contemporary Jesus would have believed. Both sides were being hypocritical wrt their view of Christianity.

Seems to me this is just part of the psychology behind "perfect deity" thinking. If you're using a religious interpretation of divine perfection as the framework of your worldly perception, even the most arrogant SOB is still going to concede that they're view isn't quite 100% compared to the infallible Godly reality.

jonny_q: ajt167: Who also told people to pay their taxes, accept and treat well immigrants, love thy neighbor, stand up to the establishment when they are out of line, help the poor, etc. If he were alive today, can you imagine the vitriol from the far right for this guy?

The taxes part is a given.

The rest of it... that's exactly what conservatives believe. Liberals don't believe in those things - liberals believe in the government doing those things for them. A liberal doesn't have to love his neighbor if the government will love his neighbor for him.

Wrong. Liberals believe in actually making an organized, concerted effort to do those things on an egalitarian basis for everyone, regardless of whether you personally know, like or approve of their life choices, rather than making a token effort that pays lip service to the concept while being wholly inadequate to actually address the problems and is controlled by partisan groups who get to pick and choose who to help.

Jesus did not say, "help only those you decide meet your criteria for worthiness, and only those you can afford to help who are nearby". He said everyone.

Private charity was tried as an answer to poverty. It failed abjectly, as any careful study of history will show. It is neither egalitarian enough nor comprehensive enough.

Thus, any objection to using tax monies to help the poor or the downtrodden ultimately resolves to some variation of begrudging those people that assistance. You can spin it however you like it, but in the end it comes down to "I don't want MY money to go to THOSE people, because they don't deserve it!" Fill in the despised group as you see fit, the logic is the same, whether they be poor, or a suspect minority group, or illegal immigrants, or drug addicts, or petty criminals stuck in a dead end life, or any such group you damn well please - because the alternative is the same in all cases: that no one helps those people, and you are still objecting to them being helped. And that is un-Christian.

Jesus associated with thieves, whores and lepers. He told a story about a good Samaritan, a group who were religious and cultural rivals of the Jews at the time. He very specifically made it clear that it did not matter who they were or what they did or where they came from, you loved them all anyways in a nonjudgemental and accepting fashion.

I am not a Christian, personally. I do not believe in any kind of divinity of Christ. But I do believe in calling out hypocrisy and doublethink when I see it, and you, sir, just trotted out one of the classic examples of conservative Christian hypocrisy.

PNAS goes where?

I work for the company that prints this journal. I used to call it penis when discussing it so I'm getting a.....................

KiltedBastich: jonny_q: ajt167: Who also told people to pay their taxes, accept and treat well immigrants, love thy neighbor, stand up to the establishment when they are out of line, help the poor, etc. If he were alive today, can you imagine the vitriol from the far right for this guy?

The taxes part is a given.

The rest of it... that's exactly what conservatives believe. Liberals don't believe in those things - liberals believe in the government doing those things for them. A liberal doesn't have to love his neighbor if the government will love his neighbor for him.

Wrong. Liberals believe in actually making an organized, concerted effort to do those things on an egalitarian basis for everyone, regardless of whether you personally know, like or approve of their life choices, rather than making a token effort that pays lip service to the concept while being wholly inadequate to actually address the problems and is controlled by partisan groups who get to pick and choose who to help.

Jesus did not say, "help only those you decide meet your criteria for worthiness, and only those you can afford to help who are nearby". He said everyone.

Private charity was tried as an answer to poverty. It failed abjectly, as any careful study of history will show. It is neither egalitarian enough nor comprehensive enough.

Thus, any objection to using tax monies to help the poor or the downtrodden ultimately resolves to some variation of begrudging those people that assistance. You can spin it however you like it, but in the end it comes down to "I don't want MY money to go to THOSE people, because they don't deserve it!" Fill in the despised group as you see fit, the logic is the same, whether they be poor, or a suspect minority group, or illegal immigrants, or drug addicts, or petty criminals stuck in a dead end life, or any such group you damn well please - because the alternative is the same in all cases: that no one helps those people, and you are still objecting to them being helped. An ...

