I need help figuring something out. If I am a Christian, do I want my fellow humans to have

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

food, shelter and healthcare?

Or do I not want them to?

Or do I not care either way?

The American Taliban (TeaparTY) and Repubican position seems to be they are adamantly against providing food, shelter and especially healthcare for people if tax dollars are needed to pay for it, I am sure everyone agrees with that statement. Are we in agreement that the vast majority of American Taliban (TeaParTY) are self described Christians?

So are they saying that Jesus would be for taking care of the poor as long as tax dollars arent involved?

Surely they arent saying Jesus only cares for the poor with non tax dollars?



The answer is kind of black or white here, and I would love to hear it.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Nothing these radical whacky-Christians practice is Christian-like. Nothing. Therefore,

they're not Christians since they don't follow the example of Christ. Everything they do is a 180 from what Christ's followers were asked to do.

These Neo-Confederate people (commonly but mistakenly referred to as Republicans) are anti-Christ.

[shraby]

2. What you said.

[F4lconF16]

4. No True Scotsman fallacy

They are Christians, like it or not. They are extremists and fundamentalists, yes, and clearly the vast majority of Christians are not them (just like not all Muslims are terrorists), but they are Christians.

Not to mention Christianity has never been faithful to the teachings of Jesus anyways. It's just a giant conglomeration of myths and practices that the Church stole from pagans thousands of years ago, with a thin veneer of Christ on top. Jesus and his teachings are not the be-all and end-all of Christianity.

[Wounded Bear]

8. Hell, the 'warping' of Christian teachings...

starts right there in the New Testament with the writings of Paul. Maybe he didnt actually violate them, but he most certainly added some bells and whistles.

[Blue_In_AK]

77. I'm glad to see

I'm not the only one who isn't a fan of Paul.

[LanternWaste]

11. Much like those called anything but Democrats by other Democrats...

"They are Christians, like it or not. They are extremists and fundamentalists..."

Much like those called anything but Democrats by other Democrats...

[BlueCaliDem]

20. Christianity was formed through the Disciples' writings after Jesus' death.

Christ lived as he wanted his followers to live - leading by example - and these self-proclaimed Christians don't.

So no, I don't agree that these people are Christians just because they say they are no more than I'd believe a person who is convinced that Christ was just a mythical figure because they believe he is.

Everything these Christians-in-name-only believe, practice and preach is based on a foundation of hatred, pride, arrogance, and exclusion and is the opposite of everything Christ stood for.

[Mc Mike]

95. Agree 100%

I always use the Matt 21: 28 two sons parable on fundy christians, who claim every bible word is literal, and that you have to be christian to get into heaven. The passage is a parable by Jesus, so not literal, and he's saying an atheist, hindu, naturist, etc is God's true son if he does the right thing, and a christian who says the right thing and doesn't do it, ISN'T God's true son.

Thanks for your posts here, Blue.

[BlueCaliDem]

99. Thanks, Mc Mike.

What these fundies also overlook is, Jesus, himself, has never claimed to be a Christian. He was born Jewish and a Hebrew and remained so even when he died. So by their standard - not being a Christian - would that mean he wouldn't go to Heaven? Of course not. And as your example shows, the Bible isn't always literal.

Thank you for your response, Mc Mike.

[Mc Mike]

132. Fundies never want to use the brain that the good lord gave them.

It's a giant pain having them mouthing off all the time about their 'Jesus', when they are anti-Christian. They tend to give normal christians a bad name with their high-profile 'efforts'.

I used the same idea about Jesus, his family, and his apostles being Jewish with an anti-semitic Croatian Catholic one time, when he was bad-mouthing his Jewish boss for being Jewish, not for being a bad boss. He gave me some old Croatian saying about 'we work for Jews, we pray to a Jew' that was chilling and enlightening. A lot of the time, people point out the alleged Catholic and Christian base to the third reich's aims and outlook, while forgetting Reich religious minister Rosenberg's gnostic cathar ties.

The reich used inherent anti-semitic, pro-'christian' ideology to get their start, then jettisoned the christian part, once they were in power, substituting the reich bible for the christian bible, substituting the crooked cross for the cross. All those saps who backed Hitler from religious 'convictions' saw the trap sprung on them when the reich reasoning went from 'the Jews killed Jesus' to 'Jesus was a Jewish Pig'. The bad ones and opportunists spun 180 degrees and double thought to back the new religious line, and the ones who didn't make the leap went from being designated reich backers to being designated reich enemies.

The fundies here in this country and the West are trying to use christianity the same way, with the same aims, as the nazi 'christians' used it. The 'catholic' anti-semite I was talking to showed me how quick they can spin things in their head, he could turn on a dime from hating Jews 'because Jesus' to calling Jesus a Jew, effortlessly, in the blink of an eye, using one old phrase. Fundy christianity here is a key driver and justifier of fascist ideology and goals, very anti-christ like. Reminds me of a biblical reference that people will see the anti-christ, and think it is Christ. The two documentaries 'Thy Kingdom Come' and 'Thy Will be Done' from the '80's, that talked about the dominionist ideas of Falwell Bakker etc, was bone chilling to me; when I saw their storming orations to their mega church flocks, it reminded me of old films of Hitler.

I'm Catholic, but I like the Jewish faith. Its adherents don't come knocking at my door, trying to convert me, unlike a lot of other faiths. They have something good, and they know it, but it's theirs. They don't reject converts, but they aren't actively campaigning for them. To me, if you have something good, people will know it, just demonstrate it from your life and actions. Going around trying to convert others by telling them how good you have it seems to smack of desperation or insecurity, not a good way of doing things. I like another religion that demonstrates its goodness and leaves me alone. There's a lot of good ones out there, and even the moral athiest and agnostic colleagues we have here seem like a good religion to me, though I hope they don't take offense at my characterization.

I like all your posts on the thread. Thanks, BCD, and sorry for the long post.

[BlueCaliDem]

133. No need to apologize for such an insightful and informative post, Mc Mike.

I've read it with interest and have bookmarked it to return to it to read from time to time. Thank you for taking the time to write it. I really appreciate it.

I'm a Christian, but I don't belong to any organized religion. I feel it allows me to be open and accepting of all faiths, even those I don't fully understand that aren't of the Christian denomination. It's allowed me to be open and accepting of scientific discoveries and theories, as well. They all have excellent points that I'd rather not close myself off to because of some preconceived loyalty to one religion or another. My mainstay faith, though, is Christendom. But I also enjoy reading the writings and theories from Agnostics and Atheists, provided they are respectful rather than antagonistic or even hostile toward other faiths.

[Mc Mike]

135. A lot of times, when I hear someone mouthing off about how they're Christian,

I get on guard immediately, tighten up, and wonder if I'm going to have to try to put the genie back in the bottle. (I'm not alluding to our discussion, though we're talking about it, because we're countering what the other side is always trying to push, the condemnation and retribution angles they love.) It's just in the course of day to day events, when someone unsolicited wants to front on their faith, I wait for the other shoe to drop. Usually, it involves backing some nazi or repug initiative.

Your faith and works post down thread explains what is behind my feelings. Their avowed 'faith' causes them to not work at all, or produce manifestly bad works. I think the only two ways to talk about faith is: Either to do good works, then tell people why, if they happen to ask (which would mean no forced mass attendance at the soup kitchen.) Or to talk about faith as a counter to the false claims of the fraudulently 'faithful'.

Because of my visceral reaction to Jesus talkers, I understand why rational materialists or other religions' adherents might immediately see a red flag when it's discussed. The only way I can see to counter this is to work against the baddies pulling their jag-off moves 'in his name'. Our side has to reclaim the name from people who steal it, like Americans have to reclaim the flag from repug scalawags flying it.

I agree with you about expecting and giving respect to everyone's ideas about faith and religion. Thanks again for your posts, and the compliment.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

115. Christ was busy condemning people to hell a LOT of the time.

Everything he said was NOT nice. Some of what he said was extremely cruel. He also sanctioned slavery, marrying your rapist and things like that.

Read your bible and you will find what I am talking about.

[BlueCaliDem]

125. You and I must be reading different versions of the bible - or you misunderstand the message.

Please give examples of this supposed condemnation.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

127. This is just the New Testament.

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

.

Matthew

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

"The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen 19:24). 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20: 9, Dt 21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

"Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." 15:13

Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. The parable ends with this: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you." If you are cruel to others, God will be cruel to you. 18:23-35

"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and rents the vineyard to others. 21:33-41

"Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Whoever falls on "this stone" (Jesus) will be broken, and whomever the stone falls on will be ground into powder. 21:44

In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:1-14

The end of the world will be signaled by wars, famines, disease, and earthquakes (6-7). And that's just "the beginning of sorrows" (8). Next believers will be hated and killed by unbelievers (9), believers will hate and betray each other (10), false prophets will fool people (11), iniquity will abound and love wax cold (12). But hey, if you make through all that, you'll be saved (13).

