Psalms is arguably the least exciting book in the Bible. It's like reading through a hymnal. Well, it's not like that, it is that because it's literally a book of songs.
Chronicles, either one. The only verse that peaks anyone's interest is 1 Chron 11:4, because it mentions Jebus
Chronicles is mostly someone explaining family trees to you, here's the first 30ish verses:
Adam, Sheth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
And the sons of Gomer; Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
The sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.
And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabta, and Raamah, and Sabtecha. And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be mighty upon the earth.
And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (of whom came the Philistines,) and Caphtorim.
And Canaan begat Zidon his firstborn, and Heth, the Jebusite also, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite.
The sons of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech. And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber. And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan. And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah, Hadoram also, and Uzal, and Diklah, and Ebal, and Abimael, and Sheba, and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan. Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram; the same is Abraham.
The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael. These are their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, Mishma, and Dumah, Massa, Hadad, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael.
Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Henoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these are the sons of Keturah.
And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac; Esau and Israel.
"Why is Jesus always preaching liberal talking points!? And those prophets in the old testament are getting all pissed about people not taking care of the poor. That sounds like SoCiAlIsM!"
23 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.”
Matthew 19:23-24
The "eye of a needle" referenced here was a small opening in the city walls meant to reduce traffic for security. A camel piled up with goods would would have a difficult time passing through it.
Edit: as others have pointed out, there isn't any good evidence about the "eye of a needle" metaphor. I heard this from my pastor at church when I was a kid and it sounds like he was mistaken. I wonder what else he got wrong...
As a Catholic they always preached it to me as an actual needle.
It was until I left the church and visited a Christian church (trying to fit with my girlfriend at the time) the pastor talked about the "gate of Jerusalem" and that it was difficult but not impossible (of course the pastor arrived in a BMW X6M to the service and was asking for the tithe).
That's when I looked online for this but there is no strong evidence, and the doors called "eye of needle" are from Europe from the year ~1000CE
Additionally, its more likely that the camel is a mistranslation, since the words for "camel" and "rope" are nearly identical both in Aramaic and Greek.
The “eye of a needle” referenced here was a small opening in the city walls meant to reduce traffic for security. A camel piled up with goods would would have a difficult time passing through it.
I also saw that episode of 700 Club when I was a child. Old Pat there suddenly seemed real concerned that we were taking a 4000 year old work into proper context for its time on THAT issue, right?
I mean it's probably bullshit because of how convenient it is that the lines explicitly saying rich people aren't going to be as blessed are like, the ONLY works that are examined critically and turn out to mean something else entirely? Bull. Fucking. Shit.
But even if it's not a steaming pile, if you accept this interpretation, doesn't that open up the rest of the bible for complete reimagining and reinterpretation of everything written? How do we know what else is a metaphor or not? So only special 'blessed" people are supposed to translate the text correctly for us illiterate, sinful masses? I think we've been through this debate before in history.
What I think is important here, and what is seems many in the comments below are missing out on, is that Jesus says that it is hard, not impossible. Giving all your money away will not suddenly make you a good person, just as never having had money does not mean you are a good person. Jesus charged his followers with living lives of self sacrifice on the behalf of others in all aspects. Annias and saphira did not drop dead because they did not give up their goods but because they lied about it. I know many Christians who have done very well financially and are the most generous people I know. I also know some who are very stingy and uncompassionate with their money. The fact is, those who have more, have more that they have to give up. Those who have less, have less to give up. Each, however, is charged to live in the same manner.
God asks us to give freely and abundantly as he does. This is not forced upon us, though. There is no forcing someone to obey certian things in Christianity. Jesus says that is we love him, we will keep his commands. Those who choose not to keep his commands are demonstrating a greater love for whatever the opposite is at that time. Love involves choice, though. It is not a socialists ideology enforced upon every person. A perfect christian community would look socialistic but would arrive there through the perfect love of one's neighbors. Unfortunately, we do not live in a world of perfect Christians whose every decision is fuled by the love of others. I would also suspect that many, if not most on here, would have a problem with Christians forcing upon others their beliefs so as to attempt to achieve this. That, however, is what would be happening if someone forced upon others a socialists society without their consent.
No, he says it's impossible. Because the needle wasn't a gate, it was a needle. And that's really clear from the quote in context:
Matthew 19:21-24
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 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.”
He was really, really clear on this. Do not be rich. The only way he could have been clearer is if he had literally said, "do not be rich." Oh wait, he pretty much did say that.
Luke 6:20
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
But come on, he didn't say that you should be dirt poor. Like you can still have some nice stuff, right? That thing in Matthew was metaphorical, right?
