Don’t get me started. There is so much in that “first sermon” (sermon on the mount- Matthew 5) that is counter to the common doctrine of the conservative Bible thumper… the popular “eye for an eye” saying used so often… in the sermon Jesus literally says no. Let them slap you. This is where “turn the other cheek” comes from. He goes as far to say “do not resist an evil person.” This sermon also covers things like “love your enemy..” and for those decrying “cancel culture” and “me too” and “wokeness”- Jesus straight up says two important beings here.
1. He doesn’t say calling people mean names and making fun is AS BAD as murder- but does say that just like thou shall not murder- to call names and mock you fellow man is a sin and likens this to a commandment.
2. This is the sermon where he says that just like thou shalt not commit adultery- a man who looks on a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart and is as guilty. How guilty? So guilty he says that you should rip…
… out your eye or cut off your hand of it would cause you to son because yes- you can and probably will go to hell for that and it is better to lose part of your body than lost your soul to hell. So Jesus says here that even THINKING about a woman sexually who isn’t in a spiritual position of consent is a sin that will see you to hell. So yeah… he might have some pretty “woke” views on things like sexualization of women etc. that said- liberals don’t want to die on this bill because this is the same sermon with things like “when you divorce a woman or take up with a divorced woman (except if she was sexually immoral..) you are committing adultery…” not the most progressive attitude there.
Ok. Now point 2. Literally and the Bible. Big problem there. The Bible is a translation. Usually a translation of a translation of a translation or so on- ultimately some part from a dead or archaic and somewhat obscure linguistic culture. There are already minor variances that can make a huge difference to interpretation between versions like KJV, NIV and so on. Computer programmers, those who race cars or play competitive card games etc. can understand how the TINIEST difference in wording can be a HUGE difference in what it means in the end. So the translation problem already makes “literal” interpretation very difficult. The fact that much of the Bible is written in analogy or metaphor or parable intentionally also leaves the debate of what passages are or are not meant literally. But let’s look at a really big problem here in this exact sermon shall we?
When I said the linguistic culture was dead- the New Testament wasn’t written mostly in some legacy language. Greek and Aramaic- languages which have living speakers and writers today. So how is that dead? Can’t we ask those guys? Let’s ignore all the other issues with basically any translation and focus on the linguistic culture part. If you’re able to read this you can understand English. So- tell me how easy and natural it is to read Tolkien or Hemingway. They weren’t that long ago. So now- without studying or having studied those specific things, just as an “English speaker,” read Shakespeare and tell me what he’s saying? Shakespeare is culturally and linguistically closer in time to you than the New Testament is to the modern day. Look how much language and word meaning and usage and culture have changed.
A born native speaker immersed in English their whole life generally will have trouble understanding what the hell Shakespeare is saying. His works are full of jokes and commentary that people either need to study specific and in depth courses to get or have someone who has point them out and explain them because his understanding of language and his culture are so removed from ours despite being an integral part of modern English, that we can’t understand it let alone catch subtleties like sarcasm or irony or such most of the time.
So here’s an example using modern language and the sermon this discusses:
“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.“
Ok. So…. Literally… by a modern understanding… Jesus wants us all to be salty? Jesus is saying if you stop being salty… nothing can make you salty…? But we know that all sorts of things make people salty right? But I guess if you meet someone who isn’t salty they are no good and should be trampled. Seems kinda against his brand- but I guess to go to heaven we all gotta be as salty as possible.
Obviously that isn’t what is being said and 99.999999% of people will realize that- but that’s an example of where language changes and meaning changes and when those changes become ubiquitous- we don’t think “oh- they probably mean the OTHER way” because most of us don’t realize there ever was another way it was used.
“Curiosity killed the cat..” most cats are the opposite- they tend to dislike change and new things and hide or withdraw from the unknown and then slowly and timidly explore and probe to see if it is a threat or possibly food. The saying was “care killed the cat…” “care” meant “worry” or “concern,” a meaning seldom ascribed to care in modern English but still sometimes encountered in the slightly antiquated sounding phrase: “not a care in the world” or similar. Though many modern speakers take the meaning as “this person doesn’t feel emotionally tied to anything and so behaves freely” versus “this person has no worries.” “Carefree” is another example we still sometimes see of “care” as “worry.”
So the original saying warned against excessive WORRY or CONCERN, not of excessive curiosity. Do note that the expression could be used in situations under either meaning and still make sense- probably part of how and why it shifted ie:
When a person keeps asking questions we could say “don’t be so curious” or “don’t be so worried about my business..” either would make sense. So if you’re asking me lots of questions and I say: “care/curiosity killed the cat…” either still works under any of their meanings and the speaker and listener may not know or agree upon what the speaker is taking issue with. Calling back to our section on how Shakespeare had a different linguistic culture despite being “English language,” Shakespeare used a version of “care killed the cat” in a play. Some of the earliest recorded changes to the phrase come around the 1800’s and now days most people don’t even know the older version existed or what the difference is. So the fundamental meaning of that bit of folk wisdom changed drastically because a single word changed. Not just that the word used changed- but the way the original word was used changed.