As a Christian who works in ministry, I support this statement.

Jesus was a compassionate person who (mostly) preached non-violence, caring for the less fortunate, not caring about worldly goods and putting others before yourself. You can see where the average modern Christian Conservative would have difficulty bending those concepts to fit their current narrative.

It's easy to twist the Word of God around when you don't really believe in him.

They started a study once, at a university in in NC if I recall correctly, to look at varying degrees of "faith" in different Christian sects by using polygraphs and those written tests that look for inconsistent answers - ie deception.

That study got squashed and flushed down the memory hole real quick - as it became obvious early on that NOBODY actually believed in an invisible dude living in the sky. I mean, who the hell could actually believe something so ridiculous?

People have "faith" so they can belong to a group and nourish the comforting self deception that their bullshiat will live on after them. But everybody knows.

KiltedBastich: 1) These are liberal Christians only. I know a great many liberals (myself included) who are not Christians. I do not know many social conservatives who are not Christians, and the ones I do know tend to be of another conservative religious denomination like Muslim or Mormon. Come to think of it, I don't know any deist or atheist social conservatives at all.

Protecting entrenched privilege only really sells to either 1) the privileged few 2) those gullible enough to think if they hand over everything to the privileged few, they will be much better off after they are dead. Hence it only really works with religious people, or when you have the sort of Theocratic Feudal societies of the past where the vast majority were kept uneducated and powerless so whether they believed the religious stuff or not was rarely relevant (absent abusing them too much and causing a revolt/revolution).

KiltedBastich: Remember that this is the guy who in the stories associated with theives, whores and lepers by choice, who was always about forgiveness, acceptance and understanding, no matter what, and reserved his wrath exclusively for hypocrites and perpetrators of egregious religious legalisms - most of whom were wealthy and privileged.

And fig trees. Dude did not like fig trees.

Captain_Ballbeard: It's easy to twist the Word of God around when you don't really believe in him.

They started a study once, at a university in in NC if I recall correctly, to look at varying degrees of "faith" in different Christian sects by using polygraphs and those written tests that look for inconsistent answers - ie deception.

That study got squashed and flushed down the memory hole real quick - as it became obvious early on that NOBODY actually believed in an invisible dude living in the sky. I mean, who the hell could actually believe something so ridiculous?

People have "faith" so they can belong to a group and nourish the comforting self deception that their bullshiat will live on after them. But everybody knows.

So much this. I have the feeling that many folks don't really believe the stries and are hedging their bets just in case.....

RevLovejoy: Captain_Ballbeard: It's easy to twist the Word of God around when you don't really believe in him.

They started a study once, at a university in in NC if I recall correctly, to look at varying degrees of "faith" in different Christian sects by using polygraphs and those written tests that look for inconsistent answers - ie deception.

That study got squashed and flushed down the memory hole real quick - as it became obvious early on that NOBODY actually believed in an invisible dude living in the sky. I mean, who the hell could actually believe something so ridiculous?

People have "faith" so they can belong to a group and nourish the comforting self deception that their bullshiat will live on after them. But everybody knows.

So much this. I have the feeling that many folks don't really believe the stries and are hedging their bets just in case.....


There is not even a "just in case", there is no way (other than clinical pathology) that a grownup can believe that an invisible sky wizard watches them fap in the shower. It is ridiculous on its face and corresponds with nothing observable in the world around us.

abb3w: KiltedBastich: From TFA: Of those, the researchers focused exclusively on those who said they were Christians, and who self identified themselves as being either politically conservative or liberal.

It's also probably worth noting that the study excluded some who were sufficiently abnormal in their use of language to think "the Fox News channel was more liberal than the CNN news channel". IE: the study threw out those so crazy as to not realize how pissed Jesus would be at them if he ever comes back.

I think that's fair. In any study, there's always a hidden excluded outlier group that can conceivably represent a bias: Those too stupid and/or crazy to understand the questions being asked of them by those administrating and administering the study in the first place. You can't do an analysis of something that doesn't result in any meaningful data.

RevLovejoy: Excluded were those who fell in the middle and those who, oddly enough, thought the Fox News channel was more liberal than the CNN news channel.

