Bill Maher "Nails It"

[GostHacked]

Christians are only allowed to kill others after they're born.

OH my!! I got a good laugh out of this one. Thanks!!

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly. That's why Hardner's interpretation of things is asinine. He's basically equating being Christian with being a pacifist. Apparently that's Bill Maher "nailing it."

The ignorance is unbelievable.

No, it's about loving thine enemy and following the words of Jesus.

[Michael Hardner]

It was a metaphor. Metaphors require interpretation. His literal reading is as brain dead as those who say the earth is 6000 years old. The fact that some Christians might agree with his interpretation does not mean he can claim that all Christians should think the same.

I don't follow your post. Also you quoted yourself as if it was me.

[Michael Hardner]

If Maher made that argument he would have a point to make. The trouble is he did not. He said he is ok with the murdering unarmed prisoner thing and went on to criticize Christians who agreed with him. It is an absurd argument.

What is absurd about pointing out the hypocrisy of others, even if you agree with their opinion ?

As a social critic, he is spot on: many Christians have twisted their faith into an easy badge of identification. It's not interpretation of Christ's teachings, it's right there in the scripture.

To "intepret" the teachings of Jesus so that they mean the exact opposite is a perversion, in my opinion. Furthermore, to call the following of Jesus' teachings an interpretation is mistaken at best, and a lie at worst.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes. I don't think rejoicing and celebrating his death is right.

You strike me as a true Christian, and I'm not surprised at your interpretation.

Even the Catholic church acknowledges that the death penalty may be necessary in some circumstances, however they pray for the condemned and accept the grim administration of justice with sadness, not joy.

[TimG]

What is absurd about pointing out the hypocrisy of others, even if you agree with their opinion?

Because it is a strawman argument. He is not a Christian. He has no business telling Christians how to interpret their scripture yet he lectures Christians on his interpretation of their scripture. It is nothing but the rant of someone with a big ego who hates a group a people and is looking for excuses to beat up on them.

It's not interpretation of Christ's teachings, it's right there in the scripture.

As I said. The only thing in a scripture is a methaphor. Metaphors require interpretation. In this case, the literature meaning of the scripture implies that Christians should basically sit back a let criminals do what they want to them (e.g. your daughter is being raped - you should sit back and watch). It would absurd creed if it was true interpretation. Every Christian is forced to defined some balance between the need to resist agression and punish criminals vs. the literal meaning of that metaphor.

Your insistance of the only acceptable interpretation is a literal meaning of the passasge is an arrogant presumption on your part.

Edited May 20, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Because it is a strawman argument. He is not a Christian. He has no business telling Christians how to interpret their scripture yet he lectures Christians on his interpretation of their scripture. It is nothing but the rant of someone with a big ego who hates a group a people and is looking for excuses to beat up on them.

I don't know that he's telling them what to do - but he's pointing out the hypocrisy. It's not absurd, and it's not an interpretation. You're inferring that he hates Christians - I don't see any evidence of that.

As I said. The only thing in a scripture is a methaphor. Metaphors require interpretation. In this case, the literature meaning of the scripture implies that Christians should basically sit back a let criminals do what they want to them (e.g. your daughter is being raped - you should sit back and watch). It would absurd creed if it was true interpretation. Every Christian is forced to defined some balance between the need to resist agression and punish criminals vs. the literal meaning of that metaphor.

What you're saying is that it means nothing and that you can interpret it to directly contradict the teachings of Jesus. Obviously, I disagree.

Yes, there are contradictions and metaphors in the bible but to "interpret" Jesus' "love thine enemy" as being optional is a perversion of scripture. There's no other logical way to see that.

Your insistance of the only acceptable interpretation is a literal meaning of the passasge is an arrogant presumption on your part.

I don't see it as arrogant to follow the words that are the basis of Christianity and to insist that those are the words. In fact, to think the opposite is absurd.

What about the Golden Rule ? Can we see that as a metaphor and do the exact opposite ? If we consider ourselves Christians, I mean ? Does that mean we can interpret that to be an optional nice-to-have ?

[TimG]

Yes, there are contradictions and metaphors in the bible but to "interpret" Jesus' "love thine enemy" as being optional is a perversion of scripture. There's no other logical way to see that.

So you think that being a good Christian requires that one sit back and watch his daughter get raped?

Sorry. Your interpretation is nonsense and I don't know any Christian that would agree with you.

Trying to insist that your interpretation is the only acceptable interpretation is incredibly arrogrant on your part and you are proving you are no better than Mahar.

