892
Evangelicals are now rejecting 'liberal' teachings of Jesus
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
892 points (96.5% liked)
Not The Onion
12269 readers
1390 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You probably are just trying to be quippy but actually Jesus was quite subversive to established Jewish doctrine. You can see it in the parables.
One can see it in the Parable of the Woman called out for adultry. To deeply paraphrase with a shit condensed version : A bunch of Jewish scholarship - the folk who basically serve as biblical laywers - try and cast a woman in front of Jesus for judgement for her supposed flagrant overstepping of the rules with the prescribed punishment under Jewish law. This law is one of the actual commandment breakers and these community leaders demand Jesus judge her by their rule book. Jesus refuses. This is where we get the whole "he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing. Jewish law contained the punishment for adultry was not written by god, it was written by priests. Jesus does tell the woman not to do it again so God's will is communicated so one could read this as a message to be wary of the laws of priests because they do not reflect the will of God. "Do not kill" and "do not covet" which means something closer to "be jealous of/desire" superceed those laws. It's not on humans to take it upon themselves to render judgement. That is up to God.
This made the teachings of Jesus ridiculously unpopular amongst Jewish priests because they got a law for everything. One could look at the inclusion of Leviticus - a description of Jewish laws in the Christian Bible as a reminder that priests made those laws. They were unauthorized human expansions on the simple directives that came straight from the source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
Other parables to look into were "The unjust judge". But yeah. Jesus was about as anti authoritarian as you could get.
3rd century forgery. Not found in early manuscripts of John or any other Christian works. Also not aligned with other things he said. Such as in Matthew where he talked about how he wasn't subtracting from the law. Also doesn't align with the incident with the "lepord" found in Mark, Luke, and Matthew. Where Jesus shows absolute respect for the legal authorities.
I agree. God wrote nothing.
I thought we were talking about Jesus. Why are you bringing up Rabbi Hillel. You know the guy who said things like this, lived in that area, and died decades prior?
So did Jesus. You don't remember your Sermon on the Mount.
Proverbs and Leviticus.
Again, everything Biblical Jesus said was establishment.
I love how I cannot tell from this message whether you are a koolaid-drinking Christian Fascist or a Dawkins-huffing New Atheist. Both have a strong interest in this particular version of Jesus that you are pushing.
Most of us take it for granted that Jesus forgave the adulterer, and further, that only by his forgiveness can we enter the kingdom of heaven, according to contemporary vernacular Protestant American Christian Mythology. The Biblical Scholars like yourself - amateur or professional, earnest or polemical - will always debate like Talmudic rabbis about it, but we're out here in the real world where people are alive and living their various gospel truths.
Attack the argument and not the person.
3rd century forgery.
And? There is an entire branch of Christian thought dedicated to figure out how to be saved. That source has just as much justification as Calvinism. Of course none of it is true, the only place we go when we die is the ground.
I have discussed facts only.
So you are naked, barefoot, and demanding the rich to give up all their money?
Why are you acting like this.
I used to think logic was enough too.
Of course logic isn't enough. Logic can tell you how to do something, but it can't tell you why. In other words, logic can't tell you why one outcome is better or worse than another. You need emotions for that.
indeed, an illustration of how one cannot derive an 'ought' from statements of what 'is' unless one incorporates some sort of conditional framework such as a desired outcome or consequence.
for instance, it can be perhaps framed as an if-then statement: IF one wishes to produce a specific result, THEN a certain action must be taken - but even then, WHY someone might wish to produce that result is still left undefined; and even when a number of those reasons can be listed, the act of actually engaging any of those reasons is still the exclusive domain of a sapient agency perceiving their own emotional state.
In the end, we're all just doing what 'feels right'; the logic, reason, and rationality around it are just there to focus and refine how our emotions resolve.
With a convoluted enough Rube Goldberg Machine of excuses and justifications, ANYTHING can be made to 'feel' like it will achieve the desired effects... just like how any good tool can become a weapon if grossly misused.
In that case I am happy that you are now considering evidence instead of symbol shifting games.
I advise you to consider empathy.
Upvoted not because I particularly like either argument just, "I advise you to consider empathy" is a powerful statement.
Also watching people debate the authenticity of the Bible and its various books is too rich. 👌
Can you imagine a mormon walking in on this dicussion?
I remain atheist at my deepest heart, but I understand after many years of wasting my time being wrong that anything which doesn't exist, also doesn't deserve any time wasted thinking about its finer details. In its own way, this deep dive into biblical archivism is just the Atheist's version of The Courtier's Reply.
Any honest Atheist, when pressed hard, has to concede the final thousandths of an inch to uncertainty and give the highest and strongest ground to the Agnostics, and that's really the one that allows for the most freedom. I use chemicals, some from my doctor and some from the store, to boost my mood and my productivity. Some people use Jesus or Allah or Idontfuckingcarereally, as long as they don't try to take my weed or my Vyvanse.
edit: we all do what we do to get by. If you're not harming anyone with your drug of choice, I say you should have as much of it you can handle without burning out.