What?

It's true, they are more liberal, _{with the truth(facts and all that).}

Good to see that Papers Not Accepted by Nature is still being published.

KiltedBastich: abb3w: KiltedBastich: From TFA: Of those, the researchers focused exclusively on those who said they were Christians, and who self identified themselves as being either politically conservative or liberal.

It's also probably worth noting that the study excluded some who were sufficiently abnormal in their use of language to think "the Fox News channel was more liberal than the CNN news channel". IE: the study threw out those so crazy as to not realize how pissed Jesus would be at them if he ever comes back.

I think that's fair. In any study, there's always a hidden excluded outlier group that can conceivably represent a bias: Those too stupid and/or crazy to understand the questions being asked of them by those administrating and administering the study in the first place. You can't do an analysis of something that doesn't result in any meaningful data.

That hasn't exactly stopped a lot of people in my field from trying, though...

I'm not terribly impressed with this study overall, though. It's just another in a long line of research studies that show people are not ideologically consistent, we rationalize away whatever the hell we feel like it, and at the end of the day what we don't rationalize away we simply ignore and pretend isn't real or important or relevant. This study just did that with regards to a religion and two political ideologies. Nothing new, except the variables of interest. I mean, I'm glad the research is being done. Had we just assumed the same is true here but missed a genuinely fascinating exception to cognitive dissonance or political zealotry, we'd be worse off. But on the whole, this is a pretty boring article.

Jesus is coming...

a) Everyone look busy!
b) Somebody get him a sock.

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Part of the reason is Christians spend way too much time taking 'lessons' from the Old Testament.
Going by stories written in there, God was portrayed as being pretty much a dick.

Which is funny that their so aggressively anti abortion, seeing as how the old testament isn't exactly pro life.

It's intersting to me how people will warp the Jesus figure to meet their own ideals. And how few of them take into account the issues of the time in which he lived.

People here bring up the fact that he used he Samaritans (someone even said that was the equiliant of an illegal Mexican immigrant) as a way to show he spoke about love for everyone. This simply is not the case. The history of the Samaritians is that they were tainted members of the original tribes that made the northern kingdoms. Jesus was making a point that they were still part of the children of Abraham. Jesus himselfnever went to those that were not Jews or of the original tribes of Israel. In Acts Peter gets a revelation to go do this and AT TIME was the everyone included. Jesus was by all definitions based off this a prejudice person. Althogh he told peopel to pay taxes, He didn't speak to the Romans, even when he was being killed by them. He spoke about them as if they weren't even there.

I think many people would actually be really upset to here what he would truely have to say if he were here today.

//Works with a zealot that thinks Jesus would run for president if he were here today.
2 problems with that. 1) Jesus is not an American citizen thus he'd be disqualified right off and 2) He would not be that bored or dumb to get involved with American politics. He do a lot of what he did before live the law as it was given originally and not with all the dumb extras attached.

Kome: That hasn't exactly stopped a lot of people in my field from trying, though...

I'm not terribly impressed with this study overall, though. It's just another in a long line of research studies that show people are not ideologically consistent, we rationalize away whatever the hell we feel like it, and at the end of the day what we don't rationalize away we simply ignore and pretend isn't real or important or relevant. This study just did that with regards to a religion and two political ideologies. Nothing new, except the variables of interest. I mean, I'm glad the research is being done. Had we just assumed the same is true here but missed a genuinely fascinating exception to cognitive dissonance or political zealotry, we'd be worse off. But on the whole, this is a pretty boring article.

I agree that the results are not exactly earthshaking, but in many ways that's good. Scientific theory is not advanced by single firebrand papers, it's advanced by the tedious methodological repetition of earlier firebrand papers that confirm that yes, these results hold true on replication in a wide variety of situations. This is exactly such a paper. It shows us that, as expected, religious and political ideologies result in exactly the same kinds of rationalization and cognitive dissonance as any other ideological belief. So transformative? Nope. But it does lock down and describe the phenomenon - which means that any ideological special pleading can now be firmly debunked on the evidence, not just the logical inconsistency.