Edited May 20, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

So you think that being a good Christian requires that one sit back and watch his daughter get raped?

Uh... didn't you use the term "strawman" above ?

Sorry. Your interpretation is nonsense.

Jesus says "do this". You say "It's a metaphor, I don't have to do it." I say "Why not ?". You say "I'm a Christian so I need to interpret the scripture."

Don't you think that most reasonable people would consider you not a Christian if you reject the key messages of Christianity ?

Nonsense. Really.

Trying to insist that your interpretation is the only acceptable interpretation is incredibly arrogrant on your part.

I'm just trying to get my head around why you think you're a Christian if you reject Christ's teachings. I too interpret the Gospel, and in many ways that some Christians may think are wrong. But I wouldn't expect someone to think I was a Christian if I rejected the Golden Rule or "love thine enemy".

I don't think that's arrogant. On the other hand, demanding that people call you a Christian because you say it's so IS arrogant, in my opinion.

[TimG]

Uh... didn't you use the term "strawman" above ?

It is no strawman - it is logical consequence of your argument.

Please answer the question:

1) Do you think that being Christian means you must sit back a do nothing watch your daughter being raped?

2) If you say no then how do you justify action given your perverse interpretation of "turn the other cheek" statement?

I bet you will once again refuse to answer because answering it honestly will force you to acknowledge that the "turn the other cheek" statement was never a blanket ban on all use of force.

I'm just trying to get my head around why you think you're a Christian if you reject Christ's teachings.

Because it is not Christ's teachings. It is nothing but your absurdly literalist interpretation. Edited May 20, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

It is no strawman - it is logical consequence of your argument.

Please answer the question:

1) Do you think that being Christian means you must sit back a do nothing watch your daughter being raped?

2) If you say no then how do you justify action given your perverse interpretation of "turn the other cheek" statement?

I bet you will once again refuse to answer because answering it honestly will force you to acknowledge that the "turn the other cheek" statement was never a blanket ban on all use of force.

1) No.

2) I would say "turn the other cheek" is a metaphor. I mean, was Jesus talking specifically about face-slaps here or was it an analogy ? The Golden Rule, and love thine enemy are direct teachings.

Because it is not Christ's teachings. It is nothing but your absurdly literalist interpretation.

Are you calling me a Christian fundamentalist ? Wow. That would be a first !

[TimG]

I would say "turn the other cheek" is a metaphor.

Bingo - a metaphor that requires interpretation which until now you refused to acknowledge.

I mean, was Jesus talking specifically about face-slaps here or was it an analogy ? The Golden Rule, and love thine enemy are direct teachings.

That is a good question. What exactly did he mean? How does it apply to real life? These are questions that Christian scholars spend a lot of time thinking about. It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

My objection to your and Mahar's statements is you presume that the absurdly literalist interpretation is the only acceptable one if one wishes to be Christian. You appear to be now acknowledging that the issue is much more complex.

Edited May 20, 2011 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Bingo - a metaphor that requires interpretation which until now you refused to acknowledge.

But that is all you are going to get is, interpretations. And those interpretations may not be correct.

[Michael Hardner]

Bingo - a metaphor that requires interpretation which until now you refused to acknowledge.

I don't think I said that there were no metaphors, or that that particular metaphor was to be taken literally. I will acknowledge, though, that you picked a good example of a Christian edict that does require interpretation.

That is a good question. What exactly did he mean? How does it apply to real life? These are questions that Christian scholars spend a lot of time thinking about. It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

My objection to your and Mahar's statements is you presume that the absurdly literalist interpretation is the only acceptable one if one wishes to be Christian. You appear to be now acknowledging that the issue is much more complex.

I acknowledge that Christianity is more complex than taking everything literally, and that becomes very confusing when taking into account the contradictions of the old testament. You're right, scholars have spent a lot of time on this.

I do maintain, though, that Christian belief is defined by one's commitment to the direct teachings - even though some teachings and parables are open to interpretation.

Most of all - the Golden Rule is what defines Christianity in my view. If one doesn't believe in that, then I do not accept them as Christian. That above all else is Christianity to me - beyond the divinity of Jesus even.

[TimG]

Most of all - the Golden Rule is what defines Christianity in my view. If one doesn't believe in that, then I do not accept them as Christian. That above all else is Christianity to me - beyond the divinity of Jesus even.

