Post a picture, argue with me!

LarryC wrote:

People see what they wanna see. If a person can see "Hate people" in "Love one another" and "Kill people" in "Thou shalt not kill," then pretty much anything goes, wouldn't you say?

My favorite was the part where the Pope said that to kill an infidel was not murder. Gotta love the crusades for some seriously stupid and bizarre ideas about what Christianity should be.

I have a love/hate relationship with Whole Foods. Their deli and bakery are typically awesome, but the place is also a hotbed for woo like this:
IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/zxk60jY.jpg)
That header doesn't even make sense to me. I almost purchased the magazine out of morbid curiosity.

I'm well aware of the responsibilities to read religious texts in historical context, but the historical context of the first millennium Messianic cult centered around Jesus was that it was, through and through, an apocalyptic movement steeped in asceticism.

There are bits and pieces where this is contradicted, but by and large the entire Jesus movement was an anti-wealth movement, and things like Prosperity Gospel is a direct perversion of Jesus's teachings.

Seth wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:
LarryC wrote:

The way I read that is that Jesus advocated separation of Church and State.

There was not any concept of that back then, so that is doubtful or if I am being harsh, ahistorical.

The concept in the ancient Western world was that religious and political affiliations had to align is some way even loosely, . . . What Christ is saying is, IMHO is that . . .you could acknowledge a political power in this world that is not holy (which is related to but not quite the same as separation of church and state as we think of the whole concept now, perhaps a necessary condition for it).

. . . You're right that the concept of a secular government divorced from a religious institution was foreign to Roman and Jewish people around the time of Jesus....and you're also right that Jesus directly challenged that. I don't think you can get any more explicitly pro "separation of Church and State" than Matthew 22:15-22. Clearly the story has many other layers, but that's one of them.

Separation of Church and State has layers of meaning, added on through the Enlightenment and beyond, that this statement does not have. In its barest sense, as represented in the US constitution,it is that the Government will not establish an official religion. It has since taken on more meaning in the sense that the questioning how much religious ideas should play out in the political structure.

Jesus said neither one of those things. He was talking to the governed and not the government. He was not challenging the practice of a government establishing a state religion, rather that you can render due loyalty to a state that does not reflect your religious values. He also does not say that religious ideas should not influence government. In short it says nothing about a secular government at all. Indeed, Caesar in this formulation was not secular in any sense, but actively supported many religions, including deep support of gods the people Jesus was speaking to found abhorrent.

In short, what he challenged was the assumptions of the people he was talking to, not the structure of the government that ruled them.

Seth wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

But, he was very antagonistic of the wealthy, the parable of the camel and the eye of the needle more or less states wealth of itself is sinful.

Yes and no. It is unclear if he is talking about wealth itself or what wealthy people did at his time and place.

Either of these two readings -- whether you read Matthew 19:24 as referring to wealth or the actions of the wealthy -- typically result in the same conclusion.

The author of Matthew, specifically, reads especially antagonistic toward the rich. You find slightly softer stances from the other synoptic gospels, and even softer stances in John and the epistles.

You have to read things in context both within the text and the historical background of the time. Like, Jesus had wealthy people (perhaps not the 1% but 10% for sure) in his inner circle, or the other things I pointed out in that thread. Your interpretation does not seem to take anything but that short burst of words on the page into account.

As you point out the interpretation also depends on if you take the sweep of the New Testament into account or take any particular book individually. Needless to say both are legitimate ways to read the text.

It is true though, that the Gospel of Matthew comes off as a bit self-loathing for something that was supposedly written by a former tax farmer or tax official.

ruhk wrote:

I have a love/hate relationship with Whole Foods. Their deli and bakery are typically awesome, but the place is also a hotbed for woo like this:

That header doesn't even make sense to me. I almost purchased the magazine out of morbid curiosity.

I heard they're getting a new art director, at least.

Seth wrote:

I'm well aware of the responsibilities to read religious texts in historical context, but the historical context of the first millennium Messianic cult centered around Jesus was that it was, through and through, an apocalyptic movement steeped in asceticism.

There are bits and pieces where this is contradicted, but by and large the entire Jesus movement was an anti-wealth movement, and things like Prosperity Gospel is a direct perversion of Jesus's teachings.

Jesus himself says he was criticized for being not ascetic enough (something like "a winebibber and friend of publicans" comes to mind) and does not really deny it. It is kind of hard to read him as an ascetic. You are reading the Essenes into this a bit I think. Plus, if he was anti-wealthy people then why were there wealthy in his inner circle?

I would agree that, to use a modern term to label something old, there is a strong anti-materialist strain to the teaching, but how that specifically manifested is uncertain.

and since I have not posted a picture yet, here is a bad picture of my workspace.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/dhOye33.jpg)

Tenebrous wrote:
Seth wrote:

I'm well aware of the responsibilities to read religious texts in historical context, but the historical context of the first millennium Messianic cult centered around Jesus was that it was, through and through, an apocalyptic movement steeped in asceticism.

There are bits and pieces where this is contradicted, but by and large the entire Jesus movement was an anti-wealth movement, and things like Prosperity Gospel is a direct perversion of Jesus's teachings.

