“Today's Progressives, for example, brazenly misquote the Sermon on the Mount as if it were the first draft of "The Communist Manifesto."  They claim that Jesus would back open borders, forced redistribution of wealth, seizure of private property and, most of all, sexual anarchy.

In early April at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Jesus was even compared to Cuban communist triggerman Che Guevara – a fellow "martyr."

"As God created light – is light – Che is radiance," said Professor Emeritus of Art History David Kunzle, as reported by Campus Reform.

During "Chesucristo: The Fusion in Image and Word of Che Guevara and Jesus Christ," Dr. Kunzle also referred to Che's name as a "sacred trinity of letters" and to a portrayal of Che as "a quasi-divine cosmic force." (See related story from OneNewsNow)

The real Che machine-gunned Fidel Castro's opponents. He was not remotely like the sacrificial King of Kings.

While the presentation might be defensible as a display of how various artists have sanctified Che, Prof. Kunzle also said that Jesus was "leader of an armed guerilla struggle against Rome," a patently false statement.

In fact, the Jerusalem crowds who had welcomed Jesus as a conquering king only days before when He entered the city on a donkey demanded His execution after Jesus refused to lead an armed rebellion against Rome.

Democrats have been working hard to spin their version of Jesus.  Alarmed by millions of evangelical Christians and Catholics defecting to the Republican Party, they and their media allies have been working overtime to create a Christ who would bless their leftist politics.  Cory Booker, who proclaims that "Christ is the center of my life," said State Department Secretary then-nominee Mike Pompeo in April 2018 was unfit because Mr. Pompeo, an evangelical Christian, refused to support same-sex marriage or agree that homosexuality is not "perverse."

Pete Buttigieg, the openly gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, boasts of being a Christian while disparaging the faith – and character – of Vice President Mike Pence. Unlike Mr. Buttigieg, Mr. Pence takes biblical sexual morality seriously. (See related story from OneNewsNow)

In 2008, Barack Obama co-opted Christians by pretending to support traditional marriage during his interview with Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren.  When asked in another interview about supporting legal recognition of same-sex unions, Obama belittled biblical sexual morality and said of critics, "I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."  A weasel trifecta.

As president, Obama had the Justice Department attack the Defense of Marriage Act while he stacked the Supreme Court to impose a "smarter than God" definition of marriage.”

"Love one another"

No fine print. No exceptions.

Go and sin no more...no fine print, no exceptions.  Jesus would love sinners but he would not aid and abet a sin.  He’d never bake a cake for a gay wedding or turn water into wine at one.  

Boy do you have it backwards.  The test is on us, on everyone and how those people are treated.  For all this supposed reverence for Jesus, the true message is lost in self righteous sanctimonious judgement by the religious tenets you describe.  If you believe god made everyone you should accept the way he made them instead of passing unholy judgement.  That would be failing the test.  Its especially outrageous to hear it from someone who supports and defends Trump's behavior.  The moral authority of evangelicals and others like them are gone forever. 

Although I myself do not subscribe to it, if memory serves me correctly, Jesus directed his followers to love one another as he had loved them. I do not recollect any exclusions of any sort.

Judge not lest ye be judge is another of my favorites.

Funny that this has to be pointed out by an avowed heathen.

Funny that this has to be pointed out by an avowed heathen.

Not funny at all. Sad.

There's one more: "Do not swear falsely in My name." Perverting God's message is about as evil as a person can get. I don't believe in Satan, so such perversion cannot be blamed on him.

These anti-Christians are of their own making. Their evil is their own, created by them, to be borne by them for as long as their souls endure.

[deleted]

Many of these so called anti-christians proclaim themselves as christian.

God did not make us sinful.  He made us perfect in His image.  We are to love the sinner and hate the sin. Loving a sinner does not mean aiding and abetting them in their engaging in sinful acts which ever sin it might be.  Pointing out the sin and showing another way instead is true love.  As for human relations with God, a loving relationship means obeying Him because we want to please Him and grow our relationship with Him.  It isn’t saying, God, I believe you in xyz and will follow you there but on abc I not only don’t accept that but will call you and those who do believe that liars and unchristian.  

Go and sin no more...no fine print, no exceptions.  Jesus would love sinners but he would not aid and abet a sin.  

 Where did Jesus condemn LGBT people? Do I have to explain what a eunuch is?

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it," ( Matthew 19:12 ).

He’d never bake a cake for a gay wedding or turn water into wine at one.  

