"Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Luke 12:51-53)
"That is not the soft message of sweetness, tolerance, acceptance, diversity, and understanding many inside and outside Christianity would have us believe to be the teachings of Christ..."
Well, yes, that Jesus fellow was quite a sh** disturber, just ask any of the Romans still around from that era.
But, it was along time ago, and I don't believe it's healthy to hold a grudge for over 2000 years. Let bygones be bygones.
Separate religion from politics, and quit trying to use it for personal gain, that's probably the biggest sin of all.
Religion is the symptom of the real problem - that being the ugliness of human nature.
If religion didn't exist, there would be a different reason to hate and to kill. Religion doesn't cause our evil nature, it merely gives our base instincts an excuse to show itself.
Those who reject theism in favour of secular atheism are often every bit as nasty, intolerant and rigidly dogmatic as the worst theocrats.
Totalitarian thought is human, not devine. It's derived from our nature and not that of some "higher power" whose influence is wholly unnecessary. We can hate and strive to oppress and control without outside influence just fine.
Jesus said these comments not to cause divisivenesses, but to illustrate how believing in him would divide families because not everyone could accept his message. And, his harshest criticisms were leveled at the Pharisees, who were his own countrymen. They used over 600 laws to control their people. Jesus said that they didn't need all those laws, just to follow Him.
Most of his parables were tongue-in-cheek digs at the Pharisees and their uppity behaviour, not the Romans. THAT was what so divisive. Jesus' own people were ticked at him.
I agree with dmorris: that Jesus fellow was quite a sh** disturber!
There's nothing wrong with being divisive. If someone is in the wrong they need to know about it, you don't unite around that wrong thing. Promoting unity for unity sake doesn't make any sense.
Poster needs to go to Church to find out the real meaning of those words. To do otherwise is ignorant.
Jesus displayed utter humility, such that few believed he could be anyone important, yet he did not waver from speaking the truth.
There can be only one truth, everything else is a lie. Not wavering from the truth is divisive because where truth is an issue, there is no room for compromise, anyone who doesn't care is fundamentally a liar.
But then, to quote a Roman from Jesus' time, "What is truth?". One had better be sure to have it absolutely pinned down 100 percent before being divisive.
...Hmmm, I seem to remember reading some sort of science fiction book about the last days on earth being one of chaos. Wonder if anyone remembers the name of it. They used to read this in schools and in community buildings.
Society values, greed, confusion, changing amongst the masses. Something about calling evil good, and good evil, and just outright weird how to love someone.
Dang if I can remember the name or where I read that, must have been in that archive I stumbled across in the library basement - guess the Firemen from 51 Precinct (Fahrenheit) didn't get to them yet, hope I don't get in trouble posting it on here...
...ah here it is, just a sec as I dust off the pages.
Right -
------------
Isaiah 5:20
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
----------
Naw, what did this Isaiah guy know what would happen some 2500 years later?
Oh wait, here's another interesting chap...Timothy. Wonder if it is the same guy who started Tim Hortons coffee shops?
---------------
2 Timothy 3:1-5
v1: "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come
v2: "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
v3: "Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
v4: "Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
v5:Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
----------
Wow, those are heavy words, no wonder the government banned this book. So dividing and non-loving, don't these guys know to go with the flow?
Oh wait here is something else from the gladiator times or something like that I guess...
---------------
Romans 1:27-28
22: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23: "And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
24: "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25: "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature
v27: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
v28: "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
v29: "Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers
v30: "Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
v31: "Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
v32: "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
-------
Holy Moly! Dunno, but here's something else:
Galatians 6:7 - "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
-----------------------
Time to repent folks and cry out for God's mercy for our children's and grand children's sake,
What kind of future do we leave them?
Perverted Tolerance?
Yep. Like that frog in lukewarm water.
This post and the comments which follow resemble the divining entrails of a Zulu goat.
Yep, Christianity is exclusive
Some of those anglicans are starting to find that out.
Jesus was not running for public office in a democracy designed to represent and give voice to all of its subjects.
Yep, Christianity is exclusive
Some of those anglicans are starting to find that out.
"Jesus was not running for public office in a democracy designed to represent and give voice to all of its subjects."
Jesus was not running for public office.
Period.
Ted said:
"Jesus was not running for public office in a democracy designed to represent and give voice to all of its subjects."
No he was running for heavenly office, designed to give peace, love and understanding for ALL of HIS subjects.
Secondly, those who present obstacles in the pursuit of heaven, should just get the HELL out of the way.
Thirdly, nothing in a democracy says one should be 'tolerant' of death, destruction, chaos, political correctness, pseudo science or plain stupidity.
If the mob wants to howl at the moon, let them. It does not mean one has to join them.
I think there is something in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms about
2(a) freedom of conscience and religion
2(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expresssion...
7 Right to life, liberty and security of the person.
If a simple majority says it is correct to run willy nilly off a cliff without a parachute, do you follow suit or do you engage your brain and grab a hang glider?
Ted said:
"Jesus was not running for public office in a democracy designed to represent and give voice to all of its subjects."