So if In 100 or so years the slang term “salty” replaced words like “resentful” or “bitter” in English, a reading of a passage by Jesus by a native English speaker in which Jesus pontificates on how people should stay salty would mean something very different when taken literally and at face value. The entire meaning of the passage would change drastically and when trying to understand the other words in the text and how this one bit fits with the rest, the body of context changes too.
It’s a big hyperbolic- but the Bible is full of contradictions and things that to many people seem ridiculous or “corny” in an over the top way. So who is to say if the current internet culture were to be a dominant influence on society and language, that in a few hundred years or more that the entire faith might not be based around an interpretation that the path the heaven is trolling?
To reconcile the seemingly umreconciliable, paradoxical, contradictory, out dated. Over the top etc- what if people said: “well a long time ago trolls would do this stuff- so the reason why Jesus says be nice to each other here and be salty here is he’s was shit posting bro…” to be clear I’m it saying that is the case or that is even likely- it’s a bit of humor to illustrate the concept in relatable terms to how language and our understanding of language change- but how to some degree a knowledge of culture and common or specific usage is necessary to get nuance and true meaning from historical texts. To a society that didn’t understand our satire, “The Onion”
Or “John Oliver” could be taken at face value and the meanings as well as the impression of our society totally skewed.
That even happens in the modern day- people often miss satire and nuance, not just across global boarders but even people in the same country. Many of the memes we love involve people getting upset because they didn’t understand something was making fun of something and wasn’t serious. Memes are of course a perfect example of how things can change meaning and require a certain level of cultural immersion to understand. “Loss” memes are usually indecipherable to those without a history in memes and to those who look up the meaning- the complete context is lost. “Rick Rolling” is a pretty wide spread on but one that many don’t know and don’t understand the humor in. It’s also getting old enough that there are lots of kids online now who missed the height of it or haven’t heard of it.
So a major problem with literal or really any translations of biblical texts are that we don’t have access to the cultural understanding to fully get everything. Most holy texts do have all manner of interpretations and notes written over time by past generations closer the the source and study of those can help us take away meaning- but that’s very subjective. Who were these people? To what degree were their own politics and biases an influence in their writings? Knowing that future generations would largely defer to their expertise, the odds that individuals and groups in influence would strategically write such notes to influence future direction in line to their visions can’t be ignored.
So there isn’t a perfect answer or anything like that- but be very wary of so called literal translations or of attempting to make literal translations of such old and source obscured texts.
I mean- not that I’m the authority- but I would say that with all the issues, you really can’t trust the details. We have to just go “big picture.” I mean- it certainly would seem that either
A: the Bible tells us that unless we live at the technological, economic, and social standards set in the early AD calendar for the region referred to as the “Middle East,” we are all sinners.
B: the New Testament is… out of date man. 400 years or so between the old and new testaments. That was over 2000 years ago.
So one might expect a “new New Testament” by now to sort of offer some updated history and advice- but that hasn’t been the case. You might think it important in religious context- maybe it could cover things the other books didn’t and wouldn’t need to in their times?
Cloning and genetic engineering might be good for the religious folks to get some word on. Maybe the Bible can finally mention abortion so that we can drop that whole religious side to the argument or at least have something for them to actual quote instead of making shit up?
Likewise the last books never actually made a call on being “gay” let alone LGBTQ+, and perhaps that would be good to settle up? Cryogenic freezing? Religious obligations towards climate change? Maybe a passage or two about computers or social media? Maybe throw out some stuff on ethical corporate practices, wages, employee treatment, stock trading…? Since so many people like to make religious laws and those things are big issues that seem to be hard to get laws made on… a new New Testament that set some rules there might be nice…?
Of course- there are groups that live like or as close to like biblical times as they can. Most “cheat,” they just pay other people to do the things they aren’t allowed to do they can effectively Live a “regular modern life,” or they just say “meh,” and do what they think they must- but there are those groups that make efforts to stay in those time periods. What about everyone else that thinks their holy books though when they don’t like something and can find a way to turn “and no potatoes on a Wednesday” to mean “Jesus hates welfare”? Do they really think that they live a life so culturally similar to a middle Eastern person 2000 years ago (or want us all to live that culture) that these minor details like what to eat when or who to date and why apply now and here to us?
