NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly, just to set one thing straight, this is not designed to attack anybodies religion. I just read this article and found it interesting.

http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/

It basically takes the teachings of Jesus in some of New Testament and uses them to demonstrate that private hoarding of wealth and the basic premise of free market capitalism is contrary to the charity essential to Christianity.

Rather like the Biblical statement that it is easier for a loaded camel to get through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.

Now, obviously some Christian parables go against this - the parable of the talens for example. But I was interested in what people think of this. Did Jesus really advocate communist style community sharing rather than capitalist self-interest?

Personally, I think that this is the correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, but I'm not really Christian and my political beliefs would tend me in that direction anyway.

So two questions - is this what the teachings in the Bible mean, and if so can right-wing market philosophy (as opposed to social policy) be reconciled with it? Thoughts, comments and queries please!

Bieng baptized Catholic, but having holy water bubble and turn an odd shade of pink when I walk into a church, I have read the Bible, heard the debates, and formulated a solution to this question.

The correct answer is yes.. and no.

The big J, as any other holy figure worth thier weight only wants you and yours to be happy. In addition, they all think it is a good idea if you help others to be happy too. Whether it is forced helping of your fellow man through communism and capitalist welfare or just giving a hungry person food, you probably score the same points for the help others part. If you enjoy communism, or are just generally happy no matter what your personal plight, then you get the points for bieng happy.

Just a lil insider info... you keep your own score on the points though, the other guy went on vacation and hasent come back.

Sagir, Emperor of Successoria
_________________________
Just do it...if it was good then do it again.

I personally think they are, I'm an economically left Catholic. Jesus didn't advocate actual communism, but he definitely advocated what seems like welfare and moderate socialism. But I also find them hypocritical in their condemning and unkindness… some of them really do resemble the very Pharisees who killed Jesus.

Sorry, I went off on a bit of a tangent there.

The Unitarian Universalist church did a marvelous series on the historical Jesus. Based on those, I would say he advocated living as though we were in the kingdom of God now, i.e. dedicating ones self fully to God and abandoning the ideas of personal gain of social bias. I'm not a Christian either, but many of the things Jesus said were amazingly socially progressive and provide a challenge to even the most liberal minded. I have to admit I would have a hard time giving everything I own away or inviting drug dealers and prostitutes (today’s despised groups of people) off the street into my home. Personally, I greatly admire the man for his progressive, egalitarian, pacifistic philosophy. In my opinion, his example is one to be emulated as far as each is capable. I don't feel the political right has too much in common with his teachings.

Firstly, just to set one thing straight, this is not designed to attack anybodies religion. I just read this article and found it interesting.

http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/

It basically takes the teachings of Jesus in some of New Testament and uses them to demonstrate that private hoarding of wealth and the basic premise of free market capitalism is contrary to the charity essential to Christianity.

Rather like the Biblical statement that it is easier for a loaded camel to get through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.

Now, obviously some Christian parables go against this - the parable of the talens for example. But I was interested in what people think of this. Did Jesus really advocate communist style community sharing rather than capitalist self-interest?

Personally, I think that this is the correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, but I'm not really Christian and my political beliefs would tend me in that direction anyway.

So two questions - is this what the teachings in the Bible mean, and if so can right-wing market philosophy (as opposed to social policy) be reconciled with it? Thoughts, comments and queries please!

For reference, I am a Christian.
I think Jesus was mostly interested in the individual's relationship with God. He came that we might know God personally. A Christian's viewpoint on economics should be a spin-off from this central point.
Thus, as Jesus and the OT says, we should love our fellow man, who is also loved by God, that we may share in His love, and so be like Him. Thus doing good to our fellow man can be a bit like socialism. The difference is that socialism forces you to give to others. E.g. the welfare system is only possible because the government makes everyone pay taxes. This is an enforced generosity, and thus not really what Jesus was interested in. He looked into people's hearts, and he wanted real generosity that comes from cheerfully giving out of love and concern for fellow man. I'm not saying that I think socialism wrong. But I do think that Jesus was never implying that we should pass laws that make it wrong not to give our money to others.
On the other hand, capitalism is in some ways consistent with what Jesus taught, for in capitalism, each person has free choice to be as generous as he thinks God wants him to be. The problem with capitalism, and with any political system, is that it allows abuse, (perhaps more abuse than socialism, I can't say), where people can choose to be greedy and mean with their wealth. The great point in capitalism is that it allows people their own choice. This is exaclty what Jesus was trying to do.....get everyone to think enough to make their own choices, the choice to follow Him for example, to give their money away if it prevents them from following him wholeheartedly. There is no law in capitalism that says you must not give your money away.
The main point....Jesus was neither capitalistic, nor socialistic. We Christians are left to make our own choice in economics, so there is no wonder that you find so many on both sides of the debate.

Well.. most of Europe, where Christianity and "Christian thinking" permeates many aspects of live, consists of basicly socialist states. The Christian parties in those countries also sometimes speak against things like the big differences in income between for instance workers and managers - calling them unchristian. So this seems to support that stance.

And of course, it means that the capitalist USA is per definition not a Christian nation ;)

Well.. most of Europe, where Christianity and "Christian thinking" permeates many aspects of life, consists of basically socialist states. The Christian parties in those countries also sometimes speak against things like the big differences in income between for instance workers and managers - calling them unchristian. So this seems to support that stance.

And of course, it means that the capitalist USA is per definition not a Christian nation ;)
What kind of countries are you classing as Socialist? (and don't say them too loud or G. Bush'll put them on the target list if they're not down already)

If you're saying a country is either capitalist or socialist then most (technically all, no explicitly communist gov's left in Europe) of Europe is capitalist. If they're either dictatorial or socialist (with socialistic political tendencies, ie. democratic) then all are socialist with the exception of the UK which is a monarchy as ruled by Emperor Tony the First.

that's a great signature by the way!!

Bieng baptized Catholic, but having holy water bubble and turn an odd shade of pink when I walk into a church, I have read the Bible, heard the debates, and formulated a solution to this question.

The correct answer is yes.. and no.

The big J, as any other holy figure worth thier weight only wants you and yours to be happy. In addition, they all think it is a good idea if you help others to be happy too. Whether it is forced helping of your fellow man through communism and capitalist welfare or just giving a hungry person food, you probably score the same points for the help others part. If you enjoy communism, or are just generally happy no matter what your personal plight, then you get the points for bieng happy.

Just a lil insider info... you keep your own score on the points though, the other guy went on vacation and hasent come back.

Sagir, Emperor of Successoria
_________________________
Just do it...if it was good then do it again.
"The Big J?" Brilliat, just brilliant.

Oh, and yes, yes they arte hypocrites.

Rather like the Biblical statement that it is easier for a loaded camel to get through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.

I'm not sure where you are getting the part about the camel being loaded, but here is the passage you are referring to as it currently appears in Mark 10:25:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

However, there is some debate regarding what the original Aramaic saying was supposed to have been, given the Aramaic word for "camel" is apparently the same as the word for "rope" (and of course, the idea of a rope going through the eye of a needle makes a great deal more sense than a camel, wouldn't you agree?).

