• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Sound Bites Of Jesus

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
14,348
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
One of my favorites because it calls out the majority of Christians as hypocrites. They can't help but constantly testifying loudly and publicly to their belief. They wear their faith on their sleeves for show.

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
 
Mark 10, Luke 12, 14, 18, Matthew 19
Sell all you have and give to the poor.

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Christians: "Jesus didn't mean ME!".
 
Luke 14
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Christians love this one.
 
(A Pauline sound bite...doesn't he explain Jesus' teachings to us?)
Romans 13: Obey all state authorities, because no authorities exist without God's permission. (Just think for a minute at history's murderous dictators to see how stupid this teaching of Paul actually is.) Divine right of kings as pure Christian doctrine. Note how today's Christian righties would no way see this as applying to Clinton, Obama, or Biden.
Paul goes straight from that teaching to "This is also why you pay taxes, because the authorities are working for God when they do their work. Pay, then, what you owe them." Take the label of Romans 13 off this teaching and ask Trump rally attendees what they think of it. Then step way back. "Hold m'beer, darlin', I'm gonna have a word with this reporter here."
 
...But these are quotes from JC himself.
Luke chapter 6: "Give to everyone who asks you for something, and when someone takes what is yours, do not ask for it back." (Holy shit...come to think of it, my neighbors have a sweet motorbike. And I think they're Christians.)
Luke, chapter 14: "None of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has." (See, I'd actually be helping my neighbors. And helping myself!)
 
Here's one that has always been a head scratcher for me. It's from the Sermon on the Mount, MT 5:33-37:
'You heard in the past, You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn. But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is His footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair black or white. You shall simply say Yes or No; anything more than this comes from evil.

So, why have our courts used an oath of truth telling which, for generations, has included 'nothing but the truth, so help me God'? Isn't JC expressly condemning such an oath?
As you would expect from the Christian world, there are denominations that take just that view, and whose members refuse to take oaths. The Anabaptists (2.1 million, in over 80 countries) refuse to take oaths. According to one Christian source I googled, this means they cannot hold military or civic positions. (Anabaptists include the Amish and the Mennonites.)
I'm not Christian, but it seems to me that MT 5 is saying what the Anabaptists say it means. Otherwise there's some apologetic dodge that I haven't yet encountered.
 
Last edited:
Here's one that has always been a head scratcher for me. It's from the Sermon on the Mount, MT 5:33-37:
'You heard in the past, You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn. But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is His footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair black or white. You shall simply say Yes or No; anything more than this comes from evil.

So, why have our courts used an oath of truth telling which, for generations, has included 'nothing but the truth, so help me God'? Isn't JC expressly condemning such an oath?
As you would expect from the Christian world, there are denominations that take just that view, and whose members refuse to take oaths. The Anabaptists (2.1 million, in over 80 countries) refuse to take oaths. According to one Christian source I googled, this means they cannot hold military or civic positions. (Anabaptists include the Amish and the Mennonites.)
I'm not Christian, but it seems to me that MT 5 is saying what the Anabaptists say it means. Otherwise there's some apologetic dodge that I haven't yet encountered.
I was raised as a Quaker, and Quakers also take MT 5:33-37 literally. I was always told that because of the Quakers, it is allowed to say in US courts simply "I affirm" rather than to swear on the Bible. The courts generally say something to the effect of "Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth..." and the Quaker says "yes."
 
Then we have the likes of Kenneth Copeland and his Prosperity Theology, that "teaches financial blessing and physical well-being are the will of God for believers, and that material and financial success are a sign of divine favor."
 
Riggght, alongside Jesus' words about possessions. Can you imagine Trump going after the Jesus movement, if it had just started up?

"And now this guy -- I call him Jerkwater Jesus -- comes out of basically nowhere and tells you that you don't need money, or a car, or a -- HE'S HOMELESS!! (Loud laughter from crowd.) Jerkwater Jesus is homeless! Did you ever see him in a house? It's someone else's house. He's a freeloader. He's going around with 12 guys, I guess he picked them up on the beach or the waterfront or somewhere -- I don't know about that. Some people would say, Why do you want to pick men up at the beach? (Loud boos.) He's now saying rich people don't get to go to heaven. He's making the rules! I said, Jerkwater, I've put more Bibles into people's hands than you can count. The God Bless the USA Bible, folks. (Applause, whistles.) It's a beautiful book, you need several of them. Great gifts they make. But I'm not getting into heaven? Because of Jerkwater Jesus? That's class warfare, folks, very sad. Very sad little Jerkwater Jesus..."
 
(A Pauline sound bite...doesn't he explain Jesus' teachings to us?)
Romans 13: Obey all state authorities, because no authorities exist without God's permission. (Just think for a minute at history's murderous dictators to see how stupid this teaching of Paul actually is.) Divine right of kings as pure Christian doctrine. Note how today's Christian righties would no way see this as applying to Clinton, Obama, or Biden.
Paul goes straight from that teaching to "This is also why you pay taxes, because the authorities are working for God when they do their work. Pay, then, what you owe them." Take the label of Romans 13 off this teaching and ask Trump rally attendees what they think of it. Then step way back. "Hold m'beer, darlin', I'm gonna have a word with this reporter here."

When you read the other relating verses in conjunction with the poor lonesome verse your post is built around. You could get a different context. Like for example:
Christians are supposed to live in harmony within many communities under various authorities (that doesn't stop you living according to God’s will and standards).

Obey civil authorities in matters of civil life (Romans 13:1)
Refrain from carousing, drunkenness, sexual immorality, and debauchery (Romans 13:13)
Clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ and do not gratify the desires of the flesh (Romans 13:14)
Love your neighbor as yourself, fulfilling the law (Romans 13:9-10)
 
Last edited:

When you read the other relating verses in conjunction with the poor lonesome verse your post is built around.
So Paul doesn't assert that all state authorities, no matter how corrupt or oppressive, have their position with the approval of his god? What stops you from seeing that as a dingbat idea?
 

When you read the other relating verses in conjunction with the poor lonesome verse your post is built around.
So Paul doesn't assert that all state authorities, no matter how corrupt or oppressive, have their position with the approval of his god? What stops you from seeing that as a dingbat idea?

Those authorities serve more purpose to people who wouldn't want to be under any Christian authority.
 
Context of the person Paul and the times.

Paul, a Roman, was affirming the authority of Rome by invoking god. Stock and trade for theists, if I like something say it is god;s will or plan..

Or the Jesus sound bite 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is god;s'.
 
I could never get the logical "reasoning" (or belief) behind these type of "Roman Jesus" theories:

The idea to write the narrative saying: Jesus is the 'King of Kings'. A King being high above Caesar, whilst causing the redundancy of worshipping Roman pagan gods.
 
Jesus is the 'King of Kings'. A King being high above Caesar
That's nonsense. In the Roman Empire, a king was a tribal chief, and was unquestionably far below caesar.

Kings don't rule emperors, emperors rule kings. Even kings of kings.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
 
Kings don't rule emperors, emperors rule kings. Even kings of kings.
Yeah? Well Jesus’ peeps can slot him in anywhere they like, from mere “king” to the always uber-fabulous “Emperor of Emperors”. That they have historically settled for mediocrity isn’t some kind of failure for which they should be criticized. It’s a reasoned attempt to make their Jesus more accessible! 😊
 
I think that Jesus was probably gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, he was always hanging out with a bunch of guys, had a special love for John, never got married or had children, which was very rare for a Rabbi during those times. I'm not the only one who thinks that. Maybe he wasn't a drag queen, but he certainly seemed like he may have been gay, unless he was simply asexual or in the closet. Anyway, I'm not even sure that there was an actual Jesus and if there was, he was just some guy who had a cult following that live on until today.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/04/jesus-queer-drag-king/

“…What we have in John’s Jesus is not only a “king of Israel” or “king of the Ioudaioi”, but also a drag king,” he claims in his footnoted and referenced writing. “[Christ] ends up appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion.”

Ioudaioi is an Ancient Greek word that commonly translates to “Jew” or “Judean.”

“In addition, we find Jesus disrobing and rerobing in the episode that marks Jesus’ focus on the disciples with the coming of his ‘hour’. This disrobing… does not disclose anything about Jesus’ anatomy,” Liew writes. “Instead, it describes Jesus washing his disciples’ feet. As more than one commentator has pointed out, foot-washing was generally only done by Jewish women or non-Jewish slaves.”

“John is clear that Jesus is an Ioudaios; what John is less clear about is whether Jesus is a biological male. Like a literary striptease, this episode is suggestive, even seductive; it shows and withholds at the same time.”

An article in the school’s independent student journal called Liew’s interpretations “unconventional.” But this isn’t the first time scholars and theologians have suggested that Christ was a little (or more than a little) queer.

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” also known as “the beloved disciple,” also appears in the gospel of John. His identity and relationship with Jesus have long been the subject of debate.

