Jokes on you, they don’t read the bible
“Why is Jesus always preaching liberal talking points!? And those prophets in the old testament are getting all pissed about people not taking care of the poor. That sounds like SoCiAlIsM!”
You joke, but this is literally happening.
I stopped reading the Bible after it became woke.
They tried to tell me Jesus isn’t white! /s
They only read song of psalms and revelations, the “exciting” parts
(edit): correction, book I meant to mention is Song of Solomon
Psalms is arguably the least exciting book in the Bible. It’s like reading through a hymnal. Well, it’s not like that, it is that because it’s literally a book of songs.
Songs of Solomon is the book I meant to put.
The book of leviticus would like to speak to you.
The rules of the temple, I thought I was going to die the agnoy was so great.
Chronicles, either one. The only verse that peaks anyone’s interest is 1 Chron 11:4, because it mentions Jebus
Chronicles is mostly someone explaining family trees to you, here’s the first 30ish verses:
Adam, Sheth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
And the sons of Gomer; Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
The sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.
And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabta, and Raamah, and Sabtecha. And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be mighty upon the earth.
And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (of whom came the Philistines,) and Caphtorim.
And Canaan begat Zidon his firstborn, and Heth, the Jebusite also, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite. The sons of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech. And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber. And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother’s name was Joktan. And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah, Hadoram also, and Uzal, and Diklah, and Ebal, and Abimael, and Sheba, and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan. Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram; the same is Abraham. The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael. These are their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, Mishma, and Dumah, Massa, Hadad, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael. Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Henoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these are the sons of Keturah. And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac; Esau and Israel.
SUDDENLY THE BIBLE REQUIRES TRANSLATION INTO TODAY’S CONTEXT AND TERMS HUH
These fuckers will scream the bible can’t be wrong when it comes to judging others but the moment they realize Jesus asked them to do something for other people and not just scream at people who look different, now all of a suddenly, we need to define what the term “riches” mean and we have to take into account it’s a 4000 year old work, etc. etc.
This doesn’t even touch the part shortly after this verse about a couple that lied about giving everything to the church and god opened up the earth to swallow them for bucking the socialist system.
Joshua 7. Oh wait sorry we are pretending it wasn’t just plagiarized from earlier stories.
Acts 5.1-11
They love to cite the parts of Leviticus that condemn homosexual behavior, but suddenly when Leviticus starts telling you where to get your slaves and how cruel you should be, it’s “but that’s the Old Testament!! 🤓☝️”
Didn’t Leviticus also say something about what foods you can eat?
I seem to recall something about shellfish.
My favorite story from the bible is when Jesus storms into a temple and starts whipping the living shit out of everyone as they were counting gold and their riches. Jesus was a god damn socialist hero.
My favourite is 2 kings chapter 2 verse 22-25
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeeredb at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the named of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
God really hates children.
From what I’ve read, which admittedly isn’t much, he seems to hold entire families to account for the actions of their worst members.
Often that means killing/maiming/punishing children of jerks and profiteering gluttons.
For sure and not just families. I’m sure nearly every English speaker has heard the story of Egypt and the 10 plagues.
We have to remember, its a choice they made. I mean, they’re god. They can do anything right? God could’ve just teleported the Israelites away. He could’ve just made the Egyptians temporarily blind or fall asleep for a few months, keeping them alive while doing so. He could’ve given all the Israelites individual flaming chariots. He could’ve made flaming rail infrastructure and run a flaming railway service for the Israelites to leave on.
“No, I told you already. Its child murder or nothing, Moses.”
God can only do so much, while God is busy being imaginary.
You forgot the best part (I’m not sure there is an agreed-upon translation, so I’ll cite oremus randomly). The sentiment is repeated throughought the 10 plagues, but it’s most concise in chapter 10:
Pharaoh hurriedly summoned Moses and Aaron and said, ‘I have sinned against the Lord your God, and against you. Do forgive my sin […]’ […] The Lord changed the wind into a very strong west wind, which lifted the locusts and drove them into the Red Sea; not a single locust was left in all the country of Egypt. But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.
