New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Where in the Bible did Francis find firing employees is a "grave sin"

connieb

Senator
The Catholics were once hated by the conservative nativists who for now have moved on to hating Muslims. But that hatred is still just below the surface, just as it is when it comes to the hatred of jews. We see it bubbling up here when conservatives are confronted with the Christian morality of Francis.
Nonesense. The KKK hated on the Catholics just like their Dem brothers do under the surface. Using them to advance their globalisim and communsim but then turning on them telling them what aspects of their religion are "hate speech" Much like the Dems will do eventually to the muslims. They serve a purpose now.. but when they conflict with other Dem agenda they will throw them under the bus. That is how Dems' roll, and it started way back with their KKK Roots.

Thanks for reinforcing the connection.
 

Arkady

President
Wrong again. The conclusion is that Jesus and God care not for the trivialities of government and taxes
No. If that were the conclusion, obviously, Jesus would have said that he doesn't care whether or not people pay their taxes. That's not what he said. He said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesars.

It's incredible to me how the whole thing hangs together
Really? It's incredible to me that it falls apart so very quickly. You literally can't get past the second page without it seeming like you're reading two different books that were awkwardly glued together. Genesis 1 has one story of creation, then Genesis 2 starts over with a different story of creation, contradicting a number of things that were just laid out on the prior page. The Bible is full of that stuff, and when you read cover to cover, it becomes clear in a way that it isn't when you sample it at the buffet of church-service readings.

For example, I'd heard both versions of the story of how Judas died before I read the Bible myself, but I'd heard them years apart and in different contexts, and so the fact they were utterly different didn't even occur to me. Read them within a couple weeks, as part of reading the book like a novel, and you realize they don't hang together at all. Did he hang himself? Did he burst open in the middle of a field? It would be like in Star Wars Obi Wan Kenobi was cut down by Darth Vader on the Death Star, and then in Empire Strikes Back we see his death again, but this time he he leapt to his death from a cliff on Tatooine.

Where you see revulsion at the law demanding for instance, death for parental disobedience (you ARE disgusted by this, are you not?)
Yes. Like every moral person I find it horrifying that a religion could be so backwards as to command its adherents to murder their children for being stubborn. Yes, of course, we can't expect the people of the ancient past to be as advanced as us. If the Norse thought it was cool to do human sacrifices, or Mohammed thought it was OK to marry a child, or the Christians thought the right thing to do about a kid who talks back is to have the whole village throw stones at the kid until he's dead, those things are relics of a darker time and a more morally blighted people. But, when you come to those stories as if they're the word of a perfect being, rather than the myths of a primitive people, that's where the problem comes.

See this is what I'm talking about. You ignore the rest of the bible. What about the king (Uzziah?) who assumed the role of king AND high priest and was immediately struck with leprosy? Anything we can learn from that?
Yeah -- the men who wrote the Bible liked to attribute disease to supernatural causes.

God didn't make a mistake by allowing kings or by being against them.
He was against them and then for them. I get that you don't want to acknowledge either was a mistake, but the story only makes sense if you accept that God doesn't always know what he's doing.

It is OUR choice to follow Him or follow man.
There's another place where the Bible contradicts itself. Sometimes it seems to insist on the concept of free will. Others, God's in there, using his mind control powers to dictate outcomes (as with Saul).
 

connieb

Senator
I try to avoid these threads as a matter of respect for the beliefs of others...especially since I'm an Atheist. But the very idea that a man surrounded by the opulence of stolen wealth and steeped in the shameful history of the Vatican can tell anyone what is and what is not SIN, ridiculous.
Human beings will never evolve beyond tribal 'poo flingers' until they can leave these archaic notions of 'GOD' behind.
At least to some end, he has avoided in his personal chambers at least - the kind of opulence previous popes have reveled in.

However, I will give a shit what the Catholic church says about giving and taking care of the poor - when they give away all their wealth to the poor instead of ripping them off for tithes.
 

