#misquoted scripture | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

pickmeforjesus · 1 year

Text

another day, another pro gun "Christians" swaying souls into hell by twisting the Scriptures

This one is going to be long and I know that hardly anyone will read it, but I actually do it for 1) for God who explicitly told me to "do my part" and 2)the 1% of Christians who are actually dedicated to follow Christ and not trample the word of God because of their sinful entitlement to murder.

If even one (1) person reading this actually changes their mind on gun violence than it will be a Grace from the Lord and I am glad of being a useful servant of Christ.

I'm going to call out the misquote, dishonesty and LIES of typical pro gun Christians. Since tumblr isn't really handy for text formatting I'm going to color code every "chapter" of the exposé to smoothen up the read

Israelites prerogatives ≠ Christian prerogatives

The bigger picture

Jesus is the Sword - not guns

God is the only self-defense

Let's begin ! ✝️💙

1. Israelites prerogatives ≠ Christian prerogatives

I'll tackle down the tumblr user reply to the ask later, to focus on the link she posted as a "pretty well done exploration" as of why gun violence is seemingly a-OK to Christians.

I'd like to start off saying that every Christian using Old Testament Prescriptions to legitimize the use of violence to CHRISTIANS is either, uneducated about basic Christian theology, a liar, a false prophet or a maybe everything at once. That's why this website quoting plentiful of OT (=Old Testament) prescriptions FIRST is a very bad omen forecasting the piss poor theology that's going to unfold in that page.

Israelites had to abide to specific rules and commandments that matched their own very specific purpose : they had to fight/go to WAR to create the EARTHLY kingdom of God. The commandment compelling to not kill was only for Israelites (because Israelites went to war and killed cities foreign to Israel). And even within the Kindgom of Israel, there were cases where murder was allowed in situations when it was sanctioned by God to kill (those caught breaking the sabbath had to stoned, for example).

Ever since Jesus crucifixion and the veil got torn, Christians don't abide to the prescriptions of Israelites. There's no more kingdom of God on earth. There are chances that you, who's currently reading this, are living in a country with defined frontiers that you don't have to go to war to defend and/or expand (as God told you to).

We do not abide to the 613 commandments of Israelites anymore : we can eat pork (no more "impure food"), don't have to stone anyone not doing the sabbath, circumcise newborn son, etc.

Interestingly, the same Christians who use OT prescription enabling the use of violence and murder, don't feel compelled to follow the other set of commandments abiding to Israelites. They're cherry-picking what goes their way simply because they a) don't understand the Bible b)are dishonest.

Israelites had to obey to ALL commandments - disobeying to one, was like disobeying to the WHOLE Torah (James 2:10-11)

Feel entitled to Israelites rights? Fine, abide to their OBLIGATIONS, too.

You think you still have God sanctioned right to kill? Then keep that same energy for the other 600+ commandments of those having the same right : do the sabbath, circumcise your sons, stop eating pork, stone adulterous people, etc etc. You cannot be a CHRISTIAN while abiding to cherry-picked Law prerogative. You cannot have it both ways.

2. The bigger picture

In the tumblr post reply, she refers to the passage in Luke where Jesus lets his disciple arm themselves moments before he gets arrest. This passage is infamously misquoted by pro gun zealots. Their trick is that they ALWAYS disregard the second part of the story where Jesus scold the very person who used their weapon to protect him (Peter) and went as far as heal the man, which shows how dishonest they are. But that's not enough ;

In the website she linked, we reach a whole new level of Scriptural twisting dishonesty

It's interesting how this person is switching the word of the passage from "sword" to "gun". I'll elaborate on this later on the point #3, but the "sword" is a very significant symbol in the Bible, and seeing this person recklessly replace it with a "gun" truly shows how off base they are when it comes to biblical literacy. Bad theology all around.

"It is difficult to make absolute claims beyond these observations" then why quoting those passage in a pro gun defense article? If you can't draw a conclusive interpretation from that passage, what's the point of bringing it up?

Jesus giving his consent for his disciple to bring along weapons doesn't mean he endorsed their use. Jesus said "That's enough", not "That's good" or "That's right". The Bible is full of examples of God "consenting" to humans carrying on their sin up until a certain point. It doesn't mean God condoned the sin itself. And yet, many pro gun Christians use this cherry-picked passage of Jesus in Gethsemane to act like Jesus endorsed gun use.

Jesus explicitly saying ""Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" and ""Stop! No more of this" are pretty clear, actually. The author quotes them here :

It's not that we're "getting a sense of(...)", OP. That's literally what Jesus says, that's not an impression or a feeling. What's more straightforward then saying "Stop" when witnessing a violent act? why are you acting like there was any ambiguity about the actual intention or message of Jesus saying that? There's not. Jesus doesn't want violence to happen. Period.

But you wanna know why the author is acting oblivious about the straightforwardness of those passages ? because if they admit that Jesus rebuked violence, then their stance in favor of gun violence ends up moot. So they act dumb.

Note that after that explanation, the author states : "The sword is not always the appropriate response, especially in persecution for Christ." but they miserably fail in showing in what situation using the sword is actually an "appropriate response" beside quoting the Old Testament (which I already explained in point #1 why Christians weren't entitled to OT prescriptions). And when they do quote the New Testament, they do so in a fashion that leaves out the whole picture to twist the actual message of that passage (e.g quoting Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭35‬-‭38 to act like Jesus condoned gun carrying when he allowed to do so to publicly rebuke them later and make his point known to a multitude of people)

3. Jesus is the Sword - not guns

Now I'd like to reflect on the Sword that is repeatedly used in the Bible, and what it actually represents in the Gospel (plot twist : not guns)

One fundamental staple of a sound theology is acknowledging that words usage do matter in the Bible and are particularly relevant when they are consistently rehashed through the books. The Sword is one of them.

