Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

User avatar
1 Cor 7:1
Happy Bachelor
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:48 pm

Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by 1 Cor 7:1 » Wed Nov 05, 2014 4:30 am

This post is in part a reply to a question phoenix asked me on another thread. Rather than risk going too OT on the original thread, I've posted it here in the Spirituality forum -- I know that there are good few Christian HBs, and still others with an interest in the Bible. And so to business...

The modern Western church often portrays Jesus as the quintessential New Man; exalting women over men, downplaying female sexual transgressions and generally white-knighting His way around the holy land. This idea rests on a few passages in the Gospels: the sinful woman in Luke 7; the woman at the well in John 4; and the woman caught in adultery in John 8. Dealing with all of these would take me an age, so -- and by way of an answer to phoenix's question -- I shall focus on the last one, which is the one which the church gynolaters cite most frequently, and with which they do the most damage. ...And which is the least straightforward of the three to unpack.

It's a short account -- only nine verses -- but there's quite a lot in it. You can read it here.

The popular conception of what occurs in this account is that Jesus the Great White Knight rides to the rescue of a woman caught in adultery and waives the charges against her, throwing out the nasty old Law that God gave Moses. And sadly it is the church itself which has spread this error.

But think about it. Jesus came to live a perfect life -- to keep the Law perfectly -- so that in fulfilling the Law, He could offer up His perfectly righteous life as a ransom for the unrighteous lives of those who choose to follow Him. Jesus therefore could not break the Law, much less simply throw it out. The religious authorities knew this and knew His claims -- they were watching him like hawks to see whether He "walked the walk", and moreover, were always trying to catch Him out.

And the incident described in John 8 was one such attempt to discredit Him. The episode with the adulterous woman was not about the woman: it was all about Jesus. We're told in the account
John 8:3-6a (KJV) wrote: And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
They thought they had Him between a rock and a hard place. At that time, the Jews in Israel were under the rule of Rome, and were not permitted to carry out their own judicial executions -- Rome had to do it (which is why the Jewish religious authorities had to get the Roman authorities to do their dirty work of crucifying Jesus Christ). Hence, those who brought this adulteress before Jesus thought that they had him trapped between keeping the Law of Moses and obeying the law of the land -- if He were to disregard the former, He would be forever discredited as a rabbi (and certainly as the Messiah); if He were to disregard the latter, then He could be handed over to the Romans as a troublemaker. Either way, He'd be out of their hair.

So, what did Jesus do?
John 8:6b-8 (KJV) wrote: But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
This is one of Jesus' most misinterpreted statements in the whole New Testament. The common misconception is that Jesus is saying that only those who are morally perfect can execute a judicial sentence or punish someone. Think about that for a moment. If that were the case, then since no-one is morally perfect, all criminals would have to go free; all law would be effectively toothless and people could do evil with impunity; parents could not even discipline their own children. It is a recipe for lawless anarchy, something which is seen as evil throughout Scripture. More significantly, it would contradict the Law God gave to Israel, since He commands them to carry out certain punishments.

Those who have thought more deeply about this may say that the sin to which Jesus refers is itself the sin of adultery -- that anyone who was about to stone this adulteress would have to be clear of the sin of adultery themselves. ...Which is perfectly reasonable, of course, and it may have been the case that these men were all guilty of adultery themselves: in the society of Jesus' day men often treated women poorly, and it was very common for men to divorce their wives frivolously (rather than the other way round, as in our society). However, the text doesn't tell us that they were adulterers, so this is a conjecture.

The text also doesn't tell us what Jesus wrote on the ground, itself the subject of much conjecture. Many have suggested that it was a list of sins of the men present, pointing to the fact that the men were convicted in their conscience. ...But the text says that they continued to ask Jesus whilst He was writing these things down, rather than being stopped in their tracks and quickly filtering away mortified. Ultimately we don't know for sure what it was that He wrote. However, an idea suggests itself, given the circumstances.

Jesus is being asked to act as judge in a legal case. And so, what does any good judge do? He clarifies the law pertaining to the case brought before him. When tested by Satan, Jesus repeatedly used the expression, "it is written", pointing Satan back to the Law. So what could it be that is written on the ground during this trial? It's hardly a stretch to think that Jesus, called to act as judge would have written out the relevant portion of the Law.

