Wow..is this a "lost" Bible passage? or have the fundamentalists been into the white-out?

[SoCalDem]

When i was growing up catholic, catholics didn't "do" the Bible, so imagine my surprise when I stumbled across this while looking for something entirely different..

How odd that people who claim to love the word of god, more than life itself, can ignore such a wonderful passage:)



.........................................





"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men.

Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.

But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-6 RSV)

[greenman3610]

1. that's Jesus' take on Public prayer

well he ain't nothin but a dang liberal

[DefenseLawyer]

6. Long haired hippie

Always trying to stick it to the man.

[5X]

150. .

[salin]

2. Selective reading... the politicized pulpit followers skip a lot

of what is in the bible. They claim 'literal interpretation' of those passages they select and then feign blindness to the less 'comfortable' (for them) passages.

[Bill McBlueState]

69. that's true for both sides, really

There's so much in the Bible, anyone can cherry-pick verses to support almost any modern political position. Unfortunately for us, right-leaning Christians have been a lot better at that than left-leaning Christians in recent years.

edit: typo

[xchrom]

3. and it was said by none other --

this election cycle i'd like to see this thrown in the evangelicals face every time there is a chance to do so.

they want to argue literalism -- let them argue that.

[geardaddy]

76. Yeah, what's with the literalism?

I'm sure that fundies eat pork sausages for breakfast, eat at Dead Lobster and wear cotton/poly blended clothes.

[merh]

4. I'm Catholic and know that passage

It is one of my favorites.

The next verse is where Jesus gives his apostles the Our Father. I've cited it for "public prayer" fundies on several ocassions. It will make them pause, but then they ignore it.

They just don't like listening to the word if it goes against their position.

[caledesi]

61. That's why I always like to remind them the the bible is based

on faith not fact and should not be quoted as fact.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

5. I'm an athiest but Matthew pretty much sums up what I thought

Christianity was supposed to be about. Too bad the Chistofashists seem to not have read that particular chapter.

[DarkTirade]

20. For some reason they seem to prefer Leviticus.

At least, the bits of it they can use to justify their petty discriminations. They still ignore the parts that would label them as sinners.

[TheBaldyMan]

40. apparently it is an abomination to eat shellfish...

and punishable by death by stoning!

Next time you see a biblical fundamentalist eating a crabstick you might want to remind them of that, it's as "bad" in the eyes of the lord as homosexuality or wearing a polyester/cotton mixed fibre shirt.

[B3Nut]

49. And if you still have that eeeeevil foreskin on yer trouser trout

you're not worthy to worship! Never mind that God supposedly put it there to begin with...then says you're not holy unless you hack it off...when he supposedly designed it in the first place...ay yiy yiy! :crazy: :shrug:

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[rebel with a cause]

50. This, I believe , is in the old testament

and Christians for the most part follow the new testament, thus their name Christians (followers of Christ). This, I believe goes for shellfish as well, but I am not sure. I know my father would not eat any hoofed animals, so I am not sure about this. And we did not have access too many shellfish in the old days in the midwest. ;-)

[Beausoleil]

55. The point is that they ignore the intent of the New Testament

and pick and choose how they condemn others based on the Old Testament.

[Bill McBlueState]

72. but that can't be the whole story

There's a religion out there that exclusively follows what Christians call the "Old" Testament. It's called Judaism.

And strangely, the average Jew seems to be a lot more tolerant than the average fundamentalist Christian.

So there's got to be some other factor that leads many Christians to be so judgmental.

[JoDog]

113. Jewish tolerance

"And strangely, the average Jew seems to be a lot more tolerant than the average fundamentalist Christian."

From what I was told by a Reform rabbi friend, that is because Reform Jews (and often Conservatives, too) tend to be educated about the historical context of the Old Testament. For instance, the kosher rules forbidding pork and shellfish seem arbritary to us now. However, back in Biblical times, it was very difficult to cook those foods properly. At lot of people got sick and died of food poisioning. That was one of the reasons these foods were considered unclean. So prohibiting those foods was a way of trying to keep people alive. However, thanks to things like meat thermometers, it is easy to prepare these and enjoy them safely. As for mixing meat/dairy rules, eating anything dairy was a dice shoot at that time, before the blessing of pasturization. With this context in mind, many Jews do not keep kosher most of the year. It is simply unnecessary now.

They also can put the prohibition against gay male sex in perspective, too. Before our modern age of condoms and lube, anal sex was risky. If done wrong, it could cause anal tears and make someone extremely sick. Not so much a problem anymore. Notice also that there in no prohibition on female gay sex...probably because it didn't pose the same potential risk. Also, it was the job of every male to get married and carry on the tribal line, and there were concerns that having sex with other men would distract them from that mission.

Now, bear in mind, I'm not talking about the Orthodox. They take the OT and the rest of the Talmud and Torah pretty literally. But even in those communities, there is a strong tradition of debating and discussing the laws of god.

Many American fundamentals do not try to put the Bible into anything other than a literal context--as if nothing has changed technologically, geographically and socially between them and the people in the ancient middle east. That is the difference.

[jmowreader]

181. Disagree on the reason for the prohibition against gay sex

Leviticus 18 (the sex chapter) contains these sexual laws:

18:6--no sex with any close relative
18:seven--no sex with your own mother
18:8--no sex with your father's wife (remarriage? plural marriage? Anyway, don't screw anyone who's your father's wife even if she isn't your mom)
18:nine--no sex with your sister, whether she's your father's daughter or your mother's daughter
18:10--no sex with your son's or daughter's daughter
18:11--no sex with the daughter of your father's wife
18:12--no sex with your father's sister
18:13--no sex with your mother's sister
18:14--no sex with your father's brother's wife
18:15--no sex with your daughter-in-law
18:16--no sex with your brother's wife
18:17--no sex with a woman and that woman's daughter
18:18--don't marry your wife's sister as a "rival wife" and have sex with her while your wife is still alive
18:19--no sex during a woman's period
18:20--no sex with your neighbor's wife
18:21--don't give your children to be sacrificed to Molech
18:22--no gay sex
18:23--or bestiality either. It also says women are not to present themselves to animals to have sex with them, which indicates to me that donkey shows have a VERY long history...

The numbers aren't right, but we can live with that for now.

Consider that in Biblical times, the infant mortality rate was probably around 90 percent. This would indicate, beyond the everpresent issue of donkey shows, that any kind of sex that didn't serve to increase the number of healthy Levites was to be avoided.

Most of this is against inbreeding, some about complex relationships (sleeping with women AND their daughters, marrying two sisters), there's a couple lines in there about shit that it was legal to kill you for like nailing other guys' wives, one against sex during a woman's period because they figured your dick would rot off if you did, the verse that keeps Fred Phelps alive and, of course, don't sacrifice Junior to pagan gods.

Edited to fix some rather inappropriate smileys...

[rebel with a cause]

80. I agree, and in my haste I forgot to put that in my post.

Thanks for pointing it out. As I just said in another post, fundies should not be calling themselves "Christians".

[B3Nut]

62. Yup, it's OT

but a LOT of fundies still refer to it, and Paul refers to "circumcision of the heart" a lot in the NT, referring to the physical act as a type or precursor of the metaphysical act. The underlying preoccupation with the ding-a-ling is still there, and as a recovering-funduhmentalcase-turned-freethinker I find it disturbingly funny.