I'd like to quote verses of the New Testament featuring the Sword

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

The Sword is SPIRITUAL. And you know who's the "Word of God"? JESUS (John 1:1 and 14)

Hebrew 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Here the God of Word is again metaphorically represented as a sharped tool ("sharper than any twoedged sword")

Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Only Jesus is entitled to carry a Sword ; because HE is the Sword. Has Jesus used a physical sword to kill people while on earth? or called his disciples to carry a physical sword? in Luke 22:35-39 in which Jesus tells them to "buy" a sword, a few moments later he rebukes the one who actually used it, so it's definitely NOT a physical sword he was talking about. Why would Jesus incite his disciples into possessing something (carrying a sword) only to scold them for using it moments later?? it doesn't make any sense. His disciples definitely got something wrong in the process (=understanding the sword as something physical, not spiritual). That's why reading Luke 22:35-36 as elevating weaponry as godly sanctioned is a total misconception.

The Sword that Jesus does bring is SPIRITUAL. He's the Sword of the Spirit that will separate His children from the rest of the flock. The joint vs the narrow. The goat vs the lamb. Heaven vs Hell.

Pro guns are misguiding people into believing that guns are the equivalent of the "sword" that's talked about in the Bible. That couldn't be more untrue.

Either those people either know that the biblical Sword = Jesus and LIE about it to project what they want into Jesus teaching, or they don't and by their ignorance, they are professing a destructive theology that's bewildering many Christians. Hosea 4:6

This person is LYING to you. That's why they obsessively resort to quote prescriptions for ISRAELITES to back up their falsehood. The Philistines aren't a thing anymore. CHRISTIANS don't have a Kingdom to protect & expand. Christians are dispatched through the Nations - there's no more united "people of YHYW nation". The only relevant kingdom to defend is THE SPIRITUAL KINGDOM OF GOD.

Possession of weapons is discouraged in the sense that Christians aren't entitled to violence (see point #4). This is the same logic as acknowledging that Christians shouldn't possess porn videos because adultery is forbidden. And inb4 the comparison with knives (who can also be used a deathly weapons) : knives actually have a purpose beside hurting or killing. Normal people don't buy knive having in mind hurting someone ; therefore owning them isn't sinful.

To show you how dishonest this person is, look at them quoting Romans 12:19 that states to "NEVER take [our] revenge".

How "NEVER". is remotely compatible with "oh in some cases it's okay to use violence"?? And yet it doesn't seem to ring a bell into the author's mind. Crazy.

Then the author proceeds to make the more asinine examples of "good" use of violence

As tackled in point #1 the shady usage of Israel prescription to justify how CHRISTIANS can use violence is an instant giveaway of bad theology and should be dismissed when it comes to CHRISTIAN (not Jewish) theology

But can we also talk about the author saying that David is "not a soldier???" KING David? who spend almost his whole life FIGHTING IN WARS and building the foundation of the Kingdom of Israel?? "NOT a solider"???? .......This person can't be serious, and I'm legitimately embarrassed for anyone taking seriously anything coming from this page.

Then the author compels to use to look into worldly entertainment(??!!) for example of proper use of violence *shrugs*

The cognitive dissonance of quoting Romans 12:19 ("Never take your revenge") just after elevating -full of violence and aggressiveness- gunfight/Western movies as an example of "great virtue" is mind-blowing....

4. God is the only self-defense

The reason some Christians rely on their gun -instead of God- is because of their unfaithfulness.

They don't believe that God can protect them when needed, so instead they elevate physical weapons and shoe horn them as biblical.

They also undermine God's power by acting like beside physical violence, we cannot help people :

This couldn't be further from the truth!! There are NO EXAMPLE IN THE BIBLE OF CHRISTIANS USING VIOLENCE TO SAVE PEOPLE.

Abiding in the Lord asks for resilience and Love. Which is someone pro gun Christians desperately lack. Love is not compatible with Death.

The reason Jesus didn't resort to use violence against the men who came to arrest him (when he could) is out of obedience to the Lord. Non-violence is a direct commandment from God ; therefore Christianism is fundamentally non-violent.

Proverbs 3:31

Do not envy the violent or choose any of their ways

Matthew 5:38-39

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 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.

Therefore, every Christian defending the use of violence are disobeying God ; and every child of rebellion will end up in Hell.

No human is entitled to kill another creature of God. Their body belong to God, and we are not entitled to "steal" God's property.

TL;DR :

every Christian using Old Testament Prescriptions to legitimize the use of violence to CHRISTIANS, is either uneducated about basic Christian theology, a liar, or a false prophet

You cannot be a Christian while feeling entitled to the Law prerogative. If you want to be entitled to murder like the Israelites, then you necessarily have to abide to the same Law as them. Christians can't have it both ways : the Law is incompatible with the Grace & Salvation covenant (Romans 8)

Jesus giving his consent for his disciple to bring along weapons doesn't mean he endorsed their use. Jesus said "That's enough", not "That's good" or "That's right". The Bible is full of example of God "consenting" to humans carrying on their sin up until a certain point. It doesn't mean God condoned the sin, but rather let humans learn & grown from their mistake.