...But irrespective of whether He wrote the Law down or not, He had to keep it. So what was the Law as it pertained to this case? Let's see.

First, some general principles God gave for handling legal trials...
Deuteronomy 19:15 (NIV) wrote: One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
And, as regarding cases pertaining to capital crimes:
Deuteronomy 17:6-7 (NIV) wrote: On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.
So, we need two or three witnesses. And the witnesses must cast the first stone.

Now to the Law dealing with this specific crime:
Leviticus 20:10 (NIV) wrote: If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
Reiterated later as...
Deuteronomy 22:22 (NIV) wrote: If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
Notice anything? Have this group of men actually followed this Law? Or have they, in their haste to trap Jesus, overlooked what exactly they were supposed to do? If they were concerned with justice, rather than with trying to catch Jesus out, they would have followed the Law and brought the man along, too. The witnesses to the act would have seen who the man was -- and yet they've let him go. Why? And what does the Law say about this?
Deuteronomy 16:19 (NIV) wrote: Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the innocent.
So this legal case has clearly not been brought in accordance with the Law; the plaintiffs are themselves corrupt -- as the judge (i.e. Jesus) well knows. As their own guilt becomes apparent, they are convicted in their conscience and begin to walk away -- first the older ones (who would have been more familiar with the Law), and then the younger.
John 8:9 (KJV) wrote: And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.


So the case against the woman has effectively collapsed, with the prosecution giving up and leaving the courtroom. The defendant and judge are now alone. The judge speaks to the defendant...
John 8:10 (KJV) wrote: When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
The defendant replies.
John 8:11a (KJV) wrote: She said, No man, Lord.
And so the judge sums up.
John 8:11b (KJV) wrote: And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Jesus does not condemn her because He cannot lawfully condemn her -- there is no case to answer because there are no witnesses. At this point, the Law itself demanded her release. Had Jesus condemned her to death, then He would have broken the Law. By keeping the Law, He has defeated those who tried to entrap Him, and in the process, has spared this woman her life.

...But that says absolutely nothing about her guilt. It simply means that the case brought against her was a fiasco.

And what are Jesus' parting words to the woman? "Your sins are forgiven you?" No. "Your faith has saved you, go in peace?" No. They are a straight rebuke. "Go, and sin no more." (The NIV renders "sin no more" as "leave your life of sin".) ...And both He and she knows the sin to which He is referring here. He knows exactly what she is. But He will not break the Law in order to condemn her to the punishment she deserves.

And that is it. The passage is simply an illustration of how Jesus kept God's Law. Perfectly.

Sadly, the churches fail to teach this (largely because the churches ignore the Old Testament and therefore the foundations of Jesus' teaching). I've even seen Muslims offer a better analysis of this passage than most Christians.

...A long post, to be sure, but much needed since the misinterpretation of the first part of John 8 is the cornerstone of the gynolatrous Jesus-as-white-knight movement which has done so much damage in the church, alienating so many men from God.

Anyway, to phoenix and the Christian HBs out there, I hope this has been useful...
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. -- the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7:1)

User avatar
phoenix
Legend Bachelor
Posts: 1354
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by phoenix » Wed Nov 05, 2014 8:34 am

It's definitely be useful. I can't thank you enough for taking the time to write it.

Without posts like this and information like this, it's very easy to be misled by modern church/feminist interpretations. And if not misled, certainly to have an unease, which is what prompted my question (a genuine question hoping for resolution, which I have gotten).

Personally I think this should be stickied. Because it's certainly going to come up again.

User avatar
1 Cor 7:1
Happy Bachelor
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by 1 Cor 7:1 » Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:00 am

phoenix wrote:It's definitely be useful. I can't thank you enough for taking the time to write it.
You're most welcome. I wondered as I was writing it whether I would be talking to myself, so it's gratifying to read your comment.
Without posts like this and information like this, it's very easy to be misled by modern church/feminist interpretations.
It's all but guaranteed that if I posted the above on a "Christian" forum, it would cause apoplexy and I would be personally attacked -- despite the fact that it is absolutely Scriptural and, in keeping with good hermeneutics, simply uses the Bible to interpret the Bible. It would offend because it doesn't fit with the Zeitgeist and so the "culturally sensitive" (and often politically correct) mass of professing "Christians" would hate it and reject it.

