Poverty

203 posts / 0 new

Comments

Banished or self-imposed exile, it's too bad we can't get one more delusional nugget of his wisdom.

My son is going to our church today to participate in "Hoops of Hope". It's a charity fund raising event using basketball as a means of raising money for orphans of HIV in Africa. Could Clirus actually find that raising money for poor African kids who are orphaned by HIV to be a cause worthy of Christian charity or are their sins of being poor and having parents who died from AIDS preclude them of any church sanctioned assistance?

What would Clirus do?

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I do not know what Clirus would say or do. I do not know enough to make a guess beyond a reasonable doubt. However, as I former fundamentalist Christian, I think that I might have said that Satan was causing it to tempt us Christians into violating the Bible when it comes to improper gathering of food and supplies that could spread ideas different from our own.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

I'm not sure how my church would get categorized, but I'm always pleasantly surprised by our pastor's ability to never even approach the line that so many churches so easily step over in regards to politics and all this right wing hate. Their ability to be "conservative" yet not the typical hate mongers that we always associate with being "conservative" can be both refreshing and confusing. Our world may not necessarily be so simply black and white as some would suggest, but it is NOT just an ambigous shade of gray either. Helping others can never be disputed.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Micahjr wrote: "When Clirus talks about not wanting to suffer the consequences of "other people's sins," he/she just blows me away."

poly replies: Currently the entire globe is suffering from the "sins" of banksters and financiers. The poor are suffering the most.. Blaming the victims of the rape for their own rape contradicts the Christian bible....

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have noticed that Christians sometimes talk of "helping the poor." That is rather vague and general. Clirus said that science can't solve these kinds of problems. Once again, I see the conservative tendency to put forward a kind of red herring argument, a kind of misconstruing of what is really being said and supported by others. Poverty is not one problem but is actually several or even many problems. No one here has suggested that science can solve these problems. Instead of paraphrasing the Bible, it would be more helpful to read about research, about statistics, about actual programs, some well-established and some experimental or tentative, on "helping the poor." On some basic level, people do not want others to feel sorry for them, but at the same time, our society has moved toward the opposite direction of showing contempt for those who don't earn a great deal of money, such as the 550,000 workers last year year who were paid at or below the minimum wage of $7.25 in Texas, more than double the number making those wages in 2006 in that state, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I notice that no one picked up on my mentioning of author Barbara Ehrenreich who was recently inteviewed on Thom's program by David Sirota. I don't see any detailed commentary here, any specific anthropological or economic analysis, of the actual, true-to-life experiences of the working poor, how people like Clirus criticize those who are poor in terms of ignorant, simple-minded statements, but who probably would prefer that people who are able to work have jobs rather than be unemployed, something that most people would agree on, including the unemployed who need work and income, but yet, the power of social stratification is such that not only conservatives, but many liberals, take for granted many working people as these struggling employees go about their daily routines. The conservatives are sometimes rude and arrogant to workers who they encounter at airports, hotels, stores, or restaurants. Perhaps there are a few progressives who sometimes lose their tempers or talk down to employees, as well.

America is a meritocracy. I don't see much discussion on these discussion boards about the unfair and distorted was in which employers decide who has merit and who doesn't.

Their are problems within impoverished neighborhoods. We need to move beyond decrying the rich to talking about research done by professionals at places such as the University of Chicago School of Social Services Administration. After all, Senator Bernie Sanders is a graduate of the U. of Chicago. Politicians often ignore empirical findings and conservatives in n particular promulgate stereotypes and exaggerations.

Robindell's picture
Robindell
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Robindell:

I have noticed that Christians sometimes talk of "helping the poor." That is rather vague and general. Clirus said that science can't solve these kinds of problems. Once again, I see the conservative tendency to put forward a kind of red herring argument, a kind of misconstruing of what is really being said and supported by others. Poverty is not one problem but is actually several or even many problems. No one here has suggested that science can solve these problems. Instead of paraphrasing the Bible, it would be more helpful to read about research, about statistics, about actual programs, some well-established and some experimental or tentative, on "helping the poor." On some basic level, people do not want others to feel sorry for them, but at the same time, our society has moved toward the opposite direction of showing contempt for those who don't earn a great deal of money, such as the 550,000 workers last year year who were paid at or below the minimum wage of $7.25 in Texas, more than double the number making those wages in 2006 in that state, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I notice that no one picked up on my mentioning of author Barbara Ehrenreich who was recently inteviewed on Thom's program by David Sirota. I don't see any detailed commentary here, any specific anthropological or economic analysis, of the actual, true-to-life experiences of the working poor, how people like Clirus criticize those who are poor in terms of ignorant, simple-minded statements, but who probably would prefer that people who are able to work have jobs rather than be unemployed, something that most people would agree on, including the unemployed who need work and income, but yet, the power of social stratification is such that not only conservatives, but many liberals, take for granted many working people as these struggling employees go about their daily routines. The conservatives are sometimes rude and arrogant to workers who they encounter at airports, hotels, stores, or restaurants. Perhaps there are a few progressives who sometimes lose their tempers or talk down to employees, as well.

America is a meritocracy. I don't see much discussion on these discussion boards about the unfair and distorted was in which employers decide who has merit and who doesn't.

Their are problems within impoverished neighborhoods. We need to move beyond decrying the rich to talking about research done by professionals at places such as the University of Chicago School of Social Services Administration. After all, Senator Bernie Sanders is a graduate of the U. of Chicago. Politicians often ignore empirical findings and conservatives in n particular promulgate stereotypes and exaggerations.

Thank you! Your comments are cogent and well-stated. I've read Ehrenreich's books and am quite familiar with them. Unfortunately, most of our fellow Americans are too lazy to think and read very much, preferring 30-second sound bytes from the corporate media and writing off everything written above a high school level (which isn't very high these days) as "egghead."

Science, social and other? You bet! But we now have mediocrities like Rick Perry running around wanting to be president. Like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, he probably hasn't read a serious book like any of Ehrenreich's for his entire adult life. He's just another demagogue playing to popular prejudice and knee-jerk reaction. His views on science are non-existent because he doesn't really understand what it is. As somebody has already said, Rick Perry is allergic to science. Just look at his position on global climate change. Science, including social science, is great. All too many Americans don't even know what it is, let alone digest its findings, as you advocate.

