Religion, weaponized religion, and the separation of church and state

[Mole 4330]

There are some passages that have some debate about whether or not they were actually in the original manuscripts. Depending on the source material the translation uses can impact whether or not they will include this. Sometimes they’ll include it with a note at the bottom explaining the issue or sometimes they’ll include it just in the footnotes.

Someone that has King James as their default mental version will find some missing notable passages in other versions.

Wikipedia has a list with explanations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

There are some passages that have some debate about whether or not they were actually in the original manuscripts. Depending on the source material the translation uses can impact whether or not they will include this. Sometimes they’ll include it with a note at the bottom explaining the issue or sometimes they’ll include it just in the footnotes.
Someone that has King James as their default mental version will find some missing notable passages in other versions.
Wikipedia has a list with explanations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations

Thanks for the link. That seems less than ideal, but I know that there is no way to prevent this unless there was one and only one church/denomination.

[Mole 4330]

It’s an issue inherent in dealing with ancient texts. If you’re dealing honestly with the scholarship, there will be ambiguity. That seems preferable to me to having one authorized version that doesn’t honestly deal with the source materials. We tend to import our modern thinking into ancient texts and then wonder about all of the problems.

[Willfully Horn 8014]

I, for one, do not require the Bible to be the unerring word of God, nor expect myth to be literal to be true, nor even for Christ to be the only son of God, to consider myself  a believer in Christ and in God. If the purpose of religion is, as Joseph Campbell maintained, to experience a connection to the divine, then experiencing love for mankind, imo the love at the center of Christ’s commandments (if you will be generous enough to allow me those words as a reference,) is exactly such an encounter. While I first experienced agape through the lens of religion, I do not think religion is the only path to enter that state, to connect with the divine and love the other as yourself.

Off topic,  not so csb, spoiler:

Spoiler

Certainly, I understand folks can abhor religions from a logical, non personal perspective.

But an acquaintance confided her reason for her antipathy to religion, and it involved a church choir director. Which also explained why she hated music, too. To know, and understand, was heartbreaking. So, yes, religion has been the cause of, or the cover for, despicably evil acts by people. But hating religion is to cut oneself off from experiences at least as rewarding as music.

 

[Brisketexan 105120]

6 minutes ago, Mole said:

It’s an issue inherent in dealing with ancient texts. If you’re dealing honestly with the scholarship, there will be ambiguity. That seems preferable to me to having one authorized version that doesn’t honestly deal with the source materials. We tend to import our modern thinking into ancient texts and then wonder about all of the problems.

You mean, treating things like allegory and story telling with a moral as literal things that actually happened?  Stupid shit like that?

And yeah, there's layers upon layers of problems with imposing one-dimensional proof-text oriented modern thinking on a collection of writings that 1) were the product of multiple, evolving cultures, over centuries and 2) were selected for inclusion in the "collected works" called the Bible by a variety of "scholars" working with naked political motivations, power-goals, and ambitions in making those selections.

For example, my wife recalls -- with horror -- the conversation she had with a SEMINARY CLASSMATE who insisted that the Old Testament -- the whole thing, from Genesis to Malachi, was written by Moses.  Not "influenced by Moses," or "much of it was written by Moses."  Nope, the whole thing -- Moses just sat down with some papyrus and cranked out "The Old Testament -- the complete works that you really, really need to include in a future thing called 'the Bible,' and I'm talking to you, Council of Hippo and other dudes."  Rips away all historical, cultural, and tribal context.  Practically makes it "God sat down and wrote a book and called it the Bible."

Not that it matters.  People who think like that come pretty close to 100% correlation with proof-texting to justify their pre-existing prejudices.  The old Anne Lamott quote come to life: “You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

If the Bible is just affirming how you feel, and justifying what you already want to do, then you're not "following a faith," you're just using faith as an excuse and license.  Shit, just wrestling with the "love your enemies" bit should keep you up at night.  It sure as shit does me.  I'm TERRIBLE at it.  It's not what I want to hear.  I much prefer the Old Testament "wreck your enemies' shit" messaging.  But if I pick and choose that, and ignore the Gospels, then I'm....yep, selectively proof-texting.

