Why do Atheist Socialists always quote and misunderstand this passage?

>Now for some History
There's actually no historical basis for that claim (which is somewhat recent, earlier apologists focused on possible translation errors), and the academic consensus on the eye of the needle being a gate is that it's wrong.

This is why some atheists say their know more about Christianity than Christians: because a lot of them do. They tend to score higher on tests of religious knowledge. The ability to study something somewhat objectively without needing to rely on what their priest tells them probably has something to do with that. Yeah, lots of them get annoying and can talk about point that are misinformation, but someone belief status has bearing on their ability to understand history.

>religion is objective

The whole point of religion is that it inspires millions of people, all in different ways - it isn't a fucking science that you can grade through tests

>no historical basis

the bible is a historical document

>the academic consensus

in other words (((scribes)))

>falling for the "eye of the needle isn't literal" meme

You're retarded. It's very clear what the passage means if you aren't desperately trying to rationalize it away.

To be fair they sometimes do

>the bible is a historical document
The Bible doesn't say that the eye of the needle was a gate. Someone in the fifteenth century made up the interpretation and people kept repeating it, even though there's no evidence that such a gate existed.

The spiritual aspects of history have little to do with its history, or certain other aspects of it, like lingusitics, that can also be studied in a more objective context (in other words, not under the assumption that you're dealing with the direct word of god and you need to approach it as a believer). Religious studies exists as a valid academic field.

>oh fuck Jesus didn't actually support my opulent lifestyle
>should I donate my wealth and be a good Christian?
>fuck that, I'll just pretend that Jesus meant something else!

Disgusting. Own up to your opulence or surrender it.

>Atheist scholars score higher on religious tests than your average church goer
Yeah no shit.
How about the priests who spend literally their entire life studying the religion that inspires them versus Atheists who study religion purely out of contempt?

Pointing out historical inaccuracies of a religion, originally spread by word of mouth, does not disprove the religion. Religion is about philosophy. Please, name one aspect of Christianity that, if applied, would make your life worse.

You seem to be projecting a lot. I argued for one of the things you think I was talking about. I was just explaining that a nonreligious person can posses knowledge about a religion.

knowledge ≠ understanding

>Please, name one aspect of Christianity that, if applied, would make your life worse.

Can't tell if trolling or if you really haven't ever read any Nietzsche, but something something slave morality.

No, Jesus meant exactly what he said. My issue is people (usually Atheists) who think this means Jesus was a Bernie Sanders supporter.

>Oh no, it is too hard to give of myself, resist temptation, and seek happiness through virtue alone!
Better let men treat me as a human cum bucket and get addicted to crack while hurting everyone around me because that's true freedom.

You're not a master.
How does "slave morality" make your life worse?

See

>Please, name one aspect of Christianity that, if applied, would make your life worse.
How about the fact that Jesus was a socialist condemning the rich? I'm not a fan of communism, sorry

Just read Nietzsche, his whole point was making a formal write-up of the exact sort of criticism you're curious about.

>I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.

>continental ̶s̶o̶p̶h̶i̶s̶t̶r̶y̶ philosophy
>formal

I've read Nietzsche.
Materialism is a philosophical dead-end and a one way trip to the exact nihilism Nietzsche feared

Okay, explain what it really means then, maybe without the mental gymnastics that Christians love to execute when defending their favorite book

>Why do Atheist pretend to know more about Christianity than Christians?

Because they literally do.

it's like pottery

So you're madder at a handful of college-aged socialists who have a different opinion than you on government policy, and don't care at all about the millions of hypocritical opulent Christians? Nice priorities.

All atheists hold a degree in Christian theology?

>Materialism is a philosophical dead-end

The real world is the only thing that isn't a dead-end. Focus on working with the real world and you get things like that computer you're using right now to communicate with people on the other side of the planet. Focus on working with otherworldly things like hoping real hard and chanting and you get exactly nothing.

What an absurd strawman. How did you even get there?

"Hypocritical" and "opulent" Christians aren't trying to raise my taxes.

It sounds like he got touched by a priest when he was a kid.

Heaven is just as much a state of mind here on Earth as it is otherworldly. His belief would only make happy those who are already affluent enough to be happy regardless of their beliefs. However, in practice, I have seen more pain and suffering caused by this type of thought than anything religion could bring. It creates drug addicts, sexual deviants, corrupt politicians, crony capitalists. It destroys families and turns men into animals the whole time telling them their lifestyle empowers them.

This type of mentality was the exact thing Jesus fought against and what ultimately got him killed.

If you think this makes Jesus a Socialist than you are an idiot. I can explain how Socialism is a scheme to make the Government more rich and powerful, but instead I'll chastise you for sticking modern political theory on a religious figure who lived 2000 years ago.

>Atheists know more about Christianity than Christians do.
Gee I don't know, maybe I got lost somewhere.

Their opulence is between themselves and God. Thats not what we're discussing here.