The American Sheeple. If they elect an all-GOP ticket this next election, they're finally going to get the government they deserve, and as they sit jobless, broke, homeless, and sick, they'll scratch their heads and their behinds and say, "Duh, gee, I didn't think they'd do that!" Gotta love 'em. Or not.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I hope that you guys realize that in post # 103 I was saying that I was formerly a fundamentalist, and that the type of response given is what I might have said if I was still that way. Also, when I said that Clirus "blows me away" I was saying that Clirus' statements gave me shock and bewilderment. It is just that I find this thread to be ambiguous. However, it could be me being paranoid...

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Micah:

You're posts are NOT ambiguous even though this thread may have become so. Not only did you clearly state "former" fundamentalist, but you were so kind as to not suggest how Clirus would respond to my rhetorical question. I wish my posts were as focused and thoughtful as yours.

Do you actually believe that Clirus is a true believing fundamantlaist / evangelical or just a right wing asshole troll who is trying to make his political points while throwing a few lines of scripture to buttress his argument?

Either way, without him to chime in, this thread loses the all important counterpoint to keep it's focus.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Believe it or not,

There are people out there who are as extreme as Clirus, and I have met people like that. Believe it or not, there are real people out there who would post such things and mean it. What is even more disturbing is this:

"Those who believe in absurdities are the first to commit atrocities." - Philosopher whose name I forget.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Christianity is about internal growth/development as a human being...expressed outwardly. We express who we are daily...religious or .not. ,

The do's and don'ts are merely a guide to that. One doesn't grow internally and develop one's full humanity by murdering one's neighbor or by blithly watching a neighbor starve..

The "rules" are guides...a pointing. Keeping the rules while ignoring the intent is foolish. What it is to be a whole, complete human being is the goal...not some pie in the sky. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you"..- Jesus.

If being a complete, nurturing, beauty-loving human being ever becomes the cultural norm,, institutionalized religion as we know it will vanish. There will be no excuse to maintain it.

Retired Monk -"Ideology is a disease"

,...

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

"Those who believe in absurdities are the first to commit atrocities." - Philosopher whose name I forget." Micah

Here ya go...

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thank You Norske!

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm
Quote Ulysses:

The New International Version (NIV) is one of multiple modern language Bibles. It is most commonly (but not exclusively) used by fundamentalist/evangelical clerics and their followers.

Most fundamentalists that I've been exposed to use the King James Version of the Bible, Ulysses. And, I'm not sure what you are trying to get across in saying that the NIV version is 'one of multiple modern language Bibles'. The New International Version is a new translation of the most ancient extant texts that we have of the Bible--with numerous cross-referenced footnotes if different texts offer different words. Another interesting thing that the NIV does is that it cross-references statements in the New Testament to the corresponding statements in the Old Testament--an interesting perspective that exposes how much of the 'New Testament statements' are actually found being said by the 'Old Testament prophets'. Have you actually ever looked into a NIV Bible? Or, where are you getting this idea that it is 'one of multiple modern language Bibles'. If the Bible isn't in the original Hebrew or Greek (or, if you can find a New Testament version old enough, Aramaic), it is 'some other language than what the Bible was originally written in'.... so, what's your point? Let's see......

Quote Ulysses:

It is at variance with other modern language versions, including the transcendentally based (as differentiated from fundamentally based) Bibles, such as the Jerusalem.

I see. The other thing that had me decide to read the NIV version than any other English version is that the NIV set out to intentionally NOT try to alter the meaning of the original texts in as much as modern translators can do so--and, as I've said, when two manuscripts don't say it exactly the same way, the NIV version notes that in a footnote. Or, as my point on the definition of 'satan' describes, when there is a word that has a translation for us, the NIV footnotes note that.

Quote Ulysses:

In the NIV, Luke 7:31-35 ignores several points emphasized in the Jerusalem...

If you have a version of Luke 7:31-35 that points out this distinction you are describing--or even some other verse that illuminates whatever point it is you are trying to get across, why don't you quote it--and I will look up the NIV version (with included footnotes, if any) to see what you are trying to get at...

Quote Ulysses:

....First, these scriptures document Jesus' condemnation of John the Baptist's contemporaries because they haven't the faith and/or acumen to listen to John and give him credence.

I'm still wondering what your point is here....what does that have to do with what I see as the ultimate point of Luke 7:31-35, with the ending of those verses: 'But wisdom is proved right by all her children.' What does the 'Jerusalem Bible' say that verse says? One point in that statement that I have noted before is that it is one of the very few times that the canonized Bible gives 'God' a 'feminine' context....I think it counters quite well with the 'warrior-God'--which is, of course, 'masculine'...

And, if you really want to know my way of thinking of this, that ties in fairly well with Erich Fromm's description of 'love' in his short book, The Art of Love. Even though Fromm was doing it in the context of human development within the family unit, I think that it carries over well with this contention between 'masculine God' and 'feminine God' components as my reading of the Bible shows. Fromm notes that 'masculine love' is more in line with 'I love you if you follow my commands (and I don't love you if you don't)'--and 'feminine love' is more in line with 'I love you no matter what you do'--and Fromm notes that human development (of each 'person') requires both types of love (perhaps even 'evenly balanced'). Then, when you point out that (at least in my education days), there are 'masculine and feminine components' in every-one (in my education's explanation of psychological development, one being 'expressed in oneself' and one being 'projected to another'--but still being 'possessed by all'), you can get some idea of what the 'androgynous God' entails in the 'totality of truth', if you will. Maybe I ought to explain that 'androgynous' concept a bit--as some esoteric religions emphasize, 'God' (as 'One') is not 'neutered' in the sense of having 'neither male nor female' components--but, 'androgynous' in the sense of having 'both male and female' components in all their complete--and absolute--expression in 'One'....

Quote Ulysses:

Mark's overriding message is the manifestation of the crucified Christ and its acknowledgment by God, through miracles, as well as Jesus' rejection by the people -- the "messianic secret." Luke is similar, but it's much more teachy. Luke documents Christ's loving kindness, emphasizes prayer, and looks to the Holy Spirit.

'Overriding message' in Mark? Here is where one message in the NIV version becomes pertinent to this description that Ulysses is giving us and this 'Jerusalem Bible' (which sounds like a 'modern interpretation'--with a rather sanctimonious tone--to me). Many agree that Mark is the oldest version of Jesus and his story extant in the world today. The only thing older is Paul's Epistles. Most believers at the time believed that Jesus was to return in their lifetime--so, there didn't seem to be a need to write any of Jesus' words and story down for posterity. Also, there is some thought that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), since they basically had the same story of Jesus had the same source now lost to us--source 'Q' (however, there are some significant differences in the Synoptic Gospels preventing them from just being 'copies of each other'--or perhaps 'copies of Mark'--such as the differences in the genealogies of Jesus present in Matthew and Luke--not only with the respect to the number of generations that entailed but, also, in respect to which progeny of King David Jesus came from--Solomon, the heir to the throne of Isreal from David as in Matthew Chapter 1--or Nathan, the prophet-son of David, in Luke Chapter 3--Mark, the oldest of the three Synoptic Gospels, does not describe a genealogy).