But to answer your basic question - yes, I do think that most right-wing Christians are hypocrites. I don't have proof of this, exactly - it's just a personal observation.

"The Big J?" Brilliat, just brilliant.

A.k.a., "J Dog". :D

Firstly, just to set one thing straight, this is not designed to attack anybodies religion. I just read this article and found it interesting.

http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/

It basically takes the teachings of Jesus in some of New Testament and uses them to demonstrate that private hoarding of wealth and the basic premise of free market capitalism is contrary to the charity essential to Christianity.

Rather like the Biblical statement that it is easier for a loaded camel to get through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.

Now, obviously some Christian parables go against this - the parable of the talens for example. But I was interested in what people think of this. Did Jesus really advocate communist style community sharing rather than capitalist self-interest?

Personally, I think that this is the correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, but I'm not really Christian and my political beliefs would tend me in that direction anyway.

So two questions - is this what the teachings in the Bible mean, and if so can right-wing market philosophy (as opposed to social policy) be reconciled with it? Thoughts, comments and queries please!


While I think there are some … we have to remember a lot of their stance is not AGAINST helping people (to horde money) but rather they think it should be a personal choice when and where they donate rather then forced taxation.

I can see this … idelisticaly I would be on their side but practicality tells me that people … while being able to be very noble probably would not “donate” enough (and to the right places) to make as much of a difference

A.k.a., "J Dog". :D
With his hom-pops, "G-Man"

Considering that the Bible and even Big J openly contradict themselves in many, many, many passages through out the entire book, if you were to follow the Bible and biblical laws to the letter you would have to be a hypocrite.

A good website for looking at contradictary Bible verses and Jesus quotes is here (http://www.evilbible.com/) I don't agree with all of the views on the page, but having checked them, the actual biblical contradictions section is 100% accurate.

With the Bible as a guide, fundamentalists, who take it literally, by default must be hypocritical as the book that is the litral basis of their believes is contradictory to itself.

In my opinion, all religious people are hypocrites, in fact all people are hypocrites, every single person on the planet has stated a position and acted in a contrary manner at least once in their lives.

A good website for looking at contradictary Bible verses and Jesus quotes is here (http://www.evilbible.com/) I don't agree with all of the views on the page, but having checked them, the actual biblical contradictions section is 100% accurate.
Actually, those aren't contradictions in the Bible per se, just breaks between the human view of what is right and wrong (so horribly skewed these days) and God's view. It took reading the first in the list, about Abraham preparing to ritually sacrifice his son to show a little bit of dumbness (for want of a better word) on the part of the website author. never mind eh.

Actually, those aren't contradictions in the Bible per se, just breaks between the human view of what is right and wrong (so horribly skewed these days) and God's view. It took reading the first in the list, about Abraham preparing to ritually sacrifice his son to show a little bit of dumbness (for want of a better word) on the part of the website author. never mind eh.
Yeah here is a “better” listing of some actual contradictions

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Yeah here is a “better” listing of some actual contradictions

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
that's better. much more entertaining, and equally as misguided.

eg. true, the bat is not a bird, but try explaining the mammalian vs ornithological genus classification structure to a bunch of people hungry enough to eat anything with a pulse. not fun. they tend not to wait:

'now the essential difference is the structure of the flying mechanism between body and outstretched limb.. no, see, you've done it now. Ozzy, put the bat down.'

that's better. much more entertaining, and equally as misguided.

eg. true, the bat is not a bird, but try explaining the mammalian vs ornithological genus classification structure to a bunch of people hungry enough to eat anything with a pulse. not fun. they tend not to wait:

'now the essential difference is the structure of the flying mechanism between body and outstretched limb.. no, see, you've done it now. Ozzy, put the bat down.'
Calling the whole list misguided because of one biological point (specially when it is technically right) is hardly warranted (some are better then others … in any listing like that it is usually true)

Calling the whole list misguided because of one biological point (specially when it is technically right) is hardly warranted (some are better then others … in any listing like that it is usually true)
see now i didn't call the entire list misguided because of one item. I just called it misguided. kind of like one of the other contradictions, about who was at the empty tomb. Nowhere does it say:

'Mary M and Mary M ONLY'
or
'Mary M and Mary J's Ma, that's Mary M and Mary J's Ma ONLY'

see where I'm going. I could go through the list pointing out inadequacies of every point, some of which would make you think, others of which you would contest and not believe... but I have work to do.

And I'm lazy.

I'm not sure where you are getting the part about the camel being loaded, but here is the passage you are referring to as it currently appears in Mark 10:25:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

However, there is some debate regarding what the original Aramaic saying was supposed to have been, given the Aramaic word for "camel" is apparently the same as the word for "rope" (and of course, the idea of a rope going through the eye of a needle makes a great deal more sense than a camel, wouldn't you agree?).

But to answer your basic question - yes, I do think that most right-wing Christians are hypocrites. I don't have proof of this, exactly - it's just a personal observation.

I believe the 'eye of the needle' was a gate in a city wall.

I believe the 'eye of the needle' was a gate in a city wall.
So from the ancient aramaic.. 'it is easier for a rope to go through a gate in the city wall than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven'. blimey JC uses some bad analogies.

Either that or it's a veiled reference to the recent proliferation of fat cats at the premiere of Ridley Scott's latest offering.

come on, that would have been impressive..

Firstly, just to set one thing straight, this is not designed to attack anybodies religion. I just read this article and found it interesting.

http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/

It basically takes the teachings of Jesus in some of New Testament and uses them to demonstrate that private hoarding of wealth and the basic premise of free market capitalism is contrary to the charity essential to Christianity.

Rather like the Biblical statement that it is easier for a loaded camel to get through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.

Now, obviously some Christian parables go against this - the parable of the talens for example. But I was interested in what people think of this. Did Jesus really advocate communist style community sharing rather than capitalist self-interest?

Personally, I think that this is the correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, but I'm not really Christian and my political beliefs would tend me in that direction anyway.

So two questions - is this what the teachings in the Bible mean, and if so can right-wing market philosophy (as opposed to social policy) be reconciled with it? Thoughts, comments and queries please!

Jesus was not a Communist.

a)He loathed sloth (Communism rewards it, or at least tolerates it)

b)The "rich man getting into heaven" parable was taught to show that money should not be a person's #1 priority... not necessarily that any certain amount of money would "exclude" someone from heaven. Jesus said that to believe in him would be sufficient for salvation... and he didn't mention personal wealth then.

c)Jesus supports personal giving... we should give to others. We may give to the poor of our own accord, not through the government. I doubt Jesus would prefer the impersonal/arbitrary giving of the government to that of the person who wants to help a specific person or specific charity/cause.

d)Jesus honored hard work... capitalism places a premium on this. (see Protestant Work Ethic)

So from the ancient aramaic.. 'it is easier for a rope to go through a gate in the city wall than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven'. blimey JC uses some bad analogies.

