The Bible as Hate Literature?

[JodoForce]

jeg2, you talk like your Church now thinks that it's perfectly all right for people to be gay and to have premarital sex. It doesn't though, does it? If you ask your priest (or Rabbi or whatever) what he thinks of gay people (and doesn't make him think you're, like, a reporter or anything) he's still going to tell you that they are evil, isn't he?

[BrYaN19kc]

Is it the bible or are the priests assigning their own interpretation to the Bible 90% of the time

That question is why I look at the bible as nothing more than a "fictional" piece of writing that is "perhaps" losely based on someone's interpretation of specific events.

Not only that, the bible has been revised and re-written so many times by so many people whose personal agendas heavily influenced the end product.

[jegs2]

jeg2, you talk like your Church now thinks that it's perfectly all right for people to be gay and to have premarital sex. It doesn't though, does it?

Not at all. Remember, that as Christians, we hold ourselves to different standards than those outside the church. I yet maintain that Christians should not dictate what is moral to non-Christians, for the reasons I've already given. In fact, sin is dealt with inside the church. What I have been trying to get across is that the temporal penalties for sin described in Leviticus were meant only for the Jews of ancient Israel. For example, the stoning to death of those found guilty of gathering sticks on the Sabbath. None of those temporal penalities apply today.

If you ask your priest (or Rabbi or whatever) what he thinks of gay people (and doesn't make him think you're, like, a reporter or anything) he's still going to tell you that they are evil, isn't he?

No, he is going to tell me that the thoughts of all people are bent on evil, and we are all steeped in sin from birth, and that the only way to Salvation is through the grace of Christ, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and our best works are but filthy rags in God's sight. Does that mean that sin is no longer sin? Of course not; sin remains just as sinful today as it was when Eve handed the forbidden fruit to Adam in disobedience to God.

On Salvation through Christ, some will ask, "Then why must we believe in Jesus in order to be saved from the eternal penalty of sin? Why are not all people just automatically forgiven of their sins and saved?" The answer to that is really quite simple. If I place a million dollars before you and say, "Here! This is for you, free of charge! You need only take it!" You can yet refuse to take it. How then can the gift be yours? Moreover, a condemned man can refuse a pardon. The US Supreme Court ruled on just such a case. If a man refuses a pardon, judgment is executed against him! That is quite reflective of one who refuses to accept Christ -- he has rejected the freely-offered pardon, and he will indeed pay for his own sins in eternity!

[Durandal]

On Salvation through Christ, some will ask, "Then why must we believe in Jesus in order to be saved from the eternal penalty of sin? Why are not all people just automatically forgiven of their sins and saved?" The answer to that is really quite simple. If I place a million dollars before you and say, "Here! This is for you, free of charge! You need only take it!" You can yet refuse to take it. How then can the gift be yours? Moreover, a condemned man can refuse a pardon. The US Supreme Court ruled on just such a case. If a man refuses a pardon, judgment is executed against him! That is quite reflective of one who refuses to accept Christ -- he has rejected the freely-offered pardon, and he will indeed pay for his own sins in eternity!

Except that salvation isn't that easy. It's more analogous to say that you're being offered a million dollars, but it's the Mafia that's giving it to you. You're in debt for life.

[Queeb Salaron]

A non-practising homosexual would still be a homosexual (see those Catholic priests who have not yet molested altar boys).

I agree with the rest of your post, Wong, but you should be slapped for that sentence. Homosexuals are not pedophiles. Pedophiles are not necessarily homosexuals. Honestly, the amount of ignorance in this sentence is astounding. Also, the assumption you are implying is that ALL Catholic priests are gay, ALL Catholic priests are pedophiles, and ALL Catholic priests will one day molest little boys.

You need to better explain yourself here, Wong. And if I were you, I'd choose my words VERY carefully.

[Peregrin Toker]

A non-practising homosexual would still be a homosexual (see those Catholic priests who have not yet molested altar boys).

I agree with the rest of your post, Wong, but you should be slapped for that sentence. Homosexuals are not pedophiles. Pedophiles are not necessarily homosexuals. Honestly, the amount of ignorance in this sentence is astounding. Also, the assumption you are implying is that ALL Catholic priests are gay, ALL Catholic priests are pedophiles, and ALL Catholic priests will one day molest little boys.

You need to better explain yourself here, Wong. And if I were you, I'd choose my words VERY carefully.