But, back to that significant difference in Mark, the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, and the NIV scholars translation of it using the oldest ancient texts available to them in as accurate a way as possible--including pointing out any differences the manuscripts may have between each other. The last chapter in Mark is Chapter 16--the NIV version titles it 'The Resurrection'. The King James version (and, since it is the traditional version known to most English-speaking people that the NIV is following) and the NIV version have 20 verses in that chapter. However, the NIV version, instead of 'footnoting it' (like it does everywhere else there are differences in the manuscripts available to them), puts a line after verse 8 in Chapter 16 of Mark. Prior to this, it is describing how three women--Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Salome--are going out to Jesus' tomb to anoint his body after Jesus was crucified--and they find the tomb empty. In the tomb, they saw a young man in a white robe who explained to the three women to not be alarmed, ...."You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucifed. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'"

And, then, verse 8 says, 'Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

And, then, the NIV version has a line here and says in brackets [The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20]. This implies that Mark 16:9-20 were added on at a later time. And, that is significant because Mark 16:9-20 has Jesus coming back to the three women and coming back to his disciples and instructing them like this (Mark 16:14-20, NIV version):

Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven (the traitor, Judas, was gone by now--my addition) as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

Since these words were not in the earliest manuscripts of Mark, the conclusion becomes apparent that the early church adherents (that formed decades after Jesus' death) added it to them. What some 'modern interpreters' claim is an 'early church redaction' of the original story of Jesus as told by the oldest manuscripts available as 'Mark'.

Quote Ulysses:

I don't understand the direct relevance of any of this to the stated positions of the erstwhile troll, unless the point is simply that his position is generally dismissive of the Good News, and that it's monstrously hypocritical to claim one's Christianity while dismissively judging others.

You have to put Luke 7:31-35 in the context of who is determined 'right by God' and who is determined 'wrong by God' with respect especially to its last statement 'But wisdom is proved right by all her children'--and outward behavior (vs. inward thoughts--I thought that my description made that clear). Especially considering the point that the 'Son of Man', contrary to John the Baptists more 'righteous' position of 'not drinking wine', '...came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."' (by the way, 'tax collectors' had no better a standing in society then than they do now--pretty low-life scum willing to extract from their neighbors with impunity for the benefit of empire--some couldn't find a job doing anything else...). Point being, as I thought my idea on the 'God of conscience' (instead of the 'warrior-God') description explained, as Jesus' constant admonition against 'hypocrisy' and toward this 'all-inclusive wisdom' shows to me, 'outward righteousness' (or lack thereof) does not always connote to 'inward conscientiousness' due to the prospect of 'hypocrisy'....and it is quite hypocritical for the rich to claim a 'standing with God' over the poor from just the point of 'being rich' alone....'wisdom is proved right by all her children'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I agree with the OP's last few sentences in #114, as far as they go, so if all the text he produced to get there was in support of them, great.

I stand by my exegetic remarks on the differences between the NIV and other modern language Bibles, as well as my statement that the NIV is not the only broadly recognized modern language Bible. Thusly, it shouldn't be considered the sole genuine authority among modern language Bibles. I also stand by my exegetic analyses of the Synoptic Gospels, the implication being that because different language is used in the NIV and other modern language Bibles, differences in exegesis and thus, differences in textual interpretation, are inevitable. So, any interpretation stemming solely from the NIV cannot reasonably be considered exhaustive. I also stand by my statement that when Protestant fundamentalists choose to use a modern language Bible, they more often than not go to the NIV. I know most of them use the King James most of the time, because due to its classically poetic yet archaic prose, it most readily provides the requisite ambiguity for their self-serving interpretations when the time comes to pass the plate. Using the King James does not mean they don't go to the NIV more than other modern language Bibles. In stating that, I'm not implying that the poster of #114 has anything to do with them, only that it's a fact.

Referring to the Jerusalem as "...this Jerusalem Bible..." as though it's some arcane, latecoming, or second-rate version reveals a singular, broad-based lack of understanding that the existence of multiple modern-language Bibles inevitably leads to differences in interpretation, and that exegesis from the NIV is thus hardly exhaustive. I'm not going to discourse on the Jerusalem for the poster of #114; if he's truly interested, he'll investigate it for himself, at which point he will learn that just because he doesn't know of it and apparently hasn't heard of it doesn't mean that it isn't huge in modern religious studies, even though it's textually quite different from the NIV.

That's all I have to say on this. I've engaged with the poster of #114 on other topics in the past and found that less than rewarding, so I'll not do it again. If I feel in need of a Jeremiad, I can, uh, read the Bible. I own a King James, an NIV, and a Jerusalem, as well as a Koran, some Gitas, the Upanishads, and some Jewish scholary works, all for purposes of study and comparison. I was educated by the Jesuits but I am not a Catholic. Many Jesuits are outstanding college professors. My partner is a Theosophist who was raised Episcopalian, and I've just bought and am listening to The Teaching Company's audio series on Great World Religions. The point? In mentioning the differences between the NIV and the Jerusalem, I know whence I speak. Comparative religion has been an interest for years. I invite anybody who's interested to sit down with an NIV and a Jerusalem and read the same verses in each, first in one, then in the other, including the verse cited by the poster of #114. You'll find remarkably different texts and headings in large parts of both Bibles, and when you see what's omitted or written differently in one or the other, you'll instantly see what was important to its translators and whether the spin was more fundamental or more transcendental, theologically speaking. They're quite different, even though they're both universally known among lay scholars, theologians, and clergy. Overall, the NIV is more fundamental; the Jerusalem is more transcendental, so a reader's choice of which to rely on is usually (but not always) determined by whether that reader's views of Christianity are fundamental or transcendental.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, no need to get real sniffy about it, Ulysses (and you can call me by my name I use here). I remember your conversations in the past. You're the one that believes that statistical analysis results in 'scientific proof'--something I remember disagreeing with if you don't have a valid description explaining the results (as if any-one thinker could understand it from a 'cause and effect' manner). As I've said elsewhere, I am not one to believe that general trends connote 'scientific fact'--and 'exceptions to the rule' can be just as pertinent to scientific knowledge (in a 'cause and effect' manner) as 'the rule'--especially 'the rule' defined solely by 'general trends'.....without such a descriptive explanation of such trended results, you could 'statistically prove' that chocolate causes chicken pox given the right circumstances and right data...and come to 'believe that' just like a religion....also, in many religion's 'morality', making judgments on general trends as if it specified all possibilities in such a 'morality'....which, I don't believe it does, nor did Jesus (speaking against hypocrisy), because of the examples used in Luke 7:31-35 (NIV version) and 'wisdom being proved right by all her children'....

