@christoper marlowe: most of your argument is based on the fallacy of moral equivalence-claiming that one act of serious wrongdoing does not differ from other less significant or even minor offences (i.e., all sins are equal in God’s eyes).

For example, you condemn homosexuality, adultery, fornication, and blasphemy.... yet historical Jesus lived amongst these people (the lepers, the prostitutes, the poor, and died with the thieves and was himself charged with blasphemy) and forgave them their"sins"- something you are apparently unable or unwilling to do. Jesus strongly condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the aristocracy and the rich... something you only pay lip service to in pusuit of your moral equivalency argument by equating all sins and emphasizing your condemnation on what you called "liberalism". For example, do you think one act of fornication is equal to the deaths of all those due to the war in Iraq? Do you think jesus would be more worried today about the torture in the prisions of the world-or the fact that a hollywood actress doesn't wear underpants?

Unlike 1000-2000 year old cultures, our spiritual and societal laws make many precise distinctions amongst the various types of sins/crimes. You seemingly want to return to the belief system that of the world's fundamentalists. If Jesus were alive today-he would undoubtably adapt his teachings accordingly. Yet, you unreasonably expect us to believe that if jessus were alive today he would still be teaching 2000 year-old law.

I believe that if jesus were alive today he would be throwing the money changers out of Wall Street, he would be working with AIDS victims around the world, his heart would go out to the men and women who are suffering and gender identification issues, he would be feeding the hungry and caring for the homeless, and trying to bring peace to the Middle East, and trying to build the bridge to the Muslim community and preaching for the education and equality of women in all cultures.

your vision of who jesus was-and what he believed in-and what he would likely be teaching today is completely different than mine. It's not only presumptuous but frankly downright fundamentalist for you to condemn my understanding of who Jesus was and what he would be preaching today-that you dismiss as liberalism. The most Christ like people in our lifetime- Martin Luther King, Dali Lama, Ghandi,Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela etc. are all liberal theologically. Who do the fundmentalists have to compare?

@Trutf Teller-What part of turning the other cheek did you NOT understand? Okay, we get it... you hate Muslims. You want everybody to hate Muslims. I figure if all the Muslims were to vanish you would publish a rant against Jews, or Hindu. The Man you may say you worship was named Yeshua, not Jeezus. There was never a Hebrew named Jeezus. It's a made up name. So you start out being mistaken about your own religion and move on to being unaware of any other faith. See, the Christians have cheerfully murdered and burned alive the people of my faith, for years and in the millions. But I cannot reject the teachings of Yeshua because he was essentially preaching the same thing we Pagans teach: tolerance, faithfulness, and non-violence. So if I were to, for instance, declare all Christians to be baby killers and rapists because a handful of Christians on the news were baby rapers, that would be absurd. Some Imans are just as bad in their teachings. Just like the Bible, the Quran preaches both hate and love, violence and tolerance and you choose when to follow which instruction. In both documents we see the hand of man more than the mind of God, so don't blame the followers for the crimes of their leaders, blame them for their own actions. The Popes have protected baby rapers and mass murderers, but my sister in law, who happens to be a Nun, does not tolerate nor agree with these actions. She's a good Christian, a true Christian. The Pope, however, is an old man with nothing to offer the world but lies and bullpoop. You, my friend, are terribly confused about many things taught in religious schools and it would be swell if you did some first hand research, sitting down with Others to learn their beliefs. Give it a shot or sit still and be quiet.

As a Messianic Jew, one who believes in Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus), I look into the
real meaning of the day, Shavuot (today's Pentecost, but the same exact day), and I see the beautiful meaning of God's Torah. The Law of God. Shavuot was the very day, in Jewish tradition and history, when God gave the Law (the Ten Commandments, and the moral statutes and judgments) to Moses on the mountain. It was on that same day, ten days after Yom Hobikkurim (third day of Passover) that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles who were at the Temple to celebrate Shavuot according to the Law. Thus you have one day when
God's only Law and the power of the Holy Spirit to keep and observe it are combined as a reminder of both, all in one day.

As described in the Torah (God's Law, all of it, not just the Ten Commandments, but minus the animal sacrificial system), the day was to be celebrated as primarily a day of joyful sharing with "the poor, widows, orphans
and strangers." It was a day when the men of Israel brought their tithes and offerings to Jerusalem so that the offerings could be exchanged for money, or when money was simply brought in so that the bounty could be used to purchase
food and other needs to be given to the poor.

This was to be done all year long, with Shavuot as the special day to remind people of their spiritual need to share, and thus be made spirituallh whole by the very God who set up that day, and all the others. Without keeping the yearly holy days (Passover and days of unleavened bread, Shavuot, feast of Trumpets, Yom Kipper, feast of Tabernacles, etc., the people lost the memory of the salvational meanings contained in each one. They then lost their desire to share with those in need. They had also then lost the understanding of the meaning of the animal sacrifices (pointing to Christ's coming, life and atoning death).