The Christian "Sword" is Jesus, not guns

The reason some Christians rely on their gun -instead of God- is because of their unfaithfulness

#all pro gun ''christians''will be punished for using the name of god to defend sin #gun violence #rebuking fallacies

4 notes · View notes

dogstardigitalindex · 1 year

Text

youtube

Title: Misquoting Jesus in the Bible - Professor Bart D. Ehrman Channel: Bart D. Ehrman (Dr. Ehrman) Length: 1:35:19

Opens with an anecdote about his class of Bible-belt Christians believing that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and yet have not read the entire Bible. Notes that we are never reading the actual Bible in English, we are reading translations of the Bible. We do not have any original copies, so even in the original language our best manuscripts are copies of copies. The nature of hand-copying manuscripts, particularly when the person doing the copying is only partially literate, means that these manuscripts accumulated errors.

Our earliest copy of Mark is from 150 years after it was originally written. We have thousands of copies of (parts) of the New Testament, both in the original Greek and in several other languages it was translated into early on, but none of them are exactly the same. Our earliest scrap is from the Gospel of John and was written around 125. Roughly 300 years ago a copy of the Greek New Testament was made which indicated all of the then-known places where the manuscripts differed, totaling over 30,000 cases. We now have significantly more manuscripts and no count of how many times they differ. Describes some of the most common and most interesting mistakes in manuscripts; also describes places where it has been deliberately changed.

Problems in the scripture; discusses Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery and how it is definitely not original. The original ending to the Gospel of Mark was unsatisfying and scribes added 12 verses - these are where the Appalachian snake-handlers get their practice. Talks about the issues of insisting the gospels all agree.

Q&A begins 53 minutes in. In relation to political issues like abortion, war, and gay rights, have the textual differences found by scholars like Ehrman affected how those are interpreted? The affect has been slight because the social concerns of the authors were fundamentally different and they weren't addressing these questions. One person asks Bart to comment on the Gospel of Judas - it's the most recently discovered ancient Christian text, it is Gnostic and describes this world as being evil and created by a lesser god and salvation is about escaping it. Also asked to comment on a history book called Constantine's Sword (misquoted as "The Sword of Constantine" in the video) detailing Jewish-Christian relations and how they changed when Emperor Constantine became Christian.

Asked to comment on Marcion; was deeply important Christian thinker, but in Gnostic style rejected the Jewish god that created the world and believed Jesus came from the higher God and is trying to save us from the Jewish god. Asked what he thinks of and early text 1st Clement; this text directly references Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. To what degree were canon and textual problems discussed at Nicaea? Not at all - don't learn church history from The Da Vinci Code, literally everything it says about the Council of Nicaea is wrong. Are there any issues with scripture used to establish fundamental Christian doctrine? Biblical scripture does not directly affirm the Trinity, except 1 John 5:7-8, which is not found in the Greek manuscripts, but is in the Latin translation. It was strong-armed into the Greek New Testament using a false Greek manuscript. One person points out that the Gospels describing things differently doesn't necessarily mean they disagree, only that the events were seen and recorded from different perspectives; Bart goes into his past as an Evangelical Christian attempting to reconcile apparent disagreements and how making the narrative fit all of the gospel descriptions means effectively creating your own gospel that says something different from any of them.

An aspiring academic asks how he succeeds at making these dense topics interesting and understandable to a non-academic audience without dumbing them down; he emphasizes the need to write the book "for your mother" and not the fellow academic who works down the hall. Asked about the absolute lack of a Trinity within the Old Testament; describes the way theologians have reconciled this as being "creative." Asked about how the manuscripts affected the choice in Biblical canon; Bart talks about the nature of canon and, using the examples of the Woman Caught in Adultery and the last 12 verses of Mark, asks if these things are canon scripture regardless of their origin because of how well established they are. Beyond that, Bart says this is a theological question to be answered by a theologian, not a matter of history. Why did early Christians deciding canon include Gospels with obvious disagreements? Some early Christians, like modern Christians, just mash the Gospels together. One interpretation is that the Holy Spirit is trying to communicate something other than the surface meaning, and this is indicated by the surface meaning not making sense, but most Christians across time haven't studied the Bible in a way to even notice that there even are differences.

One person asks about major deletions to the Bible, namely everything Jesus said about reincarnation, something put forward by Janet Bock, and Bart directly tells him not to read her books and warns against irresponsible historians - check your authors, their degrees, the footnotes in their books. Also asked about the apparent missing years in Jesus' life; Jesus likely did what all young men did, which was work. Asked about language; the New Testament was written 30+ years after Jesus died, in the Greek language - what language(s) did Jesus speak and what may have been lost in translation just from that? We know Jesus spoke Aramaic, Bart does not believe he knew Greek. There are some Greek passages that make more sense when translated into Aramaic; there are also passages that cannot be translated into Aramaic and still make sense. Addresses that communities with stories that are oral rather than written do not emphasize remembering the story exactly.

#Biblical translation #Early Christianity #Greek New Testament #Youtube

2 notes · View notes

amaliasnap · 1 year

Text

Scoff. Gender-critical should mean the opposite of it's coloquial usage. This is the lesson: a tiny amount of knowledge about etymology can make you want to lie down and not deal with society. I try so hard not to say things like:

Actually the blood is thicker than water phrase is being misquoted. The original quote is:

"the blood of the sacrament is thicker than the water of the womb"

In other words, forget your family, just Jesus. People use it to justify loyalty to their family but it isn't what it was supposed to mean.

