Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Are We Still Sinners?


weary traveler

Recommended Posts

 

Actually, it's your argument which depends not only on a false premise, but total ignorance of history and Xian tradition.

 

You failed to answer Jefferson, not me, who was well aware of Christian tradition, both Protestant and Catholic. Of course as soon as you make the distinction, your ad hominem "we don't have to listen because the medieval Christians did bad things" approach doesn't work anymore. You also failed to answer the many things "fundie" Christians have done to liberate the oppressed and downtrodden. YOu did not answer my assertion about William L Garrison or the facts about Oberlin college. Those "traditions" you aren't interested in apparently, although it is only fair to point them out I think.

 

Rad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • rad

    15

  • Lycorth

    12

  • currentchristian

    12

  • Vigile

    5

What about all those Christian slave owners who beat and whipped their slaves because God supposedly gave them the right to?

 

 

I guess the early Christians, the Quakers and the Methodists were disobedient then?

 

"Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the Book of Life than that these people are to be free."

 

Thomas jefferson (emphasis mine)

 

I take it he was wrong abou that as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then please explain how the slaughter stops where the NT is actually widely read, (after 1611) and then starts up again where it is removed or it's reading is not allowed any more. (Russia and China, 20th century)

 

Post hoc fallacy, rad. You have to show the connection between your assertions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Post hoc fallacy, rad. You have to show the connection between your assertions.

 

The connection is that the "enlightenment" was led by Christians like Bacon, Locke and Hooker. The connection is that Jesus said for us to love our enemies, not kill them, but the Pope told us otherwise until the 16th century. (Jesus would take care of that when the kingdom was delivered to him). The connection is that virtually all the great thinkers and "deists" of the time, except Voltaire and Paine, were either followers of Jesus or held his teachings superior to all others. The connection is that the teachings of Jesus were not known until the 17th century, and they clearly do not endorse crusades. The connection is that only a few Christians did much about Communist atrocities. The connection is that when people really know who Jesus is and what he taught and believe he is watching, they behave much better than those who do not.

 

Rad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget the atrocities of the OT.

 

Numbers 31

 

7 ...slew all the males.

 

9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

 

10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

 

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

 

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

 

In Exodus, God purposely hardened the heart of the pharoah so that he would not let the Jews go. Why? So he could show us his love and mercy by killing all of the first born.

 

Exodus 11:5-6 "And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more."

 

Ironic that Christians are so against abortion when their god has no problem killing children.

 

II Samuel 12:31 "And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem."

 

Sounds like Nazi Germany to me.

 

 

There are many many more, just go throw open the OT.

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm (A long list of terrible things done in the name of Christianity)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The connection is that the "enlightenment" was led by Christians like Bacon, Locke and Hooker.

 

Again, you're just asserting that because they were Christian they created this englightenment. You're trying to establish that the reason the enlightenment existed was because of Christ, what's your evidence? That they were Christian? So?

 

The connection is that when people really know who Jesus is and what he taught and believe he is watching, they behave much better than those who do not.

 

Please prove that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bible is not taken as ultimate truth regarding original sin, then how else would you explain man's inherent nature? Why do we have a tendancy to want to do things that harm one another often times, for example (and other similar things)? What about death? What accounts for our eventual physical demise if we don't have original sin?

 

According to Jews there is no such thing as Original Sin in their scriptures or their theology

 

http://anti-missionary.com/files/CanMichaelBrown.html

 

http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation05.html

 

http://kosherjudaism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=185 (scroll down to the end)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Jews there is no such thing as Original Sin in their scriptures or their theology

 

Nor would any Protestant claim the doctrine of "original sin." We are born as a blank slate (tabula rasa). Our cultures, our parents, our schools, our entertainers, our ministers, our tv commercials, etc., write upon that slate. We do have "flesh" and "spirit" at birth, seems to me, and there is a "battle" between the two. But most of who we are is culturally-induced, not the result of "original sin." (Of course one could say that we are genetically animals and, therefore, sometimes "act like animals.")

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

Same is true of the early Christians, who were privy to the NT, by far the most peaceful harmless group to exist at the time. Their good works were manifest. They purchased slaves and even stood in their place, visited prisoners and took in orphans others had turned out on the streets. But that's what the NT is about of course.

 

You are right here, Rad. Those first Christians had it together! Interestingly, most of them were Greek-speaking Gentiles and, therefore, did not have access to the Old Testament as we do today. For them, there was no "inerrent, infallible, only rule of faith" book to refer to. They walked by the spirit. (Not to say I don't appreciate the historical value of the Bible and am fed by it, and in fact love to read it...better than Shakespeare, etc., but these first Christians did not have a Bible, nor did most Christian laypersons until quite recently.)