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[rebel with a cause]

79. I understand that the fundies go by the old testament

more than the new, that is the point. I was raised in a Baptist home/church, and in the old days we were taught to not even bother with the OT except for the Ten Commandments. If baffles me now to hear them quoting the OT to prove their point, a point that often is far from being "Christian". I agree since the fundies go by the OT they should live by it, but they should also not call themselves Christian because they are not following the teachings of Jesus who was referred to in the Bible as Christ. Anyway, that is what I meant, I think.

[DemBones DemBones]

174. You're right. The New Testament says men don't have to be circumcised

to be Christian, and that the dietary proscriptions of the Old Testament no longer apply. The New Testament sets forth a new covenant which differs from the old covenant of the Old Testament. Your father apparently wanted to keep to the OT laws about cloven-hoofed animals, which is OK since the NT didn't say "Go out and eat all the previously forbidden foods" but simply "It's OK to eat those foods."

[JoDog]

And don't forget

No pork chops, ham or bacon. No mixing meat and cheese. No pepperoni pizza. No hotdogs made of anything but beef. No bacon cheeseburgers.

[B3Nut]

63. Yup.

I can't hack a religion that outlaws cheeseburgers or sausage pizza...I'd starve! :D

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[NickB79]

129. I love pissing off my fundy uncle with that stuff

He's a farmer, and he's really, really pro-life. How pro-life, you may ask? He has a 7-ft tall painting of a fetus on the side of his barn that faces the local road, with the caption "Choose Life" painting under it. He can be a nice guy, but talk about anything other than neutral topics and he starts spouting off Rush Limpballs and Bible quotes at you.

Since he's a farmer, I love quoting Leviticus 19:19 to him: "'You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

So, when he crosses two breeds of cattle, he's committing a sin. When he plants alfalfa with an oats cover crop, he's committing a sin. He has yet to tell me how this is any different that other sins, since to him every sin is equal.

[SoCalDem]

45. Is that the one about whales?

er.... or is that leviathons? And what about that guy, Jonah??

:rofl:

[PreacherCasey]

131. On a side note, THAT IS ONE HELL OF A BUMPER STICKER!

[DarkTirade]

153. Thanks. :) It was inspired by one of those

'Welcome to America: Now learn to speak English' ones.
I also made one that has fork + spoon = Marriage. Just say no to same-silverware marriage.
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... I disagree. I find it's one of the easiest ways to mock. :)

[w4rma]

27. Fundies don't seem to like the New Testament. Most everything they act upon is from the old one.

How they can do this and call themselves followers of Christ, is beyond me.

[rebel with a cause]

51. Exactly, they shouldn't be able to because

Christians are suppose to use the Old Testament as a kind of history and follow the writings in the New Testament.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. Don't stereotype the Hebrew scriptures

Somehow the fundies concentrate on the "wrath of God" passages, which are surely there, but if they actually read the whole thing (as I did for the first year of a four-year program for Episcopal lay people last year), they'd find far more passages about social justice. All the major and minor prophets were emphatic about not oppressing the poor and envisioning peace instead of war.

It bugs me when people talk about "the Old Testament God," because the Jewish people's concept of God evolved over time and became more humane and universal and less "the big mean bruiser who's on our side against the heathens," especially after the exile to Babylon.

[kestrel91316]

136. Well, then THERE'S the problem:

".....the Jewish people's concept of God evolved over time...."

That simply can't be. Evolution is a lie straight from Satan!

[bobbolink]

122. John was the "love" man.... that's what *I* think it's supposed to be about.

[Benhurst]

7. I'm sure He didn't mean that about praying in private. Same for all

that silliness of selling all that you have -- why that would ruin the economy!

That Jesus! What a kidder! You need to get a good preacher to explain whatHe really meant. It's not easy following the whims an inarticulate god.

[Leopolds Ghost]

139. I've actually heard Conservative "Christian" upwardly mobile types insist this.

They are really postmodernists -- they don't believe in Christ per se,
they only believe in the Bible as a text. The meaning of the words is
not as important to them. They seek justification and affirmation for
actions and attitudes they don't intend on changing.

Of course, many actual rich people don't take the bible literally (or believe in that morality stuff) and they play the "proud, upwardly mobile, red-blooded, sure of themselves" Americans like a fiddle.

The fundies sincerely believe Christ "didn't mean it that way." They can't accept contradiction, they do not believe there is any underlying ethical basis on which to pick and choose. Just what you're told to accept.

For them the "Holy Spirit" is a conscious entity that posesses them in churches, like a Voodoo Loa. This is the real distinction between liberal Evangelicals (who believe that the Holy Spirit motivates us to do what's right, regardless of what we're told to accept) and Fundies (who believe the opposite).

For instance, Fundies argue that the "eye of the needle" was a very
small door for camels in Jerusalem, through which it was difficult
to pass, but nevertheless, every camel must pass through.

I'm not kidding -- every Calvinist believes that the "eye of the needle" was an actual door, and it was for camels.

(did you know that the original Calvinists believed that ONLY rich people would go to heaven, because if you weren't industrious, you were a sinner?)

[eridani]

164. Some scholars think that's from a copying mistake

Apparently in the original text, a single letter substitution changes "camel" to "rope". The futility of trying to put a rope through an eye of a needle is a much more sensible metaphor.

[TheBaldyMan]

182. with respect, what you say about EVERY Calvinist is bullshit.

"Every Calvinist thinks/does/says this ..." is just plain wrong, at least try and have some global percpective when you talk about 'all <insert religious group here>'.

If you want any of your comments to be taken seriously avoid universal declarations of intent or deed about a group that consists of millions of people.

[JNelson6563]

8. You never heard that at mass?

They do three readings from the bible per mass, hard to believe you never heard that one. Considering they rotate the same couple hundred passages year after year....(only so many non-horrifying ones dontcha know)

Julie

[SoCalDem]

13. I mostly pouted at mass, and tried to imagine myself anywhere but there

To say I was a reluctant catholic would have been an understatement.

My mother said i HAD to go to mass every sunday until I was 18, because she promised to raise me catholic.. Lucky for me..my 18th birthday was a sunday.. I celebrated by going to the lake :)

the only time I set foot in church since then has been for funerals & weddings ..

I follow the golden rule :)

[JNelson6563]

22. Ah, gotcha!

I had to go a lot too, even went to Catholic school so I probably got more exposure.

It's helpful though for me to know the bible pretty well. As an atheist I enjoy knowing the bible more than many believers. ;-)

Julie

[rebel with a cause]

53. My father use to say that if you read the Bible and

take it all for face value, then you would probably become an atheist. He also was friends with several atheist and generalized atheist on the whole as intelligent and kind. So when I hear people on here talk about christians mistreating them because of their beliefs, I remember my father and give him credit for this bit of open mindedness, (something he didn't have about everything)

[JNelson6563]

130. Your dad was right

It was actually studying the bible that helped along the path to atheism.

:toast: To dear old dad!

Julie

[rebel with a cause]

135. Thanks for the toast. Dad is gone and was a teetotaler when he was here.

Baptist you know. ;-) He also had had an alcoholic father who was an abusive drunk.

My reading the bible opened my eyes up to a lot of things also, then the attitude of the people of the church opened them up more. I don't know that I ever went as far as being an atheist, but I am far from being a fundie or even a church going christian. I actually believe there are powers but don't know what they are. They could just come from us (humans)collectively, but I feel there is a power out there that we don't really understand. Call me crazy, but I have seen things that cannot be explained by science.

[rebel with a cause]

52. My dad was a Baptist minister and I did the same

As a youngster my name was called out more than once from the pulpit because I was goofing off during his sermons. At least the priest didn't do that to you. :)

[glitch]

74. Do you think you were born with the WTF gene?

I know I was. All my baby pictures have this WTF is going on look on my face, and I have no memory of ever not questioning authority.

