Christian Recruiters Target Religious Rabbits in Race for Inter-Species Faithful

cute_04Recently, we saw the growing fight over canine Christians as religious organizations fight to augment their ranks with recruitment of other species.

The inter-species move may reflect recent polls showing a sharp increase in Americans who say that they are not part of any religion.

Given the known violent propensities of this species, the effort to recruit religious rabbits may alarm some citizens.

It is not simply a matter of Baptist Bunnies hopping into Sunday services. The move sparks a race for the rabbits with different faiths claiming particular breeds, struggling over American Fuzzy Lops and American Sables.

charley-prayingThe Britannia Petite and Sussex rabbits has been claimed by the Anglicans.

The Florida White is an Evangelical breed.

The Californian Rabbit is strictly New Age.

The German Grey is a protestant stronghold.

The Siberian Rabbit is known Russian Orthodox. pippin-counting

As herbivores, the Hindu faith may hold a certain appeal for the mammals.

[Kudos to Patty C for the three additional pictures of observant bunnies]

82 thoughts on “Christian Recruiters Target Religious Rabbits in Race for Inter-Species Faithful”

  1. Mike,

    It was mockery. Jesus was not legitimately dubbed a king. They whipped him, spit on him, bowed to him, put a crown of thorns on his head, and hailed him “King of the Jews.” He claimed to be the messiah. The Jews rightly assumed that that also meant king. Yet, Jesus honored the Roman government even when the Pharisees tried to trick him into criticizing Caesar.


    That does not say that Jesus opposed the Roman government. That is a biased comment from a power-hungry high priest. Jesus honored the Roman government and taught others to do the same (Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s). The Jews expected him to be a conqueror. They did not expect for him to lay down his life.

    That passage you quoted also mentioned miracles done by Jesus. It came from a man who didn’t want to believe that Jesus did any miracles.

  2. “Buddha, you must admit that that is a theory. I appointment. t is derived from no reliable source other than imagination”

    You’re wrong the proof is in the Gospel account of what was posted on Jesus cross. “King of the Jews.” Professing to be King of the Jews was treason to the Romans of the time, because only the emperor could name a Jewish King. By Jesus and his followers stating that he was of the line of David, on both sides, they were claiming “Moshiach” (messiah=king)status for Jesus, which would make him King. That would usurp the Emperor’s powers and be highly disrespectful, therefore treasonous. That what what the anointment scene was about, the Jewish “Moshiach” (King) required anointment.

  3. Clint:

    I think Buddha’s point is really beyond doubt assuming you accept the Biblical account as true. Here is John’s account of the Sanhedrin Trial where the political motivations are abundantly clear:

    John 11: “47 What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

  4. Buddha,

    “He was killed because he threatened [Roman] power which was based in fear.”

    Buddha, you must admit that that is a theory. It is derived from no reliable source other than imagination.

  5. Clint,
    You are no doubt a good person and Christian in the best sense of the word. Unfortunately, for many years far too many of your brethren have ignored Jesus message and fostered hate in the world. However, this ignoring of a prophet’s message in the service of ego, has also occurred in all religions including my own. The problem is that one may fervently believe in her/his conception of the Creator’s purpose, but the trouble arises when they try to convince others of their belief.

    Judaism is not big on a conception of life after death and neither am I. There is no concept of original sin in Judaism, nor the belief that people are essentially sinners, we believe that the mission of all humans is to perfect this world. While I am not in one sense a traditional Jew, as a Deist, I agree with those concepts. Therefore people striving to save my soul are annoying to me, despite the goodness of their intentions. I neither believe in Heaven, nor Hell and I’m willing to take my chances if at sometime I am to be judged by the Creator.

  6. Clint,

    I never said what the Romans and Jewish leaders did to Christ was anything but horrific. You are correct that he wasn’t killed for his good works. He was killed because he threatened their power which was based in fear. In the case of Rome, it was the fear they created by having the Legions. In the case of the Jews, his message of God as love – as Mike so wonderfully elaborated upon – was squarely in opposition to their message of a wrathful God. If you love your brother, how can you be made to kill him for Caesar? If we are all one, how can we wage war? How can we maintain the version of a wrathful God when a heretic is saying God is love? The lust for earthly power is ego worship and that’s just evil. The men who killed Christ did so for their own selfish reasons. I think it’s horrible that a teacher was killed in the name of preserving the “status quo”. Any teacher with a good message that can lift us all up should be listened to, not killed. Whether it be Jesus (reasons mentioned already), Socrates (he didn’t want to drink that hemlock, he was a threat to the Greek establishment so they gave him a choice of poison or sword), MLK (killed because he dared to claim all men are created equal, even black men) or Malcolm X (his post Mecca message of tolerance was a threat to the radical powers and ambitions within the Nation of Islam). I have never contended Jesus was anything less than a wise teacher and a rebel against worldly authority. He was an iconoclast who bravely brought a message of love to a world that most certainly wasn’t loving. Some of those following him? Eh, not always such good people. Make no mistake. I have no problem with Jesus or his teachings proper as well as they can be discerned from the historical collection of documents in context. Just the evils that rides on His coattails in the form of bad things done my men in His name.

