New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
Friends, as the creator of this website. I’m allowed to rant from time to time, right? Right!
Today I present to you…….TWO things that burn me up lately.
#1. Critical Christian bloggers whose entire reason for blogging is to tear down the church.
Somebody’s gonna have to explain this one to me. I don’t understand who has this kind of time on their hands. I understand being anti-something, trust me. If we’re gonna be honest with each other, I could very easily (and I bet you could too) beat up the church denominations 365 days a year w/o repeating myself. Here’s my problem with this approach though…
Aren’t we on the same team, Mr. Christian blogger?? Last time I looked, we are reading out of the same text, are we not? How then, all things considered and possible, could you extract a “tear down a fellow believer” message from the Bible? Let me approach this from one more quick angle…
Think about what this madness looks like from an outsider’s prospective. Here we are, same jerseys…same colors…same goals (I think), and we’re swinging at each other! The opposing team doesn’t even have to do anything. They can sit back and watch us self-destruct. I heard one pastor refer to Christians as “one of the few groups that shoots its wounded.” Welcome to the church world, my friend…
#2. People criticizing the church for having/spending money.
This one burns me up so badly that I have to jump right in. If church attendance is low and therefore church tithing is (most likely) low, nobody looks twice at the church. If a church is successful and can afford “nicer” things, it will be judged faster than a whore in church (interesting analogy, eh?).
I recently read an article that was condemning a church for running a campaign to raise money. The church meets in a high school auditorium. No, I didn’t mean to type “warehouse” and accidentally typed “high school auditorium.” The church is embarking on a fund raising campaign. They have their eyes set on a building (finally after 2 years). God forbid…
Are there invisible “gray-area” money lines that the church should be aware of - perhaps. Does the church need to recognize the fact that they’re gonna draw attention (a good percentage of negative) when they purchase “nice things?” Absolutely. Should the church have nicer things - in my opinion, yeah! Why not?
I bet that if the church met under a tarp on a piece of plywood, with wooden benches for tables and tree stumps for seats it still would attract its share of critics. Welcome to America.
Should the church be involved in charity work/mission-giving - yeah, of course! I laugh at many of the bloggers who criticize some of the bigger US churches for not giving enough back to the society. Do your homework, friend. I think you’ll end up red in the face when you see how much these churches really are involved.
One more question for ya, Mr. $$ Critical. Before you start questioning “why isn’t that church giving more?” let me ask you this: Why aren’t you giving more?
What are two things that burn you up?
Popularity: 9% [?]
What an interesting question.
On the subject of money and religious organisations is irritates me that churches are exempt from tax. This is regardless of the charitable works that they may or may not do. I understand granting charities a tax exemption but why a church?
Another thing that “burns me up” is the refusal of some churches to adjust a world view in the face of overwhelming evidence. It was only 15 years ago that the Catholic church admitted that Galileo Galilei wasn’t a heretic for espousing heliocentrism. I don’t think that a literal interpretation of the bible is necessary to be a believer in it’s message. Neither did Saint Augustine of Hippo and he was supposed to be particularly clever.
Hi Bill
Do you honestly think that Christianity is capable of presenting a united front?
For a while (read since 9/11) it seemed like the candidate catholic, baptist, pentecostal, methodist and presbyterian could all find common cause in standing against the homosexual, the atheist/free-thinker and adherents of faiths other than Christianity.
GO TEAM CHRIST!!!
Lately though I’ve seen cracks in the armor…
Really? How many different versions of the Holy Bible are there?
The Catholics use one. (NJB I believe?) The Jehovah’s Witnesses use another. Some Protestants use the KJV, some don’t. There are striking differences between all of them. Some consider Revelation canonical and some don’t. Who’s right?
Since 9/11 Christian theists of all flavors have had a convenient unifying bogeyman: the overblown threat of islamo-fascism.
What happens if those different denominations no longer have that bogeyman or at the very least start to see perceived enemies differently?
They WILL start sniping at each other.
To be fair, I think that’s already started. The Republican party which looked like a monolithic juggernaut 4 years ago is crumbling from the inside, as evangelicals realize how much Bush and Co. have used them.
Bill, I’m sorry to say, well I’m not really sorry, it’s going to get worse as you see it.
The body of Christ in the US is divided as it ever was and will splinter further.
R
Well Bill, since you asked…
1. The Americanization of the gospel - people who confuse tenets of the faith with customs of American life
2. People who criticize Christianity based on cultural perception and stereotypes. I don’t care if people disagree with us or even hate us; I just wished that they hated us for what we are rather than what they think we are
@Robert…
Hey, what’s up? You said
Yes. It has before (Acts) and I believe that it will again. I’d be an idiot to say that I believe we’ll achieve this on our own. We’re clearly headed in the wrong direction.
Nevertheless, I love rally-cries. I love motivating people and I love being motivated. Will Christians find ourselves 100% united before Jesus comes back - no. But I think we can still put forth the effort.
As far as the bible versions go…I wish I was smarter on that topic. I will say this, though. There are some pretty general, basic principles that can be extracted that I know any honest Christian can agree on. Love, serve, give, help, encourage, etc.
What are two things that burn you up??
@Odgie…
Interesting…care to expand on that at all?
@Bill
Honestly? Everything that burns me up can be boiled down to one thing:
Inflexible dogma
I completely agree with you!
I think we can also agree that one need not resort to ‘dogma’ to accept these tenants.
Why do we have be a Biblical literalists to be saved?
“Beware of DOGMA, it has a bite!”
R
@Robert…
I don’t view Christianity as a dogma, though. I’m convinced it’s true, but I believe it SHOULD be questioned, etc.
To me, believing in the historical Jesus, what he said, what he did, his legacy, etc, is enough for me to “roll the dice” and go for the “Jesus way.”
I really don’t feel like I’m hurting anyone. We agree, as a believer and a non-believer, in the same basic “humanist” principles and approaches. I just happen to believe what Jesus said to be truth.
The word dogma is just so negative. I question aspects of Christianity all the time - you know that. I believe it, but I still question it. I think it’s healthy.
In the end, though, I’ll be classified as just another Christian pushing his dogmatic views in the faces of everyone else JUST BECAUSE I ultimately confess Jesus to be true and King.
Oh well. :)>-
ps - I always enjoy reading your comments
That’s why it’s so hard to have these discussions…..people can dwell on, and find fault with anything OR they can believe and find the truth in the same material. I guess it all depends on the intent of the heart….mine is the latter…:)
I agree with you Bill, there are those tho who will say that this is just another wise prophet person tho…I think it’s important to add that He was fully God as well….
“In the end, though, I’ll be classified as just another Christian pushing his dogmatic views in the faces of everyone else JUST BECAUSE I ultimately confess Jesus to be true and King.”
Yup, and count it all joy!
:-c
I agree with Robert’s dogma comment.
What else burns me up? Our current political system, I wouldn’t trust our congress to get my order right at Dennys. Included in that are the batch of folks we have running for president.
@HappyNat…
You would….Buckeye [-(
:d
I do see some truth in the Bible but I don’t think it is ALL true. :d
Maybe it’s a defect of my psyche that makes me want to evaluate all claims through the lens of empirical evidence and reason.