Arkady

President
If PEOPLE behaved the way Jesus instructed we'd have the closest thing to heaven on earth as possible.
I disagree. I think the world would be a hell-hole. Jesus was a false prophet who incorrectly predicted the end of the world would come in the time of his own generation, and based on that he instructed people to behave as if the end was so close that there was no time to worry about anything other than soon meeting your maker. If mankind had spent the last two thousand words behaving that way, we'd all be living at a subsistence level, since any investment that would take more than a few years to pay off just wouldn't be worth making, because it would all be over by then. Even routine maintenance wouldn't be worthwhile when it came to anything that could last through the generation without it.

Every time we reject God and follow human morality it always ends up very bad for us.
I disagree. For example, I think that if you looked at the childhood of just about every person who advanced the cause of human well-being, you'd find that at some point he'd gone through a period of disobedience to his elders. Imagine if we hadn't rejected God. Imagine if we'd taken the child to the village gates and pounded him with stones until he died in agony. Fortunately, we rejected "God" (as our barbaric ancestors had conceived of the concept) and instead embraced updated human morality.

No it's not. Fold free will into your interpretation and see how it changes.
There's free will in both cases. In the real-world case, you have the choice of whether or not to do what government law orders -- if you don't you risk property seizure and personal imprisonment. In the mythical-world case, you likewise have a choice of whether or not to do what Jesus has ordered -- if you don't, you risk spending an infinite future being tortured for your defiance. Granted, the two aren't EXACTLY equal. Free will has much more room to function in the real-world case, since the penalty for defiance is infinitely less severe than in the mythical-world case, where the penalty for refusing to follow the socialist rules is unimaginably horrible.
 
Last edited:

Arkady

President
Nonesense. The KKK hated on the Catholics just like their Dem brothers do under the surface. Using them to advance their globalisim and communsim
The KKK was against globalism and Communism. What you need to remember is that the heyday of the KKK was back in the era when the Democratic Party was the party of southerners, rural people, white supremacists, conservatives, nativists, and defenders of the patriarchy, while the GOP was the party of the North, the cities, minorities, progressives, immigrants, and women's suffragists. The party labels of the factions changed, but the factions remained largely intact.
 

connieb

Senator
The KKK was against globalism and Communism. What you need to remember is that the heyday of the KKK was back in the era when the Democratic Party was the party of southerners, rural people, white supremacists, conservatives, nativists, and defenders of the patriarchy, while the GOP was the party of the North, the cities, minorities, progressives, immigrants, and women's suffragists. The party labels of the factions changed, but the factions remained largely intact.
The Dems have simply morphed from their KKK roots is all. Its about domination, control and that is what works for the Dems. I know that you all like to try to spin it, but your fake conscern for minorities is belied very time one of your other pet groups runs up against another, and one is ineveitably tossed under the bus. Users and fair weather friends. Who have always been about keeping people down, and keeping them in line.
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
I disagree. I think the world would be a hell-hole. Jesus was a false prophet who incorrectly predicted the end of the world would come in the time of his own generation,
Merely your interpretation. Do you think they figured it out, say, 70 years after His death when they STARTED writing the gospels?

and based on that he instructed people to behave as if the end was so close that there was no time to worry about anything other than soon meeting your maker.
Well, life DOES pass by pretty quickly. So Jesus was certainly right about that.

If mankind had spent the last two thousand words [sic--like you I'm too lazy to correct it but I will call it out.] behaving that way, we'd all be living at a subsistence level,
Hold on. Are you now coming out AGAINST the supposed "socialist" teachings? Make up your mind.

I disagree. For example, I think that if you looked at the childhood of just about every person who advanced the cause of human well-being, you'd find that at some point he'd gone through a period of disobedience to his elders. Imagine if we hadn't rejected God. Imagine if we'd taken then child to the village gates and pounded him with stones until he died in agony. Fortunately, we rejected "God" (as our barbaric ancestors had conceived of the concept) and instead embraced updated human morality.
What does the word "Israel" mean? I'll give you a hint: It's two words "Isra" and "El." What do they both mean? You're a smart guy. You've studied the bible. Show me how "Israel" wipes away your entire paragraph.

There's free will in both cases. In the real-world case, you have the choice of whether or not to do what government law orders -- if you don't you risk property foreclosure and imprisonment. In the mythical-world case, you likewise have a choice of whether or not to do what Jesus has ordered -- if you don't, you risk spending an infinite future being tortured for your defiance.
This is such a childish interpretation of scripture it no longer requires much comment. It's as childish as if you thought Christians believe God is a giant floating on a cloud with a flowing white beard. Time to graduate past your first grade understanding of what faith is.
 