Its a shame that you cannot prove that claim. Jesus said to treat others as you would yourself, with no exceptions.

God did not make us sinful.

Original sin?  Sins of the father visited upon the son?  If you god did not want his "children" to be sinful he would have made them differently, correct?  Since in your eyes is all powerful, all knowing & all love.  

"Democrats have been working hard to spin their version of Jesus."

Ah yes, the monolith "Democrats". Can you get more of a sweeping generalization?

The fact is there are millions of Democrats and they are Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, gay, straight, transgender, black, white, and every other color of the rainbow and they all have their own ideas of faith and religion that has nothing to do with how we should govern this country.

Now some Christian Democrats like to point out their understanding of Christ, the humble, meek, turn the other cheek Jesus who shunned the scribes and pharisees, those claiming to be Gods messengers on earth, and spent his time with the poor and needy. He fed the masses, he used a miracle to provide wine for a wedding, he told a rich man a camel would go through the eye of a needle before a rich man would enter the kingdom of God, he whipped the money changers and animal sellers profiting off the faith making a business of religion on the steps of the temple. All those things are Jesus for many Democrats, and they aren't "spinning" anything.

What's truly reprehensible is some scum bag making the accusation in a sweeping generalization that Democrats in general are spinning their religious beliefs for political gain, and then someone seeding said sweeping generalization.

What's truly reprehensible is some scum bag making the accusation in a sweeping generalization that Democrats in general are spinning their religious beliefs for political gain, and then someone seeding said sweeping generalization.

and, most of all, sexual anarchy

This is a dishonest straw man tactic that I see all the time. If someone disagrees with you on an interpretation of scripture such that you would endorse something they would prohibit, then they claim your position is "anything goes!" It's not true, and they know it.

the Jerusalem crowds who had welcomed Jesus as a conquering king only days before when He entered the city on a donkey demanded His execution after Jesus refused to lead an armed rebellion against Rome.

What is this??? This makes it sound like cause and effect. Jesus was a pacifist, therefore the crowd demanded he be killed? Is this from the HaveAnotherBongload translation of the Bible?

a Christ who would bless their leftist politics

Frankly, Jesus wasn't terribly political, and I doubt he was overly concerned with public policy matters. So whether you're Left or Right, I'd be wary about claiming that Jesus supports or endorses any particular government policy. His focus was the Kingdom of God, not men.

Pete Buttigieg, the openly gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, boasts of being a Christian while disparaging the faith – and character – of Vice President Mike Pence. Unlike Mr. Buttigieg, Mr. Pence takes biblical sexual morality seriously.

Which is exactly what the writer of this piece is doing to Pete Buttigieg when he follows with:

Unlike Mr. Buttigieg, Mr. Pence takes biblical sexual morality seriously.

Funny how that's ok for him. It's not ok for Buttigieg to (allegedly) disparage the faith and character of Mike Pence. But it's perfectly fine for this writer to do it to Buttigieg. I believe Jesus had something to say about that:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." - Matthew 7:1-5

***

Also, that pro-life people are "anti-woman."

I agree that's a bit of unfairness from the pro-life side. I don't believe most people with qualms about abortion are trying to attack women. I believe they are concerned about what they believe is a growing person inside that woman who is worthy of some level of protection. I think our current jurisprudence reflects that or we wouldn't draw any kind of line at viability.

'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'"

Funny thing about the Bible - it's full of poetry and metaphor. Context is critical, too. What is being talked about? What is the focus? And just as important: what is not the focus? Unfortunately the same tendency toward legalistic literalism that inflicted the Pharisees on Jesus has infected modern evangelicals. I mean if you really want to take the passage literally, you would expect that a man and a woman would come together and literally form a distinct single individual like in some wacky sci-fi movie.

But of course that's not what happens. So let's stop pretending that evangelicals take scripture literally. They only do so to the extent that it conveniently supports their argument. They ignore the parts that would weaken their argument.

And anyway, what in the wide world of sports does it mean to "become one flesh?" If it's just a matter of sweaty bodies rubbing together and maybe sticking parts inside their partner, I think same-sex couples have that covered. Not to worry! There's plenty of one-fleshing going on. And if it's about making babies, then couples should get divorced when a woman enters menopause and couples who are otherwise infertile of just old shouldn't be allowed to marry at all. Funny how no one advocates for those things.

Mr. Buttigieg insists with a straight face that his unholy union with a man is blessed by God and "very conventional."

And the mere human who wrote this is in no position to decide otherwise.

