Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus (not my title choice)

[Spoonist]

Acts 5- you're the one who quoted it. I've checked out the context, and Ananias and his wife had decided to become Christians but dishonestly held back property which they had promised to give to the Church. That's not the same as forcing non-Christians to donate all they have to the state or church.

You have "checked out the context"? Where exactly since I quoted the whole passage related to Ananias?
Captain obvious to the rescue Why do you think it warranted the pointing out what should be clear to all? Of course the holy ghost killing off whom he pleases is not the same as forcing donations blabla.
However it sets a precedent for how christians should live. Which should be in church communes with shared possessions and giving all your wealth for redistribution to those who in need. Maybe it rings a bell? If not you might want to check out Rule of Saint Benedict for reference. Do you think the early socialists came up with the idea out of the blue? Nope, they got it from their christian roots.

[Carinthium]

1- Technically I checked it out about six months ago when I was reading through the Bible relating to a different argument.
2- It says how CHRISTIANS should live. NOT other people. Stealing from non-Christians, including through taxation, is bad for Christianity's image and sinful due to 'Thou shalt not steal'.

[Spoonist]

1- Technically I checked it out about six months ago when I was reading through the Bible relating to a different argument.
2- It says how CHRISTIANS should live. NOT other people. Stealing from non-Christians, including through taxation, is bad for Christianity's image and sinful due to 'Thou shalt not steal'.

Are you serious?
1) Care to give your thoughts on how you could have studied something "in context" when I quoted the whole passage?
2a) Whatever do you think I replied to? For the dim-witted the hint should be in the quote from Darth Hoth at the top of my post.
2b) Couldn't even be bothered to google the reference, that's lazy.
2c) When you play the devil's advocate you should at least read up on the topic. One has to be tea-party stupid to have missed what the bible says on taxes etc.

[Carinthium]

1- Technically I checked it out about six months ago when I was reading through the Bible relating to a different argument.
2- It says how CHRISTIANS should live. NOT other people. Stealing from non-Christians, including through taxation, is bad for Christianity's image and sinful due to 'Thou shalt not steal'.

Are you serious?
1) Care to give your thoughts on how you could have studied something "in context" when I quoted the whole passage?
2a) Whatever do you think I replied to? For the dim-witted the hint should be in the quote from Darth Hoth at the top of my post.
2b) Couldn't even be bothered to google the reference, that's lazy.
2c) When you play the devil's advocate you should at least read up on the topic. One has to be tea-party stupid to have missed what the bible says on taxes etc.

1- Technically that was a rhethorical flourish- I read the passage you talked about six months ago and thought about it.
2a- I know perfectly well what you replied to- I'm pointing out that this is VOLUNTARY redistribution of wealth, not COERCED stealing.
2b- What is there to google?
2c- "Pay unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's?" That's when the money is going to Ceasar. When it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the purpose of the money is to give it to other people, even the poor, rather than for government services, it is clearly stealing.

[KrauserKrauser]

2c - Because obviously Caesar was just making money pits to swim in with the taxes collected. Definitely not using for government services or anything. Definitely have to take the most literal and idiotic interpretation of that text as is possible. Since when is providing assistance to the poor NOT a governmental service?

It tends to be a requirement unless you want to foment unrest and rebellion.

[KrauserKrauser]

2c - Because obviously Caesar was just making money pits to swim in with the taxes collected. Definitely not using for government services or anything. Definitely have to take the most literal and idiotic interpretation of that text as is possible. Since when is providing assistance to the poor NOT a governmental service?

It tends to be a requirement unless you want to foment unrest and rebellion.

[Spoonist]

@Carinthium
I still don't get what you are on about, this since you do not adress my point vs Darth Hoth. Your retort was a non sequitur. Then you top it off with another non sequitur regarding taxes.

Acts 5- you're the one who quoted it. I've checked out the context
=>
Technically I checked it out about six months ago when I was reading through the Bible relating to a different argument.
=>
Technically that was a rhethorical flourish

Nice, it only took like three tries.

2a- I know perfectly well what you replied to- I'm pointing out that this is VOLUNTARY redistribution of wealth, not COERCED stealing.

Then you obviously do not "know perfectly well" what I replied to. Whether it was voluntary or coerced has no relevence whether any "gospel or New Testament speaks favourably of state redistribution of wealth". I even made two clarfications which you have obviously ignored or not taken into account.
A) "While I agree that a congregation isn't a state it's form and function would essentially be the same if taken to modern similtudes."
B) "However it sets a precedent for how christians should live. Which should be in church communes with shared possessions and giving all your wealth for redistribution to those in need."
See? I covered this already not only in my first point but also in my rely to you. Why do I have to repeat myself?
A) Gives that Darth Hoth's statement is only true if State is meant literally, however my argument clearly states that in a modern world such an excuse is weak. I'll add the wish for a christian state as the vatican etc as self evident proof of this line of reasoning.
B) Gives that regardless if state is literally or not for christians it's still true. They should live in communes. Something which has christian historical precedent. Which has its backing from a christian philosophical argument that even evangelics agree to.

2b) Couldn't even be bothered to google the reference, that's lazy.