This reaction to Scripture is described in the Scripture itself: during Old Testament times, Israel and Judah were God's people, called by His name, and yet they didn't truly believe or listen to God -- God sent them prophets whose primary task was to point out to them that they were ignoring God and doing the things He said He hates. ...But the people didn't listen to the prophets because they wanted to be just like the surrounding cultures, and to do all the things their pagan neighbours were doing. So they ignored, rejected and even killed the prophets who spoke God's truth, and they instead listened to the false prophets who told them nice soothing things. And sadly, the church has simply repeated the same pattern of behaviour: the church is less interested in God's truth than in reaching a comfortable compromise with the world. ...With predictably bad results.
And if not misled, certainly to have an unease, which is what prompted my question (a genuine question hoping for resolution, which I have gotten).
I realised that your question was sincere: I wouldn't have written such comprehensive answer had it not been. ;)
Personally I think this should be stickied. Because it's certainly going to come up again.
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll also keep it on file and maybe publish it on a site of my own at some point in the future -- I had been working through the Scriptures to elucidate what they really teach about men and women and their relationships, with a view to putting my findings on the Web under the title "Sex In The Bible". ...Not so much in order to reach a wide audience, but rather to have a place to which I could direct anyone who is genuinely interested in what God actually says in His Word about men, women, sex and marriage, because there's so much unscriptural teaching around, and it is causing havoc. (So-called "Christian marriage counselling", for example, is very frequently unbiblical and often a total disaster.)
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. -- the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7:1)

wc
Sage Bachelor
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 12:55 am

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by wc » Wed Nov 05, 2014 3:45 pm

Personally I think this should be stickied. Because it's certainly going to come up again.
I can move it to the best of public section, and sticky it if 1 Cor 7:1 does not object?

User avatar
spocksdisciple
Sage Bachelor
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by spocksdisciple » Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:13 pm

phoenix wrote:It's definitely be useful. I can't thank you enough for taking the time to write it.

Without posts like this and information like this, it's very easy to be misled by modern church/feminist interpretations. And if not misled, certainly to have an unease, which is what prompted my question (a genuine question hoping for resolution, which I have gotten).

Personally I think this should be stickied. Because it's certainly going to come up again.
We should use the proper terms coined within MGTOW sites for the various parties being discussed here, there are Christians in the proper, uncorrupted use of the term. And then there are Churchians, which are what I term fake Christians who openly wear their idolatry like medals on a war vet.

I agree this tread should be stickied, we can move the thread to the best of section anytime.

+1 Cor 7:1
Disciple of the Other Mr.Spock

User avatar
1 Cor 7:1
Happy Bachelor
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by 1 Cor 7:1 » Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:26 am

wc wrote: I can move it to the best of public section, and sticky it if 1 Cor 7:1 does not object?
Thanks, wc, and sure -- I've no objections.
spocksdisciple wrote: We should use the proper terms coined within MGTOW sites for the various parties being discussed here, there are Christians in the proper, uncorrupted use of the term. And then there are Churchians, which are what I term fake Christians who openly wear their idolatry like medals on a war vet.
Agreed. And the latter are sadly swamping the former.
I agree this tread should be stickied, we can move the thread to the best of section anytime.

+1 Cor 7:1
Praise indeed. Thank you, Spock.

I put it in your capable hands...
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. -- the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7:1)

User avatar
arcangel911
Sage Bachelor
Posts: 3134
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 12:55 am
Location: Florida

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by arcangel911 » Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:34 am

Is that what they are called.... Churchians? Makes sense to me, thank you for enlightening me.
"Don't forget your towel"- Douglas Addams
"Use power to curb power"- Chinese Proverb

User avatar
BlueWhizard
Probie
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:22 am

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by BlueWhizard » Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:26 am

Thanks for clarification on that passage as I used to be confused by that misinterpretation back when I was batlling whores and manginas on various forums. This only confirmed my suspicions that the passage was simply taken out of context via logical fallacies and ridiculous attempts to rationalize immorality.

User avatar
Steven D. Timm
Bachelor
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 4:46 am
Location: WI
Contact:

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by Steven D. Timm » Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:45 am

Thank you 1 Cor. 7:1!!

You gave a very good explanation of the incident with the adultrress!!

Many people do not catch that part of the man not being preset with the woman.