[neverforget]

118. I too was a "reluctant" Catholic who tried to imagine myself anywhere but

there. Did you have to go to CCD? If I was reluctant to go church, I did everything in my power to skip CCD. Oh how I disliked that.

[SoCalDem]

125. Is that the formal name of catechism classes?

I hated them, but since i did not go to Catholic school, I had to go to them.. Bo-ring!

[DemBones DemBones]

173. If you truly follow the Golden Rule, you

ought to remove that image of a crucified Easter bunny from your sig line out of consideration for your fellow DU ers who are Christian.

[charlie and algernon]

70. they read that passage 2 weeks ago for Ash Wednesday

of course the priest completely ignored what he just read when he gave the homily, but at least it was read.

[hedgehog]

85. That is the Gospel for Ash Wednesday and is read out every year.

Kind of ironic, considering we all go and get ashes that day. It is a reminder that whatever we're doing for Lent is our business and is not to be paraded out before others as proof of our holiness.

[Cass]

9. Great passage. The fundies have managed to twist the bible into a

book of hate.

[NI4NI]

10. K&R for afternoon and night views.

[JoDog]

11. I was raised an Episcopalian

And that passage was used as the explaination as to why Episcopalians consider it unseemly to wear one's religion on their sleeves or shout it on street corners. That's why Episcopalians sometimes jokingly call themselves "God's frozen people", a saying Allison Stewart alluded to on Thursday night's "Countdown."

[mwb970]

17. I wondered about that remark by Allison.

Thanks for clarifying!

[Tsiyu]

28. I was raised as one as well

"The Frozen Chosen" is how we put it, and in the South, cuz we drank and the Baptist don't, we ere known as "Whiskeypalians."

But the episcopal church is a cesspool these days as well. They've certainly broken my heart lately.


Welocme to DU :hi:

[JoDog]

56. I know how you feel

Although not one of the frozen these days, I've been watching news of the impending schism. The diocese I grew up in is one of the most conservative in the country--it refuses to ordain women. I recently found out from my mom that it is starting to restructure the idividual churches to something closer to the strict Anglican model. They plan on going with the "Nigerian" branch.

Which makes me sad because I was confirmed in that parish by a priest who made sure to instill in me that Episcopalianism was the faith of true equality--everyone equal in God's eyes, everyone equal under the rules. (That's why the archbishop of Cantabury is refered to only as the "titular head" of the Anglican communion, and is called the "first among equals". His word carries great weight, but at the end of the day, he only has 1 vote.) Fr. Glade also explained to me that Christians should consider the New Testament supreme over the Old, thus making using Leviticus to justify anything shaky at best. Both of these things strike at the heart of the gay clergy debate. I'm almost glad he didn't live to see this.

Thanks for the welcome. Feels good to be here!

[hedgehog]

87. I feel for the Episcopalians.

To me it seems a church divided between real Christians and Sunday Christians. I suspect a lot of those going with the conservative side may not even really believe in God but feel that church is necessary to maintain a civil society.

[Sequoia]

112. That's pretty funny.

I was raised pretty much Baptist and fundie. The Baptist church I went to as a child was a good old fashioned white clapboard where on summer Sunday's there'd be a spread of food with music in the afternoon. People would bring their fiddles, banjos, mandolins, etc. and just ho doe gospel style. That would only be when we visited from our regular boarding school fundie church. In high school I went to an Espical church mainly because a guy I had a crush on went there. I liked their style and the absence of hell fire damnation. But all in all I well remember the passage about not bragging about the charity you do etc. Therefore when I had to start paying taxes that verse stumped me. Should I get my tax kick-back now or wait until I get to heaven?

[Coyote_Bandit]

12. Fundies

largely ignore the entire Sermon on the Mount from which that passage is taken (as I recall). The Sermon on the Mount is probably the best summation of Jesus' teachings. The fundies much prefer to focus on the legalism set forth in the epistles of the Apostle Paul. Other epistles, like James for instance, they seem to pass over.

Very selective use of Scripture. Most of them have not studied it. Of course that could be said of most Christians irrespective of their theological and/or political belief system. Christianity existed for some 1500 years before congregants ever had the opportunity to study Scripture. Historically the spread of the gospel has not relied upon Scripture. It has relied upon the passions (and manipulations) of its adherents. Scripture is venerated. But it is largely incidental. Good for pointing out hypocrisy though.

[NMMNG]

14. Fundies don't use the Bible for application to their own lives

They use it as a weapon against others.

[Jokerman]

16. Nail on the head.

Succinct as always Buffy!

[blondeatlast]

23. That's the best explanation for their behavior I've ever heard. Thanks--gotta remember

that one.

[hunter]

91. That's exactly right.

They want to beat you down with their dead bible, wrap you up in chains, and drag you into their own darkness.

[Cassandra]

15. Even I'm aware of that passage...

and I'm Jewish.

[druidity33]

18. as far as i'm concerned

You could throw out most of the rest of the Bible... Matthew is the only book that through and through is all out Righteous (in a good way that is).

Or maybe if you just take all the words attributed to Jesus and put them together, that'd be cool too. Is there a faith that does that?

[zeemike]

24. Mark , Luke and John are also worth while

and have the same things in them with slight differences that one would expect from 4 different witnesses to the same event.And the book of Acts tells the story of what happened after the death of Jesus and is also important to the understanding of the story.

[hedgehog]

88. Technically, they aren't what we would call witnesses.

What is written is an interpretation of events rather than a strrict recounting. Think Oliver Stone's JFK vs. the Warren Report. One has the truth, the other has the facts.

[zeemike]

101. It may also be that it was given as testimony

And recorded for that purpose. The people of that day did have an understanding of law and the need for testimony. Just read about the trial of Jesus and you see that they understood the need for it. They convicted him on the testimony of a man that said he heard Jesus say that he would destroy the temple.
So these books may well have been intentionally written and recorded and not just done as an afterthought as most believe.

[hedgehog]

114. I don't mean to imply that people were making things up.

They did pick and choose the points each tradition felt to be important. I say tradition because it's not clear to me how much each Gospel as written owes to a single "author". I'm not saying that on my own; I'm just admitting to not fully understanding exactly what scriptural experts are describing. In some cases,the Gospel authors seem to have taken some real events and compressed them or mixed them. For example, take the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, I have to believe that these accounts are synopses of many sermons or of a single sermon given many times. No teacher states a fact a single time but many times in many ways to ensure that it is driven home. Does that make these accounts untrue?

I think the Passion accounts are stunning, especially the scene in Pilate's court. I've never seen a literary analysis, but the drama of the event and the account, no you think of Jesus, is incredibly modern to my ear.

[zeemike]

128. Well there is a lot we don't know

But my point was and is that it may have been recorded actually as testimony in the legal sense. And in fact that is how it is stated, and they are referred to as the wittinesses to Jesus. Now whether Mathew himself actually wrote it down or dictated it to a scribe is not important it may have been with the legal reference in mind that he did it because remember he had witnessed an illegal trial of Jesus that had convicted him on false testimony and it may have been recorded to counter that false conviction.
We tend to forget that these men were devout Jews and in the case of Mathew a tax collector and would not neglect any legal matter.
Now that is what it sounds like to me. But some have argued that sense the accounts are not exactly alike they must be made up, but that is not correct for under Jewish law the evidence given by wittinesses is considered false if the wittinesses tell the exact same story. It would indicate that they got together and made it up.
Luke alludes to it;

1. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

[hedgehog]

134. I never heard that about Jewish law before, but boy does it show

an acute observation of human behavior. I agree with you that the Gospels are pretty sound testimony even according to today's standards. I was trying to address the problems of the minor discrepancies from Gospel to Gospel. too many read them as if they were transcribed from a video tape somewhere and therefore any alterations from account to account indicate fiction or fraud.

