Johnny Carson?

"Christendom is an effort of the human race to go back to walking on all fours, to get rid of Christianity, to do it knavishly under the pretext that this is Christianity, claiming that it is Christianity perfected.

The Christianity of Christendom...takes away from Christianity the offense, the paradox, etc., and instead of that introduces probability, the plainly comprehensible. That is, it transforms Christianity into something entirely different from what it is in the New Testament, yea, into exactly the opposite; and this is the Christianity of Christendom, of us men.

In the Christianity of Christendom the Cross has become something like the child's hobby-horse and trumpet."
- Kierkegaard, "The Instant" 5, 2-3

If there is any place that I would go for accurate Biblical discussion and commentary, it's the Daily Kos. And by accurate Biblical discussion and commentary, I mean insane circle jerks.

strangeguitar: Johnny Carson?

he's like the pope, he has a funny hat too.

EatHam: If there is any place that I would go for accurate Biblical discussion and commentary, it's the Daily Kos. And by accurate Biblical discussion and commentary, I mean insane circle jerks.

unless they misquoted the passage, i'd say they are right.

burndtdan: unless they misquoted the passage, i'd say they are right.

Aside from misquoting the passage, they assert intent where no such intent is clear in the original passage. But it's a site full of retards with axes to grind so whatever.

I'm glad most Christians take their bible by bits and pieces but it would be nice if they stuck with the charity stuff and laid off the sexist, racist, murderous, homophobic stuff.

Here are a shiat load of translations for that passage in Luke and none of them sound too good for Bush's pioneers.

EatHam: burndtdan: unless they misquoted the passage, i'd say they are right.

Aside from misquoting the passage, they assert intent where no such intent is clear in the original passage. But it's a site full of retards with axes to grind so whatever.

Luke 6:24-26
6:24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
6:25 Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.
6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

they were using another translation, there are like half a dozen valid translations of the new testament.

burndtdan: they were using another translation, there are like half a dozen valid translations of the new testament.

They translation-shopped until they found the worst sounding one. Aside from the obvious hypocritical implications of that - basically doing exactly what people (many times correctly) accuse fundy Christians of doing, it is flat-out wrong. The entire point of that passage is charity, even to people you hate. It isn't a f*ck the rich statement.

EatHam: burndtdan: they were using another translation, there are like half a dozen valid translations of the new testament.

They translation-shopped until they found the worst sounding one. Aside from the obvious hypocritical implications of that - basically doing exactly what people (many times correctly) accuse fundy Christians of doing, it is flat-out wrong. The entire point of that passage is charity, even to people you hate. It isn't a f*ck the rich statement.

no, they looked til they found one from which it was easiest and most poignant to make the comparison. should a writer avoid aspiring to the elements of effective writing because it makes the message easier to convey, and you are somehow opposed to that?

and yes the passage is about charity, and those 3 verses along with the 3 before are actually in full support of some of rev. wrights messages.

why are the rich damned and the poor blessed? because the rich are not showing charity toward the plight of the poor. seeing as rev. wright preaches to a poor inner city congregation from chicago, i'd say he knows full well the meaning of that passage.

burndtdan: no, they looked til they found one from which it was easiest and most poignant to make the comparison. should a writer avoid aspiring to the elements of effective writing because it makes the message easier to convey, and you are somehow opposed to that?

No, they found the one and only one that even comes close to making the stupid point they were trying to make. The only people dim enough to think it's "effective" or whatever are the retards who make up Kos's audience.

why are the rich damned and the poor blessed? because the rich are not showing charity toward the plight of the poor.

No. Holy crap. This is the conversational equivalent of an out of body experience.

EatHam: No. Holy crap. This is the conversational equivalent of an out of body experience.

why? because i just read the entire chapter and told you my analysis of it? jesus says blessed are the poor, and then says damned are the rich. there would be no reason to damn the rich in a passage about charity than if he were simply damning their lack of charity.

i'm sorry that jesus's messages about charity (and what that word actually farking means) does not mesh with your world view, but the words are pretty farking clear.

burndtdan: i'm sorry that jesus's messages about charity (and what that word actually farking means) does not mesh with your world view, but the words are pretty farking clear.

Yeah, well, some people can't accept that Jesus was more of a socialist.

burndtdan: why? because i just read the entire chapter and told you my analysis of it?

Because you are so far off base. You would be just as correct if you said that it proved the existence of a Martian civilization.

jesus says blessed are the poor, and then says damned are the rich.

No he does not. This one strange translation does, but if you go to the original language which it is really god damned easy to do if you check any links here, or just google it, you will find out that you are completely provably inarguably wrong.

there would be no reason to damn the rich in a passage about charity than if he were simply damning their lack of charity.