Javierzul
Happy Bachelor
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:17 pm

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by Javierzul » Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:50 pm

Great explanation. My respects to 1 Cor. Where have all the good bible teachers gone???? This only goes to show how far astray the modern churches have veered. I refuse to just follow blindly. I have a mind of my own and if I am not satisfied I will question. And if necessary will research for myself.

User avatar
gstoke
Probie
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by gstoke » Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:50 pm

1 Cor 7:1 wrote:The modern Western church often portrays Jesus as the quintessential New Man; exalting women over men, downplaying female sexual transgressions and generally white-knighting His way around the holy land.
Question: Where do they pull this interpretation from? Jesus gives out free 'get-out-of-jail-cards'?

I thought things worked out this way: if you commit sin or transgression, seek forgiveness, do penance, make amends and sin no more. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Every action we take has a consequence (whether positive or negative). I thought one of the truest test of one's character is on how we face the consequences of our actions.

User avatar
phoenix
Legend Bachelor
Posts: 1354
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by phoenix » Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:14 am

gstoke wrote:
1 Cor 7:1 wrote:The modern Western church often portrays Jesus as the quintessential New Man; exalting women over men, downplaying female sexual transgressions and generally white-knighting His way around the holy land.
Question: Where do they pull this interpretation from? Jesus gives out free 'get-out-of-jail-cards'?

I thought things worked out this way: if you commit sin or transgression, seek forgiveness, do penance, make amends and sin no more. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Every action we take has a consequence (whether positive or negative). I thought one of the truest test of one's character is on how we face the consequences of our actions.
I think it's because they place forgiveness from God and impute that to mankind and absolving sins in this world.

To reach salvation, all you actually have to do is truly and honestly accept Christ. But that's actually a little more complicated than it looks. If you truly accept Christ, then you will also truly repent and seek God's forgiveness, not demand freedom from punishment and judgment from man. Man does not matter when it comes to these matters.

But therein lies the rub. These women, these churches, they have not actually accepted Christ and they do not actually seek His salvation. Instead they use it as pretty words and to manipulate men in this world for their own ends.

In theory God can and does forgive everything (well almost everything, there is no forgiving the denial of God, but those that deny God will never seek forgiveness) when we seek genuine repentance. But there are greater crimes and you can't actually know what is forgiven and to what extent etc. How much repentance is genuine for murder? The vast majority of churches won't try to argue that "get out of jail" card. But adultery and sex outside marriage is also a very high crime, closer to murder than say back talk to one's parents (which is also a serious offense actually, but nobody cares about now).

I do not believe the churches represent Christianity any longer, and I've seen the term "Churchian" coined on these boards and just prefer to use that for the bastardized version of faith the churches pedal now.

User avatar
1 Cor 7:1
Happy Bachelor
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by 1 Cor 7:1 » Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:04 pm

gstoke wrote:
1 Cor 7:1 wrote:The modern Western church often portrays Jesus as the quintessential New Man; exalting women over men, downplaying female sexual transgressions and generally white-knighting His way around the holy land.
Question: Where do they pull this interpretation from? Jesus gives out free 'get-out-of-jail-cards'?
When one looks at the overall picture Scripture gives of man's response to God's grace, this is the norm. People always seem to think that God is just fine with whatever they happen to be doing. ...Whether we're talking about unbelievers, or whether we're talking about the ancient Israelites, or whether we're talking about Christians. People tend to view themselves in the most favourable light and hence think that they're basically pretty good, but don't actually stop to consider what God's verdict on their lives might be (if they even think about God at all). This is remarked upon in the book of Proverbs.

Moreover, people draw their ideas from the ambient culture: if everyone's doing it, then it must be okay. and so God too must therefore be fine with it. This is the natural way people think and it always leads to an underestimation of the gravity of sin (and often to the misclassification of non-sinful things as sinful). Rather than seeking to know God by reading what He has revealed and authenticated through prophecy, people instead project the cultural values and mores of the day onto God and reinvent His character.

In today's West, people tend to think that a wife's adultery is not worthy of punishment (let alone death): she's "made a few poor choices/mistakes" (to use the sort of phrase women themselves often employ). This lax view of cuckoldry gets projected onto God Himself, hence Jesus is reinvented as a white knight. Of course feminism has played a major role in destigmatising female sin (particularly female sexual sin, which God takes very seriously) and feminists have made it their goal to exculpate women for even the greatest evils -- from fornication and adultery to murdering their children in utero. And in so doing, feminists set themselves in diametric opposition to God, who works to convict people of their sins, and to bring them to repentance -- to save them from sin, rather than making them more comfortable in it. Thus at heart, feminism is anti-Christ; it militates against the saving work of Christ Himself.

