Only if simultaneously being willfully obtuse and ignorant.
For example, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus forbids those going out to minister from brining a purse or money.
This necessarily prevents monetary collections.
So why is the church okay with taking your money today?
In part, rationalized by Paul’s arguments in 1 Cor 9 against the earlier Christian community there that don’t think it’s appropriate to profiteer off ministering.
But then even more, at the last supper in Luke, Jesus explicitly says “Hey guys, remember when I said not to carry purses? Let’s reverse that and now definitely carry purses.”
Except this addition to the last super in Luke-Acts is missing in Marcion’s version of that gospel, which is probably preserving the earliest extant version of it.
So while yes, you could in theory fit Jesus in the NT to agree with Paul that churches and those ministering have a right to profit from it and should definitely collect money from people (like they do in Acts 5 where an older couple who holds back money are both struck dead before Peter) - an even halfway critical eye should see that the historical Jesus was far more likely to have been against such practices given the widespread accounts of his ban, the earlier attitudes in Corinth, its embarrassing nature to be added in after already collecting money, and the late nature of the reversal.
And to see that much like biological evolution, ideas evolve over time too, and the version of Christianity we have today isn’t necessarily the one closest to the original form, but simply the form that was most adaptive through the fall of the Jerusalem temple, the endorsement of Rome, etc.
So yes, few people might know or see it this way, but that is largely because they don’t bother looking into their preconceptions and would rather believe a superficial picture that agrees with what they think they know (and I’m not only talking about Christians here either).
I’m saying the opposite. That the ways in which contradictions are layered, coupled with the extensive degrees of academic study of the text, should reasonably reduce the scope of worldviews that it can be used to support dramatically.
Yeah a lot of people miss things like context, knowledge of the time period, and a proper understanding of theology when they talk shit about the Bible. I’m not Christian myself, but a close friend of mine is Catholic, and after hearing his clarifications on supposed Biblical Plotholes and how much more complicated the subject is… Well it definitely made me start squinting at oversimplifications concerning theology with a little more scrutiny.
Also there have been many problems with text being lost in translation or altered like several letters by Paul were merged at some point by a scribe and it was copied over as is.
The fact that anyone says “Ah, but if I word for word cite this part of the bible and ignore any allegorical or contextual meaning, it looks dumb! An entire 2000 year old faith DESTROYED FOREVER!” and they aren’t kidding cringes the heck out of me
Also, using Leviticus verses in the scope of Christianity. The OT is the Jewish bible. NT is all of Jesus’ stuff. Christians mix this up all the damn time.
I live in a neighborhood with lots of these Christian types. They don’t want “those gays” because Bible but Jesus forgave them for their divorce. They don’t want pride flags on people’s shirts but they wear clothing of different fabrics and different colors other than white because “those laws of God’s aren’t important because Jesus.”
It is just as cognitive trick to make people feel ok about their sins while still getting to point fingers at the rest of the world.
And really … how peaceful are people that think anyone not “with them” are going to suffer eternally ? What they mean is that they are going to torture you in this world while feeling fine about torturing you.
What really annoys me is that when you actually look at the Biblical arguments against supposed Homosexuality and the Historical Context…
The part God allegedly has a problem with are the hedonistic orgies and pederasty, he doesn’t really care about Paul and Bob just wanting to live in a cottage together, have a ceremony declaring them husband and husband, and raising a child together.
That “A man shall not lay with a man as he does a woman part” ? Originally said “Shall not lay with a child”, but thank King James for intentionally fucking that translation up.
That’s the thing about the Bible and the importance of Theology, it’s a really old book that’s been translated dozens of times.
Think about all the poems from the Middle Ages, originally written in English, that no longer make to people who don’t study the time period, or the various translation screw ups that we see in media from Japan that gets localized for America. Now multiply those by 20, and you understand why Bible Study is important for people of the faith, and why when you only have a surface level understanding you do really stupid things.
Any fellow Red Dwarf fans remember the Seventh Day Advent Hopists? This is the kind of shit that’s making fun of… and for those who don’t watch the show, the character Arnold Rimmer mentions his family having a really silly religion in which, due to his family taking the Bible literally yet having a misprint that had “hope” spelled “hop”, they believed Jesus wouldn’t love them if they didn’t spend every Sunday hopping around like morons. (Because they never thought to actually study the context and just took their own understanding of an ancient text at face value, in case you’re wondering how that’s relevant)
I can very easily make the argument that Jesus is completely cool with sucking dick (as long as you swallow instead of spit) simply because he once said that what goes into a man’s mouth isn’t as important as what comes out of it. If I both was a Christian and applied similar logic as the people I’m criticizing with this little rant, I could justify treating anyone who spat instead of swallowed when they gave head like absolute pond scum, even though that’s obviously not anything Jesus ever implied.
There’s actually an old joke making fun of this exact issue that I’m going to end this spiel on, because I’m just gonna go in circles if I keep letting myself prattle on.
“Did you know Jesus had a Honda, but he didn’t like to talk about it much? For it is written ‘I do not speak of my own Accord’”
tl;dr - The Bible isn’t as homophobic as The Far Right Xtians claim, they’re just Homophobes who refuse to learn anything about their own religion.
That’s the beauty of Christianity.
The Bible is so full of contradictions that you can get it to fit any worldview you want.
Only if simultaneously being willfully obtuse and ignorant.
For example, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus forbids those going out to minister from brining a purse or money.
This necessarily prevents monetary collections.
So why is the church okay with taking your money today?
