Mathew 6:1-6
Jesus was not a fan of public worship for the sake of public approval.
He is all about a personal relationship, not one you trumpet out to the world.
The public officials who use it as an excuse to garner sympathy are doing the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches. Any “followers” who view such peacocking as a good sign are nothing but ignorant fools being led by same old in-group vs out-group tribalism, which again is specifically taught against in the Bible.
Look there’s a lot to criticize about the church and bible, but this is not true. The most basic ones are “non come to the father except through me” and “depart from me I never knew you.” Besides loving each other, Having a personal relationship with the divine was the whole thing.
This is a concept as old as the Gnostics and expressed most vividly within the concept of the Holy Spirit.
If anything was invented, it was the Catholic Clergy as spiritual interlocutor. The entire Catholic/Protestant schism is predicated on reformers in the early Protestant sects denying Papal Infallibility, the sacrament of Confession, and the need for a singular Apostolic Church to officiate over the blessing of Communion.
And the Thirty Years War that followed was an attempt by the church to reassert control through military force, when dogmatic religious assertions failed to sway the public any longer.
Seems to me like their willingness to employ military force to assert their position should have disqualified them immediately from any association with Jesus or Jesus-related religious practices.
Certainly the notion of individualizing Christianity is as old as Christianity itself, but I would argue that the contemporary version of it is really pretty recent. Go back 50 years ago and even most US Baptist churches wouldn’t recognize the contemporary version of it.
The concept that we have today really developed in the 80s and 90s.
Go back 50 years ago and even most US Baptist churches wouldn’t recognize the contemporary version of it.
I’d strongly disagree. The 70s era Evangelical movement has enormous amounts in common with the modern movement. Largely as a result of Televangelism and the political entanglement between conservative politicians and the church.
The Billy Graham Crusade would fit in just fine in the modern American church
Go back 100 and you’ll find more space. But then you’re seeing all sorts of differences socio-economically.
It is in the bible. It’s also used by assholes to excuse themselves.
Book, chapter and verse?
You can Google “scriptures about personal relationship with Jesus” and be inundated with references too numerous for me to concatenate here for your convenience.
Sorry, but we aren’t reading the same Bible.
The phrase ain’t in there. And just about every verse that’s interpreted as such is more easily interpreted to be about the community rather than the individual.
The phrase ain’t in there.
That was not the criterion.
And just about every verse that’s interpreted as such is more easily interpreted to be about the community rather than the individual.
No they’re not. Either you’re lying about having read the verses or you’re lying about their meaning. Either way, I will not entertain this disingenuous nonsense any further. Good day.
why do i need to see this hideous creature just to read your nice message?
Heath Ledger is and always will be a legend. Not an idol or icon, but a legend.
For many, exactly because he successfully portrayed the pictured Joker as such a, “hideous creature”.
i get it, people like the joker. what i dont get is why hes still the face of countless memes years later. i wish i could install an extension that would block photos of him to be honest.
When logic and concern are distinctly missing from most of the world, do you really question why so many give in to chaos and want to tear down those same systems that are resisting all efforts to improve them?
It’s obvious that politely asking charlatans and greedy fools to change gets you nothing. That leaves only few avenues left.
i mean sure, but we dont need a batman character to convey that
It’s not about need. It’s about him being a well done portrayal.
this bozo doesnt deserve to have a monopoly on conveying whatever it is you see in him
First of all, I already explained what some others see in the Joker, and it’s often not direct admiration.
Second of all, Heath Ledger proved his ability by portraying such a character.
Third of all, he doesn’t have a monopoly on portraying even the chaos sort of ‘anarchism’ that he uses in the movie.
I’m pretty sure Paul claimed to have a personal relationship with Jesus. But what is this odd and specific talking point? Why does it matter what is in the bible, it is all made up nonsense anyway.
I’m curious. Why are you here? If you think it’s all made up nonsense, why did you feel the need to comment on it in an intentionally insulting way?
Did that make you feel bigger?
