What does the bible say about the rich?

[disinfo_guy]

I was inspired by Classical_Liberal's post:

Matthew 19:21-23
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

James 5:1-6
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.

Revelation 3:17
You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

Mark 12:38-44
As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on."

Luke 6:24-25
But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry.

Luke 14:12-14
Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

1 Timothy 7-12
For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith.

Proverbs 22:16
He who oppresses the poor to increase his riches, And he who gives to the rich, will surely come to poverty.

Proverbs 23:4
Do not overwork to be rich; Because of your own understanding, cease!

Proverbs 28:20
A faithful man will abound with blessings, But he who hastens to be rich will not go unpunished.

Ecclesiastes 5:12
The sleep of a laboring man is sweet, Whether he eats little or much; But the abundance of the rich will not permit him to sleep.

Jeremiah 5:27
As a cage is full of birds, So their houses are full of deceit. Therefore they have become great and grown rich.

Micah 6:12
For her rich men are full of violence, Her inhabitants have spoken lies, And their tongue is deceitful in their mouth.

[Bog Frog]

1. amen

of interest about the "camel and the needle" -- some say the word "camel" is more appropriately translated "rope" -- it remains a powerful image of the fate of the rich. Imagine a threading a needle with a rope.

[ArkDem]

11. .....

needle

used only in the proverb, "to pass through a needle's eye" (Matt. 19:24; Mark
10:25; Luke 18:25). Some interpret the expression as referring to the side
gate, close to the principal gate, usually called the "eye of a needle" in the
East; but it is rather to be taken literally. The Hebrew females were skilled
in the use of the needle (Ex. 28:39; 26:36; Judg. 5:30).

[disinfo_guy]

22. the "gate" story is wrong

It's "rope" like the previous poster said.

"Some interpret the expression as referring to the side
gate, close to the principal gate, usually called the "eye of a needle" in the East"

The gate story was made up sometime in the 17th century I think. imo

[ArkDem]

30. The defination says it is to be taken literally. Camel passing

through the eye of a needle. Much more difficult than rope unless you have a very malnourished camel.

[Jose Diablo]

34. In context

doesn't "camel" refer to a camel, a device in a loom for weaving cloth. Also known as a shuttle in todays terms.

[disinfo_guy]

36. I think it's a transliteration problem

supposedly the word for camel and rope are similar, or it was a term "camel hair rope". I don't think it's meant to be taken literally. A rope is impossible to get through the eye of a needle - no one tries to thread a needle with a camel. I've read numerous explanations but that's the only one that makes sense and has manuscript evidence to back it up.

Imagine "You don't wear wool in summer" mistranslated as "You don't wear sheep in summer".

[amjsjc]

50. regardless it's one of the best metaphors ever...

[left is right]

28. Jesus had a great sense of humor

He often used hyperbole to make his point. I think he used these outrageous statements to cause His listeners to gasp with astonishment, I also think that some of them were a means to "separate the sheep from the goats." The common man would probably gasp and then laugh at the image, but stick around to listen. While, the Pharisee (who usually had a great deal of money and power and meant to keep it--no matter what) would probably grumble about this insane man talking about eyes of needles and ropes (or camels, it's just a pen stroke different) and straining at gnats. After grumbling about the lunacy of this man, they would go off and plot to rid Jerusalem of Him.




On edit, gosh I need a new keyboard, it both skips and stutters

[jpgray]

2. Shush. Pat Robertson's role in the diamond trade is a holy one

:crazy:

[GainesT1958]

3. Hmmmm...wonder why the Fundies...

Never like to quote THESE passages of the Gospel?:eyes:

Guess they like all them rich folks puttin' all that money into the treasury too much!:eyes:

B-)

[Kilroy003]

12. True...

Did you ever notice some people use the "Why do you notice the speck in your neighbors eye and not the plank/log in your own eye.." thing when they are trying to defend THEMSELVES. This particular bit of wisdom is supposed to be a warning to those of us who would attack others hypocritically, not as a defense against attacks. I've heard Bu$h use this one more than enough when defending himself. That dude is one sick fuck.

[arcane1]

14. instead, they go with the prayer of Jabez bullshit

they hate Jesus

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

24. You are exactly right...

... the left/progressive side has been upstaged in getting our message out. The right has been effective at turning our message into a "give out money to welfare queens" message which grabs the "Spite the Vote" contingent - a large portion of the electorate.

This doesn't sound (getting our points of view out in small bits that grab attention and affirmation) like it would be that hard but it must be cuz so few on the left even try.