Only one more thing will happen before the end comes: the gospel will be preached throughout the world (14). Well, that and the abomination of desolations will stand in the holy place (15), many false Christs and false prophets will show great signs and wonders (24), the sun and moon will be darkened and the stars will fall (29), the sign of the son of Man will appear in the sky, everyone on earth will mourn, and then, finally, the great and powerful son of Man will come in all his glory (30).

Oh, and all these things will happen within the lifespan of Jesus' contemporaries (34).

Or maybe not. Jesus was talking about things he knew nothing about (36). (See Mark 13:32.) 24:3-51

Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

The parable of the cruel and unjust master
The kingdom of heaven is like a rich man who distributed his wealth to his servants while he traveled. He gave five talents (a talent was a unit of money, worth about 20 years of a worker's wages) to one servant, two to another, and one to a third. When he returned, the servant with five talents had made five more, the servant with two made two more, but the servant with one talent only had the talent his master entrusted to him. The master rewarded the servants that invested his money (without his permission -- what would have happened if the stock market went down during their master's travels?) and took the talent from the single-talent servant and gave it to the one with ten talents. "For unto every one that hath shall be given .. but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." Then the cruel and unjust master cast the servant who carefully protected his master's talent into the "outer darkness: [where] there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:14-30

The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

Jesus judges the nations. 25:31-46

Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46



Mark

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12

Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13

Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20: 9, Dt 21:18-21) 7: 9-10

Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49

God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and gives the vineyard to others. 12:1-9

Jesus tells his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. 14:22-24

Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16

Luke

Zechariah asks the angel Gabriel how his wife Elizabeth could become pregnant, since she is "stricken with years." Gabriel makes him "dumb" just for asking. 1:20

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3: 9

John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17

Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. 8:27-37

Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15

Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5

Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47

"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." 13:3, 5

According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31

Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27

Jesus also believes the story about Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32

In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27

Jesus tells his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. 22:19-20

John

Jesus believed the stupid and vicious story from Numbers 21. (God sent snakes to bite the people for complaining about the lack of food and water. Then God told Moses to make a brass snake to cure them from the bites.) 3:14

"God so loved the world, that he gave his His only begotten Son."
As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16

People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36

The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14

Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." (They are called Protestants nowadays.) 6:53-66

Acts

Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23

Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10

Peter has a dream in which God show him "wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls." The voice (God's?) says, "Rise, Peter: kill and eat." 10:10-13

Peter describes the vision that he had in the last chapter (10:10-13). All kinds of beasts, creeping things, and fowls drop down from the sky in a big sheet, and a voice (God's, Satan's?) tells him to "Arise, Peter; slay and eat." 11:5-10

The "angel of the Lord" killed Herod by having him "eaten of worms" because "he gave not God the glory." 12:23

David was "a man after [God's] own heart." 13:22

The author of Acts talks about the "sure mercies of David." But David was anything but merciful. For an example of his behavior see 2 Sam 12:31 and 1 Chr 20:3, where he saws, hacks, and burns to death the inhabitants of several cities. 13:34

Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas (the sorcerer) blind. 13:8-11

Romans

Homosexuals (those "without natural affection&quot and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them&quot are "worthy of death" - - along with gossips, boasters, and disobedient children. 1:31-32

The guilty are "justified" and "saved from wrath" by the blood of an innocent victim. 5: 9

God punishes everyone for someone else's sin; then he saves them by killing an innocent victim. 5:12

"If ... we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son", then God is truly a monster. 5:10

1 Corinthians

If you defile the temple of God, God will destroy you. 3:17

Paul claims that God killed 23,000 in a plague for "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab 10:8

If you tempt Christ (How could you tempt Christ?), you'll will die from snake bites. 10: 9

If you murmur, you'll be destroyed by the destroyer (God). 10:10

2 Corinthians

The terror of the Lord 5:11

Galatians

If anyone dares to disagree with Paul on religious matters, "let him be accursed." 1:8-9

Ephesians

We are predestined by God to go to either heaven or hell. None of our thoughts, words, or actions can affect the final outcome. 1:4-5, 11

God had his son murdered to keep himself from hurting others for things they didn't do. 1: 7

The bloody death of Jesus smelled good to God. 5:2

Those who refuse to obey will face the wrath of God. 5:6

Colossians

God bought us with someone else's blood. 1:14

God makes peace through blood. 1:19-20

1 Thessalonians

God is planning a messy, mass murder in "the wrath to come" and only Jesus can save you from it. 1:10

Christians shouldn't mourn the death of their fellow believers. They'll be OK and you'll see them later in heaven. The people you should mourn are dead nonbelievers. They have no hope (because they're going to hell). 4:13

2 Thessalonians

Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 1: 7-9

Jesus will "consume" the wicked "with the spirit of his mouth." 2:8

God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12

Hebrews

"That which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned."
Apostates will burn in hell with the other non-believers. 6:8

"Melchisedec ... met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him."
God showed his approval of "the slaughter of the kings" with Melchisedec's blessing of Abraham. (Genesis 14:17-18) 7:1

God will not forgive anyone unless something is killed for him in a bloody manner. 9:13-22

"A certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."
God will soon destroy non-believers in a fiery hell. 10:27

Those who disobeyed the Old Testament law were killed without mercy. It will be much worse for those who displease Jesus. 10:28-29

"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." 10:30

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." 10:31

"Abraham ... offered up Isaac ... his only begotten son." (And this was a good thing? How fucked up is that?) 11:17

The Israelites kept the passover and sprinkled blood on doorposts so that God wouldn't kill their firstborn children (like he did the Egyptians in Exodus 12:29). 11:28

God saved Rahab because she believed. (He killed all the non-believers in Jericho.) 11:31

"Time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets."
The heroes of faith: Gideon, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel. It would be hard to find a more monstrous group than these guys. 11:32

"Others were tortured ... that they might obtain a better resurrection." 11:35

God ordered animals to be "stoned, or thrust through with a dart" if they "so much as ... touch the mountain." 12:20

"Ye are come ... to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things that that of Abel." 12:22-24

James

James says Abraham was justified by works (for being willing to kill his son for God); Paul (Romans 4:2-3) says he was justified by faith (for believing that God would order him to do such an evil act). 2:21

1 Peter

We are all, according to Peter, predestined to be saved or damned. We have no say in the matter. It was all determined by "the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."1:2

"The precious blood of Christ ... was foreordained before the foundation of the world."
God planned to kill Jesus from the get-go. 1:19-20

God drowned everyone on earth except for Noah and his family. 3:20

2 Peter

God drowned everyone else on earth except for Noah and his family. 2:5, 3:6

"Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes" 2:6

God will set the entire earth on fire so that he can burn non-believers to death. 3: 7

When Jesus returns, he'll burn up the whole earth and everything on it. 3:10

1 John

Christians are washed in the blood of Jesus. 1: 7

Jude

"The Lord destroyed them that believed not." 5

God sent "eternal fire" on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for "going after strange flesh." 7-8

Revelation

Jesus "washed us ... with his own blood." 1:5

Everyone on earth will wail because of Jesus. 1: 7

Jesus has "the keys of hell and death." 1:18

Repent -- or else Jesus will fight you with the sword that sticks out of his mouth. (Like the limbless knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail.&quot 2:16

"I [Jesus] will kill her children with death." 2:23

"Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." God created parasites, pathogens, and predators for his very own pleasure. One of his favorite species is guinea worms. 4:11

"Thou art worthy ... for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." 5: 9

God gives someone on a white horse a bow and sends him out to conquer people. 6:2

God gave power to someone on a red horse "to take from the earth ... that they should kill one another." 6:4

God tells Death and Hell to kill one quarter of the earth's population with the sword, starvation, and "with the beasts of the earth." 6:8

The martyrs just can't wait until everyone else is slaughtered. God gives them a white robe and tells them to wait until he's done with his killing spree. 6:10-11

God tells his murderous angels to "hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of your God on their foreheads." This verse is one that Christians like to use to show God's loving concern for the environment. But the previous verse (7:2) makes it clear that it was their God-given job to "hurt the earth and the sea" just as soon as they finished their forehead marking job. 7:3

144,000 Jews will be going to heaven; everyone else is going to hell. 7:4

Those that survive the great tribulation will get to wash their clothes in the blood of the lamb. 7:14

God sends his angels to destroy a third part of all the trees, grass, sea creature, mountains, sun, moon, starts, and water. 8: 7-13

"Many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." 8:11

The angels are instructed not to "hurt the grass [how could they? He already had all the grass killed in 8 ] ... but only those men which have not the seal of God on their foreheads." God tells his angels not to kill them, but rather torment them with scorpions for five months. Those tormented will want to die, but God won't let them. 9:4-6

God makes some horse-like locusts with human heads, women's hair, lion's teeth, and scorpion's tails. They sting people and hurt them for five months. 9: 7-10

Four angels, with an army of 200 million, killed a third of the earth's population. 9:15-19

Anyone that messes with God's two olive trees and two candlesticks (God's witnesses) will be burned to death by fire that comes out of their mouths. 11:3-5

God's witnesses have special powers. They can shut up heaven so that it cannot rain, turn rivers into blood, and smite the earth with plagues "as often as they will." 11:6

