Furthermore, there isn’t one single scripture to establish your premise that “Jesus’ actal teachings are at a higher priority” than Paul or anyone else’s. In fact, your belief in that regard contradicts scripture.

And no wonder, since the essential premise of your whole blog is nothing but a regurgitation of the 2nd century Marcionite heresy which has been refuted a hundred times. You commit the same heresy, and by the same tactics… picking and choosing the scriptures that you like or dislike to make your assertions, on no other grounds than just because you are an authority unto yourself. Who the heck do you think you are?

So, why would I waste any more time casting pearls before swine? If you lack the integrity to examine scritpure in its ENTIRETY, in its historical, grammatic and chronological context, we can argue till the cows come home and you will be no more in the light than you are now. And you will inherit the same condemnation as your Marcionite mentor.

I see on your blog post that you have already cast judgment upon me with your claims that I sit at the table with Judas and “worship the image of the beast”. Given that, I have grave doubts whether it is even possible for me to say anything further to convince you of your error. I will say that my liberal friends always get a chuckle when they hear someone calling me a leftist; only the so-called “conservatives” of the current day who arguably don’t understand the definition of the word seem to think I’m not conservative in most matters. I do find it interesting, however, that when one examines Jesus’ teachings, it is obvious to anyone with at least a high school education that He was more liberal than any human wearing that label today.

That said, along with several of the ones commenting previously, I’d urge you to take a fresh look at the painting without trying to consider the depiction as an attempt to re-create the event where He was washing the feet of His disciples. Rather consider that the same action was depicted with a slightly different set of circumstances to slightly change the emphasis of the lesson presented.

In the original event with His disciples, Jesus was attempting to show them the foolishness of the argument they were having regarding which one(s) of them would have a more prestigious position in the afterlife. To do so, He used the obvious and universal fact that performing a service for someone does not say anything about the character of the person for whom the service is done, but it speaks volumes about the character of the person doing the service. And it speaks even louder when the person doing the service is of “greater” stature than the one receiving the service. Anyone is willing to serve a friend or someone they thought to be greater than themselves. It takes a truly excellent character to freely provide a service to someone who is of lesser stature than oneself, and by doing so, one is exalted.

That is the point I believe you are missing here in light of the last line in your blog post. You said that Jesus would kneel before no one, which says to me that you believe that doing so somehow means that the one doing the kneeling is inferior. I, on the other hand, believe that point being made is that a persona such as Jesus Himself, washing the feet of even those I believe (possibly incorrectly) are His enemies, glorifies Him beyond words. You say, rightfully so, that Jesus is the King of Kings. Is it not a good king who serves all of his people, even those that disagree with him? All humans qualify as Jesus’ people, and His very appearance on our sin-ridden planet reveals His character.

In our day and age, politicians are as poorly regarded as the tax-collectors and the others with whom Jesus spent his time while on our planet. The painting uses this, not in an attempt to re-create the message shown in the original foot-washing episode, but in an attempt to illustrate Jesus’ entire ministry on Earth. Even if this is not true, when you say that Jesus didn’t wash the feet of His enemies, I assume you’re forgetting the presence of Judas?

Finally, I would ask that you notice that when I make most of my arguments in religious matters, I use Jesus’ words and teachings as recorded in the Bible as my basis. If you believe that my interpretation of one or more of His teachings is in error, it would be helpful if you presented your counter argument by likewise referencing His teachings. Like many, I find the Bible to be valuable, but unlike many, I firmly believe that Jesus’ actual teachings are at a higher priority and importance than Paul’s or anyone else’s. If we truly believe that Jesus was indeed God or some part thereof, we must admit that His actual words carry a good bit more weight than any human regardless of how inspired that human was.

First of all, Jesus washed HIS DISCIPLES’ feet, not the feet of those who killed Him then, nor those who desire to kill His people today. Feet washing is a symbol of Christian fellowship in humility toward one another, the OPPOSITE of the essence of your comments and your attitude toward other believers.

