I often turn to my wife in church having heard a preacher twist a verse into something its not and tell her that's not what it says.  
Cedric Tillman, Charlotte, NC (Sent Wednesday, November 07, 2007 4:25 PM)


The Bible, like any other piece of literature, is subject to interpretation.  What you perceive as it being "twisted" by your preacher may be the preacher's honest reading of that passage.  

I was fortunate enough to take many religion classes taught by a rabbi who was beyond familiar with the Old Testament.  When he quoted passages, he did so from his Hebrew copy, and always pointed out the differences in the translations.  For example, what we have come to accept in the English translation as the first few words of Genesis (In the beginning) are actually not the first few words in the Hebrew version, which is "With the first principle..."  Does it mean the same thing?  My professor thought not.  I'm sure there are many who would think he has "twisted" the meaning of the verse.  

A vote for the far right is a vote and a victory for the terrorists.

Cedric, great post. You are certainly not one of the ignorant Christians and your knowledge of the bible seems sound. I'm not a Christian, I just like to use the fact that I've read the bible and know Christ's actual words to point out all the hypocrisy among the religious right.
I don't need to cherry pick the bible because I think it is a bunch of garbage, and I'm not trying to prove it to be true.
I try and keep the character of Jesus untarnished from a book which includes some of the worst concepts ever (old testament) and the other book which has been edited so many times it begins to lose meaning or value (new testament).
I like people who speak about big ideas, for that reason I think Martin Luther King Jr. was a far more enlightened moral philosopher than Jesus. Read some King and listen to his discourses on Agape to hear the actual words of a great man (which were inspired from an understanding of Christ's message which is identical to mine).
Far from complex, the Bible and religion are worthless, contradictory entities that keep their followers from real moral development and enlightenment. All religion does this to an extent, but nowhere has it become so apparent as in the brainwashing of the religious right.
As for a holistic understanding of the bible, again I don't care to have one (though I have read it front to back). It is a terrible book, which has historically accounted for more bloodshed than any other ideology (though the Koran is gaining in bodycount).
If the bible were useful it would have a holistic message, or at least one that was consistent and not so contradictory. Since it isn't intended to be helpful and is simply a method of control (as is the Koran) it is quite nice to find other literature which does help one in their moral and spiritual understanding.
Why would you spend time at a church where you don't agree with the preacher and can obviously see him twisting what you believe to be the word of God? My father marched us out of church in the middle of service for doing the same thing as well as for making my sister cry. The truth is that the bible is a story written by people to control other people. God exists everywhere except in churches and the hearts of religious men.
Of course I am only replying to your post, but in reference to this thread Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and all of the other religious quackery in the United States have cast God out of their religions and churches, and that’s why Jesus’ words should be used against them.

As for your continual insistance that I am desperate or in a bad state of mind. Don't worry, I'm engaged, finished a graduate degree, have a job, and a home. To the contrary, the thing I am desperate about is not personal, but refers to a general belief that "good men" have done little to stop the rise of the radical right, and thusly, our country and the society I will raise my children in has suffered.

Who is that Jerry stand in, he made me bust a gut.
If you want to see the real Jerry he is in the last thread about illegal immigration.
Wow, good debate about religion, I took a religion class, loved the buddist and zen stuff, I learned a lot. Perhaps we should look for those candidates who are interested in all the religions, they preach the same thing in the end, love thy fellow man and help them, no need for a reward, it is just the best thing to do in the end.

Cedric, I do want to stress that I think I initially misjudged you and that you are not the ignorant Christian I thought you to be, but in reference to your last post you cite Matthew 5:17. This is an obvious reference to the fortelling of the messiah.

You need look no further than a few lines down to Matthew 5:21 to know what Jesus thought of Leviticus. He was prefacing what he though of Leviticus with what you said and then says what he feels a few lines down. If you are unaware "you have heard it was said to people long ago" is direct reference to Leviticus. Leviticus argues that eye for an eye is a just law (Christ was against this) and also Leviticus advocates in the same scripture the philosophy of 'love thy neighbor'. Christ split these two completely different laws apart and was outward and obvious about which one he professed.  
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

In this one scripture the love thy neighbor philosophy truly grows by Jesus' definition. Not only can you not kill your neighbor, you can't bomb him, hit him, or even dislike him. This is the Agape that Martin Luther King Jr. wrote volumes about. What Christ did in explaining what he meant served as a direct refutation of the pharisees who practiced and preached the Jewish dogma found in Leviticus. Dogma and all religious rules have nothing to do with following Christ, and are only a distraction from the actual good tenets that he popularized.