;^)

kek

this is actually true. i didnt get into christianity before my friend converted and now i'd say im probably more into it than him.

He's a young earth creationist though. They like to stay ignorant on the surrounding context of the bible and christian history.

you must be the same poster because in both these posts you misunderstand what the guy says.

Atheists do know more about Christianity than Christians do, though.

this must be the famed atheist logic i've been hearing so much about

so basically
the government shouldn't have to redistribute your wealth, you should donate it to the poor (the church) of your own "free will"

>Better let men treat me as a human cum bucket and get addicted to crack while hurting everyone around me because that's true freedom.

>It creates drug addicts, sexual deviants, corrupt politicians, crony capitalists. It destroys families and turns men into animals the whole time telling them their lifestyle empowers them.

Where did this "living in the real world means being a reckless, impulsive hedonist" meme come from? If you actually care about your life as it is on Planet Earth, why would you want to throw it away on recreational stimulants and prostitution? A better use of your time would be working hard, learning useful skills, accumulating a decent income, and learning and implementing novel ideas and technology to make the world a better place for yourself, your children, and your fellow man.

im correct though. the original guy didn't say that religion is objective and when he said no historical basis he wasnt talking about the bible. the reply posts with the greentext both clearly misunderstood so stfu.

>thinks he understands what socialism is.

>>Why do Atheist pretend to know more about Christianity than Christians?

9 times out of 10 they do.

the "smart" Christian well read in history and the church fathers is a rarity

you are not correct because we're not the same person and there is no reason to discount the bible as a historical source

>the bible as a historical source
This hasn't even been brought up yet. The only time anyone has addressed a historical claim that was not made in the bible.

If you think this makes Jesus religious than you are an idiot. I can explain how religion is a scheme to make the ruling class more rich and powerful, but instead I'll chastise you for sticking western religious theory on a jew who lived 2000 years ago.

Atheists are theology majors?

Uhhh yeah its called free will. No entity, whether it be God or Gubmint can force you to be virtuous. That is your job.

Is this not what Christians do? Do you think we all waste all our time praying and torturing ourselves for God? This meme comes from the fact that everyone I know who takes Nietzsche seriously partakes in or at least supports the lifestyles I mentioned. Christian morality helps the world run to everyone's liking.

>religion is a scheme
lol

There are, what percentage of Christians are theology majors? how many are familiar with near eastern history? How many know anything about the religion beyond the bible and what their preacher says ?

>Is this not what Christians do?

There's no reason why Christians can't work hard, learn useful skills, accumulate a decent living, etc. But that would be because they choose to, not because of Christianity. Christianity doesn't teach us to apply the scientific method and extrapolate patterns from the real world to construct helpful new technologies.

You're telling me there are a lot of Atheists in college? You're also telling me that the people that who go to church are more interested in their relationship to God rather than all of the Historical details? If you have never felt the Holy Spirit then you will never understand past what your sociology teacher can tell you.

Sounds like they interpret it correctly and you are rationalizing.

If you dont know the historical details you could not possibly understand the bible.

Do you really want a preacher who cant even read the bible in its orignial language?

>what is sloth
>what is gluttony
These mortal sins are mortal because if you let them take over your life, you will die without ever helping your fellow man and subsequently you will burn in hell and be hated by everyone you know.
Christianity provides guidance to better your life and your relationship to the world around and above you.

Probably about the same number as atheists, since atheist isn't an academic title with certifications attached to it.

That's why priests go to seminary and the parishioners go to Bible study. Sure, Bible study isn't 8 years of higher education, but it's enough to solidify your relationship to God.

lol kekekekek.
You mean people will use any means possible to make money? The Government can also get rich and powerful by telling people there is no God, family values are anti-feminist, and only Democrats can protect you.

Refraining from sloth and gluttony isn't the same as learning about the real world and using information about it to reshape it into a better place for yourself, your family, and your species. At best, Christianity is neutral towards worldly achievements. At worst, it can be interpreted as discouraging some of those worldly pursuits.

can you kneel before the king and say "i'm clean"

Most priests have a masters or a doctorate which I can at least respect.

With protestants it seems all over the board

That's to be expected with what Protestantism is all about (let the people learn for themselves and cut out all the extravagant papal formalities in between them and God).

ITT: christcucks BTFO

I see what you mean.
Well that seems to be a personal choice than anything. Look at a lot of godless adults who can never give a straight answer on anything spiritual and don't know anything about the world.

As far as the working class religious folks you seem to be referring to, they know as much as they need to know to make a living and provide for their families. Sure, scholars look down on these people from their ivory towers, but that doesn't mean their lives are less rewarding than yours.

Sure they can't talk about obscure poets from the 17th century or the the Roman invasion of Iberia, but who are you going to go to when your car breaks down or you need a new roof or Tyrone and Shabooboo decides to rob your house for jenkem money? And who says they wouldn't be interested in the knowledge you have to offer?

