HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » This message was self-del...

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 01:04 AM

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (Deep13) on Sat Apr 5, 2014, 04:32 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

64 replies, 3635 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply This message was self-deleted by its author (Original post)
Deep13 Jan 2014 OP
Shandris Jan 2014 #1
Deep13 Jan 2014 #2
roguevalley Jan 2014 #18
defacto7 Jan 2014 #3
Deep13 Jan 2014 #16
fadedrose Jan 2014 #4
Deep13 Jan 2014 #15
The Straight Story Jan 2014 #5
Deep13 Jan 2014 #12
zentrum Jan 2014 #6
Deep13 Jan 2014 #10
stopbush Jan 2014 #7
Deep13 Jan 2014 #9
hrmjustin Jan 2014 #42
me b zola Jan 2014 #8
Deep13 Jan 2014 #14
Zorra Jan 2014 #11
Deep13 Jan 2014 #13
Zorra Jan 2014 #21
ReRe Jan 2014 #17
Unknown Beatle Jan 2014 #19
MFrohike Jan 2014 #20
Deep13 Jan 2014 #31
MFrohike Jan 2014 #41
LeftyMom Jan 2014 #22
Deep13 Jan 2014 #34
florida08 Jan 2014 #23
Deep13 Jan 2014 #35
xchrom Jan 2014 #24
Judi Lynn Jan 2014 #25
Turbineguy Jan 2014 #26
LeftishBrit Jan 2014 #27
Deep13 Jan 2014 #36
riqster Jan 2014 #28
Deep13 Jan 2014 #37
left is right Jan 2014 #29
left is right Jan 2014 #30
Deep13 Jan 2014 #38
nilesobek Jan 2014 #32
Deep13 Jan 2014 #40
calimary Jan 2014 #33
Deep13 Jan 2014 #39
Holly_Hobby Jan 2014 #43
Deep13 Jan 2014 #45
SidDithers Jan 2014 #44
Deep13 Jan 2014 #46
librechik Jan 2014 #47
Deep13 Jan 2014 #51
librechik Jan 2014 #56
truedelphi Jan 2014 #57
librechik Jan 2014 #61
Deep13 Jan 2014 #62
el_bryanto Jan 2014 #48
Deep13 Jan 2014 #50
Deep13 Jan 2014 #49
okaawhatever Jan 2014 #53
deutsey Jan 2014 #52
Deep13 Jan 2014 #54
upaloopa Jan 2014 #55
Deep13 Jan 2014 #63
Ellipsis Jan 2014 #58
bvar22 Jan 2014 #59
rug Jan 2014 #60
Deep13 Jan 2014 #64

Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 01:10 AM

1. An excellent breakdown of an often-misunderstood...

...and misapplied verse.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shandris (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 01:12 AM

2. thanks nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 03:12 AM

18. brilliant. I love good things told correctly. They are blinded and do not see. Thank you, honey.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 01:38 AM

3. Nice exposé

Last edited Sat Jan 11, 2014, 12:23 AM - Edit history (1)

I won't call it out. If the Christian right need to be corrected in assumptions of their belief systems I suppose meeting them on their own terms helps, and certainly needs and survival are important basic subjects to not misunderstand.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:48 AM

16. thanks, I guess.

call what out?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 01:42 AM

4. Unwilling not the same as Not Able

meaning one does not have a job.

Charity work does not pay well, and often costs money to do..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:47 AM

15. which is my whole point

charity work is "work," but the right does not consider it as such because it doesn't pay its volunteers.

No, unwilling and unable are different. The cited passage speaks to unwillingness, not inability.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 01:53 AM

5. I'll listen to Christians on this when they themselves listen to all of the bible

Which will be never.

They don't even take this verse serious - they adore ceo's and those who simply invest capital and not actual labor. "On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you."