If you see me as a fundamentalist, I'm afraid you've got me all wrong--and you really haven't read much else of what I have written on these boards--even about religion. But, it tells a lot about you to castigate me (once again)--yet, you feel no need to justify your remarks. If you think that there is a 'transcendental' perspective (is that like the 'American Transcendental' movement of the early 1800's including such people as Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson?) that I'm missing that your 'Jerusalem' Bible endorses especially concerning this judgment and analysis that you have placed on me, then I think it fair that you explain yourself--and, since this seems to be such an issue with you, starting with Luke 7:31-35. I am a (self-taught) student of religion, also--and have read a fair number of books on it in its various types (even comparative religious texts)--but, I center more on Christianity and its early history and development into the various sects that were formed in the first 300 years after Jesus--and know quite a bit about that history. That's how I knew Mark's 'mystical elements' were an add-on in Mark 16:9-20 even before I had read it in the NIV version. If you have compared this Jerusalem Bible with the NIV version, then you should have known it, also. Those 'mystical add-ons' have tainted Christianity and the basic (directly moral) messages of Jesus since the beginning of the Christian era--with the distinctions so obvious that even Thomas Jefferson (who read the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek as well as its English translation--and pieced parts from all three languages in a manner that he thought was the 'basic message of Jesus' in The Jefferson Bible) said they were as easy to distinguish as 'diamonds from a dunghill'.

Perhaps, since you do believe that general trends in statistics connote scientific fact without any validating explanations, your faith is in the same manner--generalizations that carry no personal meaning but can carry personal attacks in a manner that justifies the generalizations to begin with. Just an observation--like you are with me, not saying that is exactly 'you'.....

I don't have a Jerusalem Bible. I do suspect that, at one point in my search, I've probably seen and maybe even looked into one. However, just on your critique (without qualifications) alone, I'm not going to jump out and buy one, either. If you really have something to compare with it here, you should quote it and let's see what we can make of it......or not, as the case may be.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Well, no need to get real sniffy about it, Ulysses (and you can call me by my name I use here). I remember your conversations in the past. You're the one that believes that statistical analysis results in 'scientific proof'--something I remember disagreeing with if you don't have a valid description explaining the results (as if any-one thinker could understand it from a 'cause and effect' manner). As I've said elsewhere, I am not one to believe that general trends connote 'scientific fact'--and 'exceptions to the rule' can be just as pertinent to scientific knowledge (in a 'cause and effect' manner) as 'the rule'--especially 'the rule' defined solely by 'general trends'.....without such a descriptive explanation of such trended results, you could 'statistically prove' that chocolate causes chicken pox given the right circumstances and right data...and come to 'believe that' just like a religion....also, in many religion's 'morality', making judgments on general trends as if it specified all possibilities in such a 'morality'....which, I don't believe it does, nor did Jesus (speaking against hypocrisy), because of the examples used in Luke 7:31-35 (NIV version) and 'wisdom being proved right by all her children'....

If you see me as a fundamentalist, I'm afraid you've got me all wrong--and you really haven't read much else of what I have written on these boards--even about religion. But, it tells a lot about you to castigate me (once again)--yet, you feel no need to justify your remarks. If you think that there is a 'transcendental' perspective (is that like the 'American Transcendental' movement of the early 1800's including such people as Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson?) that I'm missing that your 'Jerusalem' Bible endorses especially concerning this judgment and analysis that you have placed on me, then I think it fair that you explain yourself--and, since this seems to be such an issue with you, starting with Luke 7:31-35. I am a (self-taught) student of religion, also--and have read a fair number of books on it in its various types (even comparative religious texts)--but, I center more on Christianity and its early history and development into the various sects that were formed in the first 300 years after Jesus--and know quite a bit about that history. That's how I knew Mark's 'mystical elements' were an add-on in Mark 16:9-20 even before I had read it in the NIV version. If you have compared this Jerusalem Bible with the NIV version, then you should have known it, also. Those 'mystical add-ons' have tainted Christianity and the basic (directly moral) messages of Jesus since the beginning of the Christian era--with the distinctions so obvious that even Thomas Jefferson (who read the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek as well as its English translation--and pieced parts from all three languages in a manner that he thought was the 'basic message of Jesus' in The Jefferson Bible) said they were as easy to distinguish as 'diamonds from a dunghill'.

Perhaps, since you do believe that general trends in statistics connote scientific fact without any validating explanations, your faith is in the same manner--generalizations that carry no personal meaning but can carry personal attacks in a manner that justifies the generalizations to begin with. Just an observation--like you are with me, not saying that is exactly 'you'.....

I don't have a Jerusalem Bible. I do suspect that, at one point in my search, I've probably seen and maybe even looked into one. However, just on your critique (without qualifications) alone, I'm not going to jump out and buy one, either. If you really have something to compare with it here, you should quote it and let's see what we can make of it......or not, as the case may be.....

Shhh. There, there. Shhh.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Why are we having to be so quiet, Ulysses? Are we poised to receive the 'transcendental message' from the Jerusalem Bible--so 'poised' we have to be real quiet to 'get it'?

And, still nothing about 'wisdom proved right by all her children'.....is something more transcendental than that the Jerusalem Bible offers?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, our Abbot's New Testament is in Ancient Greek. He doesn't like any of the translations. He says they all contain errors.

I do prefer the Jerusalem Bible myself for "easy reading". It's beautifully done. I do miss the ample cross-referencing and when I want it, I use another translation.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Could someone quote the Jerusalem Bible's rendition of Luke 7:31-35? Now that such a big thing is being made about how the NIV is 'fundamentalist' and the Jerusalem Bible is 'transcendental', I'd like to see how those who espouse such a distinction make such a distinction.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Why are we having to be so quiet, Ulysses? Are we poised to receive the 'transcendental message' from the Jerusalem Bible--so 'poised' we have to be real quiet to 'get it'?

And, still nothing about 'wisdom proved right by all her children'.....is something more transcendental than that the Jerusalem Bible offers?

"We?"