2b- What is there to google?

If you'd actually read my posts they are pretty contextual, so that you'd only need to look at a post above for the context. Since comprehension seems to be beyond you here it is again:
"Maybe it rings a bell? If not you might want to check out Rule of Saint Benedict for reference. Do you think the early socialists came up with the idea out of the blue? Nope, they got it from their christian roots."
Which is me trying to tell you that Darth Hoth's statement while it could be percieved as true in an explicit sense is not true in a historical sense since the actual real world socialists got their idea for "by ability to need" from the bible.

2c- "Pay unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's?" That's when the money is going to Ceasar. When it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the purpose of the money is to give it to other people, even the poor, rather than for government services, it is clearly stealing.

I repeat myself:
"2c) When you play the devil's advocate you should at least read up on the topic. One has to be tea-party stupid to have missed what the bible says on taxes etc."
This time around first do the homework as in googling the reference and then come back with an argument that actually makes sense.
If I need to repeat myself a third time this will be even more ridiculous then it already is.

[Carinthium]

2c - Because obviously Caesar was just making money pits to swim in with the taxes collected. Definitely not using for government services or anything. Definitely have to take the most literal and idiotic interpretation of that text as is possible. Since when is providing assistance to the poor NOT a governmental service?

It tends to be a requirement unless you want to foment unrest and rebellion.

That is a clear myth- for one thing, feudal governments provided no significant public services. I assume you'll provide examples of the Romans doing so?

Nice, it only took like three tries.

Both statements were actually true.

Then you obviously do not "know perfectly well" what I replied to. Whether it was voluntary or coerced has no relevence whether any "gospel or New Testament speaks favourably of state redistribution of wealth". I even made two clarfications which you have obviously ignored or not taken into account.
A) "While I agree that a congregation isn't a state it's form and function would essentially be the same if taken to modern similtudes."
B) "However it sets a precedent for how christians should live. Which should be in church communes with shared possessions and giving all your wealth for redistribution to those in need."
See? I covered this already not only in my first point but also in my rely to you. Why do I have to repeat myself?
A) Gives that Darth Hoth's statement is only true if State is meant literally, however my argument clearly states that in a modern world such an excuse is weak. I'll add the wish for a christian state as the vatican etc as self evident proof of this line of reasoning.
B) Gives that regardless if state is literally or not for christians it's still true. They should live in communes. Something which has christian historical precedent. Which has its backing from a christian philosophical argument that even evangelics agree to.

You claim that the State should replace the Congregation in it's functions- I was pointing out a major flaw in that argument. Traditional Christianity does not have the concept of 'progress' in it's modern sense.

Catholics almost by definition do not fit in with evangelical thinking, so they don't really apply. If you use 'Evangelical' to mean 'right-wing Christian' it still doesn't work- the principle is meant to be that sovereignty for the Pope makes state interference in the Church less likely.

I'm not going to argue your point on christians living in Communes, nor have I done so earlier.

If you'd actually read my posts they are pretty contextual, so that you'd only need to look at a post above for the context. Since comprehension seems to be beyond you here it is again:
"Maybe it rings a bell? If not you might want to check out Rule of Saint Benedict for reference. Do you think the early socialists came up with the idea out of the blue? Nope, they got it from their christian roots."
Which is me trying to tell you that Darth Hoth's statement while it could be percieved as true in an explicit sense is not true in a historical sense since the actual real world socialists got their idea for "by ability to need" from the bible.

As shown by the fact that Saint Benedict only proscribed it for monks, he meant it for MONKS. There is no evidence to suggest he advocated forcing it on the heathen. A traditionalist, non-hypocritical Christian would oppose socialism.

I repeat myself:
"2c) When you play the devil's advocate you should at least read up on the topic. One has to be tea-party stupid to have missed what the bible says on taxes etc."
This time around first do the homework as in googling the reference and then come back with an argument that actually makes sense.
If I need to repeat myself a third time this will be even more ridiculous then it already is.

You've quoted what the Bible says on taxes- I don't need to google it.

[Samuel]

That is a clear myth- for one thing, feudal governments provided no significant public services. I assume you'll provide examples of the Romans doing so?

The Roman government gave free food to all citizens in the city of Rome. It built aquaducts that provided fresh water to cities. It had soldiers hunt down bandits.

In fact it was common for ancient governments to potray themselves as benefactors. You have inscriptions in Egyptian tombs about how they gave the poor bread and beer.

[Carinthium]

1- Did some sort of service as such clearly apply to Palestine? (such as giving food to the poor)
2- Were any of these services clearly redistributive, as opposed to things that could be considered keeping order?

[Lonestar]

1- Did some sort of service as such clearly apply to Palestine? (such as giving food to the poor)

Why would that matter for the purpose of the debate? Not to butt in, but I'm curious.

2- Were any of these services clearly redistributive, as opposed to things that could be considered keeping order?

Erm...are you making the argument that it was the poor that paid taxes for the government to give themselves Bread? And by the by, if you're saying that giving bread to the poor is a "thing intended to keep order" than that same argument could be made for welfare checks and food stamps.