Arkady

President
The Dems have simply morphed from their KKK roots is all.
Agreed. They rejected their past racism and morphed into the party of the North, the cities, minorities, progressives, immigrants, and feminists. That's why, these days, the white supremacists prefer the GOP. As you say, it's all about domination -- when Democrats were willing to help whites dominate minorities, the immoral parts of the country loved them, but once the Democrats embraced human rights, those parts drifted to the GOP, which was willing to help them in their quest for domination.
 

Days

Commentator
Sure there is. Jesus says to get to the kingdom of heaven the rich should sell everything they own and give all their money to charity. Those who have faith will do so. As for those who lack faith, Revelation 21:8 explains where they go: the lake of fire.
heh, that's quite a stretch, Ark, even for an archangel.
 

connieb

Senator
Agreed. They rejected their past racism and morphed into the party of the North, the cities, minorities, progressives, immigrants, and feminists. That's why, these days, the white supremacists prefer the GOP. As you say, it's all about domination -- when Democrats were willing to help whites dominate minorities, the immoral parts of the country loved them, but once the Democrats embraced human rights, those parts drifted to the GOP, which was willing to help them in their quest for domination.

Lol.
No they didn't. They are the same controlling domineering bastids they have always been. They have just figured you can trick someone into being your slave by promising them lots of freebies, easier than you can keep one your slave by force. And have set out for the past several decades, filling up their plantations of their unwitting dupes, who think those controlling domineering bastids really care about them.
 

Arkady

President
Merely your interpretation. Do you think they figured it out, say, 70 years after His death when they STARTED writing the gospels?
At that point the oral tradition was strongly established, and so it would have been hard to break with it to rewrite Jesus' prophecy into something less obviously false. Besides, when the first writings took place, it was still possible to imagine his words were true. He said that some of those listening to him would be alive when the end came. If there were children in that crowd, then some of them could still be alive 70 years later. Even in the ancient world, a handful of people made it to a ripe old age. Ramses the Great made it to 90, for example. Pepi II made it past 100. Someone like him could have been 30 when hearing Jesus' words and still alive when they were written down. So, even setting aside the goofy ages attributed to some people in the mythology of the Bible, people alive at the time when the Gospels were being written down could reasonably have believed that some people who were there to hear Jesus' prophecy were still alive so many decades later. Of course, within a few years, even the most ridiculous of apologists would have had to resort to more fantastic approaches to explain away the false prophecy. But, by then, it was written down and they were stuck with it.

Hold on. Are you now coming out AGAINST the supposed "socialist" teachings? Make up your mind.
I haven't come out for or against them. I'm just pointing out that authentic Christianity is socialist.

Show me how "Israel" wipes away your entire paragraph.
It doesn't, obviously.

This is such a childish interpretation of scripture it no longer requires much comment.
You're inability to think of a rebuttal is noted.
 
Last edited:
C

Capitalist

Guest
No. If that were the conclusion, obviously, Jesus would have said that he doesn't care whether or not people pay their taxes. That's not what he said. He said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesars.
And. . ? What else?

Render to God what is God's! See, you leave out the context. That context makes it clear that the COIN of Rome is not the coin of His realm. No brainer for us today but heady stuff 2000 years ago.

Really? It's incredible to me that it falls apart so very quickly. You literally can't get past the second page without it seeming like you're reading two different books that were awkwardly glued together. Genesis 1 has one story of creation, then Genesis 2 starts over with a different story of creation, contradicting a number of things that were just laid out on the prior page.
Seriously!? THAT is your hang up?

Oh heavens to Betsy! TWO stories of creation! I just can't wrap my wee brain around that!

Here. Lemme enlighten you on just a few undeniable truths about the bible that every human being whether atheist or fundamentalist can see:

1) The bible was written by more than one person. So TWO stories of creation are in no way contradictory. (At least!) two authors wrote the bible so. . .

2) The bible was never meant to be read like a novel. The bible contains history, genealogy, fiction AND philosophy. If you expect it to read like a novel you'll be completely confused.

