I genuinely wonder - and I say this without glee, just weariness while watching Christofascism's rise in the US - how many folks who draw strength from their idea of an all-loving Christ are now discovering for the first time some of the nastier things his Biblical character says & does.
For instance, I don't think most folks who adore Christ & believe him perfect were aware of the Millstone verses (Matthew 18:6, Luke 17:1-2).
That must be a shock for many. I sorely feel for them at this time.
@MLClark I don't think most people know how to interpret those verses correctly, especially the fascists.
People at large don't read religious books anymore - they just cherrypick small excerpts of larger chapters and present it, usually out of context, to support their own narratives and narrow-minded understanding.
That being said, no faith-based religious argument has a place in government.
@tyote @MLClark Even assuming that person existed, we have a document that is so far removed from his actual lifetime, that’s been interpreted, translated, canonized, sanitized, etc., to the point that it’s rendered all but a complete guess, based on the assumed good faith of two thousand years’ worth of people who stood to gain in numerous ways by manipulating “the word.”
The Catholic church really did excise several books from canon, when there's a verse in the Bible that says anyone who does so will basically go to Hell. That's either hubris, or an admission.
You take the faulty translations and the excised books, and then add in the fact that most people think italics in Biblical text is done for emphasis, when really it's an older way to show a translator's "interpretation" of that word, and you have one mangled book & church.
@tyote @MLClark And my comment was directed at neither of you… I just find it humorous, (on a good day) when people try to argue “he said,” based on what we have as “evidence.” It’s not even anything to do with the OP, but scrolling through the replies when anyone brings up this character, (M.L.’s word) in any venue, makes for some… interesting dialogue.
There's also this very interesting ahistoric way that we view text from another era, always with this bizarre assumption of an "Ur-text" behind it all, when we're talking about an era of predominantly oral storytelling. Why on Earth do so many presume that folks back then believed their very first attempt to set something down wouldn't require revision, too? It's such a misguided approach to text as a medium, when it was just one tool among many in a low-literate society.
A+, no notes. đź‘Ś
@MLClark Big red shoes, for everyone!
@MLClark @tyote I’m sure they got it right the first time.
My disclaimer reads that any faith-based perspective is equally valid.
https://youtu.be/t8rBRj_MpMI