After God's witnesses "have finished their testimony," they are killed in a war with a beast from a bottomless pit. 11: 7

The bodies of God's witnesses will lie unburied for three and a half days. People will "rejoice over them and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another." After another three and half days God brings his witnesses back to life and they ascend into heaven. 11:8-12

When the witnesses ascend into heaven, an earthquake kills 7000 men. This was the second woe. "The third woe cometh quickly." 11:13-14

"The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"
God planned to kill Jesus before he created the world. 13:8

Those who receive the mark of the beast will "drink of the wine of the wrath of God ... and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone ... and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever." 14:10-11

Jesus sits on a white cloud with a sharp sickle in his hand. When the angel tells him to reap, he kills all the people with his sickle. 14:14-18

"The great winepress of the wrath of God ... was trodden ... and the blood cam out of the winepress, even unto the horses bridles." 14:19-20

Seven angels with seven plagues are filled with the wrath of God. 15:1, 7

The seven vials of wrath: 1) sores, 2) sea turned to blood, 3) rivers turned to blood, 4) people scorched with fire, 5) people gnaw their tongues in pain, 6) Euphrates dries up, 7) thunder, lightning, earthquake, and hail. 16:1

"There fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast." 16:2

"The second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea." 16:3

"The third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood." 16:4

God gave the saints and prophets blood to drink. 16:6

Another angel tells God how righteous he is because he gives saints blood to drink. 16: 7

"Power was given unto him [the fourth angel] to scorch men with fire." 16:8

Those who were being burned to death by God didn't repent "to give him glory." 16: 9

"The fifth angel poured out his vial ... and they gnawed their tongues for pain." 16:10

Even after being burned alive, those nasty people wouldn't repent! 16:11

Christians will fight in the war between Jesus and those allied with the beast. 17:14

"They shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire." (Are they going to eat her first and then burn her?) 17:16-17

To punish her God will send plagues and famine, and "she will be utterly burned with fire." 18:8

God will send plagues, death, and famine on Babylon, and the kings "who have committed fornication with her" will be sad to see her burn. 18:8-9

Jesus makes war. 19:11

Jesus' clothes are dipped in blood and his secret name ("that no man knew&quot is "The Word of God". (I bet you thought it was Jesus!) 19:13

With eyes aflame, many crowns on his head, clothes dripping with blood, a sword sticking out of his mouth, and a secret name, Jesus leads the faithful in heaven into holy war on earth. 19:14-15

"Come ... unto the supper of the great God." An angel calls all the fowls to feast upon the flesh of dead horses and human bodies, "both free and bond, both small and great." 19:17-18

The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest were killed with the sword of Jesus. "And all the fowls were filled with their flesh." 19:20-21

God will send fire from heaven to devour people. And the devil will be tormented "day and night for ever and ever." 20: 9-10

Whoever isn't found listed in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. 20:15

All liars, as well as those who are fearful or unbelieving, will be cast into "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." 21:8
.

[BlueCaliDem]

128. Nice copy and paste. What site did you get these misinterpretations from?

Those smiley-faces gave it away, by the way.

I need to know what source you gotten these misinterpretations from because they're cherry-picked and taken out of context.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

129. Tell me what context you're talking about.

It's PLAIN WORDS from YOUR BIBLE.

You tell ME about the interpretation.

[okasha]

143. It's been explained to you before

that paraphrases and editorial comments from The Skeptic's Annotated Bible aren't quotations or "PLAIN WORDS" from any edition of the actual book. Your source is agenda-driven and, to be unwarrantedly polite, unreliable

A good analogy of what you're presenting here would be Franklin Graham's comments on The God Delusion. Capiche?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

144. Those are not paraphrases. Those are actual quotes.

Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Do you understand that? Do you have a problem with the concept "actual verbatim quotes"???

Those are NOT paraphrases. Those are actual quotes. Ignoring the editorial comments, which are very few, would you please notice those are actual quotes?

So tell me what "context" is missing that would explain away the absurdity, injustice and cruelty of those words of Jesus. What context?

Would you like for me to repost the whole thing and REMOVE the few editorial comments, since you seem to be unable to recognize them as such and are criticizing them, even though they are easily recognized?

How can these direct quotes be biased or slanted?

[AtheistCrusader]

146. Because it doesn't include enough surrounding text to expand and weaken the meaning and allow

for subjective interpretation that would erase whatever negative connotation it clearly has....

[Manifestor_of_Light]

152. Somebody please explain.

What subjective interpretation would the additional text add? That's pretty straightforward stuff.

[el_bryanto]

154. Is there any one (or a few) in particular you'd like to focus on? That's a pretty long list. nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

165. Yes it is a very long list.

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a "context" that changes the plain meaning of ANY of these actual verbatim quotes.
And without saying "It's a metaphor or a parable."

[el_bryanto]

166. So you aren't interested in understanding how a Christian might interpret them?

This isn't an attempt to understand, but simply to point out the hypocrisies of Christianity?

I don't want to engage you further if I've missed your point.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

167. Yes, I am interested.

Because these are direct statements of hatred and condemnation, and I fail to see how context could change their meaning.

[el_bryanto]

174. Let's start with Matthew 5:29-30

That'll clarify the no metaphor ground rule you've set down.

Here's the King James version of it.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

To be honest, I do take that to be metaphor - I don't think Christ was literally encouraging us to mutilate ourselves, particularly when you contrast it with the idea that what is most important is what happens in our hearts, which is also discussed in the Sermon on the Mount. In the same chapter he talks about how just being angry at other people is a path towards sin, even if you don't act on it. So I don't accept the interpretation that this is intended to encourage Christians to literally mutilate themselves.

Rather I believe this is a metaphor intended to show the seriousness of sin and how difficult it might be to cut ourselves off from that which tempts us or leads us to sin. That's what I believe this scripture to actually be about.

But, without metaphor, I'm guessing one would have to accept that Christ literally meant that we should gouge out our eyes and cut off our hands. That's your interpretation, I take it?

Bryant

[Manifestor_of_Light]

191. Jesus spoke in parables to confuse people.

Mark 4:11-13 (King James version)

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

I would take the example from Matthew literally. It sounds ridiculous, but it seems that God or Jesus is not being clear, and is wanting to confuse people. Why would you want to mislead uneducated, unscientific, nomadic Bronze Age people with little capacity for abstract thinking such as metaphors and parables?

[el_bryanto]

195. So you quote scriptures in which Christ talks about talking in parables

and explains why he does so, and then from that extrapolate that he didn't talk in metaphor but literally intended his followers to mutilate themselves. I don't really follow your logic there. I suppose there are two tacks we might take.

1. Why does Christ seem to be arguing for deceiving people? There's a discussion to be had here, but it's somewhat involved.

2. Why do you believe that the only way to read this scripture (the original one) is by calling for self-mutilation? I don't know if individual believers may have engaged in this, but I don't believe it's been common practice - it certainly isn't today.

I am unclear on something - do you believe that Christ was a historical figure or no? Many non-believers deny that he even existed. I don't want to dive into that whole debate necessarily, but that will give more of a clear framework from which to respond to your post.

Bryant

[AtheistCrusader]

158. Exactly.

The additional text only allows the religious apologists to try and bury the meaning.

[Warpy]

131. Try looking up those verses in your own bible if you think they're somehow out of context.

You do have a bible, right?

If not, the KJV is reprinted on many sites online. Google will help you out there.

[Arugula Latte]

137. Ha ha! Oh, that is rich.

"Misinterpretations"? Yeah, right.

The quotes speak for themselves.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

140. I'm waiting for a reply myself, Arugula. nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

124. Where do you get your authority

to decide who is and who isn't a "Christian"?

[BlueCaliDem]

126. Why do you care?

You're an Atheist, yes? Your avatar is the American Atheist symbol, am I correct? Or am I correct?

So again, why do you care where I "get my authority" to talk about my faith?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

130. But you're not talking about your faith

You're talking about the faith of some conservatives, and attempting to apply your interpretation of the Bible to them. I can guarantee that many of them are just as devout and faithful as you, and probably have an equally valid interpretation of the Bible backed up by specific Bible verses and theology.

I'm just wondering why you think you have some sort of right to be the final arbiter of what constitutes a "real" Christian. What have you done to earn that distinction?

(PS: attempting to deflect by asking about my atheism says a lot more about you than it does about me)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

142. I'm still waiting for an answer

I know you think it's a ridiculous question, but it's asked with sincerity. If someone has special authority to decide who can and cannot call themselves a Christian, I'd like to know where that authority comes from and how far it extends. Does that person also get to decide who is a "real" liberal? Or a "real" Democrat? Or a "real" Progressive? Does the authority extend to defining who is and who is not a "real" Muslim?

[stone space]

42. Shunning is not a fallacy.

And no silly internet meme can make it one.

[Major Nikon]

61. There's nothing about being a Christian that inoculates one from being an asshole

[hifiguy]

69. And even then, the deathbed conversion is the ultimate

"get out of hell free" card.