Oh well, you just lost my potential vote Giuliani!! Having support from Religious psychopaths like Robertson will hurt not help?  Pat Robertson is a self righteous hating dinosaur and no one has any respect for a man that said 9/11 was our fault. It's ironic and telling that Rudy would seek out this endorsment in the first place??

Carrie:

You make a very valid point.  Obviously translation can be difficult, and it's generally accepted that there are some NT verses translated from the Greek that didn't get the full sense of words in Greek at times, and this is the case w/ the Hebrew of the OT in some spots, including some passages in Kings (or Chronicles perhaps?) where the size of armies seem to be impossibly large.  We Christians do place a lot of trust in the folks that translated the Bible.  I happen to believe that their mistakes were just honest mistakes, and not motivated by ulterior, doctrinal motives.  When I read the Bible (obviously i'm biased,) but I never get the sense that these dudes who took on a labor of love by candlelight were trying to trick me into believing certain things, or that they were smart enough to project down the road and interpret things incorrectly for their own impure designs.  But I can't know for sure- just a belief.  What you cite is interesting, and it'd be interesting to research how & why that Hebrew became our "in the beginning...".

@ Desperate:

I appreciate your comments.  Obviously I cannot say I agree with many of them, but I'm used to this- fortunately I work with a atheist I used to argue everyday until we were both reprimanded, and I went to grad school in DC, for creative writing no less, so you can imagine that crowd (I love ya'll, if ya'll ever read this.)  Point being I've been where you and I are with many others: an impasse.  

Just to address a couple things: I have attended churches where I may disagree with the interpretation of a verse, but honestly it's rare that this ever happens. I could never attend a church where a pastor regularly changed the literal meaning of verses to fit a point he/she was trying to make. As Carrie points out, interpretations can lead to different conclusions sometimes.  But my opinion is that the Bible is very plainly written and I just find myself confused as to how some Christians come to certain conclusions about certain verses.  With the exception of the Book of Revelations, which clearly uses figurative language to presage future literal events,  I think the Bible should always, always be taken literally and plainly.  When it isn't taken that way, you get what has weakened the church in my view= seemingly hundreds of denominations.  I give you one example- Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions because of a verse in Leviticus (I believe its Leviticus) where the Law stipulates that one may not "take in" or consume blood (basically that all meats must be thoroughly cooked.)  Somehow, this became an idea that we can't have blood transfusions.  If I sound intolerant of nonliteral interpretations, its because I am.  Believers can't decide on their own that something must mean something else simply because it sounds unpleasant to them.  I just think you believe in your religion or you don't, but don't change the words of your Holy book to fit your purposes.

Which brings me to the next point- I'm glad you clarified where you stand on the Bible.  I was under the impression that I was arguing with a Christian, having a "intrafaith" dispute with a fellow believer.  My beef is really not with atheists, or agnostics, but with Christians, because I believe the increasing infatuation with liberalizing Christianity waters down the faith.  I think today's Christians are tired of being unpopular, of being unliked, and they want to be accepted, so they compromise their beliefs.  They want their pews to be filled on Sunday, so they preach an overconciliatory "Gospel" which does not show all sides of the Biblical God or Christ.  But I think you might agree w/ me that this is not a fight that's fruitful to have with someone who largely discredits the text I cite as evidence for my argument (though like you, I mostly use Christ's own words.)  

There is no doubt that the tone of the NT is much less harsh than that of the OT, but I think for Christians the OT is illustrative of how demanding the God is that we believe in.  It makes us appreciate Christ that much more, that all those laws are no longer so gravely punishable, and that Christ came as an ultimate sacrifice.  And in a sense, it shows God's love for us, that he basically seems to have reconsidered the system he'd laid out for being obedient because of how hard it was to follow, completely abolished it, and sent Jesus to die instead of the animal sacrifices. This whole idea, that God changes his mind, and did so several times in the OT, is rather fascinating to me. I don't pretend to have everything figured out, but there are many things I'm pretty sure about.   In short, for me the NT w/o the OT, and vice versa, is out of proper context. I accept it all for what it is.