3) The gospels were NOT written by four guys named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That is a convention of ancient writing that survived centuries afterwards.

That you would allow these broken pseudo-requirements to color your interpretation of the bible reveals a lot about your approach to the whole task.

For example, I'd heard both versions of the story of how Judas died before I read the Bible myself, but I'd heard them years apart and in different contexts, and so the fact they were utterly different didn't even occur to me. Read them within a couple weeks, as part of reading the book like a novel, and you realize they don't hang together at all. Did he hang himself? Did he burst open in the middle of a field? It would be like in Star Wars Obi Wan Kenobi was cut down by Darth Vader on the Death Star, and then in Empire Strikes Back we see his death again, but this time he he leapt to his death from a cliff on Tatooine.
Who gives a shit!

Seriously! How is your morality affected if Judas hanged himself vs. burst open in the middle of a field? These accounts were written decades after the events! I find it so incredible that you find these mole hills are stumbling blocks that I find it hard to believe. In fact, I don't believe they are stumbling blocks to you at all.

I think you entered into the task of reading the bible not with seeking the truth but in seeking division. Guess what? You found it! I think you were looking for contradiction and you found it. You deliberately donned a cloudy lens through which you view scripture and found. . .clouds. Imagine that!

Try opening your mind with this new found knowledge that the bible is not meant to be read like a novel, that there were MANY authors, that they wrote it over the span of more than a thousand years, and that people and writers can evolve.

Yes. Like every moral person I find it horrifying that a religion could be so backwards as to command its adherents to murder their children for being stubborn. Yes, of course, we can't expect the people of the ancient past to be as advanced as us. If the Norse thought it was cool to do human sacrifices, or Mohammed thought it was OK to marry a child, or the Christians thought the right thing to do about a kid who talks back is to have the whole village throw stones at the kid until he's dead, those things are relics of a darker time and a more morally blighted people. But, when you come to those stories as if they're the word of a perfect being, rather than the myths of a primitive people, that's where the problem comes.
I think humanity is woven into the very fabric of the bible. Human flaws, human sin, human evil. Not just in the brutality but in the contemporary understanding of what and who God is. As I said, the bible is FULL of opportunity for me to forgive humanity, forgive the writers for saying you should kill your kids for disobedience and scores of other misunderstandings of God. I don't hold them to their sins. Now, if forgiveness in the context of love is not central to the teaching of Christianity then what is?

You have missed every opportunity to see this in your clouded cover to cover reading of the bible. Maybe you should read it again and forgive the writers so that you can better see the underlying message.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Days

Commentator
And. . ? What else?

Render to God what is God's! See, you leave out the context. That context makes it clear that the COIN of Rome is not the coin of His realm. No brainer for us today but heady stuff 2000 years ago.



Seriously!? THAT is your hang up?

Oh heavens to Betsy! TWO stories of creation! I just can't wrap my wee brain around that!

Here. Lemme enlighten you on just a few undeniable truths about the bible that every human being whether atheist or fundamentalist can see:

1) The bible was written by more than one person. So TWO stories of creation are in no way contradictory. (At least!) two authors wrote the bible so. . .

2) The bible was never meant to be read like a novel. The bible contains history, genealogy, fiction AND philosophy. If you expect it to read like a novel you'll be completely confused.

3) The gospels were NOT written by four guys named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That is a convention of ancient writing that survived centuries afterwards.

That you would allow these broken pseudo-requirements to color your interpretation of the bible reveals a lot about your approach to the whole task.



Who gives a shit!

Seriously! How is your morality affected if Judas hanged himself vs. burst open in the middle of a field? These accounts were written decades after the events! I find it so incredible that you find these mole hills are stumbling blocks that I find it hard to believe. In fact, I don't believe they are stumbling blocks to you at all.

I think you entered into the task of reading the bible not with seeking the truth but in seeking division. Guess what? You found it! I think you were looking for contradiction and you found it. You deliberately donned a cloudy lens through which you view scripture and found. . .clouds. Imagine that!

Try opening your mind with this new found knowledge that the bible is not meant to be read like a novel, that there were MANY authors, that they wrote it over the span of more than a thousand years, and that people and writers can evolve.



