We feel that there’s content for God in the Bible…
That’s the weirdest hermeneutic I’ve seen in a long time. What does that even mean?
Also, loudmouth bully does not equal warrior spirit.
Also also, St. Francis did not enjoy financial success. Neither did Jesus Christ.
That explains why he makes every woman he sleeps with wear that mask.
It sounds like a social-marketing spambot attempting mysticism; but I have no idea whatsoever what it means or how it is connected to the second half of the sentence.
I suspect that the good Dr. Harlow would be unsurprised that a primate that prefers financial surrogates to maternal affection exhibits a variety of profound psychological disturbances.
Money-worshipping scumbags support one another.
Colour me shocked
Something’s familiar about that Trump scowl…
Might the pastor mean ‘conTENT’ and not ‘CONtent’?
No support for that weirdo who said you couldn’t love both God and money, then?
How stupid do you have to be, exactly, to be a fundamentalist evangelical? Too stupid actually to read the Bible?
Only in the United States of America could Christianism transmogrify into a literal Capitalism worshipping religion.
I was going to comment on that line also!
Perhaps he means that there is content in the bible that god could do with reading because he obviously doesn’t believe it or act on it? Or that god hasn’t read the bible, like Donald Trump.
Or maybe it’s short for contentment for god. Which is a weird anthropomorphic projection to make on a book, or collections of writings, which don’t feel any contentment at all.
I think that was really more an anit-imperialist stance from Jeebus back in the day. The money had Caesar on it rather than being jewish state money. It kind of was most likely why he got all smart arsey on render onto god and Caesar stuff
people like him make me wish hell was real.
From a gnostic perspective, it is, and we’re living in it.
I used to drive past a Catholic wares shop on my way to work every day - it sold everything from glow-in-the-dark Infants of Prague to communions wafers to LED-lit BVM micro-shrines. They used to have an over-life size St Francis who was built like a body builder or life saver in the window. I bet he would have been a prosperity Christian.
Breaking news! Loonies like Trump!
Also in the news God and the whole universe fit through the eye of a needle.
But you can make a million, 30 pieces of silver at a time.
That’s only one passage, though. Jesus preached about greed and money many many times, and the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that yes, you can’t love money and God at the same time. They are always at odds with one another.
Not that you really need a scholar to make that clear. Jesus’ teachings on greed are pretty overt and easy to grasp. It’s fine to be wealthy, but it’s not okay to love money, and if you aren’t using money to help out others, it means you love money more than people, thus meaning you love money more than God through the transitive property of shepherding.
Also, he wasn’t anti-imperialist, which is actually why the Pharisees hated him. Jesus was a Messiah claimant at a time when all Jews expected their savior to be both a religious and political figure – a great priest and general who would lead a revolution to shatter Roman tyranny and restore the nation of Israel.
Jesus wasn’t interested in that. Instead, he talked about the Kingdom of God and went around doing incredibly offensive things like calling a Roman centurion the most faithful man he had ever met and speaking to Phoenecian women (back in the day, rabbis could not speak with women in public, and certainly not with Gentile women).
He even submitted to legal authority and went willing to his crucifixion, even going so far as to chastise Peter for attempting to stop his arrest through violence. Not a very rebellious sentiment.
The really ironic thing about health and wealth preachers is that Christian theologians view them as very liberal. They may be culturally conservative (alcohol is bad, gambling is bad, secular media is bad, etc) but the theology they preach is actually very liberal (works-based religious merit, health and wealth, claims of prophetic power, being “struck by the Holy Spirit”).
I can see your justification for all of what you say, some of which I disagree with more than other bits, but I don’t think we can say what Jesus thought or meant was in fact clear at any point. I agree that Jesus probably thought that you couldn’t love god and money at the same time but everything you can say about Jesus is filtered through conflicting agendas, corrupted texts, and third hand sources. It’s never clear.
It’s quite notable outside of that passage in Matthew about the centurian how little interest he had in gentiles at all (his journeys around Galilee always seemed to avoid the gentile cities) and indeed the Jesus of Matthew was a pretty normal jewish rabbi (St. Jerome called that one the gospel of the Hebrews and it was the one used by the Jesus movement in Jerusalem with his brother James and it is the one which says that salvation is to be found through following the law - the “let him without sin” story about the adulterer which contradicts the law of Moses is considered to be a much later interjection by many scholars) which could not be said of some of the other gospels.
I do however think that Jesus was quite likely an anti-imperialist, though his focus was on the traitorous religious and political elite in Judea rather than the force of Rome.
A hell created out of the collective subconscious will of the people who believe in it, and reserved for believers and preachers (whether or not they actually believe) who smugly assume that they are too good to go there.
Ahh, that makes more sense, a little bit.