Was Jesus a Home-wrecker?

[LAGC]

"Don't think that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came to bring trouble, not peace. I came to turn sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, and daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law. Your worst enemies will be in your own family.”

-- Matthew 10:34-36

[RandomThoughts]

1. I didn't memorize that when I was young.

So not 100% sure on that.

[LAGC]

2. The text appears in red in my Bible.

So I think that means that it was supposed to be Jesus' own words.

I'm just trying to make sense of it.

[grantcart]

3. well the Saducees certainly thought so

[notadmblnd]

4. well, if I remember correctly Jesus told his disciples to leave their families and go with him

I would imagine some of them were married at the time.

[struggle4progress]

5. Lek leka: "Get thee out of thy country and thy father's house unto a land that I will show thee"

If we are all content to remain complacently where our parents were, how can we expect any progress? The price of growth is often some uncomfortable conflict

[LAGC]

20. Religion of peace?

Seems to me that Jesus had a vicious/violent side that liberal Christians often don't want to acknowledge...

The King James Version of that verse is even more explicit:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." -- Matthew 10:34, KJV

A sword?! Really? And some Christians criticize Islam for wanting to spread the faith by the sword.

Maybe they should look in the mirror?

[struggle4progress]

21. The passage continues: "I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against

her mother ... and the household of a man will be his enemies." It is the lek leka: "Get thee .. out of thy father's house unto a land that I will show thee"

There are different kinds of "peace" -- and not all are worthy of the name. Where there are real injustices, for example, those who benefit can sometimes maintain an illusion of peace by encouraging complacency, but it is not a real and lasting peace. The process of leaving "thy father's house" for a better "land that I will show thee" is filled with intrinsic conflict: when Jacob and Rachael finally leave Laban, he pursues them, demanding "Why did you steal my gods?" Real peace cannot be obtained without real justice, but demands for real justice very frequently induce a violent reaction. Consider some of the traditional understandings, as explained by Jose Miranda in his Marx and the Bible:

... Jerome comments ... Unless one person has lost another cannot find. Therefore I believe .. the popular proverb .. "The rich person is either an unjust person or the heir of one." Basil the Great thinks the same way: We someone steals a man's clothes, we call him a thief. Should we not give the same name to one who could clothe the naked and does not? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry man ... Ambrose teaches the same thing in a formula of unsurpassable exactitude: You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his ...

Really preaching that gospel has always been a potentially dangerous enterprise. As Woody Guthrie sang: He went to the preacher. He went to the sheriff. He told them all the same. "Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the poor." So they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

"Get thee .. out .. unto a land that I will show thee"

[LAGC]

25. Do you have a family?

If so, what do you think of the following verse:

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." -- Matthew 10:37

Do you love Jesus more than your family? Your own life and blood?

[struggle4progress]

28. You're free to choose "loyalty to relatives" as your transcendent value, if you like.

Some of mine have been very fine people in various ways; others have been scum in various ways; some of them have been both, depending on time and circumstance

It's natural to have warm feelings towards family. But I can imagine contexts in which I hope I'd have other loyalties

[jobycom]

6. Sales training. He was firing up his sales force.

You got to be tough to be God. Even tougher to be his kid. He made 970 thousand last year. How much did you make? Fuck you, that's his name. Second place is steak knives.

[PassingFair]

29. Stop that!

I'm in SALES.

That scene gives me night-terrors.

[trotsky]

7. The interpretation guide is very simple.

Every Christian uses the same reasoning: "If a bible verse agrees with what I believe, then it's literal. If it doesn't, then it's figurative."

(This is often accompanied by a disclaimer that any Christian who doesn't agree with them isn't a Real Christian™.)

[RandomThoughts]

8. I don't think people can decide that.

Anyone could be wrong, or could be right, and people get some things wrong and some things right.

You can only do the best you can.

Although I think loving your enemy helps you when you make mistakes so you aren't mean to mostly good people.