Gods Gal, you would say to me:
‘believe and then you shall see…’
The thing is we can make ourselves see anything if we believe or want to see it hard enough.
@HappyNat
Good! I feel so alone sometimes.
R
@ Bill
I was indulging in a little ranting of my own. When I have discussions with non-believers, I often (not always) have to disabuse them of preconceived notions of what is in the Bible. For example: On another blog I check out from time to time someone attempted to lump all believers in with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church (the “God Hates Fags” clowns). There are non-believers who really believe that the Bible teaches that God hates gay people, based solely on Phelps and his gaggle of inbreds.
Another example: I used to work with a church in Memphis that was about 50% white and 50% black. When I mentioned that to my brother’s then-girlfriend (a non-believer) in the course of a conversation, her response was: “You have black people at your church?! But you’re so conservative!”
Jesus said that anyone who hated him would hate his followers. So be it. I just wish that I could spend more time talking about what he did teach and less time correcting misperceptions about what he didn’t teach.
I find the opposite to be true…I wasn’t trying to see anything, I simply asked if God was there…He is beyond reason so try to figure Him out is like chasing your tail, ya won’t ever catch it…good to chat with ya again…
@Odgie
But you still hate gay black people right? I’m pretty sure Jesus said something about them going to hell . . .
Just kidding :d
Is exposing heresy (based of course on a different bible or interpretation thereof) the same as tearing down another believer? After all you aren’t a true believer… you are a heretic and obviously a tool of Satan… or maybe I’m the tool.>:)
You want my biggest problem with the whole religious faith thing? It’s that ideology gives you an excuse to do evil in this world and religious faith is the one kind of ideology that is exempted from being shown to not work. I can argue with politics/economics/race/football but if you attempt to make an argument that someones faith is wrong, good luck that you aren’t strung up, maybe it’s just my corner of Indiana.
Yes, a lot of churches do charity work. Yes, a lot of churches create a community that does good for people and even society. But the good they do is based on the results of their actions not the reasons they are doing it. My problem is that religious faith has built into its very foundation the capacity (and the churches infrastructure) to go unchecked. Religious faith has built into it the capacity to inflict some of the most destructive evil on the planet.
Can a humanist ever accept the killing of another human? Not unless it’s self-defense. What justification could I give for the wholesale slaughter of the Kurds.
Would a humanist go around actively promoting Hussein’s administration(knowing what happened to the Shia in Northern Iraq)?
Can a believer ever accept the killing of another human? Sure, pick a verse. Sure, pick a pastor. Ok, not just some whacko Fred-Phelps-pastor how about one with his own TV show, like Pat Robertson… oops nevermind.
Could a believer actively promote their god knowing full well the genocide Jesus was responsible for? Umm… that’s kind of rhetorical.
I am with Hover on the question of church spending.
I am not familiar with all the tax laws in the US that govern tax exemptions. My comments are based a very general understanding of such laws.
Churches do spend a lot of time and money helping the poor. Any income a church, or any one else, spends helping the poor should be tax exempt.
Not taxing the income a church spends for other reasons means taxing more of the income of atheist like me.
A church also spends money to maintain it’s self. Just like any business. Why should income spent for this purpose be tax exempt?
One of the missions that God has given his followers is to spread his word. Why should any church funds spent to “spread the word” be tax exempt?
@Skeptigator
I think you may have just inflamed a whole lot of people here!
huevos grandes amigo!
*Robert now stands back to watch the war commence!
Robert….I will behave…
Skeptigator: Yes
Robert, aren’t you proud of me???
@Gods Gal
So basically you save your wrath for me? =))
just kidding!
R
I’m not trying to pick a fight. o:-) I’m just giving my perspective from the outside. Of course, I grew in an evangelical Christian home in northern Indiana and even graduated from Christian high school (graduating class of 11 people). I know very much the kind of thinking taught in these circles.
I can look pretty objectively at Islam and think, here’s this guy who robbed caravan’s, what the !@#$ kind of person is this they are worshipping (oops I mean show an insane amount of reverence for but is not actual worship… somehow). I think most people living in a society with a Christian tradition like the US/UK look at this more or less objectively. But turn this around on the stories in the Bible (and the behavior of god himself) and people will call you an a-hole for bringing this stuff up or “being dramatic” but… I’m just reading the text for what it is.
There’s no metaphor in the story of Joshua and the genocide of Jericho. At least I was never taught it as a metaphor.
If Jesus is God and it’s the same God as the Old Testament and the story of Jericho is taught as a real event then Jesus is not the god of peace and love. He’s a cosmic mass murderer.
Of course, I know all of the standard
copoutsresponses. God’s ways are mysterious or (my favorite) God is above reasonHow could one ever respond to such wisdom Skep?
:d
Robert: I’ll never wrath again…I promise, I know you can’t help the way you are….:*
@Ed - Good insights and thoughts. Let’s remember that all non-profit organizations are given tax exemption. Not just churches. If churches are doing there job of being a center of care in the community, than they deserve…in my opinion…that exemption just the same that any other does.
Also remember that all proceeds given to a church have already been taxed and any employee that is paid to work for a church pays taxes like any other employee working for other jobs.
As a Pastor, I see our church as one that is always trying to care for both the local and the world community. We support 15 different “care” organizations or missions. Some we are directly involved with and others we have a long distance relationship with. I have no problem with our church spending money to properly manage and equip those tasks. Yes, we do teach the Bible, but so does the salvation army. I see the true life of the Gospel of Jesus as one that would help people and care for people. It would be hard to determine that what we teach and how we teach it is not considered “Caring”for our community.
I would say that tax exemption is a blessing for our church as it allows us more funds to do what we do. With that being said, I don’t necessarily have a problem with the IRS deciding we need to pay taxes. I would fight for the ability to keep our “community” work as tax exempt, but that would be an interesting line to draw.
@inWorship:
“Also remember that all proceeds given to a church have already been taxed and any employee that is paid to work for a church pays taxes like any other employee working for other jobs.”
I thought that money and property donated to churches was a tax deduction? If it isn’t a tax deduction than I agree churches should not have to pay taxes on these donations. In this case churches should only pay taxes on the profits they make from any activities.
I also think churches should pay property tax on the land and buildings they own, even if this property was given to them as a donation. I don’t see any double taxation question here.
“Yes, we do teach the Bible, but so does the salvation army.”
You are right again. I think we would have to clearly define where the funds are bing spent to help the poor and where they are being spent on teaching religion, or to convert non believers.
“I don’t necessarily have a problem with the IRS deciding we need to pay taxes. I would fight for the ability to keep our “community” work as tax exempt, but that would be an interesting line to draw.”
I agree that churches should get a tax credit for community work done to help the poor.
I am not sure if there are any other types of community work that should qualify for a tax credit but I am not that familiar with church activities. Perhaps something like grief counseling could qualify.
@Ed - Yes, that was misleading on my part. If I am to give money to a charity or a church, I get a tax write off, but I have been taxed on that money before I even get to give it…that was my point.
I don’t believe we have any “special options” when it comes to our land, at least where I live. My understanding is that we pay property taxes. Of course we have a mortgage, so i am not sure if that would be different if we owned or were given the property. i am interested in that, I’ll try to check into it.