[Spoonist]

*doubletake*
*rereads the whole thread*
Still doesn't make any sense.

You need to come out of the closet now. Being this ignorant in your arguments you gotta be christian yourself. It reeks of willful ignorance created by listnening too much to people in authority. (No insult intended to informed christian, just the ignorant).
So the only question is which denomination?

Before we move on I'll mention a style issue, when you quote one person first like KrauserKrauser and then do lazy ass quoting without attribution it looks like you are quoting his stuff throughout the post. Please shape up.

Now to your crazy argument.

Both statements were actually true.

No cookie. Dissembling is still a lie.
You tried to give the impression of checking out a context which didn't exist outside your head. When called on it you tried another obfuscation.
As I said, nice.

It tends to be a requirement unless you want to foment unrest and rebellion.

So does providing water. But unfortunately for you, regardless of the purpose such things are public service. As are maintaining infrastructure like roads etc. So the only way your statement would make any logical sense would be if you use a special definition. Something which again is dissembling.

That is a clear myth- for one thing, feudal governments provided no significant public services. I assume you'll provide examples of the Romans doing so?

This is so ignorant that it defies belief. Does the word infrastructure ring any bell? Heck have you even watched Life of Brian?
I'll just give you one word and hope you'll shut up; aqueducts.

You claim that the State should replace the Congregation in it's functions- I was pointing out a major flaw in that argument.

No you didn't. Is blatant lies how you think one wins an argument? Provide a quote where you did right now. Because none of your posts so far adressed that specific issue.

Traditional Christianity does not have the concept of 'progress' in it's modern sense.

You are making no sense here, care to explain what you are talking about?

Catholics almost by definition do not fit in with evangelical thinking, so they don't really apply.

I'm going to assume that you mean the vatican reference here. Then I'd recommend you read that once more. The wish for a christian state. See, wish for. or do you claim that evangelics do not wish for a christian state? That goes counter to hundreds of sermons in the last years only.

I'm not going to argue your point on christians living in Communes, nor have I done so earlier.

Then why the fuck did you think you could contribute anything but dribble to my dialog with Darth Hoth?

If you'd actually read my posts they are pretty contextual, so that you'd only need to look at a post above for the context. Since comprehension seems to be beyond you here it is again:
"Maybe it rings a bell? If not you might want to check out Rule of Saint Benedict for reference. Do you think the early socialists came up with the idea out of the blue? Nope, they got it from their christian roots."
Which is me trying to tell you that Darth Hoth's statement while it could be percieved as true in an explicit sense is not true in a historical sense since the actual real world socialists got their idea for "by ability to need" from the bible.

As shown by the fact that Saint Benedict only proscribed it for monks, he meant it for MONKS. There is no evidence to suggest he advocated forcing it on the heathen. A traditionalist, non-hypocritical Christian would oppose socialism.

You are having a completely different discussion with yourself here. One which only tangentially has any bearing on what I said.

Why would it matter if he intended it for monks only or not?

How could that have any bearing on where the first socialists got their inspiration from?

A traditionalist, non-hypocritical Christian would oppose socialism.

Here you misrepresent the not a true christian fallacy. Not only does that defy history, it defies current ideas among certain evangelicals, plus it requires a complete misunderstanding of what socialism is. Socialism != Communism.

I repeat myself:
"2c) When you play the devil's advocate you should at least read up on the topic. One has to be tea-party stupid to have missed what the bible says on taxes etc."
This time around first do the homework as in googling the reference and then come back with an argument that actually makes sense.
If I need to repeat myself a third time this will be even more ridiculous then it already is.

You've quoted what the Bible says on taxes- I don't need to google it.

Contrary to popular belief ignorance isn't bliss.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

Romans 13
Submission to Governing Authorities
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Why do you continue what is clearly futile?

[Surlethe]

Regarding the OP: It's very easy to cherry-pick quotes from the Bible to support any of a wide range of views of Jesus, which is exactly what the OP does in order to accuse evangelicals of hypocrisy. The obvious problem with this approach -- as this thread's debate demonstrates -- is that, given a preferred interpretation, there are many, many different ways to reconcile apparently contradictory verses to the preferred interpretation. (Of course, I wouldn't have expected Huffington Post to pick a better argument; it's a cesspool of new-ageist, anti-vax, celebrity fluff.)

Really, this problem is symptomatic of a couple of hidden assumptions: that evangelicals are a bloc (they're not; many evangelicals of the nicer kind take exactly the view of Jesus implied by the HuffPo argument), but more pertinently, that the evangelical movement is logically defined by the Bible. That's utter nonsense, of course -- conservative modern evangelicalism is a social movement which picked the Bible to justify itself, instead of taking the Bible and reading out evangelicalism as an interpretation.

The (conservative) evangelical conceit is that their beliefs are the consequence of a face-value reading of the Bible, but to try to combat this by offering a different supposedly face-value interpretation is to become mired in semantics and details, and, ultimately, flirt with circularity. Better to understand evangelicalism as a social movement born of old fundamentalism, the South, and suburbanization, rather than implicitly granting the evangelical conceit by arguing with it.