[trotsky]

9. Oh they can, and do.

Just ask them. I've encountered liberals (including many on DU) who are JUST as insistent as Fred Phelps that they alone have the correct interpretation of their bible.

[RandomThoughts]

10. Probably so.

Although I think most of that is opinions and how each individual sees it. Although I also think it is suppose to be that way.

Nobody knows all the mysteries, to claim that seems to lead to passing on errors, I think people should think and feel and find their best ideas of what things mean.

Anyone could be wrong or correct, seems wrong to tell someone they are wrong on those topics, but you can still express ideas.

But you are correct, we all have a tendency to support our own views and ideas on things more then ideas that are different then what a person chooses to believe.

[trotsky]

11. "seems wrong to tell someone they are wrong on those topics"

So is it wrong to tell a pedophile they shouldn't rape children? Is it even worse to try and stop them from raping? I mean, anyone could be wrong or correct, right?

[RandomThoughts]

12. That is not a spiritual topic. And a sad example of people decieved.

In trying to figure what is best, and what is wrong.

There are three layers, your best belief of what is correct in spiritual terms.

Your best rational decision of what is correct from your heart and mind.

And laws by society to protect you from doing dumb or mean things.



In my belief what you mention is spiritually wrong, but if someone only does things by spiritual guidance, then if they get deceived they can do bad things like you mention. If you only use faith and you make a mistake in what guides you, then you could be convinced those things are not bad. There are many examples of twisted people that happened to. Many people doing wrong do it because they think any guidance is correct.

So you also have rational, and taking the innocence of a child is treating them without dignity or respect, treating them as property. It can rationally be argued in ones own mind that a child does not have the maturity to make those decisions, and what you talk about is taking their ability to decide on intimate choices. So although most know viscerally it is wrong, there is also a rational reason why it is wrong, it is not only twisted, but also uncaring.


Then there is the law, where many in society got together and decided it was wrong and made laws.


So you should be able to avoid those things by faith, since it is not love. But some people get tricked on them, no reason to list them, but you can think of some sects that promote such things because they are misguided, and then they don't also use reason, or social law, and do terrible things.


So it would be wrong to tell them that you know for sure they would burn in hell, although they might, but you sure can tell them it is wrong and explain why, with three tiers, faith, reason, and law.

Those three tiers help a person from making mistakes when something tries to deceive them.


I wont explain the delusion those that do those things fall to, it is basically seeing things with the wrong spirit. In the same way you can read text with ideas of greed, or hate, or other things that hurt people, some people get deceived into seeing in text they consider important, interpretations that are really bad.

Although with your heart and mind it is really easy to see why that is wrong, hence why you have to use guidance that is also ran by the truth in your mind and heart as you can best see it.


Many years ago, such topics did not have the law as a third protection, centuries ago some people were treated as property, and centuries before that women were treated as property, even some children. So you can see where law has improved to help stop such things. Also people have learned to know why that is wrong also supporting peoples rational defenses against such terrible things destroying them.


But not claiming to know all the mysteries of God, is not saying a person can not defend what they think is love and rational behavior versus what is wrong.

[trotsky]

13. Why do you think they're deceived?

Who are you to tell them they're wrong? You just said NO ONE KNOWS. You aren't putting qualifiers on that now, are you?

[RandomThoughts]

14. What I am saying is that if the spiritual allowed such things.

Then that spiritual I would fight, and not think to be correct, by my second defense of rational thought of mind and heart, since it immediately knows those ideas are wrong, and third defense of laws as thought by most people and scholars through history.



Interesting Note: you mentioning such a terrible topic could be to try and get me to say something that could be spun, and then used in the worst ways on the worst topic.

You could have had the same topic about theft or lying. But you chose a topic that if I was to say something that could be misinterpreted, someone could try and use it against me.

[trotsky]

15. Doesn't matter how many people or scholars you consult.

They could all be just as wrong as you. Bummer how that works out.

