Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion

Well yeah. It’s the gospel of Luke. Written decades after his death (if you believe he existed).
No I'm saying that was in the third person and was at the end of a parable. And therefore your Jesus is 'gangsta' shit is nonsense.

But yeah all hail 4Chan now isn't it. Or am I still hilariously out of date?:)
 
No I'm saying that was in the third person and was at the end of a parable. And therefore your Jesus is 'gangsta' shit is nonsense.

But yeah all hail 4Chan now isn't it. Or am I still hilariously out of date?:)
Stand corrected. Still a pretty harsh message though.

The Parable of the Ten Minas
(Matthew 25:14–30)

11While the people were listening to this, Jesus proceeded to tell them a parable, because He was near Jerusalem and they thought the kingdom of God would appear imminently. 12So He said, “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to lay claim to his kingship and then return. 13Beforehand, he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.a ‘Conduct business with this until I return,’ he said.

14But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us.’

15When he returned from procuring his kingship, he summoned the servants to whom he had given the money, to find out what each one had earned.

16The first servant came forward and said, ‘Master, your mina has produced ten more minas.’

17His master replied, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very small matter, you shall have authority over ten cities.’

18The second servant came and said, ‘Master, your mina has made five minas.’

19And to this one he said, ‘You shall have authority over five cities.’

20Then another servant came and said, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have laid away in a piece of cloth.b 21For I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man. You withdraw what you did not deposit and reap what you did not sow.’

22His master replied, ‘You wicked servant, I will judge you by your own words. So you knew that I am a harsh man, withdrawing what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then did you not deposit my money in the bank, and upon my return I could have collected it with interest?’

24Then he told those standing by, ‘Take the mina from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25‘Master,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26He replied, ‘I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me.’ ”
 
I prefer Matthew 18:23-35

23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold[a] was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. 26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. 28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins.[b] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded. 29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’ 30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened. 32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
 
I prefer Matthew 18:23-35

23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold[a] was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. 26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. 28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins.[b] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded. 29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’ 30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened. 32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
I'm confused. How are you meant to get the money to pay the debt if you are in prison and being tortured. Story makes no sense.
 
Matthew 6
1
"Be careful not to do your `acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2
"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
3
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
 
On inconsistencies between gospels: I would note that worrying about those kind of details is a very post-enlightenment perspective. It comes from the idea that there is a concrete reality containing a truth that can be identified and discovered. Pre-enlightenment thinking was more allegorical, metaphorical and fragmented than this. The fact that there are inconsistencies between gospels would not therefore necessarily have even been considered as a problem by the council of Nicaea. All versions accurately tell the story as seen from the perspective of the author and you hold all versions “true” at once, for the right type of “true”.

Lest we get too superior over those ancient idiots, I would gently note that this type of multiphrenic representation is still fundamental to humans today, even if it isn’t always as explicit as the problems with the gospels. We follow moral codes that contain glaring inconsistencies. We give people advice that we don’t follow ourselves. Doctors smoke and financial advisers gamble. Somebody might go to the hospital and also go to see an alternative medicine practitioner. In short, we don’t subject our beliefs and actions to rigorous logical scrutiny. The only difference now is that we have the philosophical systems that allow us to identify and talk about it.
 
Pre-enlightenment thinking was more allegorical, metaphorical and fragmented than this.
I feel like this characterisation of pre-Enlightenment thinking is only understandable from a post-Enlightenment perspective, and so I wonder how people in The Olden Days thought about their own thinking.
 
Lest we get too superior over those ancient idiots, I would gently note that this type of multiphrenic representation is still fundamental to humans today, even if it isn’t always as explicit as the problems with the gospels. We follow moral codes that contain glaring inconsistencies. We give people advice that we don’t follow ourselves. Doctors smoke and financial advisers gamble. Somebody might go to the hospital and also go to see an alternative medicine practitioner. In short, we don’t subject our beliefs and actions to rigorous logical scrutiny. The only difference now is that we have the philosophical systems that allow us to identify and talk about it.

But the difference is that we know humans are fallible. God is supposed to be infallible, but he somehow can't convey to us a consistent document?
 
