Item description for Jesus Rode A Donkey: Why Republicans Don't Have the Corner on Christ by Linda Seger...
If Jesus were alive today, would he:
Feed the poor-or cut free school lunch programs?
Comfort the old and infirm-or eliminate Social Security?
Turn the other cheek-or invade Iraq? In this groundbreaking book, noted author and theologian Linda Seger, Th.D., explores what it means to be a Christian and a Democrat-and shows how the two are not mutually exclusive (as many Republicans claim), but rather inclusive. She reveals the close relationship between Democratic policy and Jesus's teachings-and the many ways in which the values Jesus espouses in the Bible correspond to the values Democrats call their own. The idea that America's real Christians are all Republicans is just that-an idea, and an indefensible, divisive one at that. Jesus Rode a Donkey is a call to Christians everywhere to remember that Jesus was a liberal, who rode a donkey through the streets of Jerusalem-not an elephant.
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Studio: Adams Media
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 7.58" Width: 5.88" Height: 1.31" Weight: 1.16 lbs.
Release Date Jul 24, 2006
Publisher Adams Media
ISBN 1593376197 ISBN13 9781593376192 UPC 045079706194
Availability 0 units.
More About Linda Seger
Linda Seger is the author of Making a Good Script Great. She is married and lives in Venice, California.
Linda Seger currently resides in Venice, in the state of California.
Reviews - What do customers think about Jesus Rode A Donkey: Why Republicans Don't Have the Corner on Christ?
Man's Law or God's Law???? Feb 5, 2008
I am an ex-Democrat, but I am not a Republican, I am a third party candidate with right of center leanings and came to this book with an open mind, semi-non-religious mind. However, after reading it I came away with a rather disgusted feeling, much like that of Sam Harris has when discussing religious moderates. Let me explain.
If one claims to follow a certain religious belief and they truly believe that their holy book is the word of God. Then it only makes logical sense to follow what this word of God tells them to do. He is God isn't he? And if he is God isn't he correct and his word correct?
Sam Harris said it best in his book:
"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance - and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on par with fundamentalism." (21)
"By their light, religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God's law." (21)
"All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don't like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us." (20)
Although I disagree with Mr. Harris on many points his logic is impeccable in this area. So what are we to think of this book?
Quite clearly Ms. Seger is a diehard democratic partisan, the problem comes when she tries to manipulate her parties beliefs with what the bible teaches. I found it almost painful at times to watch the manipulation, twisting and distorting of clear sentences, commandments and proclamations of the bible. In some areas her distortions became so utterly ludicrous (Abortion, homosexuality) they were useless to any intellectually honest person.
In other cases she was able to selectively use some verses while leaving out the majority to make her case. At least this approach was playing on the ignorance of her intended audience rather than the mental rape when discussing abortion or homosexuality.
Perhaps if Ms. Seger could take off her rose colored partisan sunglasses for one minute and take a look at one of the clearest differences between democratic and republican values. She would see that they are with the question of whether we should follow what the bible says or manipulate to what we think it should say. The republicans have had a fairly consistent policy of using clear biblical morals and rules to ground their ideology. On the other hand the democrats have had a fairly consistent policy of marginalizing religious thoughts and morals, twisting and perverting them to fit their human agenda and even applauding movements such as freedom FROM religion, rather than protecting religious freedoms.
SIDEBAR: Freedom of religion as guaranteed by the second amendment is inexorably linked with freedom of speech, if you begin to whittle away either one of the freedoms the other will also fall. This is a matter of importance to every American, Christian, Atheist, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, Agnostic, Wiccan, etc. a like.
What we see is a partisan political author manipulating biblical Christianity to fit her own agenda that is grounded in her feelings and desire rather a willingness to submit to God's law.
What did Jesus do? Sep 14, 2007
I am not a Republican, and I am not a Democrat, but I am a Christian. Since the author requested personal feedback in her post, I feel compelled to provide that instead of a traditional review. First of all, I agree with the author on a great many points. The republican party is hardly Christian in its compass, but I also entirely disagree that liberal humanism is Christ-centered.
Throughout Christian history, many theologians have discussed the idea of Christ's primary role as a moral leader. Even rabidly anti-Christian thinkers like Thomas Jefferson were inspired by Christ's Sermon on the Mount to "Be perfect as their Heavenly Father is perfect." However, these same thinkers ignored the Christ of revelation coming on clouds of judgment to cut down those who failed to carry out the sermon's imperative.
The ultimate question is "What would Jesus do?" A good place to infer that would be to look at scripture. Does Christ spend more time preparing meals for the poor, or eating in their homes as a guest?
A better question might be "What did Jesus do?" And how can we replicate that in our own lives. 1. Christ humiliated his divine nature by permanently joining it to a human nature. 2. Christ was divinely born of a virgin apart from the imputation of Adam's guilt and a sinful nature. 2. Christ lived a perfectly sinless life. 3. Christ declared himself to be God. 4. Christ forgave sin. 5. Christ cast out demons. 6. Christ raised the dead. 7. Christ sweat blood begging God to find another way to forgive sin. 8. Christ willingly accepted the full measure of God's wrath for the sins of the world. 9. Christ allowed God to impute sin to him, while simultaneously imputing Christ's righteousness to sinners. 10. Christ died, and was buried, and rose from the dead.
