Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radcliffe Emerson · 01-23-2003, 10:03 AM

Not my interpretations. Those came from a graduate of a Methodist seminary, based on what he learned.

Anyone who believes this biblical nonsense is the one who is tortured, in my opinion.

xoc · 01-23-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson

Jesus said "When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other." Striking someone on a right cheek either meant you were being backhanded, or hit with someone's left hand, both of which were ways Romans insulted Jews. Jesus told his followers to throw the insult right back by offering the other cheek.
A Roman was allowed to inscript a Jew to carry his pack for one mile, but he could not make the person carry it for two miles. By offering to carry it an extra mile, the Roman soldier was humiliated.
If a fellow Jew sued someone for their shirt because they couldn't pay a debt, offering their cloak was an insult, because the accused would then be naked and that was offensive to Jews. It's likely the accuser would not take either the shirt or the cloak at that point.
These teachings are not "be nice, meek and mild teachings", they are meant to start trouble, or to resist authority.

What I have to ask is what is wrong with these teachings if they are interpretted correctly here? It seems to me to be a counter, non-violent response to an unjust action. Should we give a damn about the poor feelings of the oppressive Roman soldier if a subtle insult is spurred against him? The "pride" of the elite class is repulsive when used to oppress the poor, the subjected race/nation, etc. If such pride is insulted it is simply a minor suggestion of justice.

However these teachings do not teach the resisting of authority, but rather how to be subversive to the dictates of tyranny even while obeying it's crude authority. If this is a suggested way for the Jews to maintain their dignity in the face of oppression, it doesn't seem worse to me than an absolute altruism which Christians have been struggling to ignore or reason away in practicle matters for centuries anyway. I like it.

Radcliffe Emerson · 01-23-2003, 02:02 PM

In that context I really don't have a problem with them. It's just another view of Jesus that I doubt many followers might be aware of.
Non-violent resistance of authority is usually better than violent resistance, after all.
In retrospect I should have given the thread a different title. Although from the supposed words of Jesus that biblical folks believe are in Revelation for example, I still definitely don't find him a peaceful person to follow.

Family Man · 01-23-2003, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
No in your case cynical innuendo is sufficient, as with Doherty. And yes you do have an agenda here, to make Jesus no different from Muhammed.

Radoth, I couldn't possibly compete with the cynicism of a man who brings up Muhammad then shamelessly accuses another of making a comparison he didn't make. I haven't said a word about Muhammad. That's been your thing.

Quote:

No, stubborn. Wells, Durant and I have given you plenty of reasonable interpretations and options, but they are just too complicated for you.

You haven't given me a single reason. You've avoided the subject entirely in favor of some very strange accusations, apparently because you don't have a explanation.

Quote:

Meanwhile Radcliffe's tortured interpretations are reasonable to you apparently. If you would argue with them like one skeptic here did, you might get accused of something besides mere cynicism.

Frankly, it's been so long since I've read anything he wrote, I'm not sure what his interpretation was. But given how you've clearly twisted what I wrote, I certainly don't trust your interpretation.

Quote:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." - Matthew 10:34-36 (KJV)

It is very clear to me that the simple interpretation of the above is that Jesus, if he actually said this, was using rather violent and warlike imagery. That is the only claim I've made. How could one possibly interpret this as being peaceful and serene? Apparently not Radoth, who undoubtably will continue to talk about Wells, Durant, Muhammad, the Apostles, Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler, Pee-Pee Herman, Annette Funicello or anyone other irrelevant person he can think of to avoid the subject.

But I'm having fun anyway, Radoth, so keep 'em coming.

Radorth · 01-23-2003, 07:02 PM

There must be 2 Family Man's here.

Quote:

I haven't said a word about Muhammad.

Uh huh.

Quote:

BTW, Radoth -- the Islam dodge isn't going to fly either. If Christianity evolved in 7th century Arabia instead as a minor cult in the Roman Empire, it's history might have been considerably different and violent.

You are clearly arguing that under the same circumstances, Christianity would be just as violent as Islam. Do you deny making this statement in direct repsonse to my comment about Muhammed and his "apostles" being violent because that is what Muhammed taught? (And set a personal example of as well, unlike Jesus)

Quote:

It is very clear to me that the simple interpretation of the above is that Jesus, if he actually said this, was using rather violent and warlike imagery. That is the only claim I've made. How could one possibly interpret this as being peaceful and serene?

Because his immediate apostles, who knew him, did not take it literally. It doesn't wash with Jesus many other sayings which encourage loving enemies and turning the other cheek as a skeptic even pointed out.

Nice try though.

Rad

Family Man · 01-24-2003, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth

You are clearly arguing that under the same circumstances, Christianity would be just as violent as Islam. Do you deny making this statement in direct repsonse to my comment about Muhammed and his "apostles" being violent because that is what Muhammed taught? (And set a personal example of as well, unlike Jesus)

No, I'm arguing that it might have been just as violent. You can't just assume that because the Apostles weren't violent that that was because of Jesus's teaching, especially since you just admitted that the teaching in question is violent. Nor can I assume that they would be just as violent, and I didn't. Apparently you have a great deal of difficulty grasping ideas that embrace more than one concept at a time. What, this is too "complicated" for you? The evolution of both religions involved far more than just the personal attributes of their founders.