[zeemike]

149. It is too easy for us to forget that people 2000 years ago

Had the same brain capacity and same intelligence that we have today.
And we also forget that they had hundreds of years, more than twice as long as our United States, to develop things like laws and philosophy.
But we only need to look to Socrates or Plato to know that they were our equals in intellect.
But Jewish law was very well developed by the time of Jesus.
I am not sure about the time line but it was 300 years after Moses brought them to the land of Cana until they had their first king and hundreds of years of Kings until the captivity by Babylon.
The history of Israel is an interesting story by itself, but again few can see it for all of the smoke and mirrors used by the "bible believers".
I have said for years now that you must read the bible like a book, and that is, wanting to here the story of it and forget about anything sacred or mystical. Learn the story and then you can understand the message.

[w4rma]

30. The (Thomas) Jefferson Bible comes close.

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

[druidity33]

67. cool link... thanks. n/t

[rebel with a cause]

59. Its called the red letter Christians.

they only go by the "red words" that are printed in those editions of the Bible. Others make fun of those Bibles, because they say we really don't know what Jesus said, so how can you put it in red letters like it is a quote. For me, if the words are positive and teach the right way we should be living, then go for it.

[kineneb]

86. Jesus as a buddha or bodhisattva

As a Buddhist, I have no problems with the "red letter" portions of the NT, especially Mark and Matthew (the two oldest books).

Luke was composed under influence from Paul, so can be considered suspect. John is a rebuttal to the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (See Elaine Pagel's books on the subject).

I simply object to what was done by Saul/Paul to turn Jesus' life into a Roman/Greek mystery religion.

[hedgehog]

89. Not all of Paul really is Paul.

Some of the more problematic letters were added by more conservative believers after the Church became a little more respectable and less revolutionary.

[rebel with a cause]

99. A lot of things in the bible were added to suit the priest and the kings.

that is why I chose only to accept the positive and not worry about(disregard) the negative. That is why I distrust and dislike those who follow the negative and throw it in the faces of others. That is why I do not believe in organized religion and hold it as a personal belief and not something to be forced on others.

[kineneb]

105. I know

Perhaps I should have written it as "Paul". All those letters to the whatever groups were more for propaganda and the formation of an institution, rather than having to do with Jesus' teachings.

Of the various books that make up the NT, the only ones I find interesting or useful are Matthew, Mark and James. (And I bet almost no one reads James...it is curious that the church fathers left it in.) The gospel of Thomas is good too, although not part of the canon.

[hedgehog]

111. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John; or in chronological order, Mark, ,

Matthew, Luke and John. There is a letter of James, the one about how faith is useless without works. I wouldn't say that all those letters of Paul are propaganda. "Neither man nor woman, slave or free man, Greek or Jew" is pretty revolutionary. Not to mention the one comparing the Church to a body, noting that all members are important (rather a smack against the present hierarchal structure, I'd say) Not to mention; all things will pass away, but Love remains.

I think a lot of Paul gets buried in latinate phrases, but when he's good, he's really good.

[JanusAscending]

152. Could it be because James

was Jesus' actual brother? I would think that would lend weight to being left in???

[rebel with a cause]

98. My son calls me a Christian because I try to live by

the positive teachings attributed to Jesus. Someone, a church going christian, asked me if I thought Jesus was the son of God and I told them that was unimportant to me. I call him a prophet and teacher, but I am not going to insult someone else by saying that he is not what they believe.

I also have read some of the Mohammad and Buddhist teachings and find positive things in them also. Buddhism is the hardest for me to really understand in full, although it seems to be the most peaceful and perhaps the most rewarding. :shrug: Meaning that I am unsure of whether this is accurate or not, but this is what I believe.

[kestrel91316]

137. When I have read the bible, I skip everything except the red letter

parts, lol. The rest is nonsense.

There. That's my religion. Doesn't have a name.

[zeemike]

19. If you notice fundies never quote Jesus

They prefer to quote Paul who mostly talked about the organization of the church. And that is the reason why they avoid what Jesus said, because it goes against almost everything they preach.
The words of Jesus are the best ammunition against them.

[blondeatlast]

21. The Lost Book of the Bible? I knew it was there all along.

Jesus had a lot to say about hypocisy, too.

[SoCalDem]

25. There was a significant degree of sarcasm in that title..

but truthfully,, I am not a Bible devotee, so I would never have known it by chapter and verse :)

[blondeatlast]

26. Sorry if I came off as snarky--wasn't the intent. I meant it seems to have been lost

to the RRR.

My apologies; I spent about half of my religious time at Mass, myself. Matthew is one of my favorite reads.

:hi:

[SoCalDem]

29. Never apologize for the snarky..

:hi:

At least not to me :hi:

I live by the "Snarky Rule"

Snark Unto Others as You would have them snark unto you :)

[rebel with a cause]

68. don't feel bad.

I was raised in the church, attending services at least four services a week and most of the time five. I was force fed the Bible growing up and after I left home, I read it from cover to cover. I pretty well know what it says, but I always refused to memorize it by chapter and verse. I don't know if it was because I am wholistic in nature or the fact that I thought it sounded pretentious when people quoted it that way. :shrug:

[cgrindley]

31. Nonsense

Using one quotation from the bible to address any other quotation from the bible or to address any religious behavior is the intellectual equivalent of claiming that sasquatch can beat up unicorns. If you attempt to play by their rules, you are conceding that the game itself is worth playing. It is not.

[w4rma]

32. You are making the assumption

that everyone here is an atheist, when you know that's not true.

And even atheists can take Jesus's teaching on morals and ethics to heart.

[cgrindley]

41. Hey, I love Jesus

from a philosophical point of view, but you can't get into a scriptural dogfight with evangelists. They are impervious to all forms of reason. These are dudes who are seemingly incapable of recognizing even basic problems regarding doublets and triplets in the OT. A consistent approach to theology is utterly unimportant to them. If you try this line of reasoning, you're just wasting your tme.

[w4rma]

42. That's a good argument for starting a 'religious' war, if it were fully true. (nt)

[cgrindley]

73. It is true

They really are incapable of addressing the really glaring problems with their belief systems, so there's really no hope in presenting them with any nuanced arguments.

EG ask one why there are two stories of creation at the start of genesis and why everything is created on completely different days.

Or maybe you could ask them why god chokes the shit out of Moses for no reason whatsoever.

And yet they're still literalists.

[Perky]

83. Bull effing shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look first of all, Evangelicals are not the same as fundamentaists.

Secondly the assumption that either group is "impervious to reason" is awfully arrogant and certainly insulting to liberal evangelicals and conservative Christians of many different theological and political stripes.

I know countless evangelicals who are will readily concede that they are unable to reconcile themselves to a good portion of the OT. Notwithstanding that they are kind, devout, and teachable souls, who find the claims of Christ to be sufficent for them and are intent on spreading the Gospel as Jesus did for the reasons Jesus did.

The ad Hominen suggestion that my faith and the faith of millions is impervious to reason shows a profound lack of understanding of our community in its breadth and depth.

[cgrindley]

90. If they weren't impervious to reason

then they wouldn't believe in god. Belief in god requires faith and faith is antithetical to reason.

