“Woke”

[Hercules56]

I don't recall Jesus being quoted as being against gay marriage. Loving your enemies sounds like something people would criticize as "woke". As for socialism, socialism is a political and economic system wherein the production and regulation of goods and services is controlled to some degree by the people. I'm not familiar with any teachings of Jesus that either advance or oppose socialism. It can (and has, for centuries in the monastic orders) be interpreted that Jesus was in favor of small-scale community communism, the holding of all possessions in common, but that has not been applied beyond monastic orders on practical grounds. (It was also controversial to what degree possessions should be held in common, what counted as possessions, and who was included or excluded in said community -- it was a frequent sore point between some orders and the papacy during the Middle Ages; a clerical devotion to poverty was sometimes seen to be a criticism of a hierarchy which was spectacularly --in both senses-- wealthy.)

But I suspect you know this and are merely misusing the term "socialism" as so many do.

BLM and Antifa certainly do NOT love their enemies. Nor do the folks who push for Cancel Culture for the insufficiently Woke.

And yes, Socialists love to make believe that Jesus was one of them.

And yes Jesus opposed divorce unless the one you divorce is guilty of "sex sin", whatever the **** that is.

 

[TragicMonkey]

BLM and Antifa certainly do NOT love their enemies. Nor do the folks who push for Cancel Culture for the insufficiently Woke.

I think it's pretty clear that the body of teachings attributed to Jesus is sufficiently vast that it encompasses both things that are "woke" and things that are not "woke", no matter how this extremely nebulous term "woke" is being defined (usually with accompanied spittle, judging by tone).

And yes, Socialists love to make believe that Jesus was one of them.

Perhaps he was. He did a lot of sharing and not much capitalist endeavor. He didn't charge for the miracle caterings he did, nor his medical practice. But for the latter he didn't bill a government-run single payor either. I'm not confident that an ancient Hebrew religious mystic living in an imperial Roman province is precisely definable in terms of modern political and economic labels.

And yes Jesus opposed divorce unless the one you divorce is guilty of "sex sin", whatever the **** that is.

Did he? I'd like a citation for that. Outside of the Pentateuch it's mostly Paul who bangs on about marriage, I can't recall any remarks on the topic attributed to Jesus by the four evangelists. He attended weddings but wasn't married himself; did Hebrews of that era even have divorce? The Romans certainly did, but Jesus didn't criticize Roman culture that much, he was more critical of his own people.

 

[arthwollipot]

Maybe use the word "unfair" instead of racist, because that seems to be the underlying mantra;

"It's not FAIR!"

I think it would be more accurate if you substituted "equitable"

"It's not EQUITABLE"

followed by

"Something must be done."

 

[d4m10n]

...the money lenders would like a word but they weren't allowed one.

I don't think we can safely assume that the character depicted in the cleansing of the temple pericope is the same rabbi who counseled his disciples to love their enemies. Unless we're fundamentalist Christians and believe that the compilers of these stories and sayings were somehow divinely assisted in getting all their facts straight.

 

[d4m10n]

The critics of 'woke' even make up things like pedoes being called 'MAP'

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,37&q="minor+attracted"&btnG=

Sent from my LMGTFY 9000 using Tapatalk

 

[tyr_13]

I don't think we can safely assume that the character depicted in the cleansing of the temple pericope is the same rabbi who counseled his disciples to love their enemies. Unless we're fundamentalist Christians and believe that the compilers of these stories and sayings were somehow divinely assisted in getting all their facts straight.

Special pleading. The teachings of Jesus are what they are, even if all of it is made up. Picking out one part and saying 'well this part is made up' is dishonest.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,37&q="minor+attracted"&btnG=

Sent from my LMGTFY 9000 using Tapatalk

Red herring and cherry picking, great. You'll never change.

The critics of 'woke' even make up things like pedoes being called 'MAP' and saying the left supports protecting them along with the LGBTQ community. Raping children is 'woke'.

 

[d4m10n]

Special pleading. The teachings of Jesus are what they are, even if all of it is made up. Picking out one part and saying 'well this part is made up' is dishonest.

I've no idea which bits were made up, and neither do you. Special pleading would be to pretend some of them are authentic.

Red herring and cherry picking, great.

Failure to admit you made a simple mistake of fact, great.

 

[arthwollipot]

Special pleading. The teachings of Jesus are what they are, even if all of it is made up. Picking out one part and saying 'well this part is made up' is dishonest.

