The_Juggler wrote:<irritated sigh>
Ok you win Tsukatu - I'm sure that's what you want to hear.
The threat of filibuster is enough to prevent continuing.
You can use the bible or any other book of its kind to justify pretty much anything, and you've plenty good work at it.
This is exactly how every religious nut forces their wild ideas on people who are too afraid to go against it.
So you win, congratulations.
That's not at all what I wanted to hear! I wanted to convince you of something, not scare you away.
You said that there's not a single thing that Jesus said that conflicts with his present-day Peaceful Hipster Jesus marketing gimmick. The valid counter-example would be a single instance in which Jesus exhibits or promotes divisiveness, hostility, or violence. To lessen the chance that any such passage I thought exemplified this was too ambiguous to count, I gave you multiple.
Despite what you (and others) seem to have convinced yourself of, my goal is to convince you of something that I, after much consideration, believe is true. I'm trying to be a good person here.
The_Juggler wrote:Why is the topic of homosexuals always brought to a religous issue anyway?
These are all social issuses and even civil rights issues, yet we always manage to see religion controlling our notions of human rights and more importantly - our governing laws.
I agree with you and SkyPanda -- making this a religious issue is a distraction and is unnecessary. But so long as we have nutso's like the Westboro Baptist Church, which blames all evil and natural disasters on the existence and tolerance of gay people, we're not going to get rid of the association. Some people simply think it's morally wrong on religious grounds (whether or not they're actually justified in doing so), and therefore oppose it on religious grounds.
Wight wrote:Do you really think that the only interpretation of those passages is one that contradicts every tenet of Christianity, but we blindly ignore it?
No, I think that you blindly ignore that these
are the tenets of Christianity. These are things your leader has said, and they are plainly evil. It takes a very contrived interpretation of what is obviously his intended meaning to arrive at the conclusion that he is saying reasonable things. It is your desperate need to see him as a consistently merciful and omnibenevolent role model which leads you to deny that these parts of his message must be misunderstood but that other parts aren't.
The fact that he says both good and evil things does not mean that he is being misunderstood, but that he is being inconsistent, or is maybe insane. I'm not even convinced the dude depicted in the Bible ever existed in the first place.
To me, it's actually especially egregious if you compare an institution like the Catholic Church with the message of Peaceful Hipster Jesus (TM). If memory serves, Peaceful Hipster Jesus stressed the following things:
- Religion is a personal issue, and should not be institutionalized. Pray in the closet, not out on the street. Do your best to spread the Word of the Lord without resorting to oppression or hostility.
- "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven." If you have more than enough money to live comfortably (or even if you don't, but have more than others around you), give it to people who need it. Don't be greedy, and certainly don't hoard it and be wealthy.
- "Turn the other cheek." Treat your enemies kindly. Do not be vengeful, violent, or antagonistic.
So how is the Catholic Church
not a catastrophic failure in following these guidelines? The Vatican is one of the wealthiest and most glamorous places in Europe which in its history has periodically sponsored international warfare and genocide. Peaceful Hipster Jesus would shit trains if he saw what was made of his teachings.
Wight wrote:Do you really think that the only interpretation of those passages is one that contradicts every tenet of Christianity, but we blindly ignore it?
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division."
What the hell could he possibly have meant other than exactly what he said? You fucking tell me. Don't look at me all aghast and incredulous when there is such an explicitly clear account, right in front of you, of why I think the way I do. I've just explained a reason why I believe what I do -- if you don't think I've come to the correct conclusion, tell me why I'm wrong. Because standing slack-jawed in front of me when I've written "2+2=4" on the chalkboard isn't going to do a whole lot of good.
Wight wrote:Well, yeah, right, I'm just saying that so-called evidence against the Bible is pulled from the Old Testament books (especially the books of law), since the Old Testament books are the only ones that support any kind of image of a jealous and angry God.
lol, Jesus is only in the New Testament. As such, I've only taken quotes from the New Testament. I
had to have.
Wight wrote:They aren't consistent with a guy like that.
This right here is exactly the problem I'm addressing in people who think the way you do about this issue, and it should be noted that I'm pointing it out because I think it's a serious but correctable problem, because I would very much like it if there were fewer problems and misunderstandings in the world I live in.
The main question here is, where other than the New Testament do we get our ideas about the sort of person Jesus was? Where could we possibly have gotten information about him besides the Bible?
Nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. We only have the Bible. The Bible is what tells us what Jesus is like.
So how is it reasonable to say that the
Bible, the sole source of information about Jesus, must be mistaken because it inaccurately describes Jesus? How the hell do you justify that to yourself?
If you came up to your pastor and told him, "Jesus appeared to me, and his behavior was inconsistent with how it is presented in the New Testament" (or the way you'd probably phrase it, "Jesus appeared to me, and a later reading of the New Testament showed that it was inconsistent with Jesus' behavior, so why haven't we fixed the New Testament"), I can practically guarantee your pastor will say that
you must be in error.
Wight wrote:"Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep." -Jesus (Mark 6:25)
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus (Luke 22:36)
== Uhh...yeah...and this is bad because...
Consider the reasons you might laugh. Jesus warns that woe betides any who experience those reasons.
And I'm actually a bit surprised that you asked why "sell all your shit and buy a sword" is a bad thing. Where's your sword, dude? Pics or you're not a Christian.
Wight wrote:"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." -A king, representing God, in a parable Jesus told (Luke 19:27)
Fixed.
Wight wrote:Slappy wrote:HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE HE IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER.
...
Truth. u_u