# Good Christian Woman I met yesterday **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 1, 2006, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956 "2006-05-01T14:49:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/41 "2006-05-02T13:13:36Z")
I don’t believe there’s a god so Jesus is no more than a man with a message to me. He’s not the only one…and as far as I’m concerned he’s not the best one. There are others who have done far more good for the world (and less bad) than a man who told people eternal salvation was achieveable. But if you DO choose to believe that this guy had the answer over and above every other intelligent, caring guy…or group of guys, fine. I just don’t see how telling other people is anything more than an effort to recruit. I mean, if being a “good person” (\<---- in whose opinion???) is all that’s required, any religion (or none at all) will do. It puzzles me as to why anyone who believes in god would affiliate themselves with a specific religion (or any at all) when getting to the promised land could be achieved just by not being an asshole. In fact, even assholes can go, right? I think it’s a social club. Period. But I’m pretty sure that if there’s any truth to the ultra-goddiness of christ, recruiting is against the rules. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/42 "2006-05-02T13:20:15Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Wrong. Catholics don’t do a lot of bible study. They tend to know what they hear during Mass, mostly the gospels and the epistles, IIRC. I was _joking_ about knowing the bible. My knowledge is very specific. > > No, I wouldn’t agree. I don’t think he favored those of his religion or politics. Your examples prove that, actually. He didn’t hold Jews up above gentiles or people who said they followed him over those that didn’t. A person had to be genuine in his belief to quality, not just pay lip service. I got a different message from his “intolerance” than you did. He just wasn’t going to put up with hypocritical, lying, avaricious peeople who used his name to prop up causes that were not his. I think if he had a grave, he’d be rolling in it hard enough to make a centrifuge by now. > > That pretty much says to me, follow these two little rules and don’t worry so much about the rest of them. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. As to religion, you might find it interesting that Jesus came to the Jews _only._ For those who believed he was the promised Messiah, they knew that he was for the Jewish faith _exclusively._ It is only after the death of Christ, and the revelation of Peter’s vision in the book of Acts, that the message of the Christ was spread to the Gentile nations. He did in fact hold Judaism above gentile religions—and he made it clear that he came _specifically_ for the Jews—the lost sheep of the House of Israel. As to politics, _he had none._ At one place he was so popular that the crowd sought to sieze him in order to make him king, and he fled. His worldly ambition for politcal gain was in full view in **Matthew 4** when he was offered “all the kingdoms of the world”; which he declined. Nor are there texts in which he weighs in on Roman politics or political issues of the day. His message was “The Good New of God’s Kingdom”, and he had no interest or ambition in worldly politics. And no where in his ministry does he say implicitly or explicitly "don’t worry so much about the rest of them. " In fact, he disses the Pharisees for gaming the Law—for practicing lip service to it while not following it. The primary command; the greatest command, was Love. That love didn’t invalidate the rules—it gave them clarity, a driving force, a sense of meaning, it gave them force and power. That love acted as a distilling agent and brought the rules _to life._ It gave the rules practical application, an overriding sense of purpose. And that’s _my_ story, and I’m sticking to \*it. \* ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/43 "2006-05-02T13:21:04Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > That pretty much says to me, follow these **two** little rules and don’t worry so much about the rest of them. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. I suspect the debate you got was based on your earlier statement that: > [@](#): > > In fact, I believe he told everyone to chuck all the other rules and just live by that **one**. It was Golden, even. [emphasis in both cases supplied by **Huerta88**] For Christians who get antsy with a “God is love, full stop” interpretation, it is I suspect because: The second half of the “two little rules” (“love God”) is interpreted as requiring “loving his Commandmants and living by them.” Some of those commandments, even in the NT/words of Jesus, are not purely warm and fuzzy. Also, “love your neighbor as yourself” can be plausibly interpreted as including the admonition that when your neighbor goes astray . . . . Of course, there are inherent problems with tending to our nieghbor’s problems and ignoring our own (“You hypocrite, take care of the beam in thine own eye . . . .”), but the point is that Judeo-Christian doctrine to me seems, fairly consistently, to entertain the possibility that there are times when people are required to look out for, and sometimes chastise, their wayward brethren – which necessarily includes “judging” them. Cain, who said “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (positing thereby a radically individualistic, go your own way version of communitarian obligation or lack thereof), is not held up as a figure of admiration, and I suspect (IANA Bible scholar by any means) that his blase, quasi-Libertarian shrug as to what was going on with Abel was (albeit way secondary to his murderous ways) one of the reasons we were supposed to deplore him. Marcus Aurelius warns himself (us) many times about “not worrying yourself what is going on in the hearts of other men,” i.e., whether they are living the good life or not. I suspect his Stoic vision is a bit more individualistic in its view of morality than how I read most traditional Judeo-Christian thought, but the interesting side-light it sheds is that even in his purely pagan world, the impulse to get all up in other people’s business and morality/ethics was apparently front and center and was a problem. When I look at the vociferous crowds, most of them not evidently active Christians, trying to keep me from smoking a cigar, or eating foie gras, in the modern day, I tend to agree that Nosy Parker, school marm, moralizing is a human nature problem, not a Christian problem. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/44 "2006-05-02T13:23:00Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > That love didn’t invalidate the rules—it gave them clarity, a driving force, a sense of meaning, it gave them force and power. That love acted as a distilling agent and brought the rules _to life._ It gave the rules practical application, an overriding sense of purpose. > > And that’s _my_ story, and I’m sticking to \*it. \* And the above attitude, friends and neighbors, is why I’m not a Christian. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/45 "2006-05-02T13:35:20Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > And the above attitude, friends and neighbors, is why I’m not a Christian. What is my problem in this thread with hitting POST too soon? I can’t bring myself to follow those other rules. I like the Golden Rule, which is a two-parter, as others have pointed out. That’s what I took away from my ridiculous Catholic upbringing. That and the idea of redemption through forgiveness. Those other rules, not so much, for me. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/46 "2006-05-02T13:35:21Z")
btw, my experience with the RCC is that most did not use the bible at all during mass, and many seemed blissfully ignorant of the bible, seemingly taking comfort in the grandeur and tradition of the Catholic faith. (in lieu of a comprehensive knowledge of the bible it would seem) otoh, I have met many Catholics whe were _very_ knowledgeable about the bible and their faith. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/47 "2006-05-02T13:57:12Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > And the above attitude, friends and neighbors, is why I’m not a Christian. So it is clear to me, is it **my** \* attitude that is objectionable, or the _totality_ of the Christian Gospels that is objectionable? (I am curious and take no offense either way) If it me\*, rather than Christianity itself, why wouldn’t you simply seek out a church that hews closely to your view of what Christ said/taught/meant? (\*if it is my attitude/me, that is objectionable, I surmise that you consider my post to be representative of common Christian doctrine) ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/48 "2006-05-02T14:19:10Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > So it is clear to me, is it **my** \* attitude that is objectionable, or the _totality_ of the Christian Gospels that is objectionable? (I am curious and take no offense either way) > > If it me\*, rather than Christianity itself, why wouldn’t you simply seek out a church that hews closely to your view of what Christ said/taught/meant? It’s all the rules. I can’t keep track. If it were just the one, then I could (and do) try my damnedest to live by it. When you get into all that Old Testament stuff, and a mediated relationship to God through clergy, and then all the dogma about a messiah and how to get into Heaven, that’s where I get lost. I can’t deal with it. I cling to my idea of Jesus’ Golden Rule and my image of him as benevolent perhaps for sentimental reasons. What I don’t like is people like in the OP using their supposed faith in him as a way of denigrating or controlling other people. It breaks from my idea of what Jesus’ message was. If my idea is wrong, then I don’t want to be right… but I’m not evangelizing either, so I’m not hurting anyone with my wrong ideas. It has nothing to do with you, **raindog** ; you’re just towing the party line. I just don’t like the party, though I like the host (pun intended, I guess). ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/49 "2006-05-02T14:55:58Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > So it is clear to me, is it **my** \* attitude that is objectionable, or the _totality_ of the Christian Gospels that is objectionable? (I am curious and take no offense either way) **Rubystreak** ’s follow up post makes it clear that it’s the second. He can obey ‘Love your neighbor. Love G-d’. He cannot obey ‘Love your neighbor. Love G-d. Proper love of G-d is shown by doing the following long list-’. **Raindog** I find your posts in this thread interesting for several reasons. There’s a Jewish folktale that a man was going around to different rabbis and saying that he would convert to Judaism if anybody could teach him the entire talmud while standing on one foot. As a full study of the talmud takes years, each rabbi told him that this was impossible. The man came to rabbi Hillel and made his offer. Hillel stood on one foot and said “What is hateful unto you, do not do unto your neighbor. There. That is the whole of the talmud. The rest is only commentary. Now, go and learn it.” Naturally, the tale ends with the man’s earnest conversion. Second, IIRC in some GD threads I have taken the position one should come to know G-d first, and then read the Bible. You have taken the position that one should read the Bible and that this would lead to knowing G-d. Your posts here seem to be a reversal. You say that love of G-d manifests as obedience to the law, and gives the law purpose. Your comments on the Pharisees strongly suggest that you believe that obedience to the law, or knowledge of the Bible, do not necessarily create a love of G-d.,So, isn’t it then far better to awaken a love of G-d in a person and then tell them to study the Bible as a manifestation of that love, than to tell somebody to study the Bible in hopes of awakening a love of G-d? ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/50 "2006-05-02T15:04:42Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > **Rubystreak** ’s follow up post makes it clear that it’s the second. He can obey ‘Love your neighbor. Love G-d’. He cannot obey ‘Love your neighbor. Love G-d. Proper love of G-d is shown by doing the following long list-’. EXACTLY. Thank you. The list is not even just the gospels. It’s the whole Old Testament, all the dogma, the human interpretations. I believe in a person, unmediated relationship with the Supreme Being, whose existence and knowledge of whom is manifest to me in mysterious and curious ways. It’s a very individualistic thing and therefore hard to discuss. I appreciate Jesus’ basic message but can’t deal with the rest of it. That kinda disqualifies me from being a Christian, and I’m OK with that. Also, I cannot fathom the idea of knowing God through reading a book written by men. ---
**Author:** ![SisterCoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@SisterCoyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SisterCoyote)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/51 "2006-05-02T15:42:03Z")
Also, Jesus did _not_ only preach to the Jews, and in fact healed the servant of a Gentile who came to him in faith. Just saying. (Please don’t ask me to cite chapter and verse. My Google-fu isn’t that strong.) ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/52 "2006-05-02T15:52:53Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > btw, my experience with the RCC is that most did not use the bible at all during mass, and many seemed blissfully ignorant of the bible, seemingly taking comfort in the grandeur and tradition of the Catholic faith. (in lieu of a comprehensive knowledge of the bible it would seem) > > otoh, I have met many Catholics whe were _very_ knowledgeable about the bible and their faith. Bullshit. What do you call the readings? One from the Old Testament, one from the New. And the Gospel? That’s not in the Bible? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/53 "2006-05-02T15:53:00Z")
I’ll see if I can dig it up for you tomorrow morning, if you like. OK, **raindog** , what is your take on the woman in the OP? Here we have a woman who ignores a fellow guest, brags about how holy she and her friends are, and badgers someone to go to church with her after that person has made it clear she’s not interested in going (perhaps she attends a different church?). Do you think this is appropriate behaviour for a Christian? ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/54 "2006-05-02T16:00:16Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Bullshit. What do you call the readings? One from the Old Testament, one from the New. And the Gospel? That’s not in the Bible? > > :dubious: Don’t try to pretend you’re Christian! We all know you worship those little bath tubs that have been painted blue inside and had one end buried in the ground. You light candles in them. You even give them a symbolic virgin offering. The only thing that stops you from speaking lies is that your mouth is filled with Death Cookie. ---