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

What about all those Christian slave owners who beat and whipped their slaves because God supposedly gave them the right to?

 

They were hypocrites in that area, blinded by greed and the worship of commerce. They were wrong. Jefferson was wrong in owning slaves. Washington was wrong. It was a perverse system. It's interesting how we find ways to justify our perverse systems. Sadly, St. Paul was quoted quite happily by slave owners when he wrote that slaves are to obey their masters. (St. Paul was wrong here; than goodness there is no Christian leader who is infallible.)

 

Interestingly, the author of the hymn "Amazing Grace" was a slave ship captain until his life was turned around by God's amazing grace. He became an abolitionist, as many Christians were abolitionist leaders in 19th century America, as Rad stated. Many Christians, too, were civil rights leaders in the 1960's. Martin Luther King was, after all, a Baptist minister.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

Let's not forget the atrocities of the OT.

 

Numbers 31

 

7 ...slew all the males.

 

9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

 

10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

 

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

 

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

 

In Exodus, God purposely hardened the heart of the pharoah so that he would not let the Jews go. Why? So he could show us his love and mercy by killing all of the first born.

 

Exodus 11:5-6 "And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more."

 

Ironic that Christians are so against abortion when their god has no problem killing children.

 

II Samuel 12:31 "And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem."

 

Sounds like Nazi Germany to me.

 

 

There are many many more, just go throw open the OT.

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm (A long list of terrible things done in the name of Christianity)

 

Why use a book that is all-bunk in your view to indict God? If the book is all-nonsense, it cannot be presented as evidence against God. Seems to me. Yet the Bible is quoted on this forum as much or more than it it quoted by any ranting, raving fundamentalist preacher. For me, as one who believes that while it is defective, there is so much we can learn about the spiritual life from the Bible and that the Bible does preserve for us the essence of the life of the Great Ambassador, Jesus, using the Bible to understand God makes sense. For someone who rejects the Bible as bunk, this makes no sense. Perhaps one should try to separate the concept of a god, First Cause, Creator, Source, from the book?

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You failed to answer Jefferson, not me, who was well aware of Christian tradition, both Protestant and Catholic. Of course as soon as you make the distinction, your ad hominem "we don't have to listen because the medieval Christians did bad things" approach doesn't work anymore. You also failed to answer the many things "fundie" Christians have done to liberate the oppressed and downtrodden. YOu did not answer my assertion about William L Garrison or the facts about Oberlin college. Those "traditions" you aren't interested in apparently, although it is only fair to point them out I think.

 

I answered you just fine. You just don't want to accept my answer. Still doesn't disprove me.

 

How is citing Xian atrocities of the Middle Ages an ad hominem? Do you even know what an "ad hominem" is?

 

And where did I say that because Medieval Xians committed atrocities we therefore don't have to listen? I said that Xian atrocities indicate that your religion commends certain henious acts. Your position that because the Medieval Xians weren't True Believer™ until the Reformation and therefore we don't need pay them any heed is what you express - and is fallacious.

 

And what have fundy Xians ever done to help anyone? Fundy Xian leaders are great at bullshitting their congregations into thinking good things came of Xianity, when in fact not a single advance of human society is because of them. Behold.

 

Who the hell is this Garrison and this college of his?

 

And you defended the Xian concept of Hell on another thread, so don't try to lie and say you don't believe in it.

 

Try backing up your bullshit assertions with some facts. Going for today's Carlos Mencia award?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I would like to thank everyone for thier input. However I don't enjoy all the assumptions being made about me simply because I asked a philosophical question.

 

AKR, to answer your question of whether or not I have studied biology...yes I have, and many other things. I am quite an educated person, actually. I wasn't talking about biology, however. I was talking about the question from a philosphical standpoint. Geez, do you really think someone is so freakin' stupid as to not know why we die biologically? As you said, "come on"!

And if you assume someone is not an ex-christian just because they are trying to answer some basic questions about life and reality after having coming out of the faith, then wow, that is quite an assumption! You remind me of the christians thta used to tell me "you're not a christian" simply because I had asked some hard questions about the doctrines of the faith. Amazing...but thanks for the warmth and kindness :lmao:

 

It was also suggested I look into other concepts of humanity (other than xianity), and I have already done so and am continuing to do so. This is one of the things that prompted the question. Other faiths have the idea that humans need some kind of redemption. I DID NOT say I was in agreement wtih that or not. I am not sure about it. I am not one who jumps easily to conclusions. I didn't jump out of christianity overnight. So please don't assume so much about someone and thier motives. It helps when others feel that they can share their ideas in a open non-abusive fashion so as to help one another understand things.