[aquart]

5. Yeah, but the money makes it all go away.

Ask King Moon: <http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/21/moon/index.html>

[army12]

6. jacob 16:

lucky bastards

[jpgray]

7. Also, my avatar has a word or two to say about this

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
Hard working man and brave
He said to the rich, "Give your goods to the poor."
So they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand
His followers true and brave
One dirty little coward called Judas Iscariot
Has laid Jesus Christ in his grave

He went to the sick, he went to the poor,
And he went to the hungry and the lame;
Said that the poor would one day win this world,
And so they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

He went to the preacher, he went to the sheriff,
Told them all the same;
Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the Poor,
But they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

When Jesus came to town, the working folks around,
Believed what he did say;
The bankers and the preachers they nailed him on a cross,
And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

8. You are obviously a vile heretic

Can't you see the holiness Halliburton loot confers on Dick Cheesey?
And another thing: that Jesus guy obviously was no Christian!
:silly:

[faithnotgreed]

9. thanks for the scriptures! how do people believe * is Christian?

it makes no sense.... but then again nothing about * has made sense from the beginning.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. That's why he qualifies

has the anti-christ. An anti-christ deceives everyone into believing he is the christ. Bu$hler is to night, what day is to Jesus. He is the perfect anti-christ.

[disinfo_guy]

44. the Pope fears Bush is antichrist

No joke!

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108881880

New Catholic Times, May 18, 2003

Pope fears Bush is antichrist, journalist contends - Church - journalist Wayne Madsden

WASHINGTON DC -- According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsden, "George W Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations--the anti-Christ."

Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament.

[checks-n-balances]

49. If he believes that Duhbya is the antichrist, maybe he is onto something.

eom

[amjsjc]

53. Many Christians...

...seem to be shockingly good at ignoring or misinterpreting tenents of their own religion. For example I would tend to view this passage from the book of John as being a straightforward condemnation of the death penalty (it's the 'he who is without sin story'):

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8, 3-11 KJV)

Christ says that only a sinless man shall cast the first stone. Nobody is sinless-except for Christ, and even he refrains from doing it. One would think that this would lead most Christains to oppose capital punishment. Yet many Christains seem to be hardcore supporters of the death penalty. Go figure.

[Carson]

10. The love of money

The "love of money" is the root of all evil, not money.

Jesus emphasized that *anything* put above service to the Lord was sinful. If one loved money more than God, i.e. doing what God commanded, then the money was sinful.

One can put almost anything before God and make it sinful. One's job, family, possesions, golf, whatever.

Jesus told the weatlthy young man to sell his possessions first because He knew it was a hindrance to the man specifically. Did Jesus ask everyone He met to do the same? No.

[Kilroy003]

13. Every good American just loves the guts outa' money.

Am I wrong?

[checks-n-balances]

18. Maybe I'm clueless, but I'm not sure what your point is

Unless it's sarcasm. I'm fairly sure there are lots of "good" Americans who can't get enough of it, and Bushco caters to this group. They apparently have little concern for their fellow human beings, especially those who don't have much of it. In fact, they blame the poor for being in poverty.

All people can be selfish, but some make a lifestyle of it and try to justify it with the Bible.

[Kilroy003]

25. Sarcasm,

to be sure.


Also, I don't beleive in 'good' Americans. (You'll have to decide for yourself if that, too, is sarcastic. I can't explain everything I post.)

[disinfo_guy]

20. interesting that you felt the need to post this response

"The "love of money" is the root of all evil, not money. "

Uh-huh

"Jesus emphasized that *anything* put above service to the Lord was sinful. If one loved money more than God, i.e. doing what God commanded, then the money was sinful."

So, he wasn't really being hard on the rich, eh?

"One can put almost anything before God and make it sinful. One's job, family, possesions, golf, whatever."

The love of golf is the root of all evil!

"Jesus told the weatlthy young man to sell his possessions first because He knew it was a hindrance to the man specifically. Did Jesus ask everyone He met to do the same? No."

That means you don't have to, right? Whew! ;)

[Nadienne]

38. Eh, Didn't Moses destroy the Golden Calf?

Didn't he do it because the golden calf was a false god that his people were worshipping?

Would you say that it's not the golden calf that was evil, but merely the actions of those who worshipped it? In that case, would Moses have been wrong to destroy the golden calf?

[Carson]

41. Moses

Of course a statue made out of gold isn't inherently evil. It *was* the actions of the people that made it such.

Moses destroyed it out of anger and to make a point.

[Nadienne]

42. But,

Moses destroyed it. It wasn't evil, but the actions of the people made it so.