Jesus himself says he was criticized for being not ascetic enough (something like "a winebibber and friend of publicans" comes to mind) and does not really deny it. It is kind of hard to read him as an ascetic. You are reading the Essenes into this a bit I think. Plus, if he was anti-wealthy people then why were there wealthy in his inner circle?

I would agree that, to use a modern term to label something old, there is a strong anti-materialist strain to the teaching, but how that specifically manifested is uncertain.

Ascetic was a little strong. Jesus was no Jainist or Pharisee. But we're talking about the guy who invited wealthy people to His circle and then asked that they quit their jobs, give away their possessions, and follow Him.

I do tend to prefer Essene (or when I'm being saucy, Gnostic) reading of NT works, but that doesn't mean they're incorrect.

I saw Ted last night. I laughed my ass off while my wife just put with me.

But I keep coming back to this:
IMAGE(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130304035135/tedmovie/images/3/30/Ted_The_Movie_%22Look_What_Jesus_Did!%22)

Look what Jesus did! Look what Jesus did!
Seth wrote:

asceticism.

Oh, that Paul!

sometimesdee wrote:
Macklemore Luther King wrote:

I'm gonna have some dreams, only got 20 bibles in my pocket, make, make some speeches, looking to be equals, freedom's f*cking awesome!

SOMEONE MAKE THIS A SINGLE NOW PLZ

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/exCfEC9.jpg)

sometimesdee wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/exCfEC9.jpg)

Bahahahaha! Love it.

Would have been better if they worked the word 'genocidal' in there.

Oh man. A high school in my home town had the mascot Johnny Rebel, for the "Rebels" team name. He was a Confederate soldier. This was in Southern California, not terribly far from Los Angeles, which baffled me-- we were so close to a cultural mecca, and yet our town was in this racist time warp. Finally realizing how racist and ass-backwards this was (after a student petition + protests), they finally changed the mascot to appear more Colonial than Confederate.

WipEout wrote:

Oh man. A high school in my home town had the mascot Johnny Rebel, for the "Rebels" team name. He was a Confederate soldier. This was in Southern California, not terribly far from Los Angeles, which baffled me-- we were so close to a cultural mecca, and yet our town was in this racist time warp. Finally realizing how racist and ass-backwards this was (after a student petition + protests), they finally changed the mascot to appear more Colonial than Confederate.

Thus alienating all of the British people who might have been attending! How about all we just make all team names animals? Seems like a simple fix and no one's protested the usage of an animal (though I look forward to that the first time someone tries to name a team for an animal that was driven to extinction because the land for the stadium encroached on their habitat).

Sure, until you have a student that was attacked by said animal. Way to make them relive that trauma, you monster!

Demosthenes wrote:

How about all we just make all team names animals? Seems like a simple fix and no one's protested the usage of an animal (though I look forward to that the first time someone tries to name a team for an animal that was driven to extinction because the land for the stadium encroached on their habitat).

One word: PETA.

sometimesdee wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

How about all we just make all team names animals? Seems like a simple fix and no one's protested the usage of an animal (though I look forward to that the first time someone tries to name a team for an animal that was driven to extinction because the land for the stadium encroached on their habitat).

One word: PETA.

Two words: F*** PETA.

WipEout wrote:

Oh man. A high school in my home town had the mascot Johnny Rebel, for the "Rebels" team name. He was a Confederate soldier. This was in Southern California, not terribly far from Los Angeles, which baffled me-- we were so close to a cultural mecca, and yet our town was in this racist time warp. Finally realizing how racist and ass-backwards this was (after a student petition + protests), they finally changed the mascot to appear more Colonial than Confederate.

It should have been Admiral Akbar:

IMAGE(http://www.wired.com/playbook/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ackbar.jpg)

Demosthenes wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/exCfEC9.jpg)

Bahahahaha! Love it.

Doesn't Dallas have a professional football team with this mascot already?

That guy looks like Nicholas Cage and Barack Obama had a baby.

Nomad wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/exCfEC9.jpg)

Bahahahaha! Love it.

Doesn't Dallas have a professional football team with this mascot already? ;)

Ehhhhhhhhh... the Dallas Cowboys? I dunno that I would call them land stealing... and even if they were, most of America only really thinks of them as the iconic Marlboro man style guy living out there on his own.

dejanzie wrote:

That guy looks like Nicholas Cage and Barack Obama had a baby.

Throw in a dash of the Fonz, and I think you've got it.

Nomad wrote:

Doesn't Dallas have a professional football team with this mascot already? ;)

The Sooners hail from Oklahoma, otherwise you're spot on.

@Boogle: ZING!

How the Washington Redskins still have their name is beyond me.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/IODnSki.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/DYx4c7D.jpg)

IMAGE(http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/myblood.png)

Well, the first one doesn't appear quite as bad given that it was an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize.

IMAGE(http://i2.wp.com/christopherkeelty.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/BB.jpg)

IMAGE(http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/6124332_700b.jpg)

Cooking meth is America's socialism. *grin*

Hah, Breaking Bad frames the perfect republican ethical dilemma: Walt is an 'enemy combatant' in the war on drugs, yet he got rich quick by yanking firmly on those crystal blue bootstraps...