**Author:** ![SisterCoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@SisterCoyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SisterCoyote)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/55 "2006-05-02T16:20:51Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > I’ll see if I can dig it up for you tomorrow morning, if you like. Was this for me? If so, I found it: Luke 7:1-10 specifically: > [@King James Version](#): > > 1 Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum. > > 2 And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. > > 3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant. > > 4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: > > 5 For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue. > > 6 Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: > > 7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. > > 8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. > > 9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. > > 10 And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/56 "2006-05-02T16:51:59Z")
> [@SisterCoyote](#): > > Also, Jesus did _not_ only preach to the Jews, and in fact healed the servant of a Gentile who came to him in faith. > > Just saying. (Please don’t ask me to cite chapter and verse. My Google-fu isn’t that strong.) You have that wrong, although I am always open for correction. Among the camps, the Israelite nation always had foreigners in their midst. Even when thay traveled these people traveled with them. But there was no provision for them to be included in the Jewish faith in a formal recognized way. That Jesus came for the Jews, preached to the Jews, and spoke exclusively of Jewish Law, doesn’t mean that he had no compassion for non-Jews, or that he would not have shown mercy toward a non-Jew. One can easily infer that among the many people present when he preached (like the sermon on the mount for example) there must have been non-Jews. But it remains true that the Messiah was for the Jews, as part of the Jewish faith. Jesus himself said that he came for the Jews. The cite you provided simply states that he showed mercy towards a non-Jew. There are other instances where he showed consideration towards non-Jews. That is not the only instance where he showed kindness towards a non-Jew. None of that changes the fact that Jesus was partial to Judaism, he did hold Judaism above gentile religions—which was the point of my response to **Rubysteak** ’s comment, “… I don’t think he favored those of his religion…” So he did favor Jews. He was sent to the Jews. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, sent for the Jews. No where in his ministry does he make allowance for gentile religions. Further, the man he personally chose to be a “vessel to all the nations”, Paul, made it absolutely clear that there was no common ground between Christian Judaism and foreign religions. _none._ **Rubysteak** ’s comments implies a highly tolerant, somewhat non-denominational Jesus with no clear bias in the practical application of religion. In time, the Good News of the Christ was open to people of all nations, who could/were recognized in a formal way, but even then it was _the person_ that was accepted; _their religion_ was to be left behind, and there was no allowance for inter-faith among the arly Christian congregation. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/57 "2006-05-02T17:42:27Z")
Interesting post. > [@DocCathode](#): > > **Rubystreak** ’s follow up post makes it clear that it’s the second. He can obey ‘Love your neighbor. Love G-d’. He cannot obey ‘Love your neighbor. Love G-d. Proper love of G-d is shown by doing the following long list-’. The problem is that the bible—both the OT & NT—are replete with thousands of admonitions that say implicitly and explictly, “Proper love of G-d is shown by doing the following long list…” I don’t understand the mindset that says Love precludes _requirements_, or _obedience._ I may Love a woman and desire a [sexually] intimate relationship with her. But if I am not married to her _(and particualrly if she’s married to someone else!)