Here is another one:

Have your ever quoted the Bible and a conservative who didn't like communist-jesus said "the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes"?

That's not from the Bible, that is from Shakespeare.

It is no accident that my other two examples are from the cannon of Christianity. An oppressive force at odds with its own source material.

(Jesus hung out with prostitutes and gave ppl free alcohol and food when they were poor. I'm talking about his followers, not him)

#christianity #terf #bigotry #bible #family dysfunction #shakespeare #politics #transphobia #semantics #etymology

2 notes · View notes

pastorsperspective · 2 years

Text

Heaven's Surprise

I had the opportunity to sit down with Rev. Chad Johnson yesterday and ask a few questions about Sunday’s sermon. For reference, I am not a Methodist. I was raised Seventh Day Adventist and then married a Southern Baptist. To say that I don’t always understand sermon points might be a slight understatement. However, I would like to believe that the overall truth of the Bible remains intact no matter what the theological background. With that in mind, I set out to better understand the overall message. I won’t offer a word for word transcript of the conversation as the Pastor and I are both prone to taking rabbit trails and veering off topic occasionally, but you didn’t hear that from me! I will be as accurate and as detailed as I can be with Pastor’s answers though. Nobody wants to be misquoted!

The message this week, in case you missed it, was titled: “Roots: Is God Still Going That Road With Us?” and the scripture verses were from James 2: 14-18. If you weren’t with us, you can listen to his sermon here: https://fb.watch/e_f2pg6pP9/

Personally speaking, I was intrigued by the message this week. I have struggled with some of these very things and, in true fashion, I was left with many questions. The first of which being, what should people of different backgrounds and faiths consider while listening to any sermon?

“The most important thing? Not every preacher does this, but a lot of preachers do. It’s becoming the style of contemporary preaching that somewhere in there, in the beginning there will be a summary statement. Or other preachers might have the same statement that they repeat all the way through. That can take different forms like the words of a hymn that they recite throughout the sermon and they’ll keep repeating it. So, I would say to pay attention to those summary statements or anything that you hear repeated from the beginning to the end is generally the Pastor trying to drag that point to make the big, overall summary. I know I do that.”

That makes sense. I would also throw in there for myself that I think you should also consider whether or not what is being said lines up with the Word of God once you fully understand the points that are being made. It doesn’t matter what denomination you come from, if you are listening to a sermon, look for the main points and make sure they echo scripture.

Though the sermon didn’t specifically mention the story of The Widows Mite, the concept was present as Pastor Chad spoke about faith with works versus faith without works; what those works of faith look like, and what it means to be saved. Which sparked my desire to know, does it mean more to God when we give from our lack then when we give from our abundance?

“That’s a good question. Yeah, I think so. And here’s why; it’s easy to give out of abundance, right? Because it’s abundance. It’s still important to do that, but it’s easier for us. The other part of why I say yes to that is, my experiences with people who have given out of lack; it has turned out to be the more profound moments in their life. Both with their relationship with God and their relationships with those around them. So, I think God moves, the Holy Spirit moves, in a very special way when we give out of lack, absolutely. It’s very difficult and very humbling, but at the same time when we find ourselves on the other side of those moments looking back, it’s like, ‘Wow! Look what I was able to do with God that I never thought I would be able to do’. That’s the scary part! Because we do have lack, we think ‘I could never do that’ or we approach it with fear, but then we find ourselves on the other side and we’re like, ‘Woah, how did that happen?’. So, yes, I think so. My experiences have led me to believe that.”

I agree with that, but I have had some church experiences where I heard a Pastor say that God loves a cheerful giver, and if you are not giving cheerfully, you might as well keep your offering because it’s worthless. I struggled with that for a long time because I think it takes a while sometimes to get happy about the fact that you are offering up resources or time, that you really don’t have to spare, in faith. So, if that’s worthless to God, how does someone develop a habit of giving and become cheerful, if they weren’t thrilled about it to begin with? Especially someone who is trying to honor their faith, but might be in lack?

“I think that takes a maturity in faith that, if I’m being very honest, few of us get to very soon in life. From my experience, the people that I know who have been able to do that are very mature in their faith, and often older. Because I think it does take time to develop, but you asked ‘How?’ Well, this is going to lend into this Sundays sermon, but I don’t want to go to far into it. To be able to develop the ability to step back and say, ‘One, I don’t know all the details of that person’s life and I’m probably not ever going to.’ And then two, if we can get to two is; ‘and then thus, I will never be able to truly understand the hardship they’re going through, have gone through, or will go through’. Then it blows the door wide open to, ‘then I have to love. I’m required to love’. I think sometimes when we talk about giving, we trivialize things. We say, ‘Oh, I can understand that’. I think those can be some harmful words when we look at people and say, ‘I can get your situation’. Sure, we can empathize and that’s one thing, but the danger there is when we begin to trivialize and think, ‘but you can pick yourself up out of this’ without knowing all the intangibles because we don’t. And we never will. The more we can develop as Christians, the ability to stand back and say, ‘I’m never going to know all that this person is going through and I don’t need to. And that’s ok’. And then love and give anyway.”

Of course, the flip side of that is the very cheerful giver who has no issue giving because they know they are going to post it online later and everyone they know will then pat them on the back and make them feel good. Is this kind of giver any better than the uncheerful giver?