 

A couple others had assumptions about me as well. Maybe it was the way I worded the question. I don't know. But, since my question was about human nature, I think you have helped simply by your responses and I thank you for that! Including the fact that this now has already gone way off topic. Looks like the bad human nature manifesting itself inside and outshide xiantiy is still alive and well as your debate on who has killed more in the name of religion wages on....have fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then please explain how the slaughter stops where the NT is actually widely read, (after 1611) and then starts up again where it is removed or it's reading is not allowed any more. (Russia and China, 20th century)

 

 

Should have figured as much. When the facts don't fit, add tenous addendums and qualifiers.

 

Let's be clear on what we are discussing here.

 

You are making the claim that Christianity makes for better societies; or rather that Christianity somehow keeps governments from slaughtering their citizenry.

 

I am disputing this. My only claim is that men are men are men and that Christianity does not influence men as a whole to be better. Some are good and some are bad and Christianity holds no correlation.

 

In your claim you cite China and Russia.

 

First, you must show that there was a correlation between atheism and the tyrrany that took place in those countries. Atheism was a component, but how indeed was it the cause?

 

Second, you neglect to mention the British empire. GB was a Christian nation and they had widely read your god the 1611 NT, and yet they slaughted countless peoples; tortured, imprisoned, starved to death, and abused people all around the world in a myriad of ways. Blame atheism for that to?

 

And by the way, the infilling of the Holy Spirit, with attendent revivals and "signs" (whether you agree with them or not) is simply not happening anywhere from 300 AD to 1650 AD, when we once again see them. So I don't think it's fair to talk about the Holy Spirit and it's fruits as if it were some universal experience through the centuries. The medieval Catholics would have no clue what you are talking about. In fact they had no clue what their own mystics were talking about as we do now.

 

An example of adding qualifiers and apologetics to disassociate yourself and your beliefs from those who have obviously used Christianity for evil and not good.

 

 

The skeptic Franklin was present in Philadelphia during the "Great Awakening" and declared it "wonderful to see" because folks of all denominations were singing hymns on the street corners and the crime rate fell precipitously. In Wales in the early 19th century, the judges had nothing to do and people stopped going to soccer games in order to attend church. Old debts were caught up voluntarily. So please don't make these statements without having a full knowledge of what happened where the NT was being disseminated among the masses.

 

I will give you an inch here. Christianity, like any ideology, can inspire and even provide motivation for change. In this regard I lump it in with any religion. Secular self help books can provide the same changes I might add as well.

 

Your argument is highly simplistic because it does not even distinguish between nascent and medieval Christianity.

 

No, I don't need to make the distinction. I've already used an example of how post Enlightenment, post 1611 British Christians were some of the most abusive rulers the world has ever known. Not all bad that was done in the name of god occured during the middle ages. A lot in fact occurs today. And much of that right in the US, the bastion of religious superstition.

 

Do you understand why they made this distinction, and why they universally believed the uncorrupted teachings of Jesus were beneficial?

 

Rad

 

I frankly don't care and haven't given it a second's thought.

 

 

 

I repeat. The number of people killed by Christians owning and reading NT's is miniscule compared to those killed by people who did not have them. That's because the found out Jesus wanted them to love their enemies. Same is true of the early Christians, who were privy to the NT, by far the most peaceful harmless group to exist at the time. Their good works were manifest. They purchased slaves and even stood in their place, visited prisoners and took in orphans others had turned out on the streets. But that's what the NT is about of course.

 

I'm going to have to call bullshit here.

 

Just ask the American indians, the Asian indians, the Australian aborigines, the Chinese, the Africans, the, the, the...

 

Then in just the past few years ask the Nicoraguans, the Chileans, the Argentinians, the Iraqis, etc...

 

If you consider numbers in the millions miniscule, then I'm not sure we can continue to have a reasonable discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let's be clear on what we are discussing here.

 

You are making the claim that Christianity makes for better societies;

 

Yes if the society actually knows what Jesus said instead of listening to what people say he said. And BTW there are not a few skeptics on my side in the world, who ask WWJD?

 

or rather that Christianity somehow keeps governments from slaughtering their citizenry.