In a sense, God's salvation could perhaps be termed a get-out-of-jail-free card -- but there are clearly defined conditions for receipt of this card. ...And first and foremost is acknowledgement of one's evil, genuine repentance and yielding of one's life to the Giver of salvation, the Saviour Himself, Jesus Christ. Today, however, churches too often peddle cheap grace, casting pearls before swine, with the result that there is no genuine conviction of sin and so people take God for granted, assuming Jesus is a "nice guy". ...A deadly error.
I thought things worked out this way: if you commit sin or transgression, seek forgiveness, do penance, make amends and sin no more. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
Penance is not Scriptural -- when sin is forgiven, it is forgiven. The Church of Rome cooked up penance: you won't find it in the Bible. Punishment, yes. Penance no. No amount of good works can atone for sin; sin is so serious that blood alone is able to atone for it. ...And even then, not the blood of animals, nor even of sinful humans, but only the blood of the sinless -- i.e. of God Himself, Jesus Christ -- is efficacious for complete, everlasting atonement of sin. (The sacrificial system of the Old Testament was temporary, an ongoing process, which pointed forwards to the final, once-and-forever sacrifice for sin at the Cross.)

Repentance, is essential, however. God does not forgive unrepentant evildoers. True repentance bears fruit in keeping with it. So, if one is stealing from one's neighbour, and genuinely repents of doing so, then one's actions will show it: one will not only stop stealing, but also return everything which was stolen (probably along with something extra, by way of an apology). Note this is simply justice -- not penance. And this does not atone for the sin of stealing (only God can do that through the blood of Jesus Christ).

Similarly a carousel rider, if she genuinely repents, will either return to one of her rides and be his wife or will simply live celibate thereafter. She will not go to church and look for some fresh meat to wife her up. It's certainly not God's will that women increase their total number of sexual partners, but rather that they minimise this number. Say that obvious truth in a church and see how it goes down...
phoenix wrote:I do not believe the churches represent Christianity any longer, and I've seen the term "Churchian" coined on these boards and just prefer to use that for the bastardized version of faith the churches pedal now.
Exactly. They've all gone into decline.

Whether one looks to the east at the different Orthodox churches, or to the west at the Church of Rome, or at the various Protestant denominations, it's a dismal picture. They all follow their own dead traditions and try to make their peace with the world. But then these are "big religion" -- they are the successors to the Jewish religious authorities in the Bible.

...And it's pretty clear what God thought of them.
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. -- the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7:1)

User avatar
Modelautoman
Sage Bachelor
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 12:55 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio USA

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by Modelautoman » Sat Nov 14, 2015 4:29 am

Great post. I know of certain so-called pastors who champion single mothers as well.
They would usually be the type that goes into church looking for fresh meat to wife her
up. At a church I used to belong to in a town one hundred miles east up the Ohio River
from Cincinnati, I was told there was a certain divorced mother of three kids who had
a sudden interest in me when she visited the church one time. She had wanted to nail
me right then and there, so I was told. Fortunately, she only visited once, so it never
happened. Heard later she went back to her ex-husband. Go figure, eh?
"Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies."

Proverbs 31:10

sjenner
In a class of his own
Posts: 7290
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 12:55 am

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by sjenner » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:24 am

Buddha and Christ were not wimps that is for sure!

User avatar
oilcanhenry
Legend Bachelor
Posts: 1485
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:58 am

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by oilcanhenry » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:22 am

arcangel911 wrote:Is that what they are called.... Churchians? Makes sense to me, thank you for enlightening me.
That is what I have learned to call them myself. They love going to church, thinking that they are holier then the non-church goer's, then go back out and sin like crazy. I have no such use for these hypocrites at all, anymore
then I do for all the preachers who fool around with married women, or priests who molest children.