Second, Jesus DIED for sinners. We know the for whom He died in the atonement because they REPENT of their sins. That’s why we have the distinction between the two thieves who died with Jesus. I have yet to see ANY of the people in that picture repent of their sins. Even Bush only confesses that Jesus cured him of alchoholism, like some new self-help therapy.

Third, the appropriate PICTURE for the critical truths I just articulated above is the CROSS — not that blasphemous picture. The appropriate symbol for that picture is them burning in HELL if they don’t repent before they die.

As long as such unbelievable IGNORANCE of true Christianity is perpetrated by people like you and those whom you deceive, both the Christian church AND our nation will continue to be disgraced and trampled by Satan.

Shame on you. All of you.

I chose the examples and the wording very carefully. Read it again, and you’ll see that it was pointed out that the suffering and anguish were *very real* to the subjects at the time of its occurrence, and thus, not exactly trivial. Losing one’s favorite toy as a child may appear trivial to an adult, but it is quite possibly the worst thing the child in question has ever experienced. And even if the adult knows that it is indeed a trivial thing, only a total asshole would treat it as such in the presence of said child.

My point is rather that after you are a few million years old (in earth time), and dealing with issues you face at that point, you will wistfully remember all the “problems” you had back on Earth and, similar to an adult pondering the child’s loss of their toy, will wind up thinking “they don’t know how good they have it”. Perhaps not so obvious is that I’m not saying that the so-called afterlife is bad….just that the issues you will face there will be on an entirely different level in their importance.

Also not so obvious is my belief here is that those who have gone through what we currently think is extreme suffering will prove to be better equipped to handle the issues arising in the “afterlife”; the ones who have been sheltered and lived a life of little suffering will be at a distinct disadvantage. Again bringing to mind the idea of a child who never had his favorite toy stolen finding it harder to deal with adult life as we know it than one who has attended the “school of hard knocks” a few times.

Heck, I’m a rather privileged person, in both where and when I live, but based on what I have experienced and heard from others, I can still acknowledge the non-triviality of extreme suffering. Now I can’t help but wonder… how sheltered can someone get? Would you really say that sort of thing to a cancer patient’s face, and if not, why not? Because that might make them feel worse (which of course still wouldn’t “matter”)? Sheeeesh.

Although, it should be noted that despite my using the “without exception” phrase above, some will drop that strawman and proceed to a more interesting level of debate when called on it. Those are the rare and precious ones. The only ones I call friends are like that.

Another thing I like to point out is how, if you put two different theists in a room and set the topic to religion, they will find no end of things to debate/argue about. Visit any number of religious-themed sites or blogs on the web and ample proof of this is provided. Yet, when you wander around the web and read posts authored by atheists, they all present the exact same ideas in sycophantic unison. And ever since The God Delusion was published, they frequently use the exact same words and phrases as well. Their ability to quote verses from their holy book exceeds most fundamentalists I know. So….more delicious irony as they claim that they’re “freethinkers”, the ones who singularly possess the gift of creative, independent thought. When the title of “mindless parrot” gets brought up, the only argument that can be had over most of today’s atheists and religious fundamentalists is which one gets called “pot” and which one gets called “kettle”, because they’re certainly all of the same color.

Fantastic quote, my friend. Don’t you love how religion encompasses everything, so that they are experts on it all, from science to politics to personal lives. Magnificent. Scientists–the ones who actually STUDY what is really going on–aren’t allowed to speak their mind, but when it comes to religious zealots and crackpots chiming in about how amazing god and jesus are and how everyone who doesn’t think like that is just plain stupid, we must “respect” their “opinion.”

At least those scientists aren’t saying, “It just is.” I respect those men for saying something, be it wrong or in the wrong field or whatever, MUCH more than I respect a Christian who tries to tell me who should shut up when they say things that Christian doesn’t agree with.