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Could someone quote the Jerusalem Bible's rendition of Luke 7:31-35? Now that such a big thing is being made about how the NIV is 'fundamentalist' and the Jerusalem Bible is 'transcendental', I'd like to see how those who espouse such a distinction make such a distinction.....

Now, now. Those who become exercised may need to be exorcised.

It's never sound to construct false distinctions which ostensibly, but don't, in actuality, respond to points never factually made by those with whom you're arguing. And no raising rhetorical straw men to slap down in vainglorious attempts to lend gravitas to one's own uninformed and poorly conceived positions and make those positions appear cogent. Faulty logical argumentation. Tsk, tsk.

Hush, hush.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This is you isn't it in post #100? Let me emphasize a few words here:

Quote Ulysses:

The New International Version (NIV) is one of multiple modern language Bibles. It is most commonly (but not exclusively) used by fundamentalist/evangelical clerics and their followers. It is at variance with other modern language versions, including the transcendentally based (as differentiated from fundamentally based) Bibles, such as the Jerusalem.

Who's creating the dichotomy now? Why, I believe it was you, Ulysses. I'm not against dichotomies--they are good for analytic thought. And, the real answer may transcend either side....

You did bring up the Jerusalem Bible as being 'transcendentally based'--vs., as you say, the 'NIV Bible of the fundamentalists'. I am really just asking you to qualify your remarks. You are the one that espoused that distinction--I would like to hear you explain how you make that distinction. That's all. I fell that since it was you that brought this up, you should be able to explain yourself. Or, does all this posturing of yours 'transcend' mere words....well, if you can't completely explain it, I can understand, 'transcendence' has that quality--but, you could give examples and your statement above appeared after I quoted the NIV version of Luke 7:31-35 so I am assuming the 'transcendental version' says it differently--I would like to know how that 'difference' represents 'transcendence'....vs., of course, 'fundamentalism'....Despite your posturing on 'strawmen', I do think it a fair request.....

By the way, is 'logic' a part of this 'transcendental message'? Or, is it faulty to even try to 'logically analyze' transcendence? Also, I think fair questions.....I believe that those who speak against rationalism seem to say that 'transcendence' is not a logical assessment....'faulty' or not....but, I could be wrong....but, I won't know if you don't explain yourself.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

All three Abrahamic religions contain a small, but active element of mystics. Judaism has kaballah, Christianity has gnosticism, and Islam has the Sufi's. The goal of all three groups (and mystic sects found in other religions) is to find a common wisdom that allows for personal transformation with little to no discriminatory attitudes resulting from dogmatic and literal interpretation of the scriptures associated with that religion.

I myself am a epistemological skeptic of sorts, but the truths to be found in the writings of "Ecclesiastes," for example, blow me away. When I have existential crises (with the one I had very recently), reading this writing helps because it shows that skeptics and believers alike can experience a meaningless "vanity" to life and things just make no sense. I may be a skeptic, but the transcendental truths in some parts of the Bible (Tanach) can blow me away.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

I bet the person who started this thread probably believes if you masturbate you will go blind, as well.

Sorry, I just can't take these "debates" about religion seriously.

Yes, I am an atheist, and I have not been struck down by lightening yet. Gosh...

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

My two cents... Back to the Original Post that started these pages of comments. As a Christian who attended Baptist Bible College in my mid 40's I DO know scripture. I also know that we live in a secular country and even though I love to share Jesus with anyone who would listen, I certainly would NEVER attempt to force my beliefs on them. Sin IS the root of all the world's problems. You don't even have to be a "believer" to see that. What I propose is that all of us try to Love one another, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't mess with your neighbor's property OR his wife. Live by those simple rules and even if there is no God we would still be better off. Morals are for EVERYONE, not just a selected few. The "Golden Rule" works just the same for an atheist or a saint...

Peace, Randy

Randy95023's picture
Randy95023
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 3:13 am

The POVERTY thread will not go away, but I have been banned.

Makes you wonder why the Thom Hartmann censors are so worried.

cli2rus's picture
cli2rus
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2011 4:59 am

Makes me wonder why you have not yet answered my contentions, Clirus. You still have not answered me concerning the vapor content of the atmosphere during "Noah's flood" and about how the age of the Earth goes beyond that of creationist estimates.

Clirus, you need to realize that when people communicate, they can be offensive in two ways: They can be offensive in what they say, and they can be offensive in how they say it. To me, I am not so offended by what you say, but I am offended by how you say it. Yes, there is a lot of wrong doing in this world, but the attitude communicated by your posts is that you care more about "other people's sins." My RESPONSE to that is "Physician, heal thyself!" Look after your own sinfulness!

As for me, I am going to refrain communicating to you until you realize that how people communicate is just as important as what they communicate. I respect your right to think whatever you want, but how you communicate it is another matter.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

One more thing, I acknowledge that I have my own problems with "sin." I acknowledge that I am an imperfect person. However, in order to avoid hypocrisy on my part, instead of projecting my faults on "other people's sins," I try just to focus on those wrong doings that I do to others.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm
Quote Randy95023:My two cents... Back to the Original Post that started these pages of comments. As a Christian who attended Baptist Bible College in my mid 40's I DO know scripture. I also know that we live in a secular country and even though I love to share Jesus with anyone who would listen, I certainly would NEVER attempt to force my beliefs on them.

The problem is that the Tea Party and many of its "Christian" conservative allies have no such scruples about forcing their beliefs on others and are, in fact, after a Protestant fundamentalist theocracy in America if, ultimately, they can get their way.

Sin IS the root of all the world's problems.

In a way, you and I are in coincidental agreement on this, albeit not in the same context that it was voiced by the departed troll. The very first post I made in this thread states that the cause of poverty is greed, and greed, in fact, is one of the Seven Deadly Sins: gluttony. Gluttony for money and accumulated wealth, just for the sake of "having," rather than necessity. I still believe that the cause of poverty is greed, while recognizing that the other sins have different negative consequences. Most of what is recognized as sin by the religious is also illegal or recognized as unethical by the irreligious and secular humanists.

One proof that greed is the cause of poverty is that a collection of scientists has calculated that if there were no greed, the earth, even with the finite resources it has now, could support a population three to four times larger than the current global population. That would include everybody having all the necessities and a little left over. But the Deadly Sin of gluttony (greed), as practiced by the few who control most of the planet's wealth, precludes that from happening.

You don't even have to be a "believer" to see that. What I propose is that all of us try to Love one another, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't mess with your neighbor's property OR his wife. Live by those simple rules and even if there is no God we would still be better off. Morals are for EVERYONE, not just a selected few. The "Golden Rule" works just the same for an atheist or a saint...