[Major Nikon]

71. You mean to tell me...

I don't have to send ten dollars to the church of the sacred bleeding heart of Jesus once per week?

[nomorenomore08]

78. Well said.

[phil89]

15. There is no objective

standard for being a Christian so I'm not sure you can claim they're not Christians.

[BlueCaliDem]

21. There is only ONE objective: do as Christ did. That's all. eom

[PassingFair]

36. No.

All that is required is belief.

[BlueCaliDem]

38. James 2:17 ~ " In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

I stand by what I wrote -as a flawed Christian, myself.

[PassingFair]

39. "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world."

[BlueCaliDem]

43. The original comment was, "there is not objective standard for being a Christian". Not true.

But just having faith in Christ is not enough, either. Anyone can say they believe in Christ and then go about murdering people, starving people, and torturing people in his name, for example.

So we're given guidelines what to look out for.

Matthew 7: 15 -17 ~ 15-"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16- "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17- "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.…"

This ties in with:

James 2:17 ~ " In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

[PassingFair]

49. Glad you're around for the final word on what a Christian is.

According to "Jesus", all you need is faith in him.
You can mess up and still be "saved".

But go ahead and be your own "truth" here and judge who is and is not a "true" Christian.

SO silly!

[WDIM]

40. belief and

Following the teachings of Jesus. If you dont follow his teachings then how can you truly believe.

[PassingFair]

41. Easily....you are all so "flawed".

If every Christian had to be like "Christ", there would be NO Christians.

I tire of the "not a real Christian" thing.

When that crazy atheist shot that Muslim family over a parking space you didn't see any atheists saying "Well, he's obviously not a TRUE atheist!"

[stone space]

44. The so-called "atheist" Craig Hicks had a religion, and he wore his God on his hip.

[PassingFair]

45. He was a self avowed atheist.

Apparently there is ONE atheist that WILL use the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I stand corrected.

[stone space]

48. Shunning is not a fallacy.

Nor is pointing out the irony of a individual claiming atheism while walking around with a God strapped to his hip.

He may have talked the talk on atheism, but when it came time for him to walk the walk, he apparently needed a crutch.

[PassingFair]

50. Atheists can be just as stupid as Faithiests.

Lots of atheists carry guns.

How do you "walk the walk" as an atheist? And what does it have to do with guns?

[stone space]

81. Keep the faith.

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Atheists can be just as stupid as Faithiests.

[AtheistCrusader]

148. Yawwwwn

[skepticscott]

96. So anyone who hasn't submitted to being crucified to redeem sinners

as Christ did, is not a Christian, by your standard.

Ah, what's that you say? You only meant do SOME of the stuff Christ did, but not all. And you get to pick (cherry-pick, more accurately) which things Christ did and said people have to follow to be "true" Christians, and which ones you're going to conveniently ignore?

[BlueCaliDem]

98. What a ridiculous post, and not worthy of a serious response.

But this is mine.

Have a good one!

[skepticscott]

109. I'll repeat the exchange above, for those interested in rationality

"There is no objective standard for being a Christian so I'm not sure you can claim they're not Christians."

Your response: "There is only ONE objective: do as Christ did. That's all. eom"

When you say someone has to "do as Christ did" in order to be a "true" Christian, you either mean that they have to do EVERYTHING that Christ did, or only some of the things. So which is it? And if it's the latter, who gets to decide which of the many things Jesus is alleged to have done (of course, we don't even know for sure which of those he actually DID do, but that's another issue) are the ones "true" Christians must do to meet your "objective" standard?

Your calling my response "ridiculous" is just meaningless hand-waving and doesn't make it so. A typical reponse when logic sends your own words flying back in your face.

[BlueCaliDem]

111. Your post is supposed to be rational?? Oh lord have mercy!

Is it rational for a poster - especially a self-proclaimed skeptic - to cherry-pick sentences out of an entire discussion and base their conclusions on that single sentence, then turn around and excoriate the writer of that post for it? Doesn't sound rational at all.

For the record? NO WHERE in my post did I write that you have to do "EVERYTHING" Christ did. Either copy and paste where I've made such a statement or admit you made it all up.

You took it upon yourself to add that word in order to uphold your rep as "skeptic". You could've just read my original comment to come to understand that that single sentence you've copied and pasted was part of a larger narrative. Instead, you took it out of context to satisfy your desire to ridicule.

To help you, in my original comment I clearly wrote (and since it's the first comment under the OP, I'm surprised you've missed it): "Everything they do is a 180 from what Christ's followers were asked to do." Refresh my memory, skeptic...did Christ ask his followers to be crucified as he was crucified?

Now do you understand why I claimed that your response is ridiculous? Because it is.

[skepticscott]

119. Sheesh. Seriously?

Nowhere did I claim you said that. I ASKED whether that or the alternative was an accurate statement of your position and gave you a chance to clarify. Sorry if that elementary little distinction escaped you.

As far as "cherry picking" goes, since you made every statement under your name in this thread, the only reason you'd object to my picking out a certain one to question you on is if you're contradicting yourself all over the place and know it. If everything you've said here is true and logically consistent, then it wouldn't matter which one we're talking about, now would it?

And now that you're on record as saying that people don't need to do EVERYTHING that Jesus did to qualify as "true" Christians, but only some of them, the questions stands: Which ones? Who gets to decide which of the things Jesus said or commanded others to do are necessary for being a Christian and which are not?

Did Jesus not say "whoever loses his life for my sake will save it"? Did he not say "I come not to bring peace, but a sword"? Did he not praise someone for spending a lot of money on anointing oil instead of giving it to the poor? Did he not say that his followers should have no home? Did he not say that his followers should leave their dead unburied?

You want to play scripture quoting to prove that Jesus only commanded good stuff? Things that all of the people you consider "true" Christians adhere to? Bring it on. I can go all night. And if you want to be an intellectual pinata, I'm fine with that too. Just don't worry my ears with constant refrains of "He was only speaking metaphorically!!" You'll have lost any claim to an "objective standard" and be back to NTS garbage.

[AtheistCrusader]

149. Don't forget 'pop back up out of the grave after 3 days'.

Supposedly he did that, so.. NTS until people start bouncing back from room temp.

[AtheistCrusader]

147. Says you.

[Trillo]

32. These anti-Christ people are also ones running Christian schools.

As a non-Christian, I'm upset as heck that any of my tax dollars are supporting Christian food banks, whether they are Christians or "Christians" (anti-Christ). Food banks should be secular.

[BlueCaliDem]

35. I agree 100%. There has to be a separation of church and State on all levels.

I say this as a flawed Christian who doesn't belong to any institutionalized religion.

I firmly believe that faith and religion should remain private and in tax-exempt churches, not in public while overseeing our food banks while trying to "save souls" with their preachy-preaches and "God bless!". I can't stand those types of self-aggrandizing Christians who try to take advantage of the downtrodden and hungry in order to foist their faith on them - as if they have that authority. The Taliban does that, too, and it's no less exploitative when they do it than when a self-proclaimed Christian does it at a food bank.

[ChazII]

101. There are church run food banks that do not

try to save souls. They just give the food boxes to the families in need and no prayers are said. I know because I volunteer at two of them. One of them, St. Stephen's, does participate in the St. Mary's Food bank which receives its money from the gov't. as well local businesses and food drives. St. Stephen's hands are not tied to some rules like who gets a food box. It does not matter where you live, if you are hungry and in need you get a box. Some food banks require that you live within certain zip code areas. Because we participate in a gov't sponsored program picture identification is required and families get a box once a month. Again no sermons or preaching to the person asking for help.

First Baptist Church of Scottsdale, like St. Stephens, also gives food to anyone in need. It is mainly a clothing and appliance bank. It does not preach nor do we even say, "God Bless". FBCS does its clothing and food bank solely with the help of its members.

My reason for responding is to let the readers of this thread know that there are churches out there that do follow the words of Christ. Like the Good Samaritan we see the need and we take action and do not expect anything in return.

[cleanhippie]

139. Says you. Your interpretation of what jesus (allegedy) taught is no more accurate

that those you call "whacky."


Sounds like you must not have read the part about plucking the beam from your own eye...


Or not judging...

Or.....


Well, you get the point. (probably not, though)

[meow2u3]

3. There are Christians™ and there are real Christians

Christians™ (RWNJs who pass themselves off as followers of Christ, but worship power and money instead) want people to suffer needlessly and the more people who die a slow, tortured death, the better.

Real Christians follow the teachings of Christ, which means they not only act, whenever possible, to alleviate suffering of the least among up, but also actively side with the little guy over the powerful.