“Jesus said, ‘Let not your right hand know what your left hand is doing’. I think that’s the fine line. It’s important how you walk that. Being very cautious and careful to step back and realize that this person has their struggles. I don’t know them. I don’t need to know them. I’m just going to help because God has called us to help in life. God called me to love. God didn’t call me to ask questions and know all their details. At the same time, am I ok with nobody knowing? If the answer to that is yes, then I can go home and be just as happy drinking my Dr. Pepper and having my own little celebration feeling good about myself today knowing that I did something and God is proud of it. If it requires public knowledge to feel that way, then we have to question our intent. Which, very few of us are willing and able to do and that’s heartbreaking.”

It is heartbreaking. As are the complacency of the church and its people. We frequently hear of a need and immediately offer to pray for that person or that situation, but we don’t follow it up with, ‘How can I help?’ We don’t offer any tangible assistance to follow that prayer. When I heard something similar being said in the sermon, I had to wonder if saying that ever left anyone feeling like their prayers don’t matter, they aren’t comforting, and they don’t help?

“Well, I think there is that risk and that’s certainly not the way that I mean that. Praying is very important, but prayer should never be the only answer alone. It is when prayer undergirds action that we really help. There are times when, due to circumstances, that prayer is all we can do. That’s not to say that prayer is not the answer, but don’t let prayer be a crux. Where it’s the only answer we give.”

Then does God honor those prayers? When we can’t help, when prayer is all we have to give, does God honor that? Or even when we don’t help, don’t offer any tangible assistance and we take a blasé attitude of ‘I’ll pray for you’, does God honor those prayers without action?

“To answer that at face value, I think God does answer those prayers. It reminds me of something I saw on Facebook once. It was this man sitting on a bench and he was crying out about the woes of the world and wondering why Jesus would allow all this to happen. Infants to die and bad things that happen. It had a Jesus sitting next to him and it said, ‘That’s why I sent you’. I think of that illustration and I love it because I think when we talk about prayer and giving, we fail to realize that prayer is just part of the equation. We absolutely want to undergird our actions with prayers, but are we undergirding our prayers with action? When prayer becomes the only response of the church, that’s when we really have to ask if we’re following the great commission. Go and feed and clothe the least of these and when you do that, you are doing it unto me.”

It made me think about how often we go way too far in the other direction. When we exhaust every possible angle, we do every possible thing we can think of and THEN we pray. We don’t want to use prayer as a last resort either. I have done everything I can do God; now will you help me? I think we do that just as often as doing nothing or saying, ‘I’ll pray for you’ and then sometimes we forget to even do that.

“A very Methodist answer would be; Methodists have this understanding of means of Grace. Means of Grace is very Wesleyan language. We are a means of Grace and the moment that we don’t do our due diligence in giving, we become an obstacle to Grace. I think we have to ask ourselves if we are being a means of Grace in every way possible, in the fullest sense of the phrase, or is there some part of me that’s being an obstacle?”

I have never heard it put quite that way, but I believe that’s why we, as Christians are often referred to as the hands and feet of God. We are meant to help in all the ways that we feasibly can. So, when it came to the part of the sermon about the person who died rescuing several others not going to Heaven I began to struggle. I have people in my life who are not believers, but by comparison, live much more charitable lives than some that are believers. Do you believe that those who profess to love God, even though they live less than Godly lives, are rewarded with Heaven while those that lived very generous and altruistic lives, but had not professed to know God, are not?

“We have to be careful though. Just because they never said it out loud, doesn’t mean they never said it in their heart. And who can know that? My mentor had hoped that even though that man had outwardly said he didn't believe in God, that it may not have been a reflection of his heart. I have encountered that as well. People who are struggling and have apprehensions about God and then you discuss it with them and find that it’s not really that they have an issue with God, they have an issue with a part of their life that they haven’t processed and they're giving blame to God. I find more often than not that people want to be faithful, it’s just that sometimes there are things that have happened, or are happening, that get in the way of that. I think we have to be very careful of us saying, ‘Well that person’s not going to Heaven’, because at the end of the day, how do we know? That’s between them and Jesus.”

Truer words were never spoken! So, on that note, I will leave you with this little poem:

Heaven’s Surprise

I was shocked, confused, bewildered as I entered Heaven’s door, Not by the beauty of it all, nor the lights or its decor.

But it was the folks in Heaven who made me sputter and gasp– The thieves, the liars, the sinners, the alcoholics and the trash.

There stood the kid from seventh grade who swiped my lunch money twice. Next to him was my old neighbor who never said anything nice.

Herb, who I always thought was rotting away in hell, Was sitting pretty on cloud nine, looking incredibly well.

I nudged Jesus, ‘What’s the deal? I would love to hear your take. How’d all these sinners get up here? God must’ve made a mistake.

‘And why’s everyone so quiet, so somber – give me a clue.’ ‘Child,’ He said, ‘they’re all in shock. They never thought they’d be seeing you!’

Hope to see y'all come back next week after we dissect the next sermon!

#pastorsperspective #methodist #FUMC #pastorchad

2 notes · View notes

celiaelise · 2 years

Text

Did anyone else's k-12 education make a suspiciously rigid delineation between polytheism and monotheism? Like, every time they taught us about a religion, they made sure to frame it from that lens. I specifically remember having to sort religions into two little columns.

(*disclaimer for whatever I say next: I was always very bad at history classes, so I could definitely be misquoting or misunderstanding things. Also I know it's bad form to group together "Abrahamic" religions, but I was being taught a Christian-centric curriculum, and that's how it was presented to us.)