Agnosticism is not the halfway point between atheism and theism. It is a question of knowledge, not belief.
Did I say halfway point? I think I specifically said something more resembling the tiny domains of delta that come into play as you endlessly approach the speed of light but never reach it. One can endlessly approach Atheism, but until you can somehow use logic to prove a negative, in the end, you are the one who is trafficking in false knowledge. If you were so sure - if you were as sure as I am that no deities exist - you wouldn't be wasting your time in this way, and particularly not resorting to deliberate mischaracterizations of what I said.
Atheism is about belief not about knowledge. You can identify as an Agnostic Atheist. Someone who doesn't believe in a god but knows it can't be demonstrated one way or another. I for example do that. You are mixing up the assertion of knowledge with the assertion of belief.
I identify as James from Arnes (Not James Arness, I have no gun).
I have a number of other "identities" that are applied to me due to my particular set of circumstances, but I'm James.
How nice for you.
It is true, as a white man in North America, I have the luxury of pretending I exist independently of all the labels. It's a delusion of course; all politics are identity politics. That being said, to purposely put one on yourself as a conscious choice seems like putting the yoke on yourself.
Are you my new best friend?
Yes, and also: one need not be a 'believer' to perceive, comprehend, and accept the utility functions that religious behaviors have accommodated (albeit inefficiently and with a significant amount of superfluous baggage) throughout history and within the human psyche.
As a tribal species, we function better when we have some kind of overarching organizational structure to inform individuals of their own (psychological and social) position relative to the community to which they belong, so as to better focus individual efforts toward cooperative goals. It's the heart of skill specialization that enabled us to become more than generalist hunter-gatherers, after all! Some kinds of cult-shaped collective gestalt entities will always emerge whenever the constituent humans of a community begin to specialize their expertise.
One of the elements that separate us from our ancestors is that we have an opportunity to synthesize an organizing system that features fewer of the maladaptive, exploitative, abusive traits of naturally arising cult entities.
(and by 'cult' I don't just mean religious - I also mean political, commercial, and recreational memetic entities too! Even fandoms are an example of this phenomenon!)
Oh, yeah, you're right that the present paradigm has outlived its usefulness, for sure.
But like any technology, not everybody has access to the latest developments.
It's unfortunate, but nevertheless true, that there are many places on earth where people have no other means of social support than the meager and dubious amenities provided by religious orders.
I'm sure there are those who might successfully litigate the argument that having no hospital at all could be construed as somehow better than having a hospital founded via religious means, and the imperialistic, colonizing aspects of missionary work, which directly damage cultures and societies on a generational scale, may indeed have caused more harm than the acute disease and occurrences of injury which they can treat on an individual basis - but that's not an argument I would personally back.
The corrupting mimetic contagion of religiosity can be inoculated-against while a society continues to benefit from the medical or nutritional support... although only if the society in question either learns how on its own, or is taught. Like most things in life, not quite so simply cut-and-dried, alas.
Jesus never existed
Just like your capacity for reading comprehension.
I have I have a lot of empathy for all the people Islam and Christianity have murdered because of con ran by James and Peter.
You're being down voted by people who believe in their hearts that the middle east thousands of years ago used names like Peter and James.
Haha
When the specific bit of fiction was added to the book of fiction seems entirely irrelevant when it is the compiled book, including the later bit of fiction, upon which modern people claim to be basing their moral philosophy. I don't believe the vast majority are reaching that verse and going "oh well this was added late so let's skip over this part." "Legitimate" (feels a funny concept for this topic, tbh) or not, it is included in most modern Christian's interpretation of Christ
I think it is important to note what the truth is of the situation.
If the Bible can have one fictional story in it, it can have two, if it can have two it can have three.
The whole thing is allegorical fiction; debating which is most historically fictional is pointless when the vast majority only consider the thing as a whole, not individually. It isn't that you're not correct, it's that your correctness is wholly irrelevant to how the Bible is consumed
The Bible is not allegorical to the vast majority of believers.
Yes, I'm aware. Those people are even less likely to do the due diligence you seem to be requesting of examining the veracity of each book or passage. The salient point here remains - the Bible is being interpreted as a whole book, thus whether or not your specific passage passes the veracity test or not is fully irrelevant
You really seem to be willing to generalize. I was one of those people and I did put in the leg work. Very nearly went into some sort of theological training as my career. Lost my faith before that, got a real job. It was not an allegory for me it was the word of God. So yes I studied the heck out of it.
And no you don't get to do that. The Bible contradicts itself. Taken as a whole does not work. Sometimes the contractions are found within the same book.
Ah, but the proof that you mention that it was a 3rd century forgery was actually a 6th century forgery! You can always disprove something, but proving something is much harder if you don't share the same base truths. But as Pilate said "What is truth?".... or was that a forgery as well?
It isn't found in any of the earlier manuscripts and is not aligned with other actions and sayings that he said. All the gotchas wont change that.