Also, I am not aware of anything that we would do that would be considered profit. (When I say we, I am speaking of my own church…I can’t speak for others). We have a CD ministry which allows people to buy a CD of the weekend services and we have a coffee bar, but neither of those things are profitable. We aren’t interested in making money on them, only covering our costs.
And I do agree with you. Religious organizations are pretty much given the benefit of the doubt. In general, they do good and they are considered to be “community services”. I understand that there are those that are suspect and as a church, we should always be held accountable to any lawful “wrong doings” with our finances. we don’t deserve any special attention in that regard. If anything, we should be willing to live to stricter standards. And I think that what you would ses is that many churches do live to “self imposed” standards that are very high.
It would be interesting to try and figure out what should be taxed and what shouldn’t if states decided to tax these organizations. I am not sure how we would break up “community work” and “profitable earnings” besides the obvious like I mentioned(books, cd’s, coffee and such). I do knnow that many larger churches have opened book stores within their facilities and these book stores are taxed as a normal business would be taxed. There is no special privilege there, but probably because it is obviously not non-profit.
OKAYYYY
GG has bowed out gracefully (Full of Grace) at this point in time so enter Love to do ‘battle’
Puts on his padded gloves and remembers to try to play ‘Nice!
War on ERROR - let the battle commence…
Skep - I’m looking in your general direction (said a la old Jewish sounding man from Homer’s dad’s rest home)
OK i read that full of rage the first time and your qualification about God/Jehrico Jesus made some of it go away a tad and i’m doin’ what i can to eliminate a whole lot more but forgive me if i slip now and then (staying calm in a fight is a new experience for me - takes a little getting used to) ;-).
OK - ding ding, seconds away, round one…
Are we in agreement? - time is linear?
If we are - Jehrico came BEFORE Jesus (yes i know about God and Jesus being one and the Word being in the Beginning and all but you started this by naming Jesus and not God/The Word as being ‘responsible’ for the things you said - either take that back NOW or start defending yourself!
Let me make this CLEAR - JESUS has never been ‘responsible’ for ANY death other than His Own.
Where PEOPLE stuff up is in thinking THEIR wrongdoing which they CLAIM is somehow doing Jesus’ Word is somehow Jesus’s Fault!
If you misunderstand what is being spoken to you and you do something stupid - don’t blame the ‘person’ YOU heard what YOU ‘got’ from.
YOU (people) interpret what they hear to mean wht they THINK it means and act often in error accordingly.
That is YOUR error not ‘theirs’ - Clear?
Good.
Just what exact part of ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ don’t you quite GET???
If you got to kill someone start with yourself - THEN move on to all those ‘others’
Hiya Mr. Frog,
If I may,
“I don’t think that a literal interpretation of the bible is necessary to be a believer in it’s message.”
I know that this a big one, and I am kind of glad that it is, because the church’s stance over the Copernican revolution had to do with:
1. The use of Aristotelian Spheres by Aquinas to make our holy God the prime mover and thereby as high above us as possible which fed the following:
2. Making a real spatial conclusion within a metaphor, thereby ruining the metaphor. If something is “better” than you, you see it as higher than you, if something is “worse” than you, you see it as below you. Thereby the imagery of heaven being “up” and the earth and hell being “down”.
And, so, so sadly, partially what the theologians thought they were defending was heaven and the Father being appropriately separated from earth. It was a sort of relativism which some theologians feared, in that, if we are out there in the middle of nowhere, then there is no “up” or “down”, no good no bad, no right no wrong, it is just all the same. You can see this medieval concept in Dante as well.
It really wasn’t, and isn’t about what the bible has to say on those matters. In fact Jewish literature contains rabbinic writings indicating that they understood the earth to be round, partially from Job.
There was no reason, biblically speaking, for the Roman church or the early reformers to oppose Copernicus or Gallileo on biblical grounds.
@LWBUT,
Well, you were nice I suppose, although quite condescending.
Heads up , Skep! Not sure why this made him mad but I’d lock my doors.
I was always taught that Jesus, as the Christian God’s son, was part of God. They all have the same gameplan right?
It is pretty easy to ‘get’. But the God of the OT would scoff at such an idea. Why did God change his mind after 4000 of being a angry God? Did having a son mellow him out?
I take back what I said about this being nice.
@love
Time is linear in reality (as far as we know). And yes the story of Jericho happened before the story of Jesus. You acknowledge that Jesus was the Word and was there in the beginning but then dismiss that the God who was responsible for Jericho was not also Jesus at that time. :-t I actually don’t accept the basis for your dismissing that Jesus was not God at the time of Jericho and therefore would not have been part of the decision-making process.
So Jesus was there in the beginning, took a vacation during all those nasty OT times and then jumped back in just in the time for the New Testament?
I actually reread the story of Jericho to make sure I’m not about to put my foot in my mouth but the genocide was directed by God/Jesus/HolySpirit. This wasn’t something attributed or dedicated to him but actually “delivered” by God to His
Master RaceChosen People.I can understand the women, children, cows and donkeys they clearly deserved it but sheep? That just seems gratuitous.
I’m not concerned with what Joshua thought or who he dedicated his actions to, I’m concerned with God’s (of which Jesus is a part but not separate) actions. I’m no engineer but there would have to be some kind of divine intervention for trumpets to be able bring down the walls of Jericho.
I don’t think Joshua misunderstood anything God’s agent instructed him to do or what he was to do once Jericho was delivered. I have attending many different churches and the story of Jericho is taught the same way with the same lesson.
I have attended bible studies where the following verse,
is described as Jesus himself come to reveal the Lord’s message (notice how “the man” does not ask to not be worshipped). Lit. majors would call this foreshadowing :d.
So let’s dismiss this messenger as merely an angel to eliminate the Jesus factor from this logic. The commander of the Lord’s army answers that he is neither for or against Joshua (and his people) but then goes on to describe how Jericho is to be “delivered”. Again, I don’t think this is a stretch but if God is neither for nor against Joshua and He delivers Jericho into Joshua’s then this would easily imply that Joshua was directed to do God’s work (not the other way around). So your statement,
doesn’t really apply here. I don’t look to Jesus for justification for my wrongdoing nor do I think the story could be read where Joshua was mistaken (well it could be read that way but then what’s the point of the story).
@hover
I agree (surprise) that a literal interpretation of the bible is not necessary. In fact, look at the bible as a work of Bronze Age mythology and literature and it’s quite amazing. It’s the literal interpretation that gets people in a real bind and then have to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to get everything to fit together (mostly).
Well that’s a lot thinking for this early in the morning so…
bold and black ~o)
@HappyNat
Sorry I missed your post we must have cross posted. I spent quite a bit of time in early adulthood looking at all of this and it took a while after climbing out of the hole (Jesusland) my parent’s put me in before I was confident enough to self-identify as atheist (or agnostic depending on the purpose of the label).
While I can’t say with certainty a god doesn’t exist (although the chances are VERY small) I can say with certainty that Jesus isn’t.