  7. Bron98,

    Christianity is founded upon undeserved mercy. Jesus’ death was necessary and wasn’t an accident. Most relgions are built on a moral system–“If you do a,b, and c you can reach x.” Christianity says, “You failed in a, b, and c so x must come to you.”

  8. Mike,

    “I was called a “Christ Killer” in High School and I didn’t like it because I never disparaged others religions.”

    I’m sorry that was directed towards you in a racist way. If Christianity was to be judged by some of those who claim to be Christians, then I would quickly leave and join the ranks of atheists. There has been much bigotry in the name of Christ. Most people who wear jerseys are not in professional sports. Jesus said that those who obey Him prove that they are His followers. You may find it shocking that I do agree that you are a “Christ-killer.” The human race, including myself, are all Christ-killers. It is not an ethnic guilt, its a human one:

    But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. -Isaiah 53:5

  9. Jill,

    I bought Jesus, Interrupted by Ehrman. I haven’t started it yet. I think I would like you to read The Reason for God by Tim Keller.

  10. Buddha,

    Many of these sayings that I’ve quoted were deeply offensive to most. He wasn’t executed for the crime of good deeds. He was executed because He was deeply offensive–calling moral people evil and declaring Himself to be exclusive access to Ultimate Reality.

    Jesus said, “[The world] hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil.” -John 7:7

    Does it concern you that a man who was executed for offensiveness and pointed words theoretically always agrees with your worldview?

  11. MikeS:

    never could figure out the “Christ killer” thing. If Jesus didnt die on the cross no religion end of story.

  12. “I’ll defer to our resident expert in Judaism, Mike S., on for clarification.”

    I’m glad that my Daughter and Son-In-Law, who are both Yeshiva Trained and deeply religious (although his being a radical feminist endeared me to him in the first place)don’t read JT’s Blog, not that I haven’t tried to get them to. They would find me being a resident expert in Judaism a hoot, in comparison to their knowledge and Hebrew fluency. However, I have done more reading than either in comparative religion and have had a good deal longer to ponder philosophy. with that out front, let me take a stab. Also by the way your 12:43 comment and 2:12 comments say much better than I can and I share your thinking on that Guatama Buddha guy.

    In my view that Jesus was a Pharisee Rabbi is obvious. The congruity of the “Golden Rule” to Rabbi Hillel’s formulation shows it so. The Pharisees themselves were also rebelling against the idea of God as wrathful and their written teachings an pronouncements dating from at least a century before Jesus were known to try to ameliorate the harsh dictums of the Torah by explaining they were not meant literally. That Jesus was on the more radical end is I think apparent, but that brings with it some problems for the Christian conception of Jesus’ teaching.

    The Pharisees were the leaders of the rebellions against Rome,
    while the Sadducee’s, like the High Priest, were the Quisling’s with the Romans and the Fundamentalists of their day. The reason for this is simple. The priestly functions of the temple were ritualistic and inherited. They were not the keepers of the religious traditions, merely the functionaries.
    Their power derived from running the temple as shown in the Torah, but the religion was in the hands of the Pharisees. When Rome took over Israel they believed that as in their own land the keepers of the religion, were the temple priests. They couldn’t understand why once they had cowed and bribed the High Priest, the Jews were still pissed off and fighting back.

    Jesus, as the Gospels claim probably had some claim of Davidic lineage. He thus proclaimed himself “Moshiach,” which denotes King and not “Son of God.” He remained a faithful Jew, followed the 613 commandments, ate kosher food and was probably as a good Jewish Rabbi of his time was married, to Mary who was the “Beloved Disciple.” Proclaiming himself “King of the Jews” was sedition against Rome since only the Emperor had the right to name a King of an occupied territory.

    His rebellion failed and at best guess he was crucified between 30 to 35CE. “The four canonical texts are the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John, probably written between 65 and 100 AD.[1][2] They appear to have been originally untitled; they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century (ie 100 – 150) but the names by which they are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180” (Wikipedia)

    Paul, who had never known Jesus, nevertheless claimed to understand him and his mission better than did Jesus’ disciples, who are really made to seem stupid in the Gospels.
    We do know from Paul’s own writings that he had a huge dispute with James, Jesus brother and with Peter. While Paul claimed they came around to his way of thinking they were probably dead by then and so were unable to dispute it. Also there are no known writings from either of them. Paul changed the essential nature of Jesus’ teachings and also claimed that he was trained as a Pharisee. That was unlikely in that he also seems to have been a valued employee of the high Priest who hated the Pharisee’s. Paul died just about the time the first Gospel was written.

    The Gospel writers were originally unknown, as above, and we can’t determine if they had known Jesus, or even Paul. There are indications that none of them were Jewish and Paul even acknowledges that his greatest successes were among the gentiles. While history has traced the disciples of the original Jesus movement, through James the Just up to around 500CE or so, the Pauline group flourished underground until
    Constantine needed it to become Emperor and then decreed the christian Canon in 325CE at Nicaea and other later counsels.
    The one over riding necessity of these councils was to ensure to erase any possibility that Jesus was a rebel against Rome, for very obvious reasons.