The answer is ultimately that Christ is one of the least useful examples in Scripture, because he is uniquely the God-man, his ministry declared his deity, and his slaughter propitiated God's wrath against sinners. If we could do that, then there wouldn't be any need for Christ and God surely would not have delighted in pouring out the full measure of his wrath on the Son of Man, in order to save us.
While I agree with the author that most all of scripture demands that we protect the poor and downtrodden and that we actively stand up for the widow and the orphan, we must also recognize that primary problem is sin. The world produces enough food so that no one on the planet should go hungry, but our hearts are hard, full of deceit, and desperately wicked. Our mouths are open graves, and not even one of us has the moral agency to seek after God.
Wretched people that we are! Who will deliver us from these bodies of death? Our only hope is that Christ will judge us according to his own righteousness, instead of handing us the wrath that we desperately deserve.
Nicer Xtians = yay, but still miss the point Sep 13, 2007
I am an atheist. I was raised in a Lutheran home, and my mother sent me this book to try and get me to see that religion isn't all bad.
The problem isn't in what the writer is saying here; sure, we should all want a better world! Love and peace are great universal truths to follow and yes those wacky Conservative Christians sure do spout a lot of hate... but trying to convince people to reinterpret the beliefs of Jesus in more positive ways still misses the point that your religion is based primarily on myth, misunderstandings, outdated material, and blind faith.
You can re-translate and re-interpret the self contradictory and meaningless tripe of 2000 year old fishermen to mean pretty much anything you want, and its been done so many times over the years that anyone can say 'god' means this or that or the other thing... when the true mature and healthy position would be to think for your self.
Learn about the true wonders of the universe through science and gain a greater reasoning of the world around you! Faith is tantamount to throwing up your hands and saying you give up in your quest for beauty and knowledge. Trusting your core beliefs and values to be formed by people who couldn't comprehend the modern world we live in today is madness! Do you care what ancient egyptians thought about marriage? Perhaps its interesting to learn about from a curiosity standpoint, but why let their limited understanding of the world influence your decision making process today?
By fighting the conservative agenda within the context of religion, you are merely drawing battle lines that can lead nowhere. This is why religion is dangerous. People fight and die over differences of opinion that they can't possibly defend because they simply 'believe' something.
I would love to see all christians adopt this loving and open stance over the vitriol and loathing currently associated with most religious fervor, but its still the same dead-end road in the long run. Right wingers are hateful simply because they want to be, and they will use whatever verses and interpretations they want to in order to justify their behavior.
Stop debating with them down on their level, it only gives them the attention they crave... move on to something greater!
Seger should know a story from a historical account Sep 7, 2007
The mission of the Church (to correct several other reviewers) is nothing more than to recruit new victims for a silly End of the World cult, and to teach them to place "faith" and "belief in ancient myths" ahead of rational, critical thought. If Seger creates an imaginary agenda for Jesus, is it more or less valid than the Republican version? Please! Once you realize that the Jesus of the New Testament is an Imaginary Character, then ANY version is just as credible. The New Testament was written decades after the real Jesus was dead, at a time when there were no photos or videos or even "The Book of Things Jesus Actually Said" to reign in the author's imagination. For example, in Acts 23:6, Paul said, "Men and brethern, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged." ..For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, and no angels or spirits, but the Pharisee confess both." The Story of Jesus in the New Testament is a Sales Pitch for a belief in Resurrection. Nothing more and nothing less. The poster child does NOT have a political agenda that makes sense today. The ONLY political agenda that can be attributed to Jesus is, "The world will end before 100 AD, so you must kneel down and pray to God, so that you may escape eternal punishment." Is that a Republican position? Or a Democratic one? Oh, come on. No sensible person TODAY gives any credibility to a prediction that the Resurrection of everyone who ever lived would take place before 100 AD. The Story of Jesus is nothing more than a Ghost Story, the belief that the dead will come back to life and say "Boo!" As someone who claims to know how to write great screenplays, Seger should know this backwards and forwards. Instead, she suggests that Jesus would follow a Democratic agenda today, rather than a Republican one. So, 2 stars, and I'm being generous with 2.
Changed my life Jun 17, 2007
I read this book at the request of my wife, who has always had a more liberal bent than me. And as I read it, I found that almost every page had me agreeing with the beliefs and seeing those belief lead to a different conclusion than I had always championed. This book helped revolutionize my socio-political views, just as "The Bible Is History" by Ian Wilson helped revolutionize my approach to Scripture.
Let it be said over and over by all liberal Christians everywhere: It is NOT the Church's role to tell others how to live. It is the Church's role to be a light and force for improvement and change in the lives of others. One can not expect others to change their morals until they embrace the same God we do. And even then, it is primarily God's job, not ours, to work the changes in lives that He desires. The Church should be about pacifism and charity and never about nationalism, war, or any condemning flavor of evangelism.
I will admit to disagreeing with the author's stance on homosexuality, and finding her arguments a bit convoluted. Even if you extract every single verse that expressly forbids it, the entire Bible as a whole simply recognizes male-female relationships as the intended mode. But you see, this doesn't matter. Because I would rather stand with 5000 gays who love Christ and practice charity and peace, than 5 "good Christian boys" who vote for war and speak out condemningly against abortionists or whomever you choose.
And if homosexuality is wrong, that's between the homosexual and God. And it's none of my business.