_ that Love is wrong; it’s misguided. Paul spoke of the problems with a “love of money.” It is not incongruous to say that the Love Jesus spoke of **must** be directed in a way that is [spiritually] healthy, or to say that there may be circumstances where love may be wrong, or unhealthy. To practice Love, and to channel Love within the requirements laid out in the teachings doesn’t discount the value of Love, nor is it contrary to what Jesus et. al. taught. > [@](#): > > **Raindog** I find your posts in this thread interesting for several reasons. There’s a Jewish folktale that a man was going around to different rabbis and saying that he would convert to Judaism if anybody could teach him the entire talmud while standing on one foot. As a full study of the talmud takes years, each rabbi told him that this was impossible. The man came to rabbi Hillel and made his offer. Hillel stood on one foot and said “What is hateful unto you, do not do unto your neighbor. There. That is the whole of the talmud. The rest is only commentary. Now, go and learn it.” Naturally, the tale ends with the man’s earnest conversion. I see this as it is described—a folktale. A powerful tale that speaks to the underlying power or spirit of the teachings. But if a person chooses _willful ignorance_ of the talmud based on a simple parable I would view that person as not understanding the talmud at all. The history of the Jewish faith speaks powerfully to their knowledge of their society’s written and oral teachings and understanding of Jewish Law, including all it’s requirements. I often see (not from you) an inability to see the world in anything but the polar extremes: 1. One in which there is irrational dedication to the letter of the Law, without regard to the spirit of the law. Consequently we see prayer by rote, severe judgement etc that make a mockery of the spirit of the law. (whether it is Jewish or Christian teachings) 2)The other extreme is a repudiation of the law----a willing, blissul ignorance—in favor of the spirit of the law. In this view, Love, and only Love, is the requirement. In practical terms, hoewevr, this means that we no longer have the law to guide us. We are our own arbiters as to what is right and wrong—and so if faced with a life choice we can take comfort that we Loved–and applied the golden rule. This makes a mockery of the letter of the law and much of it’s teachings. But I submit that the teachings, thrust, content, continuity and context of the bible indicate that one must have the **spirit** of those teachings in their hearts, while making sound decisions based on their **knowledge** of the **letter** of those same laws in their minds. It cannot be an all or nothing proposition. > [@](#): > > Second, IIRC in some GD threads I have taken the position one should come to know G-d first, and then read the Bible. You have taken the position that one should read the Bible and that this would lead to knowing G-d. Your posts here seem to be a reversal. You say that love of G-d manifests as obedience to the law, and gives the law purpose. Your comments on the Pharisees strongly suggest that you believe that obedience to the law, or knowledge of the Bible, do not necessarily create a love of G-d.,So, isn’t it then far better to awaken a love of G-d in a person and then tell them to study the Bible as a manifestation of that love, than to tell somebody to study the Bible in hopes of awakening a love of G-d? Interesting. I agree that a knowledge of the bible will not give someone a love of God. But I do not see this as a chicken or the egg equation. Jesus, in the sermon on the mount, said ‘Happy are those concious of their spiritual need.’ So I think the person neds to have a heart and mind that is prepared for a love of God–his/her mind must be concious of their spiritual need, and have a hunger for it. They need to be open/receptive to a relationship with God. If that doesn’t exist, for whatever the reason, not the least of which is no desire, than the study of the bible is an academic excercise, nothing more. So if there is a genesis in a spiritual path I would have to say that it is a recognition of a spiritual need. But from there a relationship with God—an accurate one anyway—must include reading the bible. One does not “find God” by reading the bible–but if one is disposed to find Him, reading the bible (along with prayer, meditaion, fellowship, outreach etc) will help gain understanding about His will, personality, requirments, and purposes. So,one feeds the other. A receptive heart desires to cummune with God through prayer and meditation, and a desire to know more about Him and His purposes compels them to know of his laws, teachings etc, through reading the bible. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/58 "2006-05-02T18:14:09Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > So if there is a genesis in a spiritual path I would have to say that it is a recognition of a spiritual need. But from there a relationship with God—an accurate one anyway—must include reading the bible. One does not “find God” by reading the bible–but if one is disposed to find Him, reading the bible (along with prayer, meditaion, fellowship, outreach etc) will help gain understanding about His will, personality, requirments, and purposes. > > So,one feeds the other. A receptive heart desires to cummune with God through prayer and meditation, and a desire to know more about Him and His purposes compels them to know of his laws, teachings etc, through reading the bible. Obviously, you’re only referring to the christian god, because muslims and other religions, as well as many believers who affiliate with no man-made church have no need whatsoever in learning the stories in the bible. So, if a believer can understand their god without a bible, why can’t a self-described christian? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/59 "2006-05-02T18:56:30Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Obviously, you’re only referring to the christian god, because muslims and other religions, as well as many believers who affiliate with no man-made church have no need whatsoever in learning the stories in the bible. [sidenote]IIRC Muslims see Muhammad standing in an unbroken chain with earlier prophets, Abraham, Moses, Jesus. If so, they do “need” to learn of their patrimony, and AFAIK, in fact do so.[/sidenote] ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956/60 "2006-05-02T22:56:07Z")
> [@](#): > > That Jesus came for the Jews, preached to the Jews, and spoke exclusively of Jewish Law, doesn’t mean that he had no compassion for non-Jews, or that he would not have shown mercy toward a non-Jew. My Old Testament Lit prof (a hardcore atheist, btw) said it was most proper to think of Jesus as a radical Jewish reformer and NOT someone setting out to start a new religion. That was the work of those who came after him. > [@](#): > > But it remains true that the Messiah was for the Jews, as part of the Jewish faith. Jesus himself said that he came for the Jews. See, this is where the RCC has misled me with the gospels and all. When I see stuff like Matthew 7: 1-2: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again,” then I feel like I am doing the right thing by not imposing my values on other people, or telling them their lifestyle is wanting. But the RCC also makes it VERY hard to adhere to all parts of the dogma, so most Catholics pick and choose. If you’re going to do that (and everyone is, I don’t care who they are), why not pick the parts about loving, honoring, and respecting God and man, not judging people, and turning the other cheek? Why pick the parts about hellfire and damnation? > [@](#): > > None of that changes the fact that Jesus was partial to Judaism, he did hold Judaism above gentile religions—which was the point of my response to **Rubysteak** ’s comment, “… I don’t think he favored those of his religion…” Maybe the word “favored” was a bad choice. It was my impression that, though he came in a Jewish messianic tradition, he was open to anyone who would leave the old ways behind and follow him. He may not have come\* for\* the gentiles, but he accepted them if they offered their faith and devotion, no? My point, then, is that people like the OP, who alienate non-believers with their misguided and self-righteous zealotry, are not doing Christianity any favors. It seems to me that Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for Jews who were not embodying the compassionate spirit of the law, as well. > [@](#): > > So he did favor Jews. He was sent to the Jews. I don’t think being a Jew would get you into Jesus’ Heaven any faster, except in that you, as a Jew in that place and time, would have more access to and capacity for understand of Jesus’ teachings. Obviously Christianity moved away from Jewish reform within a scant few centuries and became largely a faith adopted and followed by former gentiles and their descendants. > [@](#): > > **Rubysteak** ’s comments implies a highly tolerant, somewhat non-denominational Jesus with no clear bias in the practical application of religion. I think of Jesus as a pretty enlightened guy with a good message that has gotten buried under several millenia worth of crap. But I cannot and will not subscribe to someone else’s dogma. 15 years of Catholicism broke me of that forever. > [@](#): > > In time, the Good News of the Christ was open to people of all nations, who could/were recognized in a formal way, but even then it was _the person_ that was accepted; _their religion_ was to be left behind, and there was no allowance for inter-faith among the arly Christian congregation. What is this about inter-faith? Jesus did make it clear that he was building on Jewish law and in a Jewish tradition, but that one would have to make the bold step of accepting him as the fulfillment of the prophesies. Once you accept Jesus as the savior, though, it doesn’t matter if you were a Jew, a Roman, a Greek, or whatever. It’s a clean slate after that point, right? Which is why I said he didn’t favor his own religion. It wasn’t a Jews-only club. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-christian-woman-i-met-yesterday/354956.md?page=4)