Paul even says people have the right to that help "We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. "

Not to mention he was speaking ONLY to the church and not about what the local government should or should not be doing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:43 AM

12. The Bible did not exist as such until the 11th c.

Before then, it was a disconnected collection of "scripture," literally "writings." A monk may have a psalter or a copy of the Gospel of John, but that would be it. It was always in Latin and only accessible to ecclesiastical men, because they were the only ones who could read. When the Bible did become a single volume, it was keep under lock and key because it was astonishingly expensive to obtain. And even then, only a few could read it.

The point is that the Bible is not and never has been the final word on Christian theology. In fact, it has only been since the Reformaton that believers began to fetishize it as such.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:07 AM

6. Really interesting

And helpful. Thanks.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zentrum (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:38 AM

10. you're welcomed. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:12 AM

7. It's the Bible, ie: make believe. Who cares? eom

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:38 AM

9. about a billion and a half people.

And even if we are atheists, we are so in the context of a society that evolved with Christianity as its most significant cultural influence for the past 1700 years or so. Even if we decide we don't believe in Christianity, we do it within its context. In other words, you would not have to reject it if it weren't the dominant value system, at prior to capitalism. Besides, it really isn't fair to say it is just make believe. Whether it is true or not or partially so is far less important to how society constructs its norms and values than what people believe about it. So, yeah, there's no divinity, but our world is what it is because most people either believe otherwise, or their grandparents did.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 12:10 PM

42. A lot of us do.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:29 AM

8. Thank you for this well written post~ recommended n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:45 AM

14. thanks nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:39 AM

11. Recommend! The Lost Epistle of Deep13 to the Babblingbalonians!

A must read for all serious scholars of modern "Christianity".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:45 AM

13. thanks, it's just an awareness that holibooks are primary source documents...

...that must be read within their historic contexts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 03:41 AM

21. My pleasure. And yes, historical context seems supremely integral to reasonably accurate meaningful

understanding of holibooks written in the past.

An interesting, maybe somewhat trite, example of how the misinterpretation of language, expressions, concepts, etc, of bygone eras can lead to diverse misinterpretation of an authors primary intent can be seen here:

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10024283341

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:54 AM

17. Thank you!

Hazel didn't do windows, and wingers don't do context. They assume that their constituency believes everything that flows from their mouths. Anyone with a little ambition, like you Deep13, can debunk every one of their misquoted Bible verses simply by backing up a chapter or two before the verse and reading forward. They do the same thing with American History.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 03:23 AM

19. Excellent post.

Now I have ammunition for a future discussion with my conservative friend. Whenever we discuss politics, which isn't often because of obvious reasons, he always brings up the bible.

Thanks Deep13.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 03:29 AM

20. A thought

If applied literally, it means we should starve retirees because they no longer (hopefully anyway) work. We should also starve children too young to do chores, household pets, etc. It's absurd, but then so is most of the cherrypicking of Bible verses.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:41 AM

31. It's willingness, not ability.

There were hardly any retirees in the first century because people did not live that long. And in traditional societies, the elderly typically became the family babysitters. Children did work in those days. Again, context is everything. The letter is directed toward group busy-bodies who were sowing discontent and not contributing. This isn't computer code where each word must always be followed exactly. It's a general idea applicable to a specific situation.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #31)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 12:06 PM

41. Yeah, I get that

The whole idea of retirement is that you are no longer willing, or need, to work. That's why I called a literal application, which is heavily implied by those who use it, absurd.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 03:48 AM

22. The bible also says that placing sticks in front of mating goats gets you striped kids.

I love playing bible fight with fundies as much as anybody, but it's important to remember that it's a series of stories about how their tribe's dad could beat up your tribe's dad, with a later addendum that also the romans are jerks and they're gonna get it when dad gets home.

Taking it too seriously is a problem. Fighting about what it means without addressing that underlying problem really doesn't help in the long run, because you can't form a coherent and modern view of the world based on the haphazardly assembled writings of bronze age tribal cheiftans and priests.

Feed people because it's the right thing to do. Full stop.

