It’s source: Jesus and his disciples as compiled decades later with some efforts at editing and revision. (e.g. Proverbs Thessalonians is allegedly sourced from Paul even though the scholarly consensus is that it’s counterfeit, and written after Paul by a ghostwriter.)
The bible is not univocal, not inerrant and not divinely inspired, so, as scholar Dan McClellan notes, every Christian has to negotiate with the text to arrive at doctrinal mores and values they agree with.
Ultimately, the bible can be used to justify anything, and it is!
Considering the most obvious biblical take on slavery and on women, the bible isn’t that great a source for personal and social values to begin with.
My point stands. Real Christians would pay attention to Christ - they see the source as valid. Of course the texts have been manipulated over many years - and have less than ideal takes on slavery and on women.
Fortunately, Christ’s teachings are still pretty clear and are easily quotable and digestible. It’s harder to twist Jesus to serve hateful narratives than it is to quote Jesus and the love he obviously taught.
You don’t have to twist Jesus to make him seem like a bastard. He kinda preaches love, sometimes, but also preaches doing a bunch of shitty, immature, and sometimes downright heinous shit.
Surely there are examples (of which I am aware of a few), but they do not take from his overall teachings. I’m not the devoted Christian that the other commenter mistakenly views me as, but someone who understands the gist of the New Testament because I was forced into Christian High School and studied the Bible as a whole. It was a subject that I was graded on, so I’d like to say I probably understand the general themes better than most.
Although I do repress a lot from that time and I suffered multiple TBIs, so maybe I’m completely off-base. I don’t believe that I am, though.
The gist of the New Testament is “everyone thinks the old God is vengeful and mean, so we’re gonna send a new one down to rehab his image, but in reality, he’s (literally) still the same old vengeful bastard who condones violence, rape, and killing, but somehow got billions of people to look the other way on that because he says love thy neighbor once”
I might be thinking of Thessalonians. Not a biblical scholar, I, but there are still known late-age revisions known by scholarly consensus that are yet regarded as canon by major religious ministries.
The bible also teems with internal conflicts and passages that are commonly misinterpreted in modern theology, so it has to be negotiated with.
An awful lot of people identify as Christians while ignoring the calls for charity and compassion and being wary of hoarding wealth.
Enough folk to say that greed and cruelty are in fact Christian values for some Christians.
And you’re not going to be able to convince any of them they’re not really all that Christian.
It really doesn’t take many verses to convince somebody who truly believes in God and believes Jesus died for their sins.
Just because there is propaganda doesn’t mean that it is ironclad. And it’s not “Source: Trust me bro”, it’s “Source: Jesus and his disciples”.
It’s source: Jesus and his disciples as compiled decades later with some efforts at editing and revision. (e.g.
ProverbsThessalonians is allegedly sourced from Paul even though the scholarly consensus is that it’s counterfeit, and written after Paul by a ghostwriter.)The bible is not univocal, not inerrant and not divinely inspired, so, as scholar Dan McClellan notes, every Christian has to negotiate with the text to arrive at doctrinal mores and values they agree with.
Ultimately, the bible can be used to justify anything, and it is!
Considering the most obvious biblical take on slavery and on women, the bible isn’t that great a source for personal and social values to begin with.
My point stands. Real Christians would pay attention to Christ - they see the source as valid. Of course the texts have been manipulated over many years - and have less than ideal takes on slavery and on women.
Fortunately, Christ’s teachings are still pretty clear and are easily quotable and digestible. It’s harder to twist Jesus to serve hateful narratives than it is to quote Jesus and the love he obviously taught.
You don’t have to twist Jesus to make him seem like a bastard. He kinda preaches love, sometimes, but also preaches doing a bunch of shitty, immature, and sometimes downright heinous shit.
Surely there are examples (of which I am aware of a few), but they do not take from his overall teachings. I’m not the devoted Christian that the other commenter mistakenly views me as, but someone who understands the gist of the New Testament because I was forced into Christian High School and studied the Bible as a whole. It was a subject that I was graded on, so I’d like to say I probably understand the general themes better than most.
Although I do repress a lot from that time and I suffered multiple TBIs, so maybe I’m completely off-base. I don’t believe that I am, though.
The gist of the New Testament is “everyone thinks the old God is vengeful and mean, so we’re gonna send a new one down to rehab his image, but in reality, he’s (literally) still the same old vengeful bastard who condones violence, rape, and killing, but somehow got billions of people to look the other way on that because he says love thy neighbor once”
That’s what I get from my reading of it anyways
I mostly agree with you here.
Proverbs is Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and attributed to King Solomon, not Paul.
I might be thinking of Thessalonians. Not a biblical scholar, I, but there are still known late-age revisions known by scholarly consensus that are yet regarded as canon by major religious ministries.
The bible also teems with internal conflicts and passages that are commonly misinterpreted in modern theology, so it has to be negotiated with.