Remembering Christ at Christmas

Cypress said:
Here is a history lesson for you, take out a pad and pen if you wish.

Your thinking is utterly anachronistic. Your brain is accustomed to to context and political phikosophy of western liberal democracy and post-enlightenment thinking.

The social construct you are accustomed to has only existed for a couple of centuries.

In the time of the Apostle James, there was no distinction between government and religion. There were not two sets of rules - one for a secular government and one for religion.

In that historical context, the Apostle James made it clear that oppression of the poor by the wealthy is everyone's business. There is no modern distinction between the secular and the religious.
Click to expand...

You have no comprehension of the Bible and/or who the Apostles were addressing.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Exactly. All followers of Christ were commanded to give to the poor, even unto the shirt off your back if necessary.

"Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them." -- Luke 6:30-32

American evangelicals think this means that the secular government should have no role in helping the underprivileged. My guess is that this is because they have churned religion and government together and come out with some warped version of the Gospels that allow them to cry about paying taxes because the poor shouldn't be receiving the proceeds of taxation, according to these erroneous ideas. I'm fairly sure that after telling us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, that He would have instructed us to stop begrudging the poor their food and shelter. Your take?
Click to expand...
I have more time to circle back to your great post.
Yes, there was no distinction between religion and government in antiquity or the middle ages. In the context of the Apostle James, oppression of the poor is universally wrong. Irrespective if it is the Sadducees priestly class, Roman senators, or Parthian slave traders doing it.

The social construct of a separation between a secular government, and individual citizens is a liberal philosophy only a couple centuries old.

The fact that the Christian left of the 19th century and liberation theology of the 20th century based their social welfare gospel on the scriptures. - and how highly successful their efforts were - highlights how theologically sound this construct is.
 
Stretch said:
You have no comprehension of the Bible and/or who the Apostles were addressing.
Click to expand...

Pope Francis cites James' gospel as a pure, universal message.

Cheating workers out of just wages, benefits is mortal sin, pope says, citing James 5

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vati...-out-just-wages-benefits-mortal-sin-pope-says
Click to expand...

Opposing the oppression of the poor is a universal Christian value that applies whether one is a dishwasher, brain surgeon, US Senator, or American President.

And that unuversal value applies irrespective of whatever false distinctions you are making between the government and the individual.

The government became involved in slavery abolition, social welfare, and economic justice, in large part because of the pressure coming from Christian progressives.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Pope Francis cites James' gospel as a pure, universal message.



Opposing the oppression of the poor is a universal Christian value that applies whether one is a dishwasher, brain surgeon, US Senator, or American President.

And that unuversal value applies irrespective of whatever false distinctions you are making between the government and the individual.

The government became involved in slavery abolition, social welfare, and economic justice, in large part because of the pressure coming from Christian progressives.
Click to expand...

OK OK OK...........good grief OK. Yes. Everyone SHOULD be good to each:palm: other.
 
Stretch said:
OK OK OK...........good grief OK. Yes. Everyone SHOULD be good to each:palm: other.
Click to expand...

Ding! Ding! Dyam, Stretch! You got one right! Good job!
smiley6702.gif
 
Cypress said:
The Apostle James' condemnation of the rich and their oppression of the poor in the NT is as caustic as anything Karl Marx ever wrote about our capitalist overlords.
Click to expand...

And there the similarity ends. Both Christ and God also teach that theft is evil. Socialism is theft of wealth.
 
Cypress said:
The Apostle James' condemnation of the rich and their oppression of the poor in the NT is as caustic as anything Karl Marx ever wrote about our capitalist overlords.
Click to expand...
Into the Night said:
And there the similarity ends. Both Christ and God also teach that theft is evil. Socialism is theft of wealth.
Click to expand...

Acts in the NT describes the early Christians eschewing wealth and material possessions, and living in communes where property was shared.

You could almost write that part of Acts into the Communist Manifesto without missing a beat.
 