He's not damning them at all. Jesus did not, as a rule, damn entire classes of people. That would (and you would know this if you weren't just trying to grind your axe) be 100% against every other god damned thing he said.

i'm sorry that jesus's messages about charity (and what that word actually farking means) does not mesh with your world view, but the words are pretty farking clear.

Yes, you're right, they are pretty farking clear.

cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, well, some people can't accept that Jesus was more of a socialist.

Jesus was apolitical, and advocated personal charity. To say that Jesus would advocate socialism or liberalism or republicanism or whatever is to certify oneself as entirely ignorant of the subject.

EatHam: Yes, you're right, they are pretty farking clear.

Thanks for that strong, cited, factual evidence.

This is why its easier to be an atheist.

cameroncrazy1984: Thanks for that strong, cited, factual evidence.

The burden of proof does not lie with me, as I am not making crazy statements. And I offered places to find citations if interested. But I don't expect that either of you are interested in actually educating yourselves.

EatHam: The burden of proof does not lie with me, as I am not making crazy statements.

You're arguing that the translation does not say what the actual text does. What does the actual text say?

EatHam: burndtdan: why? because i just read the entire chapter and told you my analysis of it?

Because you are so far off base. You would be just as correct if you said that it proved the existence of a Martian civilization.

jesus says blessed are the poor, and then says damned are the rich.

No he does not. This one strange translation does, but if you go to the original language which it is really god damned easy to do if you check any links here, or just google it, you will find out that you are completely provably inarguably wrong.

there would be no reason to damn the rich in a passage about charity than if he were simply damning their lack of charity.

He's not damning them at all. Jesus did not, as a rule, damn entire classes of people. That would (and you would know this if you weren't just trying to grind your axe) be 100% against every other god damned thing he said.

i'm sorry that jesus's messages about charity (and what that word actually farking means) does not mesh with your world view, but the words are pretty farking clear.

Yes, you're right, they are pretty farking clear.

i quoted the new king james version and my analysis was directly from that. are you saying the new king james version is some radical version of the bible that doesn't count?

or did you even bother to read what i was writing before you let your rightwing rage spill over?

cameroncrazy1984: EatHam: The burden of proof does not lie with me, as I am not making crazy statements.

You're arguing that the translation does not say what the actual text does. What does the actual text say?

6:20 - And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

6:21 - Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.

6:22 - Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

6:23 - Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

6:24 - But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

6:25 - Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.

6:26 - Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

cameroncrazy1984: You're arguing that the translation does not say what the actual text does. What does the actual text say?

It is more correctly translated as every single other translation does, which is something like "Woe to you", not "damn you"

or did you even bother to read what i was writing before you let your rightwing rage spill over?

I read it, and I'm not mad, you're just ranting like a crazy person. It's kind of funny I guess, in a weird way, but it's not anything to get upset about. It's more like wow, I can't believe that there are actually people who have the ability to type but not read.

"but if you go to the original language which it is really god damned easy to do if you check any links here, "

The original language? You know we're talking about the bible, right?

It's very, very clear that Jesus was very anti-rich guy and very pro-poor guy. Not really a controversial position to take, and it's not really controversial that he felt that way.

He may have been apolitical, but if you're Christian and you are political, then this applies.

Boy, the daily kos is overloading in panic mode over all this Jerimiah Wright stuff trying to find stuff to attack the right with. Their desperation becomes more apparent every day.

And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Ah, I love hearing the sound of millions of teeth gnashing.

Those bible folk don't seem to care much for actual bible quotes.

Yeah, really they liked revolutionary rabble-rousers back in JC's time, too.



Good luck with that.

You could've pulled out more relevant quotes from any Republican preacher, including Huckabee.

Matthew 19:16-30
Luke 18:18-30

Jesus didn't like rich people. Anyone arguing otherwise is either ignorant of the Bible, or proficient in ignoring the parts they don't like.

moothemagiccow: You could've pulled out more relevant quotes from any Republican preacher, including Huckabee.

It is weird that no one even bothered to look at his sermons. I never heard anyone try to find out what kind of things he used to preach about.

And for that matter, anyone who hasn't considered 9/11 as being the "chickens coming home to roost" isn't with it.

I don't have a problem with Obama's pastor's remarks, but I can see why he wouldn't want to be embracing such a radical if he's trying to come off as Everyman to both Dems and Repubs.

Probably something I'd have against him for once.

And EatHam, I know how much you hate the DailyKOS, but you're busted trying to deny Christ's basic philosophy towards the rich. It's in every Bible, every translation.

awesome, greenlight. this is fun.