It is interesting what happens when you try to blur the God of the OT and the glowing, loving, bearded, flowing-haired, puppy-dog-eyed, angelic Jesus. Many churches spend a long time in bible studies and apologetics creating a separation between the 2 versions of god that when someone attempts to put them back together it causes many believers brains to spasm.
Oh and LWBUT wasn’t telling me to kill myself in the same way Ann Coulter “didn’t” call John Edwards a f@gg0t.
@Skeptigator
=))
R
Hiya Mr. gator,
“While I can’t say with certainty a god doesn’t exist (although the chances are VERY small) I can say with certainty that Jesus isn’t.”
Please, help.
Jason
I should clarify, the Jesus as imagined by Christianity. He may have been a historical person (and that’s debatable).
Hi Again,
I appreciate your shot at clarification, Thanks. I was actually wondering about the knowing without a doubt that Jesus isn’t God part, even within the parameters of your clarification. Is it a criticism of systematic theology or an absolute statement regarding your knowledge of Jesus Godhood?
I’m not being cute, I just like where this is going and, as always, I really appreciate your candor.
Jason
Skep,
While growing up I remember asking people in my church why/when god changed his mind. He tried threats and violence to get people to behave which didn’t work and finally decided to use love (Jesus).
Well good mornin’ all….my raspberry mocha quad just kicked in….ahhh ~o)
Happy, could you please give me some scriptural reference for your last statement? Thanks!
I just read an article in the online edition of the New York Times about Pastor Terry Fox of the Immanuel Baptist Church in Kansas.
Pastor Fox has become a very influential figure in Kansas. His Sunday-morning services reached tens of thousands of listeners on regional cable television, and on Sunday nights he was a host of a talk-radio program, “Answering the Call.”
He was also just fired by his board of deacons. He was doing a great job as a politician, but forgot his role as a pastor.
I don’t know what kind of car Pastor Fox drives or whether he lives in a mansion. It does sound like he has been tempted by power and fame and forget his role in the every day life of his church.
From the NYT:
“Until recently, its pastor, Terry Fox, was the Jerry Falwell of the Sunflower State — the public face of the conservative Christian political movement in a place where that made him a very big deal.”
“The board of deacons had told him that his activism was getting in the way of the Gospel. “It just wasn’t pertinent,” Associate Pastor Gayle Tenbrook later told me.”
“he was stunned that the church’s lay leaders had turned on him. “They said they were tired of hearing about abortion 52 weeks a year, hearing about all this political stuff!”
Hi Ed, how sad is that? People have become so numb to things like abortion, homosexuality, and other things that make humanity a “without conviction” society that when you take a stand for what’s right it seems wrong. No accountability and huge free for all is where it’s headed…oh but let’s not forget to complain about how rotten everything is though….8-|
@Jason
That’s a good question. The only basis on which we can judge the divinity of Jesus is on the Scriptures. The Bible in its current incarnation (and let’s just stick to the Gospels) have such a dubious origin that if they were anything other the big holy book their validity would not likely be given so much weight (dubious attributions, no original texts, contradictory/fragmentary early text, the clear decisions by subsequent transcribers to “correct” previous versions, the decisions about which books are “legitimate”).
As a thought experiment assume that we have one Bible that accurately retells the story of Jesus as originally written down. (Not necessarily as it happened but written down). You would then have to look at the divinity based on his actions and words:
Looking at the Gospels,
- Jesus wasn’t much of a family man (Matthew 4:21-22, Luke 14:25-27 ),
- he made false predictions (Mark 8:39-9:1, 13:30-33, Matthew 16:28, 24:34),
- he left in place the old Jewish laws until his as yet to happen return (Matthew 5:17-20) meaning we should still be subject to dietary restriction, animal sacrificing, public stoning and funny beards.
- he didn’t even practice what he preached,
o Jesus the racist (Matthew 15:21-28), not very “Love thy neighbor”
o First gratuitous sheep killing and now fig tree withering (Matthew 21:18-22), talk about spiteful.
o Jesus disrupts the temple marketplace (Matthew 21:12-13). Remember he wasn’t there to overturn The Law (Matthew 5:17)(which allowed all of those activities) but to fulfill it and even if you interpret “fulfill the law” as his death on the cross (which ignores the very next verse, Matthew 5:18) he hadn’t died on the cross yet and he and everyone else was still bound by The Law. There’s that linear time thing again.
I know arguments (apologetics) can be made to interpret all of these problems so that the earnest believer can resolve these problems in their head but did Jesus come for the Pharisees and Biblical scholars? Or prostitutes and tax collectors?
Sorry for the delay, I had to look up the verses, plus have to pretend like I’m going work
@Bill,
Have you been attacked by some in the Church?
As for Christian unity, there’s an old joke that sums it up:
A small town has two churches for the tiny population.
Visitors ask why there are two churches for such a small town.
They reply: Oh, we won’t go to THAT church over there. [-(
Trying to organize atheists is like herdin’ cats, as the saying goes. But, I think it’s hard to get any large group of people to unify even with the same playbook…and a common enemy >:)
Do you mean my comment about God using threats and violence? Not much time now, but off the top of my head, he killed the firstborn of every family in Egypt, turned people in pillars of salt, berated Job for having lack of faith even though God let Satan ruin Job’s life, and there is the whole flood thing. None of this seems consistant with sending your son to die for all humanity.
@Gods Gal:
I doesn’t sound to me like Pastor Fox wasn’t fired for his political views. I am sure his churches deacons agreed with his politics. This is bible belt Kansas we are talking about.
It sounds to me like Pastor Fox was fired because he had stopped performing the day to day duties of a Pastor. Apparently all he talked about from the pulpit were political issues, not the readings from the Gospel, for example. He had become a big time political figure not the Pastor his church needed.
Sorry my atheist friends, but there is so much warping of scripture here I’m not really sure where to begin or if I have the time to address all of it. I see alot of picking and choosing, instead of studying and understanding. But you are looking for reasons to doubt while I look for reasons to believe, so there’s the difference.
I’ll address the first of Skep’s listed scripture…, that Jesus wasn’t much of a family man :-j as that’s all I’d probably have time for….
First of all, I find NO WHERE that a Christians walk will be a piece of cake. If you look up the word for “hate” that is used here in Hebrew…which is the problem with alot of what’s said here…..it hasn’t been done…. but if you do you’ll see that the interpretation doesn’t mean hate..the way you’ve described, it is suggesting a priority to relationship. As a believer, Jesus is first. To follow Jesus means to follow Jesus, not anyone or anything else. A disciple was and is a learner, and the one teacher in life is Jesus. Without this kind of loyalty, you are easily swayed by pressure of persecution, waffle and eventually turn your back on Him. That is what is behind the remark, not that you should “hate” people like you suggested.
Yup, you’re right….and in answer to your question, He came for all…even you…;)
I know what you mean by doing work, I just typed up the notes from yesterdays meetings…LOL
Have a super day!
Ed: sorry, my misunderstanding…ya, we need to keep it about Jesus, that’s for sure…..:)
Actually, my blog today is my God, how I see Him, how He sees us, and some examples of how I interpret His Word. Ya’ll are more than welcome to take a look….:)
I can see where I am confusing you Gods Gal.
Correction:
I meant to say
“It doesn’t sound to me like Pastor Fox “was” fired for his political views. I am sure his churches deacons agreed with his politics.”
We are in agreement that church services should be about Jesus and the gospel, not politics.
I know the two will overlap sometimes.
Do any of my church going friends think it is appropriate for a pastor in their Sunday sermon to endorse a political candidate?
In a sermon where is the dividing line between talking about an important issue in the headlines and teaching the Gospel?
@Ed
This deal with Pastor Fox is one that the government is looking at in general regarding “non-profit” status. We as a church are given a lot of freedom to talk politics, but there are things we cannot do and if we are to do them, we would lose out non-profit status. I think that is appropriate.
I also, don’t think it is appropriate for the pulpit to be used to stand for a candidate. that seems like it could hinge on abuse of power.
I do think it is appropriate to discuss social issues and then in turn point the church to the correct political areas to vote on these issues.
I also think it is ok for a Pastor to speak of his own opinions away from the pulpit. But, there has to be sensitivity, because some people will do whatever they are told.
@Gods Gal
Nice try but Luke was written in Greek, and the Greek word for hate used was miseo and has no other usage than the way it is translated.
No fancy semantics about “priorities” or treating your family as an extension of yourself.
Thanks for the clarification inWorship.
Your view sounds like a reasonable one to me.
Ahhhh Skep….you are so right about the Greek and my humblest apologies….^:)^
But you’re still wrong….:d
Taken in context of times and culture… I have this quote for you which I back 100%…This is from Pastor Neal by the way….He has a website for “Thinking Christians”…..
Peace….
Oh Boy, I can see this could take ‘quite some time’ lol. Many of us have problems understanding it seems (we’re all human - Right?
WE MAKE MISTAKES!
It is wisdom if we KNOW this and bear it in mind continually.
It is being so DUMB if we believe we have got it ‘all’ ‘correct’ It can be just as dumb if we believe we see ONE thing ONE way and think that is the ONLY way it can ever actually ‘be’.
Understand this well. Before we go any further in our prejudices.
I have been linked TWICE now by two seperate supposedly smart people with a certain person who’s views are somewhat shall we say, controversial???
Because someone ( probably more than one) was DUMB enough to take what i said the WRONG way.
Let me warn ANYONE of you out there AGAIN… DO NOT BOX me IN! I don’t ‘fit’ your small-mindedness. However much you wish i did.
In return i will make every human effort not to do the same but PLEASE STOP making it so darn easy to! (fit you inside a box marked ‘tiny’)
Skep - I did not hear you say you actually ‘took it back’ (what Jesus) was/is responsible for and you CLEARLY are in total confusion about just what Jesus (the term) actually ‘is’. (lets be fair, you are not alone in this and it has grown into such an amazingly complex and misunderstood term over these last 20 centuries or so)
Jesus was (many like to ‘understand’) born at the point where our calendar ‘divides’ (give or take a year or six - let’s not get into that whole quibble just yet shall we?)
Let us focus on this point ‘to begin with’ and we can work up to the greater spiritual stuff once we come to mutual ‘agrement’ on this point? deal?
Lets just work with Jesus as a man for now since we are closer to Him that way - we are human after all.
Am not trying to ‘avoid stuff’ but clearly - as intelligent as even you and HappyNat are - you got something badly warped in your own mind - even if it currently makes PERFECT ’sense’ to your view/life perspective.
You said something that frankly makes my blood BOIL and i am trying to be nice but spreading mud sticks and i can’t have you doing that in your poor understanding on this subject, hence the ‘fight’.
I am Making a STAND here - ok?
You have so not got what i said originally - i bear some responsibility for not telling you what you could hear and understand - I thought you might be smart enough to - clearly i was wrong - again - I am human i commit error in some cases.
I also get a lot of ’stuff’ RIGHT!
Trust me if you can? On a few things for now?
The misunderstood quote you chose, to link me in your smallmindedness, to Ann Coulter… it was saying to ALL if you wish to kill start with yourself! then go on if you then can to killing someone else, for THEY have every bit as much right to life as you do -in fact if you think it is ok to kill other human beings then you probably have a little LESS right to live than one who thinks all have the right to LIFE!
Can you even begin to understand such ‘logic’ Skep? HappyNat??? secondly you were just plain WRONG when you said my comment about what YOU misunderstand not ‘applying here’
It applies EVERYWHERE as i hope i just showed you in one very small insignificant part.
Like i said - this is clearly going to take a LONG time to sort out if you guys insist upon coming from such a fixed tiny minded little set of ‘boxes’.
The topic is Jesus (responsible for… what was it you said Skep???) for the moment can we agree to focus on Jesus as man then work UP? but lets work on the man first before we ‘run’ into the great unknown.. ok?
lets see if we can all actually ‘agree on something - one thing at least and work from there?
love.:x
P.S. am not asking for any of you to BELIEVE in Jesus - ok - just come to some sort of agreed understanding - however your own little boxes allow you to do that.
I seek clarity on this subject (as YOU see it so that it actually fits into the greater perceived reality) Please lets not get sidetracked about what is and is not real just now - focus people, please? Jesus as a man. (assuming he existed as such or what are we actually wasing our effort on here? Really?)
We just love to hear ourselves type? so we never use our minds for anything useful?? Oh-OH… i’ve said too much again.:o
For the sake of argument, Jesus was not responsible for the genocide in Jericho.
Jesus is the way for anyone to get to God.
Why would I want to accept Jesus to get to God (who is clearly responsible for at least one genocide)? I posit that the God of the OT is not a worthy goal in an of itself.
Sorry Bill :-?? for derailing the whole point of your post. For what it’s worth I have no problem with churches having tax-exempt status like other non-profits (as long as they are subject to the same restrictions on their activities).
P.S.
5 points to anyone else who can use “posit” in a sentence. :)>-
That about says it all . . .
Skep: So it’s ok for atheists to posit when it comes to not believing, it’s just the believing part which you won’t posit? Does that work for 5 points??
:d/
@Ed,
Great Question.
1. Do any of my church going friends think it is appropriate for a pastor in their Sunday sermon to endorse a political candidate?
No. The guidance, no matter how miserable it may be perceived by some in current attendance, is to be provided in teaching, and then the person applies that worldview to their life.
I was at a “presentation” a while back (I knew I wouldn’t like some of the content but I wanted to hear it from the horse’s mouth) in which said presenter said, “In Jesus name..” and then went on to highlight a few of the political bees in his bonnet.
This is, and I think should be, anathema to all thinking Christians. This is manipulation, not teaching a Biblical worldview so that people can assimilate and apply these teachings on their own.
Thanks,
Jason
Oh man, you get 10 points. Now I’m all out of points for the day.:((
I can’t speak for all atheists but this one thinks that if someone’s religion states that your morality comes from God that I would hope that that God would act morally.
I know I’m applying my hippy, don’t-mass-murder-an-entire-city morals to God but how do we effectively draw a line for behavior in a civil society when the model for that behavior doesn’t seem to draw a line himself (or moves it around).
hoverFrog wonders where all the points came from.
Well hello frogginess….you’ll have to read up!
Skep: I’ll share my points….no crying!