No he was running for heavenly office, designed to give peace, love and understanding for ALL of HIS subjects.
Secondly, those who present obstacles in the pursuit of heaven, should just get the HELL out of the way.
Thirdly, nothing in a democracy says one should be 'tolerant' of death, destruction, chaos, political correctness, pseudo science or plain stupidity.
If the mob wants to howl at the moon, let them. It does not mean one has to join them.
I think there is something in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms about
2(a) freedom of conscience and religion
2(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expresssion...
7 Right to life, liberty and security of the person.
If a simple majority says it is correct to run willy nilly off a cliff without a parachute, do you follow suit or do you engage your brain and grab a hang glider?
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Isn't divisiveness just another form of diversity?
But Kathy, didn't your son god also say "And Jesus knew their thoughts and said unto them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation........."?
"Thirdly, nothing in a democracy says one should be 'tolerant' of death, destruction, chaos, political correctness, pseudo science or plain stupidity."
Totally true, Hans, but religiously inspired bigotry should be added to that list.
Hans:
You miss my point. I am only noting that, unlike what many of his followers would like to believe, Bush or Harper or Martin or Clinton or Obama or Blair or any of the other politicians are not Jesus nor anything like him. They have chosen another path, one which requires them to represent all of their subjects (which is not the same as do the bidding or accomodate all subjects). It is a significant trust that almost all politicians violate for partisan gain on all issues not just ideological issues.
If merely holding a political view is divisive, so be it. We get to vote or not for that political view. But our dear politicos however take that as license to forget that they are also representative of all their subjects and future generations and take every opportunity to split and divide citizens as well as the opposition in order to hold onto the reigns of power a bit longer. In our case in Canada, Deceivin' Stephen has learned at the feet of his political masters - Lyin' Brian and Jean Chretien - and has mastered even those Machievellian masters in petty partisan divisiveness for political gain.
Like I said yesterday:
Jesus came to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Mohammed came to separate your head from your body.
Big Al said: "Jesus said these comments not to cause divisiveness, but to illustrate how believing in him would divide families because not everyone could accept his message. And, his harshest criticisms were leveled at the Pharisees"
This is correct. For the most part, the message of Scripture is actually the inner battle over sin and its effect upon the way one lives. A Christian exhibiting victory over sin will demonstrate: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
As Big Al pointed out, this particular passage used by Kathy is not intended to be a rebuke. If the purpose of this post is to determine the strongest rebuke given by Jesus, that may be found in Matthew 23:
13) But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
14"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
15"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
16"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.'
17"You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?
18"And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.'
19"You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering?
20"Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it.
21"And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it.
22"And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.
23"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
24"You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
26"You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
27"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
28"So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31"So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32"Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
33"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
34"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,
35so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36"Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
37"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38"Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
39"For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'"
Dthomas: "This post and the comments which follow resemble the divining entrails of a Zulu goat."
So you admit your post is a divining entrail?
Conrad - you seem to have a problem with "religiously inspired bigotry". Explain yourself. Is your problem the religion or the bigotry? Or are you just incapable (as are so many people) of using words correctly?
From Websters...
"Bigotry : state of mind of a bigot : obstinate and unreasoning attachment to one's own belief and opinions with intolerance to beliefs opposed to them : behaviour or beliefs ensuing from such a condition."
Note the words "obstinate" and "unreasoning". Are you suggesting that people strongly attached to beliefs and opinions rooted in a religious framework hold these views ipso facto in an obstinate and unreasoning manner?
BTW, most popular defintions of bigotry omit these two qualifying words. Consequently, it has become socially acceptable to label as "bigot" anyone who disagrees categorically with another on sex, politics or religion.
(By such definition, I am a bigot).
Methinks you've got a problem with religion...
What about religiously inspired intellectual curiosity, tolerance and caring?
BTW - Christ was born into an age of Barbarism.
Most of these liberal minded egalitarians who like to knock Christians and religion in general would have little hope of survival in that world.
And you can for the most part thank Christians for the fact that you don't have to!
This on-going division is most obvious in the Anglican, Lutheran and United (so-called) churches.
v27: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
It's hard to believe the hubris in calling themselves Christian while picking, ignoring and arbitrarily changing the Bible to fit their perverted 'modern' views.
Christ may have been divisive, but at least he was inclusive when he said,
"Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish".
You can take him at his word.
Big Al is a real genius.
He says that the Pharisees were using 600 laws to control their people. But "Jesus said that they didn't need all those laws, just to follow Him."
Haha. Hey Al, that's even more controlling than laws. At least laws set limits to how much following you have to do.
Wonderful discussion ,especially in light if the truth of this verse:
Is.55:11
I would add that Jesus would 'divide' the religious, from the faithful.
without christianity we would not be what we are. free.
Hey Gibson Block, when you follow someone, there's always an element of choice, isn't there? Who's really setting the limits?
wasnt this Jesus guy a joo or something like that?
And Jeazus said: " Let there be light!"
And lo- it shone for f**king miles.