Referenced six times in the gospel – yet unnamed – the disciple is often thought to be John the apostle, one of the twelve disciples and the author of the gospel itself. At other times, he’s identified as Lazarus, whom Jesus dramatically raised from the dead.


Whoever he was, some people think the disciple described as reclining on Jesus’ chest at the last supper was his gay lover.

And, did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality being wrong. I don't think so.
 
I think that Jesus was probably gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, he was always hanging out with a bunch of guys, had a special love for John, never got married or had children, which was very rare for a Rabbi during those times. I'm not the only one who thinks that. Maybe he wasn't a drag queen, but he certainly seemed like he may have been gay, unless he was simply asexual or in the closet. Anyway, I'm not even sure that there was an actual Jesus and if there was, he was just some guy who had a cult following that live on until today.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/04/jesus-queer-drag-king/

“…What we have in John’s Jesus is not only a “king of Israel” or “king of the Ioudaioi”, but also a drag king,” he claims in his footnoted and referenced writing. “[Christ] ends up appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion.”

Ioudaioi is an Ancient Greek word that commonly translates to “Jew” or “Judean.”

“In addition, we find Jesus disrobing and rerobing in the episode that marks Jesus’ focus on the disciples with the coming of his ‘hour’. This disrobing… does not disclose anything about Jesus’ anatomy,” Liew writes. “Instead, it describes Jesus washing his disciples’ feet. As more than one commentator has pointed out, foot-washing was generally only done by Jewish women or non-Jewish slaves.”

“John is clear that Jesus is an Ioudaios; what John is less clear about is whether Jesus is a biological male. Like a literary striptease, this episode is suggestive, even seductive; it shows and withholds at the same time.”

An article in the school’s independent student journal called Liew’s interpretations “unconventional.” But this isn’t the first time scholars and theologians have suggested that Christ was a little (or more than a little) queer.

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” also known as “the beloved disciple,” also appears in the gospel of John. His identity and relationship with Jesus have long been the subject of debate.

Referenced six times in the gospel – yet unnamed – the disciple is often thought to be John the apostle, one of the twelve disciples and the author of the gospel itself. At other times, he’s identified as Lazarus, whom Jesus dramatically raised from the dead.


Whoever he was, some people think the disciple described as reclining on Jesus’ chest at the last supper was his gay lover.

And, did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality being wrong. I don't think so.
We have zero idea if Jesus ever said anything. We KNOW of lots of stuff he was said to have said, by non-contemporaneous writers.
 
I think that Jesus was probably gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, he was always hanging out with a bunch of guys, had a special love for John, never got married or had children, which was very rare for a Rabbi during those times. I'm not the only one who thinks that. Maybe he wasn't a drag queen, but he certainly seemed like he may have been gay, unless he was simply asexual or in the closet. Anyway, I'm not even sure that there was an actual Jesus and if there was, he was just some guy who had a cult following that live on until today.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/04/jesus-queer-drag-king/

“…What we have in John’s Jesus is not only a “king of Israel” or “king of the Ioudaioi”, but also a drag king,” he claims in his footnoted and referenced writing. “[Christ] ends up appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion.”

Ioudaioi is an Ancient Greek word that commonly translates to “Jew” or “Judean.”

“In addition, we find Jesus disrobing and rerobing in the episode that marks Jesus’ focus on the disciples with the coming of his ‘hour’. This disrobing… does not disclose anything about Jesus’ anatomy,” Liew writes. “Instead, it describes Jesus washing his disciples’ feet. As more than one commentator has pointed out, foot-washing was generally only done by Jewish women or non-Jewish slaves.”

“John is clear that Jesus is an Ioudaios; what John is less clear about is whether Jesus is a biological male. Like a literary striptease, this episode is suggestive, even seductive; it shows and withholds at the same time.”

An article in the school’s independent student journal called Liew’s interpretations “unconventional.” But this isn’t the first time scholars and theologians have suggested that Christ was a little (or more than a little) queer.

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” also known as “the beloved disciple,” also appears in the gospel of John. His identity and relationship with Jesus have long been the subject of debate.

Referenced six times in the gospel – yet unnamed – the disciple is often thought to be John the apostle, one of the twelve disciples and the author of the gospel itself. At other times, he’s identified as Lazarus, whom Jesus dramatically raised from the dead.


Whoever he was, some people think the disciple described as reclining on Jesus’ chest at the last supper was his gay lover.

And, did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality being wrong. I don't think so.
No the gospel Jesus did not, but he did reinforce Mosaic law La, forbid sex outside of marriage, and marriage as man and woman.
 
Back
Top Bottom