 

I am disputing this. My only claim is that men are men are men and that Christianity does not influence men as a whole to be better. Some are good and some are bad and Christianity holds no correlation.

 

And that is not the case where the NT is known and taught. It does make a difference, and in some cases, as Franklin noted in Philadelphia, a big difference.

 

 

In your claim you cite China and Russia.  

First, you must show that there was a correlation between atheism and the tyrrany that took place in those countries.  Atheism was a component, but how indeed was it the cause?  

 

I did not say atheism was the cause. I say where there are no born again Christians reading the NT, there generally is much evil.

 

Second, you neglect to mention the British empire. GB was a Christian nation and they had widely read your god the 1611 NT, and yet they slaughted countless peoples; tortured, imprisoned, starved to death, and abused people all around the world in a myriad of ways. Blame atheism for that to?

 

They are Anglican, not avid NT readers, but even there we find the number slaughtered is small compared to the 60,000,000 who died at the hands of NT-starved people.

 

 

 

 

An example of adding qualifiers and apologetics to disassociate yourself and your beliefs from those who have obviously used Christianity for evil and not good.

 

No you making all kinds of assetions about the holy spirit and this and that which are simply wrong. Where people are being filled with it, experiencing revival and being "born again", much good is occurring. You might want to read the history of revival, the amazing story of Oberlin and, the works of Charles Finney converts, the anti-slavery activities of the Quakers and Methodists, etc, before commenting further on this I think. You simply have no awareness of what NT students have done.

 

will give you an inch here. Christianity, like any ideology, can inspire and even provide motivation for change. In this regard I lump it in with any religion. Secular self help books can provide the same changes I might add as well.

 

But they don't. The number of private hospitals built by people reading self-help books is, once again, tiny compared to the 500 os so built by Christians.

 

I frankly don't care and haven't given it a second's thought.

 

Yes I know. Thankfully men like Jefferson did or we might not have any freedom of religion at all.

 

Rad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why use a book that is all-bunk in your view to indict God? If the book is all-nonsense, it cannot be presented as evidence against God. Seems to me. Yet the Bible is quoted on this forum as much or more than it it quoted by any ranting, raving fundamentalist preacher. For me, as one who believes that while it is defective, there is so much we can learn about the spiritual life from the Bible and that the Bible does preserve for us the essence of the life of the Great Ambassador, Jesus, using the Bible to understand God makes sense. For someone who rejects the Bible as bunk, this makes no sense. Perhaps one should try to separate the concept of a god, First Cause, Creator, Source, from the book?

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

I am not using the Bible to indict a god in general, but I'm using the Bible to indict the Bible God. Why not use their own bs against them? So you pick and choose the parts of the Bible you believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to call bullshit here.

 

Just ask the American indians, the Asian indians, the Australian aborigines, the Chinese, the Africans, the, the, the...

 

Then in just the past few years ask the Nicoraguans, the Chileans, the Argentinians, the Iraqis, etc...

 

If you consider numbers in the millions miniscule, then I'm not sure we can continue to have a reasonable discussion.

 

Well now we are saying all government leaders are avid NT students I guess. I'm not too sure about that. I've been against the Iraq war from day one myself as I do not see any NT justification for it. OTOH, Bush seems to be the only person in the world who did anything to help Muslim women get the vote. (Rather naive of him though) In any case, the number of people saved from political persecution, death and starvation by Christians easily negates these rather vague accusations. I am merely pointing out what you seem so conveniently ignorant of. Until you acknowledge all that Christians have done about persecution, slavery, starvation and oppression, no we won't have a reasonable discussion.

 

Rad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems I can boil down your response to "they were not True ™ Christians."

 

You then proceed to data mine and provide a few examples where Christians have done good things in the name of Jesus and conveniently leave out all of the miserable things they have done. Those who did good, I can assume were true Christians, and those who did not, were of course not.

 

You simply have no awareness of what NT students have done.

 

I've read that nut Finney in depth and am aware of what NT students have done. As I said already, I lump it in with the power of persuasion that any ideology or charismatic figure can have on the individual. As far as Finney himself is concerned, I consider the damage utterly despicable that he did to the self esteems of countless individuals by his forceful rantings and literal renderings of Paul and his constant hammering on how we are worthless sinners who must die to our miserable selves.

 

Like I said, you seem to do a great job of data mining, finding only good examples, ignoring the rest. Manifest destiny? Not true Christians. Built a hospital? True Christians. We can go round and round pointing out the good and the bad and yet I would argue that those who evangelized Africa, for example, were True Christians™ by the definitions of your beliefs and I would also argue that they were miserable sons of bitches who destroyed cultures and whose policies raped countries even as their hospitals and other pittances kept an illusion of more good than evil as a facade.