Think of all the things corporate criminals will do for money and the power it brings.

Doesn't that make money evil? Doesn't that make great wealth evil?

Shouldn't it be destroyed, as Moses destroyed the golden calf?

[salin]

78. except that greed is tied to money/currency

and the acts that are committed in the pursuit of that money tend to be directed at the expense/harm of others (be it stealing, or exploitation of labor).

The example you give elsewhere about the loving family above God as being as problematic (to make the "its the love of..." argument) - is not an equal problem - in the sense that one is not as likely to do grevious damage to others in the pursuit of loving one's family above God... thus the damage one does is most likely between the individual and God; while with greed one also does damage to other creatures (man, animal, plant, etc.) as well as the individual relationship with God. It is the exponential damage that is tied to greed which is tied to accumulation of currency that makes it unique among the "love above of..." subjects.

[Carson]

15. What exactly is the definition

..of a Fundamental Christian? One who takes the Bible literally?
I'm asking this only to clarify, but I'm sure I'll get flamed.

The Bible, along with all those wonderful verses about how to treat the poor, also has several passages regarding homosexuality.

Does one just pick and choose which passages to subscribe to? Or is a Fundie one who believes the entire bible to be regarded, not just select verses?

[redqueen]

19. I think so... Fundies take the bible literally

So, they should be held to account.

[OpSomBlood]

33. Fundies only quote the scriptures that reinforce their prejudices.

They cherrypick the parts of the Bible they advocate and usually ignore the big picture.

You know, the whole "love your enemy" part. That gets lost on them.

[disinfo_guy]

37. Niagara Bible Conference of 1883

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Niagara_Bible_Conference

In 1883 a group of Christian bible scholars met for the first time at Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, near Niagara Falls and established the principles of Christian fundamentalism. It was here that the Niagara Bible Conference gathered every year from 1883 through 1897 (with the exception of 1884). It met at the Queen's Royal Hotel and its pavilion. Brooks, in his Truth magazine describes the meeting of 1892 as one "more largely attended than ever before. Often every seat in the pavilion was occupied, and the porches were filled with eager hearers of the Word. The place too becomes more beautiful as the years go by, and it would be difficult to find a spot better suited to the quiet and prayerful study of the Sacred Scriptures. The building in which the Conference meets, overlooking lake Ontario and the river Niagara, and surrounded by green trees, is secluded from the noise of the world; and so excellent were the arrangements for the accommodation of the guests, both in Queen's Royal Hotel and in the boarding houses of the village, that not a word of complaint was heard from any one."

Some of the scholars who were present, known as the founding fathers of Fundamentalism, were W.E. Blackstone, Charles Erdman, James Brookes, William Moorehead, A.J. Gordon, A.C. Dixon, C.I. Scofield, and J. Hudson Taylor (who founded the China Inland Mission).

The messages generally centered on the doctrines of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, missions and prophecy. Premillennialism was defended and taught. Article XIV of the 1878 Niagara Bible Conference Creed states, "We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation, but is fast ripening for judgment, while there will be a fearful apostasy in the professing Christian body; and hence that the Lord Jesus will come in person to introduce the millennial age, when Israel shall be restored to their own land, and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord; and that this personal and premillennial advent is the blessed hope set before us in the Gospel for which we should be constantly looking."

Some of the contributions of the Niagara Conference were:

* The conference spawned new missionary activity and evangelism
* The conference contributed to the rise and spread of a large Bible conference movement (such as the Northfield conferences)
* The conference had a significant impact on the rise of the Bible institute and Bible college movement
* The conference gave early expression to Fundamentalism's emphasis on concentrated Bible study
* The conference precipitated a vast amount of Fundamentalist literature, especially on the subjects of prophecy, the Person and work of Christ, the Holy Spirit and missions.

Reading

In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850, by David O. Beale

[Zorra]

40. I would assume that a Christian believes in the divinity and teachings

of Jesus Christ.

Some of the teachings of Jesus regarding wealth, which are recorded in the four Gospels and are purportedly an account of the life and teachings of Jesus, are listed in the topic post in this thread.

However, for some reason, Jesus apparently never expressed any thoughts whatsoever about homosexuality.

The very few references to homosexuality in the Christian bible were made by a Roman-Jewish guy named Paul that fell off a horse and had some cosmic visions while on some Roman quest to round up Christians for execution. Paul seemed to feel that Jesus was in error because he did not ever mention things like homosexuality. This guy Paul, also seemed to feel that women were lesser beings and said that they were not qualified to teach. He also said that men should not have long hair and that women should not cut their hair. I find it difficult to understand the spiritual significance of much of what Paul said, although some of what he said reiterates the words of Jesus.