Either that or it's a veiled reference to the recent proliferation of fat cats at the premiere of Ridley Scott's latest offering.

come on, that would have been impressive..

Well, Matthew, Mark and Luke all seem to have used "Kamelos", which is pretty unequivocal... It looks like it's a camel.

We can assume that the Needle Eye gate would be a small gate... maybe something to do with a sewer gate?

(There are precedents for 'gate names'... First Chronicles 9:18 "Who hitherto waited in the king's gate eastward..." or Second Kings 14:13 "...the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits....".)

Well, Matthew, Mark and Luke all seem to have used "Kamelos", which is pretty unequivocal... It looks like it's a camel.

We can assume that the Needle Eye gate would be a small gate... maybe something to do with a sewer gate?
so its greek.. not aramaic.

whatever, sounds like its back to the old 'camel on wheeled trolley, pull through small gate whilst avoiding faeces' effort. Oldest trick in the book.

Firstly, just to set one thing straight, this is not designed to attack anybodies religion. I just read this article and found it interesting.

http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/

It basically takes the teachings of Jesus in some of New Testament and uses them to demonstrate that private hoarding of wealth and the basic premise of free market capitalism is contrary to the charity essential to Christianity.

Rather like the Biblical statement that it is easier for a loaded camel to get through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.

Now, obviously some Christian parables go against this - the parable of the talens for example. But I was interested in what people think of this. Did Jesus really advocate communist style community sharing rather than capitalist self-interest?

Personally, I think that this is the correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, but I'm not really Christian and my political beliefs would tend me in that direction anyway.

So two questions - is this what the teachings in the Bible mean, and if so can right-wing market philosophy (as opposed to social policy) be reconciled with it? Thoughts, comments and queries please!

Jesus was in no way a communist. He was charitable, definetely, and wanted us to help those down on their luck, and that needed help. What he didn't say was "the government should take over the means of production as well as the major corporatins, make everyone pay really really high taxes, and redistribute the wealth according to need." He wasn't a commie. A bit socialist, maybe.

Jesus was in no way a communist. He was charitable, definetely, and wanted us to help those down on their luck, and that needed help. What he didn't say was "the government should take over the means of production as well as the major corporatins, make everyone pay really really high taxes, and redistribute the wealth according to need." He wasn't a commie. A bit socialist, maybe.
he was a carpenter.. so probably used a hammer. maybe he did some farming as well.. brings in the sickle. therefore a communist. I think I've successfully thwarted your reasonable argument with my invented and pointless crap.

he was a carpenter.. so probably used a hammer. maybe he did some farming as well.. brings in the sickle. therefore a communist. I think I've successfully thwarted your reasonable argument with my invented and pointless crap.

Schnapps,
you should be up on stage earning money.

he was a carpenter.. so probably used a hammer. maybe he did some farming as well.. brings in the sickle. therefore a communist. I think I've successfully thwarted your reasonable argument with my invented and pointless crap.

No, he had a prostitute washing his feet and massaging them with oil. I think he was a political consultant to the Democratic Party.

He spoke lovingly of sheep and sparrows, so he was obviously a tree-hugging-hippie Green.

lol, this is pointless.

Firstly, just to set one thing straight, this is not designed to attack anybodies religion. I just read this article and found it interesting.

http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/

It basically takes the teachings of Jesus in some of New Testament and uses them to demonstrate that private hoarding of wealth and the basic premise of free market capitalism is contrary to the charity essential to Christianity.

Rather like the Biblical statement that it is easier for a loaded camel to get through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.

Now, obviously some Christian parables go against this - the parable of the talens for example. But I was interested in what people think of this. Did Jesus really advocate communist style community sharing rather than capitalist self-interest?

Personally, I think that this is the correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, but I'm not really Christian and my political beliefs would tend me in that direction anyway.

So two questions - is this what the teachings in the Bible mean, and if so can right-wing market philosophy (as opposed to social policy) be reconciled with it? Thoughts, comments and queries please!
The ideal Christian community would be a perfect communist plural theocracy. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, this has only worked a very few times since the cricifixion.

Maybe Jesus had something in mind that transcended communism and capitalism?

(I am not a Christian, nor am I a conservative, although I am somewhat of a conservative-leaning libertarian)

I don't think that they're hypocrites, really, just that they've fallen into a trap, the trap being that they've been taught that only Christians can be moral.

Therefore, they have to believ, to proclaim, to convince themselves that they're following the teachings of Jesus, even when they aren't.

A quick example: Msany conservatives (at least in the USA) place great stock in a somewhat amorphous concept they call "Family Values". Nothing wrong with that.

Unfortunately, in Luke 14:26, Jesuys comes out foursqaure unequivocally against this concept of family values:

If any come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

(Come to think of it, the same Conservatives like to point to the Ten Commandments, but Jesus seems to be arguing against that pesky "honor your father and your mother" thing herer, doesn't he?)

And of course, that whole thing about giving all you own to the poor. Not very conservative, is it?

So, not hypocrites, in my opinion, but not really the believers in the teachings of Jesus that they think themselves to be. As a non-Christian, I would feel a lot better about conservatives if they would realize that they are not Christians in any reasonable sense.

I would like to suggest that you might find interesting the following links about the disconnect between Jesus' words and deeds as reported in the NT, and what Christians assume about Jesus (thus implying they haven't really read their own Holy Book, because it's all there in black and white):

The Only Sinless Man? (http://www.geocities.com/llfptfu/tosm.html)

What Would Jesus Do? (http://www.geocities.com/llfptfu/wwjd.html) (This one is a little sarcastic, but they're both bibically accurate)

Any sweeping question like "are all _____" anything is of course going to have some exceptions, so I'll try to limit this to those groups that make the most noise about who they are and what they do.

There was a terrific article in Harper's Magazine (http://www.harpers.org/SoldiersOfChrist.html) called Soldiers of Christ. It focused mainly on Pastor Ted Haggard and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, CO. He's the most influential pastor you've never heard of--he makes James Dobson and Jerry Falwell look like streetcorner preachers. He's the head of the biggest mega-church in the country, and that church is the spawning point for the thousands of mega-churches that have sprung up in the last ten years or so. The article is long, but it's worth reading, if only for nuggets like this one:
New Lifers, Pastor Ted writes with evident pride, “like the benefits, risks, and maybe above all, the excitement of a free-market society.” They like the stimulation of a new brand. “Have you ever switched your toothpaste brand, just for the fun of it?” Pastor Ted asks. Admit it, he insists. All the way home, you felt a “secret little thrill,” as excited questions ran through your mind: “Will it make my teeth whiter? My breath fresher?” This is the sensation Ted wants pastors to bring to the Christian experience. He believes it is time “to harness the forces of free-market capitalism in our ministry.”
Now, I'm no longer a religious person, but when I was, my religion was not about "brand." It was about a search for universal truth (which is why I'm no longer religious). But here's where I think Pastor Ted--and his followers--go severely astray from the teachings of Christ, who was, all economic considerations aside, definitely a pacifist:
And that is why he believes spiritual war requires a virile, worldly counterpart. “I teach a strong ideology of the use of power,” he says, “of military might, as a public service.” He is for preemptive war, because he believes the Bible’s exhortations against sin set for us a preemptive paradigm, and he is for ferocious war, because “the Bible’s bloody. There’s a lot about blood.”
And that's where I become the implacable enemy of those who would misuse the teachings of Jesus. Play your little games with whether Jesus would have been a capitalist or a communist if you must, but Jesus was no warmonger, and the second you try to turn him into one, you become, well, anti-christ for lack of a better term.

"If any come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

What He meant was that God must come first, even ahead of a person's family and concerns for himself.

if you look at what jesus told us to do, we all fall far short.

Jesus was not a Communist.

a)He loathed sloth (Communism rewards it, or at least tolerates it)

Whereas capitalism *hates* sloth. Apart from the idle rich, that is. It's OK to be slothful if you're already stupendously wealthy. So capitalism may not *reward* sloth, but it sure as hell holds it up as a shining beacon of hope to be attained. Or inherited.

b)The "rich man getting into heaven" parable was taught to show that money should not be a person's #1 priority... not necessarily that any certain amount of money would "exclude" someone from heaven. Jesus said that to believe in him would be sufficient for salvation... and he didn't mention personal wealth then.

It wasn't a parable. Parables are stories told by Jesus to make a point. The rich man getting into heaven story is an account, in Mark 10, of a meeting between Jesus, his disciples, and a rich young man who wants to know how he can obtain eternal life. Jesus tells him:

Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. (Mark 10:21)

and, after the rich man had gone away disappointed, Jesus said:

How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! (Mark 10:23)

c)Jesus supports personal giving... we should give to others. We may give to the poor of our own accord, not through the government. I doubt Jesus would prefer the impersonal/arbitrary giving of the government to that of the person who wants to help a specific person or specific charity/cause.

Although there is the whole "render unto Caesar" line... but I think you're right. I think Jesus would prefer that his followers give everything that they have to the poor by themselves, of their own free will.

d)Jesus honored hard work... capitalism places a premium on this. (see Protestant Work Ethic)

Can you quote any scripture to justify this? I know Jesus said that his disciples should not "work for food that spoils" (i.e. should not concern themselves with working for a living), but should concentrate on the "food that ensures eternal life" (i.e. on spiritual works) (John 6:27). He also said, as regarding the acquisition of wealth:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. (Matthew 6:19-20)

The "Protestant Work Ethic" is not scripturally based but instead relies on the idea of predestination and the concept of the Elect, whereby earthly wealth and status is seen (or excused) as a mark of divine favour. And again, capitalism doesn't place a premium on hard work: it places a premium on wealth. The two are not synonymous. Does a nurse work harder than a movie star? Who gets paid more?

And that's where I become the implacable enemy of those who would misuse the teachings of Jesus. Play your little games with whether Jesus would have been a capitalist or a communist if you must, but Jesus was no warmonger, and the second you try to turn him into one, you become, well, anti-christ for lack of a better term.

Jesus likely would have supported people's freedom, even if war were necessary to attain it ... and don't forget that when the Israelites were following God's commands in the Old Testament, they were quite warlike in claiming land/driving out the philistines etc. Jesus and God are the same, only different aspects (as water and ice are both H2O):

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

("the Word" is Jesus)

I would like to suggest that you might find interesting the following links about the disconnect between Jesus' words and deeds as reported in the NT, and what Christians assume about Jesus (thus implying they haven't really read their own Holy Book, because it's all there in black and white):

The Only Sinless Man? (http://www.geocities.com/llfptfu/tosm.html)

What Would Jesus Do? (http://www.geocities.com/llfptfu/wwjd.html) (This one is a little sarcastic, but they're both bibically accurate)
heh heh, is that the Luciferian People's Liberation Front of Judea or the People's Liberation Front of Luciferian Judea?

Maybe Jesus had something in mind that transcended communism and capitalism?
I think he just may have..

I believe the 'eye of the needle' was a gate in a city wall.

that's actually a story made up to make rich people feel better about themselves. there has never been any evidence to support the existence of such a gate.

and the story that goes along with the myth of a gate (that a camel sort of can fit through the gate, but only if you unload all of the stuff it's carrying) makes the rest of the passage in the bible sound ridiculous. jesus' talk of things being impossible except through god is a give away that he's going for a healthy dose of hyperbole with the camel/needle thing.

that's actually a story made up to make rich people feel better about themselves. there has never been any evidence to support the existence of such a gate.

and the story that goes along with the myth of a gate (that a camel sort of can fit through the gate, but only if you unload all of the stuff it's carrying) makes the rest of the passage in the bible sound ridiculous. jesus' talk of things being impossible except through god is a give away that he's going for a healthy dose of hyperbole with the camel/needle thing.

Do you have evidence that it is "a story made up to make rich people feel better about themselves"?

I have seen evidence in scripture of named gates on cities - and this is something that carried on throughout Europe until fairly recently... if it is not still being done now. Look at maps of English cities an see how many 'Broadgates' (which would be the main entry way to a town), 'Eastgates' (which would serve to be the access from a compass point... probably agricultural or market orientated traffic, taking advantage of a rising sun? Many 'Eastgates' are commerce areas. 'Churchgate' is another quite popular one, providing the access to and from the church.

I presented evidence of named gates from the Old Testament... I know there are more, which I can look up if I need to.

All of which supports the POSSIBILITY of the Needle Eye being a gate. There isn't much you can present to directly discredit that idea... and even less evidence that you could provide to show that the real meaning WAS about fitting a camel through a literal needle's eye.

However, there is some debate regarding what the original Aramaic saying was supposed to have been, given the Aramaic word for "camel" is apparently the same as the word for "rope" (and of course, the idea of a rope going through the eye of a needle makes a great deal more sense than a camel, wouldn't you agree?).

the early church consistently took it to mean an actual camel. and we find a nearly identical saying in the babylonian talmud, only they replace camels with elephants because they were the largest animal around in that cultural context. look at baba mezi'a 38b (http://www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/babamezia_38.html#PARTb) and berakoth 55b (http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_55.html#PARTb).

And that's where I become the implacable enemy of those who would misuse the teachings of Jesus. Play your little games with whether Jesus would have been a capitalist or a communist if you must, but Jesus was no warmonger, and the second you try to turn him into one, you become, well, anti-christ for lack of a better term.

Jesus likely would have supported people's freedom, even if war were necessary to attain it ... and don't forget that when the Israelites were following God's commands in the Old Testament, they were quite warlike in claiming land/driving out the philistines etc. Jesus and God are the same, only different aspects (as water and ice are both H2O):

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

("the Word" is Jesus)Jesus seemed to be pretty clear on it in Matthew 26:51-53
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
And I'm not going to get into a debate of the biblical validity of the trinity in
this thread--we've hijacked it enough, I think. Economically speaking, I happen to believe Jesus was, well certainly not a free-market capitalist, but probably not quite communist either--he did say "a workman is worthy of his wages" after all, but on the use of force and war in general, he's pretty clear.

Do you have evidence that it is "a story made up to make rich people feel better about themselves"?

the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of such gate at the relevant time, and there are no accounts of such a gate until a biblical commentator suggests it nine hundred years after the fact, and it didn't gain any popularity at all until the 15th century. if there was a gate (one particular one or an entire class of them) that was refered to as the eye of the needle, you'd think somewhere in the immense pile of written documents we have from that time period somebody else would mention it at least in passing. they do not.

and the gate in jerusalem that is sometimes shown off as the gate in question 1) was built around the time of the crusades and 2) allows camels to walk through easily.

the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of such gate at the relevant time, and there are no accounts of such a gate until a biblical commentator suggests it nine hundred years after the fact, and it didn't gain any popularity at all until the 15th century. if there was a gate (one particular one or an entire class of them) that was refered to as the eye of the needle, you'd think somewhere in the immense pile of written documents we have from that time period somebody else would mention it at least in passing. they do not.

and the gate in jerusalem that is sometimes shown off as the gate in question 1) was built around the time of the crusades and 2) allows camels to walk through easily.

There is certainly evidence of gates in the Jerusalem walls... you are claiming there is no evidence of one named 'needle's eye' or somesuch... but, that is of course, not necessary, now is it?

Sailing into New York, you may exclaim how lovely Lady Liberty is... yet, two thousand years from now, that reference may be incomprehensible to the historian... who would not be able to find such a landmark on today's maps.

So - we first have to consider that the gate called the Eye of the Needle, may have ACTUALLY gone by a very different name.

You also seem to ignore the fact that, for the 'huge piles of evidence' from that era, we have only one 'set' of manuscripts that even acknowledge the existence of Jesus himself. Mere absence of evidence, is not the same as evidence of absence.

I might ask, for example.... what was the name (or the names, who can be sure) of the gateway that lies in ruins BELOW the Damascus Gate? What is the gate that is alleged to lie below the Golden Gate?

Jesus seemed to be pretty clear on it in Matthew 26:51-53

And I'm not going to get into a debate of the biblical validity of the trinity in
this thread--we've hijacked it enough, I think. Economically speaking, I happen to believe Jesus was, well certainly not a free-market capitalist, but probably not quite communist either--he did say "a workman is worthy of his wages" after all, but on the use of force and war in general, he's pretty clear.
If you have to fight to protect your country does that mean you live by the sword? NB: when God gives you a country, it is your country.


You also seem to ignore the fact that, for the 'huge piles of evidence' from that era, we have only one 'set' of manuscripts that even acknowledge the existence of Jesus himself. Mere absence of evidence, is not the same as evidence of absence.
you in turn ignore the fact that the one set is rather large and detailed!

you in turn ignore the fact that the one set is rather large and detailed!
As well as contradictory at points

If you have to fight to protect your country does that mean you live by the sword? NB: when God gives you a country, it is your country.
Yes--if you fight to protect your country, you live by the sword--that's pretty apparent, I mean. The overall point Jesus was making was that violence begets violence, and that it's a never-ending chain unless someone breaks it by refusing to be violent. Yeah, it's idealistic, but Jesus was all about the idealism.

But if God gives you a country? Well, it's awful convenient for a group to show up in an area, say "God gave us this land, so the rest of you who've been living here all along, piss off," isn't it? If there's less justification for the taking of land than that, I don't know what it is--bald-faced robbery based on might makes right is at least more honest than that.

As well as contradictory at points
'much of what we believe is true, from a certain point of view..'


Yes--if you fight to protect your country, you live by the sword--that's pretty apparent, I mean. The overall point Jesus was making was that violence begets violence, and that it's a never-ending chain unless someone breaks it by refusing to be violent. Yeah, it's idealistic, but Jesus was all about the idealism.
oookay, let's back up there for a minute. If you fight to protect your country AND ONLY to protect your country you do not live by the sword. If you fight to extend the borders of your country for no better reason than to improve your own status, THEN it can be said that you by the sword. Or the nuke in Mr Bush's case.

But if God gives you a country? Well, it's awful convenient for a group to show up in an area, say "God gave us this land, so the rest of you who've been living here all along, piss off," isn't it? If there's less justification for the taking of land than that, I don't know what it is--bald-faced robbery based on might makes right is at least more honest than that.
I agree up to the point where somehow 300 people take down armies of many tens of thousands. That's where I tend to think 'hmm.. there may be something else in this.' Of course there is the counter: 'only the winners of wars tell the story'.

oookay, let's back up there for a minute. If you fight to protect your country AND ONLY to protect your country you do not live by the sword. If you fight to extend the borders of your country for no better reason than to improve your own status, THEN it can be said that you by the sword. Or the nuke in Mr Bush's case.Jesus didn't make that distinction. In fact, Jesus wasn't all that concerned with national boundaries either, which pissed off a lot of the people of the day. They were apparently looking for a military leader to get rid of the Romans, and instead they wound up with a guy who preached love and understanding.

I agree up to the point where somehow 300 people take down armies of many tens of thousands. That's where I tend to think 'hmm.. there may be something else in this.' Of course there is the counter: 'only the winners of wars tell the story'.
I assume you're talking about Gideon and the Midianites, from Judges 7. Something to realize about that part of the Bible--it's about as accurate as the Arthur legends, Gilgamesh, or the Iliad. The archaeology of the area--and there's been more archaeology done in that part of the world than anywhere--points toward the conclusion that the "histories" of the period before King Josiah are basically legend pieced together from local groups, and written down in order to give the kingdom of Judah, which was transitioning from local tribal group to nation status, a sense of shared history. In that way, it's very much like the Iliad, or the Eddas, or the Irish stories about Cuchulain and Finn MacCool, or even the Arthur stories.

And even if it were accurate, there are plenty of examples of large armies being defeated by smaller, outmanned forces, without divine guidance. Agincourt springs immediately to mind, although that's probably because I just watched Henry V a couple of weeks ago.

No, he had a prostitute washing his feet and massaging them with oil.

Hey - no slandering one of the rare Goddess figures in the New Testament, now. Nowhere I know of does it say she was a prostitute, and I for one refuse to accept this common notion.

perhaps heroine is a more apt term than Goddess

Jesus didn't make that distinction. In fact, Jesus wasn't all that concerned with national boundaries either, which pissed off a lot of the people of the day. They were apparently looking for a military leader to get rid of the Romans, and instead they wound up with a guy who preached love and understanding.
true, he didn't. Which means if humans are going to talk about it, they'll have to apply some critical thinking and intelligence in defining it. Both of which I have in short supply...