There's no need to justify that based on what was written down about YWVH or Tiamat or Kahless the Unforgettable or The Old Gods and the New. Because even if the bible said that feeding hungry people was a smiting offense, it would still be the right thing to do.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:49 AM

34. I think it's a useful exercise...

...since millions of people in this country alone believe the Bible is a set of divinely dictated instructions. They do not consider historical context, modern bias, or memory studies at all. While I appreciate the scientific perspective--no evidence means no authority--it is also worth while to consider that finding weak spots in the wall maybe more effective than a frontal attack.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 04:22 AM

23. yes and just to add

Paul having a thorn in his flesh was very aware of pride. He worked hard to keep himself humble before his flock. Not wanting to abuse his authority over them or glorify himself by lording it over them. Not that he didn't have the right but knew it was better to work along side those he was trying to encourage than to extract praise by pulling rank.

Does any republican politician understand that today? No of course not. Pope Francis does and he is castigated for it. For these religious rightwingers to twist Scripture into a condemnation of the poor is reprehensible. But worse it is like you said. Malicious. They condemn themselves of the very thing Paul worked so hard to avoid. But then arrogance is standard in Washington where they live off those who do work.

Good job in exposing another lie by the GOP.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to florida08 (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:49 AM

35. thanks nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 04:36 AM

24. du rec.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 04:42 AM

25. Thanks for taking the time to post this. Rec. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 04:51 AM

26. A modern manifestation of

National Socialism.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 05:13 AM

27. Moreover...

in the context, it is not about how society should be run in general; but seems to be a specific attack on people who joined early Christian communities as hangers-on, causing trouble and refusing to contribute.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:50 AM

36. true. it is fact-specific nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 05:38 AM

28. Too bad DU only lets us rec once.

A very good piece of work. Did you post this on a blog as well?

It deserves wide circulation. And many people need to read this, far beyond DU.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:51 AM

37. thanks nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 06:43 AM

29. The church at Thessalonica

Capturetself caught up in “rapture fever.” Some of it’s members were so convinced that at any moment they would be raptured into heaven, they saw no reason to continue with daily chores that put food on the table for their families. In addition, they wanted to set around and speculate about what was going to happen when the rapture took place that they were a disruptive factor for those still going about their daily business. At the end of the day, they wanted the church food pantry o feed them and their families.
Ironically, Paul had started this mess by telling them about the rapture in the first place. So in his second letter to them he was trying to correct this. He reminds them that he continues on with his daily tasks (missionary work) even though he too looks forward to the rapture. Each of the Thessalonians should follow his example.
A particular solution to a particular problem, this instruction has no bearing on any other issue except perhaps for disruptive church members.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left is right (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 06:48 AM

30. His words were directed towards some men in the congregation

but not towards the women who did not have the freedom to set and jawbone about religious stuff on a day to day basis. They could talk about religious stuff with other women as they fetched water or washed clothes from the public wells/streams

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left is right (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:52 AM

38. Thnaks, that's pretty important context. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:42 AM

32. This describes the whole verse

and if I understand correctly, makes it important to help with actual tasks, chores and jobs to be considered real work.

What I keep hearing from bosses and owners is, "I've earned it," then go on to criticize and upbraid employees.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nilesobek (Reply #32)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:57 AM

40. Yup, and the further up the ladder it goes, the worse the sense of entitlement gets. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:48 AM

33. One thing they really misconstrue in the gullible and low-information public mind

is implying that this is some edict from Jesus Christ - that it is literally "Gospel" and Divinely inspired. Hell - it's some unnamed individual writing or transcribing or recalling something from memory. It's attributed to St. Paul because it's in one of his letters - if indeed he's the one who wrote those letters. All up for discussion.

But Jesus never meant this and did not teach or advocate it. His message was about helping the poor and downcast, not judging and ostracizing and demeaning them as lazy.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:54 AM

39. Yup, for sure. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 12:11 PM

43. Allegory n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Holly_Hobby (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 12:39 PM

45. Doesn't seem like it.

It seems like an effort to address a specific problem in a specific community.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 12:30 PM

44. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

1: 7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
1: 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

There's that all-loving savior we hear so much about.