At some point I remember in history being taught about a predecessor to Christianity/Abrahamic faiths, and they were like, "this was ALMOST the first version of these religions as we know them today, except that it was VERY DIFFERENT because it had TWO gods." And then they told us about the two gods, and it was literally just "benevolent God" and the Devil. And I was like, how is that any different?

Like, if I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, I might assume that they just found the polytheistic/monotheistic distinction to be the most straightforward way to present this information to children, but I think it's much more likely that there are colonialist interests at play here. I think it definitely serves those interests to present "polytheistic" religions as "other".

Maybe it's just cause I'm Catholic and used to saints, who already get us accused of practicing polytheism by other Christian denominations, but it just doesn't seem like that big of a difference to me!! There are even lots of passages in the Bible that refer to other communities' gods as if they do exist, and are lesser than the Christian God. And I only ever remember scripture about "one true God" saying not to worship any other god, but not that they didn't exist. Plus there's the whole Holy Trinity thing. Like, "yes there're three of us but we are Definitely just ONE deity."

I also remember reading the Odyssey, and being struck by the way the pantheon was often referred to as a singular "god". (Similar to how one might shorten "mankind" to "man".) And I was like, "this sounds exactly like the way God is referred to in the Bible; who's to say parts of the Bible aren't ever referring to multiple entities?" This could've just been a thing with the grammar of the specific translation I was reading, and of course I've never read any of the Bible in its original languages, but I still think it's interesting to consider.

I'm probably missing a lot of cultural and historical context and putting my foot in my mouth or something; I've never actually studied any of these topics in a serious academic way. But I find religion very beautiful and fascinating, and I think it's a little silly to focus on a single difference between faiths and practices, instead of the much more interesting similarities.

Also I just really wish we got taught more context for what religion actually was hundreds and thousands of years ago, because from what I understand it often played a completely different role in societies than it does today. For example, I remember reading that religious leaders were often also the source for things like the performing arts, including dance and comedy. And all our guys (Christians) do nowadays is stand up there and talk a lot while everyone tries not to fall asleep.

#monotheism #polytheism #Christianity #Catholicism #colonialism #religion #theology #by elise

5 notes · View notes

officialyourdailyinspiration · 1 year

Text

Devotional Hours Within the Bible

by James Russell Miller

The First Temptation (Genesis 3)

The story of the first temptation is intensely interesting. We do not need to perplex ourselves with its form. There is enough in it that is plain and simple and of practical value, and we should not let our minds be confused by its mystery. Whatever the broader meaning of this first temptation may have been, everyone must meet a like personal experience, and hence this Genesis story has for us a most vital interest.

Everyone must be tempted. Untried life is not yet established. We must be tested and proved. It is the man who endures temptation, who is blessed. Our first parents did not endure.

It was in the garden of Eden, with beauty and happiness on every side. But even into this lovely home, came the tempter! He came stealthily. The serpent is a remarkable illustration of temptation: subtle, fascinating, approaching noiselessly and with an appearance of harmlessness which throws us off our guard.

The tempter began his temptation in a way which gave no alarm to the woman. He asked her, “Has God said You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?” The question indicated surprise that God should make such a prohibition. The tempter’s wish was, in a quiet and insinuating way, to impeach the goodness of God and make Eve think of Him as severe and harsh. His purpose was to put doubt of God’s goodness into the woman’s mind. “If God loved you would He deny you anything so good?”

The tempter still practices the same deep cunning. He wants to make people think that God is severe, that His restraints are unreasonable. He tries to make the young man think that his father is too stern with him; the young girl that her mother is too rigid. He seeks to get people to think themselves oppressed by the Divine requirements. That is usually the first step in temptation, and when one has begun to think of God as too exacting, he is ready for the next downward step.

Everything depends upon the way a person meets temptation. Parleying is always unsafe. Eve’s first mistake was in answering the tempter at all. She ought to have turned instantly away, refusing to listen. When there comes to us a wrong suggestion of any kind, the only wise and safe thing for us is immediately to shut the door of our heart in its face. To dally is usually to be lost. Our decision should be instant and absolute, when temptation offers. The poet gave a fine test of character when he said he would not take for a friend, the man who needlessly sets his foot upon a worm. With still greater positiveness should we refuse to accept as a friend, one who seeks to throw doubt on God’s goodness and love.

When the tempter finds a ready ear for his first approach he is encouraged to go on. In this case, having raised suspicion of the Divine goodness, he went on to question God’s veracity. “The serpent said unto the woman You shall not surely die!” He would not have said this at the first, for the woman would not have listened then to such an accusation against God. But one doubt makes way for another. She listened now, and was not shocked when the tempter went farther and charged God with insincerity .

The tempter still follows the same course with those he would draw away from God. He tells them that what God says about the consequences of disobedience is not true. He tries to make people believe that the soul that sins shall not die. He is still going about casting doubt upon God’s words and suggesting changes in the reading of the Bible. He even tried to tempt our Savior by misquoting and perverting Scripture! He sought to get Him to trust a Divine promise when He had no Divine command to do the thing suggested. We need to be sure of the character of the people we admit into our lives as friends, advisers, or teachers. Jesus tells us that His sheep know His voice. They know the voice of strangers, too, and will not listen to them, because they will not trust the words of strangers.