It is hard for me to understand why Paul felt the need to add so many new ideas to the teachings of someone that Christians profess to believe is the Son of God. Logically, I'd think that the Son of God would be quite clear and complete in what he said about how human beings should conduct their lives.

A few other references to homosexuality exist in what is called the Old Testament, which alledgedly records the history of the Hebrew people and their spiritual beliefs.

IMO, most fundies pick and choose anything that suits their own personal beliefs from the Christian bible, and disregard those things that they do not want to practice in their lives.

After having read the Christian bible many times, it seems to me that the main point that Jesus was trying to make was that people should have a spiritual rebirth, should love their Creator, and should love and be kind to one another.

After observing the actions of many fundamentalist christians, it seems to me that many fundies do not really understand and/or believe in the teachings of Jesus, but profess to be christians for reasons of personal convenience and cultural conformity.

There do appear to be many Christian people that actually seem to practice their religion, and they make their belief apparent by their non-violence, kindness, charity, and tolerance of others. Most of these folks probably do not classify as, or regard themselves, as fundamentalists.

A high profile example of someone that professes to be a fundamentalist christian is George W. Bu$h. Other examples of fundamentalist beliefs can often be found in posts at the Free Republic website. These posts usually seem to be in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, but are a great example of actual fundamentalist christian belief and practice.
O8) :-)

[DoYouEverWonder]

47. If Saul hadn't become Paul

I do believe the world would have been better off.

Paul took the legend of Jesus and blended Jesus with his pagan god Mithras. As a result, the true teachings of Jesus were warped and perverted. Now 2000 or so years later, most christians have no clue who or what christ really is.

[disinfo_guy]

52. I don't think so

There has been a trend to blame Paul for homophobia in Christianity. That's just so opposite of the historical situation it's difficult to know where to begin. Paul certainly never said it wasn't a sin - no one did - but he demanded that Christians not judge them. Does anyone read the entire book of Romans, or just the parts they like?

If it wasn't for Paul you would hardly be able to distinguish Christianity from orthodox Judaism or fundamentalist Islam - and would probably promote the death penalty for homosexuals still, and a hybrid Torah/Sharia type law. You think the Christian Taliban is bad now, oh boy.

[DoYouEverWonder]

54. My problem with Paul has little to do with his supposed homophobia

However, Paul twisted the true teachings of Jesus and began the exclusion of women from any position of power or authority within the church. He also turned Jesus into a supernatural being, which was not in the teachings of either the Jewish or Gnostic Christians.

[disinfo_guy]

56. really?

Paul's letters were written before the Gospels were written. In fact, Paul paraphrases what Jesus is quoted as saying in the Gospels, but two hundred years before.

"Paul twisted the true teachings of Jesus and began the exclusion of women from any position of power or authority within the church"

No. This is the same argument as the homophobia angle - since Jesus never said women shouldn't be equal, and Paul didn't deamand full equality, ergo, we assume Jesus did but Paul distorted him. That's nonsense.

"He also turned Jesus into a supernatural being, which was not in the teachings of either the Jewish or Gnostic Christians"

No, the Jewish and Gnostic Christians believed that Jesus had supernatural powers and that he was "divine". I'll admit though, Paul's version of supernatural powers and divinity were very, very different than either the Jewish Christian or Gnostic version.

[Zorra]

61. How do you explain these passages from Paul?

Now, these are just a few of the Paulisms that seem pretty bogus. It seems like he defines standards for people that make no natural sense, and it seems like he uses his personal prejudices in order to define physical cultural standards. It seems to me that if nature had not intended for men to have long hair, it wouldn't grow. I mean, look at my avatar. That's Crazy Horse. Probably a lot more natural of a guy than Paul, and his hair was long. I doubt he felt degraded by it, and if anyone thought it degraded him, they probably wouldn't say it to his face - and most of his peers also wore their hair long. Lots of native men still wear their hair long. And if women weren't supposed to think and express themselves, they wouldn't have such excellent brains and lingual skills. It seems to me that Paul is largely responsible for the misogyny, and possibly the homophobia, that has always pervaded European based western culture due to it's Judaeo-Christian traditions. I don't think Jesus would have wanted that.

Now, I understand that Jesus often spoke in parables, but his meaning is usually clear to me. But if Paul does not say what he meant, then what does he mean, and why didn't he say what he meant? I have read Romans many times, and understand that it is a history of the early Christian church. It's the strange, unrealistic dogma that Paul comes out with that confuses me. Sometimes it almost seems that some sects that call themselves christian are actually Paulist.