Matthew, 25: 31-46 sums it all up. http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25

31f “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, 32g and all the nations* will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35h For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, 36naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ 37Then the righteous* will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ 40i And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ 41* j Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42k For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ 44* Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ 45He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ 46l And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

[F4lconF16]

6. No True Scotsman fallacy

With respect to religion, the fallacy is well used, often even overused. Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use the No True Scotsman argument to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups, but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious - they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as "not true Muslims" as Islam is a "religion of peace." Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, are sometimes aghast when viewing their fundamentalist counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them "not true Christians," even though they believe in the same God and get their belief system from the same book. Many of these statements stating that the extremists are not true believers are often used as a reaction against Guilt by Association. The No True Scotsman fallacy can also run the other way when it comes to extremism. Extremists will make a religious statement and when someone points out that there are many believers who don't believe the extremist's viewpoint, the moderates are deemed to be not true believers (ie: Christians who support gay marriage are not "real Christians" or Muslims who support women's rights are not "real Muslims&quot . Modern pagans do it all the time, perhaps even more than other religions, due to the fact that there is no agreed-on orthodoxy for the whole group, with some well-established practices in one setting being considered unpalatable in others. Silver Ravenwolf, one of the best selling "leaders" of neopagans, has done this with multiple ancient, well-established practices.

It's a tricky business, as being a member of a religious group, to the minds of those involved, encompasses adhering to a certain standard of behavior. For example, charity can certainly be called an essentially Christian ethic, considering the emphasis that Jesus placed on it. The man himself would most definitely disavow the greedy and "What's mine is mine" mindset of many right-wingers who call themselves Christians. However, strictly speaking, a Christian is defined as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"; there's no rule saying they have to do it right.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

Also see post 4.

[meow2u3]

12. Fallacy, schmallacy

It's fun to call fake Christians out on their hatred of the poor and general hypocrisy.

[BlueCaliDem]

24. It's not only fun, it's necessary. Because of their actions, and because they claim to be

Christians, all Christians who actually try to follow Christ's ways are judged by those anti-Christian standards and are seen no differently than them.

[Maedhros]

176. I've met real Christians, and they are beautiful human beings.

Very, very rare individuals. Unfortunately, they don't get much exposure.

[WDIM]

5. I can tell you what Ive been told by the christian right

That if people didnt have to pay so much in taxes that people would donate more to charities and churches and the charities and churches would take care of the poor and unfortunate.

I dont believe this rationalization they give. I believe one of the most important jobs of the government is to provide a safety net and that it is for the common good that we take care of all of our citizens.

[jwirr]

13. Churches could not handle the problems during the Great Depression and were extremely glad to

see the government take over. Until this small group of fundie churches appeared in the 80s no one was asking for it to be turned back to the churches.

By the way at one time I wrote an article about the poor in my own church newspaper and got a lot of nasty responses. They were arguing just what you are talking about. I used my daughter as an example when I answered back. My local church had only 50 members and there were two members who were severely developmentally disabled. The rest were mostly elderly with troubles of their own. I explained how much it cost each year to keep my daughter alive (about $3000 a month for foster care and about $400 for meds.) It took the whole church budget.

Also the churches are deluding themselves if they think that all of their members are going to donate as much as they pay in taxes for the poor. The churches have been teaching them to hate the poor for decades.

[ND-Dem]

22. +100. and i've seen in my own community that the fundies are eager to castigate government

until they start getting a piece of the pie, in which case they are happy to take the money and keep castigating government.

[WDIM]

37. that is a good point.

Taking care of the poor is something the gov can do very well.

The very fact we have poor people shows our current system does not work. Republicans have been so brainwashed and when you try to argue with them its almost impossible to make them understand that taxes can be a good thing if not used for corrupt ends. And that taking care of the poor should be our first priority because when the least among us rise we all rise.

[malokvale77]

73. The local Christian food bank in my neighborhood...

is begging FEMA for help. The need has tripled in the last couple years.

Lack of jobs with livable wages is the problem. Taxes have nothing to do with the need nor the dropping donations.

You are correct. A lot of deluded thinking going on here.

[jwirr]

79. Yes, our food shelf does not have enough to go around and we are in a reasonably well to do

community. All the charitable organizations realize that the churches cannot handle the problem it is only those who are doing the preaching that do not.

[flobee1]

19. that sounds familiar.....

"If corporations get more tax breaks, we will pay our employees more"

And we see how that worked out

[jwirr]

7. Almost all churches would have agreed that you would want everyone to have food, shelter and

healthcare PRIOR to the 80s. Than along comes Jerry Falwell, the fundies and raygun with their hate propaganda and now it depends which god you follow.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

9. Falwell was one ugly man, to be sure. He alone can take much of the credit for the hate they

all revel in now.

[Jamastiene]

108. I would say it's more 50/50 with Pat Robertson.

Those two used to sit around together, griping and complaining about gays and women and the poor and anyone else they could think of to hate. I don't miss Falwell and I REALLY won't miss Pat Robertson IF he ever does leave this Earth.

[Wounded Bear]

10. Funny, but I heard the same kind of twisted logic back in 2008-9...

about George W Bush. "He wasn't a real Republican, therefore, we can safely vote for real Republicans now.

Didn't buy it about Shrub, and I don't buy it about Christians.

[kydo]

14. No girl scout cookies either

I heard some dumb rumor about girl scout cookies this morning at church. Someone asked did I know the girl scouts cookies support abortion. They did not like my response. I asked if they shopped at wal-mart or hobby lobby? They said yep. I said then not only are you supporting contraceptives, but also abortions. As both places sell stuff made in China where not only is abortion legal there is one child law. So its your choice but the peanut butter girl scout cookies are to die for and the smores are heavenly, and then there are thin mints. Mmmm I confessed to stashing a box of the smores in my pc room out of sight from my cookie inhaling son. I have no issues buying girl scout cookies and if they don't want them I will gladly take them.

Crazy stuff.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

16. This abortion derangement syndrome is causing people with limited brain cells to

say and do things that a sane person would not say or do.

[kydo]

60. yep.

It's insane. Some of the stuff is so outrageous it would be extremely comical if it wasn't so real.

[YarnAddict]

18. Here is the plain truth:

Charity (reaching into your own pocket to provide for a need you are aware of) benefits you as well as the person who is on the receiving end. It's personal. It not only demonstrates compassion, it engenders empathy.

Taxation is impersonal, and does not offer the benefit to the taxed that charity does. It really only pisses people off.

I think "Christians" would want to take care of the poor, but have the side benefits that can only be gotten through charity.

JMHO . . .

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

25. And if charity falls short?

[YarnAddict]

29. The question is about what

Christians think. That's the question I answered.

[RadiationTherapy]

117. "Charity" with strings attached = the "noble" wealthy providing to the "deserving" poor.

Also, a portion of most charity gets squandered on proselytizing.

[Pooka Fey]

23. Maybe try doing your own research on the question using the source documents?

[sarisataka]

26. It's really not that difficult

Matthew 22:37-39 ESV / 39 helpful votes

And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

So if you like food, make sure others have food...

As for taxes

Matthew 22:17-21, the Pharisees asked Jesus a question: "Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought Him a denarius, and He asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then He said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Implication being that Caesar can do what he wishes with his money.

How to tell a "real" Christian? The instruction manual has that too

John 13:35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

[Orsino]

27. Those who take joy in depriving others of livelihoods, food, shelter and healthcare...

...are not going to feel qualms at rewriting scripture.

[Brigid]

28. Luke 10:25-37.

That is all.

[YarnAddict]

31. The Samaritan

took from his own pocket and saw to the man's needs. Christians would say that is what we must do; not shift the burden to the government.

[JimDandy]

30. How are posts with religion as the subject

being allowed to keep creeping into GD where they are not allowed?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

34. Not allowed? My bad, wont do it again.

[leftofcool]

33. This is like asking which is the real Christian.........Pat Robertson or Mother Theresa?

What would Mother do?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

51. Mother Theresa was a scam artist on a huge scale.

She provided beds for people to suffer and die in. She didn't give them ANY medical care or pain relief. Look it up.

she thought suffering was redemptive which is bullshit.

[Mariana]

66. She thought suffering was redemptive...

Sure, as long as it was other people's suffering.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

82. RELEVANT VIDEO

&feature=youtu.be

[WDIM]

46. the "christian" right hypocrisy

Goes far beyond just their hatred for the poor.
They also love war
They support greed and individualism
They worship false idols
They believe in the death penality
They preach hate and intolerance

The fanatical christian right or hypochristians as i have always called them truly do not see the hypocrisy.

Truly if we followed the teachings of Jesus all debt would be forgiven all poor will be lifted up. There would be no rich there would be no greed or selfishness. There would be no war. Taking care of our fellow humans would be number one priority.

The rights number one priority seems to be killing their fellow humans.

[spanone]

47. they use religion. i see few of them practicing their faith.

lip service religion

[Manifestor_of_Light]

52. Matthew 25:6-11

Matthew 25:6-11 Ointment for Jesus' head is more important than the poor.

Luke 8:18

"Whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have."

Jesus must have hated poor people according to some of his words.

[trotsky]

53. Do you want the government to provide food, shelter, and healthcare?

Or should individuals, churches, and charities do it?

That seems to be the divide between many Christians.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

55. Charity wont do it, wont come anywhere close, if it is up to charity alone

hundreds of thousands will starve or freeze to death

[trotsky]

57. I agree with you, but others don't.

I'm not a Christian, but I've had this discussion with a right-wing coworker. He truly feels that if government cut taxes enough, people would be able to voluntarily give enough money to charity to feed and take care of people better than the government can. I know, it's crazy talk, but put yourself in their mindset - they think gov't is like 90% waste. It's pretty easy if you assume a few ridiculous things as they do, to see why the simplistic notion of just taking all that "waste" and putting it into their pockets would give everyone enough money to be millionaires and (supposedly) donate tons of cash.