[RandomThoughts]

16. I do not consult scholars.

I know that many just actions in society are part of many laws, it is not consulting, it is learning from, and knowing many laws are made from better ideas that can be learned from. The third defense is because my belief that most laws made by society will be more correct then wrong. And those laws are made in part by scholars. Some laws can be unjust and that weakens part of the third defense, but on that topic laws are pretty obvious, since that topic is obvious.

And you are wrong, you assume that what is right and wrong has nothing to do with the individual, but is based on some edict of what is. I believe a person is part of existence and also decides both what they think is right and wrong, using the heart and mind that are given, and paying attention to social laws.


I could not be wrong by second and third defense. If the spiritual allowed such a thing as you defend, then just because it is something spiritual, would not make it correct.

You did not read or understand anything I typed, I specifically said that some 'spiritual' thing is not the only determiner of what is right and wrong, yet you say something could be right or wrong by some absolute in some spiritual concept.

[RandomThoughts]

17. Read my signature.

Freed from limitations of the rational,

part of that is knowing the spiritual is good. There are many people limited by not having the first defense, and some without the second defense.

But by knowing the spiritual is good, I can also have the first defense if something tries to deceive me. As would be such a thing as you mention, on that topic, or any other topic that would hurt or do bad to someone.

[trotsky]

18. I gotta admit, the fun comes in watching you squirm.

Po-mo'ers, like libertarians, have such a tough time reconciling their philosophy with the real world. Thanks for confirming yet again how entertaining it is to watch them try.

[RandomThoughts]

23. If you try to present that I squirm

Or if you take pleasure in that concept, you confirm some things for me.

Why would you think I would squirm? As I said before. Why Worry.

With that philosophy I do not squirm as you say. But why might you say it, to try to create that thought?

Why Worry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_03uXQiz6eY


I enjoy your posts also, they give me a reason to express some ideas.

[trotsky]

27. Well of course you don't think you're squirming.

Most po-mo'ers are quite good at compartmentalizing their philosophy from the real world. Hell, they have to be.

[skepticscott]

22. The thing is

that no one needs religion or faith in "god" to do the best they can. Many people have simply been convinced that they do. But when you basically invent your own religion out of your own mind, that pretty much eliminates the need to supernatural aid.

[RandomThoughts]

24. I don't know if that is exactly correct.

It is many thoughts on what you might call religious topics that helped me understand many things I see. Does not seem to be in my mind. Or only in any persons mind.

For instance the Trinity, the first defense of the Love of God, the Second defense of Jesus Christ in your heart, and the third defense of the Holy Spirit that can work through many people to create social justice.

That concept also matches my observations, so to say it is only in a persons mind is to miss the other places, the greater mysteries, the heart, and the good that many people do, and that I think can be inspired.

Although I think each person should decide if something is inspired by better ideas or not.


Could you explain that thought more, you seem to be saying that having belief, removes the need for aid. Yet you seem to be saying that is bad, might the need for aid be removed because it is received?

Although in some thoughts, the need for things can be removed, and I do not think that is the best thing, some people give away there dreams, and I disagree with that.

I do agree many people can see the better spirits of love and kindness in many ways, so I try not to judge how people see that, since that would be a claim to know more then I can claim.

What point are you making?

[skepticscott]

26. The point is

that none of the good supposedly accomplished by religion (either personally or societally) couldn't have been accomplished without it and all of its negative baggage. And that if people could rid themselves of the fear, guilt, shame and superstition that have been religion's stock in trade for centuries, they would find within themselves all of the capacity for happiness, morality and achievement that they had thought they needed god's help with.

[Dorian Gray]

19. Daughters in law and mothers in law

don't really need his help all that much.

[Still Blue in PDX]

30. He did a number on my marriage when I found Him.

I was an agnostic sort (interested in Native American spirituality, read a little about a lot of different religions in high school) married to a nonpracticing Catholic when I got religion and went all evangelical.

My husband must really love me to have stayed married to me through that decade.