The above is the way Jesus found the Jewish people. They decided that they could do the sacrifices, say prayers, not touch or mingle with non-Jews (their way of staying "pure"), and all these things would earn them salvation.

Thus, it was not God's Torah Law, or any part of it's moral requirements, that was the problem. It was the people, themselves and what their leaders had done to the moral Law by disobedience in not keeping and "observing" the reality and
spirit of those laws, that caused the people to not recognize Christ as Messiah when he came, lived and died and raised Himself on the third day of Passover, which that year happened on the first day of the week. Each year the third day of Passover happens on a different day of the week, according to God's calendar.

Jesus kept and observed all of what some today call "the Jewish feast days," but He did so a long ways away from Jerusalem. No record exists of His ever sacrificing an animal for sin. He had no sin.

Jesus gave His religion to the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob so they could give it to the world. He came and did what His people kept, but did not do
much sharing with the rest of mankind. But, He did not change any aspect of His moral Law. Neither did the Apostles.

You don’t see any irony in you sharing your story of the occupiers and then your diatribe that followed?Speaking of inconvenient bits, you also seem to leave out the contradictions, translation and transcription mistakes, and that assuming it was directly dictated by god it was put in the hands of mankind.It seems you’re either advocating literalism (which seems a bit absurd given Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s remarkably different narratives), or you’re advocating your own generalization given some pieces of scripture. So sure, the author might be cherry picking, but you’re pretty much doing the same thing.All that your diatribe does is show that some things the bible holds true are absurd (and most moderates don’t follow them anyways). If anything you just give more fuel to the author’s points.

I agree with many things the author says, but disagree on a few issues. I know for a fact that Jesus would not be in the occupy movement because they wouldn't let Him in.

True story: our local chapter in SD was planning to start their occupation in a building that just happened to host the annual Jewish holy services on that very same day. There was a meeting that didn't go well, and finally the GA voted to start their occupation in a park instead. One of the people from the publicity committee wrote a letter to the rabbis apologizing for any trouble the occupiers had caused them, and expressing a universal hope that God would help to bring peace to all mankind. The person who wrote the letter was berated by the occupy publicity committee. It seems that the occupy group objected to invoking God in any matter. I conclude from this that Jesus would not be welcome in the occupy movement because He placed the Love of God above all things:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. "

The order of these is very important because it shows that we must conform our lives to God; it doesn't work the other way around. I think it is this distinction that is referred to when we use the phrase, "God as I understand Him..." On the one hand, we can take that phrase to mean that a person in all humility is allowing that he may not understand God perfectly, but this is what he sincerely believes God to Be. Fine.

On the other hand, this phrase can mean that the person believes God to be unknowable beyond his own subjective intuition. And this invocation of God, as I understand Him, is wrong. This meaning wants to invoke the Jesus who is convenient to the that person, but wants to ignore whatever Jesus said that is contrary to their views. I believe that is the meaning of "the danger of Liberalism".

The author here has phrased the argument thus: The wealthy false Christians are conveniently ignoring all the things Jesus said about turning the other cheek, and about how Jesus drove the moneylenders out of the temple. Yes. But the author is ignoring how the progressives are conveniently ignoring other things that Jesus said. e.g. that marriage was between a man and a woman:

"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."

Earlier the author referenced legalizing drugs, where Jesus said,
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

Yes. Very good. But Jesus goes on to explain the types of things that DO make a person sinful:

"But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man."

Many liberal progressives would like to conveniently forget that fornication, adultery and blasphemy make us sinful.

And these are not my words, but they are from Jesus. God, as I understand Him, is revealed in the Holy Scripture.

I understand that some people might be atheist and not believe in Jesus. But if they do not believe, then why should they invoke Jesus at all? Let us not only remember Jesus when He agrees with us, and pretend that He doesn't exist when His Words are inconvenient.

Yes, let's throw the money lenders out the temple. Let's give families a chance to live in a home and earn a decent wage without usurers taking a bite out of every dollar. But let's not pretend that God will be totally pleased with a liberal democracy that fosters immorality. Jesus called us to make us Holy:

"Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God....
"Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."

We become Holy when we learn to love Jesus, and we conform our lives to His. That is how we can live forever. Jesus came into the world to SAVE us from sin. That is the meaning of Christmas. Listen:

"And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people: For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord..."

If we really want to Occupy Christmas, we should take the opportunity to love Jesus fully, and not just use Him as a rhetorical flourish. If we are in sin, let us confess and ask God to save us from sin. That is what God wants us to do. Jesus wants to save us from sin. If we take the opportunity to let Jesus be born in us as a child, we have a real opportunity to live forever. And that is something that all the money of the 1% can NEVER BUY.

