bridge to sell them.
That doesn't really justify open attacks against christians though
Yes, Christians openly attack gays
But how are you supposed to be any better than them if you do the same thing back :/
Don't get me wrong, I really dislike the concept of organized religion, but I don't think attacking christians is the right way to go
There are ways to peacefully promote acceptance :/
The only problem here is that Christianity and religion in general hold such a massive degree of privilege in the West, actively maintained for political purposes, that many people have developed an unwarranted expectation to never hear a dissenting opinion expressed openly on the subject.
There are plenty of fundie nutjobs that are certain Jesus will come back within the next few decades, and some make it their life's work to spread that view. Many of them think that America needs to become a Christian nation first, as well. For a prime example, Jack Van Inpe and his fugly pointy-chinned wife have a TV show broadcast out of the Detroit area where they take current events and claim it's proof Jesus is going to appear soon. Like "h1n1 is the plague mentioned in revelations!!!" even though the recent outbreaks are nothing like the plagues of the past, or even the Flu epidemic of 1917. And then at the end of his show he plays this fearmongering clip and says the only way to survive the end of the world is by buying his shit and giving him money... a classic con artist using Christianity to scare people.
Anyway, it's intersting to note that Jesus's followers thought he'd return within 100 years. In fact, Jesus says that some of his followers will still be alive by the time he returns:
And if you read the beginning of Revelations, it describes the angels calling out to Churches in ancient Roman cities that don't even exist anymore, cities that are now a part of Turkey.
So if Revelations is bullshit, how can the rest of the Bible not be taken with a grain of salt?
You're right, Revelations - which when you look at it reads like something you might experience on some sort of fever-dream or drug-induced high - can be interpreted in a non-literal fashion as some metaphorical tale... but there's plenty out there that take Revelations as, well, Gospel truth.
Mind you, when the Bible can't even get something basic like the father of Joseph (Jesus's nominal father) consistent in the Gospels without handwaving some hitherto non-Bible doctrinal explanation, you have to wonder about the veracity of some of the more fantastical claims...
The opinions expressed in this message are bloody good ones.
The bible is sometimes a bit inconsistent
but most christians will tell you they don't take it literally, and that they don't believe the stories actually happened
This is acceptable with things like the miracles and the burning bushes and such
But then sometimes they say that about things where the meaning is the literal interpretation thereof, like when god said that gays are an abomination
Or when Pastor Harris called for parents to beat the gay out of their kids (thread over in OT, basically the same topic at this point). The church community defended him with that, stating that people were taking "if your son gives you limp wrist, you crack that wrist! Give him a good punch" too literally
I like the bible because it actually has some really good rhetoric in it. Like, the style of the writing is incredible, and was probably a huge factor in just how powerful the religion based around it became
Then you start getting into the possibility that John the Apostle wasn't the actual author, but someone referred to simply as John of Patmos, given that writing style and theology changes in Revelations than in the Gospel according to John, specifically whereas Gospel John advocated chastity, Revelations John advocated outright celibacy. Then you're further bothered by the fact that the Bible itself is perhaps the most edited document in human history and that pretty much helps explain why Revelations in and of itself is a head-scratcher when reading it. Dream recollection mixed with edits and confusion of the original author's writing style.
OR: "If the only 'proof' that God exists is an inperfect book written by Man, then that's not very good proof at all and he probably doesn't exist."
In any case, Mayfurr hit it on the nail. Fundies and evangelicals believe the Bible is either the inerrant, perfect word of God, with no errors in it, or a book written by man but guided and inspired by God, with no errors in it. This is why right-wing Christians use the Bible to justify hate towards gays. "It says that gays are bad in the bible, and the bible is the Word of God, thus gays are bad." The only Christians who don't feel this way are the ones who don't take the Bible entirely literally and are more willing to accept gays or think that maybe the ban on homosexuality was only for the Jews of ancient Isreal, or that Jesus nullified the old law.
You also missed that I also linked to two different verses in Matthew, both of which said that
JesusThe Son of Man (maybe not Jesus?) would return with the Kingdom of God (IE the apocolypse) before the Apostles died, IE in the next 50-100 years. And Revelations hinted the Apocolypse would happen within the next 100 years. And BOTH of them was wrong. Not only was Revelations wrong, but also the Gospel of Matthew? And yet fundies say the Bible is never wrong, and thus is not wrong about Gays? Even though I just proved the Bible was wrong in at least two spots?
It's interesting to note, as well, that in the first three Gospels I don't think Jesus ever actually says he is God, just that he is a "Son of God" which could be iterpreted to mean a follower of God, or created by God like all humans are. I think only John, written after all the other gospels, actually says he's THE Savior.
What you should be complaining about is the fact that IF Mary really was impregnated without getting jiggy with Joseph, that means Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, so technically he's NOT of Joseph's blood line. He's of Mary's bloodline. But back then Women were cattle and their blood lines meant shit, and Jesus would be of Joseph's bloodline just by him being Mary's husband.
Originally Posted by SyloxOriginally Posted by Sylox
Matthew does list the entire nominal family tree of Jesus, and the "Jacob" of v.16 is actually Joseph's dad, not Abraham's son (who IS listed in the genealogy, but in verse 2).
Meanwhile, the entire nominal family tree of Jesus according to Luke not only has Joseph's father as "Eli", the relationship to King David is through Solomon in Matthew but through "Nathan" in Luke! And the generation counts from David to Joseph don't match either... Jesus's nominal family tree is well as truly "forked" if you believe the Bible as literal truth
The opinions expressed in this message are bloody good ones.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)