[zombie] QUEEB'S GOT A POINT! [/zombie]

[jegs2]

Except that salvation isn't that easy. It's more analogous to say that you're being offered a million dollars, but it's the Mafia that's giving it to you. You're in debt for life.

In that, you are partially correct. Debt for life should be replaced with "unalterable change," as the Christian in a way swears eternal allegience to Christ (for which we call him, "Lord"). To those outside the faith, that change of lifestyle appears restrictive and draconian -- even alien. To the Christian, he or she finds a life free of the burden of sin, which is like a horrible yoke on one's neck. That yoke is lifted by Christ. Will we still sin? Yes, but sensitivity to sin is heightened, and the Christian wants to sin less and do the will of Jesus -- not because he or she is forced to do so, but because he or she truly wants to do so because of love for Jesus. An analogy would be a little boy or girl doing something special for mom or dad, not for approval, but out of love.

[Durandal]

In that, you are partially correct. Debt for life should be replaced with "unalterable change," as the Christian in a way swears eternal allegience to Christ (for which we call him, "Lord").

That change can be undone, though, normally through excommunication or the renunciation of the faith, like I did. Hell, you can even write and request an excommunication.

To those outside the faith, that change of lifestyle appears restrictive and draconian -- even alien.

That's the catch. You live under a (compared to secular morality) needlessly repressive and restrictive moral code. And it's not that you're actually getting something; you're being promised something. Christianity says, "You can have the million dollars, but you can't have sex before marriage, jerk off, look at porn, be gay, swear or skip church on Sunday. Should you do any of these things, the offer is null and void unless you confess your transgressions and promise not to do it again. You cannot see the money until you receive it, at a time we shall determine and you shall not know about unless we deem it necessary. But trust us, it exists. In the meantime, start giving 10% of your income to us. Offer void in Tennessee."

That's a lot of strings to get to something which cannot even be verified to exist.

To the Christian, he or she finds a life free of the burden of sin, which is like a horrible yoke on one's neck. That yoke is lifted by Christ. Will we still sin? Yes, but sensitivity to sin is heightened, and the Christian wants to sin less and do the will of Jesus -- not because he or she is forced to do so, but because he or she truly wants to do so because of love for Jesus. An analogy would be a little boy or girl doing something special for mom or dad, not for approval, but out of love.

But let's look at the other side of the coin. Children will also avoid doing bad things out of fear of retribution. You can be sure that a good percentage of Christians are this way as well; I certainly was.

[Sir Sirius]

A non-practising homosexual would still be a homosexual (see those Catholic priests who have not yet molested altar boys).

I agree with the rest of your post, Wong, but you should be slapped for that sentence. Homosexuals are not pedophiles. Pedophiles are not necessarily homosexuals. Honestly, the amount of ignorance in this sentence is astounding. Also, the assumption you are implying is that ALL Catholic priests are gay, ALL Catholic priests are pedophiles, and ALL Catholic priests will one day molest little boys.

You need to better explain yourself here, Wong. And if I were you, I'd choose my words VERY carefully.

I think that Wong was trying to say that you don't need to have "gay"-sex to be a homosexual, being attracted to the members of the same sex is enough. The same applies to Pedophiles, lusting after kids is enough to qualify a catholic priest as a pedophile, even if have he has never committed statuatory rape.

I find it VERY, VERY strange that someone would interprete that sentance in another manner

[Sir Sirius]

BTW a catholic priest that fucks (rapes) young boys wouldn't even necesarily (probably) be a homosexual. The odds are that he is not attracted to adults of the same sex, if so he is simply a pedophile.

[jegs2]

That change can be undone, though, normally through excommunication or the renunciation of the faith, like I did. Hell, you can even write and request an excommunication.

I disagree with that, and there are many Christians who also believe Salvation can be lost. Don't confuse excommunication from a man-run "church organization" with the church that is made up of the believers of Christ. I don't believe anyone can be excommunicated from the church, based on the following:

Jesus says here:

Matt 7:21 - 23
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

As one can see, Jesus did not say, "I once knew you, but then you messed up too much, so..."
He said, "I never knew you."

Despite what others may interpret from Revelation or other sources as losing one's salvation, default to what our Lord said...

