So tonight on my way back from ACL, there were these insufferable street preachers yelling at people through megaphones telling them that we were all going to hell for listening to devil music and shit. They've been coming back there to the same spot for the past four years now.
Does anybody happen to know if Texas cities, or Austin specifically, require street demonstrators to acquire a license or anything of the sort?
Like · · 14 hours ago- Clint Mills and Beth Jurzec like this.
Luisa Lowry Oh geez.... :/ That is not the Gospel. Sorry you have to go through them.14 hours ago · Like- Nels Nelson Oh they were quoting verses right out of Matthew. I recognized the words. Matthew is one of the Gospels alright.14 hours ago · Like
Carlos Ernesto Marin Well considering that fundamentalist Christians elected our governor and most of congress, even if there was a permit requirement, I doub't it would be enforced against them.14 hours ago · Like- Nels Nelson There were actually uniformed officers (Austin PD) making sure that none of the crowds could get close to them. Plus they had legit 300 pound body guards. I am certain there had been violence before.14 hours ago · Like
- Luisa Lowry Yes, Matthew is one of the books of the Gospels BUT their approach to Christianity is NOT the Gospel. Those people make me sad because that is not what true Christianity is about at all.14 hours ago · Like
- Nels Nelson :-) Sorry, I love you Luisa, but I disagree. That's *exactly* what Christianity is all about. It's about trying to divide the world up into two different kinds of people -- the people who are going to heaven, and the people who are going to hell. That's all there is to it. Jesus said so himself.14 hours ago · Like
- Nels NelsonLuke 12:51 "Suppose you that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, No; but rather division: 52 "For from now on there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 "The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." That's Jesus talking.14 hours ago · Like
Jon BurginYou misunderstand Nels, It is about all the people. All Jesus is saying is that one cannot compromise one's faith. One cannot say I'll only follow 9 of the 10 commandments so that I don't offend my neighbor. In this, there will be conflict,because one's believe will cause division. However, Jesus does not say to go condemning, which those men in Austin appear to be doing. It is unfortunate that so many focus on other's sins instead of their own. For me, I've got enough of my own mess to clean up to worry about what music someone is listening too.14 hours ago · Like · 2 people
Anna Nelson That must be what they were shouting about on Saturday night too...glad we didn't stop to listen.7 hours ago · Like · 1 person- Nels Nelson Good morning, Jon! :-) I don't think I misunderstand at all. Either the biblical passages are open for fuzzy interpretations to content oneself, or they mean what they clearly say. I have never once seen any precise and reasonable criteria by which metaphor could be distinguished from literalism in the bible.3 hours ago · Like
- Nels NelsonAlso, I understand the bible very well. I also understand Christian communities very well. And while I admit that such communities are well-meaning, it is an unavoidable fact that the exact same creeds that are used to bond such communities are also often used to attack, humiliate, and abuse people outside of certain communities. This is the way of religious dogmas of all stripes, including the gospel creed, throughout history. That is simply inarguable. I am not picking on your creed of choice, Jon -- Christianity. I am saying that I understand Christianity very well, and I see absolutely zero difference between its substance, and any other religion in the world -- including ones adhered to by hate-filled individuals. Religion is an enabler of good, but also very, very immoral behavior.3 hours ago · Like
- Nels Nelson Anna Nelson, last night, I stopped for a moment or two. I listened. They quoted scripture verses verbatim. From memory. Precisely. They were shouting them. With vitriol. They were passionate. They were true believers. Would everyone in the world be as passionate about what they believe -- the world would dine upon itself.3 hours ago · Like
- Jon BurginIf I hit you on the head with a candle stick. Is the candle stick evil? Is it designed for that purpose? Or am I the one doing wrong. I believe that the Luke 12:51 is merely stating that following Jesus is not without consequences. After all, none of the disciples died of old age. Nowhere there does it advocate conflict. Nor does it say that following Jesus is the cause of the conflict, nor does it say that others are the cause of the conflict. Any other interpretation is on your part.3 hours ago · Like
- Jon Burgin If you truly understand the bible well, I envy you. I don't think that it is easily understood. As far as the metaphor (or parable) and literalism, there actually is a method for distinguishing between the too. I am not a scholar on the topic, but I think it is pretty rigorous. If you are interested I can ask a more learned person and get the reference for you.3 hours ago · Like
- Nels Nelson I understand that is what you believe, Jon Burgin. I think that belief clouds your reasoning.
I simply do not see how this can be interpreted in any other way: "Suppose you that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, No"
Also, your namesake, John the Apostle, died of natural causes at the age of 94.3 hours ago · Like - Jon Burgin Yup, I stand corrected. I don't dispute that he does not come to bring peace. But you said that Christianity advocates what those individuals in Austin were doing. You said that the Luke 12:51 says that you are suppose to go out and be hateful. It does not say that. It does not advocate an activity. It merely says that there will be conflict. What part of what I just said is 'clouded'?3 hours ago · Like
- Jon BurginI agree that we interpret differently. But I humbly suggest that it just might be not from difference in faith, but difference in understanding. By dismissing what I say with the clouded comment. You dismiss the possibility that you might be wrong. By claiming to understand well, you preclude the possibility of obtaining wisdom from the bible. The first step to wisdom starts with a question and and acknowledgement that there could be something we don't know.3 hours ago · Like
- Nels Nelson Now you are just misinterpreting *my* words, Jon. :-) That's what I mean by clouded.
