• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Was Jesus as described in the bible a jerk?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Was Jesus as described in the bible a jerk?

Unread post

Lets clear up the rules right now, we (for this conversation) are going to assume Jesus was real and did everything as written and that the bible was divinely inspired. This is the common Christian stance here in America.So using the aforementioned criteria would Jesus be a jerk?MeasterAuronQuote:Are we sure this isn't followed by a but? Yep.MeasterAuronQuote:It doesn't specify when, you could receive most of these rewards posthumously.This is of course a common Christian rationalization, has Jesus let you down so often that you need to rationalize his words for him?MeasterAuronQuote:I doubt this really means what it says. I assume there's more in the passage. This is one of the ones DH needs to go over my knowledge is just too limited.It seems pretty clear to me.MeasterAuronQuote:The best I can do is mention that the bible also forbids putting god to the test.So Christ and the bible contradict themselves, every prayer is a test, but it does indeed say both god will answer your prayers and you must not put god to the test. MeasterAuron Quote:I thought we were remaining within the confines of the bible. In the bible the world is flat.So the bible errs here, why would we assume that Jesus, lord god would be so ignorant? being all knowing and so forth. MeasterAuron Quote:Or we could just mention that there's no mention of Jesus having superior knowledge of geography. He's god, he said so himself right in the bible, he should have known everything.MeasterAuron Quote:That directly contradicts the theme of other passages. A vast amount of the bible involves Jesus helping and fraternizing with all sorts of "sinful people" including Roman tax collectors, lepers, and the blind. Plus there's the story of the good samaraton. As for bigoted statements, you have one. I think we can discount this as some medieval skin head type trying to justify some recent war. Were not talking about where the writings come from. As written is it a bigoted statement and should Jesus as written in the bible be considered a good roll model or was he a jerk?MeasterAuron Quote:Actually he uses dog as an analogy.Right, he thought of her as less than human because she was a Canaanite and equated her worth as that of a dogs.Quote:That's odd since there's the story of the tree that bore no fruit?I'm only familiar with the biblical verses not other Christian stories. But I will get the quote for you.Mark 11:12-14 yet another juvenile reaction: Quote:The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it. Later we learn that the tree is dead.MeasterAuron Quote:Are you referring to the body of Christ ritual? No, believers must eat a little circular wafer to get into heaven.That's not what it says.MeasterAuron Quote:Are you for real? First off there is no such thing as a legit Satanist. Sure there are, they have a satanic bible and everything.MeasterAuron Quote:Second it's not saying you have to eat any human flesh it's talking about just his.That's bad enough, is there enough to go around?MeasterAuron Quote:Third it's blatantly a symbolic statement.To us it is now, but imagine what an impartial observer might think, also at the time written human sacrifice was common, I think at the time of its writing that it had a very different meaning, in fact Christians say that Jesus was the human sacrifice needed to appease god. Here is a look at other biblical sacrificial horrors...GodQuote:10 " 'If the offering is a burnt offering from the flock, from either the sheep or the goats, he is to offer a male without defect. 11 He is to slaughter it at the north side of the altar before the LORD, and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides. 12 He is to cut it into pieces, and the priest shall arrange them, including the head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar. 13 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest is to bring all of it and burn it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 14 " 'If the offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, he is to offer a dove or a young pigeon. 15 The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off the head and burn it on the altar; its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. 16 He is to remove the crop with its contents b and throw it to the east side of the altar, where the ashes are. 17 He shall tear it open by the wings, not severing it completely, and then the priest shall burn it on the wood that is on the fire on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD."Either way, as written, is it something that should be taught in modern society or is it horrid? MeasterAuron Quote:That goes into our excessive divine intervention discussion.What about changing future events by using verses in the bible, my slavery example is a good choice. How would that mess up free will?Later
MaesterAuron151