*emphasis mine

That's the catch. You live under a (compared to secular morality) needlessly repressive and restrictive moral code. And it's not that you're actually getting something; you're being promised something. Christianity says, "You can have the million dollars, but you can't have sex before marriage, jerk off, look at porn, be gay, swear or skip church on Sunday. Should you do any of these things, the offer is null and void unless you confess your transgressions and promise not to do it again. You cannot see the money until you receive it, at a time we shall determine and you shall not know about unless we deem it necessary. But trust us, it exists. In the meantime, start giving 10% of your income to us. Offer void in Tennessee."

The sinful lifestyle the non-believer thinks he will miss, he does not. There is a reason the Christian is called, "born again." He "dies" to the old sinful nature and is "resurrected" as a new creation in Christ. Thus the old desires are diminished and eventually gone. That happens because Christ is in the Christian, thus making the Christian sensitive to sin. In short, those things which were considered fun in the old life are no longer considered fun. It is truly a supernatural transformation.

That's a lot of strings to get to something which cannot even be verified to exist.

On that you are absolutely correct! That is why only complete faith can bring about that transformation. It is very difficult to levy that level of faith, but it is thankfully only a one-time struggle. To be certain, more smaller struggles will ensue, but the grace of Christ within you will suffice.

But let's look at the other side of the coin. Children will also avoid doing bad things out of fear of retribution. You can be sure that a good percentage of Christians are this way as well; I certainly was.

I believe it is those type of people about which Jesus spoke in the passage I quoted -- those who believed they were Christians, but they never took that plunge of faith. One can dress in a military uniform and pronounce himself a soldier, but it is not outside appearances that make a soldier what he is...

[Durandal]

BTW a catholic priest that fucks (rapes) young boys wouldn't even necesarily (probably) be a homosexual. The odds are that he is not attracted to adults of the same sex, if so he is simply a pedophile.

Yup. Pedophiles and homosexuals are completely separate categories. Pedophiles commit crimes of opportunity and power; it really has nothing to do with sexual attraction, I don't think. It's a lot like rape.

[Saurencaerthai]

Again, I said that the thing reads deeper than a Faulkner novel. By that, I mean that things can take on deeper meanings. Say an author writes of hawk killing a pidgeon, for example. At face value, it's one animal taking the life of another. However, by the same token that same image could have numerous implications. Perhaps political, perhaps societal, perhaps moral. Why do you think there are 60 volumes of the talmud plus numerous works dealing with one thing: how to interperate this?

Because those people have too much time on their hands and wanted an easy way to bullshit their way toward earning a doctoral degree. I've never seen a single legitimate reason as to why the Bible should be taken at anything more than face value.

That is metaphor, my friend. One thing representing something greater.
The Bible is in essence, much metaphor based losely around actual events.

Slothful assertion without evidence.

The classic example of this I like to give is that of the Binding of Issac followed by the incedents at Sodom and Gemorah. If you take these at face value, they both have terrible implications. However, at a different level, they actually speak AGAINST fundimentalism and for questioning of the beliefs. Abraham was a religious zealot before the binding, just like man other beliefs. He followed blindly. Not much of a difference from the polytheistic beliefs, only he had one deity. The Akedah, however, served as an awakening against following blindly, which ultimately would have led to the death of his own son by his own hand. Later on, with Sodom and Gemorrah, he pleads and bargains with the deity in an effort to spare the city, questioning, not just saying "you tha god!". The city could be seen as simply part of a means to convey a greater concept.

You're clearly bullshitting or just repeating someone else's bullshit. Why should the Bible be interpreted at something other than face value? Because its face value interpretation makes it out to be an unspeakably violent and evil piece of literature, which would conflict with the predetermined conclusion of it being "holy" and "the Good Book"? Sorry, not a good enough reason, and it's the only one I've ever seen liberal Biblical interpreters give.

This is what I can refer to as the "bottomless ice berg" of literature. This idea can apply to most literature that's out there, actually. Say you are approaching an ice berg on a ship. You see it's size and are amazed. Now you're in scuba gear and 100 feet under water. You see more of it's size. Now you're in a sub even further down and you see even more of it's greatness. If you go to literature you can take it at face value, but the deeper you go, the more of it you see that you didn't see at the surface.

That's extremely liberal interpretation of literature, nothing more. Do you know how many allegorical meanings can be derived from The Lord of The Rings? Tons. Did you also know that Tolkein wrote in the forward that the story had no allegorical meaning whatsoever?