42
This. And it stands in stark contrast to the “prosperity gospel” endorsed by modern evangelicals.
The bible is a woke rag!!!
I’m sad to say it didn’t surprise me in the least when preachers starting telling stories of their congregation calling Jesus a woke pussy.
“Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James 5%3A1-6&version=NIV
Rich people more than anything.
The ultimate reality is a lot of people die if the lower class doesn’t look out for their own interests while the upper class just watches.
I think the class warfare is the only real ideological war and everyone else is 3 meals away from poverty and barely have a loaf of bread to spare.
The rich start the rest of humanity follows. Hold Oprah accountable.
It’s always been class warfare, rich vs poor. The culture war bullshit has always been a distraction.
I think this needs a little clarification. The culture war bullshit is real because these laws have real effects, its just all fake in its justification. You pull the mask off the culture war and its just rich people trying to pin their crimes on marginalized groups.
Agreed.
And The Quran is super anti-banking. Most religions have been twisted away from their original meaning, to become tools of our oppressors.
The Quran is not anti-banking per say. It is anti interests, anti predatory and scamming businesses and anti crime financing, which the Torah and the Bible are too. Problem is for Islamic banks it is practically impossible to participate in the global finance system without also being exposed to interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance
For Jews eventually the discourse shifted that they first allowed seeking interests from non Jews and eventually from everyone, despite the Torah being clear about it.
The sinful business practices of the time were one of the main things Jesus challenged according to the Bible, but Christianity has always been very flexible with interpreting the life and teachings of Jesus.
I find it funny how depending on the parts you pick, you can assemble almost any ideology. Jesus is amazingly 2 faced. One seconds he’s teaching you the importance of treating people with kindness, even your enemies, that any person can forgive another’s sins and then another second he’s cursing a tree for not bearing fruit out of season or telling his followers kill the people that don’t want Jesus to be their king.
Jesus is amazingly 2 faced.
There are four “official” gospels, seven more “unofficial” books, and somewhere north of 50 different written accounts that survive from the period.
It’s helpful to read these as perspectives rather than definitives. Imagine showing up at a funeral and every attendee has his or her own story about the deceased. Just because the stories seem to contradict one another, I would not think that means the individual they’re recounting was duplicitous.
The fig tree was a lesson, as Jesus was very fond of parables and “props” in his teaching. Israel is depicted in scripture as a fig tree, so the lesson was that Israel was not prepared for the arrival of the Messiah (which, as foretold, would have had no season) and would face harsh penalties as a result. The lesson was a rebuke of Israel, that through it’s own self-determined nature, it had failed to do what it had been commanded.
The second one you mention is a single line from a parable (specifically, The Parable of the Minas) that you have taken out of context.
If that’s the intended lesson it fell flat. You’re not ready for me right now? Well fuck you, I, the all mighty and mercifully curse you to never have a future again.
And granted, with the last part I’m working with the assumption that Jesus self-inserts him self in the story. After a bit of looking around online only half the people I saw thought it was a self referential story, so I guess the church you attended interpreted it differently. Honestly that’s the main problem, that this shit is so cryptic nobody can agree what it actually means.
That’s an understandable sentiment, honestly. I constantly remind people that we - westerners living 2000 years in the future surrounded by magical objects and an utterly alien culture - were never the audience for these stories. As a result, almost all context is lost without a background in the history, language, and culture of the time.
Very little in scripture is mysterious… but modern “Christianity” has a vested interest in obfuscating and hiding the context.
The fig tree story was a scathing rebuke that was readily understood by Jesus followers. The Parable of the Minas is about the Resurrection of the Dead (the topic that incited the story was whether the Kingdom of Heaven was coming immediately). That is, at the end of all things, all those who have died will be raised from the dead and judged. The righteous, who did God’s work and reaped dividends for him, will be rewarded… and those who rebel (actively worked against him) will be annihilated… that is, truly, finally, eternally dead.