Quote:

Radoth: And yes you do have an agenda here, to make Jesus no different from Muhammed.

My comments had to do with the Christian and Islamic movements, not Muhammad and Jesus. The above is a nice strawman, but it is a complete misrepresentation of my comments.
The fact remains that you brought up Islam, not me; then you have the gall to twist my comments about the societal climate the two movements existed in into a comment about Jesus's and Muhammad's ethical beliefs, despite the fact that I make no comment about what Muhammad's beliefs at all. However, I'm not surprised considering the personal ethical sewer you wallow in.

And you wonder why there are so many Problems with Radorth threads.

Quote:

Because his immediate apostles, who knew him, did not take it literally. It doesn't wash with Jesus many other sayings which encourage loving enemies and turning the other cheek as a skeptic even pointed out.

Translation: yes, he did say things that encouraged violence, but it's ok because the morons ignored him.

Quote:

Nice try though.

Actually, you just proved my point. Thanks.

Just to be clear: I never made the claims that the apostles were violent. I only made the claim that Jesus said and did some things that were clearly violent. That the apostles ignored them in favor of other teachings of Jesus is quite irrelevant. But then Radorth is the master of the irrelevant.

Jeremy Pallant · 01-24-2003, 12:48 PM

[MODERATOR]

The temperature of the conversation is starting to raise. Can I respectfully suggest that everyone make more of an effort to be polite?

[/MODERATOR]

Family Man · 01-24-2003, 06:49 PM

Jeremy --

I understand what you're saying, but I have a problem when someone takes this:

Quote:

the Islam dodge isn't going to fly either. If Christianity evolved in 7th century Arabia instead as a minor cult in the Roman Empire, it's history might have been considerably different and violent.

and turns it into this:

Quote:

And yes you do have an agenda here, to make Jesus no different from Muhammed.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have my views fairly stated. Radorth clearly hasn't done that. However, I will tone it down a bit.

Family Man · 01-24-2003, 07:05 PM

Radorth --

I don't think you've been reading your Durant closely enough. From the following, I'd have to conclude that Durant would agree with me that Jesus wasn't always a great role model:

Quote:

It is difficult to see him objectively, not only because the evidence is derived from those who worshipped him, but even more so as our own moral heritage and ideals are so closely bound up with him and formed on his example that we feel injured in finding any flaw in his character. His religious sensitivity was so keen that he condemned severely those who would not share his vision; he could forgive any fault but unbelief. There are in the Gospels some bitter passages quite out of key with what else we are told about Christ. He seems to have taken over without scrutiny the harshest contemporary notions of an everlasting hell where unbeleivers and unrepentant sinners would suffer from inextinguishable fire and insatiable worms (Mark 7:48, Matt 13:37). He tells us without protest how the poor man in heaven was not permitted to let a single drop of water fall upon the tongue of the rich man in hell (Luke 16:25). He counsels nobly, "Judge not, lest be judged" but he cursed the men and cities that would not receive his gospel, and the fig tree that bore no fruit (Mark 11:12-14). He may have been harsh to his mother. (Matt 12:46, Luke 8:19). He had the puritan zeal of the Hebrew prophet rather than the broad of the Greek sage. His convictions consumed him; righteous indignation now and then blurred his profound humanity; his faults were the price he paid for that passionate faith enabled him to move the world.

It seems to me that Jesus's comments about coming with a sword fits very nicely with the above passage.

Radorth · 01-27-2003, 07:43 AM

Quote:

It seems to me that Jesus's comments about coming with a sword fits very nicely with the above passage.

In your opinion apparently, not mine. You seem to have confused your issues- hell in the after life and violence in this one. Are you saying the "sword" represents hell now, or what? Nowhere does he recommend earthly violence. So are you now agreeing that Jesus did not recommend earthly violence. Why don't you say what you think Jesus meant instead of just making suggestions?

In fact Durant and Wells seem in agreement that the "sword" represents a severing of all worldly ties and affectations for the Gospel's sake.

Which one of Durant's comments best represents the "sword". Just saying it "fits nicely" doesn't help us much. Fits nicely with what? Going to hell?

Rad

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-23-2003, 10:03 AM	#81
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	Not my interpretations. Those came from a graduate of a Methodist seminary, based on what he learned. Anyone who believes this biblical nonsense is the one who is tortured, in my opinion.

01-23-2003, 02:02 PM	#83
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	In that context I really don't have a problem with them. It's just another view of Jesus that I doubt many followers might be aware of. Non-violent resistance of authority is usually better than violent resistance, after all. In retrospect I should have given the thread a different title. Although from the supposed words of Jesus that biblical folks believe are in Revelation for example, I still definitely don't find him a peaceful person to follow.

01-24-2003, 12:48 PM	#87
Jeremy Pallant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,242	[MODERATOR] The temperature of the conversation is starting to raise. Can I respectfully suggest that everyone make more of an effort to be polite? [/MODERATOR]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.