1 Cor 14:33b-35

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Tim 2:11-12

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

1 Cor 11:14

"Does not nature (physis) itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him?"

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10

Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, or idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (malakoi arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

[disinfo_guy]

62. what about them? They don't contradict anything Jesus said

"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says"

Paul was Jewish and this was typical for Jews and other religious/cultural groups in the area at the time.

"Does not nature (physis) itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him?"

Something you would expect from an "urbane" Greek-cultured person - and a knock on the more rural Nazarites who would not cut their hair for religious purposes.

None of these passages contradict anything Jesus said.

[Zorra]

71. True. But....

Those hardly seem like the "divinely inspired words of God" to me. I understand Paul's background. What he did wrong, IMO, was to have the audacity to believe that his limited cultural experiences were a universal truth, and then teach them to people under the pretense that his personal cultural beliefs are the will and way of God.

Those passages don't contradict what Jesus said.

Jesus never bothered to address those issues, because they have no spiritual or moral significance, no logical validity, and are nothing but the cultural mores that Paul could not see beyond. Yet many people accept the words of Paul as the Word of God. Paul, IMO, in effect subverted the Christian religion by instilling his cultural beliefs and impressions into a spiritual doctrine. Jesus never concerned himself with or spoke of these things. Because they are not "spiritual truth".

Maybe Paul knew that he "saw through a glass darkly", and never expected his words to be considered by so many people to be the "divinely inspired word of God".

[disinfo_guy]

75. you're probably right about that

"Maybe Paul knew that he "saw through a glass darkly", and never expected his words to be considered by so many people to be the "divinely inspired word of God"."

Sounds about right to me.

[checks-n-balances]

51. IMHO, the fundamentalist mindset is that of black-and-white and

all-or-nothing thinking. They either can't or just refuse to admit nuance, grey area, or ambiguity. This article contains a good discussion of that:

{i]Fundamentalist beliefs of any description are founded by definition on a refusal to grapple with complexity. Purely reductionist and borne usually of a stubborn prideful refusal to seek education and understanding, any attempt to crack through the concrete of dogma indicates to the fundamentalist only the possibility of attack - and therefore the fear of defeat. Religious fundamentalism for instance crumbles the moment any literary and historical analysis of the Bible takes place...instead of dealing with the issues of faith involved, it is easier to simply label education a satanic tool of disruption and refuse to partake in the 'forbidden fruit' of knowledge. The mental gymnastics involved in turning two thousand years and more of biblical scholasticism into a giant conspiracy theory are not a challenge because in the most part they are not engaged in - they are simply countered with the "I am right therefore you are wrong" argument.

In the context of rigid gender roles such as Stay-at-Home parenting, fundamentalists are threatened by any assertion that working women can indeed live balanced lives and raise happy children. To allow this is to highlight the potential for discovering hollowness in a role that is often the only one in which women of fundamentalist beliefs are able or allowed to find self worth. Staying at home, when chosen freely, is indeed a worthy and worthwhile enterprise. Staying at home, when forced upon one by a rigid belief system and not based on self examination and self knowledge, holds the potential to be soul destroying. In order to survive it, those who feel their souls being attacked (refusal to face oneself always wreaks internal damage) fall back to the habitual comfort of the external fundamentalist belief system - their sacrifices for their beliefs, their perceived nobility, their acetic lifestyles...all of these are *external* sources of validation, and to threaten these by saying 'they aren't really necessary' is to threaten these women with the idea that they are going to have to embark on a journey that may restructure and entire belief system and possibly turn their lives upside down.

<snip>

Liberalism of thought is often touted as the slack, laissez faire symptom of undeveloped morality, but in effect liberal beliefs are *harder* to come to terms with, because they challenge us to extend further than our own boundaries and comfort zones. For a fundamentalist conservative thinker, the leap from the conviction only of self to the mind stretching concept of acceptance of others is a frightening and often painful experience. The easy way out is to believe in black and white, because even though common sense tells us that the world is *not* black and white, the pain of personal growth and self examination is far too intimidating for such restricted psyches to even comprehend.

People who feel this way have a vested interest in not listening to what you say. Every remark comes filtered through the jauniced eye of fear and prejudice, and will be interpreted not as reason or argument but as an excuse.

<snip>

While in daily life such people are merely exasperating, in the political and economic spheres they can be downright dangerous, because those who live in the real world (the one with greys and colours) are often excluded from their own personal right to develop their lives and run them within a general societal framework, by the personal belief systems of others. That this is inherently against human rights and democratic ideals is once again something a fundamentalist cannot grasp because 'I am right.' Therefore anyone who disagrees is *wrong* and consequently doesn't deserve to be included in any societal protections and benefits.

