A good Jewish man was inculcated into the belief system
to constantly monitor, watch-out-for, and guard against
persons who would transgress their adherence to the Law.
Such men wanted to protect their reputations by showing
how vigilant they were in matters regarding ‘unclean’ people.
Psalm 26:4-6
“I have not sat with vain persons, neither will I go in with
dissemblers. I have hated the congregation of evil doers;
and will not sit with the wicked. I will wash mine hands
in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O LORD.”

The word Why was used as a crowbar to pull up into
social consciousness a particular behavior that was
taken for granted as an acceptable means of conduct.
Why was used in the New Testament as an attack
weapon battered back and forth between opponents.

Matthew 15:2-3:
“Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?
for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he
[Jesus] answered and said unto them, Why do ye also
transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?”

And Luke 6:2
“And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye
that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?”

The critizism against Christ’s mission was based on the
failure to following directions as defined by those Temple
authorities who were in political positions of power. Thus,
as the crowds/multitudes of the Jewish population were
increasing and openly attracted to ‘rebelious’ teachings,
it became a socio-political-economic threat. Adherents
became a divisive sub-culture that threatened the fabric
of their ‘approved’ Societal Main-Stream Norms &
Expectations.

This agenda-making process might start with self-analysis,
but it certainly doesn’t stop there. The process needs to find
a way to connect and converse within the context of love
in relationships, first with our Maker, and then our neighbor.
Hence, let’s elevate the conversation, first in our own hearts
and then with others.

Robert and Brad – I’m thinking that you could also talk about ‘worldview’ in this post, and why and how one’s worldview is their basis for not only belief, but also the cause of ‘promotion’ – how that relates to how one was raised and in some cases, their different current ideology.

Paul – I never thought about looking up the word agenda. That is totally sweet! I am reminded of a series I just did about the language in the culture war

http://www.loveisanorientation.com/category/cultu…

and ‘agenda’ totally needs to be added to that. The premise of the language in the culture war is that the current definition means something completely opposite than its original intent. And you have just shown us how true that is! Thanks so much for the enlightenment brother. That just totally shifted my paradigm of agenda.

Frank – Your succinct deconstruction of the weight of motivation behind an agenda is right on point, and it’s legitimately something I had never thought of in regards to metrics.

Pm – Wow. Whenever you comment you have me wondering if you’re a scholar, theologian or what? The deep biblical understanding you have that you can tie so fluidly into such a wide variety of situations is mind-boggling. Thanks again for your profound insight. The following that you wrote is the best understanding of the word ‘why’ in the Bible that I have ever read:

“The word Why was used as a crowbar to pull up into

social consciousness a particular behavior that was

taken for granted as an acceptable means of conduct.

Why was used in the New Testament as an attack

weapon battered back and forth between opponents.”

This is a great reminder to let us never take any means of conduct acceptable just because it’s accepted by culture.

Christ also had an agenda. Read any of the gospels from the beginning and that fact is plain as day. And if we believe his agenda to be wholly good, then we must measure our own agendas by that standard. And by that standard, even the conservative Christian agenda fails by a mile.

Agenda, as used by many Christians or Secular organizations, is seen as a violent, shoving acceptance of a list of rules or standards. Each side has this element that is true. Agenda, by definition, is not a violent word. Agenda is a soft word, used for discussion, conversation and problem solving. Wouldn’t it be nice if each side adopted this view point of the other side? It boils down to ‘I just want to talk”.

I’ve always felt that if one denies marriage equality for gay couples because they can’t come up with any excuse to deny plural marriges, then your opposition to both is pretty weak. IMHO.