I assume you're talking about Gideon and the Midianites, from Judges 7. Something to realize about that part of the Bible--it's about as accurate as the Arthur legends, Gilgamesh, or the Iliad. The archaeology of the area--and there's been more archaeology done in that part of the world than anywhere--points toward the conclusion that the "histories" of the period before King Josiah are basically legend pieced together from local groups, and written down in order to give the kingdom of Judah, which was transitioning from local tribal group to nation status, a sense of shared history. In that way, it's very much like the Iliad, or the Eddas, or the Irish stories about Cuchulain and Finn MacCool, or even the Arthur stories.
Except that the Iliad+Odyssey are works of fiction, as are the Arthur stories, albeit with some basis in fact. They're not explicitly put forward as the history of a country/religion.

hmm.. pentachuke forwards to whenever is most likely (war) diaries of whoever was in power at the time and power does have the tendency to corrupt...


And even if it were accurate, there are plenty of examples of large armies being defeated by smaller, outmanned forces, without divine guidance. Agincourt springs immediately to mind, although that's probably because I just watched Henry V a couple of weeks ago.
gotta love Agincourt.. now that's proper history.. no child should go through the education system without learning how a whup a bunch of frenchmen.

Apologies to enraged French people.

that scrap was kinda incluenced by tactics, Henry V being a master tactician an' all. Plus he got some of the ideas from the welsh. Gideon (from his own autobiog.) wasn't exactly Alexander the Great let's face it.

perhaps heroine is a more apt term than Goddess

No, I meant "Goddess". It's a Pagan story at its core, after all.

Except that the Iliad+Odyssey are works of fiction, as are the Arthur stories, albeit with some basis in fact. They're not explicitly put forward as the history of a country/religion.

hmm.. pentachuke forwards to whenever is most likely (war) diaries of whoever was in power at the time and power does have the tendency to corrupt...
That's just it, though--the stories in the Bible from creation until around King Josiah are about as factually accurate as the Arthur stories or the Iliad and the Odyssey, but a huge number of people on this planet take them as literal fact because their religious beliefs are tied up in them. Joseph Campbell once said that one person's religion is another person's myth--and he's right. Even a peremptory look at the archaeology of the Middle East makes a number of things clear--most of the stuff talked about in the Bible didn't happen, and what parts of it did happen, didn't happen when or how the Bible says it did.

But what that collection of stories and histories did for the Kingdom of Judah was help an emerging society start to believe in itself as part of a larger group instead of just being a lose confederation of tribespeople. It's the sign of a society's maturation that they come up with national myths to hold onto. It's fascinating reading when looked at in that fashion, far more fascinating than as literal history in my opinion, especially when you consider the effect that those stories still have on the world today, some 3,000+ years later.

Even a peremptory look at the archaeology of the Middle East makes a number of things clear--most of the stuff talked about in the Bible didn't happen, and what parts of it did happen, didn't happen when or how the Bible says it did.

But what that collection of stories and histories did for the Kingdom of Judah was help an emerging society start to believe in itself as part of a larger group instead of just being a lose confederation of tribespeople.
not having been there (and not knowing squat about archaeology) I'm not going to argue about that lot, although I will repeat the "just because you haven't found it, doesn't mean it's not there" software-verification thesis (errors).

certainly possible that the Biblical warring period literature is Israel's Matrix Oracle, telling them what they need to hear at a given point. it's also possible that with an all-powerful God (periodically) on their side they wouldn't really have to make anything up..

Jesus taught that love was paramount to EVERYTHING, even the Ten Commandments. Think about it, if you loved God, would you deny him, disobey him? If you loved your fellow man, would you kill him, steal from him, covet what is his, etc, etc... Because love comes before everything, everything falls into place when there is love. Charity is not greater then love, because if you love someone you would naturally be charitable to him. Charity without love (for example, people giving away money so others think better of them) however, is utterly meaningless in the judgment of God simply because it lacks love.

Jesus does not expect people to give away everything they own, he expects people to be WILLING to give away everything they own. People who care more about money then about their fellow man are with sin, that much is unarguable. This does not mean that everyone should give away everything they own, to do so would be idiotic and self-defeating. Understand? People can become blinded by material goods that are ultimately, when your soul is weighed, IRRELIVANT. THAT is the sin.

Someone who despises everyone who has more money then him, votes people into power who will chisel that money away from them, and give it to people you yourself probably couldn't give two shits about (and probably denied your own money) is not in any way a good Christian, or a good person for that matter. Someone who works all his life to create something for himself and his family yet feels a moral obligation to help those he rose above, and is charitable because of love and not because of vain self-interest. Well, that person is a good Christian and a good person.

To sum it up, moral Capitalism is not out of line with Christianity. Immoral or amoral Capitalism is an abomination. Socialism can keep trying all it wants, it isn't moral and isn’t going to be no matter how well intentioned its supporters are.

Does the "Christian Right" live up to what I wrote above? In general, probably not. On an individual basis, a lot of people do. Does a whinny leftist who claims to love everyone but can usually be seen condemning anyone with any advantage over anyone live up to what I wrote above? Not on your life, bub.

To sum it up, moral Capitalism is not out of line with Christianity. Immoral or amoral Capitalism is an abomination. Socialism can keep trying all it wants, it isn't moral and isn’t going to be no matter how well intentioned its supporters are.


While I understand where you are going with most of this … you presume my morals are yours … Somehow capitalism can have a morally right and wrong side but the economic view of socialism is always morally wrong no matter the intentions of its creators

"a whinny leftist"... Now, that's what I call love for your fellow man, brother ;)

While I understand where you are going with most of this … you presume my morals are yours … Somehow capitalism can have a morally right and wrong side but the economic view of socialism is always morally wrong no matter the intentions of its creators

Not all things are created equal. Not all things are to be judged as equal. Democratic Socialism is the majority stealing wealth from an unwilling but helpless minority out of their own resentment and self-interest. This is not moral by any stretch of the (Christian) imagination. This thread IS about Christian morality isn't it? If it was 100% participation Socialism then that would be moral, this being why I said keep trying. It's supports may feel like they are helping others but that isn't going to cut it. Under Capitalism every one person is free to do with his money what he chooses to do with his money whether it is moral or immoral.

you in turn ignore the fact that the one set is rather large and detailed!

The works of Tolkein are a large and detailed set, and, one might add, less morally ambiguous, and far more consistent.

I guess they must be a true and factual account, then, yes?

"a whinny leftist"... Now, that's what I call love for your fellow man, brother ;)

I don't have to agree what the person stands for to have good will towards my fellow man.

Not all things are created equal. Not all things are to be judged as equal. Democratic Socialism is the majority stealing wealth from an unwilling but helpless minority out of their own resentment and self-interest. This is not moral by any stretch of the (Christian) imagination. This thread IS about Christian morality isn't it? If it was 100% participation Socialism then that would be moral, this being why I said keep trying. It's supports may feel like they are helping others but that isn't going to cut it. Under Capitalism every one person is free to do with his money what he chooses to do with his money whether it is moral or immoral.
I was not aware this was a thread based on Christian morality … here I thought it was a thread on Christian hypocrisy (which can be right or wrong depending on individual morals)

I was not aware this was a thread based on Christian morality … here I thought it was a thread on Christian hypocrisy (which can be right or wrong depending on individual morals)

You can take the thread any way you want man, I can't make you read it a certain way. I think I made my point well enough.