[Perky]

100. Wow... ok

and you accuse Christians of being narrowminded????

[cgrindley]

103. Some are narrowminded but all of them

believe in something that absolutey does not exist. It's ridiculous. It's like arguing with an adult about the existence of the Easter bunny. It's not even worth a serious response. The person who believes in unicorns has the burden of proof.

[Perky]

104. You made the assertion that people who believe in God are impervious to reason

Your assertion has the burden of proof.

I have never insulted the right of an athiest to believe what they believe. It is your abolute right to believe waht ever you want to believe and pontificate on that belief anytime and anywere you see fit.

Thjat does not give you license to be ugly to those who have reached a different conclusion or blast them for those conclusions.

[cgrindley]

108. What?

Reaching a different conclusion than atheism regarding the existence of god is roughly equivalent to reaching a different conclusion regarding the question of whether or not 3 is a prime number.

If religious people are insulted by atheism, then perhaps they should stop being religious.

[Perky]

109. I am not insulted by your athiesm

I am insulted by your insults of Christians.

[cgrindley]

120. It's as much of an insult

as telling someone that they are 5'5" when they always thought that they were 6'4".

Faith is the belief in a thing without any verifiable or demonstrable evidence. Faith *is* irrational. The two are pretty much synonymous.

All religious people are at least a tiny bit irrational. If they weren't, then they wouldn't believe in a god or gods.

I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.

[Perky]

132. Oh I will readidly admit it is not rational but

you seem to be proceddeding from an assumption that if it is not ration it must be false.

In an early post you said that that you loved Jesus's philophophy.... ok well Jesus entire Philosphy was premised on the notion that he was the incarnation of God.

ased on what you have said you have to believe that he was a mad man... a veritable loon....so you find yourself loving the philosophy of saomeone you feel is lunatic? How rational is that????????

[cgrindley]

142. I don't think that's true

Nor do I think that the development of Christianity necessarily offers any evidence in support of the godhead of Christ, nor do I think that his words bear out any agenda he had to claim anything of the sort--eg observe the proposed transition of the texts from Q to the synoptic gospels. There was a political agenda there, but it wasn't Jesus's. There is, on the other hand, far more compelling evidence to suggest that Jesus was a first rate Jewish philosopher who was executed by the Romans for being a public annoyance and who stayed dead.

Try this http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html

You could even wiki it if you want a quick read explaining the theories involved.

Jesus was a good philosopher and christianity--as long as god isn't invited--is a good "religion".

[Perky]

156. A first rate Jewish Philosopher who

Turned water to wine?
who fed the 5,000 after the Sermon on the Mount
who walked on water
who cast out demons
who healed the sick
who raised the dead.

If you accept the "red words" but not the context in which they were were given; if you reject the miracles but accept the philophy that is mind numbingly irrational.

You are basically saying that four of his disciples independently embellished what he did but not what he said and were willng to all imprisoonesd and martyred for believing in their embellishments. That is a very illogical conclusion and take a great leap in rational thought than accepting the notion that the miracles occured as well.

But then there is the rub I suspect....if He was a great Jewish philospher and the miracles did occur, then you have to deal with miracles and the power from whence they came.

[cgrindley]

158. Naw, that stuff's all made up garbage

Raised the dead? No. Loaves and fishes? No. None of that shit happened.

The synoptic gospels were not written by his disciples, but by vague "schools of thought" comprising multiple authors over a considerable period of time, almost 100 years after the events.

This is not a matter of debate. There are no gods.

[Perky]

159. WOW OK .

so YOU ACCEPT THE HISROTICAL jESUS. yOU ACCEPT THAT THE RECORDINGS OF HIS TEACHINGS ARE ACCURATE BUT YOU REJECT EVERYTHIN ELSE SAID ABOUT HIM.

[cgrindley]

160. sort of

I accept that there was a historical jesus and I accept that some of what was written about his teachings is accurate, and I accept as valid many of the non-supernaturally inclined teachings of the church fathers and doctors, as well as some of the teachings of religious people to the present day (including for example, some of what this present pope says and some of what the last one said), but I totally reject as impossible the notion that any supernatural events or concerns are in any way involved.

I believe that to place the blame for Jesus' wisdom on some divine origin is a grotesque insult to human dignity. Jesus' teachings show us the beauty of our species. To bring some imaginary god into it is to smack Jesus soundly in the face.

[Perky]

162. .

A simple request then, read John 15-17 from a philosphical-historical point if view.

This is not an arrempt to convince you of anything, just meant to get a sense of how you define rationality,

[cgrindley]

165. Look at it this way

John is not one of the synoptic gospels, so its value isn't that great to people who look to a historical reading of christ. It too obsessed with arguing its own christology, one that is significantly more explicitly supernatural than that seen in the synoptic gospels.

in the passage you provide, there are a bunch of things going on... there are framing devices for christ's teachings, there are some simple aphorisms of the sort that he probably used, there are some warnings and passages that can be used to control membership in church (these are actually pretty common types of additions) and there are the supernatural claims. The four areas may be easily separated without harming the core philosophy.

Lay down your life for your friends.
Love your neighbors.
Be prepared to suffer for your beliefs.

Of course you can find those philosophies elsewhere in Jesus' teachings. We don't need John.

Ask yourself this... are Jesus' words somehow in need of divine support? Is the idea of laying down your life for the people you love an idea that really needs the backing of god for you to agree with it? Do you need to believe in an eternal diety to see the wisdom of loving your neighbors?

Do you need to be able to see the future to know that there are some beliefs for which you will be punished?

[Perky]

166. Jesus apparently needed God.

John 17 is Jesus saying besically "I only do what God the Father tells me to do.... you (the disciples) do the same and teach others to do the same. You to can do what I have done and even greater things". Obedience and humility before God is at the core of Jesus's message. I think it impossible to accept his philopshy as valid but reject the very basis of his rationale for that philosophy.

It is selective, it is irrational and it is intellectually lazy. You are free to reject Jeus if you like. I am not trying to persuade you of anythig. But there is a seeming disconnect from a rationally formed acceptance of his philosophy if you choose not to deal with who he said he was. You have reject him as a loon or accept the underlying premise of his philosophy. There really is no other rational conclusion.

[cgrindley]

167. I don't believe he did claim those things

John dates to between 100-140 AD. Long after the events. All sorts of crazy shit was added. There's no way Jesus ever claimed to be the son of god... unless he was speaking in a purely metaphorical sense in that we are all "sons" of "god". Naw... he just didn't say it. It was an addition. John's not a gospel you should trust.

Jesus wasn't a loon, just a rabble rousing 1st century Jewish philosopher.

[Perky]

168. The synoptics do not say the same thing?

Matthew 5

3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.


13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

[cgrindley]

169. That's not the same thing

Jesus talking about heaven and god is not the same as Jesus claiming to be god or have access to heaven.

Jesus doesn't explicitly discuss his *own* divinity in the synoptic gospels anywhere near the way he is shown as doing in John. Remember, I'm not claiming Jesus was an atheist, I'm merely claiming that he was a wise but mortal religious teacher, a religious philosopher.

[Perky]

175. but you are saying that I can not come to a different rational solution

[cgrindley]

178. Yep

If you conclude that god exists, that's by definition an irrational conclusion. There's no empirical evidence, no sound quantitative way to measure it. It's something that can only be taken on faith, and hence not rational.

