166 replies to this topic

[TimG]

Yes, but Jesus' word transcends the Old Testament if the two ever contradict (for anyone called Christian, that is):

It is rather presumptuous for a non-believer to lecture believers on what their scripture means.

Edited by TimG, 19 May 2011 - 08:33 AM.

[Shady]

It is rather presumptuous for a non-believer to lecture believers on what their scripture means.

You gotta love it! Don't ya know they're religious scholars.

Either way, so what. Some Christians apparently might have sinned by celebrating. That's what confession is for.

However, it's pretty funny the way this has been used to denounce Christianity as a whole. If this was Islam, we'd here the usual "only a small minority of Muslims" line. Ironically, from the same people that created and posting in this thread.

[bloodyminded]

It is rather presumptuous for a non-believer to lecture believers on what their scripture means.

It's not presumptuous to observe that in the English translation provided, recognizing that "but" followed by an admonition about the first clause is distinctly an instruction to not follow it too rigidly...if at all.

Fortunately for my argument, English words and syntax have meanings and connotations which can be found out.

If you think it means something else...by all means, enlighten me.

Edited by bloodyminded, 19 May 2011 - 08:54 AM.

[bloodyminded]

You gotta love it! Don't ya know they're religious scholars.

Do religious scholars interpret "but" differently than I do?

[Michael Hardner]

Except that whole "eye for an eye" thing. Yep, plenty of contradictions. Nothing new. Apparently this is an epiphany to Maher and Hardner.

Sorry, but 'eye for an eye' is not Christian.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, but Jesus' word transcends the Old Testament if the two ever contradict (for anyone called Christian, that is):

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Aha, Bloodyminded got the quote from the Man himself.

[Michael Hardner]

Do religious scholars interpret "but" differently than I do?

No, they do not. Selective Christians take it upon themselves to ignore the words of Jesus and follow contradicting excerpts from the Old Testament. Why they still call themselves Christian, I'm not sure but it's probably a cultural identity thing.

[bloodyminded]

No, they do not. Selective Christians take it upon themselves to ignore the words of Jesus and follow contradicting excerpts from the Old Testament. Why they still call themselves Christian, I'm not sure but it's probably a cultural identity thing.

Yeah...or maybe they haven't fully considered the matter...or have had bad teachers.

(After all, there is a whole slew of contemporary Evangelical preachers who focus on attaining material wealth through Faith. The pop-psychology self-help movement gone religious, which I suppose is inevitable in a consumer society. God and Mammon, united at last!)

I have no problem with Christian inability to follow Christ's teachings. We're all only human, and I'm not going to demand more from others than I do myself. It's the self-indulgent justification for their weakness that I find distasteful.

Shady is right about one thing: I'm no religious scholar. I'm perfectly open to hearing a different interpretation of Jesus' words here, if different interpretations exist. But while Shady and Tim inform me of my ignorance, mockingly, they make no attempt to correct it through their superior understanding.

Why not? As I said, I'm willing to listen.

Edited by bloodyminded, 19 May 2011 - 10:17 AM.

[TimG]

It's not presumptuous to observe that in the English translation provided

Sure it is because you are apply a meaning to a metaphor. The literal meaning of the words is that one should turn the other cheek when slapped and that has no relevance to the broader question of what to do with criminals.

Hear are some interpretations by scholars:

Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

[bloodyminded]

Sure it is because you are apply a meaning to a metaphor. The literal meaning of the words is that one should turn the other cheek when slapped and that has no relevance to the broader question of what to do with criminals.

Hear are some interpretations by scholars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

Yes, just so. We're not in disagreement. What sounds cruel to contemporary ears was actually a great improvement in justice (pre-Jesus): avoiding vengeance (including, for example, punishing a family for the actions of one person, or committing to disproportionate punishment).

Why this underlines my point--already forgotten from the beginning of the thread--is that one of Maher's original points was that many people are celebrating bin Laden's death from a perspective of vengeance; which, if one is a Christian, is distinctly going against the message of their Messiah.

[TimG]

is that one of Maher's original points was that many people are celebrating bin Laden's death from a perspective of vengeance

A shot to the head for a mass murderer is justice - not vengence. Maher is in no position to lecture Christians on how they should interpret their scripture.

[bloodyminded]

A shot to the head for a mass murderer is justice - not vengence.

It can take both forms simultaneously, can it not?

Maher is in no position to lecture Christians on how they should interpret their scripture.

Why not? Christians lecture to one another--and to the rest of us--in profoundly divergent ways (including in a similar vein to Maher's take).

[TimG]

Why not? Christians lecture to one another--and to the rest of us--in profoundly divergent ways (including in a similar vein to Maher's take).

He could if he was advocating a moral position that Christians disagreed with. However, starts out by saying he has no problem with gunning down Bin Laden and then criticizes Christians for not disagreeing with him. It is a pathetic rant.

[Shady]

No, they do not. Selective Christians take it upon themselves to ignore the words of Jesus and follow contradicting excerpts from the Old Testament. Why they still call themselves Christian, I'm not sure but it's probably a cultural identity thing.

One doesn't cease being Christian because of committing a sin. You seriously don't know that? Like I've already said, that's what confession is for. If somebody celebrated Obama's death, that's between them and their priest. They'll ask for forgiveness.

Once again, apparently that concept is new to Maher and Hardner.

[bloodyminded]

He could if he was advocating a moral position that Christians disagreed with. However, starts out by saying he has no problem with gunning down Bin Laden and then criticizes Christians for not disagreeing with him. It is a pathetic rant.

Well, I personally find Maher occasionally insightful and hilarious, but just as often smug and condescending, so I'm not sure I can disagree with you on this point.