None of it matters anyway.  We're dumb, tribal lizard brains.  It's what we were, are, and will be.  We're never going to break free from that.  Part of me wishes the flood story was true, because we need another one.  And probably another 10 after that, just to be sure.

[BevoAbyss 2058]

I was lucky. Damn lucky.

— Mom was from a very poor family in the Hill Country, a God-fearing, Bible-believing Texas lady, yet who had a massive distrust of preachers of all kinds. She thought they were mostly con men.

— Dad was a military veteran, degree from UT on GI Bill, and completely agnostic and uninterested in religion. He was a "live and let live" dude.

Thus, my family never went to church or watched TV preachers. We never said a prayer at Thanksgiving or Xmas. Religion was non-existent in our lives. We were a secular family with emphasis on education, honesty, hard work, respecting others, and a trust in science/medicine. Which means I was not subjected to the relentless religious brainwashing propaganda in my youth. Thus:

— I never have to think the Bible offers profound truths about life, morality, or human existence. 

— I never have to cherry pick passages/verses from the Bible to support my worldview or moral positions. 

— I never have to believe religion is a force for good, when, in fact, it is tool for the 3Cs: colonize, conquer, convert.

— I never have to ignore or make excuses for the genocidal atrocities enacted by Christians all across the three American continents.

— I have have to offer bullshit rationalizations about a God who remains unseen, never cures diseases, ends famines or stops wars, and seems utterly uninterested in anything on Earth. ("God works in mysterious ways." Lulz)

— And I never have to feel guilty about too much fun, sex, or tequila.

Damn lucky, I was. 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by BevoAbyss

[Bama Chick 28596]

Let me know when y’all start in on King James.

I have feelings about that misogynistic asshole.

[Gap03 3304]

7 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

I was lucky. Damn lucky.

— Mom was from a very poor family in the Hill Country, a God-fearing, Bible-believing Texas lady, yet who had a massive distrust of preachers of all kinds. She thought they were mostly con men.

— Dad was a military veteran, degree from UT on GI Bill, and completely agnostic and uninterested in religion. He was a "live and let live" dude.

Thus, my family never went to church or watched TV preachers. We never said a prayer at Thanksgiving or Xmas. Religion was non-existent in our lives. We were a secular family with emphasis on education, honesty, hard work, respecting others, and a trust in science/medicine. Which means I was not subjected to the relentless religious brainwashing propaganda in my youth. Thus:

— I never have to think the Bible offers profound truths about life, morality, or human existence. 

— I never have to cherry pick passages/verses from the Bible to support my worldview or moral positions. 

— I never have to believe religion is a force for good, when, in fact, it is tool for the 3Cs: colonize, conquer, convert.

— I never have to ignore or make excuses for the genocidal atrocities enacted by Christians all across the three American continents.

— I have have to offer bullshit rationalizations about a God who remains unseen, never cures diseases, ends famines or stops wars, and seems utterly uninterested in anything on Earth. ("God works in mysterious ways." Lulz)

— And I never have to feel guilty about too much fun, sex, or tequila.

Damn lucky, I was. 

[BevoAbyss 2058]

8 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

— I have have to offer bullshit rationalizations about a God who remains unseen, never cures diseases, ends famines or stops wars, and seems utterly uninterested in anything on Earth. ("God works in mysterious ways." Lulz)

Oops!

Huge typo:  "I never have to offer bullshit rationalizations about a God who remains unseen, never cures diseases, ends famines or stops wars, and seems utterly uninterested in anything on Earth. ("God works in mysterious ways." Lulz)

God's trying to work in mysterious ways and I busted his plan!  Ha ha! 

[Brisketexan 105120]

4 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I, for one, do not require the Bible to be the unerring word of God, nor expect myth to be literal to be true, nor even for Christ to be the only son of God, to consider myself  a believer in Christ and in God. If the purpose of religion is, as Joseph Campbell maintained, to experience a connection to the divine, then experiencing love for mankind, imo the love at the center of Christ’s commandments (if you will be generous enough to allow me those words as a reference,) is exactly such an encounter. While I first experienced agape through the lens of religion, I do not think religion is the only path to enter that state, to connect with the divine and love the other as yourself.