But we have to know Jesus Christ fully. We can't just leave out the inconvenient bits.

"Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able. But when the master of the house shall be gone in, and shall shut the door, you shall begin to stand without, and knock at the door, saying: Lord, open to us. And he answering, shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are."

"Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven."

Re Occupy & Trinity Church: You don’t need to be religious to understand -and embrace- the idea that "Whatsoever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." But many of the 1%, in blind greed and endless schemes, have forgotten this. They have closed their eyes to what the word "society" should really mean, what it can mean. But due to Occupy Wall Street, we are finally talking less about CUTS and more about BLEEDING. Instead of demanding m-o-r-e budget cuts -to be borne by the middle class and poor- we are FINALLY focusing on the shameful bleeding that the poor and middle class has endured, for all too long. Instead of talking about even m-o-r-e cuts in the taxes of millionaires....we are now talking about fairness and justice - about an economy and a political system that is increasingly run for the rich, and by the rich. Instead of talking about LESS government, we are talking about a government that WORKS FOR ALL OF US, not just a favored few. Thank you OWS, for reminding us that people -ordinary working people- really DO matter, and for helping open our eyes to what’s going on in this country, and why. The attempt by OWS to occupy Duarte Square (the empty lot owned by Trinity Church) is much more than a plea for sanctuary. For like Zuccotti Park, it’s an attempt to carve out a protected space, a living conscience for the city, amid the repression. A refuge...in a city where control-freaks would sweep us under the rug, and out of the way. In a city where they would pen us in, and permit us to death. In a city that tells us to “move on, move on”..... you don’t belong, you don’t count, you don’t have a right to be here...don’t assemble, don’t block the street, don’t trespass, don’t EXIST! They would deny us, deny our lives, deny our very futures. IF WE LET THEM. But OWS responds, both in word and in DEED: it says we’ve had ENOUGH - we BELONG, we STAND our ground, and we DO matter! This IS our land, and we want it BACK! The word OCCUPY...says it all! That’s why OWS has captured our imagination. That’s why a living breathing OCCUPIED public space is important for OWS. Like Lady Liberty’s never extinguished torch that burns in our harbor, OWS needs to have a concrete, persistent, in-your-face presence.. ..to continually remind us of what we’ve lost, of what we are, and what we can be; a protected place to affirm, to illuminate, to defy...and to inspire. Trinity Church, with its oft-proclaimed ideals (and its huge land holdings), should look deep into its collective soul, do the right thing, and help OWS secure a sanctuary. Not merely a space of refuge, but one of hope, non-violent change, and compassion. And dare I say: a space of love - love of country, love of your fellow man and woman, love for the poor and oppressed. Can thoughtful Christians argue with these simple Christian / human values? For if Christ were physically with us today, as He was 2000 years ago, He would be among the FIRST to climb those fences, and occupy Trinity’s Duarte Square. Of this I am certain. Let us pray that Trinity Church -and others -hear the call, and respond. For the old ways are not working...

I'll confess that I was ready to cringe as I read this article... but I didn't. Frankly, I became a bit emotional seeing, in writing, what I had known for some years: that in certain parts our faith has been perverted and, horribly, in some cases even “weaponized”. Liberals are right to be concerned and alarmed at the rise of religious influence in political discourse. There is no getting away from that fact that religiosity has no place in politics. Religiosity is not spirituality.

Christ's mission was spiritual and His mission was with the individual. He met with the "rejects" of the time. He wasn't "above" breaking bread with the unloved and lonely, the prostitutes, tax collectors and maybe others like homosexuals and other beleaguered classes. He was there to set people free from religious customs that did nothing to honor God but instead preserved the status of those who demanded their observation.

"Mod­er­ate Chris­tians see him as the Son of God who clothed the home­less, healed the sick, and fed the hungry." This is the Christ I know. I am most grateful that you make the distinction. This is indeed where we should be.

I may not be able to agree with some liberal tenets but I accept this article, with sorrow. I'm sure many truly spiritual Christians would as well. The timing is good. There are some who I would like to share this with.

Thank you. God's blessing to you and yours.

The REAL message of Jesus and all religions: SOCIAL JUSTICE. Jesus gave his life for social justice yet the clergy, especially the televangelists have sided with the Roman Church and the .0005% in control of resources (by hook or crook) against the masses of poor, ignorant and the lost. It is time to lift off the mask of establishment religions. OWS should align with the TRUE religious people against the banksters and their friends who are taking advantage of people's miseries to amass obscene wealth.

OUTSTANDING!Deacon Skip La Police