In this case, it only becomes an issue of whether or not it is acceptable if you decide to take it at face value.

Please give a reason as to why we should interpret the Bible beyond face value. Interpretations beyond what is written add complexity to an explanation and are thus undesirable and to be avoided unless there is some overbearing reason for their presence. Just because some people desperately want to make the Bible conform to modern, civilized, secular norms doesn't mean that wild and crazy interpretations of the source text have any kind of validity. I'm sure that, if I really tried, I could pull something good out of Mein Kampf, as well.

Durandal:
I am very hesitant to continue this debate with you. You clearly have demonstrated a lack of knowledgibility within the realm of the biblical works and the things related. As well, your argument of which states there is "No good reason for interpereting the bible any other way but at face value" is pure opinion, not fact. You essentially are doing every thing you possibly can to vilify this work even by making arbitrary, one sided decisions as to how things should be read.

You clearly have no knowledge of the concept of the written law and the oral law, nor did you even know that the Talmudic works were done BEFORE THERE WERE DOCTORAL DEGREES. Even that crass display of ignorance aside, the notion that commetators and scholars in the realm are simply people who "have too much time on their hands" and are trying to "bs their way through a doctoral Degree" is a personal value judgement and nothing more than that.

Were you to have some knowledgibility in the realm and based your arguments off of that, instead of your personal biases and prejudices, I might be interested in continuing this exchange, but since you do not even have that very base knowledge, it is pointless to continue with you.

[Durandal]

Durandal:
I am very hesitant to continue this debate with you. You clearly have demonstrated a lack of knowledgibility within the realm of the biblical works and the things related. As well, your argument of which states there is "No good reason for interpereting the bible any other way but at face value" is pure opinion, not fact. You essentially are doing every thing you possibly can to vilify this work even by making arbitrary, one sided decisions as to how things should be read.

It is a simple application of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is not an opinion; it is a logical principle detailing how to judge competing theories. I explained this to you before. If you interpret a work beyond face value without a valid reason to do so, you're adding weight and complexity to any conclusions you may draw.

Say I interpret the Leviticus passages regarding homosexuality as evidence that the Israelites were bigoted against homosexuals and therefore intolerant assholes. Someone might come back and say that, during that time, homosexual acts may have posed threats for disease, so the leaders of that society told all the people that God told them homosexuality was a grave sin punishable by death to keep them from doing it. That explanation is more complex and appeals to the motivations of the writers, which are completely indiscernable. Therefore that theory is nondisprovable. My theory that the Israelites were bigoted assholes is fully supported by their own literature and writings.

There is no need for interpretation beyond face value. You saying, "Well, uh, it's really deep and stuff" doesn't qualify as a pressing need for us to look for things which are not in black and white. It can be a fun activity to look for other meanings in the text, but those interpretations are more complex and thus less valid than a straight, face-value interpretation. The exception, of course, are Jesus' parables, because parables are supposed to have deeper meanings to be gleaned from them. Most of Jesus' are fairly easy to get the overall message from, however.

However, the entirety of the Bible is not written in such a fashion. The Old Testament reads like a historical account, complete with lengthy genealogies detailing who knocked up who and who begat who. It was meant to be interpreted literally.

You clearly have no knowledge of the concept of the written law and the oral law, nor did you even know that the Talmudic works were done BEFORE THERE WERE DOCTORAL DEGREES. Even that crass display of ignorance aside, the notion that commetators and scholars in the realm are simply people who "have too much time on their hands" and are trying to "bs their way through a doctoral Degree" is a personal value judgement and nothing more than that

Yes, it is. However, neither you nor the Biblical scholars has given a good reason for interpreting the Bible beyond what is written on the page. If people with Ph.D's don't know how to think critically when analyzing a piece of literature, that's not my problem.

Were you to have some knowledgibility in the realm and based your arguments off of that, instead of your personal biases and prejudices, I might be interested in continuing this exchange, but since you do not even have that very base knowledge, it is pointless to continue with you.

You've done nothing but fling mud throughout this post; you didn't make a single argument. You just said, "You're a meanie!" and started whining about how "obviously" ignorant I was of the Bible. Those kind of pathetic evasions and ad hominems might work on other boards, but here the people will see straight through your bullshit. It's better to just shut your trap and accept defeat than to post lengthy ad hominems.