I mean- over time we pretty much cut out anything we felt icky about and said it didn’t apply. Child sex stuff, women as literal property (to carrying but still horrifyingly inadequate degrees) cutting off body parts or stoning people to death for petty crime or “moral indiscretion,” incest stuff, various sacrifices, rituals to rights, I mean- it wasn’t practical to expect so many churches in cities and suburbs and such all over the world to sacrifice a lamb or goat or whatever with any regularity. So we just said to a lot of it- that’s too much trouble. It’s not impossible- but it doesn’t sound fun.
They kinda booked it down to “you gotta show up on these days and probably give money and maybe eat a nasty cracker and song some songs or chant or do a special dance or whatever…”
So there’s a ton of precedent to support the fact that we can totally retcon the Bible whenever we want. The Bible makes zero mentions of Facebook. Like- nowhere in the Bible does it say being a can girl is amoral. It talks about looking at a woman or listing after a woman but like… if you are listing after the image and not the person… and what about cartoons and holograms or Vtubers etc? Those aren’t even images of actual women. Idolatry…? What would make that an idol and not a flag you must take your hat off and stand to face on command and swear an oath to…? What about calling political candidates literal prophets of god? Hmmm… sketchy.
This is what happens when we go off into the weeds- try to get bogged down in details debates over how texts written thousands of years ago by people with no concept of an internet, or indoor plumbing really… would judge a works they never knew and couldn’t likely dream up.
So- I doubt I have just ended all religious strife for mankind- but… maybe like… broad strokes only.
“Be nice to people.”
“Don’t take shit that isn’t yours.”
“Share.”
“Give to people based on what they need and not what you want.”
“Don’t be a dick.”
“Don’t murder people.”
“Violence and killing are ideally not an option but next to that try everything else first then try again…”
“Exploiting and enslaving people is bad.”
“Be better tomorrow than today. If you fail, keep trying.”
“Everyone is dumb and will disappoint you, including you. Get over it. Go laugh and be nice.”
“Love yourself and love other people like they were part of you.”
I’m sure there are more- but these ones tend to be big ones that go across faiths a lot and are generally agreed on and prominent in faiths.
Lol. Worry not. Those values don’t belong to Christianity, far older faiths have held them, and if one did believe in some higher power or intelligent force behind all this- it might seem an odd coincidence that by many names the measure of a good person tends to stay the same- as though maybe what a Lilly might be called around the world at different points in history still meant all those names were the same flower. If one isn’t inclined to believe in such powers- n might conclude that something native to the human organism describes certain concepts of decency in at least what we aspire to be.
Of course- one must choose to be a Christian or not, so you are in no danger of becoming one against your will- but the co-opting of concepts like “Christian values” to mean bigotry and regressive thinking does give the term a bad taste.
I just remind myself that Islamic values have likewise often been twisted in concept to try and brand all people and the entire faith as fundamentalists or terrorists- the “chest thumping” “Christians” one would be mortified to be counted among are in essence just the American ISIS- fundamentalists seeking to propagate their harsh and despotic world view using a rallying cry of a religion as a banner.
So in that sense- some of the “best Christians” one will ever meet won’t be found near a church and may not even claim the Christian god as their own- I mean… the Bible is about the length of Lord Of The Rings and the genealogies etc. are of similar complexity. A masters in literature focused on LOTR should take about 6-8 years top to bottom and well…. A lot of people have put a lot more time into the Bible and understood it less and been less impacted by the virtues espoused…. So I mean….
I’m not impugning all people with organized religion or anything- I’m just saying that who we spend time with is probably a bigger difference than what building we are in when it comes to determining who we become.
Corinthians 15:33- “Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals.”
There are a few spins on that but end of day- no magic ward at the door keeps assholes and egoists and status seekers out of a Church neither. In such places the guard of “believers” tends to be its weakest. No one is perfect- but there’s a reason for Mathew 7:3…
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.“
“Good Christians” will follow the teachings of Christ, good people will tend to follow them too because nothing the dude had to say was particularly new or revolutionary on general morality.
Meeting someone that says they are a “Christian” or a “good Christian” but hasn’t even begun to grasp basic shit like treating others with love and respect or not trying to lead others while in their own ignorance is like meeting someone who’s spent 20 years in an LOTR book club and said they’ve read the book a bunch of times and read from it every single week and discuss the passages and then doesn’t know why Frodo was going to mount doom and thinks Gandolf yelled at Frodo because Gandalf was jealous Frodo had a ring of power. You’d have to wonder what they’d been doing with their time, and maybe a little their book club too…
Wait. SERMON isn’t the fish?! So I wrote all that stuff up there for nothing?!?!
Aww hell. Well… that explains why grandpa got so confused and upset when I said I always went for Sunday sermon and knew a great place to take them and we went to that brunch place downtown.
1. He doesn’t say calling people mean names and making fun is AS BAD as murder- but does say that just like thou shall not murder- to call names and mock you fellow man is a sin and likens this to a commandment.
