Article  Do you need religion to be a moral person?

#21
confused2 Offline
Syne Wrote:Where did I say anything about the "gate myth?" Go ahead, quote me on it.

You're so illiterate, you can't even tell who posted what.

Syne Wrote:And I'd bet you have no idea what "a camel to go through the eye of a needle" refers to. Hint, it isn't anything remotely as impossible as it sounds.

Syne Wrote:If Jesus was referencing the Talmud, he would have said "elephant going through the eye of a needle," which is clearly impossible, even if it were a small gate, and has no potential to be confused with rope.

Yep.. the usual descent into .. useless ..
Reply
#22
Magical Realist Offline
That Jesus meant the common phrase of a literal camel going thru a literal eye of a needle is seen in the apostles' response and his answer to them:

"When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, 'Who then can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'"

Obviously Jesus was meaning that as threading a giant needle with a rope is NOT an impossible feat.

"Jesus literally says that the point of bringing up the whole camel and needle thing in the first place was to say that it is impossible. He’s intentionally using an absurd image to talk about something that can’t happen!"---
https://classictheology.org/2021/10/12/t...te-theory/
Reply
#23
Syne Offline
No, since the Aramaic word "gamla" (that Jesus used) means both camel and rope, the Apostles, as usual, didn't understand his meaning. The Apostles repeatedly have trouble understanding the teachings of Jesus. That Jesus said "with God all things are possible" clearly shows it's not an impossibility. It's only impossible "with man" alone.

But again, where does Jesus teach "making the rich pay their fair share" or Caesar redistributing the wealth? Where is the literal socialism taught?
Reply
#24
confused2 Offline
From the quotes I recognize it seems this thread is mostly referring to the King James Version published in 1611 or some variation based on it. King James was (surprise!) a king. So we find poverty (for peasants) is good, rendering unto Caesar is good, kings and palaces are good. It might also come as a surprise (to some) that the king who ordered the translation would find so much he liked in the final version.
Reply
#25
Syne Offline
No, most quotes are NIV. But nice try at a genetic fallacy.
Reply
#26
confused2 Offline
Simply as a result of my age I have only ever seen a KGV bible .. I was aware there were more 'street' versions but not of any attempt at a new translation.
As the publishers of the NIV say:
Quote: From the very start, the NIV sought to bring modern Bible readers as close as possible to the experience of the very first Bible readers:
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Ne...NIV-Bible/

I have to agree with the publishers .. I didn't notice this thread was referring to a 'new' book. I checked the 'render unto Caesar' bit in the new version and it seems to be sending the same message as I recall from the KJV version .. no reference to lower taxation boosting the economy .. is there a new part that deals with this? Can you give a link to it?
Reply
#27
Syne Offline
The plain fact is that the Bible ONLY teaches charity that is voluntary. If you can refute this basic Biblical principle, I'm all ears. Voluntary charity is the opposite of government mandated welfare. That makes free market capitalism the ONLY compatible economic scheme.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Easily distracted? You need to think like a medieval monk C C 0 103 Jan 20, 2023 09:59 PM
Last Post: C C
  If you were to choose a religion Bowser 9 1,762 Sep 1, 2016 06:56 PM
Last Post: Yazata
  Guns and Zombies: Gimme that end-time religion, Gimme that end-time religion C C 2 921 Oct 28, 2015 09:04 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)