They are all a bunch of hypocrites! My sis-in law routinely jumps on anyone who doesn't follow "her" script. Hoping my brother finally ditches her sorry ass once my last niece leaves home. I'd have left that kunt a LONG time ago, myself, if I were him.
"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace". - James Madison

User avatar
Modelautoman
Sage Bachelor
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 12:55 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio USA

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by Modelautoman » Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:21 pm

Javierzul wrote:Great explanation. My respects to 1 Cor. Where have all the good bible teachers gone???? This only goes to show how far astray the modern churches have veered. I refuse to just follow blindly. I have a mind of my own and if I am not satisfied I will question. And if necessary will research for myself.
I feel that way at my church. I may be a member but that doesn't mean I have to agree
with everybody there or the sermon. Not that I want to start a rebellion, mind ya.
"Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies."

Proverbs 31:10

User avatar
Modelautoman
Sage Bachelor
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 12:55 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio USA

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by Modelautoman » Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:24 pm

Good post. Jesus Christ was not a white knight, but it seems these modern church pastors
are. I was glad to hear that one white knight pastor, Mark Driscoll, step down. That guy was
WAY out of line. I believe the women were his core audience, especially the single mothers
whom he championed.
"Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies."

Proverbs 31:10

User avatar
Modelautoman
Sage Bachelor
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 12:55 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio USA

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by Modelautoman » Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:28 pm

Good post. Jesus Christ was not a white knight, but it seems these modern church pastors
are. I was glad to hear that one white knight pastor, Mark Driscoll, step down. That guy was
WAY out of line. I believe the women were his core audience, especially the single mothers
whom he championed.
"Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies."

Proverbs 31:10

User avatar
inplainsight
Legend Bachelor
Posts: 1682
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:10 am

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by inplainsight » Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:25 pm

phoenix wrote:
gstoke wrote:
1 Cor 7:1 wrote:The modern Western church often portrays Jesus as the quintessential New Man; exalting women over men, downplaying female sexual transgressions and generally white-knighting His way around the holy land.
Question: Where do they pull this interpretation from? Jesus gives out free 'get-out-of-jail-cards'?

I thought things worked out this way: if you commit sin or transgression, seek forgiveness, do penance, make amends and sin no more. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Every action we take has a consequence (whether positive or negative). I thought one of the truest test of one's character is on how we face the consequences of our actions.
I think it's because they place forgiveness from God and impute that to mankind and absolving sins in this world.

To reach salvation, all you actually have to do is truly and honestly accept Christ. But that's actually a little more complicated than it looks. If you truly accept Christ, then you will also truly repent and seek God's forgiveness, not demand freedom from punishment and judgment from man. Man does not matter when it comes to these matters.

But therein lies the rub. These women, these churches, they have not actually accepted Christ and they do not actually seek His salvation. Instead they use it as pretty words and to manipulate men in this world for their own ends.

In theory God can and does forgive everything (well almost everything, there is no forgiving the denial of God, but those that deny God will never seek forgiveness) when we seek genuine repentance. But there are greater crimes and you can't actually know what is forgiven and to what extent etc. How much repentance is genuine for murder? The vast majority of churches won't try to argue that "get out of jail" card. But adultery and sex outside marriage is also a very high crime, closer to murder than say back talk to one's parents (which is also a serious offense actually, but nobody cares about now).

I do not believe the churches represent Christianity any longer, and I've seen the term "Churchian" coined on these boards and just prefer to use that for the bastardized version of faith the churches pedal now.
Ah...one of those rare posts in which I completely and utterly disagree with Phoenix.

I would like to premise my rebuttal by saying that I remain immensely grateful for the wisdom and practical advice Phoenix has shared and continues to share with me despite our philosophical differences. With that said, my rebuttal is as follows:

There is no "salvation" for any created thing to "reach" per se. Blessedness, nirvana, the kingdom of God, or whatever label anyone chooses to call "it" is not something acquired or defined by a particular body (such as the body of christ compelling me for example) or a particular time or place (since both time and place involve boundary conditions). This is not a terribly complicated idea and I believe Anthony de Mello said it best: "Happiness is our natural state. Happiness is the natural state of little children, to whom the kingdom belongs until they have been polluted and contaminated by the stupidity of society and culture. To acquire happiness you don't have to do anything, because happiness cannot be acquired. Does anybody know why? Because we have it already. How can you acquire what you already have? Then why don't you experience it? Because you've got to drop something. You've got to drop illusions. You don't have to add anything in order to be happy; you've got to drop something. Life is easy, life is delightful. It's only hard on your illusions, your ambitions, your greed, your cravings. Do you know where these things come from? From having identified with all kinds of labels!"