Like 18:22
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
I will have to downvote because of the misinformation on the eye of the needle claim. That is almost certainly false - there really isn't any evidence of this and the theory seems to come from the middle ages.
Similarly, camel probably means camel, not cable (as a popular theory suggests).
And between believers of the faith. Context for the verse makes you understand that these people were not just just knowing each other, they were inside a fellowship. They know each other intimately, not just a bunch of unknown people sharing just because
It isn't voluntary if you know you will go to hell if you don't. That's the illusion of choice. If I threatened to take a baseball bat to your head unless you acted nice to someone who didn't deserve it, chances are you would go along with it. You got a reason and a threat. It's a choice in a very very loose sense of the word. Hell is an infinity of pain, thus there is no choice.
So they justify not being socialist according to this verse by the word believers. They don’t want to share with non-believers or even believers of other denominations (they are also non-believers since they aren’t exactly the same). So they can be non-socialist and just tithe and think it’s fine
The tithe is an Old Testament standard. The New Testament says that they should give whatever the pastor asks. If the pastor asks for 30%, they are theologically supposed to give 30%.
There is actually nothing in the bible about giving in accordance to what a "pastor" says. I am not sure where you got that from. While you are correct that the "tithe" as described in the OT no longer applies because we are not giveing to the temple, Jesus' command is to give freely, abundantly, and sacrificially out if s cheerful heart. The jews at Jesus' time would have actually given a good bit more than 10% because of the various annual festivals that also required a percent to be given. What they were giving was in support of the upkeep of the temple and the priestly line who was prohibited from working elsewhere. For Christians, there is no priestly line. We have two offices according to the NT, Elder and deacon. Neither of these are entitled to financial compensation because of the title. Where we get that we should compensate them for their work from the command that a laborers should not be without his wages, and many pastors are doing work that amounts to a full time job. The fact of the matter right now is that most "pastors" across the world are bivocational meaning that they hold other jobs if time allows.
SUDDENLY THE BIBLE REQUIRES TRANSLATION INTO TODAY'S CONTEXT AND TERMS HUH
These fuckers will scream the bible can't be wrong when it comes to judging others but the moment they realize Jesus asked them to do something for other people and not just scream at people who look different, now all of a suddenly, we need to define what the term "riches" mean and we have to take into account it's a 4000 year old work, etc. etc.
This doesn't even touch the part shortly after this verse about a couple that lied about giving everything to the church and god opened up the earth to swallow them for bucking the socialist system.
They love to cite the parts of Leviticus that condemn homosexual behavior, but suddenly when Leviticus starts telling you where to get your slaves and how cruel you should be, it's "but that's the Old Testament!! 🤓☝️"
You know christian "communism" is a thing right? Amy Coney Barret was raised in a Catholic Commune Cult. They love this shit. They say "we want to live like Jesus's disciples," and then set up their own patriarchal fiefdoms and don't pay taxes.
Socialism isn't when sharing. This won't even work to piss off a conservative who has half a brain and they would be just as correct in refuting it. Don't get me wrong, I love me some liberation gospel, but people should really study some socialist literature, preferably Marx/Engels.
Alternatively there’s the Catholic workers who don’t discuss abortion because they all agree their position on it is obvious, shame they can’t agree on what that obvious position is. They’re actually leftists, and they’re often among the first to risk personal harm when necessary.
They can be, I agree catholic workers are some of the kindest, most loving and open hearted people; but people from the professional class can be some of the most conservative psychos this foul culture is capable of producing. Remember the Federalist society, at the heart of the conspiracy to turn our courts into a blatant apparatus of class war, is a Catholic organization.
So as in a lot of cases, ideology is more of a class thing. There's religion for the rich and, religion for the poor and they are very different
Because religion for the rich is different than religion for the poor.
Also cognitive dissonance doesn't explain much, its a thought terminating explainer for people who can't deal with contradiction. We shouldnt stop analyzing when we discover contradictions, that's when real analysis begins
I’m pretty sure most liberals would give a similar or identical answer. You guys love private property so much, you even use it to justify slavery and genocide!
Sometimes I have trouble telling the difference between liberals and nazis, since nazis were inspired by the USA and liberals like the Rockefellers funded the nazis (and were never punished for doing so). The nazis also came to power specifically during the liberal Weimar period.
This is not about me nor what I believe. However, even if I did believe that one person should be allowed to rent their home to someone else, that doesn't mean I worship private property like a god.
'Worship' and 'god' are words that have meanings. Perhaps you should look them up if you think 'believes someone should be legally allowed to rent their home to someone else' applies to either word.
Sorry, you're moving the goalposts now. This was about worshiping property as a god.
Is believing that someone can rent their home to someone else worshiping property as a god? If so, please define 'worship' and 'god' as they apply to this context.