The tempter now goes a step farther with the woman. “God does know that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as God, knowing good and evil.” Instead of dying, as God had said they should, if they ate the forbidden fruit the devil said the eating of this fruit would open their eyes and make them wondrously wise, even something like God Himself!

The tempter talks in just the same way in these modern days. He tells the boys and young men, that doing certain things will make them smart and happy. He taunts them also with the ignorance of simple innocence, and suggests to them that they ought to see and experience the world. It will make men of them and give them power, influence and happiness. There is a great deal of this sort of temptation. A good many people cannot stand the taunt of being ‘religious’ or of being afraid to do certain things.

The temptation was successful. “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.” She listened to the cunning words of the tempter. Curiosity, ambition, and desire all awoke in her. The one prohibited thing in the garden, began to shine in such alluring colors that she forgot all the good things which were permitted to her. It all seemed dull and poor, compared with the imagined sweetness of the fruit they were not allowed to eat. The commandment of God faded out of her mind as she stood listening to the tempter and looking at the forbidden fruit before her. Then, fatal moment! She reached out her hand and took the fruit and the doleful deed was done! We never know what a floodgate of evil and sorrow one little thought or word or act may open what a river of harm and ruin may flow from it!

When one has yielded to temptation, the next step ofttimes is the tempting of others. “She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it!” Milton suggests that it was because of his love for Eve that Adam accepted the fruit from her hand. Since she had fallen, he wished to perish with her. Whatever the reason was for Adam’s yielding, we know that the common story is the tempted and fallen become tempters of others! The corrupted become corrupters of others. One of the blessings of companionship should be mutual help. Mountain climbers tie themselves together with ropes that the one may support the other. But sometimes one slips and drags the other with him down to death. Companionship may bring ruin, instead of blessing!

However pleasant sin may be, when it has been committed, a dark shadow falls over the soul. “The man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees.” The first thing after sinning is remorse, and then comes the desire to hide from God!

There is a story of a young man who entered the house of one who had been his friend, to steal costly jewels which he knew to be in a certain place. He made his way quietly into the room, found the trunk in which the jewels were kept, and opened it. Then glancing up he saw a portrait hanging on the wall the face of one he had known in years gone, in this house but who was now dead. The calm, deep eyes of his old companion looking down upon him, witnessing his dark deed, made him tremble. He tried to keep his back to the picture but he could not hold his gaze away from it. Yet he could not go on with his robbery. The steady looking of the eyes down upon him, maddened him. At length he took a knife and cut the eyes from the portrait and then finished his crime. If even human eyes looking down upon us make it impossible for us to commit sins how much more terrible is the eye of God to the guilty soul!

But it is impossible ever to get away from the presence of God. While the man and his wife were thus trying to hide, they heard God’s voice saying, “Where are you ?” It was not in anger but in love, that the Father thus followed His erring children. He sought them that He might save them. It is ever so. God is not to be dreaded even if we have done wrong. We never should flee from Him. He follows us but it is that He may find us and save us. Conscience is not an enemy, but a friend the voice of God speaking in love. People sometimes wish they could get away altogether from God, could silence His voice; but if this were possible, it would be unto the darkness of hopeless ruin!

It is pitiful to read in the narrative how, when asked regarding their sin, the man sought to put the blame on the woman. “The woman You put here with me she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” That is the way ofttimes when a man has done wrong, he blames somebody else. A drunkard said it was his wife’s fault, for she was not sociable at home and he went out evenings to find somebody to talk with. A young man fell into sin and said it was the fault of his companion who had tempted him. No doubt a share of guilt lies on the tempter of innocence and inexperience. It is a fearful thing to influence another to do wrong. Yet temptation does not excuse sin. We should learn that no sin of others in tempting us will ever excuse our sin in yielding. No one can compel us to do wrong. Our sin is always our own!

At once upon the dark cloud breaks the light! No sooner had man fallen, than God’s thought of redemption appears. “So the LORD God said to the serpent I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” This fifteenth verse is the gospel, the first promise of a Savior. It is very dim and indistinct, a mere glimmering of light, on the edge of the darkness. But it was a gospel of hope to our first parents, in their sorrow and shame. We understand now its full meaning. It is a star - word as it shines here. A star is but a dim point of light as we see it in the heavens but we understand that it is really a vast world, or center of a system of worlds. This promise holds in obscure dimness all the glory of all the after-revealings of the Messiah. As we read on in the Old Testament, we continually find new unfoldings, fuller revelations, until at length we have the promise fulfilled in the coming of Jesus Christ!

This story of the first temptation and fall, is not the record of one isolated failure at the beginning of the world’s history merely it is a record which may be written into every human biography. It tells us of the fearful danger of sin, and then of sin’s dreadful cost. What a joy it is that on the edge of this story of falling we have the promise of one who would overcome! Now we have the story of one who has overcome, “strong Son of God,” who also was tempted but who did not yield, and now is the Mighty Deliverer. He overcame the world. And in Him we have peace and salvation!

#Devotional Hours Within the Bible #James Russell Miller #The First Temptation #Genesis 3 #January 2 #2023

12 notes · View notes

skillzyo · 2 years

Text

Kava is a hardy silver Dragonborn that towers over most individuals, which can be a bit off-putting. Their silver scales have a blue tint when the light hits them just right. Before they became an adventurer, they served as a healer in their clan’s militia, which left them marked in more ways than just physical, especially after the bloody destruction of their clan. On the surface, they are courageous and always willing to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, but they tend to have a disregard for their own safety at times.

