Wednesday, March 07, 2007

The Atheists Booted Me - for Guess What - Context!!!

I just got booted from speaking with the atheists for merely having a mind enough to say 'context' about a certain passage that was used against the bible (from within the bible oddly enough). Apparently, when referring to context I 'must be wrong'? Here is the passage and you decide.

25 Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them,
26"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
27"Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
28"For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?
29"Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him,
30saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.'
31"Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand?
32"Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.
33"So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.
34"Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned?
35"It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Apparently Jesus want us to hate everyone and ourselves - which is quite the contradiction from love God and your neighbor - hmmmm. Problem is this is a single verse being pulled from many that does have a 'context' and answer in verse 33 to the problem. You see the terms like 'otherwise' and 'or' seem to bridge the passage - which is plain to the naked eye and I ain't even an English teacher. Finishing in verse 33 with 'so...'. Point being 'you cannot follow Jesus if you hang onto your possessions'. Which seems troublesome but the point is backed up in verse 27 - 'you might have to lose your life for me' (this is just brutal honesty on Jesus' behalf and warning the large multitude). Scared yet?

Well, fact being Simon Peter never left his mother alone - actually Jesus healed her. Now that's a sure sign someone hates their mother - they let her get healed of her sickness by the same man that told him to hate her (not very logical). Oddly enough Peter and Andrew (brothers) and John and James (brothers) all followed Jesus - yet they were all there when Jesus announced this little ditty in Luke 8. Are these the signs of someone that wants you to 'hate mother and brother for him'?

What does make sense is the 'context' explanation. Jesus warns these people that if they want to follow him this might include 'death' - based on the calculation parables in Luke 8:28-32 - which talk about 'planning' and 'using your head' - so you can back out. So what's wrong with some brutal honesty - Peter and whoever else could of just walked away at that point - and spared themselves the pain of dying for his name. They knew what they were getting into (it would seem) and still pursued it - not wanting to be 'quitters' for the love of their master. But like the salt analogy (vs. 34) - they would of known they became 'unflavored and worth very little' as someone of credibility (denying their faith in face of violence).

So what does it all mean? In a weird sense 'hating' yourself (in comparison to your love for Christ) is the honest interpretation. You might have to 'lose it all' (ie: death by upsidedown crucifixion in Peter's case and stoned to death in James case). One could also say 'they loved not their life even unto the death' as another way of putting it.


AtheistInTheHat said...

Actually, it was just a boring conversation of you talking in circles...and then you said 'just kick me'.....and you were kicked. I guess you just wanted an excuse to bitch on your blog, but that's still pretty idiotic.

Anonymous said... asked to be kicked.

SocietyVs said...

"I guess you just wanted an excuse to bitch on your blog, but that's still pretty idiotic." (AITH)

Well it was a kick for spouting context though - which I find in a rationale convo about a book quite weird? I said 'kick me then' because I wasn't going to back down on context - which would of made very little literary sense to do (or honesty).

But I didn't 'bitch' about a single person, in any of my blogs, that is atheist - i simpy felt sleigthed - wrote down context in my own blog - no on got slammed for it. And you have the audacity to call me 'idiotic' for such a thing - interesting.

heissailing said...

Societyvs, not sure what you are arguing here, but it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus always meant for his followers to literally give up everything. Some Christians claim that what Jesus meant was for us to remove our stumbling blocks to him, but I think that is a cop-out.

By the way, I think I fixed the cookie problem.

SocietyVs said...

Yeah Heissailing - it works quite well now - thanks for that.

Jim Jordan said...

Central to this idea of "love" vs. "hate" is meaning. What we choose is what we love. If I choose to hang out at strip clubs, it is clear I love strip clubs. If I choose not to worship God, than I hate God.
Jesus said you cannot serve two masters. You must hate one and love the other. If you go to church and strip clubs [competing desires] and drop more money at strip clubs than church, guess what? You love strip clubs and hate church.
Love and hate is not rocket science but everything is rocket science to the atheist.
Atheists hate context because it would expose who they really are. They love (choose) nothingness by default while they hate existence. They live by agenda; truth is anathema.

Soul Food Dude said...

WAIT!!!! Watch it. Are we witnessing Christ to anyone here? What are we doing? Where's the love? Paul wants us Christians to "shine like stars to the world" (Phil 2.15). Is this the way to go about it? Condescension? Sarcasm? Mockery?

Are we 'off' when it comes to pseudo-anonymous chats online? Does the love of Christ not need to be involved here? Is blogging a break from that? Is this the place where we get our "anti-atheistic" anger out because we're being proper and good at work/school/etc.? These people, though we do not see them, are people. And they need love, just like we do. Everybody needs love. I say let's remind ourselves daily how much love and humility mattered to Jesus.

Anonymous said...

Hi Society,

We are to love Jesus above all and above all possessions. When we don't, we stumble in our walk with Him. Thankfully, He is the very meaning of forgiveness and picks us up and give us another chance.:0)

I didn't think this post sounded angry or unloving by the way. It just sounded like you wanted to discuss what had happened to you and love never means to deny reality.