Off topic,  not so csb, spoiler:

  Hide contents

Certainly, I understand folks can abhor religions from a logical, non personal perspective.

But an acquaintance confided her reason for her antipathy to religion, and it involved a church choir director. Which also explained why she hated music, too. To know, and understand, was heartbreaking. So, yes, religion has been the cause of, or the cover for, despicably evil acts by people. But hating religion is to cut oneself off from experiences at least as rewarding as music.

 

It's why faith has become a much more personal thing, as opposed to an institutional thing, for many.  Because the institutions are institutions of Man, and Man SUCKS.  The institutions are rotten and poisonous.  But the problem is that we are ALSO called to be and learn in community.  Religious community is no different.  We benefit from collective study and analysis and discussion.  But that's not working so well.

I mean, my faith has become a simple thing as I've gotten older.  I believe that the universe is and is of the divine.  I believe that the language of science, and physics, which we are coming to learn is unfathomably complex, is the language of the divine.  So is the natural order divine?  Maybe.  Probably.  Is that divinity discernible from the scientific?  Probably not.  Nor should it be.  They're probably the same.  But I KNOW this: I will never understand it all.  I am not capable of understanding it all.  Humanity in its present form is not capable of understanding it all.  The old saw about "you cannot look at the face of God without going mad" (both from Revelation and from rabbinical tradition and stories).

So, I KNOW the following: I am of this universe.  The story of this universe -- this amazing, beautiful, divine and infinite ball of existence -- cannot be told without also telling my story.  That is beautiful.  And it comes with responsibility.  With that place comes the obligation to be good, to be kind, to love.  Love is the one thing that we have in common with the universe: as what makes the universe exist is beyond comprehension and explanation, so is love.  I am called to love.  All of the universe is.  Does my faith call on me to judge, to punish?  I don't know.  I don't think so.  But maybe.  But if I create a "lifetime to-do list," and it includes a million acts of love, and then below that, a million acts of judgment, I suspect I'll expire before I finish those first million acts of love.  And that will be a-ok.  I will err on the side of love.

Oh, and I will fail.  Because I am a worthless, tribal lizard brain.  Like all the rest of you.

But I'm trying.

 

And I also know that I do better on that walk when I walk it with others.  That's really hard these days, too.  Finding a community that's welcoming to that is harder than it used to be.  Or at least it feels that way.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I was lucky. Damn lucky.
— Mom was from a very poor family in the Hill Country, a God-fearing, Bible-believing Texas lady, yet who had a massive distrust of preachers of all kinds. She thought they were mostly con men.
— Dad was a military veteran, degree from UT on GI Bill, and completely agnostic and uninterested in religion. He was a "live and let live" dude.
Thus, my family never went to church or watched TV preachers. We never said a prayer at Thanksgiving or Xmas. Religion was non-existent in our lives. We were a secular family with emphasis on education, honesty, hard work, respecting others, and a trust in science/medicine. Which means I was not subjected to the relentless religious brainwashing propaganda in my youth. Thus:
— I never have to think the Bible offers profound truths about life, morality, or human existence. 
— I never have to cherry pick passages/verses from the Bible to support my worldview or moral positions. 
— I never have to believe religion is a force for good, when, in fact, it is tool for the 3Cs: colonize, conquer, convert.
— I never have to ignore or make excuses for the genocidal atrocities enacted by Christians all across the three American continents.
— I have have to offer bullshit rationalizations about a God who remains unseen, never cures diseases, ends famines or stops wars, and seems utterly uninterested in anything on Earth. ("God works in mysterious ways." Lulz)
— And I never have to feel guilty about too much fun, sex, or tequila.
Damn lucky, I was. 
 

Triplets!

Very similar here. My mom did try taking us to church but that was infrequent and ended by the time I was maybe 7. So very little memory of going to church. I told my mom last week I was going to get a “mama tried” tattoo.

My father is a retired engineer. He grew up in the Catholic Church all across Latin America and despises organized religion. I think he is agnostic these days.

[Willfully Horn 8014]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's why faith has become a much more personal thing, as opposed to an institutional thing, for many.  Because the institutions are institutions of Man, and Man SUCKS.  The institutions are rotten and poisonous.  But the problem is that we are ALSO called to be and learn in community.  Religious community is no different.  We benefit from collective study and analysis and discussion.  But that's not working so well.

I mean, my faith has become a simple thing as I've gotten older.  I believe that the universe is and is of the divine.  I believe that the language of science, and physics, which we are coming to learn is unfathomably complex, is the language of the divine.  So is the natural order divine?  Maybe.  Probably.  Is that divinity discernible from the scientific?  Probably not.  Nor should it be.  They're probably the same.  But I KNOW this: I will never understand it all.  I am not capable of understanding it all.  Humanity in its present form is not capable of understanding it all.  The old saw about "you cannot look at the face of God without going mad" (both from Revelation and from rabbinical tradition and stories).

So, I KNOW the following: I am of this universe.  The story of this universe -- this amazing, beautiful, divine and infinite ball of existence -- cannot be told without also telling my story.  That is beautiful.  And it comes with responsibility.  With that place comes the obligation to be good, to be kind, to love.  Love is the one thing that we have in common with the universe: as what makes the universe exist is beyond comprehension and explanation, so is love.  I am called to love.  All of the universe is.  Does my faith call on me to judge, to punish?  I don't know.  I don't think so.  But maybe.  But if I create a "lifetime to-do list," and it includes a million acts of love, and then below that, a million acts of judgment, I suspect I'll expire before I finish those first million acts of love.  And that will be a-ok.  I will err on the side of love.

Oh, and I will fail.  Because I am a worthless, tribal lizard brain.  Like all the rest of you.

But I'm trying.

 

And I also know that I do better on that walk when I walk it with others.  That's really hard these days, too.  Finding a community that's welcoming to that is harder than it used to be.  Or at least it feels that way.

Really good post. I acknowledge the need, the absolute requirement, to share. But, the Quakers do the best communal worship, where they sit in silence. One only opens their mouth to speak what God has told them to speak. With such a bar, silence is the state of worship.

[956 Worldwide 34710]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You mean, treating things like allegory and story telling with a moral as literal things that actually happened?  Stupid shit like that?

And yeah, there's layers upon layers of problems with imposing one-dimensional proof-text oriented modern thinking on a collection of writings that 1) were the product of multiple, evolving cultures, over centuries and 2) were selected for inclusion in the "collected works" called the Bible by a variety of "scholars" working with naked political motivations, power-goals, and ambitions in making those selections.

For example, my wife recalls -- with horror -- the conversation she had with a SEMINARY CLASSMATE who insisted that the Old Testament -- the whole thing, from Genesis to Malachi, was written by Moses.  Not "influenced by Moses," or "much of it was written by Moses."  Nope, the whole thing -- Moses just sat down with some papyrus and cranked out "The Old Testament -- the complete works that you really, really need to include in a future thing called 'the Bible,' and I'm talking to you, Council of Hippo and other dudes."  Rips away all historical, cultural, and tribal context.  Practically makes it "God sat down and wrote a book and called it the Bible."

 

Moses dies at the beginning of the Old Testament. Well, not the very beginning but the first act, for sure. The bulk of the OT is all about how the Israelites get in trouble for not doing what Moses told them to do before he died. So that’s some real creative license. 
 

I have encountered some strident believers who think Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch (except the part where he dies) but have NEVER met a “he wrote all of the OT, even the parts where other people announce they are the author.” 

[Mole 4330]

That’s not even absurd literalism, it’s something else. A number of OT books have authorship claims pretty explicitly in the text. That’s not to mention Moses narrating his own death.

[gyroprotagonist 2592]

19 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Let me know when y’all start in on King James.

I have feelings about that misogynistic asshole.

That's the rub.  Can anyone here, with a straight face, actually believe that rulers and powerful, literate men would not change a few lines here, take out a few lines there to, i don't know, maybe keep peasants in line a little better?  Make their lives and their progeny's lives easier down the road?  Keep women and slaves in line with Godly mandate?  out of all the self serving, backstabbing, lying, cheating, double dealing that all politicians/rulers are into they said "Nah, we better leave these stories untouched before distributing to the masses".  Church leaders were like bump that giving to the church line up to a full 10% and we're in.  We'll even endorse holy wars, mark your political enemies as heretics and later on charge any especially mouthy bitches as witches for you at no extra charge.

Maybe there was a divine message.  But if you think for one minute the original was unsullied by the men disseminating the message, you are a fool.  Just look at today's politicians trying to erase that slavery happened or banning children's books about 2 male penguins raising a chick.  

 

[formermav43 4606]

16 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

That's the rub.  Can anyone here, with a straight face, actually believe that rulers and powerful, literate men would not change a few lines here, take out a few lines there to, i don't know, maybe keep peasants in line a little better?  Make their lives and their progeny's lives easier down the road?  Keep women and slaves in line with Godly mandate?  out of all the self serving, backstabbing, lying, cheating, double dealing that all politicians/rulers are into they said "Nah, we better leave these stories untouched before distributing to the masses".  Church leaders were like bump that giving to the church line up to a full 10% and we're in.  We'll even endorse holy wars, mark your political enemies as heretics and later on charge any especially mouthy bitches as witches for you at no extra charge.

Maybe there was a divine message.  But if you think for one minute the original was unsullied by the men disseminating the message, you are a fool.  Just look at today's politicians trying to erase that slavery happened or banning children's books about 2 male penguins raising a chick.  

 

That’s why textual criticism is important. You can’t just “change a few lines here and there” without leaving a trail.

[WhatTheBuck 28779]

This is a great read if you’re interested in an introduction to textual criticism:

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

That’s why textual criticism is important. You can’t just “change a few lines here and there” without leaving a trail.

What about this scenario.  In the middle of the night, the king of the world goes into the archive room and edits a few lines from the scrolls.  He then sends his secret agent scribes to every library and archive throughout the known world and they make the same edits.  They are secret agents, so nobody would notice.  Then they round up every scholar who has these entire scrolls memorized and convince them the new lines are valid; if that doesn't work, they kill them.  Can you honestly say that this isn't a plausible scenario?  

[956 Worldwide 34710]

1 hour ago, Mole said:

It’s an issue inherent in dealing with ancient texts. If you’re dealing honestly with the scholarship, there will be ambiguity. That seems preferable to me to having one authorized version that doesn’t honestly deal with the source materials. We tend to import our modern thinking into ancient texts and then wonder about all of the problems.

A (mostly) American brand of Protestantism has twisted itself into knots making claims for the Bible that the Bible never makes for itself. 

[Asithappens 974]

1 hour ago, BevoAbyss said:

I was lucky. Damn lucky.

— Mom was from a very poor family in the Hill Country, a God-fearing, Bible-believing Texas lady, yet who had a massive distrust of preachers of all kinds. She thought they were mostly con men.

— Dad was a military veteran, degree from UT on GI Bill, and completely agnostic and uninterested in religion. He was a "live and let live" dude.

Thus, my family never went to church or watched TV preachers. We never said a prayer at Thanksgiving or Xmas. Religion was non-existent in our lives. We were a secular family with emphasis on education, honesty, hard work, respecting others, and a trust in science/medicine. Which means I was not subjected to the relentless religious brainwashing propaganda in my youth. Thus:

— I never have to think the Bible offers profound truths about life, morality, or human existence. 

— I never have to cherry pick passages/verses from the Bible to support my worldview or moral positions. 

— I never have to believe religion is a force for good, when, in fact, it is tool for the 3Cs: colonize, conquer, convert.

— I never have to ignore or make excuses for the genocidal atrocities enacted by Christians all across the three American continents.

— I have have to offer bullshit rationalizations about a God who remains unseen, never cures diseases, ends famines or stops wars, and seems utterly uninterested in anything on Earth. ("God works in mysterious ways." Lulz)

— And I never have to feel guilty about too much fun, sex, or tequila.

Damn lucky, I was. 

 

You, sir are a True American.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

What about this scenario.  In the middle of the night, the king of the world goes into the archive room and edits a few lines from the scrolls.  He then sends his secret agent scribes to every library and archive throughout the known world and they make the same edits.  They are secret agents, so nobody would notice.  Then they round up every scholar who has these entire scrolls memorized and convince them the new lines are valid; if that doesn't work, they kill them.  Can you honestly say that this isn't a plausible scenario?  

My God, it’s Jason Bourne.

[mchookem 16330]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

What about this scenario.  In the middle of the night, the king of the world goes into the archive room and edits a few lines from the scrolls.  He then sends his secret agent scribes to every library and archive throughout the known world and they make the same edits.  They are secret agents, so nobody would notice.  Then they round up every scholar who has these entire scrolls memorized and convince them the new lines are valid; if that doesn't work, they kill them.  Can you honestly say that this isn't a plausible scenario?  

[Satchel 6938]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

A (mostly) American brand of Protestantism has twisted itself into knots making claims for the Bible that the Bible never makes for itself. 

Very true. When the Gospel is viewed and practiced from the top down rather than the bottom up, you’ll get all kinds of nonsensical doctrinal stances that the Christ of the Bible would never recognize.

[The Dog 44042]

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It's why faith has become a much more personal thing, as opposed to an institutional thing, for many.  Because the institutions are institutions of Man, and Man SUCKS.  The institutions are rotten and poisonous.  But the problem is that we are ALSO called to be and learn in community.  Religious community is no different.  We benefit from collective study and analysis and discussion.  But that's not working so well.

I mean, my faith has become a simple thing as I've gotten older.  I believe that the universe is and is of the divine.  I believe that the language of science, and physics, which we are coming to learn is unfathomably complex, is the language of the divine.  So is the natural order divine?  Maybe.  Probably.  Is that divinity discernible from the scientific?  Probably not.  Nor should it be.  They're probably the same.  But I KNOW this: I will never understand it all.  I am not capable of understanding it all.  Humanity in its present form is not capable of understanding it all.  The old saw about "you cannot look at the face of God without going mad" (both from Revelation and from rabbinical tradition and stories).

So, I KNOW the following: I am of this universe.  The story of this universe -- this amazing, beautiful, divine and infinite ball of existence -- cannot be told without also telling my story.  That is beautiful.  And it comes with responsibility.  With that place comes the obligation to be good, to be kind, to love.  Love is the one thing that we have in common with the universe: as what makes the universe exist is beyond comprehension and explanation, so is love.  I am called to love.  All of the universe is.  Does my faith call on me to judge, to punish?  I don't know.  I don't think so.  But maybe.  But if I create a "lifetime to-do list," and it includes a million acts of love, and then below that, a million acts of judgment, I suspect I'll expire before I finish those first million acts of love.  And that will be a-ok.  I will err on the side of love.

Oh, and I will fail.  Because I am a worthless, tribal lizard brain.  Like all the rest of you.

But I'm trying.

 

And I also know that I do better on that walk when I walk it with others.  That's really hard these days, too.  Finding a community that's welcoming to that is harder than it used to be.  Or at least it feels that way.

Reflections of a Presbyterian pantheist.  

[BevoAbyss 2058]

 

In America, religion is being weaponized as a violent purity movement. Make no mistake, it is medieval madness.

Religion is a pre-scientific philosophy that appeals to a variety of inherent fears, insecurities, idiocies, and violent tendencies that go back to hunter-gatherer societies and especially to our primate/tribal origins — with fears of the other or the outsider. 

When the faithful think the Creator of the entire freaking universe (two trillion galaxies and counting) has their back and says they are the special ones on the fast track to spiritual and eternal destiny — then they will often do bad things to other people. Very bad things. In the name of purity! In Christian history, it's the Inquisition in Europe and the genocidal conquest of the Americas. 

With GQP-MAGA, it's a 21st century version of medievalism and purity through violence.

The clock is ticking backward, history is in repeat mode.

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by BevoAbyss
Clarity.

[atomheartbevo 89659]

28 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

The clock is ticking backward, history is in repeat mode.

Your avatar checks out somehow.

[NWBuck 8552]

On 3/24/2023 at 8:32 AM, Mole said:

The closest that I can come up with for the Bible claiming to be the word of God is 2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 

Interestingly enough, this verse would not have been considered "Scripture" to the writer or original readers. So, the fact that it's now seen as such highlights the involvement of (fallible) humans in the editorial and canonization process (and seems to set up some circular logic challenges). 

I'm really appreciating the conversation and such in this thread... Thanks for staying engaged even with the trolls (however you might define them). 

In this shift to discussion of The Bible/Scripture, I keep thinking about a quote I've heard several times, that says 'Jewish people come to the Scripture to start a conversation, Christians do so to end one.' 

In addition to the meaning (interpretation) of holy texts we also have to consider the meaning (purpose) of having holy texts in the first place. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

On 3/24/2023 at 6:50 PM, axiom of foundation said:

Reflections of a Presbyterian pantheist.  

You summed him up in 5 words. New record.

[bolverk 29671]

Saw this from the youth minister pedo thread (h/t @texasdago). Definitely belongs here as part of this discussion:

Houston GOP official knew for years of child sex abuse claims against Southern Baptist leader, law partner
Under oath, outspoken anti-gay activist Jared Woodfill said he was told in 2004 that Paul Pressler had sexually abused a minor. But Woodfill did not cut ties with the Southern Baptist leader — and said he had no knowledge of Pressler’s alleged behavior when another young man came forward about alleged sexual misconduct in 2016

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/03/27/houston-jared-woodfill-gop-paul-pressler-southern-baptist/

[Brian Fantana 6685]

Weird how this happens all the time in religious establishments

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

2 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Weird how this happens all the time in religious establishments

but when a man dresses up in long, flowing garments and large, loud hats, bespeckled with jewels and trinkets.... wait, uh, this isn't the argument I thought it was

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

 

[Bama Llama 1450]

[Biff Tannen 45678]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

lol wut

[F250 28770]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45678]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

 

You kill the joe you make some mo!

[HamsterHookah 112]

@BrisketexanI thought of you as I read this part. I think the bold is something that, if you could wrap your mind around it, would help with the conceptualization of how "Christians" aren't Christians as that seems to be your favorite drum to beat.

Quote

 

Near the end of Trump’s term, Whitehead and Perry published the results in a book called “Taking America Back for God,” in which they predicted a growing schism. “Christian nationalism gives divine sanction to ethnocentrism and nativism,” they wrote, noting that a number of respondents doubted that immigrants or non-English speakers could ever be “truly American.” Christian nationalism was, they argued, a divisive creed; its adherents were more likely than other groups to believe “that Muslims and Atheists hold morally inferior values.”

Perry expanded this argument last year in “The Flag and the Cross,” which he wrote with the sociologist Philip S. Gorski. For many people, Gorski and Perry argue, “Christian” refers less to theology than to heritage. Drawing on their own survey, they found that more than a fifth of respondents who wanted the government to declare the U.S. a “Christian nation” also described themselves as being “secular,” or an adherent of a non-Christian faith. Paradoxically, so did more than fifteen per cent of self-identified Christians. This last data point might be a sign that “Christian” is starting to become something more like “Jewish”: an ancestral identity that you can keep, even if you don’t keep the faith. There are, of course, plenty of nonwhite Christians in America, and even nonwhite Christian nationalists. (In the earlier book, Whitehead and Perry reported that Black Americans were in fact more likely than any other racial group to support Christian nationalism.) But Gorski and Perry argue that in American politics Christian nationalism has often served as a white-identity movement. They note, for instance, that white Americans who support Christian nationalism are likelier to evince disapproval of immigration and concern about anti-white discrimination. And they worry that “white Christian nationalism is working just beneath the surface” of American politics, ready to trigger an outburst, as it did on January 6th. “There will be another eruption—and soon,” they write.

 

Here is the full article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/04/03/how-christian-is-christian-nationalism

Edited March 30, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[safe sex 11721]

What the fuck does it matter whether or not they call themselves secular if they are still working towards a Christian fascist theocracy?

Edited March 30, 2023 by safe sex

[HamsterHookah 112]

25 minutes ago, safe sex said:

What the fuck does it matter whether or not they call themselves secular if they are still working towards a Christian favor theocracy?

I think the distinction is becoming more meaningful, as some of the sociologists and published scholars are saying in that article. It's sloppy (dare I say, lazy) for people like Brisket to say "American Christians are cruel and stupid and bad" when in reality, today there are distinctions that need to be made between Christian Nationalist, Christian, and a Christian who identifies as one due to heritage or social capital or culture versus one who is an active practitioner of the faith.

From the article, more:

Quote

And, though some of Trump’s supporters put Christian identity front and center, others are harder to categorize. The January 6th protester who prayed in the Senate, for instance, was Jake Angeli, known as the QAnon Shaman, who had previously referred to himself as part of a “light occultic force.” During his prayer, Angeli thanked God for the “divine, omnipresent white light of love and protection, peace and harmony”: this is the language of “lightworkers” and of other contemporary spiritualists. Perhaps a shaman is the perfect figurehead for a movement defined by Christian heritage, not Christian faith. America may now be following the trajectory of Europe, where Viktor Orbán, the Prime Minister of Hungary, talks about the importance of “Christian roots,” even though fewer than twenty per cent of Hungarians attend church regularly. If the rise of Christian nationalism in America reflects the decline of Christianity, that is bittersweet news for secular liberals, because it means that they might expect to see more and more of it as the country grows less pious.

 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Lítio short of saying being called Christian offends me, but I don’t care for it. But my kids still get Christmas. But that was pagan anyways.

But if y’all keep raping kids, I will start to be offended at the idea of being “culturally Christian”

[Gap03 3304]

29 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

... today there are distinctions that need to be made between Christian Nationalist, Christian, and a Christian who identifies as one due to heritage or social capital or culture versus one who is an active practitioner of the faith.

 

  

As far as I can tell, the vast majority of them seem to be pulling the same direction to fuck the country.  

[formermav43 4606]

25 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

  

As far as I can tell, the vast majority of them seem to be pulling the same direction to fuck the country.  

It's a distinction that Christians might be kind of interested in. It's kind of what this thread is all about (at least initially).

[HamsterHookah 112]

It's definitely worth consideration and discussion, as the New Yorker cited half a dozen researchers, sociologists and academics who follow such things which I linked for you to read if you care to, as this is how society evolves. 

[BevoAbyss 2058]

About that New Yorker article

1. Re: the secularists wanting a Christian nation. Never underestimate the power of "doublethink" and believing that two oppositional and contradictory thoughts are both true.

2. There's always a bunch of academics splitting hairs in the guise of "rigorous scholarship." They can divide Christians into sub-groups all they want, but the unimpeachable empirical fact is that 70+ million people voted for Trump. Which means that 70 million voters are down with fascism and theocracy, regardless of which Christian group they are in.

[Stilicho 1397]

3 hours ago, safe sex said:

What the fuck does it matter whether or not they call themselves secular if they are still working towards a Christian fascist theocracy?

This is the fight I see.

In places like the south and the mid-south, it's Christian fundamentalists against the rest of us. Whomever you religious folks cast your lot with in that fight will probably help tip the scales one way or another. They're message has been pretty fucking clear though: you're either with them or you're against them. They can call it whatever they like... "religious-secular hybridization" has been thrown around at the law school. But it's just Christian fundamentalism all the way down.

Here in Oklahoma, the shithole of shitholes, they're trying to run folks out through book banning and teacher banning  and basically hammering down on anything and anyone that runs counter to "biblical teaching." There's plenty of pulpits in OKC calling for me and mine's execution. They're certainly not all podunk snake-handlers or spirit-talkers, there as mainstream as any southern Baptist congregation I've ever set foot in across three separate states. 

 

  

[Biff Tannen 45678]

8 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

Drawing on their own survey, they found that more than a fifth of respondents who wanted the government to declare the U.S. a “Christian nation” also described themselves as being “secular,” or an adherent of a non-Christian faith.

Oh man, a whole 20%.  Also, these people who aren't Christian want the US to be DECLARED a Christian nation?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

but please do go on about how drag shows are harming kids. ffs, 600??? 

 

[Biff Tannen 45678]

3 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

but please do go on about how drag shows are harming kids. ffs, 600??? 

 

Didn't we figure this out like a decade ago?

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Fuck. Off.

Christians are groomers.