Kava isn’t exactly a pious individual, so when Torm, God of Courage and Self-Sacrifice, chooses them to be a conduit of his power, they’re inclined to believe there’s been some kind of mistake. Their knowledge of scripture is hit or miss, and they often misquote even the most popular of religious texts. Most of what they know about Torm comes from the memory of passing conversations they’d had with some of the friends they lost; friends that would have been far more deserving of a god’s power than they could ever be.

Deserving or not, Kava finds themself with a new source of power. Now the only question is, will it be enough to protect those they adopt into their new clan? Or will they be doomed to repeat history, even with divine aid?

------

Unknown to Kava, Torm’s choice in his newly sponsored cleric is not without complications. A bet with Selune, Goddess of the Moon, was made and champions chosen, but with one catch: They each choose the other’s champion.

Torm chose a follower of Selune that was the definition of a perfect acolyte. Selune, clever as ever, took a different route, and chose a candidate that would be a handful for Torm. But the world works in mysterious ways, so whose to say who will win and who will lose.

Fun Facts:

- Kava is Neutral Good

- At some point, Kava will multi-class in fighter.

- Kava has a charisma of 6, so please don’t take social advice from them.

- Despite Selune picking Kava because she wanted to put Torm at a disadvantage in their wager, it’s possible Kava was the perfect pick for the god of Courage and Self-Sacrifice, even if they don’t actively worship the way that is expected of them.

- Not long after the destruction of their clan, Kava stumbled upon a small group of hunters--possibly poachers--circled around a pseudodragon caught in one of their traps, poking and prodding at it, discussing what price different body parts would fetch on the market. Kava stepped in and saved the creature. After nursing it back to health, they expected it to return to the wild, but a bond was formed during that time, and a name was decided upon. And so, Tipsy the pseudodragon became the first member of Kava’s new clan.

- At some point, Kava absolutely meets the cleric that was chosen for Selune and absolutely has a small crush on her, not knowing that the two of them are supposed to be rivals. CLC = Cleric Loving Cleric

#my dnd characters

4 notes · View notes

ramrodd · 3 months

Text

youtube

COMMENTARY:

The method that Jimmy Tabor is using is dialectical Marxism,, He claims that he is using the universal critical historic method of the Post Modern Deconstruction, but he is only using the Marxist side of the parallel construct is using,

Jimmy's statement that Harmonization is the enemy of the Truth is a Marxist axiom. The Gospels are as organically harmonized as the hologram of Princess Leis in Star Wars, You literally cannot de-harmonize a hologram: if you break the plate that holds it, each fragment will display the complete gestalt but with the lost of resolution,

The resolution of the Gospels is deliberately filtered out by the dialectical Marxism of Post Modern Historic Deconstruction is the Christology and tthe Holy Spirit, Jimmy's academic method is a perfect example of the anti-war Teach Ins of left-wing campus radicals deconstructing the national purpose of America's presence in Vietnam as a rationalization for avoiding military service and the justification for avoiding the draft, Jimmy and his buddies in the Weather Underground were wrong about Vietnam and they are about the Harmonization of the Gospels being the enemy of the Truth,

Here's the thing: both the Jesus Seminar and the Pro-Life Evangelical Calvinism are different sides of the same solo scriptura forensics, Both sides want to control the meaning of the scriptures by demeaning the literature of the Bible to fit their particular theological hobby horse. For the Pro-Life Evangelicals, they want to violate Free Will in the name of the business model of the Total Depravity Gospel while the Jesus Seminar wants present Pauline Theology as an ethic separate from the Christology of Jesus,, which is why the Jesus Seminar is committed to presenting the chronological corruption of the Gospel of Mark being derivative of Pauline Theology,, which is to say, Paul's Epistles come before Pilate's lost euangelion to Tiberius regarding the Taking Cross.

Here's the thing: both the Jesus Seminar and the Pro-Life Narrative are products of the dialectical Materialism of Bos Modern Historic Deconstruction, The purpose of the Post Modern impulse is to devolve the paradox of Hegel's dialectical synthesis into dilemma, with the horns consisting of the Dialectical Idealism of Spinoza and Descartes of one horn and the dialectical Materialism of Aristotle/Locke Empiricism, the Natural Law side of the equation,

Dialectical Marxism is not Empiricism nor natural law, It is an ideological construct based on a process to achieve an Ideal state entirely by material metrics. This is what Jimmy Tabor is trying to do wih Pauline TheologyL achieving the ideal state of the Kingdom of Heaven with broken pottery,

In contraxt, N.T Wright represents the dialectical Idealism side of the Post Modern Historic Deconstruction: his interpretation of Pauline Theology is absolutely suffused with the Christology of the Gospels and informed by the Holy Spirit as to the intent of Paul's ethical system. N. T. Wright's interpretation of Pauline Theology is the Truth, The interpretation of Pauline Theology of Jemmy Tabor and of Campus Crusade for Christ is Marxist bullshit. N.T. Wright is, philosophically, opposed to Hegel, but the irony is his interpretation of Pauline Theology is ttally harmonic with the hologram of Jesus in the Gospels.

I took Dr. Tabor's Mark course on-line and his Ten Events in Mark 11 & 12 is worth the price of admission, The thing is, he cannot avoid the Christology of the Gospels with the withering of the fig tree before the cleansing of the Temple, Ant that is exactly the source of the fraud in all things Jesus Seminar, including Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus business model. You cannot employ the Christology of the Gospels to disprove the Christology of Jesus

#Youtube

0 notes