In part, rationalized by Paul’s arguments in 1 Cor 9 against the earlier Christian community there that don’t think it’s appropriate to profiteer off ministering.
But then even more, at the last supper in Luke, Jesus explicitly says “Hey guys, remember when I said not to carry purses? Let’s reverse that and now definitely carry purses.”
Except this addition to the last super in Luke-Acts is missing in Marcion’s version of that gospel, which is probably preserving the earliest extant version of it.
So while yes, you could in theory fit Jesus in the NT to agree with Paul that churches and those ministering have a right to profit from it and should definitely collect money from people (like they do in Acts 5 where an older couple who holds back money are both struck dead before Peter) - an even halfway critical eye should see that the historical Jesus was far more likely to have been against such practices given the widespread accounts of his ban, the earlier attitudes in Corinth, its embarrassing nature to be added in after already collecting money, and the late nature of the reversal.
And to see that much like biological evolution, ideas evolve over time too, and the version of Christianity we have today isn’t necessarily the one closest to the original form, but simply the form that was most adaptive through the fall of the Jerusalem temple, the endorsement of Rome, etc.
So yes, few people might know or see it this way, but that is largely because they don’t bother looking into their preconceptions and would rather believe a superficial picture that agrees with what they think they know (and I’m not only talking about Christians here either).
deleted by creator
I’m saying the opposite. That the ways in which contradictions are layered, coupled with the extensive degrees of academic study of the text, should reasonably reduce the scope of worldviews that it can be used to support dramatically.
Yeah a lot of people miss things like context, knowledge of the time period, and a proper understanding of theology when they talk shit about the Bible. I’m not Christian myself, but a close friend of mine is Catholic, and after hearing his clarifications on supposed Biblical Plotholes and how much more complicated the subject is… Well it definitely made me start squinting at oversimplifications concerning theology with a little more scrutiny.
Also there have been many problems with text being lost in translation or altered like several letters by Paul were merged at some point by a scribe and it was copied over as is.
The fact that anyone says “Ah, but if I word for word cite this part of the bible and ignore any allegorical or contextual meaning, it looks dumb! An entire 2000 year old faith DESTROYED FOREVER!” and they aren’t kidding cringes the heck out of me
Except the one that actually makes the world a better place.
“Tattoos are a sin.”
“Dad, you have a tattoo.”
“Yeah, but Jesus forgave me.”
I kind of want a “Leviticus 19:28” tattoo, but a bunch of idiot Christians will think I’m one of them.
Also, using Leviticus verses in the scope of Christianity. The OT is the Jewish bible. NT is all of Jesus’ stuff. Christians mix this up all the damn time.
I live in a neighborhood with lots of these Christian types. They don’t want “those gays” because Bible but Jesus forgave them for their divorce. They don’t want pride flags on people’s shirts but they wear clothing of different fabrics and different colors other than white because “those laws of God’s aren’t important because Jesus.”
It is just as cognitive trick to make people feel ok about their sins while still getting to point fingers at the rest of the world.
And really … how peaceful are people that think anyone not “with them” are going to suffer eternally ? What they mean is that they are going to torture you in this world while feeling fine about torturing you.
What really annoys me is that when you actually look at the Biblical arguments against supposed Homosexuality and the Historical Context…
The part God allegedly has a problem with are the hedonistic orgies and pederasty, he doesn’t really care about Paul and Bob just wanting to live in a cottage together, have a ceremony declaring them husband and husband, and raising a child together.
That “A man shall not lay with a man as he does a woman part” ? Originally said “Shall not lay with a child”, but thank King James for intentionally fucking that translation up.
That’s the thing about the Bible and the importance of Theology, it’s a really old book that’s been translated dozens of times.
Think about all the poems from the Middle Ages, originally written in English, that no longer make to people who don’t study the time period, or the various translation screw ups that we see in media from Japan that gets localized for America. Now multiply those by 20, and you understand why Bible Study is important for people of the faith, and why when you only have a surface level understanding you do really stupid things.
Any fellow Red Dwarf fans remember the Seventh Day Advent Hopists? This is the kind of shit that’s making fun of… and for those who don’t watch the show, the character Arnold Rimmer mentions his family having a really silly religion in which, due to his family taking the Bible literally yet having a misprint that had “hope” spelled “hop”, they believed Jesus wouldn’t love them if they didn’t spend every Sunday hopping around like morons. (Because they never thought to actually study the context and just took their own understanding of an ancient text at face value, in case you’re wondering how that’s relevant)
I can very easily make the argument that Jesus is completely cool with sucking dick (as long as you swallow instead of spit) simply because he once said that what goes into a man’s mouth isn’t as important as what comes out of it. If I both was a Christian and applied similar logic as the people I’m criticizing with this little rant, I could justify treating anyone who spat instead of swallowed when they gave head like absolute pond scum, even though that’s obviously not anything Jesus ever implied.
There’s actually an old joke making fun of this exact issue that I’m going to end this spiel on, because I’m just gonna go in circles if I keep letting myself prattle on.
“Did you know Jesus had a Honda, but he didn’t like to talk about it much? For it is written ‘I do not speak of my own Accord’”
tl;dr - The Bible isn’t as homophobic as The Far Right Xtians claim, they’re just Homophobes who refuse to learn anything about their own religion.
When you think about it, how else could a religion survive for two thousand years?
Indoctrination and thousands of years of work to keep people ignorant?
That and military conquest.
Oh yeah, cause the Roman Empire embraced Christianity instantly and went on a world crusade, right? There weren’t any persecutions at all