HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Arkansas State Rep: ‘If S...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:29 PM

Arkansas State Rep: ‘If Slavery Were So God-Awful, Why Didn’t Jesus Or Paul Condemn It?’

Source: ThinkProgress

After Arkansas Republicans disavowed a book by state representative Jon Hubbard (R-AR) claiming slavery was “a blessing in disguise” for African Americans, Hubbard’s colleague, state Rep. Loy Mauch (R-AR) has been outed by the Arkansas Times for his pro-slavery, pro-Confederacy letters to the editor over the past decade. Mauch’s run for reelection this year is backed by the Arkansas Republican Party.

In letters to the Democrat-Gazette, Mauch vehemently defended slavery and repeatedly suggested Jesus condoned it:

If slavery were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?The South has always stood by the Constitution and limited government. When one attacks the Confederate Battle Flag, he is certainly denouncing these principles of government as well as Christianity.


His other letters call Abraham Lincoln a Marxist and celebrate the Confederate flag as “a symbol of Christian liberty vs. the new world order.” He also organized a conference in 2004 praising John Wilkes Booth and calling for the removal of an Abraham Lincoln statue. Mauch has been supported mainly by contributions from the Republican Party and other Arkansas candidates. Now, the state GOP is pulling all funds from Mauch, Hubbard and another state legislative candidate, Charlie Fuqua, who wants to expel all Muslims from the country and thinks rebellious children should receive the death penalty.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/09/975021/arkansas-state-rep-if-slavery-were-so-god-awful-why-didnt-jesus-or-paul-condemn-it/

188 replies, 29186 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 188 replies Author Time Post
Reply Arkansas State Rep: ‘If Slavery Were So God-Awful, Why Didn’t Jesus Or Paul Condemn It?’ (Original post)
Galraedia Oct 2012 OP
LynneSin Oct 2012 #1
sakabatou Oct 2012 #3
GeorgeGist Oct 2012 #7
carla Oct 2012 #18
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #78
stopbush Oct 2012 #103
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #106
snooper2 Oct 2012 #116
Manifestor_of_Light Oct 2012 #130
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #154
chervilant Oct 2012 #135
Manifestor_of_Light Oct 2012 #147
chervilant Oct 2012 #150
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #19
stopbush Oct 2012 #51
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #61
WCGreen Oct 2012 #77
Ken Burch Oct 2012 #176
genxlib Oct 2012 #26
LynneSin Oct 2012 #28
stopbush Oct 2012 #54
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #62
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #82
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #89
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #94
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #96
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #99
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #100
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #101
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #81
stopbush Oct 2012 #152
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #153
stopbush Oct 2012 #157
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #159
stopbush Oct 2012 #160
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #161
Neoma Oct 2012 #56
freshwest Oct 2012 #60
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #64
Trailrider1951 Oct 2012 #75
kestrel91316 Oct 2012 #87
freshwest Oct 2012 #148
coalition_unwilling Oct 2012 #163
stopbush Oct 2012 #50
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #65
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #83
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #91
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #95
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #97
CthulhusEvilCousin Oct 2012 #98
LineLineReply .
Bandit Oct 2012 #57
Warpy Oct 2012 #80
happyslug Oct 2012 #125
Vidar Oct 2012 #84
antigone382 Oct 2012 #88
kwassa Oct 2012 #120
efhmc Oct 2012 #115
Bucky Oct 2012 #187
Ken Burch Oct 2012 #175
efhmc Oct 2012 #188
Bucky Oct 2012 #186
sinkingfeeling Oct 2012 #2
yardwork Oct 2012 #52
Megahurtz Oct 2012 #179
Behind the Aegis Oct 2012 #4
fasttense Oct 2012 #35
msongs Oct 2012 #5
leftynyc Oct 2012 #20
LynneSin Oct 2012 #29
Jeff In Milwaukee Oct 2012 #49
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #143
Lasher Oct 2012 #6
SunSeeker Oct 2012 #8
yesphan Oct 2012 #11
SunSeeker Oct 2012 #15
jtuck004 Oct 2012 #21
duhneece Oct 2012 #30
yesphan Oct 2012 #44
snooper2 Oct 2012 #117
SIDURI Oct 2012 #17
yesphan Oct 2012 #9
southernyankeebelle Oct 2012 #10
coalition_unwilling Oct 2012 #164
southernyankeebelle Oct 2012 #169
3catwoman3 Oct 2012 #170
coalition_unwilling Oct 2012 #171
Mike Daniels Oct 2012 #12
jsr Oct 2012 #13
FiveGoodMen Oct 2012 #31
The Second Stone Oct 2012 #14
Manifestor_of_Light Oct 2012 #58
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #66
The Second Stone Oct 2012 #70
Manifestor_of_Light Oct 2012 #105
awoke_in_2003 Oct 2012 #118
Manifestor_of_Light Oct 2012 #127
awoke_in_2003 Oct 2012 #129
King_Klonopin Oct 2012 #112
kwassa Oct 2012 #123
Manifestor_of_Light Oct 2012 #126
Great Caesars Ghost Oct 2012 #172
olddad56 Oct 2012 #16
Doctor_J Oct 2012 #22
FiveGoodMen Oct 2012 #33
HereSince1628 Oct 2012 #23
booley Oct 2012 #24
Scootaloo Oct 2012 #41
thatwhichisnt Oct 2012 #25
duhneece Oct 2012 #32
Manifestor_of_Light Oct 2012 #67
Vasmosn Oct 2012 #90
Manifestor_of_Light Oct 2012 #108
Vasmosn Oct 2012 #155
Manifestor_of_Light Oct 2012 #156
NOLALady Oct 2012 #27
Manifestor_of_Light Oct 2012 #144
Whovian Oct 2012 #34
closeupready Oct 2012 #36
FiveGoodMen Oct 2012 #38
closeupready Oct 2012 #39
barbtries Oct 2012 #37
catrose Oct 2012 #40
Vasmosn Oct 2012 #92
DaDeacon Oct 2012 #42
bullwinkle428 Oct 2012 #43
Zambero Oct 2012 #45
Manifestor_of_Light Oct 2012 #145
harun Oct 2012 #46
lame54 Oct 2012 #47
muriel_volestrangler Oct 2012 #48
treestar Oct 2012 #59
muriel_volestrangler Oct 2012 #63
NOLALady Oct 2012 #132
newspeak Oct 2012 #142
coalition_unwilling Oct 2012 #165
UrbScotty Oct 2012 #53
Lint Head Oct 2012 #55
Ecumenist Oct 2012 #68
sulphurdunn Oct 2012 #69
arely staircase Oct 2012 #71
LaPera Oct 2012 #72
Harry Monroe Oct 2012 #73
barnabas63 Oct 2012 #74
Sunlei Oct 2012 #76
still_one Oct 2012 #79
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #85
enki23 Oct 2012 #86
Coyotl Oct 2012 #93
Hoyt Oct 2012 #102
PD Turk Oct 2012 #104
demosincebirth Oct 2012 #107
blkmusclmachine Oct 2012 #109
SemperEadem Oct 2012 #110
tclambert Oct 2012 #111
lunasun Oct 2012 #114
coalition_unwilling Oct 2012 #166
caseymoz Oct 2012 #113
coalition_unwilling Oct 2012 #167
caseymoz Oct 2012 #173
coalition_unwilling Oct 2012 #178
caseymoz Oct 2012 #180
coalition_unwilling Oct 2012 #181
caseymoz Oct 2012 #182
hifiguy Oct 2012 #119
FiveGoodMen Oct 2012 #122
jwirr Oct 2012 #121
felix_numinous Oct 2012 #124
coalition_unwilling Oct 2012 #168
no_hypocrisy Oct 2012 #128
JNelson6563 Oct 2012 #131
FiveGoodMen Oct 2012 #133
mwooldri Oct 2012 #134
Anthony McCarthy Oct 2012 #136
chervilant Oct 2012 #138
wtmusic Oct 2012 #137
newspeak Oct 2012 #139
and-justice-for-all Oct 2012 #140
yurbud Oct 2012 #141
Manifestor_of_Light Oct 2012 #146
panzerfaust Oct 2012 #158
freshwest Oct 2012 #149
bemildred Oct 2012 #151
truthisfreedom Oct 2012 #162
ChisolmTrailDem Oct 2012 #174
newspeak Oct 2012 #184
Ken Burch Oct 2012 #177
redwitch Oct 2012 #183
Bake Oct 2012 #185

Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:31 PM

1. Why do these idiots put Paul on the same level as Jesus

Look, not to spew religion here and respect that we are people of all faith.

Jesus was someone who was prophesied about in the Old Testament as being the Son of God. Paul was some random guy out of thousands of random guys who happen to spread Christianity after Jesus' resurrection. The people that wrote the bible happen to pick his stories to include. Paul was the first Christian fundamentalist and isn't even on the same footing as Jesus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:36 PM

3. I'd say something about the prophecies, but I don't think I should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:42 PM

7. Offs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:05 PM

18. Of what resurrection

do you speak? There are no historical records of this messiah. There is much evidence that such a figure is purely literary and decidedly not human or real. Of course believers tend to believe what is unproven, but this is all bunk anyway. How would a myth support or denounce a practice the world has known for ages? Christians need to get a grip and try to understand the myth of Jesus contextually, not literally. Paul and Jesus had equal footing...all based only on biblical reference and to be found nowhere else in the histories of the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to carla (Reply #18)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:20 PM

78. Yes there is

"Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today."

~ Josephus' Antiquities (The wording is disputed, but the reference to Jesus is not.) (A.D. 37 - c. A.D. 100)

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, ; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king , desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.

~ Josephus' Antiquities (A.D. 37 - c. A.D. 100)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/ant-20.htm#EndNote_ANT_20.23a

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

~ Tacitus, Annals book XV (c. A.D. 55 - c. A.D. 117)

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun...Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak."