Indisputable.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

I bet the person who started this thread probably believes if you masturbate you will go blind, as well.

Sorry, I just can't take these "debates" about religion seriously.

Yes, I am an atheist, and I have not been struck down by lightening yet. Gosh...

The hateful little troll OP that has been banned has apparently broke forum rules once again by posting on a new handle...

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 10:39 am
Quote Kerry:

This is you isn't it in post #100? Let me emphasize a few words here:

Quote Ulysses:

The New International Version (NIV) is one of multiple modern language Bibles. It is most commonly (but not exclusively) used by fundamentalist/evangelical clerics and their followers. It is at variance with other modern language versions, including the transcendentally based (as differentiated from fundamentally based) Bibles, such as the Jerusalem.

Who's creating the dichotomy now? Why, I believe it was you, Ulysses. I'm not against dichotomies--they are good for analytic thought. And, the real answer may transcend either side....

You did bring up the Jerusalem Bible as being 'transcendentally based'--vs., as you say, the 'NIV Bible of the fundamentalists'. I am really just asking you to qualify your remarks. You are the one that espoused that distinction--I would like to hear you explain how you make that distinction. That's all. I fell that since it was you that brought this up, you should be able to explain yourself. Or, does all this posturing of yours 'transcend' mere words....well, if you can't completely explain it, I can understand, 'transcendence' has that quality--but, you could give examples and your statement above appeared after I quoted the NIV version of Luke 7:31-35 so I am assuming the 'transcendental version' says it differently--I would like to know how that 'difference' represents 'transcendence'....vs., of course, 'fundamentalism'....Despite your posturing on 'strawmen', I do think it a fair request.....

By the way, is 'logic' a part of this 'transcendental message'? Or, is it faulty to even try to 'logically analyze' transcendence? Also, I think fair questions.....I believe that those who speak against rationalism seem to say that 'transcendence' is not a logical assessment....'faulty' or not....but, I could be wrong....but, I won't know if you don't explain yourself.....

Oh, are you still here?

It is not my aim, goal, or mission to educate you on this topic so that you can argue with me. Many universities and even some community colleges offer comprehensive courses in comparative religion, both interdenominational and intradenominational. And there are books, and audio courses, and magazines, and denominational journals, and...

Adios.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Well, our Abbot's New Testament is in Ancient Greek. He doesn't like any of the translations. He says they all contain errors.

Don't all claims of Biblical authority which are not direct Greek or Hebrew seem a bit suspect?

Isn't Biblical innerancy impossible to defend if you only have english translations as your reference point?

Which english translation is the "correct" translation?

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

"Isn't Biblical innerancy impossible to defend if you only have english translations as your reference point?" Laborisgood

I would submit that the concept of "Biblical inerrancy" is impossible to defend regardless of which translation or original text one has at their disposal....

During my Christian period... as I became more aware of where, when and how the Bible came into being... I retreated into a state of perpetual (WWJD) as I took his sayings and meanings as I concluded them to be from my extensive study and as aligned with my charitable and liberal viewpoints. Looked between the lines so to speak as opposed to a legalistic intrepretation.

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Certainly anyone can choose to latch onto one specific text and say IT is the legalistic end all of their inerrancy perspective, but as the previous bickering about translations shows it is more qualitative than quantitative.

Looking between the lines is essential to gaining any meaningful insight from the Bible due to it's diverse nature. However, once you do start to read between the lines, doesn't that allow for all the literal "errors" to be smoothed over and perhaps pave the way to an "inerrancy" that does not hinge on a literal interpretation?

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What is both amusing and depressing about the discussions of the bibles and authenticity is how far the present agenda has strayed from the original. Biblical "inerrancy" cannot be about the texts. There are so many! But were there authenticated original texts, and even were they in a language without obscurant issues, we would still not have their clear and undisputed "meaning."

The point of biblical inerrancy is that it is not about that stuff at all. Our problem getting "the Word of God" out of the Bible is about us, not the Bible. That means that the meaning of the Bible, as the Word of God, comes out of the texts like music comes out of the score of a symphony. It is not to be found in an academic study of the composition, but in the playing of the music. The study and practice will improve the playing, but unless the music rises off the page and is transformed by the players, it will be academic exercise and not music. Of course, if those who have neither practiced nor studied think they can make music, they discover otherwise. The rare genius excepted.

The study of the Bible and its creation is fascinating if that is your cup of tea. The Gospels are akin to tracts and were written to persuade others of the truth of Jesus' claim to be The One. They depended upon a culture of Messianic Expectation who would be looking for "The One." How and why such specifically-intended pamphlet writing became the Ultimate Classic known as Scripture is less important than why reading them with our modern agendas fails to let them speak.

We read the Bible with our modern agenda and force the authors to choose sides in wars they could not understand. The texts become battle grounds, but the message becomes meaningless.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

"However, once you do start to read between the lines, doesn't that allow for all the literal "errors" to be smoothed over and perhaps pave the way to an "inerrancy" that does not hinge on a literal interpretation?" Laborisgood

Sure... it is just as fraught with danger as the concept of Biblical inerrancy. I was a liberal who had always worked at helping people prior to becoming a Christian... so I gravitated towards those verses which buttressed that which I already did... while ignoring the verses which were incoherent and not as charitable.

I suppose those in (The Family) et al have it down to a science how to interperet the Bible in a way which supports their twisted take on Calvinism on steroids which supports their world view of dominence by the worthy and blessed elite.

The Bible... or any other religious text has always been used by the few to control the many. Conversely... many also use it to do many good and decent works. Garbage in... garbage out.

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Amen brother!

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The whole issue of inerrancy or infallibility is a red herring as the Bible never makes such a claim itself. Nowhere in the Bible is there any assertion that everything stated in the Bible is true. This is true if for no other reason than no one writing any part of the Bible was aware that eventually a collection of writings would be made by the church... called 'The Bible' and would include this person's contribution. Though some still trot out 2 Timothy 3:16.

It simply isn't important to believe that the Bible is infallible... besides all the errors, inconsistencies and incoherencies contained within... which have nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a 'God'.

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Norske wrote:

Nowhere in the Bible is there any assertion that everything stated in the Bible is true. This is true if for no other reason than no one writing any part of the Bible was aware that eventually a collection of writings would be made by the church... called 'The Bible' and would include this person's contribution.

poly replies: Shhh. You're giving away well-guarded secrets. Scriputure doesn't declare itself infallible. Men did that. Those doing so declared themselves as being infallible in order to declare the infallability of Scripture.