Finally, I think what has caused so much death is not religion, but the erroneous interpretation of religious texts.  Even the Koran, which I read in a Islam class as an undergrad, is not anything like some who haven't read it would imagine.  It's just that adherents take stuff to an nutty extreme. (btw, I also took Hinduism in undergrad, and that's one religion one could never get aggression out of...the Bhagavad(sp) Gita is completely unoffensive, and the Sutras are, well, awesome)  For instance, the Koran commands Muslims to let Jews live among them in peace; Muhammad calls Jews "people of the Book," meaning the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible, which Muslims consider to be their second holiest collection of scripture.  Do Middle Eastern Muslims heed these words? And the Catholics with their Inquisition and persecution of Protestants & Jews-this is all indefensible radicalism and cruelty, which gives religion a bad name, and understandably so.  But I would encourage those on the fence about such issues to delve into these religions themselves, and not to let the most radical folk turn them off of something that so many millions of people take comfort in and has bettered the lives of many more millions, I would argue, than it's cost in blood and war.  No real God would never want people converted at the point of a sword.  We have free will, we are not automatons, and we are free to not do what Christians believe God would have us do.  I simply argue, as Christ does in our very same Matt 5 (verses 29-30), that there are consequences for our decisions, from the Christian point of view:

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Ugh! After all this arguing I think I shall using my right hand to pour a bit of the Ketel One under my sink into a cup, and mix it w/ a bit of Cranberry Juice.  After all, Jesus drank wine- all things in moderation you know.  Now, if I were to get behind the wheel of a car after having too much to drink and hurt or kill someone, I might consider severing that hand, lest I be tempted to lift another bottle and commit that sin again.  But it's late and I gotta go to work-the wife and I have read the little one a bedtime story, so I 'spect no one's in danger, and it'll just help me sleep well.  

Yours truly, until the next argument-

Cedric

MK: Nor does Guiliani condone the draconianism of the fundementalist wing of the ''moral majority''. The mans pro-choice and pro-gay positions are more impeccable than any of those coming from Robertson.[who becomes a useful foil,to be disgarded,like African Americans with Democrats,after the election].

nuanced: You will be reminded that the chief backers of Sese Seko and Taylor were Democrats,to a man-woman,all from the Black Congressional Caucus and pushed for funding of the two brutal regimes from 1994-present.

Also see:

The Black Agenda Report: ''A Tale Of Two Genocides: Sudan and Congo'' www.blackagendareport.com

It amazes me.  These hate filled blogs.  You seem to scream at how morally bankrupt Rudy and/or Republicans are and site the bible to back the vitreal up.  Who is filled with hate then?  As a conservative myself, who is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, not a CEO (nor even rich), who does not need the Bible to know that Robertson is a nut, I have to say that pragmatism occurs in all facets of life.  Some battles need to be fought...and others don't.  So Pat, the nutjob, backs Rudy.  He (as do I) have serious doubts about any one else beating Hillary.  So he makes a pragmatic choice for wanting a Republican to win.  Don't we all want our favorite candidate or party to win?  Don't you all  want Hillary to win?  or Obama?  If some nut job who politically worked in their favor backed them...wouldn't ya'll just chalk it all to politics and understand this?  The answer is yes.  Does Hillary scare the bejesus out of me?  Absolutely.  And it's my right to feel that way...but it certainly doesn't mean I hate all Dems.  Most of my friends fall into that camp.  But all of you writing here today just seem to writhe in agony at the idea that some of us out here still consider themselves Republican, even though we're not thrilled with our current leader.  We want change too.  And for many of us...Rudy seems a viable choice given what we have. Actually I really like Huckabee.  I also think he would be shredded alive by Hillary.  I'm crossing my fingers he'll be a VP though.   So see, it IS possible to post an opinion without belittling the oppositions view and mischaracterizing the whole lot.  

nuanced: You will be reminded that the chief backers of Sese Seko and Taylor were Democrats,to a man-woman,all from the Black Congressional Caucus and pushed for funding of the two brutal regimes from 1994-present. -Lee Holmes

-- thanks Lee, I didn't know that but it doesn't surprise me. I am not a fan of that caucus. Many of their positions have been narrowly focused on special interests instead of the good of the country.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):