"I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (Matthew 7:23)

OK, let's consider that. The law is not what author Robert Knight - or anyone else - says it is. It's what God says. Maybe a legal expert should have asked Jesus about it. Oh wait! One did:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” - Matthew 22: 34-40

So if your actions and words toward people are not about loving God and loving those people, it seems to me you are doing something wrong, no matter what your personal interpretation of scripture might be. Does it seem like "loving your neighbor" when you tell him that his unselfish, monogamous devotion to another person of the same sex offends God? Does it seem like it's "loving your neighbor" to tell people that their most basic instincts about love and attraction, though harmless to others, are going to condemn them to Hell? It doesn't sound very loving to me.

It also conflicts with the message from Paul that if stuff like that matters then Jesus died for nothing.

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” - Galatians 2:21

I would think love would be more about trying to really understand people who are different from you and trying to serve them rather judge and condemn them.

I think I see pigs flying.   You and I agree.  Thanks for a small hint of light.

“As C.S. Lewis wrote, the Gospels leave no gray area:  Either Jesus was God Incarnate or a madman for claiming to be so.  Merely being "a good teacher" doesn't cut it.

The New Testament says that Jesus is not only the Jews' long-awaited Messiah but the Son of God, who was sacrificed for the sins of the whole world, rose from the dead and grants eternal life to all who believe in Him.  He is the second part of the Trinity comprising the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

For 2,000 years, this has been orthodox Christian doctrine.  Meanwhile, Jesus' name has been invoked on behalf of nearly every cause, including some particularly diabolical ventures.

Today's Progressives, for example, brazenly misquote the Sermon on the Mount as if it were the first draft of "The Communist Manifesto."  They claim that Jesus would back open borders, forced redistribution of wealth, seizure of private property and, most of all, sexual anarchy.

In early April at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Jesus was even compared to Cuban communist triggerman Che Guevara – a fellow "martyr."

"As God created light – is light – Che is radiance," said Professor Emeritus of Art History David Kunzle, as reported by Campus Reform.

During "Chesucristo: The Fusion in Image and Word of Che Guevara and Jesus Christ," Dr. Kunzle also referred to Che's name as a "sacred trinity of letters" and to a portrayal of Che as "a quasi-divine cosmic force." 

The real Che machine-gunned Fidel Castro's opponents. He was not remotely like the sacrificial King of Kings.

While the presentation might be defensible as a display of how various artists have sanctified Che, Prof. Kunzle also said that Jesus was "leader of an armed guerilla struggle against Rome," a patently false statement.

In fact, the Jerusalem crowds who had welcomed Jesus as a conquering king only days before when He entered the city on a donkey demanded His execution after Jesus refused to lead an armed rebellion against Rome.

Democrats have been working hard to spin their version of Jesus.  Alarmed by millions of evangelical Christians and Catholics defecting to the Republican Party, they and their media allies have been working overtime to create a Christ who would bless their leftist politics.”

You should link to the stuff you copy/paste.

I already did as it is part of the seeded article and in “quotes”.  

Thank you for this comment.  We disagree on so many things, but still what you said here is well written.

Doesn't matter does it?  Rep. Steven King R-IA insinuated in general terms that his own travails are similar to those bore by Jesus.  There it is.  There you have it.  Get a cabbage roll to go.

Mr. King could do with a good scourging in my opinion, give him a taste of the lash.

Is that the way secular progressives in general would deal with those of us who disagree with them?  

No just affording Mr. King what he  seems to want, he states that he has suffered as had Jesus so let him. 

There is no mention in the books of the New Testament that address sexuality. Therefore:

...anyone who thinks marriage requires a man and a woman are un-Christian "bigots".

is most likely true. What is diffidently true is that by discriminating against non-binary sexuality they are NOT following the path of Jesus as He accepted everyone that came to Him.

The attempt to introduce religious principals into governance is more than a bit silly, IMO.  As a practicing Christian, it is interesting to me that some of my brethren seem to forget that the Biblical codes of conduct are for believers.  

At no point does Jesus or Paul or anyone else direct or encourage Christians to "make sure no homosexuals get married", or "stone all the adulterers".  At no point do Jesus, Paul, John or anyone else direct or encourage Christians to "go forcibly take other people's money and give it to the poor".   

Jesus calls His followers to try to live by a certain code of conduct, knowing we will fall short but also knowing that in the process we will be transformed into better people.

Sounds like a few Republicans I know.  

I think that many people (on both sides of the fence) use Jesus (who was anti-politics) for their own gains.  It is sad.