From "Fundamentalism & the Working Mom" by Jane Sill:
http://www.worknwoman.com/articles/fundamentalism.shtml

Fundamentalists have every right to exist and express their views. It's when they have power over the lives of people who can think in complex ways, and when they have the power to make decisions that impact the world, that this becomes a very dangerous way of looking at reality.

I say this as one of many Christians who are constantly mischaracterized and misunderstood by those who rely on simplistic thinking, and who have a major hang-up about using their God-given minds to do any critical thinking, especially when it has to do with the Bible.

Does that help?

[checks-n-balances]

57. dupe - self-deleted

[Cheswick2.0]

60. It is true that the bible has some passages which seem to be about

homosexuality. However I have seen convincing arguments that they can be interpreted differently.

The thing I remember is that Jesus never said said anything about homosexuality. Paul did, but Paul didn't even claim those words were from Jesus. He was speaking from his own human understanding and as a man of that time. So I feel completely comfortable ignoring Paul about that issue.

[qwertyMike]

74. J Christ never said one word about homosexuality

Isn't a Christian a follower of his teachings?

[AP]

16. It says if you die rich you probably aren't going to make it to heaven...

...not becuase it was bad to be rich, but because if you die with all your money and power, you missed the opportunity to do something good with it.

The bible has not problem with working hard and being rewarded for doing hard work. That's how society moves forward -- by having valuable incentives for doing the right thing.

The bible definitely has a problem with getting rewarded for doing bad things, and has a problem with people who are greatly rewarded for doing good things but then don't turn around and and do good things in return for all the wealth they received.

[cmf]

17. The rich never believe they are rich

People have done studies on it to prove it. It's like they see others who are more wealthy than they are and all of the things they want to buy but can't, so by contrast, they are not wealthy.

[redqueen]

21. I'd like to see those studies, actually

Because the last one I saw http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B1FF7345A0C718DDDA80894DB404482">contradicts that assertion.

That link goes to an abstract, because the article is archived, but the pertinent pgh is here:

The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them.

(archived material found at http://primates.ximian.com/~aaron/movabletype/archives/000037.html
)

[cmf]

80. It was a story that I heard

on NPR a while ago. I don't have the text, but here is the audio clip. And I guess it was a poll, not a study.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1236057

April 18, 2003

Many Americans whose earnings place them among the nation's wealthiest people still don't feel consider themselves wealthy, according to tax-time polls. Perceptions of how the U.S. tax code works play into their fears, as do comparisons to others who make a bit -- or a lot -- more. NPR's Madeleine Brand reports.

[CBHagman]

23. Raise your hand if you're sick of hearing about Bush's faith.

I'm in no position to judge Bush's PERSONAL relationship with God -- I can't possibly know that -- but I do know that he doesn't admit to mistakes, lies, or miscalculations, and he is a ruthless politician. A kindly man would not employ Karl Rove, for example.

He also has made cutting taxes on the very wealthiest a top priority while asking for cuts in programs that serve children, the unemployed, students, et al.

Yet I can't possibly number the articles I've read that gush about Bush's "sincere" faith -- as if we are all supposed to salivate like good little Pavlovian dogs at the mention of Bush's personal spirituality. Granted, Sojourners and the Washington Monthly are not taken in by this, but many others are (see the recent Time magazine for a real retch-inducing experience).

And today Bush is having a conversation about compassion (That's how it's billed) in Cincinnati. I can predict it'll be just like his other events -- canned comments, repetition of the Golden Rule, a few complimentary remarks for the volunteers in the audience, and then Bush gets taken back to the White House or Crawford.

"Compassion," in its most literal sense, means to suffer with. Bush has NO INTENTION of suffering. But watch what kind of problems his policies leave us, particularly those of us least able to cope or fight back.

[El Supremo]

26. And I have never understood why...

Marx was an atheist. He could have used Jesus' teachings to justify his classless dream.

[Kilroy003]

31. I think Jesus may have been a Marxist.

Since he was God, as well as man, he could have easily jumped forward in time and read up on Marx.

[JanMichael]

46. That would have been incredibly dishonest.

I mean, look, just because relgion is an (There are others, TV comes to mind in this day and age, perhaps video games too, they numb and make irrelevant youngish men.) opiate of the masses doesn't mean it "Right" to become a dealer too, does it?