Were they using the verse to try and point out contradiction? If so, then you ever so politely pointed toward the true contradiction, that which lies within themselves. That always makes folk angry but that's okay too. Jesus and His disciples often made sinners angry and as modern day disciples, we experience much the same that they experienced 2,000 years ago. There is truly nothing new under the sun.

Hang in there, kid.


SocietyVs said...

"Is this the way to go about it? Condescension? Sarcasm? Mockery?" (SFD)

Hi Soul food dude, I actually respect the atheists - this blog was in diagreeance with a point about context and the bible (a certain passage form Luke to be exact). I don't have bad feelings towards anyone over this - nor do I think they are 'less than' or deserve to be treated in a way that defames their character. I merely posted a blog - is someone takes offense to that - then I best be censored.

"Does the love of Christ not need to be involved here? Is blogging a break from that?" (SFD)

I agree it does. Blogging ins't a break from that at all.

"Is this the place where we get our "anti-atheistic" anger out because we're being proper and good at work/school/etc.?" (SFD)

Actually no - I never wrote in anger or type from venom that makes a single person feel bad about themselves - but merely talked about context from a book. I have no 'ill will' towards a single person to be absolutely honest - but this is just a blog and nothing more - one where I wanted to write 'what I felt and knew to be honest'.

"These people, though we do not see them, are people. And they need love, just like we do." (SFD)

I don't disagree in the slightest Soul Food Dude - I agree 100%. I have not treated a single atheist with dis-honor, dis-respect, or looked down upon them whether in chats, blogs, publis, I have said before I respect these people - I may not agree 100% with them - but that doesn't mean I dislike them.

Soul Food Dude said...

Hey Societysv,

I made a substantial error yesterday. I wasn't personally attacking you. Nor was I singly addressing you. It was very stupid of me to not see how that comment was going to appear. I'm very very sorry, Society. It was meant for any Christian who comes here and puts a comment. Obviously, I didn't make that clear at all. I had better be much more aware of what I'm doing. Society, I appreciated this post, and that wasn't the basis for what I said here. I was prompted by the comments, and not yours exclusively.

I'm gonna go eat crow now.


SocietyVs said...

Don't worry about it Jathan - I really respect what you had to say - both here and on the Atheists Suck page (on one of the blogs) - I think the candor of the message you are saying is accurate and I enjoy it.

Jack said...

If we agreed with everyone, then we would be everyone's friend, but then we would not be if differences of opinion are tolerated, then that is the beginning of some quality dialogue...or someone once said to me...

My Garden said...

I didn't realize that someone else was using my computer and was signed in on their account that last post from Jack's account was actually mine...weird...I will have to watch who is signed in on my computer

hineini said...

"I have not treated a single atheist with dis-honor, dis-respect, or looked down upon them whether in chats, blogs, publis, I have said before I respect these people - I may not agree 100% with them - but that doesn't mean I dislike them." (societyvs)

This doesn't sound honest. Are you saying your 100% innocent and all the other people you were speaking to are totally at fault? You make it sound like they (it seems it was more than one person) were irrational and vindictive. I have no idea what happened but I've never seen a case when one side is totally to blame before.

And there is very little as easy as villianizing atheists on a christian blog.

jim said...

Hi SocietyVS... I can relate to this incident, I have been in that position many times in the past as I use to be quite involved in "street witnessing" (confrontational style). I don't do that any more, not because I think it is inappropriate to share ones faith in the street, but because I look back at it and have regrets about the way I handled myself with people who disagreed with me. (I know that this is not necessarily a "steet" situation) I was prone to allow it to get ugly and nasty quickly. Not because I was always the antagonist, it was often the other way around. And in the onslaught it gets harder and harder to "keep cool".

I'm not saying I think you didn't handle yourself well, I trust you did. I'm just saying that reading about your incident ported me back to so many situations like it that I have been in. I came across these verses years ago that I had to think about for awhile because at first glance they seemed contradictory...

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
(Pro 26:4-5)

The trick of course is to do this in love and I know you're committed to that. The word "fool" makes the verses seem rather condesending at first. Two things stand out to me... I don't want to become the antagonist, or get drawn into becoming the antagonist. Secondly, I see love in the second verse, a love that doesn't want the other to stay stuck in their folly.

I want to make sure it is clear that I'm not implying that you didn't handle yourself well. When someone challenges something Jesus said and is naively misrepresenting him we need to say something. We don't want the individual to misunderstand Jesus, because in misunderstanding him, they miss out on him. I just wanted to share what was rolling around in my head as I read this post and offer the verse my reflections on it.

grace and peace

jim said...

oh ya, also... I checked out the Atheists Suck blog because you mentioned it above. I haven't done any thorough reading on it yet but the name itself is rather antagnostic and condescending, isn't it?

SocietyVs said...

Heinini, I hate to defend myself in this case but (for a good reason you don't believe me) - but I will tell how the whole thing went down - for clarification alone.