Sid

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #44)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 12:41 PM

46. Well...yeah.

The thing I dislike most about Christianity is the idea that we are somehow born evil and undeserving and in need of salvation.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 12:46 PM

47. St. Paul--what a misogynist bastard.

My Mom pulled that one on me--written on a card she carries around with her everywhere, presumably to defend herself against any misguided non-Christians who question this creed of greed as hypocritical...

See, it's Christian to tell the poor to go die if they "won't work" It's in the Bible.

Anyway, St. Paul was scolding a bunch of rich layabouts who wouldn't pay their share. NOT the poor.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #47)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 01:06 PM

51. Paul's view of gender roles was pretty consistent with 1st c. norms.

By today's standards it seems misogynistic, but the concept is problematic when read backward in time The idea of the social equality and interchangeability of men and women is an idea that was first seriously advanced in the 19th century. In fact, early Christianity was spread mostly by women and afforded them more control over their on destinies than pagan Roman society did. During the next thousand years, times of social instability saw women exercising great agency both in secular and ecclesiastical life. The agency became restricted during times of stability which allowed the patriarchy to re-exert control.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 02:16 PM

56. well...

since one aim of early Christianity was to allow women to be priests and marriage by priests okay, I disagree with your assessment--Romans and Greeks like St. Joseph were long=term defenders of patriarchy, whereas my reading of say, the Gnostic Gospels indicate that Jesus and his followers wanted equal participation of women in the church.

However, I know opinions differ. My reading is that if it weren't for Paul, there would be no church at all. Too bad the church itself was determined to keep women subordinate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #56)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 03:40 PM

57. There is even a Gospel by Mary Magdalene -

However, it is not surprising that the "Church Fathers" in charge of the approval process circa the Nicene Conference of 316 were adamant that the only Church approved Gospels should be Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as the lacking in warmth Paul.

Even the Gospel of St Thomas was not approved.

And reincarnation, which an entire group of Church goers believed in, from the time of the Apostles through to and including the 200's, was vehemently opposed. Including the excommunication (posthumously!) of at least one Church father who had taught the belief in reincarnation.

From http://www.iisis.net/index.php?page=semkiw-reincarnation-past-lives-christianity

A number of Christian Church Fathers believed in and wrote about reincarnation:

St. Justin Martyr (100–165 A.D.) expressly stated that the soul inhabits more than one human body. (2)

Origen (185–254 A.D.), who was considered by St. Jerome as “the greatest teacher of the Church after the Apostles,” defended the idea that the soul exists before the body, fundamental to the concept of reincarnation. (3)

Another Church Father, St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (257–332 A.D.), wrote: “It is absolutely necessary that the soul should be healed and purified, and if this does not take place during its life on earth it must be accomplished in future lives. . . . The soul . . . is immaterial and invisible in nature, it at one time puts off one body . . . and exchanges it for a second.” (4)

St. Gregory also wrote: “Every soul comes into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of its previous life.” (5)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #57)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 09:25 PM

61. +1

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #56)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:53 PM

62. Yes, Greek and Roman societies were very patriarchal and restrictive for women.

To a degree medieval society emulated that, at least officially, but it is just as clear from surviving records that noble women at least exercised a great deal of power. While the records concerning common women are sparse, there is evidence to suggest that in certain circumstances they were able to exercise family leadership. I can't remember which charter it is off the top of my head, but there is an example of a medieval--probably 11th c.--land transfer from a noble family to a monastery which was nearly derailed because the serf woman whose family lived there objected. Serfs were tied to the land and could not be transferred willy-nilly.

For noble women, Christianity offered personal agency in the following ways. First, a religious--monastic--life was an alternative to marriage and childbearing and for an adult (age 15 or so) it was up to the individual to choose that life. Since it involved an oath, it could not be coerced. Likewise, marriage had to be consensual because oaths are not effective if coerced. That was a break from Roman norms. Christianity spread by marriage. If a woman became a Christian, it put strong pressure on her husband to convert too, especially since the children's religion tended to follow the mother. If that family was noble, then the commoners under their protection tended to convert too. Noble women also donated land--often their own dower property--to monasteries for spiritual and community relations benefits. They also donated children to be monks and nuns, and entered monasteries themselves as widows. It was not until the end of Charlemagne's reign in the 9th century that the ecclesiastical and royal authorities became sufficiently powerful to impose an exclusionary patriarchy. Even then, it had become somewhat undone by the opening of the Capetian era at the end of the 10th c., only to be reasserted again in the 13th.

The Gnosic writings tend to date from the 3rd century and are most significant for showing a dissenting point of view that existed at the time when Christianity was transitioning from being an underground fringe cult to an established religion. They are an interesting example of memory studies--as are the canonical writings--as they show how people constructed the memory of the founding of their religion. But like the canonical gospels, we cannot assume these after the fact writings are accurate reflections of the events in question. Fortunately, "what happened" is about the least interesting thing a historian can answer. How people perceived events and how they remembered them decades and centuries after the fact is far more interesting.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 12:50 PM

48. Interesting read and thanks for sharing

I think it belongs more comfortably in a religion forum, but it is worth considering.

Bryant

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #48)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 12:54 PM

50. I meant it more as a historical analysis, but yeah, maybe. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 12:52 PM

49. Actually, I'm rethinking my whole premse based on this reply. ...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 01:10 PM

53. That is also what I understood it to mean. Of course, you are just making a more general comment

whereas the other was more specific.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 01:08 PM

52. Thanks for this

Nice job placing this verse in context.

I grew up a United Methodist and knew a lot of evangelical types who always loved to quote a verse of scripture as if it was a self-contained insight or commandment. I also read those Jack Chick tracts that were packed with out-of-context scripture to support Chick's extreme fundamentalist views. They always ended with the main character ending up in Hell because he or she wasn't "born again."

I eventually dropped out of religion in my teens to early adulthood because as I grew up, I just saw the world as a much more complex and complicated place than a verse of scripture could encapsulate.

Ironically, after I entered a theological studies program at Georgetown U., my faith was actually revitalized when those dastardly Jesuits taught us to place the gospels within their historical/social contexts and encouraged us to read and interpret them in their entirety.

Regarding the Chick tracts: one of his favorite things is showing the sinful main character facing God on Judgment Day and having an angry God (who was always depicted as a faceless giant wearing a nightgown and sitting on a throne) thunder: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels!" MT25:41

That used to scare me when I was a kid reading those tracts (which was Chick's intention, of course). It wasn't until I read that verse within its larger context years later that I realized it was from a story Jesus is telling contrasting his true followers from his false followers. He said those who neglected the poor, the stranger, the imprisoned, etc. ("the least of these, my brethren") also neglected him and would, consequently, find themselves forever alienated from God.

It had nothing to do with a single event called being "born again," as Chick implied. It was about whether you really lived out the kind of life Jesus advocated and lived.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deutsey (Reply #52)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 01:19 PM

54. I'm in a similar position.

I was confused and frightened by some of these Biblical quotes, especially the one about offending the Holy Spirit. Eventually I rejected religion altogether. For the past two years, however, I have been studying medieval culture, which is dominated by Christianity, and even though I still cannot accept the idea of the supernatural, I'm not willing to dismiss all Christian values out of hand.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 01:41 PM

55. We don't run our country by the bible

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #55)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:55 PM

63. Are you sure? nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 03:45 PM

58. 3:10 to Yuma...




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 04:15 PM

59. DURec Worthy!

It is a pleasure to read a such well composed post in these days of Twitter and Snark.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 08:31 PM

60. Acts 4:32-37

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all
34that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales
35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”),
37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #60)

Fri Jan 10, 2014, 11:58 PM

64. Yup, context is everything. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink