You must log in or register to comment.
Wow tax collectors catching strays even 2000 years ago.
Publicani were really hated. Roman Empire had a tax farming system where private individuals paid the taxes in certain area out of their own pocket and then tried to make a profit by collecting the taxes from that area to themselves. Made it so that the state didn’t have to concern itself with the actual collection and got a guaranteed sum. But it also made it so that it was beneficial to the publicani to try and squeeze as much taxes out of the people to either not have loss or to have maximum profit. Though the term publican covers more than just tax collectors.
Apostle Matthew was a publican.
The system hasn’t changed much since then. That’s why Jesus is still popular. Everybody still hates rich people, the state, etc.
Suddenly, Republican Christians: “You can’t just take quotes from the Bible out of context and apply them to your argument! 😠”
Trust me, it’s mostly Christians taking them out of context and denying clear statements. For example, Charlie Kirk spun: ‘but what did the original word for slave mean in the Bible’. Well context actually defines the word for us:
Leviticus 25: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
I’ve never seen a Christian effectively argue context by showing context (as above).
Trust me, it’s mostly Christians taking them out of context and denying clear statements.
That’s pretty much exactly what I was getting at
Me, 89% of the time when I see or hear Christians use this statement.
What do you do the other 11% of the time?
5% of the time it’s this. The remaining 6% is whatever.
funderstandable, thank you for the explanation
If you need a manual to be a good person, you aren’t a good person.
So much for every state on the planet. Completely codified morality. Created and maintained by certified “bad people”.
Yeah, what’s wrong with wanting to be a good person? Are we going back to eugenics now?
Explaining this to my son’s kindergarten teacher.
Just purge all the selfish 5 year olds now! They’ll never learn if they haven’t figured it out already.
If you think you can classify ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people in a oneliner you are incapable to deal with the complex nuances of our reality.
Oh, another oneliner.
Yes. At one side i liked the thought of making fun of my own statement by making it a oneliner itself.
And now you had a choice to decide respond to the content of what I said or the point out the form. Luckily you do not need a manual to decide which choice was good or bad 😉
It’s the religion that classifies as good or bad, heaven or hell. We are talking about that, get a hint.
And yeah, generally, goodness has to come from the heart or it’s selfishness. Even if you account for the complexities of the human mind.
I find it sad to fall back on 2000 year old literature to justify our behavior.
When someone uses the Bible to justify their hate or bigotry, it’s very easy to throw back in their face. They never believed any of it — especially not anything that radical leftist Jesus taught — it’s a tool that represents whatever they want for their manipulative, selfish, self-centered purposes. What is written there doesn’t matter. It never did.
Watch as they dismiss you anyway, with greatest hits like:
- “That’s not what {$DENOMINATION} teaches.”
- “That’s just heretical.”
- ”So your interpretation is right but everyone else is wrong?”
- ”You’re taking it out of context”, especially after you just added context to a thing they were deliberately taking out of context.
- “Even the devil can quote scripture.”
“Even the devil can quote scripture.”
Oh the irony… you’re killing me with that one.
There’s no hate quite like Christian love.
Attempting to use the bible as a source for good just doesn’t work because they are always exceptions and hateful rhetoric in other bible chapters they can point to.
Or they can wholesale just make shit up like all the evangelical rapture crap. Hell, look at even the constitution and how that’s been stretched and colored for all of the anti-progressive rhetoric in the past.
Even when I was a religious child, I still found contradictions in the bible. But, as you know, when you were a young naive child like everyone of us and found something odd, we’re told to ignore it and just don’t think about it.
Gotta use what Jesus said, not the “bible”.
The Muscular Christianity movement of the mid 19th century really took issue with this. Back then church attendance was 4:1 women to men and manly men were having trouble maintaining interest because Jesus’ message was “too loving and gentle” so not very manly. They started redefining Christianity according to “manly” virtues, particularly they kicked all the women out of their administrative roles in church, started building sporting complexes next to churchs and reframed the old thinking of physical vigor being a form of vanity to instead being a sign of moral and spiritual excellence.
I’m not kidding but they even changed the appearance of Jesus, commissioning art work where he was depicted with broader shoulders and a more defined chest, signalling readiness for action.