I’d like to see you excuse John 3:18. It’s pretty overt that all non-Christians are condemned.
You’re not so loving if you condemn everyone who doesn’t worship you.
Excuse? It’s a scathing rebuke to Nicodemus face.
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but this claim was rejected by Jewish leadership… yet Nicodemus (one of said leaders) visited Jesus under cover of darkness and pressed him further.
Read 16-21 again, remembering who Nicodemus was and that he did not visit openly, but secretly in the darkness, and that his line of questioning was patronizing at best, and bad faith at worst (which Jesus does not let him get away with).
And yet he says any non-Christian is condemned. That’s very clear. The all-loving Jesus condemns anyone who doesn’t love him back.
It doesn’t say that at all, though.
The context here is explicitly It’s about Israelites - but even more specifically Jewish leadership (e.g. the Sanhedrin, of which Nicodemus was a member) rejecting Jesus status and authority as Messiah despite both the evidence and Jesus unambiguous claims.
See also Luke 7, where Nicodemus suggests his peers hear Jesus out, and they essentially reply: “Pfft, nobody from a redneck backwater like Galilee could ever be a prophet.”
Where does he specify that? Because I’ve read it in context and he never specifies that he’s specifically talking about the Sanhedrin, so please don’t try this on me.
I don’t know what to tell you. The text hasn’t changed in nearly two millennia. It’s right there right now as it always has been.
So they justify not being socialist according to this verse by the word believers. They don’t want to share with non-believers or even believers of other denominations (they are also non-believers since they aren’t exactly the same). So they can be non-socialist and just tithe and think it’s fine
But tithing doesn’t go to directly to people based on need. There are poor people in every denomination. They clearly don’t interpret this literally.
Well these MegaPastors need private jets to keep away from the poo… er, demons!
The tithe is an Old Testament standard. The New Testament says that they should give whatever the pastor asks. If the pastor asks for 30%, they are theologically supposed to give 30%.
There is actually nothing in the bible about giving in accordance to what a “pastor” says. I am not sure where you got that from. While you are correct that the “tithe” as described in the OT no longer applies because we are not giveing to the temple, Jesus’ command is to give freely, abundantly, and sacrificially out if s cheerful heart. The jews at Jesus’ time would have actually given a good bit more than 10% because of the various annual festivals that also required a percent to be given. What they were giving was in support of the upkeep of the temple and the priestly line who was prohibited from working elsewhere. For Christians, there is no priestly line. We have two offices according to the NT, Elder and deacon. Neither of these are entitled to financial compensation because of the title. Where we get that we should compensate them for their work from the command that a laborers should not be without his wages, and many pastors are doing work that amounts to a full time job. The fact of the matter right now is that most “pastors” across the world are bivocational meaning that they hold other jobs if time allows.
There is actually nothing in the bible about giving in accordance to what a “pastor” says. I am not sure where you got that from.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say they were told this by their “pastor.”
Nope. I actually came up with that on my own after reading the bible. Many “pastors” still preach the whole tithing thing, though.
I don’t remember the exact verse, just that somewhere in the new Testament it says that you are to give what’s asked.
I dunno, it sure sounds like Jesus said it was 100 percent, shared back according to needs, and we whip anyone who tries to hoard money.
Are we pretending that Christians actually read, understand, and follow the teachings of the Bible?
They only seem to weaponize whatever part fits their interests and ignore everything else.
They stretch whatever meaning is there to whatever they want it to say, and bludgeon people with it, verbally and legally.
I haven’t read the whole thing or anything, but I’m pretty sure that there’s like one passage that mentions anything remotely “gay”, which, IIRC, says something to the effect of, a man should not lay with another man the way he lays with a woman. Which can mean all kinds of things, including that lesbians are cool, but men being gay isn’t. That’s just one way to take it. Another could be regarding jamming your dangly bits together, so docking is bad, but everything else is fine.