Re: Belief

Unread post

Quote:Here is the problem as I see it, where are these other interpretations coming from? What assumptions are made before an interpretation is made. We know that the bible is flat out wrong in many places so to assume Jesus is god and then try to assign a noble motivation to his actions would yield a FALSE interpretation.You are basing your description of the Jesus character off of a book that does not support your description.Now lets pretend for a moment that the gospels actually have hundreds of pages with lots of different messages and stories. If a great many of those messages don't fit with the one's you're talking about, the one's you're talking about require interpritation and study to determine if they are perhaps metaphorical.Quote:I agree, but so many people do.If you agree then why are you insisting that by taking Jesus' actions at face value you can prove that Jesus was a douch bag?Quote:Really, or was he just written that way? Did he even really exist? Who were the authors of the bible? How do you know anything about the real Jesus assuming there was one?Thats completely off the topic remember we're staying within the confines of the bible here as best we can per your requests.Quote:Read the passage... "The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit."There is no mention of a temple or any other motivation for approaching the tree other than hunger.Ok now ask yourself, why would there be mention of such a trivial and pointless event? I still suspect that this is a symbolic act. Like DH said the fig was significant as a fruit used for sacrifice in the jewish temple. One of the key points of the whole Jesus story was that he was setting the old Jewish order strait after it had lost its way.Quote:And what do you base that conclusion on? Not the scripture. Could it be that you are thinking that Jesus wouldn't do something nasty like that? And now you must rationalize his actions by making a guess as to his real intentions.This is no guess. Jesus as described in the bible does use parables a lot. He makes symbolic acts as well. Also Jesus as described in the bible goes against acts of bigotry a lot in his teachings actions and general nature. This one passage doesn't comply with the others so I must assume there's an alternative meaning behind it.Quote:But what if Jesus was like that? That is what the book supports, and since that is your only source for a description of the character how do you conclude otherwise?Well yeah if you ignore all the other passages. Rember there are many more passages in the bible then the ones you cited. You are focusing on the apparent negatives and in many cases these negatives apear to be metaphors.Quote:What if Jesus was totally made up and the person who wrote that particular passage was a bigot? Well then its kinda odd that he'd write it so Jesus' bigoted statement gets completely countered by the person he's treating with bigotry.Ancient buddhist saying"we do not see the world as it is, we see the world as we are"You read the passage of the caananite woman and see Jesus as being a terrible person. This supports your world view, not only is religeon wrong IYO but its leaders are corrupt.I read it and I see the statement "Anyone can be wrong" which rejects dogmatism. A concept key to my world view.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Belief