Sigh….I really do understand where you are coming from, but I don’t agree…I don’t have time right now to spend on this although I will be back in a bit…
I’m “working” wink, wink…;)
@Mr. Gator,
Hiya and sorry about the wait on this. As LWBUT accurately said elsewhere, I was out “having a life.” I really appreciate the substance of your attempt at an answer. You haven’t actually given an answer, but you have given good examples of why you see things the way you do, which is always helpful, thanks.
Just going to go through what you said one by one
“That’s a good question. The only basis on which we can judge the divinity of Jesus is on the Scriptures.” That’s very judgmental of you. I’m JUST kidding.
“The Bible in its current incarnation” –what does that mean?
“has such a dubious origin” – oh, man, defend that.
“that if they were anything other the big holy book their validity would not likely be given so much weight” -not sure what your metaphoric “weight” is, but, in light of the your criteria which follows, has anyone heard of Alexander the Great? Nebuchadnezzar? All those Egyptian dynasties? How else do we know specifics about these people?
“dubious attributions” -….what?
“no original texts” - there isn’t one work of antiquity, apart from the Code of Hammurapi, which exists in any remotely verifiably original form
“contradictory/fragmentary early texts” - tell me about them, their origins, and the rules by which you measure, and I am unsure as to the problem with using fragments, archeology and anthropology, religious or otherwise, would be nearly impossible without them-you’ve got to defend such assertions
“the clear decisions by subsequent transcribers to “correct” previous versions-the decisions about which books are “legitimate” - These are two different things but go ahead and defend both of them
“As a thought experiment”- mmmmmmthought
“assume that we have one Bible that accurately retells the story of Jesus as originally written down. (Not necessarily as it happened but written down)” – I’m fine with that. If you have read any history, and in any circumstances referenced it, you are, too.
“You would then have to look at the divinity” -I’m not sure why I should feel beholden to the list in your pocket, but, as a “thought experiment”, let’s go with it
“based on his actions and words” -as written down, right?
And now, on to substance, even if it is highly selective, the kind of selectivity which you would, quite correctly, never accept if we were discussing anything else. But let me deal with the intellectual shuffle-off-to-Buffalo at the end of your entry first:
“I know arguments (apologetics) can be made to interpret all of these problems so that the earnest believer can resolve these problems in their head but did Jesus come for the Pharisees and Biblical scholars? Or prostitutes and tax collectors?”
Aside from the gratuitous non-sequitur which is the second half of that entry, the gauche intellectual disingenuous of “can resolve these problems in their head” has a couple of problems: 1. As will be shown, many of the ideas voiced by you here are exemplary of, whatever your reasons may be, you externally implanting your background as the defining characteristic of interpreting what is said - in isolation from scholarly work the matter. There certainly is synthesis in my head, but what is being synthesized is from thousands of scholars from all over the world, all of whom will lose more brain cells than I have ever had. It doesn’t seem unreasonable of me to expect you to not try to artifically marginalize any opposing arguments. 2. In matters metaphysical, I’m not sure what else an atheist can use, but I’m sure someone else will hone my thinking on that, and, truly, truly, I say to you, I welcome it.
Looking at the Gospels,
“Jesus wasn’t much of a family man (Matthew 4:21-22” –so you still live at home and will continue to do so? That’s sweet.
“Luke 14:25-27”- Hyperbole to make a point is an amazingly common literary device in scripture and Jewish literature. But his point, of course, is obeying the first and most important commandment. I know that doesn’t interest you, I truly don’t expect you to give it any creedence, but the context IS 2nd temple Judaism. Such an expression was common then, and would have been taken no more literally than cutting your right hand off or your right eye out.
As well, though misew is indeed the verbal use of “hate”, words are used in context. For instance, if I say “I hate prooftexting” or “I hate Christians” or “I hate anti-intellectualism” or “I hate God”, each word is used in its individual context with differing characteristics, and the word in and of itself carries considerably different force in every context, GG is quite right.
“he made false predictions (Mark 8:38-9:1)” I am only speculating, so forgive me if I am wrong, but perhaps from your background, you understand the Kingdom of God to be Jesus comin down and slappin us around, especially in light of the with power or ability prepositional phrase.
But this could just as easily be a reference to the Transfiguation, which followed this pericope immediately, or his resurrection, as referenced by Paul in Romans 1:4. “The Kingdom of God is at hand”, many times throughout the gospels speaks of its present tense reality in the eyes of Christ, not some “Left Behind” projection of 2nd temple Judaism neuroses.
“13:30-33” – I’m not sure how you are viewing this. Could you develop it further?
“Matthew 16:28” – Parallel in all matters to Mark 8.
“24:34”- This is a complicated one and a significant amount of understanding of the OT and apocalyptic symbolism is necessary to have a reasonable understanding of what is being said. A great summary of much of it is in N.T. Wright’s “Jesus and the Victory of God”. The imagery in Ezekiel 32:7-8, Amos 8:9, Joel 2:10, 30-31; 3:15 and especially Isaiah 13:10 and 34:4 parallels this so closely that one, considering Christ’s knowledge of scripture, must see the contexts of those passages as parallel, at least with the knowledge of Titus’ sacking of Jerusalem. It certainly doesn’t mean that there will not be some future realization of it, but what occurred in, to, and with existing governments and armies in the context of those OT passages should be the interpretive motif of any student of scripture.
“he left in place the old Jewish laws until his as yet to happen return (Matthew 5:17-20)”- You must know better…First of all, nothing is mentioned here about his return, you have added that it would say what you want it to say. Secondly the use of Righteousness of God language throughout the Bible, and in reference to the cross and Christ’s resurrection in the NT, indicates clearly that all matters of fulfillment of of the Law and it’s requirement occurred on the cross and in the resurrection. Additionally, the Law remains a requirement, quite right, for those who feel that their own interpretation of “good” is the law which is to be obeyed and their own preferences and behaviors are what actually are right and wrong. There is much more to be said about this but this is already going to be way too long. Later, I’m sure.
“we should still be subject to dietary restriction animal sacrificing, public stoning and funny beards.” selective in its perceived silliness for effect, and see above.
“he didn’t even practice what he preached, Jesus the racist (Matthew 15:21-28)not very ‘Love thy neighbor” - Two different things, 1. The force of a Jew interacting with a Canaanite, much less blessing her, is only part of the obvious point which, similar to the incredulity of the woman at the well in John 4. Jesus elsewhere speaks to the idea of don’t stop praying for something. The importance of what is occurring here, especially in light of the ideas propogated in evangelistic scenes throughout the rest of the bible, is shown in her desparation (necessary prerequisite of any contrite act) and her faith that Christ is able. 2. though redaction is always possible, the force of this startling demonstration of faith is a transitional narrative marker, considering that fact that after this circumstance, Christ went into non-Jewish areas to do good, again, unthinkable, even though he is doing as so much of the OT says he will in this matter. As well, the Great Commision speaks clearly against the fashion with which you interpret this passage.
“First gratuitous sheep killing and now “fig tree withering (Matthew 21:18-22)”, talk about spiteful.” Yes, yes, spite to the tree, good one, that is certainly how much of the rest of the gospels read…Jesus the sheep and tree killer. That would once again be importation of a subjective, abiblical, interpretive motif in proofftexting. There is more there that that.