They also declared themselves infallible in the selection of writings to be excluded, and in the selections of writings to be included.

The bible didn't just drop through the Heavenly Gates bound and printed. with the seal of infallibility stamped on it.

I sometimes find it amusing that those rejecting Church infallibility accept its infallible selection of their own Scripture. (some minus a few books)

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Again, the doctrines of biblical authority rest on more than ideology. "Reality" may be a mystery, but it is not a myth. Myths may help us understand or embrace reality, but the idea that the Word of God can be anything other than the Real Thing comes when the human mind is exalted and the mystery is forgotten.

I am talking serious intellectual and moral integrity here. Dogma cannot stand the test of Truth, and Moralism cannot defy the Rule of Love or the Necessity of Justice. What makes an interpretation of any text of scripture "authentic" is the connection between heart and head, between Truth and Love/Justice that is more than a flaming particle. Moral coherence, the sense of healing instead of vengeance and the new possibility come when "the Word of God" speaks to us through the mediation of the Holy Spirit.

OK, this is religious talk and mumble jumble to some extent. But, if you think about the epistemological phenomena being described, what is defended in the end is the conscience rooted in the principles of Truth and Love/Justice. It is a dynamic tension, not a compromise when we speak the Truth in Love. The basic doctrine of biblical authority is that the Word of God cannot conflict with the nature of God. Unloving or untruthful dogma is banned, period. Twisting the texts to make judgement love and condemnation grace is rejected out of hand. The problem is not the Bible, it is those who misuse it.

Everyone pursues the issues of conscience with whatever guidance and authority we grant. The rules of biblical authority reject the kind of weaponized text pursuit used by the defenders of religion. All I am adding to this conversation is some information about how biblical authority is supposed to work. That it has been misused is not secret, and I care as much about the misuse as any critic of religion.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This is why the one true church of the FSM is the only true religion. May his noodley appendages touch your heart.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Christianity is about internal growth/development as a human being...expressed outwardly. We express who we are daily...religious or .not. ,

The do's and don'ts are merely a guide to that. One doesn't grow internally and develop one's full humanity by murdering one's neighbor or by blithly watching a neighbor starve..

The "rules" are guides...a pointing. Keeping the rules while ignoring the intent is foolish. What it is to be a whole, complete human being is the goal...not some pie in the sky. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you"..- Jesus.

If being a complete, nurturing, beauty-loving human being ever becomes the cultural norm,, institutionalized religion as we know it will vanish. There will be no excuse to maintain it.

Response

Giving/Creating Division

The following are the words of Jesus.

Luke 12[51] "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:"

When Jesus paid the sin penalty on the cross, Jesus created a division between the believers (Christians) and the unbelievers (Atheists), that will exist forever.

Many would imply there is little difference between the Christians and the Atheist, but there is a wide gulf that can only be bridged when the Christians offers salvation and the Atheist accepts salvation.

The Christian Lifestyle is based on the an absolute standard (the Bible) but the Atheistic Lifestyle is based on a relative standard of what others are doing or what Civil Law says is legal.

When a Christian is considering something, they consider what the Bible says, but the Atheist considers only what they can get away with.

It is possible for Christians and Atheists to live and work together, but there can be no communion between Christians and Atheists.

II Corinthians 6:14 states, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with the unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

Christians are told to deal with sin/evil by removing the sin from their own lives.

Matthew 6:29 states, And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

For those that refuse the examine themselves and remove the evil, there must be Civil Law to remove the evil, because evil destroys a person and a nation.

The poverty produced by evil is financially bankrupting America because the spending on Socialistic Programs like health care/welfare/entitlements has grown faster then the GDP such that the American credit rating was recently downgraded. I believe the phasing out of Socialistic Programs has to be the solution to the economic crisis in America.

If each person examined themselves and removed the evil from their lives there would be no need for Socialistic Programs. If each person voted to prevent people that advocate or condone evil, from being elected, America would not need Socialistic Programs. Church leaders must proclaim God's word so that Christians will clearly know good from evil. The Church should rebuke sin/evil in obedience to God and the State should rebuke/execute evil/sin for health, safety and economic reasons.

The present day manifestation of the division created between Christians and Atheists is the Cultural War.

There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, Conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote evolution, extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, adultery, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.

Christians need to understand that either Democrats that advocate Atheism and Socialism will govern by Atheistic Principles or Republicans that advocate Christianity and Capitalism will govern by Christian Principles. No Christian should ever vote for any Democrat for any elected office.

Some say it is possible for man to develop a set of rules as good as or better than the commandments/doctrines of the Bible, but I have seen no evidence of that. There is far more evidence the rules of man have led to disease, death, destruction and poverty.

cli2rus's picture
cli2rus
Joined:
Aug. 26, 2011 4:59 am

Western civilization was dominated by the Catholic Church for over a millenium. All who tried to forge a new Christian path were resoundingly defeated until Luther succeeded. He certainly had some powerful friends and the invention of the printing press didn't hurt, but his secret weapon was the Bible. All of his arguments against the Church were rooted in scripture and therefore difficult to refute without contradicting the Word of God.

The irony is that he successfully defeated many of the old sacred cows of the Church (including idolatry) which paved the way for others to idolize the Bible. Beware of the law of unintended consequences. His pruning of the tree created some new branches he never could have dreamed of. Silly monk thought he was going to change the Church, not start a new one (kind of like Jesus).

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Clirus,

In my last communication to you, I noted that you need to watch "how" you say things. In your last post, you did not make any direct ad hominem attacks. That is good! Let me give you some unsolicited yet necessary advice. As noted on this blogging site, and in the posts above, it is against the rules here to post under a different name, especially if you were banned. How can anyone here take you seriously if you are going to break the rules like that? If possible, you need to go and apologize, and then negotiate to get back on, assuming that it is even possible for you to get back on.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm
Quote cli2rus:

The POVERTY thread will not go away, but I have been banned.

Makes you wonder why the Thom Hartmann censors are so worried.

AS IF your baseless claim on poverty has spawned anything but 100% refutation of your hate-filled, politically motivated nonsense that you try to dress up with a little scripture. The good people on this site have taken your twisted bullshit and turned it into fertilizer (Romans 8:28).

Censors need not worry about the likes of you. You'll crawl back under the rock you came from all of your own free will.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote cli2rus:Christians need to understand that either Democrats that advocate Atheism and Socialism will govern by Atheistic Principles or Republicans that advocate Christianity and Capitalism will govern by Christian Principles. No Christian should ever vote for any Democrat for any elected office.