 

As far as Jefferson and freedom of religion, I'm no threat to your religious freedoms. I will be first in line to protest the erosion of such any day, any week. Feel free to peruse my other posts. I'm a staunch defender of civil rights and I believe strongly in religious and other freedoms. I don't need to consider Christian history to take that position.

 

Once again though, I will point out that it is you that are making the claim that Christianity holds back the tide of evil. You have now backed out of that and argued that it only makes changes in individuals, not societies. You have pointed out that the influence of Christianity that you do not consider good, came from those who were not the right brand of Christian.

 

I give you that Christianity can change individuals. But, that change can be explained naturally and is not profound. That change can be induced by any charismatic speaker and any compelling ideology. There is nothing special about Christianity.

 

And please don't mistake my ambivalence towards Christian history as ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now we are saying all government leaders are avid NT students I guess. I'm not too sure about that. I've been against the Iraq war from day one myself as I do not see any NT justification for it. OTOH, Bush seems to be the only person in the world who did anything to help Muslim women get the vote. (Rather naive of him though) In any case, the number of people saved from political persecution, death and starvation by Christians easily negates these rather vague accusations. I am merely pointing out what you seem so conveniently ignorant of. Until you acknowledge all that Christians have done about persecution, slavery, starvation and oppression, no we won't have a reasonable discussion.

Rad

 

People who have adopted the label "Christain" have done some of the most amazing and wonderful things imaginable. They have written beautiful books, created mesmerizing paintings, built hospitals, given up their lives in the holocaust (thinking of Corrie ten Boom) trying to save others, poured out their souls for the sick and the poor and the downtrodden; founded universities. This is undeniable.

 

Also undeniable is the fact that people who have adopted the lable "Christian" have done just the opposite. They have terrorized villages and towns; they have murdered and killed; they have bought and sold slaves. They have used and abused many.

 

I look forward to the day in which all secrets are manifest and every person's work is brought to the flame of truth. We'll see whose work and words were wood, hay, and stubble and whose were gold and silver. It was always understand that many of those who claim to follow Jesus would do a very poor job of it: On the day in which the content of all hearts is manifest, many will say, "Lord, Lord, did we not cast out demons in your name?" He will answer, "I never knew you."

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bible is not taken as ultimate truth regarding original sin, then how else would you explain man's inherent nature? Why do we have a tendancy to want to do things that harm one another often times, for example (and other similar things)? What about death? What accounts for our eventual physical demise if we don't have original sin?

 

Just wondering what others have come up with in pondering this one.

I think you have reversed the order. I'll explain. People saw how other people treated them and the propensity to treat them likewise and wrote a very profound story to relate the nature of mankind to a creation story. I like the story because it describes very well what happens when we believe in lies (the serpent). This is the only "sin"...believing in lies. The only problem here is that this story was taken for literal truth which turned it into a lie and look how prophetic it is to the ones that believe it to be literally true! The harm that has been caused by taking the story of Adam and Eve literally is astounding. Children being taught that they are born sinners instead of what the truth of the story points to. The truth is this: When people believe in lies, they will judge and hurt others. Is still amazes me today how true that is.

 

Your understand is also a literal one. Try reading it differently. Try to see the people living their lives and noticing the way people behave and then apply that to the story. Look at it more along the lines of human behaviour studies. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, the number of people saved from political persecution, death and starvation by Christians easily negates these rather vague accusations. I am merely pointing out what you seem so conveniently ignorant of.

 

Sorry, I missed this reply earlier.

 

As I pointed out, you conveniently disassociate your self and your beliefs from those acts you disagree with and claim all those that you do. I have already agreed that Christians have done good things. I also mentioned in another post where I don't find this truth to be profound. Many have done good things with their lives. You on the other hand have failed to show why Christianity is unique, special, or in any way out of the ordinary.

 

As for your statement above in quotes, you are going to have to do much better than just making such a bold claim. How is it that the good some Christians have done easily negates the political support your brethren have offered governments as governments have done many unmentionable acts against humanity? How is it that the good negates the rape and destruction wrought on Africa by missionaries who have robbed cultures and Christianized nations only to help usher in colonial economies that have since been disastrous to many generations (good intentions or not, the fallout of Christianizing Africa has been horrendous)? How is it that you find more good than bad in those parents who teach their children that there is an angry god ready to burn them, their family and their loved ones if any of them should be so bold as to just be a human being?