[Perky]

180. But partial post said that Christians were impervious to reason

People are able to reach different conclusion using empirical data are they not? SImmply because the conclusions I draw with my reasoning skills does not make me impervious to reason. I conclude that based on the available data that Jesus was the incarnata God. Can I prove it? No. But neither can you prove emprically that he was not. Or more broadly that God does not exist.

The difference really come down to I would never insult a group of people based on what they hold to be truth, even if I adamantly disagree with them whther they are Muslims or athiests or fundamentalists. The tendency of Athiests to deliriously offend the intellectual prowess of people of faith is somewhat astounding. Partly because I have yet to see CHristians take the same tact here on DU, partly becuase of the arrogant assumption that anyone who does not follow an athiestic creed is an embicile, partly because we are suppose to be the party of the Big Tent. But mostly because people think it fine to be mean to other people to score points or serve as delayed retribution for past pains.

I don't begrudge your athiesm. I find it insulting that you think it is perfectly ok to disrespect and revile my faith. Bluntly it borders on intolerance.

[zeemike]

133. Not meaning to hurt your feelings but

It shows how much you really do not know.
And i will not bother to explain myself because you are just not ready for it. Especially sense you cannot see the difference between the knowledge of prime numbers as compared to the universal truth of this creation.

[Leopolds Ghost]

141. I find your faith in the power of human reason... interesting.

Relative to other animals (and we always considered ourselves as such)
humans are butchers. They are generally speaking, no more self-aware
than their nearest relatives. Their definition of "reason" (and other
postmodern semantic concepts) varies from person to person.

Am I a postmodernist? No, because I believe that there is a truth which
exists beyond semantics. However, in a postmodern society, a modernist
belief in the primacy of reason *requires faith in the concept of reason*
-- a concept most Americans, raised in a postmodern culture, fail to
define properly for themselves, because value syntax over semantics,
just like the fundies do.

[Leopolds Ghost]

140. Well... unicorns and cyclops and feathered flying dragons

were based on factual evidence (narwhal bones, elephant skulls, dinosaur skeletons) not lies made up out of whole cloth by fortune tellers.

In the old days, people of faith followed the empirical method and took their beliefs seriously. They didn't believe in spreading falsehoods that were provably untrue. Remember they actually believed in spirits and powers, and the punishment of the wicked. They didn't just lie about it to manipulate the faithful, unless they were seeking to justify actions they would have taken anyway (warlordism, surplus agriculture, pyramid building to memorialize their rule, etc.)

If anything, people in small tribal communities were much less reliant on government to force them to do the right thing, they felt compelled to follow their beliefs on bearing false witness, etc. They tried to understand how life was created as best they could determine from the limited understanding available to them.

That doesn't mean they didn't believe in religion as a higher power.

Religion, ultimately, is related to epistemology and metaphysics, which is a very real branch of philosophy dealing with the meaning of life, the meaning of meaning, etc. You don't magically solve the answers by declaring that "science exists, God doesn't". Even if that is your belief.

[DarkTirade]

154. .. and that is why so many athiests get the bad rap.

Not only are you going out of your way to insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't believe the same thing you do(sounds like fundamentalist thinking right there, I might add), but your logic is sincerely flawed on two major fronts.
First, faith is NOT the opposite of reason, or a lack of it. Faith is a belief in something that has not been proven. There is a HUGE difference there.
I have nothing but pictures and the words of others to persuade me that the world is round. I have faith that my belief in a round world isn't the result of a massive conspiracy designed entirely to make me look stupid. Can it be proven 100% beyond a doubt? No, just beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if I were to circumnavigate the globe on my own, there is still a chance that it was somehow a trick. A tiny, microscopic chance, but still a chance.
Others may have beliefs that have far less to support them, but that has NOTHING to do with reason or lack therof. They have fulfilled what they consider to be their level of reasonable doubt.
Secondly, athiesm is a belief, just like any other. You believe. There is no evidence that there is a 'god' or higher power, but but as ANY scientist will tell you, lack of evidence is NOT evidence of lack. Just about the only 'ism' that is not a belief on its own is agnosticism... the people who are willing to admit that they don't and most likely CAN'T know things beyond the limits of their life experience.
If you're really so insistant that 'belief' is illogical and stupid, than you cannot be an athiest without also considering yourself to be illogical and stupid.

[DarkTirade]

155. Oh, and I forgot to add...

every athiest I know is a nice, reasonable person. Who only get annoyed when dealing with mindless fundies.
And that includes mindless fundy athiests too. They may be more rare than the other kinds, but they still exist.

[hedgehog]

94. Good point. A lot of Evangelists will be us in 2008 if we

address issues of poverty: fair wages, housing, child care, medical care.

I say will be us rather than will be us because who are we if not a party of many smaller groups brought together by common goals?

[Perky]

102. You left off three important issues

Genocide in Darfur, AIDS/HIV and Global Warming.

[SoCalDem]

36. Is that why Sasquatches are nearly extinct?? Angry unicorns?

Now we know why they evolved with that twisty horn.. They done screwed all the sasquatches with it :cry:

[TheBaldyMan]

43. the great schism came about when Bigfoot said pink was a 'gay' colour for a unicorn.

the holy war has continued unabated ever since.

[GreenZoneLT]

33. No offense, but Catholicism is weird

I just recently learned that y'all aren't (or at one time weren't) really encouraged to read the Bible. I'm an atheist, and it turns out I know a LOT more Scripture than most Catholics.

My favorite verse is Second Kings 2:23. Elisha and the bears. It's a hoot.

[SoCalDem]

37. It that the verse that Scooter based his book on?

:rofl:

[GreenZoneLT]

44. Oh, great, now you made me look up Scooter Libby's book

Oh, man, did he REALLY put in something about bears having sex with little kids? I'm not going to actually read it; I'll trust the Amazone reviewer.

[SoCalDem]

138. Rightwingers can be very perverted, can't they?

Who would ever even imagine a 10 yr old girl having sex with a bear:puke:

[hedgehog]

96. Umm, the only Catholics who don't read the Bible probably haven't been to Church

in 50 some years. It may have been true before Vatican II, but most parishes have some kind of Bible study going on any more. That's not to mention four readings every Sunday at Mass: a Psalm, an Old testament Reading, A Letter (usually Paul)and A Gospel. The readings are on a three year cycle. We don't cover every chapter and verse, but we get around.

[DemBones DemBones]

170. I know Catholics in the 70-90 year age range who studied the

Bible in Catholic school. It's a bullshit claim but what can you expect from a lapsed Catholic who has an image of a crucified Easter bunny in her sig line?

[mmonk]

161. Old protestant meme.

You see, to discredit the Church and start a new one, the church had to be wrong. Therefore, that left the bible as the only place to look for "truth". What they didn't figure on was that without guidance or Church history, individual interpretation led to many protestant churches. Where do you think protestants got the bible?

[DemBones DemBones]

171. Exactly. And I had to laugh when I saw

a bumpersticker on a college kid's car that read "If it ain't the King James, it ain't the Bible!" Amazing how many gay-bashing Protestants don't know that the King James translation was brought to them by a king noted for his male lovers. The irony is simply delightful.

[JNelson6563]

163. I'd say no wierder than the others

And truth be told you probably know the bible more than most believers. There are few who actually KNOW the bible.

And the whole Catholics are discouraged from reading the bible thing is very old and outdated. It's easy though to get caught up in the Catholicism is so weird/evil/whatever in comparison to other Christian sects. Many of those very sects still preach anti-Catholic stuff as though it were still the reformation and they are still having to justify their existence.

Remember, when you hear the old stand-by Catholic insults, it's a lot like how the right wing loves to paint the Dems as entitlement loving freeloaders.