As for repenting and seeking God's forgiveness, God cannot be "wronged" or even "caused" (his nature or being is self-caused) therefore there is nothing to forgive. Concepts and experiences such as before, now, later and already do not apply to the infinite understanding of the divine nature. The following might seem like a rudimentary example, but perhaps it may help someone here grasp my point. Imagine a child playing with sand on a beach. The child, laughing with careless joy, builds a sand castle. Imagine then, that one of the sand soldiers on one of the sand castle's fort requires salvation or forgiveness from the child. Since the child created the castle and understands every single grain of sand, it simply cannot be wronged by anything that comes from its own playground. a weak analogy I know, but it is the best I can do in short notice. It is no coincidence that Heraclitus writes: Eternity is a child playing, playing checkers; the kingdom belongs to a child. Time is a game played beautifully by children. It is also worth keeping in mind that the Vedas perceived CREATION as leela, basically the result of Brahman having fun.

Again, the true nature of the divine nature has no relation whatsoever to time and place although most mistake people, particularly christians, assume God is be sempiternal (namely everlastingness continuance/duration without beginning or end)

At any rate, I suspect this response was more useful to me (by thinking these matters through) than anyone else here and I apologize if I am derailing from the OP's original post. warm regards to Phoenix, inplainsight.
Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they are yours - Richard Bach

User avatar
phoenix
Legend Bachelor
Posts: 1354
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by phoenix » Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:54 pm

Faith is always a personal issue that really can't be argued as much as it is felt. Generally I refrain from discussing it as a result.

But you can think of God as say a landlord that provides all utilities, food, keeps the building in order, provides water, and say does all of that for free but you never see him. Now say another tenant of that building tells you, that a landlord in fact does all of this, and you should be thankful.

You reply there is no landlord, and state the power comes through electrical lines, the building is composed of brick and drywall and everything else, that water comes through pipes, that the food comes from the market and is prepared by someone, etc. You state you've never seen the landlord, nobody has, except some guy in unit 5C claims he's seen him one time and that the repair crews and everyone else works because he pays them/tells them to. But the guy in 5C is just crazy so you don't believe him. Technically you are correct in how energy is delivered, the components of the building etc., but the idea that nobody is behind any of that is foolish.

Now the landlord catches wind, and he's unhappy. He provides everything as a charity, takes care of you, and you deny him, maybe even mock him. He begins eviction proceedings. You show up at court, and see the landlord for the first time. He states his case and says you showed no gratitude and paid nothing, and so you are to be removed. The judge agrees and the sheriff then removes you. It is now too late to say you do believe and you are thankful.

This is a bit of a silly analogy, but if you accept God created everything and maintains everything, that without the sun (its light, heat and distance from the Earth) and soil and nutrients and water and various animals being alive as well as plants, the nature of say electricity, sound/light waves, the oceans, the winds etc., without all of that functioning precisely as it does, that life would be impossible, then it is in fact somewhat useful analogy to understand why God would be irritated as His creations refuse to acknowledge Him, refuse to follow His rules, refuse to worship Him.

And taking the analogy to its silly conclusion, the guy in 5C and the other tenant are pulled out of the old apartment and instead are moved into a mansion with the landlord, because he is satisfied and happy with them.

User avatar
JayJet
Legend Bachelor
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 12:55 am

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by JayJet » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:09 pm

phoenix wrote:Faith is always a personal issue that really can't be argued as much as it is felt. Generally I refrain from discussing it as a result.

But you can think of God as say a landlord that provides all utilities, food, keeps the building in order, provides water, and say does all of that for free but you never see him. Now say another tenant of that building tells you, that a landlord in fact does all of this, and you should be thankful.

You reply there is no landlord, and state the power comes through electrical lines, the building is composed of brick and drywall and everything else, that water comes through pipes, that the food comes from the market and is prepared by someone, etc. You state you've never seen the landlord, nobody has, except some guy in unit 5C claims he's seen him one time and that the repair crews and everyone else works because he pays them/tells them to. But the guy in 5C is just crazy so you don't believe him. Technically you are correct in how energy is delivered, the components of the building etc., but the idea that nobody is behind any of that is foolish.

