Favorite scriptures

Originally posted by rwingett
The temptation to give a flippant answer here is very strong. But even as an atheist, I do have a favorite passage from the bible. The story of the Adultress, from the Gospel of John. The problem is that biblical research has indicated that it may not have originally been in John, and is probably a later addition. But putting that question aside momentarily ...[text shortened]... from the simple Amish and preach a little less fire and brimstone and a little more compassion.

This is one of my favorites as well. It reminds me of all the times he was tested by the Pharisees and religious leaders to try and trip him up. This was by no means the only example in scripture. Had Christ said to stone her, they would then have asked him why he is had forsaken his teachings of mercy and love. Had he said to spare her, they then would have asked him why he had forsaken the Mosaic law they were commanded to keep?

Other examples include the following:

Matthew 22:15 "Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, 'Master, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God in truth, niether do you care for any man; for you regard not the person of men. Tell us therefore, what you think. Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, 'Why do you tempt me hypocrites? Show me the tribute money.' And they brought him a penny. And he said to them, 'Whose is this image and superscription?' They said to him, Caesar's. Then he said to them, 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars and unto God the things that are God's.' And when they heard these words the marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

If Christ had said to not pay tribute then they would have accused him of disobeying the law of the land and probably brought the wrath of Rome upon his shoulders. If he had simply said to pay tribute they would have accused him of supporting an illigitimate empire that had wrongfully enslaved the Jewish people.

Here is another favorite of mine.

Matthew 21:23 "And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching and said, "By what authority do you these things? And who gave you this authority?" And Jesus answered and said to them, "I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell me, I in likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men?" And they reasoned with themselves, saying, "If we say from heaven, he will say to us, 'Why did you not then believe him?' But if we say, 'Of men', we fear the people, for all hold John as a prophet." And they answered Jesus, and said, "We cannot tell." And he said to them, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." LOL 😛

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Unfortunately, mainstream Christianity has its collective mouth SuperGlued to the teat of political power, far too worried about 'hot-button' topics such as abortion, gay marriage and keeping HRC out of office to be concerned with anything so 'secondary' as walking a quiet life of peace.

Great choice for a favorite Scripture passage, rwingett. Thanks for the timely reminder.

It's too bad that so many on the religious right these days have lost sight of the fact that the wall of separation between church and state is to the benefit of both.

Originally posted by rwingett
The temptation to give a flippant answer here is very strong. But even as an atheist, I do have a favorite passage from the bible. The story of the Adultress, from the Gospel of John. The problem is that biblical research has indicated that it may not have originally been in John, and is probably a later addition. But putting that question aside momentarily from the simple Amish and preach a little less fire and brimstone and a little more compassion.

Do you therefore concede that religion might, under some circumstances, be a force for good?

Reportedly, one of the older little Amish girls volunteered to be shot first in place of some younger girls.

Aren't such selfless values at the core of their religiously enshrined morality?

I find this tragic case, not only moving, but fascinating. You have extreme evil and extreme good butting against one another.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's too bad that so many on the religious right these days have lost sight of the fact that the wall of separation between church and state is to the benefit of both.

Speaking of church and state, how about this scripture, 1 Samuel chapter 8? It is based upon how God set up the state of Israel? God did not give them a king, rather, they had judges set up to hear the disputes among the people. This was their government! Unfortunatly, the people demanded a king and to be like the other nations.

"When Samuel grew old, he appointed his two sons as judges over Israel. The name of the first-born was Joel, that of thye younger Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. But his sons did not follow his ways; they wanted money, taking bribes and perverting justice. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. "Look", they said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways. So give us a king to rule over us, like the other nations." It displeased Samuel that they should say, "Let us have a king to rule over us," so he prayed to the Lord. But the Lord said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for it is not you they have rejected; they have rejected me from ruling over them. All they have done to me from the day I brought them out of Egypt until now-they deserted me and served other gods-they are doing now to you. Well then, obey their voice; only, you must warn them solemnly and instruct them in the rights of the king who is to reign over them."

(Warnings about the disadvantages of a monarchy)

All that the Lord had said to Samuel repeated to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "These will be the rights of the king who is to reign over you. He will take your sons and assign them to his chariotry and cavalry, and they will run in front of his chariot. He will use them as leaders of a thousand leaders of fifty; he will make them plow his plowland and harvest his harvest and make his weapons of war and the gear for his chariots. He will also take your daughters as perfumers, cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields, of your vineyards and olive groves and give them to his officials. He will tithe your crops and vineyards to provide for his eunuchs and his officials. He will take the best of your manserevants and maidservants, of your cattle and your donkeys, and make them work for him. He will tithe your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out on account of the king you have chosen for yourselves, but on that day God will not answer you." The people refused to listen to the words of Samuel. They said, "No! We want a king, so that we in our turn can be like the other nations; our king will rule us and be our leader and fight our battles." Samuel listened to all that the people had to say and repeated it in the ears of the Lord. The Lord then said to Samuel, "Obey their voice and give them a king." Samuel then said to the men of Israel, "Go back, each to your own town."