Then in later passages where the text pretty overtly forbids a thing (such as eating certain foods), or explicitly tells you to do something, such as help the needy, those things get completely ignored.
Modern Christianity is basically a mishmash of “fine, do whatever you want!” And cherry picking verses that should be followed, ignoring the rest.
It’s even worse; the passage you cited might be a mistranslation, it uses two different words for “man” in Hebrew and can be interpreted as “A man shall not lie with a boy as he would lie with a woman”. So it forbids pedophilia not homosexuality between adults.
Edit: Christianity is a looooong game of telephone where everyone passing along the message has a different agenda.
Yep. All facilitated by the fact that nobody will bother to take the time to learn Hebrew to read the original text, so some guy, perhaps someone named James, goes ahead and translates it whichever way they want to.
Here’s another one:
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 19:23-24
The “eye of a needle” referenced here was a small opening in the city walls meant to reduce traffic for security. A camel piled up with goods would would have a difficult time passing through it.For full context, check out Matthew 19:16-28: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19&version=NIV
Edit: as others have pointed out, there isn’t any good evidence about the “eye of a needle” metaphor. I heard this from my pastor at church when I was a kid and it sounds like he was mistaken. I wonder what else he got wrong…
The evidence for the gate theory is poor. Jesus probably was referencing an actual needle when we said this
Ah, I was going by what they taught me at baptist church when I was a kid. I guess they lied to me. I’m shocked!
As a Catholic they always preached it to me as an actual needle. It was until I left the church and visited a Christian church (trying to fit with my girlfriend at the time) the pastor talked about the “gate of Jerusalem” and that it was difficult but not impossible (of course the pastor arrived in a BMW X6M to the service and was asking for the tithe). That’s when I looked online for this but there is no strong evidence, and the doors called “eye of needle” are from Europe from the year ~1000CE
If only you would have asked him if he thought his BMW would have been able to pass through.
Additionally, its more likely that the camel is a mistranslation, since the words for “camel” and “rope” are nearly identical both in Aramaic and Greek.
The “eye of a needle” referenced here was a small opening in the city walls meant to reduce traffic for security. A camel piled up with goods would would have a difficult time passing through it.
I also saw that episode of 700 Club when I was a child. Old Pat there suddenly seemed real concerned that we were taking a 4000 year old work into proper context for its time on THAT issue, right?
I mean it’s probably bullshit because of how convenient it is that the lines explicitly saying rich people aren’t going to be as blessed are like, the ONLY works that are examined critically and turn out to mean something else entirely? Bull. Fucking. Shit.
But even if it’s not a steaming pile, if you accept this interpretation, doesn’t that open up the rest of the bible for complete reimagining and reinterpretation of everything written? How do we know what else is a metaphor or not? So only special 'blessed" people are supposed to translate the text correctly for us illiterate, sinful masses? I think we’ve been through this debate before in history.
I will have to downvote because of the misinformation on the eye of the needle claim. That is almost certainly false - there really isn’t any evidence of this and the theory seems to come from the middle ages.
Similarly, camel probably means camel, not cable (as a popular theory suggests).
Here is a video that discusses the theories.
Please edit to qualify the claim about the eye of the needle.
Evil Trump: I’m poor. I’m so poor that I’ve been on unemployment benefits for several years
What I think is important here, and what is seems many in the comments below are missing out on, is that Jesus says that it is hard, not impossible. Giving all your money away will not suddenly make you a good person, just as never having had money does not mean you are a good person. Jesus charged his followers with living lives of self sacrifice on the behalf of others in all aspects. Annias and saphira did not drop dead because they did not give up their goods but because they lied about it. I know many Christians who have done very well financially and are the most generous people I know. I also know some who are very stingy and uncompassionate with their money. The fact is, those who have more, have more that they have to give up. Those who have less, have less to give up. Each, however, is charged to live in the same manner.