Again, give me a reason to look beyond the text on the page when reading the Bible. What pressing need is there to do so? If you do it because you assume that the Bible must be righteous and just, simply come out and say so. It's a completely invalid reason, but at least you'll have given a reason.

500 years ago, the Bible was the complete and literal truth. Now, it's suddenly "open to interpretation" when modern advances in science have proven its accounts of creation and natural phenomena to be utterly false, and when modern secular morality has given us a better world than what the Bible gave us. This is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

Many of the people who interpret the Bible more liberally assume that it must be inherently good and therefore conform to modern social norms in order to keep that perception up throughout the general public. That is a subjective evaluation. This is to say nothing of the fact that many of the more liberal interpretations are actually at odds with what is written in black and white. I read the passages and draw the conclusion that the Bible is unspeakably evil based on those passages alone and neglecting any notions of divine inspiration. That is an objective evaluation.

[Saurencaerthai]

It is a simple application of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is not an opinion; it is a logical principle detailing how to judge competing theories. I explained this to you before. If you interpret a work beyond face value without a valid reason to do so, you're adding weight and complexity to any conclusions you may draw.

Ok, then by that token , Vardaman's one-line chapter in As I Lay Dying which reads simply "My Mother is a fish" has no hidden implications and the boy is just demented. Why don't you take that to a couple hundred english professors and watch their eyes roll.

In life, often "a cigar is just a cigar", however, once we enter the world of literature, no matter how much you protest, that simply is not the case.

There is no need for interpretation beyond face value. You saying, "Well, uh, it's really deep and stuff" doesn't qualify as a pressing need for us to look for things which are not in black and white. It can be a fun activity to look for other meanings in the text, but those interpretations are more complex and thus less valid than a straight, face-value interpretation. The exception, of course, are Jesus' parables, because parables are supposed to have deeper meanings to be gleaned from them. Most of Jesus' are fairly easy to get the overall message from, however.

New testimate is not in my cannon, so Jesus is irrelivant. Now I need to ask you a very important question: What Bible are you reading? St. James? Gideon? Or are you actually reading the direct Hebrew text? Simply put, phrases and even singular words in ancient hebrew can take on a multitude of meanings. I would not trust a copy of the bible that has been translated from Hebrew to Latin to German to god knows what other language for one second. So, in essence, any claim that the Bible can be Occam's Razored is essentially nullified. Because of the nature of the language, a cigar is not always a cigar.

Yes, it is. However, neither you nor the Biblical scholars has given a good reason for interpreting the Bible beyond what is written on the page. If people with Ph.D's don't know how to think critically when analyzing a piece of literature, that's not my problem.

See above. I am near 100% sure there is reference to the need for interperetation within the Bible, however, I won't state it as definate until I track it down.

You've done nothing but fling mud throughout this post; you didn't make a single argument. You just said, "You're a meanie!" and started whining about how "obviously" ignorant I was of the Bible. Those kind of pathetic evasions and ad hominems might work on other boards, but here the people will see straight through your bullshit. It's better to just shut your trap and accept defeat than to post lengthy ad hominems.

Well, how much have you studied it? How many professors and scholars have you studied with? How long? You worry about bullshit from me? I seriously question the validity of your conclusions. As for questioning your knowlidgibility in the previous post, I made little attempt to try to argue with you, as it is like trying to argue advanced astronomy with someone who still belives that the stars and planents circle the earth. . In a case as such, I see no issue with questioning your competance.

[Durandal]

Ok, then by that token , Vardaman's one-line chapter in As I Lay Dying which reads simply "My Mother is a fish" has no hidden implications and the boy is just demented. Why don't you take that to a couple hundred english professors and watch their eyes roll.

That's nice. Are you done showing off your knowledge of literature? Deriving implications from literature is all well and good, but when those implications blatantly contradict what is written in black and white, there'd better be a damn good reason for drawing that interpretation. I'm not saying that this is impossible; authors write ironic literature all the time, but I don't see any kind of ironic implications in books like the Bible.

In life, often "a cigar is just a cigar", however, once we enter the world of literature, no matter how much you protest, that simply is not the case.

When a book is written as though it was a historical document, yes it is.

New testimate is not in my cannon, so Jesus is irrelivant. Now I need to ask you a very important question: What Bible are you reading? St. James? Gideon? Or are you actually reading the direct Hebrew text? Simply put, phrases and even singular words in ancient hebrew can take on a multitude of meanings. I would not trust a copy of the bible that has been translated from Hebrew to Latin to German to god knows what other language for one second. So, in essence, any claim that the Bible can be Occam's Razored is essentially nullified. Because of the nature of the language, a cigar is not always a cigar.

