Rejecting the Bad Parts

[BreezeWood]

Jesus, if he truly existed at all, was just the world's first recorded Hippie

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.
no one is coming back, admission to the Everlasting requires an accomplishment by the individual rendering purity to their spirit to attain judgement for admission or that of all humanity accomplishing the feat together and becoming one in the same - for final judgement.

no one will do that for anyone - including a christian ram. .no sinners are allowed.

ummmm.... it's the exact opposite of that. No one is worthy on their own.

.

ummmm.... it's the exact opposite of that. No one is worthy on their own.

.
the individual is capable of certain objectives, such as becoming sinless however and from antiquity the emphasis is humanity not the individual and certainly a sinless humanity would be more conducive for the individual to follow in that guidance.

what's odd is how christianity has it so wrong and has been allowed to survive as long as it has - the vindictiveness of christian congregations is overwhelming to the point of disbelief - as in hope for the future as long as they are allowed to muddy the waters. unrepentantly since the 4th century.

 

[ding]

Jesus, if he truly existed at all, was just the world's first recorded Hippie

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.
no one is coming back, admission to the Everlasting requires an accomplishment by the individual rendering purity to their spirit to attain judgement for admission or that of all humanity accomplishing the feat together and becoming one in the same - for final judgement.

no one will do that for anyone - including a christian ram. .no sinners are allowed.

ummmm.... it's the exact opposite of that. No one is worthy on their own.

.

ummmm.... it's the exact opposite of that. No one is worthy on their own.

.
the individual is capable of certain objectives, such as becoming sinless however and from antiquity the emphasis is humanity not the individual and certainly a sinless humanity would be more conducive for the individual to follow in that guidance.

what's odd is how christianity has it so wrong and has been allowed to survive as long as it has - the vindictiveness of christian congregations is overwhelming to the point of disbelief - as in hope for the future as long as they are allowed to muddy the waters. unrepentantly since the 4th century.

There have only ever been two people that were sinless and one of them was fully God and fully human.

What's odd is your conclusion and your concern over a religion that is not your own.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ah yes, as sure as taxes and the sunrise: Ding hits a wall, makes the other poster the topic.

 

[ding]

Ah yes, as sure as taxes and the sunrise: Ding hits a wall, makes the other poster the topic.

You mean the guy that has made it a mission to attack my faith?

Maybe if I were being attacked because I were black or Jewish you might get a clue to what that kind of behavior really is, but something tells me you would rationalize that away too.

 

[BreezeWood]

Jesus, if he truly existed at all, was just the world's first recorded Hippie

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.
no one is coming back, admission to the Everlasting requires an accomplishment by the individual rendering purity to their spirit to attain judgement for admission or that of all humanity accomplishing the feat together and becoming one in the same - for final judgement.

no one will do that for anyone - including a christian ram. .no sinners are allowed.

ummmm.... it's the exact opposite of that. No one is worthy on their own.

.

ummmm.... it's the exact opposite of that. No one is worthy on their own.

.
the individual is capable of certain objectives, such as becoming sinless however and from antiquity the emphasis is humanity not the individual and certainly a sinless humanity would be more conducive for the individual to follow in that guidance.

what's odd is how christianity has it so wrong and has been allowed to survive as long as it has - the vindictiveness of christian congregations is overwhelming to the point of disbelief - as in hope for the future as long as they are allowed to muddy the waters. unrepentantly since the 4th century.

There have only ever been two people that were sinless and one of them was fully God and fully human.

What's odd is your conclusion and your concern over a religion that is not your own.

.

There have only ever been two people that were sinless and one of them was fully God and fully human.

What's odd is your conclusion and your concern over a religion that is not your own.

.
really, who was that and who was the other one - and why do you believe you are unable to stop sinning - and why is that not everyone's goal. im not disputing your two only your inability to do so yourself or your condemning those that try. and succeed. no, there are no sinners in the Everlasting -

that's the point - from antiquity - your "religion" purposefully misconstrues - is the concern - christianity is not a religion but a political pariah disguised to appear differently than its true context for nefarious purposes.

 

[ding]

Jesus, if he truly existed at all, was just the world's first recorded Hippie

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.
no one is coming back, admission to the Everlasting requires an accomplishment by the individual rendering purity to their spirit to attain judgement for admission or that of all humanity accomplishing the feat together and becoming one in the same - for final judgement.

no one will do that for anyone - including a christian ram. .no sinners are allowed.

ummmm.... it's the exact opposite of that. No one is worthy on their own.