So, you're heretical enough to think that you can, by implication through this statement, ignore and negate all of the prophetic Biblical calls to socioeconomic justice. What a hypocrite!

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Actually, I came on this thread with Luke 7:31-35 specifically directed at clirus because I see clirus using some verses in the Bible to develope the rather 'exclusionary and righteous trend in organized Christianity'--and I know and have read the NIV Bible. The point I was trying to make with clirus before it got sidetracked by Ulysses' diversion on the 'fundamentalism of the NIV Bible' and the 'transcendence of the Jerusalem Bible' was that there was at least one verse in the Bible that wasn't so 'exclusionary' as clirus so proposes, Luke 7:31-35 (NIV version):

"To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:

"'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not cry.'

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."' But wisdom is proved right by all her children.'

If you want the King James version (I have a KJV/NIV Parallel Bible):

And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken then men of this generation? and to what are they like?

They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.

The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

But wisdom is justified of all her children.

If you want a different translation, you'll have to offer it, yourself--or, get someone here to get it for you. That's the two English translations that I have of Luke 7:31-35 (in one book).

However, in fact, for those of us who don't read the Bible as if it were inerrant text but more as 'words put down by people who think that they are talking about God as if in truth, meaning, and worth worshipping', as I've said about any statistical trend, it is sometimes the exceptions that carry the most pertinent meaning--and with regards to clirus' form of 'exclusionary trends in the Bible', Luke 7:31-35 offers what I see as a significant exception. I would like clirus' interpretation of that. Instead, Ulysses castigates me in some distinction (that I have yet to understand) of 'the fundamentalism of the NIV' against 'the transcendence of the Jerusalem Bible'--and most of the rest seem to be going off on that tangent as to how 'inerrancy' may or may not be determined, and may or may not be related to the issue of God, and may or may not be written by fallable men, etc.

That wasn't my point to clirus. My point to clirus was that there is at least one verse in the New Testament that I don't see how it can be seen as, in any way, condoning an 'exclusionary trend in Christianity'--'But wisdom is proved right by all her children' (even using examples of 'unrighteousness' in making that point). I would like to see what clirus, who appears to be accepting the (New Testament--'Christian') aspect of the Bible as representing 'exclusionary righteousness of Christians' would say about it. I really don't want to see us go on a tangent between atheists and believers about this. I would rather not have to, at this point, have this be a distinction between 'fundamentalist text' and 'transcendental text'--although I am willing to address that issue if and when Ulysses is willing to explain the statements made in that context--I suspect it was a vague slur at me directly due to previous encounters with Ulysses and not ever intended to be discussed since Ulysses still won't even use my name that I post with here (in what response Ulysses offers) and still won't address what Ulysses started with the statements to begin with in distinguishing the 'fundamentalism of the NIV Bible' and the 'transcendence of the Jerusalem Bible'. And, maybe I should have let it stand (so, that's my problem with Ulysses with previous discussions) because I helped divert it--but, let me reiterate: What I want to see is a response from clirus explaining what I see as a glaring discrepancy between clirus' form of 'exclusionary trends in righteousness' and the above verse's 'inclusionary exception in wisdom'. Any ideas, clirus? Or, anyone that wants to comment on this particular point.

Let me reiterate before it gets bogged down again in inerrancy, atheism, etc., I recognize that the Bible contains contradictory statements--and whether such contradictions are proof of fallacy is not the point, I think it is proof that the Bible was written by 'men who thought they were speaking about God as if in truth, meaning, and worth worshipping'--that that has contradictory elements and that it appears to have changed in time (with some general trends as the 'warrior-God at the start of the Old Testament' to the 'God of conscience, or love, by the end of the New Testament') is a given to me--although, what I do think is significant is that 'every element of God that was ever discussed in any Biblical text is still present today' (it's which ones we choose to emphasize that appears to be the distinctions--why we do so and what consequences such choices can exert are, I think, pertinent to ponder in today's age'--right up to this point of clirus' 'exclusionary trends in righteousness' and these verses in Luke's 'inclusionary exception in wisdom'). I, personally, don't think that disproves 'God' as much as it proves 'man's incapacity to know all of God' (and 'transcendence' may actually 'be above all the dichotomies')--but I don't want that to be the point in my original post to clirus. In my original post to clirus, I wanted clirus' interpretation and explanation of Luke 7:31-35, specifically in addressing 'But wisdom is proved right by all her children' with respect to clirus' stand that true 'Christianity' is an 'exclusionary trend towards righteousness.' clirus seems to be forgetting one of Jesus' main points--watch out for the hypocrisy of the 'righteous'.....but, I would like for clirus to speak on clirus' own behalf about this particular point in 'But wisdom is proved right by all her children'.

clirus? Or, any one that would like to comment specifically on that 'exception to righteous exclusions for wisdom' in any thought on Christianity or 'God'.....or 'truth'....or even just 'meaningful beliefs'...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Although the NIV appears to be the Bible du jour of right wing extremists, it's not as if it caused their extremism so much is it is a popular translation with many Protestants today. Their extremism is inherent of their world view with the particular Bible they read being more coincidental. The right wing crazies have been around much longer than the NIV and will likely still be around whenever the next translation becomes more popular.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Talking to Laborisgood, not Clirus (or whatever his/her name is right now),

As a former Fundamentalist Christian, I acknowledge that the Bible does have some errors and contradictions. However, that is not the problem. The problem here is the use of the Bible to justify the most horrendous treatment of people. Clirus reminds me of the inquisitors in the Spanish Inquisition, persecuting "sinners," for the sake of creating an area where everyone are "Christians" and not heretical or blasphemous in any way. People of any religion or religiously affiliated philosophy that thinks that whole classes of people need not only no help, but also should be persecuted, is scary.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Of course, I think it implicit in my position to clirus that the 'inclusionary exception in wisdom' includes those in poverty--despite any 'exclusionary trend in righteousness' that any organized element is to promote in any way--up to, and including, the rather preemptive position that 'the rich are rich because God wanted them to be and they are doing God's will'. By the way, carrying over my distinction between the 'tribal-warrior God of the Old Testament' and the 'universal-love/conscience God of the New Testament', clirus' stand is a 'Christian' remnant of the 'tribal-warrior God' (many would say more proposed by Paul than Jesus)--that 'tribe' just happens to claim itself as 'righteous'.....but, not 'wise'.....but, Jesus did warn us about the hypocrisy of the 'righteous'....and, as far as I recall, Paul never mentions 'hypocrisy'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system