Anne, I want you to have a whip. I believe you would use it on the "right" people.

Then I wish that for all the evangelicals

This is a literary genre known as satire, which uses exaggeration, juxtaposition and comparison, double entendre... which are just a few of the ways satire is written. Clearly Jesus' biographers didn't mean that a camel could pass through the eye of a needle... that's an exaggeration. Nor did they mean that we should cut off our right hand. And I don't think he really saw us with logs and slivers in our eyes.

Particularly in the synoptic gospels, Jesus seemed to love this form of communication and used it often.

We give Christians grief for taking the bible literally, and yet, that's exactly what we do--especially with Jesus. I think the last thing Jesus wanted was to be taken literally... I don't think he meant for us to be walking around without our right hand. His biographers make him seem as if he loved paradox, and loved absurdity.

If he was a real person, that makes him way more interesting than he is portrayed by evangelicals. And I would LOVE to hear/see what he would do and say to the evangelicals of our day.

@Benthoven actually, the Romans, ancient Britian, and many others do indeed cut off the hand of a thief.....this was a literal observation.

@AnneWimsey: True, but based on a literal interpretation of a storyteller that should never have been taken literally. I don't think Jesus meant this to be taken literally. Just as he never meant to push camels through needles. Stephen King can't be held responsible for how his readers, especially Annie Wilkes, took his writings. He'll suffer for it, but it's not his fault she couldn't tell the difference between reality and satire.

@Benthoven Try as I might to see it as you describe, I find that to be quite a stretch. To treat such serious and dire matters, which offer proscriptions for achieving eternal salvation, in such a way, I find grossly inappropriate and irresponsible. All of which suggest to me a man who was seriously misguided in many ways if not a lunatic, and a wishful if not blatantly deceiptful attempt to put an acceptable spin on his alleged words. Btw, only a few months ago I saw a youtube video in which it was claimed that an "eye of a needle" meant something entirely different back then, and was entirely within the realm of the literally possible, though difficult.

@Benthoven I think that attempting to define what an imaginary being like "Christ" really wanted is an odd task to take on. His biographers probably weren't aware of the concepts of paradox and saw no problem with inserting it, along with absurdity as it was included in every religious text prior to the one they were writing; and they knew that "miracles" would serve as an explanation to "true believers".

"Clearly Jesus' biographers didn't mean that a camel could pass through the eye of a needle"

And I don't believe they used it in that fashion. Weren't they pointing out how impossible it would be to be rich and get into heaven and used an example of the impossible to point that out? So it was never the intent to imply that a camel could get through the eye of a needle. No exaggeration used at all. Cutting off the hand of a thief has been a method of dealing with thieves in the past, so why wouldn't it be credible in the time Jesus was supposed to have existed?

@redbai @benthoven @annewimsey Though I couldn't find the vid I referenced concerning the "eye of needle, I found another vid which actually shows a picture, of a "needle gate". In the process of looking for this, I watched another video in which it was claimed that preachers who explain this passage by referring to this "needle gate", though he understands why they might say so, are all wrong. So glad that all this nonsense is not my problem. But it's yet another example of how this supposed "God" is truly the author of confusion. Very crappy handiwork for a supposedly omni this and omni that deity.

Hilarious!