[checks-n-balances]

58. Supposedly, Marx's famous quote about religion came out of his

absolute disgust with the unrestrained, laissez-faire capitalism he saw in Britain as a result of the Industrial Revolution. He was horrified by the child labor and slave-like working hours that existed, as well as the growing gap between the rich and poor. So he felt there should be a better way.

AND supposedly he came from a family where at least one member was a Christian minister. And I think it was his father!

If this is true, then the existence and origins of Marxism would never have happened if capitalism had been forced to have humane restraints put upon it.

Anyone else know about this?

[El Supremo]

59. I just read...

that Karl Marx was descended from a famous line of Jewish Rabbis on both sides of his family. His father was a lawyer. The Prussian government forced them to convert to Lutheranism. No doubt he had a resentment of any religion due to Germany's repression of Jews.

[checks-n-balances]

67. Oh, OK, thanks for setting me straight about the family religion question

I didn't have time before, but here's something I found about what I mentioned:

Karl Marx observed the appalling social injustices which went on unchecked in supposedly Christian England in the last century; he saw that victims of injustice in this life were assured by churches of bliss in the next, and in righteous resentment he coined the famous statement, 'Religion is the opiate of the people'. He saw it as the illusory compensation offered to the oppressed, the bogus palliative for the ills of a hopelessly perverted society; and he maintained that religion would die a natural death as soon as true socialism came in.

No-one could deny that Marx had plenty of justification for coming to this conclusion. 'There was sickening hypocrisy in Victorian religion which often appears to have been a sop offered by the exploiters to the exploited...

<snip>

It was indeed a ghastly thing that little children had to climb up chimneys to clean them for a fifteen-hour day at derisory wages in a country that professed the Christian faith. But during the Industrial Revolution something verging on absolute power became vested in comparatively few (people). And they demonstrated the truth of Lord Acton's dictum, 'All power tends to corrupt: absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.' What the horrors perpetrated in the last century really show is not that religion is dope, but that no (one) is good enough to be allowed absolute power over any one else. And that is a thesis which is Christian through and through...The ugly results of human self-centredness are equally evident in capitalist and in Communist societies...

From
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/green/runworld/runwch3.htm

(inclusive language edited in)

[blindpig]

29. and your point is?

seriously, that sums it up. When those fools start insisting on putting the Sermon on the Mount in public places maybe I'll believe that they're followers of the Nazarene.

[OpSomBlood]

32. Been saying it for years: No such thing as a Christian billionaire.

Thanks for the Bible verses. It needs to be reiterated periodically.

[kimchi]

35. "And thou shalt EAT THE RICH!"

Um...maybe that was Aerosmith.

Nevermind.

[truebrit71]

64. I think it was Krokus actually...

n/t

[Kahuna]

39. That's MY Jesus! The real Jesus.

NY

[Disturbed]

43. Jesus was a Socialist.

It is astounding that Right Wing Fundamentalists worship Jesus, a person that was a Socialist.

The Christians that talk about Jesus coming back and establishing a kingdom on this planet must have some sort of concept in mind what this kingdom would be like. Would it resemble a Republican model?

For people that say that they believe that the bible is the direct word of God and that everything written in this book is fact,it must have been difficult to get past the slavery issue.

Old Testament

Slave Quotes

Psalm 123:2
As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.


1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

[checks-n-balances]

48. Notice that, like homosexuality, Jesus said nothing about slavery

(unless I missed something somewhere).

Slaveowners and segregationists used the Bible to support the existence of slavery and to justify the existence of it.

And yet, the South is known as the "Bible Belt." Maybe it should be called "The Literal Bible{/i] Belt." Funny how they gladly accept everything at literal face value except when it comes to the teachings of Jesus.

[Deja Q]

45. Religion was invented so that the poor wouldn't kill the rich

Isn't that a bumper sticker?

[Djinn]

55. The problem with using the Bible to support one's argument

is that it's so full of contradictions it barely makes sense. It was written by several different people over several decades and mostly a hundred or so years after the supposed son of God had died.

While the right wing certainly pick and choose which bits of the bible to follow and which bits to ignore - the left does it too - they just ignore different passages.

Making your own mind up about what's right and wrong here and now makes far more sense than using a collection of writings relating to people living in a comlpetely different time and place.

[truebrit71]

63. Not sure if it's in the bible or not...

..but a phrase keeps sticking in my head that says something like "the money you give to the poor will be your riches in heaven"...

Anyone know where that came from?