    What we see today as the Christian Canon has no doubt been edited and re-edited throughout the years. Jill’s reference to Ehrman’s book are apt, but there is a whole literature that has followed the same reasoning for at least the past 150 years, some of it by distinguished Christian scholars.

    I have to honestly ask myself, based on your inquiry am I particularly hostile towards Christians? Since all of my parents close friends were pious Catholics and many of my own closest adult friends were Protestants of one or another denomination, I think I can honestly say that no I’m not per se prejudiced against Christians. However, as a Jew (albeit a
    Deist)I must state that there is much in the history of Christianity that offends me, as is also true with Islam.

    This is because that after the atrocities of the Crusades; the expulsion from England so the king could avoid repayment of his debts; the expulsion from Spain of Jews in 1492; The Inquisition; Martin Luther turning against Jews when he realized they would not convert en masse; the usurpation (from a Jewish point of view) of our Torah and the general attitude that you’ve replaced us and that we are a vile sub-human race; we’ve got some grievances. Islam claims to have treated us better but that is historically inaccurate.

    I was called a “Christ Killer” in High School and I didn’t like it because I never disparaged others religions. Now I can’t speak for the others on this site, they are quite able to defend themselves, but it seems to me that the hostility is not directed at Christians per se, but at the hubris in the fundamentalist Christian community that preaches the “Golden Rule,” but acts like followers of Mammon in their quest to overturn church/state separation and their backing a political philosophy of greed and hatred of those who are different and/or lack financial wherewithal.

  13. Clint,

    There is no contradiction that God is love and he gave His son for our “sins”. Lessons often come with a price. But maybe I see it that way because I think the idea of original sin is often misinterpreted. The sin wasn’t disobeying God’s order not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. It was arrogance and seeking of satisfying ego that led to the decision to eat the apple. If one presumes to fight nature, that is a path to disaster. I don’t buy into sin either. There are evil acts and good acts. Proverbs 20:11 says, “Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.” Sin is a term misused to create shame and self-doubt when evil in action is the actual concern. All men have occasional evil thoughts. Some men are only capable of evil thought. It is our nature. What makes us evil in res is acting upon them. Even in the Bible it is not a sin to think about killing a man, but it is to actually do it. Again, free will is in play.

    I’m pretty sure John didn’t use the “wrath absorber” terminology (although I find it humorous), but it brings up a point that I’ll defer to our resident expert in Judaism, Mike S., on for clarification. Jesus was likely a Pharisee rabbi and breaking with Jewish tradition of the time was part of his rationale for teaching. He was rebelling against the idea of a cruel and vengeful God as He is often portrayed in the ancient world (and today). The above example shows that cruelty on Earth does not abrogate God’s love for all, even when that cruelty is to His “chosen”. And by chosen I don’t mean special or any better than “sinners” or people of good conscience who call God by another name. I mean those who carry the message God is love no matter if you call that God Yaweh, God, Ganesh or the Bodi-Dharma. Death in the name of a noble cause like spreading love is not wrath, but furtherance of the message by example. It’s true sacrifice in the name of the one thing we can all agree upon as being good in the world: love. Teaching by negative example is just another method of teaching. I don’t think John was mistaken except perhaps in word choice, but a wrathful God was a common concept of his time and he was using the language of the day. I think his intent is clear though – no amount of suffering cancels out His love even if that suffering befalls a carrier of the message of love. In fact, John’s one of the better sources for the actual teachings, but I think there is often a misinterpretation of the nature of the sacrifice. It wasn’t to forgive our “sins”, it was to teach the value of sacrifice in the name of love. An attempt to instill virtue even by the harshest of lessons. Mike’s understanding of the history of Judaism as it relates to early Christianity will probably be able to give you a better answer than that though.

  14. That bunny IS facing Mecca – ie ‘Salaam, Salaam, Salaam’, sais the caption.

    God’s creatures are beyond eccumenical. They welcome all faiths and denominations.

    In fact, there’s line at the door – awaiting…

  15. Clint,

    Let’s discuss them here. I’ve made certain to get updates at this entry so I should see what book you want me to read.

  16. Jill,

    I will definitely buy the book and read it. I think you understand that my presupposition is that Scripture is accurate and true, but I will try to be open and intellectually honest (I realize that, to some, given the former, the latter is impossible…but I’ll try to accomplish the impossible). I have a favor to ask. Can we both discuss our findings either here, my site, or by email? I will get back to you soon about my choice of book.

  17. Buddha,

    How do you know exactly that 1 Jn. 4:8 (God is love) is authentic? Here is the whole passage:

    “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because GOD IS LOVE. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation (wrath-absorber) for our sins.”

    John illustrates the “God is love” point by saying that God shows this love by punishing Jesus for our sins. This was allegedly written by Jesus’ closest disciple. Surely, this man wouldn’t have claimed this if Jesus taught otherwise. Or, was everything after “God is love” corrupted/edited?

Comments are closed.