OT: religion

[scaredyclassic]

“Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

i dont know, this seems kind of vague to me. he never defines “rich”. probably he should have put in some minimum income level. he doesn’t separate the truly “rich” who possess assets, from people who are currently rich based on income, but whose income can vary from year to year. Frankly, I have no idea even if “rich” here means rich in terms of money, cattle, knowledge, social capital, o r whatever.

this passage definitely wasn’t run through legal.

he says rich people cannot “enter” heaven, but it’s not clear whether there are other ways to get into heaven other than “entering” into it. maybe you can be transported, maybe you can ride under an angel’s wing throught the walls.

although he states it’s hard to enter heaven for the rich, perhaps rich people are actually better people, more blessed by G-d obviously, since they have all this stuff, so blessed, , so thoroughly blessed, unlike the unblessed unrich, , so it should actually be harder for the rich to get into heaven, because they’re up to the challenge, being betterly blessed. He gives man no cross he cannot bear, including a slightly increased difficulty level of getting into heaven..

nowadays, when we are christian and rich, we just say, man, we are so blessed, and move on to the consumption. i think the above quote isinterpreted as, well, as long as you love G-d, you get to keep your loot, just dont focus ont he loot too much or act too grubby. act like you dont care too much about cash, as that is bad form.

. which seems not unreaosnable an inerpretation for nowadays, since we aall attend the church of consumption and mammon in the USA, but an interpretation not all that super christian in the context of the entire text. you know, the love your neighbor as yourself junk, which kind of implies not hoarding monies and properties and such but instead kinda spreading the wealth and not getting too attached to your own goods. or family even….

maybe the quote should ahve been, love your neighbor as you love your own children, since people generally subconsciously loathe themselves.

so keep it all nice and secure, unless we are superrich, in which case it all gets meaningless and you have to work hard to give it away.

[Coronita]

“A priest and a lawyer died and went to heaven. They were met by Saint Peter at the gate, who told them he would be giving them some transportation to get around in. He gave the lawyer a big white limousine. The priest was given a bicycle. The priest said “wait a minute” you gave the lawyer a limousine and me a bicycle. Why is that? St. Peter replied, oh we get a lot of priests in Heaven, but this is the first time a lawyer has made it. ”

[outtamojo]

[quote=flu][quote=Blogstar]I always wondered why so many Christians go on and get rich. I was so scared that I’d never get to heaven if I made any money. Now I realize that the people preaching that were hoarding it all. And now, it really wasn’t supposed to be that the meek should inherit the earth….proven that G-d meant geeks. So many people so desperate to be meek and poor all these years when the should have been dabbling in semi conductors.[/quote]

Come on now.. Ministers need their $60million private jets! Afterall, flying first class is just not good enough!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/13/living/creflo-dollar-jet-feat/

Minister Creflo Dollar asks for $60 million in donations for a new jet

Ironic that the Gulfstream he wants is $65million, so if he’s only asking for $60, I’m assuming there’s already $5million in donations he’s counting on….Lol…$65 million is a lot of money that could help the poor and need. But hey, a jet is a “need”…Helping poor/unfortunate people is a “want”. God might be perfect, people and there churches sure aren’t.[/quote]

Those prosperity theologists believe wealth is a blessing from God . One can only imagine how they feel about the one percenters.

[phaster]

haha, like the photo, appeals to my analytical mid-set

as an “economics” experiment I would have added another category/plate that some might argue is “religious” in nature

“devout heathen-capitalist!”

FWIW ever consider that the 10 commandments at least the in the catholic tradition is rally an admonishment/warning of “capitalist-consumerism” and worshiping at the shopping mall

1st commandment: “I am the lord thy God, thou shall not have any other gods before me!”

[scaredyclassic]

anyone read THE SUN? sucha beautiful magazine. here’s a poem from this mmonth’s isue:

STORM ON GALILEE

What’s instructive is not
that he walked on water
but that he seemed so unharrassed
by the possibility of complete
and utter catastrophe. Yes,
it could all fall apart, he seemed to say;
yes, the storm could turn your little ship
into a sudden coffin–yes. Faith , he told us then,
is not trusting things will one day be better.
Faith is trusting things could never be better. No matter what.

by teddy macker.

this months issue has a n article called enigma abou a guy’s dad that ismaybe the best magazine article ive ever read…

[zk]

[quote=zk]
As I said, evidence that there’s no god is impossible. There is basically no evidence for god. If a person claims to believe something outrageous for which there is no evidence, we view him as though there’s something wrong with him. Unless that belief involves god. In which case we say, “oh, yeah. He believes in a supernatural, universe-encompassing, omnipotent, magical being in the sky for which there’s no evidence. Ok, that’s fine. He’s ok. Nothing to see here.”[/quote]

And then, and this is the part that’s frustrating, our society says, “oh, wow. He doesn’t believe in a supernatural, universe-encompassing, omnipotent, magical being in the sky for which there’s no evidence. What’s wrong with him?”