Originally posted by whodey
Speaking of church and state, how about this scripture, 1 Samuel chapter 8? It is based upon how God set up the state of Israel? God did not give them a king, rather, they had judges set up to hear the disputes among the people. This was their government! Unfortunatly, the people demanded a king and to be like the other nations.

"When Samuel grew old, ...[text shortened]... ing." Samuel then said to the men of Israel, "Go back, each to your own town."

Only one cheer for monarchy, then.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Do you therefore concede that religion might, under some circumstances, be a force for good?

Reportedly, one of the older little Amish girls volunteered to be shot first in place of some younger girls.

Aren't such selfless values at the core of their religiously enshrined morality?

I find this tragic case, not only moving, but fascinating. You have extreme evil and extreme good butting against one another.

Of course religion can be a force for good. It would be folly to argue otherwise. But it is also a force for far less noble pursuits. The question is whether the scale is balanced enough toward the good side to make the enterprise worthwhile, or whether what good it does can be accomplished by means that do not bring along all of religion's inherent flaws. Of course that's just examining religion from a strictly utilitarian aspect. It doesn't address the question of whether any of their beliefs are actually true, or whether holding such beliefs are productive or counter-productive in the long run.

Personally, I think that what good religion does accomplish is not sufficient to overcome it's negative qualities. I think we could accomplish all, or most, of the good deeds by secular means that do not involve all the antiquated theological baggage.

Originally posted by rwingett
Of course religion can be a force for good. It would be folly to argue otherwise. But it is also a force for far less noble pursuits. The question is whether the scale is balanced enough toward the good side to make the enterprise worthwhile, or whether what good it does can be accomplished by means that do not bring along all of religion's inherent ...[text shortened]... the good deeds by secular means that do not involve all the antiquated theological baggage.

But could it not also be argued that many of the secular mean to achieve good ends also have their problems as well such as greed and corruption. I'm not saying that religion is absent of these, but I think it is naive to suggest that secular or other means other than religious will not have the problems you mentioned with religous means.

One example that I can cite was the "oil for food" program of the UN.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's too bad that so many on the religious right these days have lost sight of the fact that the wall of separation between church and state is to the benefit of both.

The problem lies with Christians losing (or never having in the first place) sight of doctrine. If believers were cognizant of the actual teachings of Scripture--- instead of the contemporary smorgasboard--- there wouldn't be the extreme schisms in the US.

The Bible teaches that the governments of man are here for protection, and are not to be used for the propogation of religion. Most believers are too scared to let go of the obvious route and actually live in faith, however. Ironically, not only do these same believers eschew doctrine, they also fail to learn even from 'obvious' history. Destroyed for lack of knowledge, as it were.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's too bad that so many on the religious right these days have lost sight of the fact that the wall of separation between church and state is to the benefit of both.

The trouble is that separation between the two of them requires a line
so to speak where one does this, the other does that. When one
crosses that line, or just plain and simple draws the line it wants the
other may think the line should be drawn differently because it feels
it should have control over this or that. It sounds good, but in practice
quite difficult if not impossible to do to keep everyone happy, so what
happens is the one in power does it, and than we are no longer
talking about a separation but a struggle for control. I tried to keep
from naming who the offenders are in that struggle and who the
victims are, because it changes with time from one to the other here
and there. So Jesus was quite wise when he said,

Mark 12:17
Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

Kelly

Originally posted by kirksey957
But could it not also be argued that many of the secular mean to achieve good ends also have their problems as well such as greed and corruption. I'm not saying that religion is absent of these, but I think it is naive to suggest that secular or other means other than religious will not have the problems you mentioned with religous means.

One example that I can cite was the "oil for food" program of the UN.

Of course secular programs may have their problems. But those problems are not inherently contained within them, as they are with religious programs.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The problem lies with Christians losing (or never having in the first place) sight of doctrine. If believers were cognizant of the actual teachings of Scripture--- instead of the contemporary smorgasboard--- there wouldn't be the extreme schisms in the US.

The Bible teaches that the governments of man are here for protection, and are not to be used for ...[text shortened]... also fail to learn even from 'obvious' history. Destroyed for lack of knowledge, as it were.

For once, Freaky, you and I are in agreement. This is a topic I would like to explore in greater detail, but I won't have the time today. So I'll just leave a quote that I think is relevant to the matter:

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

--Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by rwingett
For once, Freaky, you and I are in agreement. This is a topic I would like to explore in greater detail, but I won't have the time today. So I'll just leave a quote that I think is relevant to the matter:

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

--Thomas Jefferson

Well, God (if there be one) forbid that we stay on such a course for too long! I'd be happy to explore that conversation when you have the time.

While I don't agree with TJ's take on Christianity, I whole-heartedly agree with his philosophies on government. Looking forward to the discussion along these lines.

Originally posted by rwingett
Of course secular programs may have their problems. But those problems are not inherently contained within them, as they are with religious programs.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I'm not sure what you mean.

Greed and corruption will afflict both secular and religious programs in equal measure. But secular programs do not start off with the weight of medieval religious dogma* wrapped around their ankles. So religious programs start "in the hole", as it were, and have to work doubly hard to bring about the same net amount of good as their secular counterparts. Therefore, all other things being equal, secular programs will always be preferable.



*the doctrine of original sin, for example, which I think is one of the most pernicious concepts ever devised.