Republican LA-LA Land!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

59. Listening to Michelangelo Signorile right now on Sirius Radio, liberal talk show host

And a man calls in and says he is tired of being called a teabagger, wants Obamacare to go away because he pays for his own health insurance.

Thinks there should be no taxation at the federal level but had no answers as to how to do everything the government does.

Translation: "At the moment I have no need for the government that I am aware of therefore there should be no government"

He of course does not only need government but he relies heavily on it all day long, as do we all.

These types have been around forever, what brought them to the insanity level was an African American male in the white house ordering them to do something, as in pay for ACA...it makes their brains sizzle.

[trotsky]

62. Yup, ignorance is the root of the problem.

Throw in some greed and racism, and there ya go.

[azmom]

105. A perfect recipe for disaster.

[Arugula Latte]

63. He's probably right -- if we slashed the ever-lovin' crap out of the military budget

and whittled it down to next to nothing.

Of course THAT would never happen.

[trotsky]

65. The government can still distribute funds far more effectively than any charity.

And without the additional baggage of a church!

[Arugula Latte]

88. Totally agree.

[mountain grammy]

120. AMEN! oops, sorry that just slipped out..

100% agree!

[hifiguy]

72. Anyone with half a brain knows exactly what the ultra-rich

would do with that money. Ship it to the financial black holes around the world where they already have $25-35 TRILLION stashed. Greed is the most pernicious addiction that has ever existed and it is not self-regulating.

[Revanchist]

54. Ask them what they think of Deuteronomy 15

7 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.

8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs.

10 Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.

11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

Or any of these other verses for that matter http://www.openbible.info/topics/helping_the_poor Let's see them weasel their way out of that discussion.

[onecaliberal]

56. The fakers on the right calling themselves Christians

Are anything but. Jesus is about love. He got rid of the money changers in the temple, fed the poor, and healed the sick. Republicans do not follow any teaching of Christ.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

58. Please see my post No. 52

What Jesus said is contradictory.
In some cases, he said to help the poor. In others he said to help the rich and shun the poor.
Which is it???

[onecaliberal]

74. The greatest of these is love.

Love your neighbor. Thou shall not kill. Whatever you do for the least of these you also do for me.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

75. You have not negated what I quoted.

The Bible is contradictory. You cannot believe that it is all true.

[onecaliberal]

86. Where did I say I believe it is all true?

Don't assume you know what I believe. Clearly, you don't.
You have stated your opinion as have I.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

89. It is in YOUR bible, that you say is your guide to life.

So it's your responsibility to explain why you use a book with hundreds of contradictions in it as your moral guide.

So which parts do you think are correct guides to morality and which ones aren't? I never get an answer to this.

If you know anything about the history of the bible and how it was compiled, it's a complete mess.

[onecaliberal]

92. First, I don't have a bible.

Secondly you can take all your other assumptions and shove them.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

93. You're quoting it which means you are familiar with it.

Not a good dodge.

Thank you for your concern about my rectal health. Specifically, your concern about producing rectal trauma in me. Is this an expression of Christian Love by threatening violence and demeaning someone you don't know just for asking simple questions?

Sounds like it to me.

[skepticscott]

97. I doubt it's something Jesus would have done

which, by the standard set forth in this thread, would seem to disqualify this poster as being a "true" Christian, since they are acting in contradiction to the teachings of Christ.

Funny how that works.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

114. You're using a logical fallacy.

You're using the No True Scotsman fallacy. It is a form of circular reasoning.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/


Jesus DID teach a lot of hateful stuff which you can look up online. The Christians refuse to confront those statements of intolerance, cruelty and violence, and just get mad if you point them out to them. Their book is contradictory and messed up. They refuse to acknowledge this and say "No, I don't believe the hateful stuff Jesus said, just the good stuff."

[skepticscott]

118. No, just being sarcastic

And pointing out the flaw in the No True Christian reasoning that our friend here is clinging to.

[treestar]

64. They are insincere as usual

When challenged with this, they claim to be charitable. They give money to their church. The poor can come to the church.

When the government does it, they can't pressure people to join their church when they need help.

They claim it should be by private charity. But that's never enough.

Or they claim that if they keep the money, they can create jobs by spending the money, and then everyone will have a job. Which could have made some sense, until it meant they were creating jobs in China and India.

[hifiguy]

67. Republican Jebus has the answer.

Note how exceedingly caucasian RJ - the one TRUE Jebus looks:

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

68. Love It, thank YOU

[hifiguy]

70. Assuming for the sake of argument that there was an actual

historical Jesus - an open question from the archaeological evidence - if he came back tomorrow the repukes and baggers would crucify him again by next week at this time for being a socialist phony. You could make bank on it.

[DawgHouse]

76. You want YOUR family and friends to have food, shelter and healthcare

but not everyone because everyone is not as deserving or Christ-loving as you (general you)

At least that's what I've gathered as I watched my RWNJ aunt have a meltdown because she hates tax dollars going to socialist programs then in a second post, bitched because Meals on Wheels no longer delivers to her mother. Her mother lives too far out and "someone" cut the budget.

[Albertoo]

80. Nobody knows what the philosopher/guru Jesus said anyway.

All the gospels have one or two origins: that of Mark and an unknown source Q.

We don't know who Mark was. Just that he wrote his book years after guru Jesus died.

In other words, the whole 'Christian' ideology relies on what one single unknown guy wrote.

From that point on, it's possible to answer the OP's question:

Q: If I am a Christian, what do I do?
A: Nobody can answer for sure.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

83. Yes.

1.He did not exist.

2. What he allegedly said (even though there is no historical record that he existed) is contradictory, as I have pointed out, and it has not been refuted by anyone on this board. They have not said that what I have quoted from their bible, the hateful and cruel policies he advocates, are not actually said by Jesus, they merely cite the kind stuff that he said.

[cordelia]

100. You present as a liberal or progressive?

The intolerance and hatred for believers that you exhibit time and time again would be counter to the ideals of liberals and progressives that I know.

In my opinion.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

113. Excuse me?

Any time that a Christian tries to tell me I'm going to hell because they are right, that's when I have to speak up.
It's part of the religion--converting people and telling people they are wrong.

I keep away from them because they are illogical and unreasonable. If they had facts behind their assertions, I would listen to them.

They have unprovable assertions about deities. And they put spirituality in a very tiny box and only allow their particular interpretation of spirituality, when spirituality is far broader than their narrow little box which seems to be "pray and think about Jesus all the time".

Just like if a Republican says "global warming is a hoax" and I present facts and figures about the mean annual temperatures rising, weather extremes of both hot and cold due to more heat in the atmosphere, glaciers melting, and so forth, they will put their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen.

That respect goes both ways and they refuse to recognize my right to be spiritual in my own way which is far broader and different than anything they would understand. They refuse to examine their assumptions because it would destroy their belief system if they asked real questions about it.

The county I live in has a nativity display every Christmas on the courthouse lawn. Why do they do it? Because it's a tradition. They think this is a Christian nation and I know my Constitution and history well enough to know it's not.

[mountain grammy]

122. Good answer to a ridiculous assertion.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

141. Thank you. nt

[adigal]

84. If you are a Republican Christian, you don't give a damn. Nothing more to say nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. Do you want a theocracy?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

90. That question is completely out of left field, has nothing to do with anything.

Projection?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. I not sure you know what projection means but, no, my question isn't from left field.

Christianity is a personal, moral ideal in the context of the believer's relationship with God. It's all well and good to want to care for the needy but that pretty much makes any actions a matter of personal unction, i.e. there is no obligation for non-Christians to adhere to Christian moral ideals and forcing the insincere does nothing to remediate the fact of their insincerity. An appeal can be made to the conscience of those who claim to be Christians but that is a far cry from a government program where the government funds its every effort with compulsory taxation by force of law. Hence, the latter would be theocratic in nature.

[DirkGently]

87. Jesus was a liberal. Christian conservatives are

100% Old Testament, whether they admit it or not.

It struck me again recently, not for the first time, that the Yahweh of the Old Testament embodies everything conservative authoritarians admire: An all-powerful male figure obsessed with the sexual, dietary, and fashion habits of everyone, and willing to enforce his will with drastic, terrifying violence. An eye for an eye. Death to the first-born sons of your enemies. Death to unruly children or disobedient women. Slaughter the cattle and salt the fields.

Not a nice individual or a model for any kind of enlightened society, by any stretch of the imagination.

It's funny, because when American conservative Christians bring up Biblical law as an ideal, and people counter it by pointing out Biblical law was okay with things like rape and slavery and child sacrifice, they hop over to the New Testament and give the quote about Jesus bringing the new word or what have you.

But then they ignore all of that in practice. No forgiveness. No love. "Do unto others" becomes "Get them before they get you."