I think humanity is woven into the very fabric of the bible. Human flaws, human sin, human evil. Not just in the brutality but in the contemporary understanding of what and who God is. As I said, the bible is FULL of opportunity for me to forgive humanity, forgive the writers for saying you should kill your kids for disobedience and scores of other misunderstandings of God. I don't hold them to their sins. Now, if forgiveness in the context of love is not central to the teaching of Christianity then what is?

You have missed every opportunity to see this in your clouded cover to cover reading of the bible. Maybe you should read it again and forgive the writers so that you can better see the underlying message.
A huge collection of ancient scrolls; it isn't a novel written by God, it is many centuries of ancient writings. God knows how many authors are in there. It is a preservation of human history and human faith, not a how-to manual.
 

Arkady

President
And. . ? What else?

Render to God what is God's! See, you leave out the context.
The context has been mentioned over and over in this thread. I'm trying to be less long-winded. The point is that the one thing we know that Jesus considered to be Caesar's is money for taxes. That's the question he was asked, and that's the guidance he gave. He also said to render to God what is God's, but didn't provide clear guidance for what that might be.

Seriously!? THAT is your hang up?
It's not a hang-up. I'm just pointing out the fact that the Bible doesn't hold together... not even through page two. That's the first of countless examples of self-contradiction, drastic stylistic and thematic changes, etc. It's an anthology of different myths told by a bunch of related tribes over the course of many centuries, all stuck together without a good editor.

1) The bible was written by more than one person. So TWO stories of creation are in no way contradictory.
That's a non sequitur. If you say today is Wednesday and I say it's Thursday, those two statements are contradictory, despite them coming from two different people. If you and I collaborate on a book and your chapter says it's immoral to eat meat and my chapter says it isn't immoral to eat meat, then the book is self-contradictory, again notwithstanding the fact the statements came from different sources. The fact the Bible was written by countless different people explains WHY it's contradictory, but it doesn't make those contradictions go away.

The bible was never meant to be read like a novel.
Clearly not. It's expected to be read like propaganda, and that's how most people read it..... picking and choosing the bits that they think they can use as weapons against others and shields for their own behaviors. I'm just saying that reading it like a novel makes you realize it doesn't hold together.

The gospels were NOT written by four guys named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Did someone suggest they were?

Who gives a shit!

Me. The fact that you have two drastically mutually contradictory versions of that story, like so many others in the Bible, is a good guide for us in deciding how to treat the Bible. If it were scrupulously internally consistent, we might be more willing to see it as a fairly accurate recounting of real events (however embellished by imaginary magical flourishes). But the contradictions we see suggest that if there was some kernel of history there at some point, it's been hopelessly obscured by the imaginations of writers who were basically dreaming up historical fiction to grind political and cultural axes of their own.

How is your morality affected if Judas hanged himself vs. burst open in the middle of a field?
My morality is positively affected by the fact the Bible reveals itself to be bunk through such contradictions. By devaluing itself in that way, it clears room for people to think more seriously about morality, in an independent way that is driven by Reason, rather than imagining that some primitive ancient people already got the definitive word on it from an incarnated god, and preserved it in a sacred text.

I think you entered into the task of reading the bible not with seeking the truth
The reason I came to such different conclusions than you is that I honestly did come to the task of reading it as an effort to seek the truth. When you do that, you actually find the truth: that the Bible is similar to the Odyssey, the Iliad, Works and Days, Theogony, the Veda, the Eddas, and so on.... an interesting relic of a less enlightened time, which can be appreciated for poetry and pored over for distorted hints about history, but with no special claim on truth or morality relative to any of countless other ancient texts.

I think humanity is woven into the very fabric of the bible. Human flaws, human sin, human evil
Of course it is. It is 100% the product of the human imagination and the human understanding of human society and the world we humans live in, so of course humanity is woven through it. Again, the same could be said for the Odyssey, the Iliad, and so on. Humans can't help embedding our natures into everything we write.
 

Arkady

President
Isra-el. Struggles with God. Wipes away your whole paragraph.

I thought you were smarter than this.
First, you know why it's called that. It's because they imagined themselves descended from a superhero who wrestled with a supernatural being, variously identified as God or an angel. None of that, of course, wipes away my paragraph.
 
Top