 

You charge me with ignorance for discounting your tales of Christian history. I may be. We are all ignorant; some just more so than others. Perhaps though I have chosen to spend my time learning about other areas that I find more fulfilling and more pertinent to not only my life, but to understanding history and who we are than just focusing narrowly on the history of one ignorant bronze age religion. You've attacked my ignorance of a subject you yourself finds important, and which I discount the importance of. You have not, however, made the case that, again I repeat, Christianity is something unique or profound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is this: When people believe in lies, they will judge and hurt others. Is still amazes me today how true that is.

 

Your understand is also a literal one. Try reading it differently. Try to see the people living their lives and noticing the way people behave and then apply that to the story. Look at it more along the lines of human behaviour studies. :)

 

 

Wow. Thanks "Not Blinded"! I never thought of that before. This has been the best response to this question, but like I said, thanks to all for their input. I suspect that many of the traditional bible stories are like that: stories written to personify some concept or idea.

 

And just to let you all know, I have not been near a church in over three years, so my thinking is not influenced by that these days at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here we have Jebus being an asshole again. In his parable, the master tells his servants to mind his money. He furthermore has a nasty attitude, causing one of his servants to simply hide his share until the master comes back. Jebus says that this servant was the worst of the three, because he didn't invest the money. It's not as if he spent it or stole it, just didn't invest it.

 

Jebus then goes on to say that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Those who have will get more, and those who have little will have that taken away. Why? Because unless you impress Jebus, he'll make you suffer.

Jesus uses this parable as an anology to the kingdom of God. It states that at the top of the verses that you quoted. So, if you take the money and equate it to the kingdom of God, it would make sense. The kingdom of God, being compassion and understanding of others, brings about it's own rewards and enriches others. Those who recognize that they have the kingdom of God will receive it more. This goes along with giving and receiving. Those that don't think they have the kingdom of God within them, will never be able to share it with others (or invest it) and will not receive anything back. They will get poorer. Those that have little compassion and understanding (the kingdom of God) will have everything taken away because they never give any. They will have nothing in the form of compassion and understanding. All is taken away...by their own actions, or more appropriately, inactions.

 

To me, that is a very true analogy to what happens in day to day life. Is a person going to come up to us and be understanding and compassionate when we don't offer it ourselves?

 

It is an admitted parable. Not to be taken literally. I do agree with you though that when you take everything he said literally, it will lead to this kind of repulsion, as it should. It should be rejected as it reads, but not as to what was meant.

 

It all deals with human nature and the way we interact with other people that brings about certain, and predictable, effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is this: When people believe in lies, they will judge and hurt others. Is still amazes me today how true that is.

 

Your understand is also a literal one. Try reading it differently. Try to see the people living their lives and noticing the way people behave and then apply that to the story. Look at it more along the lines of human behaviour studies. :)

 

 

Wow. Thanks "Not Blinded"! I never thought of that before. This has been the best response to this question, but like I said, thanks to all for their input. I suspect that many of the traditional bible stories are like that: stories written to personify some concept or idea.

You are very welcome! And thank you.

 

I agree with you...I think that the entire bible deals with trying to put into words the plight of humanity. All the questions we face everyday about our own behavior and the behavior of others are put into words trying to relay a concept that they arrived at by questioning their motives and their very existence...as we all do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an admitted parable. Not to be taken literally.

 

Yet the threat of blood at the end of this stupid parable is very real. At the end, Jebus says that all who will not have him rule over them will be brought before him and killed.

 

Either that means execution for refusing to bow to Jebus, or is metaphorical for Hell. Neither seems very good.

 

Vigile, don't bother arguing with Boo Radley. We can cite all the historical facts we want, and he'll cherry-pick and bullshit and do his best to impress his heavenly boyfriend. You can't put a square peg through a round hole.

 

Just sit back and smile as yet another fundy Xian makes a total ass of himself in the name of Jebus and helps us display how foolish his ilk are :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your understand is also a literal one. Try reading it differently. Try to see the people living their lives and noticing the way people behave and then apply that to the story. Look at it more along the lines of human behaviour studies. :)

 

So much of the Bible is a terrific study in human behavior. One of my favorite parts of the creation/"fall" story is when God asks Adam what has happened and he blames Eve. Eve then blames the serpent. Isn't that so like us. "No, Mom, I didn't knock the cookie jar on the floor. Timmy did!"

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but when I knock over the cookie jar and lie about it, mom doesn't curse me and threaten to send me to the basement for eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.