Jesus was a liberal. Yahweh is a conservative Republican.

[Humanist_Activist]

94. A liberal in what context, if he existed, he was a 1st century Jewish preacher...

what possible relation would he have to modern politics?

While you are somewhat correct in how conservatives impose their own beliefs on the character of Yahweh, they also do so on Jesus, and in addition, liberals do the same to both as well.

The fact is that the Bible isn't consistent enough for either of these characters to be labeled as anything, instead they can be labeled as everything, and it would all be true, at least to someone. Yahweh the genocidal monster, Jesus the piece giver who forgives all sins, but demands absolute deference through him and no other, or else eternal hell fire awaits. Something even Yahweh wouldn't do, the worse he did was kill you.

[trotsky]

103. Relevant quote

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony

Nothing about liberal or conservative there - the phenomenon happens across the political spectrum. And that's sad, because it entrenches both sides, causes people to see the "other side" as not just wrong but EVIL, and prevents compromise.

[DirkGently]

107. Authoritarianism vs. Empathy.

What's weird about Jesus' message (and he never told anyone they were going to hell for not believing in him, by the way; that was the Catholic Church much later) is that it is largely at odds with the attitudes of the Old Testament. Love, forgiveness, and his No. 1 hit, "Do unto others," which is essentially a call for empathy, were not at all in the Yahweh style.

If you look at what American Christian conservatives draw on for religious support of their typically harsh, cruel and intolerant views, they are Old Testament all the way. Creationism, subjugation of women, condemnation of homosexuality; "eye for an eye" vengeance. Yahweh was the embodiment of the views of a harsh, warlike tribe.

Jesus, whether a deity, a man, or a work of fiction, helped the poor, healed the sick, fed the hungry, and asked people who had been wronged to turn the other cheek. When MLK and other civil rights leaders spoke about non-violent resistance, they were drawing on Jesus' command to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you;" not the "Death to the first-born of your oppressors" god of the Old Testament. Racists and slavers argued from the Old Testament. Something about non-whites bearing the "mark of Cain." And Yahweh allowed selling your daughters into slavery of course.

These two paradigms are in direct opposition, and are embraced and interpreted in modern American politics. Christian conservatives worship an angry, vengeful Lord who demands intense cultural conformity. Liberals and more moderate Christians talk about tolerance and being their "brother's keeper."

Moreover, these two views are part of the cognitive dissonance of American Christian conservatives is that they claim to embrace the modernistic, tolerant views of Jesus, but in practice always return to angry Yahweh, who sent plagues to his people's enemies and demanded death for everyone from lazy churchgoers to unchaste women to unruly children.

American Christian conservatives would nail anyone talking about loving their neighbors or feeding the poor and healing the sick (for free!) to the nearest tree immediately.

[Humanist_Activist]

110. You illustrate my point about selective reading, look at this Bible quote:

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

http://biblehub.com/john/14-6.htm

That's something you neglected, and American Christian conservatives would argue that you are ignoring Jesus's teachings about obeying the father, keeping the law, and putting people on the path to salvation.

[DirkGently]

112. Well no. That's not the threat of "Hell" you mentioned.

Promising people eternal life in exchange for faith is lot more cuddly than threatening damnation, which, again, is a construct of the later churches. Judaism has no concept of "Hell," and Jesus was Jewish.

All of which is beside the overall point, which is that American conservative Christians, when pushing their political views, reference the harsh, authoritarian, intolerant "father" figure god found in the Old Testament. The "selective reading" is all on their part. That said, taken as a whole, the Old Testament IS a conservative piece of work, embracing archaic, rigid rules of conduct and a harsh and punitive view of the law.

Whether Christian conservatives' Biblical scholarship is up to snuff is irrelevant. They worship an angry, intolerant, violent god that reflects their world view, whether they have their theology precisely right or not. They use the Old Testament, not the gospels, to rationalize their views of everything from slavery to homosexuality to the subjugation of women to corporal punishment (they're not quoting Jesus when they talk about not "sparing the rod&quot .

The touchy feely "son of God," with an entourage of close male friends and unmarried women, washing the feet of the poor and handing out loaves and fishes is not really a touchstone for them.

You won't find "Love your enemy" or "turn the other cheek" in the Old Testament, and if you pay attention, you will see that American Christian conservatives pull a quick bait-and-switch, wherein they emphasize "Jesus," but almost never argue for doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, or for forgiveness, or loving neighbors and enemies.

Their god is a harsh disciplinarian who will have you stoned or burned for having the wrong kind of sex or wearing the wrong kind of cloak. He's the one they quote, and the one they identify with.

Kind of like Mike Huckabee.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

116. Hateful stuff is in the New Testament too, FYI.

Jesus said a lot of hateful stuff condoning cruelty and violence.

Look it up online. It's there. The Christians refuse to denounce the hateful stuff Jesus allegedly said. They don't seem to have the moral courage to say, "I reject these specific words of Jesus". They won't deal with the fact that they're using a book with hundreds and hundreds of contradictions in it.

I could dig up HUNDREDS of examples of Jesus' hateful words online, but when I do I get accused of "misinterpreting the bible" when it's THEIR book and their god saying these things in plain English.


There is nothing comparable in, say, Buddhism, where the monks say, "Oh Buddha said these hateful words and we're going to ignore that part of his teachings and act like they don't exist" because what the Buddha said is CONSISTENT. The words of Jesus are inconsistent.

[DirkGently]

123. Agreed the Bible is a mess. Not the point though.

The parallel to political culture derives from the way people perceive and discuss the Old vs. New Testaments, which is that Yahweh takes an eye for an eye, while Jesus says forgive, and the meek shall inherit.

When conservative American Christians want to make a political point, they feint at Jesus' teachings about tolerance, peace, love, and forgiveness. Those are positive, empathetic liberal values, and they stand in stark contradiction to the Old Testament.

Then they jink a quick turn downfield and focus on the rigid authoritarianism of the Old Testament god. "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" are put forward as values everyone can respect. But then the emphasis inevitably comes around to women knowing their place or homosexuals being put to death or what have you.

These two paradigms -- a harsh, intolerant authoritarian god and a (at times) almost oddly tolerant and peaceful Jesus conflict strongly, both resonate in our political culture. We fight over whether we need harsh rules and cultural traditions, backed up by strong punishment, or empathy, cooperation, and peace. Furthermore, the most rigidly conservative of American Christians claim the softer teachings of Jesus but pursue the wrath and intolerance of the older view of god.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

134. But the hateful stuff is ALSO in the New Testament, which they ignore.

The new testament is contradictory and they refuse to address that fact when I point it out to them. They accuse me of taking it "out of context" yet they refuse to tell me what context makes those DIRECT QUOTES not hateful and cruel.

I'm emphasizing the New Testament because that's where the Gospels are with the alleged words of Jesus, which are contradictory.

[el_bryanto]

102. There are many different answers to that question

Because there are many different types of Christians.

I personally don't see a necessary link between religious fervor and ability to govern. While I am religious, and find it valuable in my life, I don't vote for people based on their religious practice. I don't support laws or policies because they are in line with my religious beliefs. That might be a count in their favor, if I feel they are compassionate laws or policies, bu it's not the deciding count.

That said, many on the right, particularly the middle-class and working-class Christian Conservatives, believe that government programs don't work. They believe that if you abandoned social programs people would rise to their potential, and that it's wrong to keep such destructive programs going. So thats how they justify opposing those programs out of charity for their fellow man. I disagree with that analysis, but that's a rationale I've heard.

Bryant

[Turbineguy]

104. Oh that's easy.

You are obviously a communist.

[Jamastiene]

106. It depends on how you interpret the Bible and how you interpret

what your conscience tells you. If you are a cold-hearted asshole who learned from the time you were born that Christianity means, first and foremost, to hate the gays, followed by controlling every aspect of the lives of women and laughing at the poor and telling them to suck it up, then you would believe Jesus only cares for the poor by making damn sure they never get a dime from you or anyone in your area.

If you believe that Jesus was more relaxed and groovy and believed in loving people and helping the poor and even loving gays and women without constantly demeaning all of the above, the other Christians will call you a heathen and tell you that you are going to Hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 (because no conservative is ever going to give you money anyhow, the tight asses). In reality, it just means you are liberal Christian and probably not an asshole, although that is not a 100% litmus test. The only 100% litmus test is that conservatives are all assholes.

What Jesus actually had to say is varied, according to which book of the Bible or even which verse you are reading at the time. So, go with your gut. If you think our tax dollars should go to the 99% who are struggling and being laughed at by the 1%, please vote for the politicians that so many on DU tell you are too liberal to ever win, even in a parallel universe. If you think gays don't deserve rights, women should STFU pronto, men are oh-so downtrodden to the point that women are laughing at them and getting away with it and that making less money is no big deal, and the poor should just shut up and die, then well, either you wouldn't be at DU or you wouldn't be here long, because the rest of us can smell a troll like that a mile away.