"And there is very little as easy as villianizing atheists on a christian blog." (Heinini)

First off, I haven't named a single athiest person in any of these blogs (in a single demeaning way) - this blog is basically a rebuttal to context on Luke 8:26 - nothing more - that I never got a chance to 'spit out' so I wrote what was fresh in my mind to write (maybe the atheists inspired me).

But here is the story...

I was in the RRS Stickam chatroom basically listening to convo between a few people - then as usually happens - I was asked if I was a theist? I said 'yes'. Then I was asked what kind? I said 'a Christian'. Then the questions came a flooding in.

I was asked a lot of things - which I took as honest questioning about 'why I believe what I believe' - which it was. Then I said they have to 'consider context' to one of the questions - that zachman asked about Luke 8:26.

As soon as I mentioned the word 'context' they said it was 'not accurate to call context and that if I did I would be booted for such a dumb arguement - since no context exists'. I said 'well kick me then...I think there is a context'. One moderator passed moderator rights to another and I was booted. Not a single name was thrown out there on either sides - but apparently 'context' is a foolish argument when looking at the bible - which is the sole reason I was booted.

But what more do I need to say - 2 atheists from Stickam commented at the top of this comment page and had only one thing to say about the situation - you said 'I want to be kicked'. And Atheist in the Hat is the one who booted me.

Not going to say i didn't feel dis-respected or dis-honored - I did - but I never took it out on them regardless. I wrote a blog about 'context' instead stating my position quite clearly - if only to myself. Which makes all the sense in the world - I just finsihed stating context in a blog before this one.

Am I innocent? Yes. I never said a vile thing to a single person in Stickam a single time - and I was on there all of last weekend (March 2-4).

But if my story is not believable - go to stickam - rational response squad - and ask them about it (if they even remember). If anything, I was being quite nice about the whole thing and when I rtesponded to questions - I was judged on the basis of what was considered a 'weak arguement'. Top that off, I took the insults thrown at me and never said a word (ex: idiot, stupid, moron, etc...).

Soul Food Dude said...

I want a beer.

jim said...

I guess the chat room is the new "street". It's the new "Mars Hill". As we know, Apostle Paul intentionally went to these kinds of places and engaged the people... if it was today maybe he would have a blog and hang out in the chat rooms. (perhaps (I just checked and if the Apostle Paul wants it that name is still available -smiles- ) You obviously have it in your heart to interact with Atheists in particular SocietyVs, and I can see that you are doing it with love and integrity. Many Blessings as you interact with them.

I guess my question about the Atheists Suck blog shouldn't really be asked of you as it isn't your blog. I hadn't seen it and was prompted to check it out when you mentioned it above. I guess I just had an intitial "check" as I read the blog header and needed to ask (misdirected as it may have been) the question.

Grace and Peace

SocietyVs said...

Jim, I think their blog is worth checking out (Atheists Suck) - but they are a little on the venomous side.

karen said...

First of all the word miseo as meaning "hate" has a much broader definition than the English word. This is the problem with translation..we put the biases, the double meanings, etc. of OUR language upon the one we're translating. That said, if anyone can't really tell what Jesus is saying here then, oh well for them.
I looked on the atheist sites after Katrina to see what they were doing for their fellow man. They had a huge list of organizations that were not religion-based that people could contribute to...but the site itself, the atheist organization, offered no help whatsoever. A group whose sole purpose is trying to destroy the belief systems of others has entirely too much time on its hands. They don't want to dialogue in a spirited and intellectual manner. They just want to be right.

Soul Food Dude said...

The blog is "Atheism Sucks!", not "Atheists Suck!"

Depending on who's reading, a fine line or a big difference.

SocietyVs said...

Sorry Jathan - my bad on that one.

hineini said...

"...but the site itself, the atheist organization, offered no help whatsoever"(karen)

Argueably there is an equally long if not longer list of churches that sit on their ass after any number of tragedies not to mention the prominent religious leaders who not only didn't "lend a hand" but made cruel statements indicating that New Orleans deserved its suffering.

"A group whose sole purpose is trying to destroy the belief systems of others has entirely too much time on its hands"(karen)

Should we just ignore the colonial bent of Christianity that has its own lust for annihilating its opponents?

"They don't want to dialogue in a spirited and intellectual manner. They just want to be right."(karen)

I know for myself personally I enjoy being right and I don't think I'm alone, no matter how one populates one's heaven. Lets set down the stones were hasty and eager to hurl. Love is nice.

karen said...

Every single church that I've seen, at the very least in our area, formed a plan for service to the Katrina victims. They didn't expend energy seeking out just the "right" organizations to commit to...they took action.
I don't like church, don't go to church, but churches and temples are the best at organizing help in crisis situations.
I still maintain that the atheist organization has no other "plan" or goal than to knock down the beliefs of others...whether Christian, Jew, Buddhists, whatever. They are built upon insulting others. One of our teachers at our school had a bumper sticker: "Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church." Seems Christians don't hold a monopoly in forcing opinions and beliefs on others.