God asks us to give freely and abundantly as he does. This is not forced upon us, though. There is no forcing someone to obey certian things in Christianity. Jesus says that is we love him, we will keep his commands. Those who choose not to keep his commands are demonstrating a greater love for whatever the opposite is at that time. Love involves choice, though. It is not a socialists ideology enforced upon every person. A perfect christian community would look socialistic but would arrive there through the perfect love of one’s neighbors. Unfortunately, we do not live in a world of perfect Christians whose every decision is fuled by the love of others. I would also suspect that many, if not most on here, would have a problem with Christians forcing upon others their beliefs so as to attempt to achieve this. That, however, is what would be happening if someone forced upon others a socialists society without their consent.
No, he says it’s impossible. Because the needle wasn’t a gate, it was a needle. And that’s really clear from the quote in context:
Matthew 19:21-24
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
He was really, really clear on this. Do not be rich. The only way he could have been clearer is if he had literally said, “do not be rich.” Oh wait, he pretty much did say that.
Luke 6:20
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
But come on, he didn’t say that you should be dirt poor. Like you can still have some nice stuff, right? That thing in Matthew was metaphorical, right?
Like 18:22
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Fuck.
He never said it was impossible. He clearly says it is hard. When Jesus says to the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give to the poor and follow him, he is not saying to quit your high paying job that made you rich in the first place. He is saying to radically change the way you are living to benifit those around you. We make idols of things all around us. Many make idols of money. Some, though difficult, are able to continue to make a lot of money while simultaneously giving it away for the betterment of those around them. What I was trying to point out is that those who make a lot of money are not the enemy, but those who horde what they have to the detriment of the love of God and man.
You know christian “communism” is a thing right? Amy Coney Barret was raised in a Catholic Commune Cult. They love this shit. They say “we want to live like Jesus’s disciples,” and then set up their own patriarchal fiefdoms and don’t pay taxes.
Socialism isn’t when sharing. This won’t even work to piss off a conservative who has half a brain and they would be just as correct in refuting it. Don’t get me wrong, I love me some liberation gospel, but people should really study some socialist literature, preferably Marx/Engels.
Then why is she serving Mammon? I guess cognitive dissonance, like Calvinism.
Because religion for the rich is different than religion for the poor.
Also cognitive dissonance doesn’t explain much, its a thought terminating explainer for people who can’t deal with contradiction. We shouldnt stop analyzing when we discover contradictions, that’s when real analysis begins
Alrighty then.
Alternatively there’s the Catholic workers who don’t discuss abortion because they all agree their position on it is obvious, shame they can’t agree on what that obvious position is. They’re actually leftists, and they’re often among the first to risk personal harm when necessary.
They can be, I agree catholic workers are some of the kindest, most loving and open hearted people; but people from the professional class can be some of the most conservative psychos this foul culture is capable of producing. Remember the Federalist society, at the heart of the conspiracy to turn our courts into a blatant apparatus of class war, is a Catholic organization.
So as in a lot of cases, ideology is more of a class thing. There’s religion for the rich and, religion for the poor and they are very different
Written decades after all eyewitnesses had died as pure propaganda. Luke/Acts was a response to Matthew v Mark war. Mark had vomited all over the James community, Matthew tried to redeem the James community a bit, Luke/Acts tries to put Pauline and James community on equal footing.
Now it’s true Paul pushed for charity and tried for a semi-equality in his churches but how much he pushed or how much of that goal was “nice to have” is debatable. It’s likely his letters were transcribed by slaves for example.
Basically this is a classic example of ancestor worship. With an added twist that the author was trying to win a political point or two.
It’s almost like the whole thing was made up to push people’s agendas.
Sure, but the fun part is when those conservative Christians are also inerrantists.
They believe this, just their needs are higher than those who “don’t deserve it”
there are two types of religious people whom i will respect.
Extremely devout Christians. (they often do more good than negative) They’ll spend a lot more time reading and practicing religious texts, than yelling about gay people or whatever.
and those who are what i like to refer to as “standing” religious. They identify as religious, but it’s primarily for personal reasons. They generally don’t practice religion outside of their personal experience in the world.
Suburban Christians are a fucking nightmare.