>no historical basis for what you say!
>but my bullshit made up statistics is fine

Yeah, nah

Yes, and that has proven to be a massive mistake.

I interpreted it as just because you are rich has zero bearing in entering the Kingdom of Heaven

He is not saying being rich is bad, but being a dick about it is

There is no historical basis for the claim that the eye of the needle was a gate in Jerusalem. At all. A five second google search will yield tons of sources, including ones written by Christians, confirming that. It was a claim made up a few hundred years ago and has no evidence supporting it.

>bullshit made up statistic
This is one of a few studies like this. The results are all pretty consistent.

pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

the catholic church has existed longer than the bible.
Jesus founded a Church, he didnt write a book.

This.

Why do you think anyone gives a fuck about your stupid religion when it's claims to legitimacy rest on very dubious propositions? Magic doesn't exist and people don't rise from the dead after being dead for three days.

one way or the other, its all bullshit. the church is not specified at all by jesus, theres no other records of that and the church is corruptible and fallible. its all ultimately bullshit. other churches can also claim catholicity or wtever the fuck u call it. you know at the end of the day you're all going to be biased football supporters that have to support their team.

The catholic claim to legitimacy by way of apostolic succession is absurd and asinine.

i agree. its shit.

>the church is not specified at all by jesus
did you miss the whole peter thing?

do you know what specify means? specific? jesus said one thing to peter and if you interprete the way of building a specific organisation called the church, it isnt specified how. the churches practises aren't automatically justified through the bible. Even mass, the cornerstone of catholic life is justified at best, very ambiguously in the bible.

there is a lot of play or riches, value and wealth in new testament and apocripha, the idea is pretty much that being rich, having lands, houses, servants, slaves, other animals, fine clothes and other material stuff means by default youre not doing it right, you couldnt actualy live that lifestyle and follow christ, you should have given it all away allready, or distributed most of it, or, in more protestant logic, invested the talents

the problem isnt realy moral, its more onthological, being rich and compeeting with others to stay rich means you dont get the fundamentals of reality, youre like a child or a fool playing around with bits of dead dirt when you are being offered the greatest wealth and value imaginable, and you dont actualy understand what you are or what other living things moving around you are either

in that context it dosent even matter if youre a good person or a moral person or a person at all, its that youre not getting it, youre stuck in the world and believe shit has value if its shiny or does things or makes others do things

on the other hand if you understand this, that its fundamentaly all dead shit, that even living things are just moving dirt, that only christ is alive and that he is they way and the light etc... it dosent matter, you can as well be rich, but if youre a christian you will behave and live accordingly

christianity is way more eery and morbid than people give it credit, most christians completely misconcieve the message

so a rich man cannot have true faith in god?

>the bible is a historical document

It's a historical document in that it's a document from history, but the content of it is likely bullshit. Take off your credulity glasses and think about how reliable a document is that describes events that happened 30-100 years before anyone even wrote it down. Anything that's attributed to Jesus is likely 100% pure bullshit.

you do realize that the vast majority of information we have about antiquity comes from non-contemporaneous sources yes?

yes and scholars usually analyse them for their reliability and the gospels usually come up short.

infact, the gospel has its own historical errors in it which are logically provable.

scribes gonna scribe

damn they really should do a graphic novel based on the gospels and acts and then make a film like sin city.

whatever errors may exist i can guarantee you they do not materially compromise the message of the gospels.

that would be awesome but i feel like it would get shut down. remember what happened to mel after the passion?

These are from Rick Griffin's "Gospel of John" btw.

no they dont but it poses a question to some people depending on how they view the bible's infallibility. specifically literalist, young earthers.

i actually really enjoyed the passion

if he has true faith he dosent show it, hes keeping himself rich, so he values riches

this means he hasnt actualy accepted christ, he dosent get it, his faith is besides the point, its all for nothing

its a kind of morbid absurdism, paul goes into this a lot, but the gospel of thomas presents it in rather clear terms, this material reality is refered to as 'the world', everithing in it is esentialy corruptible, conditioned, contingent, dead, a compilation of corpses animated by unholy forces, thus pursuing riches is a silly necrophiliac endevour, and maintaining the mentality necesary for pursuing riches means one is lost, blinded by pre-program, living in illusion

imagine if it was a kind of bladerunner reality in which the inhabitants take it seriously and actualy make a effort to aquire more dead crap into their possesion or to their artificial personalities name or to adorn and please their soon-past-expiration date biomechanical bodies

this is a point of view typical of early christianity and continued trough catholicism and orthodoxy as well as even more radicaly in bogumil and cathar faiths and recuring in some variation in most heretical and gnostic sects, but strangely absent from most protestant worldviews

are you big influenced by gospel of thomas?

i think this creates an issue in that how do you even know if you have the right faith.

all christian sinners go to heaven too don't they?

The bible is a historical document, but like any historical document is not taken on face value.

Even a novel that describes contemporary lifestyles can be a historical document

ok but the bible is still a historical document.

yes it was a great film.