I never, ever, said that Luke 12:51 advocates hate-bringing and violence. What I said was that it clearly states that the world is divided up into two different groups of people -- people who are going to heaven from people who are going to hell.3 hours ago · Like - Jon Burgin Louisa said "That is not the Gospel. Sorry you have to go through them." and you said that it was what Christianity is all about, meaning that there actions were gospel. Or am I misunderstanding something there?3 hours ago · Like
- Nels Nelson Jon, that is exactly what they were doing. They weren't attacking anyone. Yeah, they had bodyguards. But they were just saying bible verses and telling everyone that they were going to hell unless they repented of their wicked ways.
They were only doing what was commanded of them by their bible. The exact same bible in which you put your faith.3 hours ago · Like - Nels NelsonJust because I state that I understand the bible, does not preclude wisdom harvesting from it. That makes no sense.
When I was a young man, I had been a born again Christian for over a decade. My journey did indeed start with a question. That question was, among many, many others: why would the god of the bible, a supposedly infinitely loving being condemn billions perhaps trillions of souls to unimaginable suffering and torment for eternity in the afterlife?3 hours ago · Like - Jon Burgin In short he doesn't. But shoot, I got to work day job, lets talk sometime, I'd love to hear what you have to say on this.3 hours ago · Like
- Nels Nelson Oh, but he does indeed. Clearly you have not read the passages that state explicitly that he does. Either that, or you interpret them in a fuzzy way so that you can feel better about what you choose to believe.3 hours ago · Like
- Nels Nelson Not to mention the unimaginable suffering that is endured senselessly here in the real world. No loving interventionist god would allow such atrocities. It is illogical for a loving interventionist god to allow hundreds of thousands of innocent people to die in a tidal wave in the Indian Ocean in 2004. I could go on and on.3 hours ago · Like
- Luisa Lowry Oh Nels... I'm still sorry that you had to go through them. And for all these questions and disagreements you have. Keep searching for the answers.2 hours ago · Like
- Nels Nelson I'm not sorry in the least, Luisa. :-) I'm very sorry that you feel sorry for me. :-) That's such a shame.2 hours ago · Like
Similarly, the separation of the actor from the object, but with the opposite ascribed value: St. Augustine's famous phrase, "Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum" or, "With love for mankind and hatred of sins."
Why not take the sentiment all the way? Love for the gun owners, hatred for the guns. Love for the murderers, hatred for murder. Love for the religious, hatred for the religion. Obviously there is something amiss about this line of thought. Surely concepts such as "sin" and religion cannot be qualified in the same terms as murder and guns?
And yet, a person does "sin". Just like a person does damning. Just like a person does shooting. Sin does not do the sinning for the sinner. Guns do not do the shooting for the shooter. However, religions, dogmas, creeds, they do the damning through the damner. Religions are just people, telling people, that people other than themselves are damned.
Sort of like corporations -- yeah, they're people -- but they're a bunch of people worshipping at the alter of a giant stack of money, and not just capable of committing but wont to commit horrible atrocities.
Religions are exactly the same. Yes, religion is just people. But they are a bunch of people worshipping at the alter of a deity or creed, and capable of even worse.
However, when people do good things, I am to believe that it is somehow the religion doing the good things, not just the person. The people are still the actors, but their faith in a higher power is what is enabling them to act in a moral manner. But the opposite? When the words of religious dogmas turn ugly? The damnation? We are to believe that those words originate with the people speaking them, not their faith in the one true god.
I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Religions and corporations alike are examples of group-think. Because they are by definition group identities, one cannot dissociate the individual from the group when it comes to their actions. The action of one member of the group is in fact the action of many, and conversely, the action of the group is in fact the collective action or tacitly approving inaction by the individual.
Just saying, "Oh I'm not in that group" or, "Well, no true Christian would ever... do such and such" is not enough. Quibbles and endless distinctions of dogmas and interpretations will be made, but the words are still there clear as day, binding religions and sects together whether all of their followers are comfortable with those words or not. The fact is that most followers of a religion will not even care enough to notice the contradictions in their sacred texts, let alone try to rationalize them, but will instead blindly follow what they are told by the group.
Individual people own nothing except for their actions and words. Bad actions are forgivable, sure. Good actions are commendable, of course. But religions are just the collections of words spoken a long time ago by a bunch of people who insisted upon themselves (and adopted by people who continue to insist upon themselves) and who were intolerant of your reason as well as your forgiveness.
You are capable of great wrong, not only despite your religion, but because of it. You are also capable of doing good, with or without it. Religion, however, is the enshrined belief of your ancestors that you are incapable of living without their guidance. Religion demands that you place your faith in their lack of faith in you to do what is right all on your own.