The "Golden Rule"? What does that have to with Bin Laden or Mahar's rant? Seems to me the Golden Rule governs secular humanists as much as it governs Christians. Why should secular humanists be treated differently by Mahar?

[Michael Hardner]

The "Golden Rule"? What does that have to with Bin Laden or Mahar's rant? Seems to me the Golden Rule governs secular humanists as much as it governs Christians. Why should secular humanists be treated differently by Mahar?

It sure does. It's the basis for a lot of our social contact. (Just had to say that.)

The Golden Rule is another example of a Christian teaching that you can't just interpret away, IMO.

I think we're at a point where we agree to disagree here.

[TimG]

It sure does. It's the basis for a lot of our social contact. (Just had to say that.)

Then you are saying that the real hypocrite is Maher for failing to live up to the 'Golden Rule' which defines his moral code and then having to chuzpah to critize others for not maintaining standards that he failed to maintain for himself. Edited May 20, 2011 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Then you are saying that the real hypocrite is Maher for failing to live up to the 'Golden Rule' which defines his moral code and then having to chuzpah to critize others for not maintaining standards that he failed to maintain for himself.

How did he fail to live up to the Golden Rule?

[Michael Hardner]

Then you are saying that the real hypocrite is Maher for failing to live up to the 'Golden Rule' which defines his moral code and then having to chuzpah to critize others for not maintaining standards that he failed to maintain for himself.

I think he was probably living up to the 'Golden Rule', as long as he's ok with people criticizing his hypocritical statements, when he makes them. We all make them.

[TimG]

I think he was probably living up to the 'Golden Rule', as long as he's ok with people criticizing his hypocritical statements, when he makes them. We all make them.

So now you are saying the "Golden Rule" has different meanings depending who it is being applied to. You have one interpretation for people like Maher who you politically agree with and another interpretation for people like "Christians" who you disagree with.

Seems to me your concept of ethics is a little muddled.

[Michael Hardner]

So now you are saying the "Golden Rule" has different meanings depending who it is being applied to. You have one interpretation for people like Maher who you politically agree with and another interpretation for people like "Christians" who you disagree with.

Seems to me your concept of ethics is a little muddled.

No, it applies to everyone the same. As long as critics are open to being criticized, then they're following the golden rule. Pretty clear to me.

Explain your confusion a little more.

[TimG]

No, it applies to everyone the same. As long as critics are open to being criticized, then they're following the golden rule. Pretty clear to me.

Now you are making no sense.

Let's recap:

1) Maher engages in a rant about how Christians are hypocrites for failing to follow their code as he defines it. He is not criticizing their actions since he agrees with them. He is only calling them hypocrites because of a perceived gap between their actions and a literalist interpretation of the scriptures.

2) After some back and forth you concede that a literalist interpretation of the scriptures is unreasonable but you still want to claim that Maher was right to criticize Christians for failing to live up to the "Golden Rule" (whatever that means).

3) When it is pointed out that the "Golden Rule" applies to secular humanists as well as Christians you concede that Maher was probably breaking his own code but try to defend him by suggesting he is "open to criticism".

But what does your last defence have to do with my orginal criticism? It sounds like you are now agreeing that Maher was way off base with his rant.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's recap:

1) Maher engages in a rant about how Christians are hypocrites for failing to follow their code as he defines it. He is not criticizing their actions since he agrees with them. He is only calling them hypocrites because of a perceived gap between their actions and a literalist interpretation of the scriptures.

Yes.

2) After some back and forth you concede that a literalist interpretation of the scriptures is unreasonable but you still want to claim that Maher was right to criticize Christians for failing to live up to the "Golden Rule" (whatever that means).

No. It's not the Golden Rule that they're failing to follow it's Jesus' direct teaching via Matthew 5:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

biblegateway.com

A scripture lesson: The Golden Rule is My link"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31).

3) When it is pointed out that the "Golden Rule" applies to secular humanists as well as Christians you concede that Maher was probably breaking his own code but try to defend him by suggesting he is "open to criticism".

No. I said that he is following the Golden Rule as long as he allows others to criticize him.

[TimG]

No. It's not the Golden Rule that they're failing to follow it's Jesus' direct teaching via Matthew 5:

Your are reaching. The Golden Rule comes from the Bible. You can't argue that its meaning is different for people who have forgotten where it came from.

[Moonlight Graham]

So you think that being a good Christian requires that one sit back and watch his daughter get raped?

A good Christian stops the daughter from getting raped with as little physical violence as absolutely possible, then forgives the rapist, not seek vengeance via execution.