Julie

[baldguy]

34. Not lost, just ignored.

The RW dismisses everything in the bible that's wholesome, uplifting & noble.

[Nye Bevan]

35. I remember that well from my Catholic upbringing

I had to go to mass every week and found most of it to be meaningless mumbo-jumbo, but that Gospel reading actually made sense to me at the time. I seem to remember that our priest read it as "I tell you solemnly, they have had their reward" and that it also included an admonition against pulling a long face while fasting (as this would mean that you were fasting at least in part to impress others).

[SoCalDem]

38. Mass was still said in Latin when I had to go.. It was a blessing,though

No one expected us to know what was going on.. sit./.stand..kneel..mumble..kneel..sit..stand

rinse & repeat

[mmonk]

46. In Latin for me as well.

Of course, being an altar boy at the time, I was required to learn it as well as to know when to ring the bell or to get the water and wine, etc.

[SoCalDem]

47. and the little swingy smoke thing.. that was cool.. I liked the smell of that

and the bells too :)

[mmonk]

48. Yeah.

I can still smell the incense and hear the clink of the chain against the incense burner as the priest swung it.

[hedgehog]

97. We Catholics are after all, members of a sacramental Church!

That means that properly speaking, we should be recognizing the sacred in all of God's creation! Most people limit that appreciation to candles and incense. A few, like St. Francis, really got it.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

144. Ah yes! The Smoking Handbag!!

Censers are fun!

The joys of "smells and bells" (except I experienced them in High Church Whiskeypalians' churches).

I once sang in a Methodist choir that was truly high church. The preacher chanted, and we did choral responses in four part Anglican chant. That was fun because the music changed all the time and we had few, if any, protestant dirges for the congregation to sing.

This minister later became an Episcopalian. Doesn't surprise me a bit. He was one at heart.

[SoCalDem]

148. the BEST church experience is an old fashioned Greek Orthodox Cathedral

It's like going to a play.. all those little doorways, and the vestment changes..and the chanting in Greek is cool..

My friend was Greek, and he was too shy to talk to a cute girl who went there, so we would schlep into Kansas City to bolster John's courage.. As services ended, the girl's family would swarm around her and escort her to the car.. he never got up the courage..

Too bad for her.. he ended up a pharmacist (big bucks) and is the most gentle/kind person I ever knew :)

[mmonk]

39. Not white-out. They engage in cherry picking.

[theHandpuppet]

54. Here's another "forgotten" passage from that Sermon on the Mount

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

[underpants]

57. LOL the sig line

what happened to the one about the photograph and the depressing words underneath it.

I LOVE both of them

[SoCalDem]

60. Hey it's Easter-time..gotta love the bunnies:)

I change my pics a lot :)

[The Doctor.]

58. Yeah, I try to wave this in their faces

after they proselytize and then resort to insinuating how terribly damned I am for taking their faith apart by telling me, "I will pray for you."

The ignorance of these tenets of faith is one of the reasons I grew out of 'Born Again Christianity'.

I fell into it for nearly a year once when I was still a teenager. I had proverbs nearly memorized, and my friends hated me for it... even though I turned out to be right most of the time. Did I say 'even though'? That should be 'especially because'. There was a proverb for every situation, and it irritated the hell out of them.

I learned that the Born Again Christian's brand of faith is arrogance, but it is very dangerous. It uses two very powerful insecurities to consolidate it's hold on the psyche.

-Fear of insignificance.

The great thing about being a Born Again Christian is that you are 'saved'. This makes you infinitely more special than everyone who, according to you, is not 'saved'. You now have a status that grants you life eternal and infinite validation to your ego. The best part is that there is absolutely no need to rationalize it because all you have to do is believe it. At this point you no longer need to question faith at all... yours is perfect, everyone else's is wrong. -Those poor slobs! :eyes:
This is one of the reasons the BAC no longer grows spiritually. Instead, they use the tools of their faith to rationalize, justify, and disguise their arrogance.

"It's not my wish that everyone burn in a lake of fire... it is God's inexorable will."

'-No, you just secretly rejoice over it.' :evilfrown:

-Fear of Death.

This is the most dangerous one. The BAC believes that he has been granted the opportunity to avoid physical death. He will be 'taken as though by a thief in the night', and it is very exciting being in constant anticipation of this event. This is why the BAC constantly looks for signs the 'prophecy' is at hand. They are ecstatic over it, they are excited beyond reason, they can barely contain themselves... they can't wait for it. -And there is a very terrifying reality to that. They really can't wait for it... because the longer they have to wait, the more likely it is they will have to experience physical death. They tell themselves they 'do not fear death' because they are 'saved', but the fact is that every single one of them desperately wishes to be 'Raptured'. That is the only way they can get their 'special immortal bodies'. There may be a few who will say they'd like to be 'left behind' so that they can continue to 'save' others, but that just means their arrogance has overridden their fear of death. All of them have become experts at fooling themselves.
The problem with this aspect of the 'faith' is that each and every one of them is actively and unconsciously willing the End of the World to come about, for it is the only way to bring about the Rapture.

Understanding human super-conscious mechanics, I can say without compunction that this is an immensely dangerous meme.

They want the world to die in order to validate their faith and avoid death for themselves. They have allowed the greatest deception ever to play upon their fears and convince them to deceive themselves... and they are a danger to all life on Earth.

[rebel with a cause]

75. Wow, your born again was sure better than my born again.

;-) We were born again and then had to live a life as perfect as possible so we didn't backslide into hell. If we made a mistake, we had to pray for forgiveness and make right the wrong. We did feel superior in some ways, wouldn't you if you couldn't do what the other kids were doing? We had to have something to feel good about. :) But we never looked down on anyone, and mostly the kids who were the cast outs were our friends because we accepted them as they were. (That is what we were taught was the Christian way)

As for fear of death, I use to have nightmares about the devil coming to get me with his pitchfork when I was a child. The thoughts of heaven have always scared me as much as hell. I know many others took comfort in it but I don't know that I ever really could. I always questioned why missionaries went to teach religion to the "heathens" because the Bible says that if you do not know about God then you cannot be judged for not knowing and you go to heaven. I thought why not just let these people stay untaught and they will go to heaven anyway, but if you teach them and they chose not to be a christian then you will be causing them to go to hell. I always wondered about the people that looked forward to the rapture/end of the world, because if you are a Christian how can you look forward to a time when you believe that others will go to hell. Some of these people will be family and friends, and you are looking forward to when you are lifted up and leave others burning from the flames of hell? How can that be a part of Christianity? For me, I just want to look forward to nothingness when I die.

I was told one time that "once saved always saved", but that was not my father's religion. According to him, you got saved and you were suppose to spend the rest of your life proving that you were worthy of being saved. To be truthful, I don't even know if my father lived up to this ideal. I just try to live as good a life as I can, and hope for the best and try not to think about what happens after you die, it is hard enough just to accept death itself.

[Leopolds Ghost]

145. Prisoners in the Hands of An Angry God... admittedly a more consistent

and less damaging form of Calvinism than the "ticket to heaven" mentality.

The Puritans believed you were fated to either succeed or fail, and if you slipped up, you were not of the "elect", you were fated to fail, you're going to hell. A very interesting philosophy in that it requires a fairly complex worldview of God, fate, and morality... but ultimately rather silly. One can easily say, as Huck Finn did, about such an "Angry God":

"if doing the right thing means I go to hell, then damnit, I'll go to hell."

I.e. the whole notion that you can't be forgiven if you "backslide" is just as extreme as the opposite belief that you can't do anything to fall out of God's favor so long as you have "faith".