.

ummmm.... it's the exact opposite of that. No one is worthy on their own.

.
the individual is capable of certain objectives, such as becoming sinless however and from antiquity the emphasis is humanity not the individual and certainly a sinless humanity would be more conducive for the individual to follow in that guidance.

what's odd is how christianity has it so wrong and has been allowed to survive as long as it has - the vindictiveness of christian congregations is overwhelming to the point of disbelief - as in hope for the future as long as they are allowed to muddy the waters. unrepentantly since the 4th century.

There have only ever been two people that were sinless and one of them was fully God and fully human.

What's odd is your conclusion and your concern over a religion that is not your own.

.

There have only ever been two people that were sinless and one of them was fully God and fully human.

What's odd is your conclusion and your concern over a religion that is not your own.

.
really, who was that and who was the other one - and why do you believe you are unable to stop sinning - and why is that not everyone's goal. im not disputing your two only your inability to do so yourself or your condemning those that try. and succeed. no, there are no sinners in the Everlasting -

that's the point - from antiquity - your "religion" purposefully misconstrues - is the concern - christianity is not a religion but a political pariah disguised to appear differently than its true context for nefarious purposes.

Jesus and Mary

 

[BreezeWood]

Jesus, if he truly existed at all, was just the world's first recorded Hippie

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.

He is coming back as Patton. He is going to win this battle for our souls....

.
no one is coming back, admission to the Everlasting requires an accomplishment by the individual rendering purity to their spirit to attain judgement for admission or that of all humanity accomplishing the feat together and becoming one in the same - for final judgement.

no one will do that for anyone - including a christian ram. .no sinners are allowed.

ummmm.... it's the exact opposite of that. No one is worthy on their own.

.

ummmm.... it's the exact opposite of that. No one is worthy on their own.

.
the individual is capable of certain objectives, such as becoming sinless however and from antiquity the emphasis is humanity not the individual and certainly a sinless humanity would be more conducive for the individual to follow in that guidance.

what's odd is how christianity has it so wrong and has been allowed to survive as long as it has - the vindictiveness of christian congregations is overwhelming to the point of disbelief - as in hope for the future as long as they are allowed to muddy the waters. unrepentantly since the 4th century.

There have only ever been two people that were sinless and one of them was fully God and fully human.

What's odd is your conclusion and your concern over a religion that is not your own.

.

There have only ever been two people that were sinless and one of them was fully God and fully human.

What's odd is your conclusion and your concern over a religion that is not your own.

.
really, who was that and who was the other one - and why do you believe you are unable to stop sinning - and why is that not everyone's goal. im not disputing your two only your inability to do so yourself or your condemning those that try. and succeed. no, there are no sinners in the Everlasting -

that's the point - from antiquity - your "religion" purposefully misconstrues - is the concern - christianity is not a religion but a political pariah disguised to appear differently than its true context for nefarious purposes.

Jesus and Mary

.

Jesus and Mary

.
both born that way, surly your patronage has an answer and you are aware of marys accomplishment can you share that or is it your secret. how she triumphed over evil. she's surly no christian, then. one of ours. and you did not have time to crucify her.

 

[presonorek]

Christ’s teachings to turn the other cheek

In Jesus' day, do you know what statement was made by turning the other cheek?

I’m just guessing here. Is it something that makes more sense than what it really says?

Is it something a lot more practical? One of the more common phrases I heard from the pulpit, “that’s not what it is trying to say”.

 

[presonorek]

It is just a thought I guess. I’d like to see more Christians ignore the Bible on the stupider things

It's not the Bible that is stupid. We cannot read the news in another language that we are not familiar with and presume to have complete understanding of what is being said.

You are fine. I know you are smart enough to reject the dumb parts of the Bible. I’m only worried about the more literal sects of Christianity. There are people out there that believe the Bible is the word of God. These people live in constant self torture. Certain personalities cannot reconcile the difference between rhetoric and sincerity.

 

[presonorek]

Should Christians reject the bad parts of the Bible?

I say that Christians should reject the bad parts of the Bible.

They don't need to reject any part of the Bible. Christians should, however, find the parts of the Bible that speak to them the most and stand on them like a rock in the middle of a flooding river.

I guess I am just thinking out loud. I was hoping Christians could embrace the identical ethics of their atheist counterparts by embracing things that are good and rejecting things that are bad.

If atheists could see that the bad parts of the Bible can be rejected freely by Christians then atheists could view Christians as intellectual and moral equals. For example: Christ’s teachings to turn the other cheek, Christ’s teachings to avoid planning for the future, the description of homosexuals in Romans Chapter 1, and even teachings to pray nonstop. These are all horrible and disgusting teachings that Christians should be rejecting or at least ignoring. It would be good to see atheists and Christians agree that Jesus was dumb as hell when He said we should sell all that we own and give it to the poor. That’s just bad for society. Christians should ignore the Bible on that aspect and be able to enjoy the luxury to keep some of their belongings.

It is just a thought I guess. I’d like to see more Christians ignore the Bible on the stupider things and hold steadfast and fire on the good aspect of the Bible. You know, like atheists do. I guess in essence that would make the Christians atheists too. Oh well. Nobody said philosophy wasn’t complicated. I guess they just have to decide how bad they need to be labeled as “Christian”. If you need that label real bad you might want to go ahead and turn that other cheek.

Laughing leads to crying.

You are fine. I read the things you write. You are smart enough to reject the dumb parts of the Bible. I already know that. This thread is about people who think the Bible is the word of God.

 

[presonorek]

Stop for a minute. Instead of hastily reading the Bible and jumping to wrong conclusions,

Exactly. Think about it and analyze it. See if it is practical, useful, or beneficial. If not, burn it with tomorrow’s trash.

We are on the same page.

 

[presonorek]

Pick and choose.. Pick and choose.. It's all good.. Massage what you like.. Reject the Bad Parts..

Actually no. It is about understanding. It is good to start with understanding the original intent of the author and getting to know the original audience (meaning its language, culture, history).

In many ways, it is the atheist who is massaging the message and changing it to something where one can be self-satisfied in rejecting it.

Yes. It is about understanding, logic, and proper analysis. Applying sound thinking is a very good thing. It is the point I am making actually. You are agreeing with me but refuse to admit it. Why though?

Finding common ground is a positive thing. I think Christians should reject dumb parts of the Bible on logical grounds. You think Christians should reject dumb parts of the Bible on logical grounds. This is great. We are advancing together as a collective group of rational thinkers.

 

[ding]

Should Christians reject the bad parts of the Bible?

I say that Christians should reject the bad parts of the Bible.

They don't need to reject any part of the Bible. Christians should, however, find the parts of the Bible that speak to them the most and stand on them like a rock in the middle of a flooding river.

I guess I am just thinking out loud. I was hoping Christians could embrace the identical ethics of their atheist counterparts by embracing things that are good and rejecting things that are bad.

If atheists could see that the bad parts of the Bible can be rejected freely by Christians then atheists could view Christians as intellectual and moral equals. For example: Christ’s teachings to turn the other cheek, Christ’s teachings to avoid planning for the future, the description of homosexuals in Romans Chapter 1, and even teachings to pray nonstop. These are all horrible and disgusting teachings that Christians should be rejecting or at least ignoring. It would be good to see atheists and Christians agree that Jesus was dumb as hell when He said we should sell all that we own and give it to the poor. That’s just bad for society. Christians should ignore the Bible on that aspect and be able to enjoy the luxury to keep some of their belongings.

It is just a thought I guess. I’d like to see more Christians ignore the Bible on the stupider things and hold steadfast and fire on the good aspect of the Bible. You know, like atheists do. I guess in essence that would make the Christians atheists too. Oh well. Nobody said philosophy wasn’t complicated. I guess they just have to decide how bad they need to be labeled as “Christian”. If you need that label real bad you might want to go ahead and turn that other cheek.

Laughing leads to crying.

You are fine. I read the things you write. You are smart enough to reject the dumb parts of the Bible. I already know that. This thread is about people who think the Bible is the word of God.

It is and it isn't. And it's not so much dumb parts as it is dumb motivations. But without a doubt laughing does lead to crying so I'd be careful about making fun of people for their beliefs and behaviors or didn't you watch Forrest Gump.

 

[Meriweather]

I’m just guessing here. Is it something that makes more sense than what it really says?

As weird as it may seem to us, people were allowed to slap each other if they decided it was warranted, i.e. an insult between peers; disobedience in a servant. But there were rules. People must slap with their right hand (left hand is the unclean hand). It must be an open hand slap between peers (which lands on the right cheek), a backhand slap to a servant (lands on the left cheek). If a peer receives a back-hand slap, the one giving the slap is fined (because he is in the wrong). A peer turning the other cheek is standing his ground and telling everyone around he is in the right.

