/christianity/ -Matthew 25

Name
Email
Subject	REC STOP
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive	Archive [500 char limit]
* = required field	[▶Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag	open flag menu
Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf Max filesize is16 MB. Max image dimensions are15000 x15000. You may upload5 per post.

Matthew 25 01/10/20 (Fri) 18:16:50 063220 No.11918

I just stumbled upon a deeply disturbing passage which I cannot come to terms with as it appears to have been preserved. I am not satisfied with the slightest with the shallow and hypocritical excuses I have so far heard for it's justification. I hope to God that it's merely a mistranslation inserted by jews, because I cannot accept as my lord one who would ever advocate for usury under any conditions. If I should be dammed to hell for rejecting usury, then I will proudly accept my fate with a clean conscience.

According to Matthew 25:27, Christ himself allegedly said:

>Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

I understand the parable just fine- 'contribute what you can'. That's not the part that troubles me. What troubles me is that I'm expected to believe that Christ himself supposedly justified usury. I can't accept this. It's exactly the same as asking me to believe Christ would say "beg, borrow, steal, cheat, lie; do whatever it takes to make a profit for your master". I have faith that Christ is better then this.

So someone, please help me understand just what the unholy f— happened to this passage. I cannot and will not accept this as it has been preserved. Someone please show me that this was a translation error or another jewish attempt at subversion.

____________________________

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

01/10/20 (Fri) 19:44:58 063220 No.11920

Well since this board is still a burning pile of garbage and I can't delete my post, I'll share the answer I found elsewhere on a halfchan /pol/ Christian thread:

>We must remember that we are in a parable, which cannot be expected in all things to agree with what it is brought to illustrate. This part of the parable doth chiefly instruct us in these two things:

>1. That it is the genius of wicked men to lay the blame of their miscarriages upon others, oft times upon God himself.

>2. Men in their excuses which they fancy, instead of excusing will but accuse and condemn themselves.

>3. Usury or loaning money at interest is strictly forbidden by the Bible, Ex 22:25-27 De 23:19,20. Even a rate as low as one per cent interest was disallowed, Ne 5:11.

>This servant had already told two lies. First he said the master was an austere or harsh man. This is a lie for the Lord is merciful and gracious. Next he called his master a thief because he reaped where he did not sow. Finally the master said to him sarcastically why did you not add insult to injury and loan the money out at interest so you could call your master a usurer too! If the servant had done this, his master would have been responsible for his servant's actions and guilty of usury.

God bless.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.