But the difference is that we know humans are fallible. God is supposed to be infallible, but he somehow can't convey to us a consistent document?
I don't think early Christians thought that the Bible was the absolute word of God. After all, they were the ones assembling the books that make up the Bible.
 
I don't think early Christians thought that the Bible was the absolute word of God. After all, they were the ones assembling the books that make up the Bible.

Sure, but then it becomes a question of why couldn't God "divinely inspire" humans to at least produce a document self-consistent enough that other humans couldn't poke so many holes in it. What gives the Bible any more authority on anything, as compared to any other document assembled in a likewise fashion?
 
Sure, but then it becomes a question of why couldn't God "divinely inspire" humans to at least produce a document self-consistent enough that other humans couldn't poke so many holes in it. What gives the Bible any more authority on anything, as compared to any other document assembled in a likewise fashion?
But why should God divinely inspire humans to produce a perfect document? Why can't the Bible just be an anthology of texts that people of a certain faith assemble because they think those are the best ones?

Of course, the assertion that any work is the absolute word of God must depend on extra-textual evidence anyway, otherwise you are just begging the question.
 
But why should God divinely inspire humans to produce a perfect document? Why can't the Bible just be an anthology of texts that people of a certain faith assemble because they think those are the best ones?

Of course, the assertion that any work is the absolute word of God must depend on extra-textual evidence anyway, otherwise you are just begging the question.

I said self-consistent, not perfect. If God wants salvation for as many as possible, then there's plenty of scope for his works to be a hell of a lot more convincing than they are currently.

If the Bible really was divinely inspired, even if done through imperfect human vessels, then it should at least be somewhat obvious, at least as compared any other document from any other (presumably false) religion that claims divine inspiration. Yet what do we see? They're all equal in that respect.
 
I said self-consistent, not perfect. If God wants salvation for as many as possible, then there's plenty of scope for his works to be a hell of a lot more convincing than they are currently.

If the Bible really was divinely inspired, even if done through imperfect human vessels, then it should at least be somewhat obvious, at least as compared any other document from any other (presumably false) religion that claims divine inspiration. Yet what do we see? They're all equal in that respect.
The problem is that you grew up in a world in which the Bible existed and was taken to be by many, in some way, a divinely inspired book. But for the people assembling it, there was no such background. They were a community of people with various oral and written traditions and they had lots of different books. No one set out to create a consistent operating manual from scratch. The idea of a single text that contains all the important information about life didn't exist yet, that came centuries later.
 
Not even God? Bit of a blind spot for a supposedly omniscient being.
You’re presuming to know what the ineffable, infinite, omniscient being’s aims are, and that it is failing in those aims. What has happened could well have been exactly what was intended. You can’t logic-chop your way through an epistemology built on omniscience as axiomatic.
 
The fact that there are inconsistencies between gospels would not therefore necessarily have even been considered as a problem by the council of Nicaea.
Especially as the council of Nicaea had nothing to do with deciding the biblical canon or which were the true Gospels, but was about the nature and divinity of Christ, in particular the problem of Arianism.
 
Especially as the council of Nicaea had nothing to do with deciding the biblical canon or which were the true Gospels, but was about the nature and divinity of Christ, in particular the problem of Arianism.
You got me there, my knowledge of historical Christian specifics isn’t detailed enough for that. Doesn’t change the point being made, though.
 
You’re presuming to know what the ineffable, infinite, omniscient being’s aims are, and that it is failing in those aims. What has happened could well have been exactly what was intended. You can’t logic-chop your way through an epistemology built on omniscience as axiomatic.

But that cuts both ways, doesn't it? If scripture provides no reliable insight into the divine plan, then no human can honestly claim to be thinking and acting in accordance with it. We can't tell if what we're told is Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) is actually inspired by true divinity, or is nothing more than a deception from the Demiurge. Or else everything is in accordance with the divine plan axiomatically, and thus disbelief is just as much a part of it as disbelief, rendering any proselytation moot.

It seems all so... self-negating when I think about it. When it seems to me that shit is, in fact, knowable. I'm probably not explaining myself very well.
 
Back
Top Bottom