Not really. The Gospels are known to have been written long after the events they depict, derived from a variety of sources. It would be an error to think that they are complete, whole, and consistent.

 

[jt512]

I believe they would say that there clearly is [present-day] discrimination, otherwise the numbers would not come out different.

I had been under the impression that although Kendi (and his followers) claim that disproportional racial representation in a field means that there is structural racism in that field, he does not claim that means there is current discrimination in the field. To me, it is obvious that there can be no current discrimination in (say) hiring and promotion in a field, yet there could still be disproportional representation in it. One obvious possible cause of that would be if there had been discrimination in the past.

I happen to be, at present, collaborating on a paper where the distinction between disproportionate representation being racism per se (my understanding of Kendi) and disproportionate representation implying that there is current discrimination against Blacks (my understanding of your understanding of Kendi) is relevant. FWIW, my co-authors agree with the latter.

 

[tyr_13]

I've no idea which bits were made up, and neither do you. Special pleading would be to pretend some of them are authentic.

Yet you rest your criticism on that part not counting.

When discussing anything fictional or mythohistoric, it's a damn cheat to then go, 'well this part must not count because it's clearly made up'. Your headcanon isn't a valid argument.

Failure to admit you made a simple mistake of fact, great.

Yeah, just no. The 'left' aren't the ones saying pedophilia is just 'MAP' that deserves the same protections as the LGBTQ community. You want to separate out the MAP usage in scholarly settings for some reason, and it doesn't appear that reason is intellectually honest.

Like I said, you'll never change.

 

[tyr_13]

Not really. The Gospels are known to have been written long after the events they depict, derived from a variety of sources. It would be an error to think that they are complete, whole, and consistent.

There is no need to argue they are complete, whole, and consistent to argue that one can't just throw out the parts that are not convenient for one's argument.

It's a special pleading. The money lender part doesn't count...because.

 

[d4m10n]

Yet you rest your criticism on that part not counting.

I said that we've no reason to believe "love your enemies" came from the mouth of the table-flipping character and I stand by that.

When discussing anything fictional or mythohistoric, it's a damn cheat to then go, 'well this part must not count because it's clearly made up'.

When discussing anything fictional or mythical, it's good ask ask why anyone should take life advice from it.

The 'left' aren't the ones saying pedophilia is just 'MAP' that deserves the same protections as the LGBTQ community.

You made it sound as if the very idea of "MAP" was made up by anti-woke folks.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[arthwollipot]

There is no need to argue they are complete, whole, and consistent to argue that one can't just throw out the parts that are not convenient for one's argument.

It's a special pleading. The money lender part doesn't count...because.

Why? The story about the moneylenders might come from a totally different source than the story of the Sermon on the Mount. In fact I'd bet money that it does. Matthew and Luke are known to draw from both Mark, which was the first written and is also known to be drawn from multiple sources, and a source called the "Q Gospel" which is no longer extant, but which appears to have been a collection of statements and sayings that were attributed to Jesus in those gospels. The character that Mark depicts and the character that said the things that Q collated could have been two very different people.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why are people assuming "love thy neighbor" is incompatible with flipping blasphemous moneylender tables in the temple? I love some of my family but that doesn't mean I never get mad at them when they do something dreadful.

 

[Lplus]

I think it would be more accurate if you substituted "equitable"

"It's not EQUITABLE"

followed by

"Something must be done."

Equitable? Fair? That's a damn fine hair you're splitting there.

And I did follow it with "Something Must Be Done"

But you snipped that for some reason...

 

[Hercules56]

Jesus on marriage & divorce:



"3 The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”

7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV

Not very Woke, opposing divorce and all.

 

[theprestige]

What's woke about divorce?

 

[Hercules56]

What's woke about divorce?

The right to end a marriage, for reasons you decide require it, is Woke.

Jesus however didn't believe in divorce UNLESS your spouse committed so-called "sex sins".

 

[Darat]

The right to end a marriage, for reasons you decide require it, is Woke.

Jesus however didn't believe in divorce UNLESS your spouse committed so-called "sex sins".

Wonder why the didn't use "fornication" - that seems to be pretty settled for translations.

 

[shuttlt]

The right to end a marriage, for reasons you decide require it, is Woke.

Jesus however didn't believe in divorce UNLESS your spouse committed so-called "sex sins".

I don't see where the dividing line would be between liberalism and wokism. Are libertarians woke? I'd expect them to be in favour of at will divorce.