Is it just me, or is that ridiculous?

[NotCranky]

[quote=zk][quote=zk]
As I said, evidence that there’s no god is impossible. There is basically no evidence for god. If a person claims to believe something outrageous for which there is no evidence, we view him as though there’s something wrong with him. Unless that belief involves god. In which case we say, “oh, yeah. He believes in a supernatural, universe-encompassing, omnipotent, magical being in the sky for which there’s no evidence. Ok, that’s fine. He’s ok. Nothing to see here.”[/quote]

And then, and this is the part that’s frustrating, our society says, “oh, wow. He doesn’t believe in a supernatural, universe-encompassing, omnipotent, magical being in the sky for which there’s no evidence. What’s wrong with him?”

Is it just me, or is that ridiculous?[/quote]
I would say about that kind of closed case , something is wrong with non-believers, it’s oppressive, It’s as bad as the N word, but then I’d be a whiner.

[scaredyclassic]

in many areas of society, you ahve to be able to say you believe in something that is obviously false. this is another aspect of social training provided by religion, similar but slightly different than saying one thing and doing another. By saying the truth, you are basically signalling that you are not willing to play the game. don’t do that. it is necessary to the survival of any society,a nd its members, that they be able to swear up and down something is true that all evidence points to the contrary thereof.

[scaredyclassic]

reminds me of Richard Pryor. He told the story of his wife catching him with another woman. He denies anything is going on, and asks his wife, “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” The story is in his filmed comedy performance, “Live on the Sunset Strip.”

which makes me think, it doesnt matter how many tapes of cop beatings or murders we get, people will beleive the polcei are essentially good and only lie on or hurt bad guys….

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]in many areas of society, you ahve to be able to say you believe in something that is obviously false. this is another aspect of social training provided by religion, similar but slightly different than saying one thing and doing another. By saying the truth, you are basically signalling that you are not willing to play the game. don’t do that. it is necessary to the survival of any society,a nd its members, that they be able to swear up and down something is true that all evidence points to the contrary thereof.[/quote]

Well, that’s certainly an interesting perspective. And, of course, not being able to change all of society, maybe a better response than frustration would be to just zen* that part of it or to even join in and pretend.

But that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.

*zen meaning the meditative practice of focusing on the present without judging, therefore preventing frustration, not meaning anything religious.

[NotCranky]

Faith people tend to do battle against science. There was an article in National Geographic recently about this.”THe War Against Science” The condemnation of individual non-believers is only part of it. Condemning science is much, much, worse.

Also, the obvious, faith actually kills a lot of people or reserves the right to. It’s really about bullying and power, not like Santa Claus is real or not.

[scaredyclassic]

i take my inspiration from the cryptojews. real thing. they were jews who on the surface switched oevr the christianity to avoid death during the spanish inquisition. on the surface, they sang about how they loved jesus, etc. but deep undercover, they kept what they were told in secret whispers was the true religion going, the g-d of our fathers, the one that worships the one true G-d.

Centuries later, they find these cryptojews scattered around the globe, not really sure why they are keeping certain jewish practices, not even aware theya re jewish necessarily, that marker being driopped over the centuries, but just doing certain rituals, because successive generations were informed that this or that prayer or act must be done and to be silent about it.

cryptojews! we should all be so slick…survibg phonies who deep down reject the violent oppressors.

[NotCranky]

Maybe those scientist who profess faith are crypto-scientists? I don’t like the idea of being a crypto-non believer , of course I am relatively safe from torture, all good as long as I don’t want to be president of the most free nation ever.

[scaredyclassic]

given what a bunch of phony ass phonies mankind is, we are all cryptojews now.

[NotCranky]

What does “science and religion are compatible” really mean anyway?

More phoniness?

[Author]

Posts