To sum it up, moral Capitalism is not out of line with Christianity. Immoral or amoral Capitalism is an abomination. Socialism can keep trying all it wants, it isn't moral and isn’t going to be no matter how well intentioned its supporters are.


How is socialism immoral? Jesus himself was a socialist... although you are probably blinded to this.

Why do I say he was a socialist?

Well, he was a carpenter, and a prophet/teacher. (Whatever ELSE he might have been we shall not discuss... I have no idea how Unions work in heaven).

As a carpenter, he had his own tools - he could manufacture goods with his own means of production.

As a prophet/teacher he had his own tools... his insight and his speech. Again, he manufactured 'goods' with his OWN means of production.

His followers that were fishers, has their own boats, did they not?

Oh - he paid lip-service to capitalist interests... he said that you should pay taxes to a tax-collecting government, but his personal belief was obviously far more communal and socialistic.

How is socialism immoral? Jesus himself was a socialist... although you are probably blinded to this.

Why do I say he was a socialist?

Well, he was a carpenter, and a prophet/teacher. (Whatever ELSE he might have been we shall not discuss... I have no idea how Unions work in heaven).

As a carpenter, he had his own tools - he could manufacture goods with his own means of production.

As a prophet/teacher he had his own tools... his insight and his speech. Again, he manufactured 'goods' with his OWN means of production.

His followers that were fishers, has their own boats, did they not?

Oh - he paid lip-service to capitalist interests... he said that you should pay taxes to a tax-collecting government, but his personal belief was obviously far more communal and socialistic.


o_0
0_o
o_0
0_O<---{WTF!?!}

The works of Tolkein are a large and detailed set, and, one might add, less morally ambiguous, and far more consistent.

I guess they must be a true and factual account, then, yes?
Yes dammit, I hail from the plains of Rohan and I laugh at your cynicism with the..

ahem..

The works of Tolkein number..? 7 LOTR, Silm., unfinished, Hobbit (3 books?).. not quite the 1,500 etc figures quoted by Christian theologians.

plus they're not described as fact. wasn't Tolkein a Christian in his later years, worn down by C. S. Lewis' persistent arguments?

plus who could believe tales of an evil lord marshalling huge, seemingly unstoppable armies in a quest to take over the world...

Under Capitalism every one person is free to do with his money what he chooses to do with his money whether it is moral or immoral.

Depends on the capitalist state, really.

For example, if I were sufficiently wealthy, I would still not be 'allowed' to purchase slaves or 'class A' narcotics. There would be strict controls if I started expressing interest in Sarin, or anthrax production facilities, or nuclear weapon components. I would not be 'allowed' to pay for the kind attentions of a lady of negotiable virtue.

What you should have said is that one is potentially 'able' to do as one wishes with one's money... but there are often restrictions on what one really CAN do.

Also, under capitalism, one is (usually) required to pay taxes. Again, hardly a matter of being 'free' to use your money as you will.

Not all things are created equal. Not all things are to be judged as equal. Democratic Socialism is the majority stealing wealth from an unwilling but helpless minority out of their own resentment and self-interest. This is not moral by any stretch of the (Christian) imagination. This thread IS about Christian morality isn't it? If it was 100% participation Socialism then that would be moral, this being why I said keep trying. It's supports may feel like they are helping others but that isn't going to cut it. Under Capitalism every one person is free to do with his money what he chooses to do with his money whether it is moral or immoral.

I'm a Christian and I live in a socialist country. It seems the church around here is totally for taxes being spent to help the welfare of my fellow man. Are you telling me that my morality isn't christian?

If so on what do you base your conclusion? Who made your brand of morality the one true christian morality?

Yes dammit, I hail from the plains of Rohan and I laugh at your cynicism with the..

ahem..

The works of Tolkein number..? 7 LOTR, Silm., unfinished, Hobbit (3 books?).. not quite the 1,500 etc figures quoted by Christian theologians.

plus they're not described as fact. wasn't Tolkein a Christian in his later years, worn down by C. S. Lewis' persistent arguments?

plus who could believe tales of an evil lord marshalling huge, seemingly unstoppable armies in a quest to take over the world...

The number of texts is irrelevent to their truth, methinks... otherwise one can assume that pornography is much more 'true' than anything else...

Perhaps Tolkein doesn't claim that his scripts are factual, but then, I'm not sure that the same is true for MOST of the Biblical texts, either.

However, Lemony Snicket clearly DOES claim that his texts are factual... so, the Baudelaire Orphans are 'real'?

As to whether Tolkein was Christian or not, I have no idea... he definitely used some Christian-like symbolism. Doesn't really affect the veracity of his books, either way.

Jesus said nothing about money being evil or that his followers should be poor. The Bible says that "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil". If money causes you to take your focus off of God's will for your life, then it is evil.

You can still be charitable and rich. Most rich people (well, millionaires) are charitable and give a lot of money away each year.

The number of texts is irrelevent to their truth, methinks... otherwise one can assume that pornography is much more 'true' than anything else...
uhh.. we at Logicians Inc. question the logical value of pornography and suggest that it does not have one, unless it is indeed claiming that some.. uhh.. practices.. are indeed possible.. which after much detailed.. uhh research :eek: .. we can safely say is true.

Perhaps Tolkein doesn't claim that his scripts are factual, but then, I'm not sure that the same is true for MOST of the Biblical texts, either.

However, Lemony Snicket clearly DOES claim that his texts are factual... so, the Baudelaire Orphans are 'real'?
apparently some of the books could be based on facts, but from the info that Lemony Snicket is the altar ego of one Daniel Handler, I'd guess that Mr L Snicket is not positioned brilliantly to make statements of sweeping veracity.

and we should ban his books from our schools because they are evil and encourage us to summon demons. and stuff. BURN THEM.

Firstly, just to set one thing straight, this is not designed to attack anybodies religion. I just read this article and found it interesting.

http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/

It basically takes the teachings of Jesus in some of New Testament and uses them to demonstrate that private hoarding of wealth and the basic premise of free market capitalism is contrary to the charity essential to Christianity.

Rather like the Biblical statement that it is easier for a loaded camel to get through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.

Now, obviously some Christian parables go against this - the parable of the talens for example. But I was interested in what people think of this. Did Jesus really advocate communist style community sharing rather than capitalist self-interest?

Personally, I think that this is the correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, but I'm not really Christian and my political beliefs would tend me in that direction anyway.

So two questions - is this what the teachings in the Bible mean, and if so can right-wing market philosophy (as opposed to social policy) be reconciled with it? Thoughts, comments and queries please!

Early Christianity, and Christ Himself was not directly "socialist" as its presently understood. They were more of independent commune type views. Wealthier persons were to use their wealth to help the less fortunate, less fortuneates were expected to aid the body in their own ways... All, essentially, working for the "congregation" here and those elsewhere. There are many "pseudo christians" who do not help the poor, want to remove all helps, and present no help (governmental or otherwise).... That is not "christian".... Early Christianity was more of a "private charity" than a public department of service.... I'd say there is definite merit to the articles claims, about many "christians" in America.