Modern toxic masculinity is a “despiritualized” adaptation of Muscular Christianity.
Which is kind of funny, as some would say Jews of Old Testament times were expecting their coming messiah or king to be some kind of military leader. One who might lead them against the oppression of the Romans. Maybe kind of like Moses.
Not to mention the pale skin…
“then you ain’t one of mine. go on, git!” -Jesus apparently, Gospel of John chapter 13 verse 35
I think that Jesus’ meaning was “love one another unconditionally” regardless you are foreigner, woman, LGBT person, or an outlaw. Jesus was a leftist (and of course just a historical person, not a deity).
a historical person
That’s up to debate.
In almost the same way that the earth being round is up for debate
Ok, serious mode.
There’s actually no mention of Jesus or the things he seemingly has done outside of religious texts. It was already ca. 150 A.D. just hints that doubtfuls should look it up in roman writings.
A roman historian (Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas) mentions records thatBecause the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, Claudius expelled them from the city.
but no proof for that either and it’s Rome.
Some historians think thus, that the workings of Jesus were just an allegory driven a bit further (Similiar to how Moses is just Gilgamesh/Atrahasis epos series remixed).There’s actually no mention of Jesus or the things he seemingly has done outside of religious texts
Of the sparse selection of texts that have survived over 2000 years, there are a number of Roman histories that mention Jewish Messiahs cropping up during this period up to and around the Siege of Masada, which ended the First Jewish-Roman War.
Past that you can play the “if you excluded…” game with Greek philosophers, Roman emperors, Renaissance artists, hell you can do it with US Presidents.
Everyone from Socrates to Barack Obama is “cast into question” when you throw away the evidence you don’t like.
The fact that “Christians” as a religious movement appeared at this time, and that we have an abundance of visual art, transcribed texts, and even physical structures dedicated to him just never seems to matter.
Some historians think thus, that the workings of Jesus were just an allegory
This reminds me of the endless debate surrounding whether Shakespeare was a real person. It’s flogged to death, because you can casually assert “the evidence was written by liars”.
_
Erm…
It is not, earth is a oblate spheroid.
Oblate Spheroids are round
Show me the part where Jesus says to stone all the queers. I’ll wait.
Show me the part where Jesus says the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. I’ll wait.
Show me the part where Jesus says conservatives are also people. I’ll wait.
Show me the part where Jesus says you can’t say fuck on the internet. I’ll wait.
I could go on forever. I would love to express how utterly fucking dumb it is to base your moral compass on one book only (which prooooobably doesn’t cover all areas of life, society, science, etc.), let alone one that was written more than a millenium ago, but I guess once you ignore everything else (such as scientific proof, actual observations, wellbeing of others) and only stick with whatever a select few people tell you, and believe it unconditionally, there’s no point bringing up logic.
I’ll be honest, this was mostly an assumption. I’m not even a Christian. So yes, agreed.
On a second read: sorry if I didn’t word it clearly; by “you”, I meant the general you, not you, personally. I also have no problem with people being religious in general, but what Brandon does in the original post is just plain harmful.
No worries, I didn’t really think you did.
Show me the part where it’s okay for priest to have relations with minor male children. I’ll wait.
And John 8 while we’re at it. He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.
I prefer ‘be excellent to each other’ from the book of Bill and Ted.
Station!
Don’t forget ‘Party On, Dudes!’ Most of the cults i started had BillandTedology at their hearts.
Show me where in the bible Jesus ever said to place actual laws of government preventing anything LGBTQ+ from taking place
According to the ai, they’re all going to hell
Using God’s name in vain means to misuse or misrepresent God’s name, often by invoking it for false oaths, empty promises, or inappropriately associating it with harmful actions. It emphasizes the importance of honoring God’s name and not using it lightly or for wrongful purposes.
Every fundamentalist who insists they know god’s will and can inflict it on you is in violation of this commandment
I think you’re right about a lot of fundamentalists, but you need to be careful with the “knowing God’s will” part because Christianity is based on the Bible and the Bible teaches you what God’s will is. So, in so much as someone is basing their words on what the Bible means by what it says, then they are not taking God’s name in vain. But the moment they twist what the Bible means to fit their own narrative, then they are.
Also, the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