A servant turning the other cheek (to the right cheek) means another slap would have to be open handed--which elevates servant to equal.

These are small victories, but what it does is take the one who was slapped out of a position of indignity to one of dignity. Jesus wish was to lift up the poor and the downtrodden because he saw them as worthy people.

Even though we no longer go around physically slapping each other, the advice still pertains. Quietly standing one's ground is fine. No need to bow or cower.

 

[Meriweather]

You are fine. I know you are smart enough to reject the dumb parts of the Bible. I’m only worried about the more literal sects of Christianity. There are people out there that believe the Bible is the word of God. These people live in constant self torture. Certain personalities cannot reconcile the difference between rhetoric and sincerity.

I appreciate your sentiment. It is not that I reject any part of the Bible, I have simply taken the time to understand its context. Nor do I consider those who take every word literally to be in constant torture. Those who are not tortured simply trust and love God (a very good thing). Most of those who are tortured become atheists, which is better than being tortured. What I would like these people to understand is while becoming an atheist is fine, they do have another option--if they have years and even decades to devote to study and research. Most of them elect to be good people, live good lives, and settle for literal truth. Settling for truth is not wrong, but atheism is settling for less than the entire truth. God is.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You are fine. I know you are smart enough to reject the dumb parts of the Bible. I’m only worried about the more literal sects of Christianity. There are people out there that believe the Bible is the word of God. These people live in constant self torture. Certain personalities cannot reconcile the difference between rhetoric and sincerity.

I appreciate your sentiment. It is not that I reject any part of the Bible, I have simply taken the time to understand its context. Nor do I consider those who take every word literally to be in constant torture. Those who are not tortured simply trust and love God (a very good thing). Most of those who are tortured become atheists, which is better than being tortured. What I would like these people to understand is while becoming an atheist is fine, they do have another option--if they have years and even decades to devote to study and research. Most of them elect to be good people, live good lives, and settle for literal truth. Settling for truth is not wrong, but atheism is settling for less than the entire truth. God is.

Not sure about something in the Bible? Here's an idea. Ask a search engine. As you did to make that previous post. Really doesn't take "years and even decades to devote to study and research." Stop torturing yourself.. and others..

 

[Meriweather]

Not sure about something in the Bible? Here's an idea. Ask a search engine. As you did to make that previous post. Really doesn't take "years and even decades to devote to study and research." Stop torturing yourself.. and others..

My research started before the advent of the Internet. Even now, I prefer primary sources. Sometimes one has to look outside the net.

By the way, it was never torture. Some people naturally enjoy research, and I happen to be one, a fine trait in a journalist. Genealogy is great research, but I imagine you view that as torture as well?

If my posts torture you, they are incredibly easy to skip past without reading.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Not sure about something in the Bible? Here's an idea. Ask a search engine. As you did to make that previous post. Really doesn't take "years and even decades to devote to study and research." Stop torturing yourself.. and others..

My research started before the advent of the Internet. Even now, I prefer primary sources. Sometimes one has to look outside the net.

By the way, it was never torture. Some people naturally enjoy research, and I happen to be one, a fine trait in a journalist. Genealogy is great research, but I imagine you view that as torture as well?

If my posts torture you, they are incredibly easy to skip past without reading.

As are mine, snookums. And I was likely researching before you were born. It's far easier these days. "Primary sources" galore just a few clicks away.. Stop kidding yourself. You certainly aren't fooling anyone else.

 

[Meriweather]

As are mine, snookums. And I was likely researching before you were born. It's far easier these days. "Primary sources" galore just a few clicks away.. Stop kidding yourself. You certainly aren't fooling anyone else.

Then it appears we have nothing more to discuss. I am interested, but not overly curious, in how much time you have spent researching Biblical languages, cultures, and history as well as how far back you have gone in reading rabbinical commentary. Fare well.

 

[Grumblenuts]

As are mine, snookums. And I was likely researching before you were born. It's far easier these days. "Primary sources" galore just a few clicks away.. Stop kidding yourself. You certainly aren't fooling anyone else.

Then it appears we have nothing more to discuss. I am interested, but not overly curious, in how much time you have spent researching Biblical languages, cultures, and history as well as how far back you have gone in reading rabbinical commentary. Fare well.

Don't let that proverbial door hit ya..