Now the landlord catches wind, and he's unhappy. He provides everything as a charity, takes care of you, and you deny him, maybe even mock him. He begins eviction proceedings. You show up at court, and see the landlord for the first time. He states his case and says you showed no gratitude and paid nothing, and so you are to be removed. The judge agrees and the sheriff then removes you. It is now too late to say you do believe and you are thankful.

This is a bit of a silly analogy, but if you accept God created everything and maintains everything, that without the sun (its light, heat and distance from the Earth) and soil and nutrients and water and various animals being alive as well as plants, the nature of say electricity, sound/light waves, the oceans, the winds etc., without all of that functioning precisely as it does, that life would be impossible, then it is in fact somewhat useful analogy to understand why God would be irritated as His creations refuse to acknowledge Him, refuse to follow His rules, refuse to worship Him.

And taking the analogy to its silly conclusion, the guy in 5C and the other tenant are pulled out of the old apartment and instead are moved into a mansion with the landlord, because he is satisfied and happy with them.
We don't know who the Landlord is exactly because he only knows of our whereabouts and actions through mediums, intermediaries, and poorly written tracks he left around from other tenants who have long since left the building. Nevertheless, when we don't thank him for his existence and benefactor impulses he's completely justified in wiping us out and placing our "souls" in really hot places where we're separated from his jealous nature and burn for all eternity. Furthermore, the permanent stay is our fault because we had "free will" and deserve to be punished because we mistakenly believed the wrong thing! What a great guy our landlord is...where do I sign up?

One of the things I've learned from swallowing the red pill is to question. Indeed, to question long held beliefs without mercy. One of those things after realizing we live in a gynocracy is religion and the very nature of "God". Like being a blue-pilled person I marvel at how long I believed in the fantastical notion of God/religion. There was no worldwide flood, 900 year old men, Egyptian captivity of Jews, talking animals, and no such town as Bethlehem at the time of a virgin giving birth. I could fill up this forum with all the inconsistencies and outright wrong info from that so-called "inspired" book.

Why must we suffer ourselves to believe that there exists a magical being who created the heavens and the earth without so much as a shred of evidence? Just because we don't know or understand something in our physical universe doesn't mean its purpose and creation is divine. Furthermore, every religion by its nature is convinced its version of the magical being(s) is the correct one.

Dearest reader, no one can or will save us. God is a fiction who resides not in heaven but in the confines of your mind.
"Your fear of death is not a love for life..." -Ayn Rand

User avatar
pottedmeat
Professional Bachelor
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 3:18 pm

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by pottedmeat » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:25 pm

As far as speculation about an omniscient God...the only intelligible position, at least in my opinion, is "I don't know". It doesn't require any back-up: no feverish singing of hymns, no long dogmatic passages, and no screwy "proofs".

Now to the important stuff - I'm leaving work in an hour and having a delicious vegetarian burrito and a beer.

Foresight
Probie
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:11 pm

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by Foresight » Tue Apr 04, 2017 6:55 am

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Personally, I think what this means is that it's easy to pick apart everybody else's faults rather than looking at your own. But if you can forgive other people for the objectively wrong things they have done to you, you will find acceptance for the things you have done wrong. If you can work on yourself that's a more effective way to be happier and have more serenity than trying to change the entire world to conform to exactly how you demand it to be. It's easier to put on a pair of slippers than it is to carpet the whole world. When you are angry at someone, that person is controlling and dominating your life.

Easy to nitpick the faults of people who go to Church. Yeah, I'm sure there are people who use religion to manipulate people for their own ends but the church also does a lot of good around the world. I know people from church who seem to have deep happiness and peace of mind. There are people at church who go around picking up litter wherever they go.

[All just my opinion of course!]

User avatar
oilcanhenry
Legend Bachelor
Posts: 1485
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:58 am

Re: Jesus Christ Was Not A White Knight

Post by oilcanhenry » Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:27 am

arcangel911 wrote:
Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:34 am
Is that what they are called.... Churchians? Makes sense to me, thank you for enlightening me.
Yeah and I think there are many more churchians then there real Christians in the US. Maybe I am wrong about that number, but I see no reason to
wear a medallion of the crucifixion of the Prince of Peace. I really dont like to wear anything but a watch, and my clothing. A crucifix proves nothing.
"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace". - James Madison

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest