My personal favorite from the new testament is Matthew 10:34. "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." Seems relevant today as we aim to separate ourselves from the ultimate violent religious cult, mentioned in your concluding paragraphs.
Indeed. Yet, this generic affirmation is wildly subject to interpretation. Most Christian priests and experts will tell you that this means spiritual inner battle, not a literal war. I wish something that claims to be the "Word of God" were a bit more specific and clear.
The Christian tendency (especially with the southern baptists and non-denominationals today) towards pacifism and tolerance has done them a great disservice.
Yes, from eight years of Catholic school my main takeaway was that "religion" is packed with mentally unstable frauds. Even in elementary school, I scoffed at the old testament stories, in particular God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son and the idea of the Israelites as God's 'chosen people.'
Yes. Religions are an incompatible mix of common-sense ethics with incoherent babble and inane takes. I once heard a priest admit this and theorize that it is part of the Devine test; to se which parts will resonate with whom. Who knows. Maybe he’s right.
I'm not following your argument/comment. Since you made the distinction, can you clarify its significance? Specifically in the context of the subsequent statements regarding "preserving" and "losing" one's life.
To be honest I made those comments to the author. My apologies. I used a separate translation to taknetht the sword out of it. I'm going to edit out the comments. As you pointed they aren't in order and seem to be aimed at one person not the group discussion. My apologies
Excellent points all around, and on the "thy neighbor" thing. Yeah, it's like "thou shalt not kill [your fellow Israelite]" and the other verses deciding who it is okay to make a slave. Of course, Israelites are off limits, and slaves are to come from the "foreigners/heathen round about you."
Jesus also taught his gullible followers that they should not resist evil when it is done to them, said he came only to serve his fellow Israelites, and called non-Jews "dogs." Mix this up with a few of the nice things in the book, and you've got a recipe for schizo fear that those in power in the state love to leverage against the sheep.
Jesus also told his followers to "love with all their heart" the same God that condoned infanticide and pedophilia (Numbers 31:17,18). The New Testament also advocates slavery to brutal masters and maintains that each and every government ruler is good and must be obeyed.
You are absolutely right that if you are more moral than a supposed "god," that god is bullshit.
My personal favorite from the new testament is Matthew 10:34. "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." Seems relevant today as we aim to separate ourselves from the ultimate violent religious cult, mentioned in your concluding paragraphs.
Indeed. Yet, this generic affirmation is wildly subject to interpretation. Most Christian priests and experts will tell you that this means spiritual inner battle, not a literal war. I wish something that claims to be the "Word of God" were a bit more specific and clear.
The Christian tendency (especially with the southern baptists and non-denominationals today) towards pacifism and tolerance has done them a great disservice.
Yes, from eight years of Catholic school my main takeaway was that "religion" is packed with mentally unstable frauds. Even in elementary school, I scoffed at the old testament stories, in particular God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son and the idea of the Israelites as God's 'chosen people.'
Yes. Religions are an incompatible mix of common-sense ethics with incoherent babble and inane takes. I once heard a priest admit this and theorize that it is part of the Devine test; to se which parts will resonate with whom. Who knows. Maybe he’s right.
In case you missed this: https://sotiris.substack.com/p/alternatives-to-the-story-of-abraham
I removed my comment. You pointed out it didn't make sense. I was trying to join group discussion. It made it look aimed at only you. My apologies.
I'm not following your argument/comment. Since you made the distinction, can you clarify its significance? Specifically in the context of the subsequent statements regarding "preserving" and "losing" one's life.
To be honest I made those comments to the author. My apologies. I used a separate translation to taknetht the sword out of it. I'm going to edit out the comments. As you pointed they aren't in order and seem to be aimed at one person not the group discussion. My apologies
Excellent points all around, and on the "thy neighbor" thing. Yeah, it's like "thou shalt not kill [your fellow Israelite]" and the other verses deciding who it is okay to make a slave. Of course, Israelites are off limits, and slaves are to come from the "foreigners/heathen round about you."
Jesus also taught his gullible followers that they should not resist evil when it is done to them, said he came only to serve his fellow Israelites, and called non-Jews "dogs." Mix this up with a few of the nice things in the book, and you've got a recipe for schizo fear that those in power in the state love to leverage against the sheep.
Jesus also told his followers to "love with all their heart" the same God that condoned infanticide and pedophilia (Numbers 31:17,18). The New Testament also advocates slavery to brutal masters and maintains that each and every government ruler is good and must be obeyed.
You are absolutely right that if you are more moral than a supposed "god," that god is bullshit.
Anyhow. Great post!
This is why I am areligious: religions are rice-strainer full of holes. I wish things were different.
Thank you for your kind words.