[checks-n-balances]

70. I'm not sure, but maybe you're thinking of what Jesus said in Matthew 25

When he was talking about "The Last Judgment". In Mt. 25, Jesus was saying, "Whatever you do for the least of these, you do it unto me"; in other words, we would be judged on how we treated others on earth. And he was also saying, in substance, the opposite of the above: "If you dissed or mistreated the society's vulnerable and misfortunate ones, you also did that to me."
Interesting how that doesn't seem to enter into the religious right's dialogue about "family values" - especially when they're voting on social policies.

[defoliate_bush]

65. Dude, I can't figure out what to think of the bible.

In some places it says cool stuff like that, but in other places it says really bad things. I think I'm just going to give up on religion in general. lol

[disinfo_guy]

66. "Dude, I can't figure out what to think of Shakespeare."

In some places it says cool stuff like that, but in other places it says really bad things. I think I'm just going to give up on literature in general."

LOL!

[Djinn]

72. very few people live their lives

according to Shakespeare nor do they start wars over their interpretation of it. Also most people accept Shakespeares stories were just that - stories, and even those based on historical figures were fictionalised.

[Markus182]

68. Mind Control

The bible was just written by rich, powerful people as a means to control the masses anyway. By telling them they would be rewarded for being poor, meek and subservient in the afterlife it was a method to keep them from rising up. Meanwhile, the rich sat back and enjoyed the real world.

[disinfo_guy]

69. really? which parts of the bible?

All of the bible was written by rich powerful people to control the masses?

[checks-n-balances]

73. If rich people wrote the Bible, they would have left out Jesus' parables

They would not have included this one (at least not the entire story), which Jesus addressed especially to them:

The Rich Man and Lazarus from Luke, ch. 16
19 There once was a rich man, expensively dressed in the latest fashions, wasting his days in conspicuous consumption.

20 A poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, had been dumped on his doorstep.

21 All he lived for was to get a meal from scraps off the rich man's table. His best friends were the dogs who came and licked his sores.

22 Then he died, this poor man, and was taken up by the angels to the lap of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.

23 In hell and in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham in the distance and Lazarus in his lap.

24 He called out, "Father Abraham, mercy! Have mercy! Send Lazarus to dip his finger in water to cool my tongue. I'm in agony in this fire."

25-26 But Abraham said, "Child, remember that in your lifetime you got the good things and Lazarus the bad things. It's not like that here. Here he's consoled and you're tormented. Besides, in all these matters there is a huge chasm set between us so that no one can go from us to you even if he wanted to, nor can anyone cross over from you to us."

27-28 The rich man said, "Then let me ask you, Father: Send him to the house of my father where I have five brothers, so he can tell them the score and warn them so they won't end up here in this place of torment."

29 Abraham answered, "They have Moses and the Prophets to tell them the score. Let them listen to them."

30 "I know, Father Abraham," he said, "but they're not listening. If someone came back to them from the dead, they would change their ways."

31 Abraham replied, "If they won't listen to Moses and the Prophets, they're not going to be convinced by someone who rises from the dead."

From "The Message" verson, by Eugene Peterson:
http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+16:19-31&language=english&version=MSG&showfn=on&showxref=on

Martin Luther King, Jr. told this parable to crowds of people who easily figured out exactly what he was talking about.

If the Bible were written by rich people, why in the world would they have depicted Jesus' lowly birth in a cow stall, to a mother who had become pregnant before marriage to a reluctant but dutiful man? Status-conscious people wouldn't dare have thought that one up.

Anyway, if the Bible had been written by the rich & powerful, wouldn't they have done a better job with it? I mean, they could have hired their own writers and editors to cut out all the repetitive and contradictory passages. Then it would have been more streamlined and easier to read. Then again, since education of the masses is a fairly recent phenomenon, how would they have been expected to have been able to read any of it?

Regardless of what is or isn't in the Bible, the world has always been the playground of the rich. But perhaps as the parable suggests, this is a temporal world and, as Jesus sometimes said about such people, "truly, they have (already had) their reward..."

[pathansen]

76. YES, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

Jesus also says many other things such as:
- You cannot serve two masters (God and Money)
- Judge not lest yee be judged.
- And why bother with the spec in someone elses eye when there is a board in your own!
- Let he who has first sinned caste the first stone.
- Turn the other cheek
- If you wish to be at the top, you must serve as a slave.
- AND ABOVE ALL ELSE, BEWARE OF THE HYPOCRITES!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. To paraphrase the movie 'Kingpin', it's against 'em

[Geo55]

79. Nothin' like bringing up Jesus

to get folks goin'.
My bottom line....you can use Bible ideology to what ever ends.

Personally I kinda like the " what goes around , comes around " line of thought.....maybe not here , and maybe not just now.