I for one don't believe in hell... or more to the point, hell exists on earth... our actions and behavior are more hellish than anything that could occur to us after death. God wants us to do good on Earth, not wait until we die.

The worst thing that could happen to an evil person after they die is to become one with God, because doing so requires them to give up their preconceptions of bodily rapture, 72 virgins, etc.

[rebel with a cause]

147. Oh, we could be forgiven for backsliding.

We just had to pray for forgiveness and make it right. In other words, if I lied to you, I would have to come to you and tell you that I lied and tell you the truth. Etc.

Yes, I've read about the Calvinist. The fundies remind me of them in the fact that to them success means you are blessed, poverty/failure means you are not.

I don't know that I believe in heaven and hell anymore but when I did the idea of hell to me was reliving all your mistakes and regrets over and over. Heaven would be coming to complete peace and not remembering anything. I was in a coma for five days last year, and being trapped in my mind, bouncing between conscienceless and hallucinations, with no way to get out was as close to hell as I would ever want to be.

[The Doctor.]

176. I have come to understand that we are merely facets of

God's consciousness.

It's either that or there is only oblivion.

If 'Christians' learned that there is no 'punishment' the way they wish it to be, their heads would explode. That's one of the biggest problems with the very human concepts of good and evil. They cannot wrap their heads around the notion that 'God' does not utilize human judgement... the idea that the Divine has human emotions and rationale is flawed on it's face.

There is no punishment, there is only what we contribute to the Divine.

And we choose whether that is to be joy or pain.

[mmonk]

82. Interesting post.

[The Doctor.]

119. How so?

The olympics are interesting, the holocaust was 'interesting' too.

I genuinely fear these people, not individually, but because of the concerted influence they can have on human destiny... or the obliteration thereof.

[mmonk]

127. Just the information in the post.

in'ter.est.ing, adj. Engaging the attention; arousing interest.

I fear their growing political clout. Their influences beyond anything other than belief or religion, seems contrary to a modern, rational, educated, tolerant and free democracy. The establishment clause must not be weakened for any political interests.

[Leopolds Ghost]

143. Excellent post. We must remember that many of the apostles took false comfort in the end times

But Jesus said to them, "none will know the day or the hour".

Jesus predicted the fall of the Temple, but he did not encourage his
followers to wish for the end of the world. He encouraged them to
bring about the Kingdom of God "on earth as it is in heaven".

Evangelical Protestants used to take this seriously,

then Calvin (the Lenin of the Reformation) came along and massacred them,
putting the bodies of early-church "heritics" in cages suspended from the
sides of the church. Some of those cages are still there.

Most American Protestants, unfortunately, are Calvinists.

[AnnInLa]

64. My brother explains it thusly:

We are Methodist, and know the passage well. With this part,

"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

He said the operative words are "in order to be seen by them".....he says the RW penchant for being seen as religious is NOT for the reason "to be seen," it is to demonstrate by example. If the motivation is only to be perceived as religious, then that is a no-no....one has to be authenically religious, then one can serve as a role model.

He is a RW nut, but a nice one.

[Leopolds Ghost]

146. Interesting parsing of the language... would he permit the Constitution to be read that way? ;-)

[Blue Belle]

65. Thanks for posting this...

I'm keeping a copy. So the next time I get an email petition to sign allowing for prayer in public school, I can just whip this out.

:)

[rasputin1952]

66. There are many passages in the Bible that are overlooked...

When Jesus talks about not helping the downtrodden, he says that every time they passed the hungry, the cold, or the unjustly imprisoned and didn't do something, they didn't do something for him as well.

The Beatitudes has been completely lost any interest in many areas of Christianity, and there lie some of the basic tenets of the faith. I think that "Judge not, lest you be judged" is probably the most overlooked of all. Now this is not to say I have never judged anyone, I'd be a buffoon if I said that and be justifiably vilified. The difference here is that since I've come to better terms w/myself, I cannot judge before having knowledge of the situation. The passage refers to judging others out of ignorance, bigotry, hatred or especially by false evidence. But even if taken at face value then no true Christian could judge another w/o some consequence being incurred.

But I digress, this is one of those topics where there will forever be conjecture. Sadly, people take what they hear as "gospel" rather than seeking answers themselves...:(

[leftofthedial]

71. jesus was not a christian

[Perky]

84. You are right...He was as Jewish as they come ...

what's your point?

[KG]

106. oops

[leftofthedial]

107. he was a damned LIEberal

who um, hated god. Yeah. Yeah! He hated the Pharisees who were doing gawd's--excuse me, god's--work, so he must have hated god. If he was around today, he probably would be DemoncRAT.

Real christians love war and killing brown-skinned foreigners and giving tax money away to super-rich god-loving businessmen and rush limbaugh and ann coulter.

Jesus was no christian, may he rot in hell with his LIEberal comrades.

[Perky]

110. LOL

[DemBones DemBones]

172. Jesus was and is the Christ. His followers are Christians.

Please try to get it straight. If you don't believe Jesus is and was the Christ, that's your prerogative. But this "Jesus wasn't a Christian" line is older than "Nah nah nah nah boo boo" and equally useless.

[porphyrian]

77. Who cares? They believe shit despite of the reality anyway. - n/t

[Perky]

78. Hardly lost......just ilost by today's Pharisees

Of course they are largely dispensationalist to begin with.

[badgerpup]

81. Well, this is just plain silly!

If you follow this advice, how would everyone else around know what a good moral pious perfect upstanding christian you are?
:sarcasm:

[opihimoimoi]

92. Reality is the TRUTH.....forget the Fantasy......

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

93. It's Real And Has Always Been One Of My Most Quoted And Favorite.

[ChickMagic]

95. Yeah, I throw that in their faces all the time

They always use the old saw, "That's taken out of context." You picture reminds me of this one:

[AZBlue]

115. Please...uber right-wing, hateful, holier-than-thou "Christians" have no clue what Jesus preached or

stood for. They are a complete 180 of everything he represented.

[Vidar]

116. Something Jesus said when he wasn't busy throwing moneylenders

out of the temple.

[HardRocker05]

117. Ha ha; you actually think christians care what's in the bible? as they say, the bible is

the swiss army knife of morality. you can find something in there to justify or condemn just about anything. christians simply pick and choose whatever they want. in their defense, i guess they have to, because it would be impossible to take the whole thing literally since there are so many contradictions and non-sensical stuff.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. in mainstream churches, they read through all four Gospels over a three-year

period in the so-called Common Lectionary, so yes, we Episcopalians, Catholics, Lutherans, and other mainstream types hear this passage every three years.

In the fundamentalist churches, the Bible passage for the day is whatever the preacher feels like reading. If he chooses to skip over this passage, and rail about school prayer or abortion or gay marriage, there's nothing to stop him.

[ComerPerro]

124. They are very aware of this. It falls under the most important doctrine of Christianity

the, "It applies to you, not to me" clause.

That is, others should be humble, not them. Sorta like how others should be required to forgive them, but they don't have to forgive others.

I've heard many a fundie use this passage against Dems when they talk about religion.

ON EDIT: afterthought, its why they say Obama is the antiChrist

[Little Wing]

126. bears repeating

[Ikonoklast]

151. And then it will all come down to this

You WILL pray, and in the manner so proscribed, or suffer the consequences.

[lonestarnot]

157. Yes.

[stonebone]

177. kick

[HappyWeasel]

179. lol....

So the theofascists are just christianists and not christians. Andrew Sullivan was right!