In other words, there really is no one answer. Both sides of the issue get to call themselves Christians. The rest of us have to either scratch our heads and figure out which one is which and keep on guard to keep from getting our asses kicked for being DFHs or GLBTS or women or poor, or just hate all Christians, which is really no fun once you have met some of the more groovy, relaxed non-hatemonger ones.

Or you could just be a half-assed barely practicing agnostic like me and not give a shit* one way or the other most of the time.

*Except when I read shit like this and my head damn near explodes. Those poor little girls:
http://m.arktimes.com/arkansas/a-child-left-unprotected/Content?oid=3691164

See? The conservatives won't even take care of their own kids. They are that bad.

[Albertoo]

121. The 'interpretation' scheme shows the books don't mean much.

Did nostradamus predict anything?

Sharpshooter fallacy: you can pick ad hoc sentences in his predictions after an event occured to make them look prescient.

In the same way, if "holy" books require interpretation (the interpretation varying with the evolution of the moral code of human societies), it shows the "holy" books are not in themselves a source of moral inspiration.

I could use the works of Shakespeare or JK Rowlings as a moral guide if I "interpret" them correctly, I suppose.

[Jamastiene]

136. Whatever floats your boat...

At one time, when I was a kid, I used Deborah Harry's first book as my "bible." I loved it. Helped me through a lot of crap in life. I guess I finally outgrew looking for some magical help that wasn't coming from the sky or from Earth.

Whatever floats someone's boat....as long as they don't use it to hurt other people, I don't really care. It is when someone tries to hurt other people using their religion that I get pissed off about it.

[Albertoo]

145. Amen to that.

[cleanhippie]

138. If you think one need be a Christian to want fellow humans to have basic neccesities...

or ANY particular type of religious believer, then you're doing it wrong.


Empathy for our fellow humans does not come from a god or religious teachings. In fact, more often than not, religious teachings dictate that their god often wants us to ignore that empathy.


You're probably better off just being a nice, empathetic person, and dropping the religious nonsense altogether.

[workinclasszero]

150. Matt 7:21

21“Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter.

22 On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’

23 But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’


Anyone in this world can claim to be "Christian" or a follower of Christ. Doesn't mean a thing. Judge them by their fruits. The fruit of teabagism and republicanism is hate, death and suffering to the poor, the old and the non-white, the non-rich.

They will reap what they sow one day.

[el_bryanto]

151. I'm surprised this thread is still going really; particularly since it seems to be made up mostly of

the good old "Christianity is evil / no it's not" debate.

You'd think it'd get moved at some point.

Bryant

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

153. I had forgotten about it, one person responded today, then YOU did.

I have never called Christianity evil, there is no such thing as evil

or god

[el_bryanto]

155. That may not have been your intent- but that's clearly where it has gone

No evil? What about Auschwitz?

[DirkGently]

156. They worship the "Eye for an eye" guy.

The sandaled hippie with the loaves and fishes and free healing is really just for P.R.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

157. The Jesus I learned about would be horrified by TeaParTY and repubs. I say that sincerely

i have posted about this with cons and their reaction is the government has no place helping the needy, and that if the government would just get out of the way THEY Would make sure the needy had what they needed

Not only is this a lie, but the help they would provide would be EXTREMELY CONDITIONAL and would exclude many groups, wouldnt it

Imagine being a gay african american male with HIV, asking a TeaParTY asshole for help

Makes me so fucking angry

[former9thward]

159. Jesus did not deal with tax dollars

so whatever your feelings are on taking care of the poor it does lend itself to a good argument.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

160. Nonsense

So you are saying that people should starve if churches dont take care of them, that government shouldnt, or that this would have been his position or would be today

He doesnt exist, of course, but if he did

Doesnt in the eternal life way I mean

[former9thward]

161. Humorous that you are trying to speak for someone you say didn't exist.

I did not say any of the things you attribute to me in your post. So I guess we know which post is nonsense.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

162. I asked you if you are asserting that if Jesus EXISTED NOW he would say no government help

for poor people, isnt that what you argued?

Maybe I misunderstood

[former9thward]

163. Unlike some, I don't try and predict what historical figures

would do in 2015. The area of Palestine and Judea was so different than 2015 U.S. and the people's society was so different that it is ridiculous to try and make those predictions.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

164. THen why did you insert yourself into the conversation with this

Jesus did not deal with tax dollars

so whatever your feelings are on taking care of the poor it does lend itself to a good argument.

Now you are telling me you are not going to predict, yet you did exactly that with this comment...

Just say you dont think Jesus would want poor people to have food if it came from the government and let us know if that is your position too...

I mean that is what you are saying?

I wasnt sure if you were supporting the hateful TeaParTY assholes who would starve poor people or if you were making a different point.

[Skidmore]

169. Sure he did.

He told people to pay their taxes. "Render unto Csaeser" was an instruction to pay taxes to the state. Taxpayers of the Roman Empire did not get to pick and choose how those taxes were utilized.

[former9thward]

181. Well that is one way of looking at it.

But you must look at the context. His questioners were hostile and trying to entrap him into saying that Jews did not have to pay a tax. That was they could arrest him and turn him over to Pilate who was the tax collector. Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar's tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose head and inscription were on it. They answered, "Caesar's," and he responded: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".

It terms of the OP Jesus did not ask that tax money be used for the poor. That did not exist then. It is interesting that posters who deny the historical existence of Jesus quote him for some purpose in 2015.

[CreekDog]

182. Always seem to be finding fault with liberal arguments

:sigh:

[former9thward]

185. No, poorly made arguments.

Maybe you ignore those when they are something you like. The internet is good for that.

[el_bryanto]

189. Christ did encourage compassion for the poor

And it's not hard to notice that those who argue for not spending tax money on the poor also tend to demonize them as lazy and inferior.

My personal belief is that religious beliefs should not motivate Government policy; religion is a poor tool to use for governing (although I am religious, so I feel it has value in other areas). That said I do take issue with Republicans who attack the poor at every opportunity if they also claim to be Christians.

Bryant

[former9thward]

192. I agree to the extent we should not pick and choose quotes from the Bible.

But to use quotes made in a culture 2000 years ago can lead to trouble and dueling quotes.

[el_bryanto]

196. What do you think of the poor? nt

[former9thward]

197. Could there be a more broad question?

I doubt it. If you can ask a specific question I will attempt to answer it to the extent a few sentences on a discussion board can do that.

[Skidmore]

168. You want them to have and to be treated as you

would want others to treat you. It doesn't get any more complicated or simpler than that. Secularists have a word for it--empathy.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

171. I.E. if I was hungry I wouldnt want someone saying "the government shouldnt do it and I dont feel

like doing it, so starve"

[Skidmore]

175. How would you want to be treated in those circumstances?

With a little assist? With respect and dignity? As a fellow human being and not a piece of trash? That is the same behavior you extend to others. I fail to see why that is so hard to grasp, particularly if you are a Christian claiming to follow the teachings of Jesus. It was the only new law he gave.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

177. Yes, we are agreeing I hope you know

[BainsBane]

170. It shouldn't be difficult to figure out there isn't just one approach to Christianity

anymore than there is to Islam or Judaism.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

172. It is not an "approach" to Christianity to do the opposite of what Jesus said to do

[BainsBane]

173. While I certainly disagree with the right politically

I'm not in the habit of telling people how or whether to practice religion. I suggest you stick to politics or take this to the religion group.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

178. I started it in the wrong forum, if i could move it i would, i cant.

[Maedhros]

179. The Prosperity Doctrine was invented to take care of the cognitive dissonance

that comes from being Conservative and a Christian at the same time.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

180. Yes....FORUM BOSSES, can you move this to religion?

[AtheistCrusader]

183. DU3 can't move stuff. It can only be locked, and a new thread started over there.

You could also trash thread, if the mere sight of it is unpleasant to you.

The wording of the OP seems to be acceptable, per the exceptions in the SOP of GD.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

184. It was dead until someone suggested that it is a logical conclusion that Jesus might

be OK with people starving if it meant getting the food from a government.

I was happy to let it die till I heard that.

Of course I am interpreting what the person said, because as usual people who make those type arguments never actually say it in simple words like that.

[el_bryanto]

186. What's the number of the post you are referencing? nt

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

187. 159

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6337137

[AtheistCrusader]

193. Post 181 doesn't seem to be suggesting that, but I'll let that poster speak for him or herself.

I tend to assume that had such government social programs existed at the time and, had a historical jesus actually existed and been asked about those programs, he would have probably indicated that we should be doing that without the government's impetus or help, but we also shouldn't oppose the use of such taxes for that purpose. Whether he would have encouraged the imposition of taxes for that purpose I have no clue based on the bible's contents.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

194. My position is the Jesus of the New Testament would have welcomed any and all

ways to care for the needy.

[Rex]

188. All I know is that it is said he would give you the shirt off his back if you had none.

Which, I always wondered what would have happened if he ran across another fella (sans shirt) that was the head of a mystery cult that preached about resurrection and the riches in heaven? Would they stand there all day exchanging that shirt until one of them cried uncle?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

190. He probably wore the same shirt, unwashed, for weeks...no thanks LOL