The King James and/or New American edition. If you want to argue translational accuracies, please start another thread. Translational errors of such magnitude are not good reasons for you to start looking beyond the text for hidden meanings. In fact, they indicate that you should not do so because the original text you're using is so irrevocably flawed that its original meaning has been completely lost. Any such interpretation will inevitably compound the error in the conclusions you draw. Garbage in, garbage out. Translational inaccuracies indicate that you should go back and retranslate it from the closest source to the original as possible.

See above. I am near 100% sure there is reference to the need for interperetation within the Bible, however, I won't state it as definate until I track it down.

If you can find something, by all means post it. However, remember that the Bible is a compilation of works, not a continuous work. What applies to one book does not necessarily (and probably does not) apply to another. For example, the Book of John contains a lot of flowery language and metaphor; it's obviously meant to be taken that way. The Book of Exodus, however, is written as though it was a historical account of the Israelites' escape from Egypt and was obviously meant to be taken literally, as was Genesis. And, from what I remember, the Book of Job is not really "canon" in terms of the self-contained history of the Bible; it's actually a story written to teach people that God can fuck with you whenever he wants, and that you'd better drop your pants and grab your ankles if he decides to.

Well, how much have you studied it? How many professors and scholars have you studied with? How long? You worry about bullshit from me? I seriously question the validity of your conclusions.

If you question my conclusions, don't tell me that you do. I don't give a shit that you simply do. Tell me why you do. Don't fling smug insults and asinine tripe like you did. You didn't even do me the courtesy of addressing anything I said directly.

As for questioning your knowlidgibility in the previous post, I made little attempt to try to argue with you, as it is like trying to argue advanced astronomy with someone who still belives that the stars and planents circle the earth. . In a case as such, I see no issue with questioning your competance.

More ad hominems. This particular post has actually made some attempt at argumentation, even though you quietly snipped and did not address several key points in my argument.

[JodoForce]

To those faithful Christians here: good for you. Your faith in Christianity and your belief in its goodness makes you good people.

However, whether the faith started out with such good intentions in the OT is at question here.

Saurencaerthai,
If you can debunk the arguments here it would be a good start: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... ndex.shtml

[Hethrir]

...In the meantime, start giving 10% of your income to us...

Where in the Bible does it say that? The only times tything (if i could spell :duh:) is talked about is OT for starters, and not in that context either. The people gave grain into the storehouse for the priests to eat, and once every three years gave 10% for a love feast in which everyone sat down and had a big feast.

NT has no references to it what-so-ever. It's all about love, giving under freedom, sow what you reap.

I'll find the relevent scriptures.

[JodoForce]

There is also the bit in the NT where Jesus lauded a poor woman for giving every last penny she had to the church and said that it is not enough for the rich people to only give what they had left over.

[Hethrir]

41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

[Hethrir]

01 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
02 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
03 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
04 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

By no means is this saying that the rich are doing the wrong thing, but pointing out the great sacrifice this woman has made.

[AdmiralKanos]

By no means is this saying that the rich are doing the wrong thing, but pointing out the great sacrifice this woman has made.

Precisely. He is PRAISING her for giving money to the church which she cannot afford to give. That is exactly what Durandal is criticizing.

[Hethrir]

Precisely. He is PRAISING her for giving money to the church which she cannot afford to give. That is exactly what Durandal is criticizing.

I don't mean to be rude, but what's the point you're trying to make about?

[Darth Wong]

Precisely. He is PRAISING her for giving money to the church which she cannot afford to give. That is exactly what Durandal is criticizing.

I don't mean to be rude, but what's the point you're trying to make about?

Simply that the church demands money constantly. They want you to give until it hurts, by heaping praise upon a woman who does precisely that. That's what Durandal was talking about. Churches are a form of organized begging. They're just more adept at the guilt trip than the bum on the street.

[Hethrir]

I think the churches are doing the wrong thing. I read that passage to say that she has given more than the the rich people by the sacrifice she made, not that everyone should give more than they can afford.

"That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."

I can't see how churches can justify they demands you are talking about by this scripture. I'll reiterate again that there are no NT scriptures on tithing and that OT was in a totally different context to what churches talk about today.