2. This is the sermon where he says that just like thou shalt not commit adultery- a man who looks on a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart and is as guilty. How guilty? So guilty he says that you should rip…
So here’s an example using modern language and the sermon this discusses:
Ok. So…. Literally… by a modern understanding… Jesus wants us all to be salty? Jesus is saying if you stop being salty… nothing can make you salty…? But we know that all sorts of things make people salty right? But I guess if you meet someone who isn’t salty they are no good and should be trampled. Seems kinda against his brand- but I guess to go to heaven we all gotta be as salty as possible.
Obviously that isn’t what is being said and 99.999999% of people will realize that- but that’s an example of where language changes and meaning changes and when those changes become ubiquitous- we don’t think “oh- they probably mean the OTHER way” because most of us don’t realize there ever was another way it was used.
So the original saying warned against excessive WORRY or CONCERN, not of excessive curiosity. Do note that the expression could be used in situations under either meaning and still make sense- probably part of how and why it shifted ie:
It’s a big hyperbolic- but the Bible is full of contradictions and things that to many people seem ridiculous or “corny” in an over the top way. So who is to say if the current internet culture were to be a dominant influence on society and language, that in a few hundred years or more that the entire faith might not be based around an interpretation that the path the heaven is trolling?
Or “John Oliver” could be taken at face value and the meanings as well as the impression of our society totally skewed.
I mean- not that I’m the authority- but I would say that with all the issues, you really can’t trust the details. We have to just go “big picture.” I mean- it certainly would seem that either
A: the Bible tells us that unless we live at the technological, economic, and social standards set in the early AD calendar for the region referred to as the “Middle East,” we are all sinners.
B: the New Testament is… out of date man. 400 years or so between the old and new testaments. That was over 2000 years ago.
So one might expect a “new New Testament” by now to sort of offer some updated history and advice- but that hasn’t been the case. You might think it important in religious context- maybe it could cover things the other books didn’t and wouldn’t need to in their times?
Likewise the last books never actually made a call on being “gay” let alone LGBTQ+, and perhaps that would be good to settle up? Cryogenic freezing? Religious obligations towards climate change? Maybe a passage or two about computers or social media? Maybe throw out some stuff on ethical corporate practices, wages, employee treatment, stock trading…? Since so many people like to make religious laws and those things are big issues that seem to be hard to get laws made on… a new New Testament that set some rules there might be nice…?
They kinda booked it down to “you gotta show up on these days and probably give money and maybe eat a nasty cracker and song some songs or chant or do a special dance or whatever…”
This is what happens when we go off into the weeds- try to get bogged down in details debates over how texts written thousands of years ago by people with no concept of an internet, or indoor plumbing really… would judge a works they never knew and couldn’t likely dream up.
“Be nice to people.”
“Don’t take shit that isn’t yours.”
“Share.”
“Give to people based on what they need and not what you want.”
“Don’t be a dick.”
“Don’t murder people.”
“Violence and killing are ideally not an option but next to that try everything else first then try again…”
“Exploiting and enslaving people is bad.”
“Be better tomorrow than today. If you fail, keep trying.”
“Everyone is dumb and will disappoint you, including you. Get over it. Go laugh and be nice.”
“Love yourself and love other people like they were part of you.”
I’m sure there are more- but these ones tend to be big ones that go across faiths a lot and are generally agreed on and prominent in faiths.
Of course- one must choose to be a Christian or not, so you are in no danger of becoming one against your will- but the co-opting of concepts like “Christian values” to mean bigotry and regressive thinking does give the term a bad taste.
So in that sense- some of the “best Christians” one will ever meet won’t be found near a church and may not even claim the Christian god as their own- I mean… the Bible is about the length of Lord Of The Rings and the genealogies etc. are of similar complexity. A masters in literature focused on LOTR should take about 6-8 years top to bottom and well…. A lot of people have put a lot more time into the Bible and understood it less and been less impacted by the virtues espoused…. So I mean….
Corinthians 15:33- “Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals.”
There are a few spins on that but end of day- no magic ward at the door keeps assholes and egoists and status seekers out of a Church neither. In such places the guard of “believers” tends to be its weakest. No one is perfect- but there’s a reason for Mathew 7:3…
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.“
Meeting someone that says they are a “Christian” or a “good Christian” but hasn’t even begun to grasp basic shit like treating others with love and respect or not trying to lead others while in their own ignorance is like meeting someone who’s spent 20 years in an LOTR book club and said they’ve read the book a bunch of times and read from it every single week and discuss the passages and then doesn’t know why Frodo was going to mount doom and thinks Gandolf yelled at Frodo because Gandalf was jealous Frodo had a ring of power. You’d have to wonder what they’d been doing with their time, and maybe a little their book club too…
Aww hell. Well… that explains why grandpa got so confused and upset when I said I always went for Sunday sermon and knew a great place to take them and we went to that brunch place downtown.