Unread post

Quote:MeasterAuronNow let's pretend for a moment that the gospels actually have hundreds of pages with lots of different messages and stories.So? Quote:MeasterAuronIf a great many of those messages don't fit with the one's you're talking about, the one's you're talking about require interpretation and study to determine if they are perhaps metaphorical.But a great many do as well, the sampling I gave is a rather small one and much of it was skimmed over. Quote:MeasterAuronIf you agree then why are you insisting that by taking Jesus' actions at face value you can prove that Jesus was a douche bag?Because I want to know how Jesus got this wonderful reputation when it is clear through scripture that he was more sinful than most modern people.Even if Jesus was acting from a higher authority why be such a jackass about it, steeling animals, being bigoted to non Israelites, lying, teaching crappy advice and that you must hate everything to follow Jesus, commanding sacrificial rites, offering conflicting information on the most important question a Christian can ask and of course using his divinity to do something really good rather than squandering it on magician's tricks. To a god there should have been countless ways to deliver every one of these messages in a clear concise way. Shoot if you give me the message you want delivered I can do a better job than the writers of the bible, and they had 2,000 years to clear things up.Quote:MeasterAuronThat's completely off the topic remember we're staying within the confines of the bible here as best we can per your requests. Hey I am just responding to your inquiry, if you can't justify this one that's ok. Quote:MeasterAuronOk now ask yourself, why would there be mention of such a trivial and pointless event? I don't know, a show of power perhaps? This at least is supported by the text. The bible seems filled with such events, but unlike you I can see what the face value statement says, and do not have to rely on guesswork to determine what it might mean.Quote:MeasterAuronI still suspect that this is a symbolic act. Why? You have never given a reason why that might be the case. I suspect that it's because religious people have been telling you that for the bulk of your life, but like you say later, anyone can be wrong.Quote:MeasterAuronLike DH said the fig was significant as a fruit used for sacrifice in the Jewish temple. From my reading of the passages the fig tree did not appear to be near any temple, it was "in the distance" on the road from Betheny, also there is no reason to assume the tree was the sole fig tree in the area, the passage says it was noticed because it had leaf, not because it was the only fig tree.Quote:MeasterAuronOne of the key points of the whole Jesus story was that he was setting the old Jewish order strait after it had lost its way.You maintain that but I do not see anything in the scripture to support it.Quote:MeasterAuronThis is no guess. Jesus as described in the bible does use parables a lot. So what?Quote:MeasterAuronHe makes symbolic acts as well. According to whom? besides even if the acts are symbolic the actual message might be different from the fluffy happy one offered by the church.Quote:MeasterAuronAlso Jesus as described in the bible goes against acts of bigotry a lot in his teachings actions and general nature. Like where, the bible totally endorses slavery, so to look down on people of differing cultures was "normal" at that time. Quote:MeasterAuronThis one passage doesn't comply with the others so I must assume there's an alternative meaning behind it.Again you are ignoring the plethora of other passages that support the few that I offered. At best you could make the argument that Jesus was a normal guy and was as prone to sin and emotional outburst as anyone else, he just did it more often because he thought he was acting on god's behalf.Quote:MeasterAuronWell yeah if you ignore all the other passages. Not all, there are plenty more that support the Jerk theory, any way with just my sampling, Jesus has already out jerked most people that I know. Quote:MeasterAuronRemember there are many more passages in the bible then the ones you cited. And many of them support my findings.Quote:MeasterAuronYou are focusing on the apparent negatives and in many cases these negatives appear to be metaphors. I am focusing on the negatives because Christians in generally never know that they exist at all, and I am very curious as to why people defend them so or ignore them completely.But I will ask again, how do you know that these passages are metaphorical and not just testaments to his magical prowess?You know, a warning, don't anger the lord. Quote:MeasterAuronWell then it's kinda odd that he'd write it so Jesus' bigoted statement gets completely countered by the person he's treating with bigotry.Does that excuse the bigot? I can best a KKK member in debate at will, but that does not excuse their bigotry. Jesus was apparently moved by the woman's faith, but does that change his attitude towards the non-believing Canaanites? Not necessarily, or even normally, and the scripture does not say that Jesus was moved to view all races as equals. Quote:MeasterAuronYou read the passage of the Canaanite woman and see Jesus as being a terrible person. This supports your world view, not only is religion wrong IYO but its leaders are corrupt.This is not my world view; it is simply my view of the passages selected, which is shared by many others I might add. When I read the bible I read it as a book that holds fiction stories, myth. Quote:MeasterAuronI read it and I see the statement "Anyone can be wrong" which rejects dogmatism. A concept key to my world view.That's a wonderful and wise comment, but it is not supported by the scripture. At best the passage leaves more questions than it answers, and any conclusion is pure speculation. A speculation that is normally when offered by the church or any other Christian is clouded by a preconceived idea of the Jesus character, which itself is not supported by the sole document that describes the character.Later
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Massive Poster
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 1158 times
United States of America

Re: Belief

Unread post

Quote:"Sorry Frank 013, but this one is true. If you pray to have your amputated leg regenerated and actually believe you have received it, then in fact a restored leg IS yours!"Frank 013 replied: So the leg can exist only in the person's mind, because they believe they have received it, but not necessarily real?So the definition of prayer should be a delusion that encourages other more harmful delusions... .Yes, I think that is the implication behind the admonition to "believe you have received it". If you actually believe you have received what you requested in prayer, it will be true for you - if not, your faith is weak.
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Jerks, Idiots, and Revolutionaries

Unread post

Frank: take the fig tree example, in the text the motivation for approaching the tree is hunger, no other motivation is given. Jesus is surprised to find that there is no fruit on the tree even though it is out of season for figs. He than curses the tree out of what appears to be spite.I think you miss the entire context for this episode; which is understandable, considering you are unwilling to take any of the text in context...at least not consciously. There's all sort of ideological binders and pressures guiding your reading: you're either unable or unwilling to see them. Only the Christians are belabored with such weakness. You have risen above it all: see it clear and clean of bias or presumption: nothing more than story and text in front of you! Really, Frank, come down to earth and deal with humans for once. That's what God did: Christians call it "Jesus". I don't think you are really reading the story at all. If you did, you'd see the way that Mark uses the Fig Tree to introduce and exit the entire Temple event. Before the Temple, a Fig Tree; after the Temple, the same Fig Tree. Now, I wonder if Mark is telling us something about the Temple event by way of this Fig Tree? Obviously he is. Jesus is hungry for food, the Fig Tree does not feed him; he curses it; Jesus is hungry for God, the Temple does not feed him; he overturns it. This is not about holy spite or random acts of malicious magic, as your interpretation holds: it is symbolism that captures how the Kingdom of God movement that Jesus participated in was in direct conflict with the centers of power of his day.Mark begins his Gospel with a clear indication regarding what to expect and the meaning of the events within it: Quote:Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"This is a story about revolution: the most radical of changes and transformation was underway...the Kingdom of God was near and everything else, all else, all things, needed to get in right relationship with that. Two of the most demanding obstacles to this were the Roman Empire and the Temple in Jerusalem; the latter largely because it was in collusion with the former.I think this is a crucial key to understanding the book of Mark. If you want to simply lift bits and pieces here and there and proclaim insight, that's your perogative...but you won't be telling us much about the story.Frank: Well if you have to interpret, project, presume, imagine, and guess your way through this book than it must not be very accurate or coherent now can it?I think finding coherency requires more than a few dips in the internet's Aint the Bible Stupid pool. I think the Bible is a book that draws out our projections, presumptions, biases, and imagination...few other books do anything like this, or to such a degree. I think this drawing out process tells us something about ourselves: and I think that is a big part of what reading the Bible is about. The text starts the conversation: sparks the wheels of thought, imagination and moral concern....it should insitgate the reader to question deeply held assumptions and views of the world: most importantly, to who or what do you belong?Some approaches involve highlighting the voice of women: the feminist challenge to lift up the nameless females and challenge the patriarchy that pervades so much of the book. Other approaches involve seeking out the powerless in the text: who is abused, abandoned, taken advantage of or hurt. Some approaches want to find the value places on nature: trees, water, soil, plants, the air and teeming life across the planet. How is the body viewed: kept separate, apart, cleansed, seen as dirty, anathema, diseased, healed? Who is speaking, who is silent? Who acts and who follows orders? What is symbolic, metaphoric, analogous, parabolic: obvious, subtle, hidden, or camoflauged in the narrative?You read the text and wrestle with these questions: alone and with others. You read the text in context: asking yourself "What am I looking for, why am I looking here, who am I serving when doing this?"I think the process is far more illuminating and transformative that what you are attempting in this thread.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Jerks, Idiots, and Revolutionaries

Unread post

Quote:DHI don't think you are really reading the story at all. Then you are wrong.Quote:DHIf you did, you'd see the way that Mark uses the Fig Tree to introduce and exit the entire Temple event. Before the Temple, a Fig Tree; after the Temple, the same Fig Tree. I did see that, but according to the text it seems like two different demonstrations. The fig tree example happens some 2 miles from Jerusalem Jesus curses the tree for not having fruit. Later that day Jesus childishly tosses the tables of the money changers and calls them names at the temple. The next day they pass the fig tree again and notice that it is dead, What is the connection? I do not see one except maybe his childish tantrums. Quote:DHNow, I wonder if Mark is telling us something about the Temple event by way of this Fig Tree? Obviously he is. It is not obvious to me.Let's look at the scripture to see if your derived meaning makes sense. Quote:Mark 11:20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.Mark 11:21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.So they are passing the tree peter notices it and makes a comment to Jesus. Mark 11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.Mark 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.Mark 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.This looks like Jesus is saying ask and you will receive, you see that I cursed the tree to die, and it did, so it is with any thing I say. So ask for stuff and if I say yes than it will be so.What I see here does not seem to be related to the temple events in any way. It looks to be a completely separate lesson about prayer, and a rather clear one at that. Quote:DHJesus is hungry for food, the Fig Tree does not feed him; he curses it; Jesus is hungry for God, the Temple does not feed him; he overturns it. This seems like quite a reach, nothing written even remotely leads a reader to that conclusion. Quote:DHThis is not about holy spite or random acts of malicious magic, as your interpretation holds: You have not shown this in any way. You have said what you think, but again the scripture does not support it. How could Jesus be hungry for god? Jesus was god. Why kill something alive and beautiful from his own creation just to make a point? This is the action of a Jerk.Especially since the message from the text seems to be one of Jesus' ability to answer prayer, not temple bashing. Quote:DHIt is symbolism that captures how the Kingdom of God movement that Jesus participated in was in direct conflict with the centers of power of his day.I do see this in the temple event but it is hardly symbolic, it is very clear that he despised those people and decided to trash their stuff and call them names, similar to what a Klan member might do to a black person's church. The message is clear from that passage alone. Just as the messages about the fig tree are clear on their own. It is when you attempt to put them together that the guess work must begin because they don't really fit. Quote:DHI think this is a crucial key to understanding the book of Mark.It may be but so what? like I said the message is clear enough from the table tossing episode.Quote:DHI think the Bible is a book that draws out our projections, presumptions, biases, and imagination...few other books do anything like this, or to such a degree.You think this, why? Because you have been brainwashed to since birth. You are so far gone you don't seem able to recognize the sickness of the book that is right in front of you.Quote:DHSome approaches involve highlighting the voice of women: the feminist challenge to lift up the nameless females and challenge the patriarchy that pervades so much of the book. Yea the feminists love the bible, that's why they had it changed.Quote:DHWhat is symbolic, metaphoric, analogous, parabolic: obvious, subtle, hidden, or camouflaged in the narrative?This is an entirely speculative endeavor. And like I stated before your assumed starting position/character is not the one supported by the scripture.Each of the passages I offered have meaning by themselves and it is rather clear. Context doesn't change that as far as I can see. Its only when you try to dictate a noble meaning to these passages that metaphors, imagination and guesswork become necessary. Quote:DHI think the process is far more illuminating and transformative that what you are attempting in this thread.And I don't, it is that way for you but that is because you and your people have spent hundreds of years trying to make sense of the ugly and transform it into something pleasant.You are covering up a turd with rose petals and then saying how nice it looks.It's still a turd underneath so whatever you do don't drop it. Later
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Holy Dung and Atheist Roses

Unread post

Frank: You are covering up a turd with rose petals and then saying how nice it looks.Turds are important: in many cases, they provide needed sustenance for fruits and veggies...fuel for the plant world. I am not covering turds with rose petals, but working to tend a garden with ancient fertilizer...it requires pulling a few weeds, keeping out vermin, and pruning vines. You, on the other hand see only a toilet full of shit.Frank: I do see this in the temple event but it is hardly symbolic, it is very clear that he despised those people and decided to trash their stuff and call them names, similar to what a Klan member might do to a black person's church.Besides the fact that Klansmen represented the status quo order of control, domination and oppression: the dominant hierarchy of social/political/religious order; and the Black Church were those kept out of political and social power, and seen as a threat to established racist norms...well, what more to say about your peculiar rosarch of the text?Actually, Frank, the Jesus you describe in the Temple is very similar to Frank's approach to Christians: it is very clear that he despised those people and decided to trash their stuff and call them names. You should be a bit more appreciative of the shoulders you stand on when claiming to see further and more clearly. Really, your stampede through the Scriptures is very similar to how you interpret Jesus' stampede through the Temple.I think this is clue to the Prophetic roots of Atheism and Freethinkers in Western Civilization. Jesus was calling upon those roots as he challenged the established norms and structures of power in his world: highlighting the abuses, malice and ignorance of those in charge; confronting the holiest of persons, locations and texts along the way.It seems, out of this holy dung has arose the rose of Atheism.
MaesterAuron151

Re: Holy Dung and Atheist Roses

Unread post

Quote:Does that excuse the bigot? I can best a KKK member in debate at will, but that does not excuse their bigotry.Ok you're not working with me here.My question was: If the episode was written by a bigot why would he have the caananite win the debate against Jesus? If you were writing a story to encourage atheism would you have an atheist confront a theist and lose? Certainly storys made to support certain views always demonstrate the opposing view point, but they don't let this viewpoint win.And once again staying within the confines of the bible, Jesus being god must have known that the caananite woman could best his bigoted statements. So why bother saying them if he knew they were wrong? It was an act.
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Belief

Unread post

Frank 013: I do think you might have misread Mad here, I do not presume to put words in his mouth but he does not believe that stuff any more than we do. But unlike us he just does not see any harm in believing it.I believe some of it. I do think that there was likely a historical Jesus, and that you could trace a probable biography if you were very critical of the Biblical sources. Maurice Goguel's "Jesus and the Origins of Christianity" is a pretty rigorous example of this sort of work. But it looks to me as though a lot of the more recognizably mythical elements have distorted the picture, and often in direct contradiction to what seems, to me, to have been Jesus' intent.Considering the short response I think I might have made him think... Maybe?You can always hope. But I'm making shorter responses these days, and checking in less. So it might be just that.misterpessimistic: Mad has offered defense for the bible in the past. I just want to know what I am missing by not being a biblical scholar! I keep hearing that phrase...I could just as easily offer of a defense of the Rig veda, or of the Iliad (which also had a religious function). I don't think that I've ever mounted a defense of any of these works (the Bible included) as though they were indicators of absolute truth or divine revalation. For all I know, they might be, but that's not really a point that I'm ready to address. I suppose by comparison, my defense of the Bible is fairly complex, but that's only because I believe human culture to be a complex aggregate of relationships, which it is a mistake to underestimate.Although, after reading the Dawkins book, I am considering raising the bible discussion from the dead (still born as it was)...but I am not sure I want Mad, Dissident or any of the other thiests picking and choosing the readings.In defense of my own methodology, I wasn't "picking and choosing" the readings -- I was laying out the order of the readings. My purpose in doing so wasn't to make the Bible unassailable -- far from it, I was trying to use later books of the Bible to give some us some idea of the culture in which those earlier books were written. In other words, if Genesis was written during the Solomonic renaissance (which is our best historical guess, at the moment), then it might help us to understand Genesis if we first understand that period in Israelite history. Actually, I had tried to set up the reading so that we got a better historical (rather than religious) understanding of the Bible, and so that, in doing so, we'd have gotten a better sense of how it has effected culture and how changes in culture have effected it.And if that failed, I also invited people to comment on the structure and make suggestions. There just weren't many people involved, though, so I didn't get much in the way of feedback.Basically, I would like someone to answer my post in the Dawkins forum: what about the incest and giving away of daughters for gang bang sex to avoid confilct (oops! There I go using aggressive, inconsiderate words again...maybe I should say "Offering my young daughter to the pleasures of others" there, that makes it better).The way I see it, how you judge those scenes depends entirely on how you answer the question: are we supposed to take those as moral guides? I don't think we are, so I don't see them as being any more pernicuous than, say, "Hamlet". Despite the fact that literalist, fundies continually take it that way, I don't think that the Bible was intended to be a monolithic, homogenous whole. It's a bit like the canon of Classical authors -- a group of works, each having its own purpose and method, that were bound together into a canon because they all had some import to and bearing on a particular culture.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Jesus the jerk

Unread post

Quote:DHI am not covering turds with rose petals, but working to tend a garden with ancient fertilizer...it requires pulling a few weeds, keeping out vermin, and pruning vines. This would be a convincing argument if it was the only or even best way to accomplish your agenda but it isn't. Quote:DHBesides the fact that Klansmen represented the status quo order of control, domination and oppression: the dominant hierarchy of social/political/religious order; and the Black Church were those kept out of political and social power, and seen as a threat to established racist norms...well, what more to say about your peculiar rosarch of the text?I was talking about a modern Klansman. Quote:DHActually, Frank, the Jesus you describe in the Temple is very similar to Frank's approach to Christians: it is very clear that he despised those people and decided to trash their stuff and call them names. You should be a bit more appreciative of the shoulders you stand on when claiming to see further and more clearly. Really, your stampede through the Scriptures is very similar to how you interpret Jesus' stampede through the Temple.I am not claiming anything of the sort I am asking how you get the nice and sinless Jesus from the scripture, which does not support that claim. I also commented on the extraordinary lengths and baseless assumptions you have to make to support that claim. My poop analogy might have been in bad taste (heh), but it holds true that Christians have dressed up the Jesus character to better than the bible shows him to be. Quote:DHI think this is clue to the Prophetic roots of Atheism and Freethinkers in Western Civilization. Many people think that religion has gotten off way to easy for way to long and I tend to agree. Just as I would look harshly at a person who said that they believed in unicorns, I am holding religion to the same standards. Quote:DHJesus was calling upon those roots as he challenged the established norms and structures of power in his world: highlighting the abuses, malice and ignorance of those in charge; confronting the holiest of persons, locations and texts along the way.And now I am doing the same thing, but you refuse to see any possible negatives with your perfect book. You won't even consider my argument because you are too offended to be rational. Quote:MaesterAuronMy question was: If the episode was written by a bigot why would he have the Canaanite win the debate against Jesus?The woman did not win the argument she assumed the role of the dog and asked for the crumbs that fall from the table that a dog would eat.Also a bigot would view this as the ultimate act of compassion; and if that was the intent of this passage than a bigoted person might add it as such.Saying something like "look how compassionate Jesus was he would even help those people!"And the message that people of other races and cultures were lesser beings is one found thought the bible. Later
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”