Cypress said:
Donald Trump is an athesist.
Click to expand...
Trump is a Christian.
Cypress said:
The definition of atheism is the disbelief of any gods.
Click to expand...
Not the definition of atheism. The Church of No God is a religion. The definition of 'atheism' is the absence of any religion (or theism). Atheists don't care whether there is a god or not. They simply don't go there.
Cypress said:
I am convinced Trump does not believe in any gods or any higher spiritual truth whatsoever. He worships money.
Click to expand...
Is that why he donates his Presidential salary to charity?
Cypress said:
It is a reflection on the character of right-wing American Christians that they enthralled themselves to an amoral atheist.
Click to expand...
Trump is not an atheist. He has broken no law. YAVC.
Cypress said:
I use the term Christian extremely loosely in this context.
Click to expand...
The term 'Christian' has only one meaning: a belief that Jesus Christ exists and He is who He says He is, namely the Son of God.
Cypress said:
Because to the extent rightwing fundamentalists participate in a church,
Click to expand...
Bigotry. Not all conservatives are fundamentalists. Quote a few Democrats are, though.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument with arguments extending from that. That is not a fallacy. The circular argument is also known as the Argument of Faith or simply 'faith'.
It is not possible to prove a circular argument either True or False. Those that try to do so are committing the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

A religion does not require a god or gods at all. Examples are Buddhism and Shinto. Other examples are the Church of Global Warming, the Church of the Big Bang, the Church of Evolution, the Church of Green, the Church of Covid, or the Church of Creation.

Cypress said:
it is more for tribal and social reasons,
than for religious and spiritual reasons.
Click to expand...

Nonsense statements. Religions are circular arguments with extending arguments. That's all.
 
Cypress said:
Acts in the NT describes the early Christians eschewing wealth and material possessions, and living in communes where property was shared.

You could almost write that part of Acts into the Communist Manifesto without missing a beat.
Click to expand...

You really need to read Marx. I've already given you a link to that material.

Sharing wealth is not eschewing wealth. Socialism is theft of wealth. Someone choosing to live in a commune with shared wealth is volunteering their wealth for communal causes. It isn't being forced from them.
 
Cypress said:
I have more time to circle back to your great post.
Yes, there was no distinction between religion and government in antiquity or the middle ages. In the context of the Apostle James, oppression of the poor is universally wrong. Irrespective if it is the Sadducees priestly class, Roman senators, or Parthian slave traders doing it.

The social construct of a separation between a secular government, and individual citizens is a liberal philosophy only a couple centuries old.

The fact that the Christian left of the 19th century and liberation theology of the 20th century based their social welfare gospel on the scriptures. - and how highly successful their efforts were - highlights how theologically sound this construct is.
Click to expand...

How odd to belong to a faith yet know nothing about its history, including the history of its adherents and holy texts. Anyone reading only just the Gospels can clearly see that the authors mention that the Jews, under Roman rule in the Holy Land, were still allowed their own government underneath the Roman govt. The Sanhedrin tried Christ, then handed Him over to the Romans. That is typical of Roman rule of the time; they allowed occupied lands to keep their own customs, religions, leaders but they had to pay taxes, and offer some of the young men as soldiers to serve in the Roman army. I'm shocked that Sister Stench does not understand any of this. Well, not really, given the other idiocy the idiot has posted. lol
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
How odd to belong to a faith yet know nothing about its history, including the history of its adherents and holy texts. Anyone reading only just the Gospels can clearly see that the authors mention that the Jews, under Roman rule in the Holy Land, were still allowed their own government underneath the Roman govt. The Sanhedrin tried Christ, then handed Him over to the Romans. That is typical of Roman rule of the time; they allowed occupied lands to keep their own customs, religions, leaders but they had to pay taxes, and offer some of the young men as soldiers to serve in the Roman army. I'm shocked that Sister Stench does not understand any of this. Well, not really, given the other idiocy the idiot has posted. lol
Click to expand...

And as the Hebrew prophets foretold, we are still operating from
What Rome started, Imperialism.


Blessin’s
 
Cypress said:
Acts in the NT describes the early Christians eschewing wealth and material possessions, and living in communes where property was shared.

You could almost write that part of Acts into the Communist Manifesto without missing a beat.
Click to expand...

While it’s true that they did this, it failed. Paul ended up having to take collections for the “poor” church in Jerusalem, Rom 15:27.

Because the economic engagement of first century Israel was tied to the Temple, the early Jewish believers suffered being economically exiled. The tax collectors were an example of the trend in that day.


Blessin’s
 
Sorry, PeesNCarrots, not interested in your droolings. lol

This message is hidden because Peace n Safety is on your ignore list.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
How odd to belong to a faith yet know nothing about its history, including the history of its adherents and holy texts. Anyone reading only just the Gospels can clearly see that the authors mention that the Jews, under Roman rule in the Holy Land, were still allowed their own government underneath the Roman govt. The Sanhedrin tried Christ, then handed Him over to the Romans. That is typical of Roman rule of the time; they allowed occupied lands to keep their own customs, religions, leaders but they had to pay taxes, and offer some of the young men as soldiers to serve in the Roman army. I'm shocked that Sister Stench does not understand any of this. Well, not really, given the other idiocy the idiot has posted. lol
Click to expand...

^ That is a lot of brainpower.

Let's face it, your garden-variety bible thumper is simply not willing to put in the work to be an authentic Christian. Kierkegaard maintained that being an authentic Christian is extremely hard work; being a phony Christian is effortless.

There are bible thumpers on this forum who are not aware Roman Catholics are Christians, some think the crucifixion happened on Easter, many believe the Rapture is sound Christian theology (which it is not).

I am the farthest thing from a Christian scholar or trained theologian. But I recognize my limitations, and defer to trained religious scholars and theologians to acquire what limited knowlege I have.
 
Cypress said:
^ That is a lot of brainpower.

Let's face it, your garden-variety bible thumper is simply not willing to put in the work to be an authentic Christian. Kierkegaard maintained that being an authentic Christian is extremely hard work; being a phony Christian is effortless.

There are bible thumpers on this forum who are not aware Roman Catholics are Christians, some think the crucifixion happened on Easter, they believe the Rapture is sound Christian theology (which it is not).

I am the farthest thing from a Christian scholar or trained theologian. But I recognize my limitations, and defer to trained religious scholars and theologians to acquire what limited knowlege I have.
Click to expand...

Ditto for me. I do NOT rely on copy-n-pastes from whacko blogs and pseudo emissaries of whatever faith is being studied.

What happens with the fundies is they are discouraged from reading any sources that conflict with what their preachers want them to know. Certain books, movies, magazines, web sites, and so on are forbidden and labeled with pejoratives that often include references to "of Satan" or "Satanic." You'll no doubt remember this from when the first Harry Potter book was released and became an instant best-seller. If you can control the people's emotions, information, and contacts you've got them in your pocket. It's interesting to me that conservatives in general, and fundie/evangelical people as well, share that common trait of allowing someone else to color their POV and even their spirituality.

For me personally, I think that knowing the truth (as far as is possible 2,000 years later) about Jesus, the context of his life, how the NT was written and translated and re-translated to put the spin on it of the times -- makes him a far more fascinating historical and holy figure. The fact that His message has lasted two thousand years, despite the thousands of attempts over the centuries to change it by various priests and ditzes like Sister Stench, speaks of its worth to all people, not just Christians.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Ditto for me. I do NOT rely on copy-n-pastes from whacko blogs and pseudo emissaries of whatever faith is being studied.

What happens with the fundies is they are discouraged from reading any sources that conflict with what their preachers want them to know. Certain books, movies, magazines, web sites, and so on are forbidden and labeled with pejoratives that often include references to "of Satan" or "Satanic." You'll no doubt remember this from when the first Harry Potter book was released and became an instant best-seller. If you can control the people's emotions, information, and contacts you've got them in your pocket. It's interesting to me that conservatives in general, and fundie/evangelical people as well, share that common trait of allowing someone else to color their POV and even their spirituality.

For me personally, I think that knowing the truth (as far as is possible 2,000 years later) about Jesus, the context of his life, how the NT was written and translated and re-translated to put the spin on it of the times -- makes him a far more fascinating historical and holy figure. The fact that His message has lasted two thousand years, despite the thousands of attempts over the centuries to change it by various priests and ditzes like Sister Stench, speaks of its worth to all people, not just Christians.
Click to expand...

I remember the Harry Potter book burnings by Republican Christian fundies! :)

Like you, I am fascinated with the history and philosophies of world religions. One cannot understand history and the human condition without understanding religion. That religious thinking is part and parcel of being human, goes back to the Druids and Stonehenge and even farther into the mists of time.

The New Testament is an extremely important piece of world literature worth the attention of any educated person. To me, the thing that is really radical about the NT is its treatment of the poor, the dispossed, the opressed. It is literally the first piece of literature in the western canon to treat the poor and oppressed with dignity and humanity, to advocate for them.

Prior to the NT, to the extent peasants and poor people ever appeared in literature, they were two dimensional caricatures, subjects of humour or even of scorn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top