Is believing that someone can rent their home to someone else worshiping property as a god?
Yes, it means you support parasitism, slavery, and guzzling the blood of workers like the vampire you are.
If so, please define ‘worship’ and ‘god’ as they apply to this context.
Worship: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.
"the worship of God"
God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
Yes, it means you support parasitism, slavery, and guzzling the blood of workers like the vampire you are.
Really? If I rent my house to my friend because I've moved to another city and they need a place to live and they get to cover maintenance costs and not have to go into debt with a mortgage, that means I support parasitism, slavery and guzzling the blood of workers?
Worship: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity. “the worship of God”
God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. “a moon god”
None of that applies to owning or renting a home. In any way.
Really? If I rent my house to my friend because I’ve moved to another city and they need a place to live and they get to cover maintenance costs and not have to go into debt with a mortgage, that means I support parasitism, slavery and guzzling the blood of workers?
Yes. How does all that blood taste?
None of that applies to owning or renting a home. In any way.
I see, so the thing to do that would not be parasitic enslavement and vampirism would be to put someone else in debt and enrich myself by selling the house.
You're right, why didn't I see this before? Profit over giving a friend a home is the right way to go about things. Thank you for explaining it to me.
No, the thing to do would be to abolish landlordism and ensure that no one is in debt for necessities. The USA currently has twenty million empty housing units and half a million homeless people. This is where your reasonable moderation gets you.
It’s not easy to start one, but it’s easy to educate, agitate, and organize, which is what I do constantly. It’s also easy to avoid expressing opinions (“why can’t I exploit my friend?”) that will put you in a re-education camp (at the very least) when the revolution comes.
I see, forcing my friend to go into debt when I could give them a way to avoid doing that would be not exploiting them. And thus worshiping property like a god. Because if the revolution happens, I will be shot for helping my friend have a home.
Yes, you've already made it clear that refusing to let my friend live in my otherwise empty home at what it would have cost me, making no profit for myself, rather than making them go into debt to buy a home and selling my home for a profit is the only way to get free from the capitalist blood cult I worship.
No profits is a cornerstone of capitalism, after all.
I'm capable of imagining it, but it's not the world I live in. I live in a world where people go into massive debt if they buy houses and those houses cost money to maintain whether I like it or not.
But I will take your "helping friends means you're a capitalist vampire" criticism to heart and never help anyone again. Altruism is, after all, evil. Anti-capitalist Ayn Rand said so.
there are two types of religious people whom i will respect.
Extremely devout Christians. (they often do more good than negative) They'll spend a lot more time reading and practicing religious texts, than yelling about gay people or whatever.
and those who are what i like to refer to as "standing" religious. They identify as religious, but it's primarily for personal reasons. They generally don't practice religion outside of their personal experience in the world.
I think this needs a little clarification. The culture war bullshit is real because these laws have real effects, its just all fake in its justification. You pull the mask off the culture war and its just rich people trying to pin their crimes on marginalized groups.
My favorite story from the bible is when Jesus storms into a temple and starts whipping the living shit out of everyone as they were counting gold and their riches. Jesus was a god damn socialist hero.
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeeredb at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the named of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
For sure and not just families. I'm sure nearly every English speaker has heard the story of Egypt and the 10 plagues.
We have to remember, its a choice they made. I mean, they're god. They can do anything right? God could've just teleported the Israelites away. He could've just made the Egyptians temporarily blind or fall asleep for a few months, keeping them alive while doing so. He could've given all the Israelites individual flaming chariots. He could've made flaming rail infrastructure and run a flaming railway service for the Israelites to leave on.
"No, I told you already. Its child murder or nothing, Moses."
You forgot the best part (I’m not sure there is an agreed-upon translation, so I’ll cite oremus randomly). The sentiment is repeated throughought the 10 plagues, but it’s most concise in chapter 10:
Pharaoh hurriedly summoned Moses and Aaron and said, ‘I have sinned against the Lord your God, and against you. Do forgive my sin […]’ […] The Lord changed the wind into a very strong west wind, which lifted the locusts and drove them into the Red Sea; not a single locust was left in all the country of Egypt. But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.
Written decades after all eyewitnesses had died as pure propaganda. Luke/Acts was a response to Matthew v Mark war. Mark had vomited all over the James community, Matthew tried to redeem the James community a bit, Luke/Acts tries to put Pauline and James community on equal footing.
Now it's true Paul pushed for charity and tried for a semi-equality in his churches but how much he pushed or how much of that goal was "nice to have" is debatable. It's likely his letters were transcribed by slaves for example.
Basically this is a classic example of ancestor worship. With an added twist that the author was trying to win a political point or two.