I predict a cabinet-level position in Obama's administration for Reverend Wright, possibly a chief of staff post. I eagerly await the unveiling of their collaborative "Kill Every Whitey I See" agenda.

EatHam: as I am not making crazy statements.

No, just uninformed ones. Read the Greek. It is available online. None of the English translations capture exactly what it says. You'll be surprised that it is even more anti-wealth than even the "retards with axes to grind" are portraying it to be.

We're the kings of the playground...we should take care of the nerdy kids, or else be (correctly) labeled as the school bullies.

What's so wrong with saying that?

Link (new window)
For all your Scripture-bashing needs...

milk_plus: Those bible folk don't seem to care much for actual bible quotes.

Exactly. If Jesus was alive today, do the conservatives really believe that Jesus would be supporting them? I won't say Jesus would be a Democrat, but he would certainly be labelled a liberal hippie by the right.

CalvinMorallis: What's so wrong with saying that?

Because...America's fought two wars, no wait, THREE, no wait, WE'RE still fighting A WAR for democracy over in Iraq, I mean Afghanistan, I mean BOTH.

People have given their lives for this empire, I mean DEMOCRACY.

Addendum:

I would like to simply point out the inherent facepalmery of people arguing which particular version of words that may or may not have been said thousands of years ago, and hundreds of years after the death of their subject, is more accurate than the other.

Just sayin'

CalvinMorallis: We're the kings of the playground...we should take care of the nerdy kids, or else be (correctly) labeled as the school bullies.

What's so wrong with saying that?

that's an interesting metaphor. i like it.

CalvinMorallis: Addendum:

I would like to simply point out the inherent facepalmery of people arguing which particular version of words that may or may not have been said thousands of years ago, and hundreds of years after the death of their subject, is more accurate than the other.

Just sayin'

but when i tell your tale in 50 years, this whole addendum is going to be about tacos.

milk_plus: I'm glad most Christians take their bible by bits and pieces but it would be nice if they stuck with the charity stuff and laid off the sexist, racist, murderous, homophobic stuff.

This, really. I'm tired of the cherry-picking. I doubt any bible thumper would refuse a strip of bacon or a lobster tail.

burndtdan: CalvinMorallis: We're the kings of the playground...we should take care of the nerdy kids, or else be (correctly) labeled as the school bullies.

What's so wrong with saying that?

that's an interesting metaphor. i like it.

Ooh, ooh! Then will you sponsor m.....shiat.

burndtdan: "are you saying the new king james version is some radical version of the bible that doesn't count?"

Actually, there's quite a few fundamentalists who say pretty much just that. And I'm not using "fundamentalist" as a pejorative for any backwoods-God-hates-everything-I-hate Christian, as there are plenty of those who think the King James Only movement is not only wrong, but a way for Satan to distract the Faithful from more important issues.

Wikipedia article on KJV-Only movement
Fundamentalist site that sees KJV-onlyism as a dangerous distraction

CalvinMorallis: We're the kings of the playground...we should take care of the nerdy kids, or else be (correctly) labeled as the school bullies.

What's so wrong with saying that?

I like that interpretation!

moothemagiccow: milk_plus: I'm glad most Christians take their bible by bits and pieces but it would be nice if they stuck with the charity stuff and laid off the sexist, racist, murderous, homophobic stuff.

This, really. I'm tired of the cherry-picking. I doubt any bible thumper would refuse a strip of bacon or a lobster tail.

You wouldn't be tired of the cherry-picking if your neighbor started setting cow carcasses on fire in his backyard. I think any rational person can see there is wisdom in the bible. The do unto others, forgive your brother, thou shall not kill stuff is great. Some of it's just wierd, though, and I'm glad most people recognize it.

From Gandhi to King, it's in the nature of spiritual leaders to grab their audiences by the throat and their nations by the short hairs. This was true at the time of the Civil War and during the Civil Rights movement. Martyrs did not become martyrs by appealing to the status quo.

Yeah, I can see Gandhi talking like Rev. Wrong.

subby:Why Obama's pastor isn't nearly as much a burden when you compare him to another radical preacher, who happens to have the initials JHC

Also,

FARK Translation: 6:24 - But DIAF you that are rich!

I loved EatHam's cognitive dissonance and his attempt to reinterpret the bible to fit his own worldview.

/gee I guess greed is still a sin

EatHam: cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, well, some people can't accept that Jesus was more of a socialist.

Jesus was apolitical, and advocated personal charity. To say that Jesus would advocate socialism or liberalism or republicanism or whatever is to certify oneself as entirely ignorant of the subject.

THIS
his message was the important thing.....