Jesus disrupts the temple marketplace (Matthew 21:12-13). “Remember he wasn’t there to overturn The Law (Matthew 5:17)” as I’ve said elsewhere, cross your paradigmatic legs, your hermeneutical slip is, once again, showing
“(which allowed all of those activities)” -?? Perhaps look to Isaiah 1 regarding what God thinks of those that follow the letter without the heart. Or better yet, view the broadly paradigmatic application of the Law, in that, the heart is what matters in observance of the Law, in Matthew 5:20 48.
“but to fulfill it and even if you interpret “fulfill the law” as his death on the cross (which ignores the very next verse, Matthew 5:18)” -not so, it just indicates that one has chosen to prooftext, to interpret in isolation of any other information, as I hae given above.
“he hadn’t died on the cross yet and he and everyone else was still bound by The Law. There’s that linear time thing again.” Once again, adding information that is not there in order to satisfy your own hermeneutic. Check, for instance, Romans 3:24-6 addressing how a just God could have overlooked any sin at all.
“Sorry for the delay, I had to look up the verses, plus have to pretend like I’m going work.” – Not at all! I appreciate the detail, and (to quote Steve Martin) what do you think I do, write letters all day?
Seriously, blessings to you, Mr. Gator, and enjoying this very much,
Jason
Hiya,
“I know I’m applying my hippy, don’t-mass-murder-an-entire-city morals to God but how do we effectively draw a line for behavior in a civil society when the model for that behavior doesn’t seem to draw a line himself (or moves it around).”
We need a line?
(smilerguy)
I wrote this big long answer to the first half of your post and when I submitted the comment it said you are posting too fast. arrrggghhh….
Now my reply won’t be nearly as witty with a rewrite..:(
@jason
____________________________________
Here’s my line.
I WILL go back and REREAD I didn’t realize that LWBUT had a QUESTION in the last comment.
Surely you know there is some discussion amongst biblical scholars as to the validity with which the New Testament was assembled and who wrote those books and whether every word is accurate or may have been altered/deleted from/added to.
Clearly this must be measured in pounds because ounces would be ridiculous.
Seriously does anyone read Hamlet with the same reverence as the Passion of Christ. Does anyone think the events of Hamlet really happened like they do when Jesus turned Water to Wine (or Aquafina if you have a “dry” religion).
You can’t seriously be equating the historicity of Alex and the dynasties of the Egyptians with the life of Jesus. On top of that nobody worships Alex as God-man and thinks the Alexander Romance is an actual retelling of the life of Alexander.
Did Mark really write Mark? Did Luke really write Luke? Did Matthew really write Matthew? If they really did write it or it was faithfully written down later then where does the Q document fit in? If the theory of the Q document is acceptable why would Matthew (or his transcriber) need to copy from it, weren’t they there? Wouldn’t Q have told Matthew to quit cheating off his paper?
None of these individual items were meant to necessarily stand on there own but are used in a “death by many cuts” approach. The lack of an original text doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t know who wrote the document with some certainty.
What you really need here is a full length book from someone much smrtr than me to itemize and detail all of those cuts. I would suggest anything really by Bob Price Deconstructing Jesus or the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man come to mind.
You asked on what basis I can be confident that Jesus was not God, I gave you what came to mind, I didn’t know I had to be comprehensive. I simply picked those that I thought would be most familiar to people and that didn’t get too deep into textual criticism.
I can remember when I was 19/20 sitting at the kitchen table with a Bible, Concordance and several books on apologetics and textual criticism. So I am going off of some seriously old (ok 10 year-old) memory here.
The other stuff I will have to look at when I have more time. Oh and by the way,
Yes, but I can’t help myself
:d
@ Mr. Gator
“@jason
____________________________________
Here’s my line.”
it has holes in it
(smilerguy)
I’ll get to the rest soon, very witty and great details, thanks!
also @gator,
“I wrote this big long answer to the first half of your post and when I submitted the comment it said you are posting too fast. arrrggghhh….”
The same thing happened to me last week. I didn’t know I had a limit, although, I should probably just make one for myself
without holes in it
(smilerguy)
I still think that if our atheist friends here spent half as much time trying to prove what they constantly are trying to disprove, they would find truth. And, before anyone tells me I should try disproving, I have…just doesn’t make sense to me….
I had a friend tell me recently that it depends on whether you have a vote for or vote against perception of things. This election season, even tho I may vote no, in my mind I will still be voting for something…others who vote no on the same issues will see it as voting against something…..just an observation:)
Hiya Mr. Gator,
You know I actually had a greatly affirming experience going through text criticism. I was astonished at the statistical significance of the Nestle-Aland and UBS texts and the scholarship that went, and goes, into them.
It probably doesn’t surprise you, but it makes me quite sad and puzzled that text criticism pulled you away from Christ. I do know some people in my classes who were quite challenged by it, but they had not dealt with what modernity hath wrought in matters of God’s word. I’m not saying that’s you, that was just the case with the few people in my classses who have struggled with textual variants and a lack of originals (again, they aren’t around for any other text either, but that hasn’t helped them.) I am hoping to go further into depth with it taking a couple of classes with Epp in NT and Machinist in OT.
And dear old Dr. Price, I actually am going to the school that pushed him over the edge. Another non-parallel experience… Thanks for the recommendation, always helpful to see what people don’t believe and why they say they don’t believe it.
More to come…
Bob Price is a big one for pushing the “treat the Bible like a work of literarure and you will truly see its beauty” viewpoint and I can certainly see why he says that.
It’s when you get into literal interpretations and the problems that arise that makes for all the fun (and makes the bible rather ugly.
I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything. When I read the bible it helped along the path of “deconverstion”, I wasn’t looking for holes/inconsistencies but I found too many to ignore. I guess that is just the way god wired me.
Forgive my short absence. (What? you were absent????)
Skep - thanks for the reclarification. - that wasn’t an actual apology now… was it? lol
If you have corrected your previous grossly slanderous (to My Belief/understanding) statement and no longer think Jesus ‘per se’ was responsible for the Jericho ‘Slaughter’ I am at peace with you over those poor choice of words.)
And i thank you.
However if you think it’s gonna finish TAHT easy - think again…
Although to be fair…
I don’t want to come out swinging at you while Jason has his not inconsiderable ‘bulk’ planted firmly ‘in your face’ lol
Once you two gentlemen resolve your diffrences i will take issue with you as per my previous post - Jesus The Man - which i feel certain Jason can act as ‘referree’ on our ’stouch’.
Should this be not to your liking i am Happy to then get stuck into your poor understanding of just why God/Jesus was not ‘responsible’ for any slaughter at Jericho either!
Where was your line drawn again? Please indicate clearly what points are on what sides of it in future.
And just exactly where and in what understanding/belief/proof of same you are standing with feet firmly planted ( if they are indeed firm and not shifting around any)?
Thanks,
love.:x
Knock Me if you Must! - Never My God.
“Some things i just can’t stands”!
Popeye, The Sailor Man.
“It’s Time to make your Stand!”