Many Church organizations runs soup kitchens, help built schools in foreign lands (with no schools), and the like... There are others (::cought:: Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition ::cough:: many times with money slated to "help feed poor people") that use their pooled money to build diamon mines for their "group" to hoard more wealth.... One is an operation of Christian morality, the other is not.... (I'll let you judge, but it is obvious which isn't)...

I side with Arthur W. Pink's observation of many "American Christians" that they have little claim to the title of "Christian"... Especially when every operation of their "faith" differs little from the "Heathen" around them.... There is far more hope for an Atheist, who does not believe in God, and does not worship God; than for the "christian" that THINKS they believe in God, and thinks they WORSHIP the God they supposedly "example" from in their course of operation.

uhh.. we at Logicians Inc. question the logical value of pornography and suggest that it does not have one, unless it is indeed claiming that some.. uhh.. practices.. are indeed possible.. which after much detailed.. uhh research :eek: .. we can safely say is true.

apparently some of the books could be based on facts, but from the info that Lemony Snicket is the altar ego of one Daniel Handler, I'd guess that Mr L Snicket is not positioned brilliantly to make statements of sweeping veracity.

and we should ban his books from our schools because they are evil and encourage us to summon demons. and stuff. BURN THEM.

Ah, but then.... Mr Handler writing under an assumed name, is no guaruntee of the lack of honesty, now, is it?

nd, even if it were, is there not some heavy speculation about the actual identities of some of the writers of Scripture?

Moses, for example? Who managed to complete a series of five books that even detailed his OWN funeral....

And, even if it were, is there not some heavy speculation about the actual identities of some of the writers of Scripture?

Moses, for example? Who managed to complete a series of five books that even detailed his OWN funeral....

Yeah, I've been wondering about the true identity of Moses ever since I read Jesus's words about him in John 5:45:

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

Moses is the accuser???

Revelations 12:10: And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Woah! It seems the bible's message gets more convoluted every time I read it! :D

Yeah, I've been wondering about the true identity of Moses ever since I read Jesus's words about him in John 5:45:

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

Moses is the accuser???

Revelations 12:10: And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Woah! It seems the bible's message gets more convoluted every time I read it! :D

You know - you're right... Jesus says there is only one accuser, and Revelation clearly states that the accuser is cast down...

If you read it in the context of Job... or read Job in the context of this... something else interesting creeps to mind:

Job 1:9-11 "Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land... But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face".

Now, I could be wrong, but is that not 'Satan' that is 'accusing' Job? (Thus, agreeing with the Revelation 'cast down')

Is Moses, then, one of the 'sons of God'? None other than The Accuser?

Or is the Accuser a mere mortal, in Job? If so - what is the sense of the later assertions that Satan is some kind of evil spirit?

Jesus taught that love was paramount to EVERYTHING, even the Ten Commandments.

As I noted before, the words of Jesus, reported in the Gospel of Luke:

Quote:
If any come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Sounds to me that he is teaching that hate is paramount to everything.

If he really taught that love is paramount to everything, would he not have said: "If any come to me, and love not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

"If any come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

What He meant was that God must come first, even ahead of a person's family and concerns for himself.

If that's what you want to think, okay, but then why didn't he just say that?

There are plenty of other places in the Bible where the word "hate" is used (even elsewhere in Luke),and in each of them, the word is used exactly as you or I would use it in everyday speech. It is therefore reasonable to assume, then, that when "hate" is used here, it is meant to be understood in that same way.

For instance, Luke 6:22

Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you [from their company], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

Luke 6:27

But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

Luke 16:13

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

If that's what you want to think, okay, but then why didn't he just say that?

There are plenty of other places in the Bible where the word "hate" is used (even elsewhere in Luke),and in each of them, the word is used exactly as you or I would use it in everyday speech. It is therefore reasonable to assume, then, that when "hate" is used here, it is meant to be understood in that same way.


I agree with you, my friend. People may want to argue a more gentle meaning than what is written... but that must be speculation... and speculation that DIRECTLY opposes the written text.

If that's what you want to think, okay, but then why didn't he just say that?

Excellent point. I'm afraid you'll never get a satisfactory answer to this question (at least, I never have). But then, what could possibly explain such a statement to the satisfaction of rational people? If one claims biblical corruption, then it puts the remainder of the bible in question as well. Claiming a comparatively lesser quality of love doesn't make sense either, as you have already pointed out. The only thing that makes any sense at all is that Jesus was nothing more than a typical cult leader suffering from delusions of grandeur.

And of course, it means that the capitalist USA is per definition not a Christian nation ;)


Well a country run by a religious faction isnt a demcracy Britain, the idea of one country one religion went out with the english civil war

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
'do not think I will accuse...' => Jesus is not the accuser
'there is one that accuseth you' => someone is accusing..
'..you, even Moses..' => same accuser is even accusing Moses.

so no, Moses isn't the accuser. Would be a bit hard for him to do so as well, him being dead, or rather in the words of Paul, 'fallen asleep'.

Revelations 12:10: And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Woah! It seems the bible's message gets more convoluted every time I read it! :D
where's the convolution exactly?

'now comes .. (good stuff) .. because the accuser is cast down..'

As the meaning of 'Satan' is 'the Accuser' I fail to see where people are getting lost here. However, it is true that if you look at something with the purpose of becoming confused...

As for Moses writing about his own death.. yes slight problem there. Really he wrote about that as a set of wishes for his funeral etc. Actually they just dumped his body in the Jordan and said some nice things about his hair. *Schnappslant gets hit by lightning bolt*

There are plenty of other places in the Bible where the word "hate" is used (even elsewhere in Luke),and in each of them, the word is used exactly as you or I would use it in everyday speech. It is therefore reasonable to assume, then, that when "hate" is used here, it is meant to be understood in that same way.
Concepts of hate and love as used in the Bible are there to bring black and whiteness to grey arguments to stop people having the kind of arguments displayed here.

e.g. I point you to a lack of clarity in the phrase: "If you love me and love your family less, but still quite a lot, just not as much as you love me cos that would be wrong, couldn't have that, don't want to say hate because that would sound harsh really.."

For instance your examples of hate in Luke (dammit this is awkward without a Bible) were all exaggerated on purpose. It is almost illegal now in the UK to say you hate someone because of their religion, so instead of standing in the middle of the street and shouting, "I hate you because you are a Christian, I cast you out etc etc", one would have to go about it in a more subtle fashion. These subtle fashions are there so one can say, "no, I don't hate something or other"... But it's the old 'do or do not, there is no try', for or against argument.

to me all religion is is an excuse for something that we cant explain and millions of people have died just because some one else doesnt share their hypothesis i mean if this happened in the scientific world we'd still be using candles!
there probably is something bigger and better out there, but i want some kind of proof and not just a book compiled a few years after a guy died or by someone who has just seen something somewhere