The Cross - Stand up for Love
@LWBUT
First, I don’t believe God (or Jesus) is real. Second, I doubt the story of Jericho is real. Third, even if the story of Jericho is a (very altered) version of real events it’s interesting how God had be injected into the events to justify Joshua’s actions.
I still believe that Christians can’t have it both ways,
A) Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God and the Son was with the Father in the beginning.
B) or He wasn’t
I don’t believe I ever apologized and I’m sorry if you have that impression. I think you may have mistaken “For the sake of argument” as a retraction.
I can see that the following was confusing and was indeed a non-sequitur
My point was that Jesus clearly stated that he did not come for the Pharisees and the ruling Jewish elite but came for the common man (tax collectors and prostitutes). I find it interesting that you need to attend seminary to understand what the “real” meaning of passages in the Bible mean.
Mark Chapter 13:1-29, clearly speaks of the End Times. We’ve got the “abomination that causes desolation”, the sun being darkened, stars falling from the sky and heavenly bodies being shaken”. This is clearly the context of the reader (and whoever was around when Jesus was talking). Then in verse 30,
Matthew 24:34 is almost word for word the same, in the same End Times context.
Again, you can read this as his resurrection even though the context of this entire chapter (and the almost direct copy in Matthew 24) is the End Times. Even if this IS about his resurrection what about the part of Heaven and Earth passing away. Last time I checked the Earth was still here.
Now the Matthew 16/Mark 9 passages repeat this same statement and they are in the context of his death and resurrection. What I find interesting is that all of this was spoken to the disciples. You would think that the connection to the End Times and Jesus Resurrection would be obvious even to the disciples.
Matthew 5:17-20
I can see where you would have to use the entire context of the NT to understand this to mean at Jesus resurrection but I have a feeling this may have gone over the head of the disciples to whom he was speaking. There’s a reason I left this one in because I know it is well explained in Christian apologetics (it was kind of a bait, see below).
Interesting how sometimes we have to interpret the meaning of a passage from the “entire context” and other times somethings would have been “understood by those in attendance at the time”.
Didn’t Jesus have enough foresight to know that someone in America in 2007 would not understand what was being said. Of course I think Jesus believed the end of the world was around the corner. See previous comment.
I know but it was too funny not to put in there.
Clever. I do think that Jesus actions are interesting in regards to the money changers and merchants in the temple square. They were clearly allowed to be there. Who does Jesus think he is anyway? Under what authority does he have doing this?
@LWBUT
Clearly you have some shpeel you want to go through starting with Jesus as a man. So… OK he was a man. Now what?
Regarding the issue of taxation I must say that I really don’t know how the US tax system works. Here in the UK though “religious organisations” receive exception from a whole range of taxes. Even some taxes that a charity must pay.
A charity has to be registered to receive a tax exception and has to declare what it does and be audited regularly.
All I would like to see is a “religious organisation” given exactly the same status in law as any other group. If they perform charitable works then they can register as a charity and avoid taxes. If not then they should pay taxes. It annoys me that they get a special status.
So ‘for the sake of arguement in your twisted view of our shared Universe actually means ‘i’ll say this but i don’t truly believe it - with arguemtative powers like that at your disposal how can anyone ever believe a single word you say???…
Try saying what you believe and say it in those terms rather than making such blasphemous ( to other’s beliefs ) ALL IN Generalities that quite clearly ( to any clear thinking person can be shown to be unthought through Twaddle.
I NEVER for one SECOND believed you had apologised you are way to intelligent and convinced of your own superior position about the Bible and Jesus and God to EVER do that I bleieve.
I did, incorrectly now i see, think you had retracted your pathetically shortsighted and befuddled brained comment you let the whole world read so as to consider as being from a supposedly intelligent ‘thinking person’ that Jesus was/is responsible for Genocide and is a cosmic mass murderer. I am NOT going to be letting that one go let me tell you.
I am no imbecile who needs to be told that a person who uses the name ‘Skeptigator’ does not believe in God my internal dictionary is in Perfect working order for such ’small’ details, even if the way i put my words together does not fit easily into your own understanding, as it clearly does not.
(Stand Up for your)love.
Just because you, with your so very limited ‘understanding’ (and your long history of poor teachings/teachers on ‘this’ subject), may have to attend a seminary to better understand biblical meanings does not mean ALL have to - read the Bible yourself with an OPEN heart and not a Closed’ mind and the words speak to YOU clearly. I shall be happy to provide a clear understanding of any biblical passage you show yourself to not understand the way i ’see’ it.
A perspective EVERY SINGLE bit as ‘valid’ as your own and one i suspect has far more alignment with the one who wrote it that yours can EVER provide you with.
Perspective is the ‘problem’ as with ALL of ‘reality’ - we all have our own and they remain ‘valid’ only to us. Some share perspective with a few things with others and somehow think this makes thnm ‘right’ on that score - so it is whith Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists (well maybe they get ‘it/reality’ better than most) and Atheists or Scientists.
One thing can and does have MORE than one perspective and appears as something opposite and contradictory as a result - wake up to that, if you have not already, and we might be able to hold a DECENT conversation.
I can show you why the statement ‘Jesus is a cosmic mass murderer’ is wro-oooooooooooo….
OK, is wrong as many will mistakenly view it and potentially agree with it.
Love YOU - Hate your View!
love.
Jesus as a man - reality not guaranteed - just internally complete and non-contradictory - just because you can’t ‘get’ Jesus correct doesn’t mean He did not (assuming He exists/ed).
Was born human, from a human mother - if we are to believe what is read and said of him Any disagreement yet? (one thing at a time so we can walk side by side till we see where we misstep - that OK with you Skip?
love
@LWBUT
Then how do you propose that we have a discussion when neither will concede a point “for the sake of the argument”. If you want me to state my position and be unmoving on it then that’s fine but we wouldn’t get anywhere with our little discussion if I keep saying something like “No Jesus wasn’t a man” or when you say was jesus “born of a human mother” then I would say “No I don’t agree, there’s no evidence that Mary or Jesus ever existed beyond the stories in the Bible furthermore I reject you moving your argument forward because you have yet to convince me Jesus existed at all let alone was born of a Human mother”. So we would be at an impasse.
I use the phrase, “For the sake of argument” to make it clear that while I personally do not accept this position I will concede the point so that we can move on. This I believe is the most honest way to move things forward, yet you see it as deceptive. I’m not sure how to talk to you then. See previous paragraph of why this is a problem.
I’m pretty sure saying exactly what I believe is why we are having this discussion to begin with. I do not believe that I have ever obscured my position. Quite frankly, I kind of resent being accused of such. I have even gone to great lengths to explain (with some brevity) why I believe the way I do.
I’m willing to continue to see where you are leading me on this “Jesus was a man and not responsible for Jericho” thing but you are going to seriously have to lighten up on the rhetoric, it only makes you look bad and I’m sorry for you for that.
How does having a different view make me think mine is superior? Do you hold a view of Jesus and believe it to be an inferior view? So as long as I say “I don’t believe the way you do about Jesus but clearly my view is inferior”, then that would be OK?
For the sake of argument, he was born human of a human mother :d
I think what we in America need to be thankful for is that we have a meeting places to go to church for fellowship. All over the rest of