~ Julius Africanus, Chroonography XVIII (c. 160 - c. 240)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #78)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:33 AM

103. Here we go again, with the supposed third party confirmations that Jesus really existed.

You try to make it look like these people were contemporaries of Jesus by fudging dates. Here's one example:

You write: "~ Josephus' Antiquities (A.D. 37 - c. A.D. 100)"

That gives the impression that Josephus wrote his Antiquities between 37-100 AD. The FACT is that Josephus was BORN in AD 37 and died in AD 100. That means that Josephus was born about a year after Jesus supposedly died. His Antiquities were written in AD 95. That means that the text that you're quoting was written approximately 60 years after Jesus died.

The same applies to the other people you've cited. None of them were contemporaries of Jesus. None of them knew him or any of his supposed followers. All it is is third-hand myth conveying of what someone told someone who told someone etc.

That isn't proof. It isn't even speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #103)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:47 AM

106. Even the

Jewish Babylonian Talmud speaks of this Jesus (but not nicely), though it was written in the 6th Century. Dates aside, there are no serious historians who would dispute the man Jesus lived. By such standards, we would have to disbelieve Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and any number of historical figures whose histories were not written during their lifetimes, or at least no transcripts that can be dated to within their lifetimes. There are no texts that dispute Christ from any source, though not all of them are nice. And there are no legitimate historians who would go so far as to deny His existence totally, though they can certainly deny or cast doubt on certain elements of the Gospel. You would expect people to outright be calling the Christians liars if there was no one who did the things Christ was claimed to do who was put to death by Pilate, yet none dispute His existence even while calling Christians to be vile and all sorts of things. To go this far to deny it, I think, is mere desperation. Or, it is basically claiming that Christians themselves only sprung up 60 to 70 years after Christ "allegedly" died. It stretches reason.

The other individual didn't even know that there were, indeed, extra-biblical references. I proved that without a doubt. Now, the problem is, "they're not old enough!"

As for Josephus, he is a highly credible historian. He did not witness all that he reported, but he was involved with the Jewish-Roman war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #106)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:51 AM

116. You are right, a dude named Jesus did live, but he was just an average carpenter

who told good stories LOL...



If you really want to worship something awesome try the Sun.....


First of all, you can actually see the Sun (kind of helps the credibility)
Gives you heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake
no crucifications and we aren't setting people on fire who disagree with us..
And the Sun will never tell you that you are unworthy

Worship the Sun!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #103)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 02:28 PM

130. Jesus is just like Mithra, Apollo, Osiris, etc.

Born of a virgin on Dec. 25th with supernovae in the heavens, etc.

Gee, I wonder why that is? because xtianity is syncretic religion, a pagan mystery cult with absolutely nothing original in it????

No contemporary accounts of him, no records of his existence.
None of the story of the census in Bethlehem is true. They had to lie that he was born in bethlehem to be of the House of David.

The fanatical fabrication, the inane preachments, are all a fabrication. The evidence is so obviously, strenuously cobbled together. Whereas the logical reasoning of Socrates is still valid whether or not he lived.

The True Core of the Jesus Myth:
&feature=related

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #130)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:01 PM

154. I suggest you research

all of those claims, and attempt reading original works on that subject. FYI, the Christmas thing wasn't even a Christian tradition, but was a Roman one that came a few hundred years later with the rise of the Catholics who, specifically, were trying to attract converts by simply renaming pagan holidays. You will not find it in the Bible or in the history of the early Church. That's just one example of how people play upon ignorance of history and ancient religions to claim that Christianity was invented.

Let me know who invented all of this and who they stole it from:

Isa 52:13-15 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. (14) As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: (15) So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Isa 53:1-12 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? (2) For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. (3) He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (4) Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. (5) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (6) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (7) He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. (8) He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. (9) And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. (10) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (11) He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (12) Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Dan 9:25-27 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

and on and on and on...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #78)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:12 AM

135. You might want to check some other resources,

including Elaine Pagels and Barbara Walker. With a multitude of references, Walker shows that the Christ myth is an amalgamation of a number of oral 'histories' from various cultures that predate the Judeo-Christian culture by hundreds of years. Elaine Pagels discusses the Gnostic Gospels, which the founders of the Catholic Church excluded from the official 'bible' for political and economic reasons. Other 'serious' historians document the myriad mythologies of our species--with our rather childlike need to believe in a 'power greater than ourselves,' which we persist in subverting into a justification for our 'sins.'

I highly recommend Joseph Campbell for his comprehensive meta-analysis of world religions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #135)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:50 PM

147. Yes.

The Council of Nicaea was convened by Emperor Constantine to consolidate his political power and oppress his subjects. I learned this in a religion class at a Christian university from Christian ministers who were graduates of Harvard University Divinity School in Cambridge, MA, and Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey.


Cyril of Alexandria murdered Hypatia, the greatest mathematician of her age & had the great Library destroyed. For this he was made a saint. That is in COSMOS by Carl Sagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #147)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 09:07 AM

150. Somehow,

I doubt that CthulhusEvilCousin will even consider those resources...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #19)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:06 PM

51. Nonsense. There's no proof that Paul actually existed. If you have such proof, produce it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #51)


Response to stopbush (Reply #51)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:19 PM

77. Paul's like the so-called fifth Beatle...

A converted zealot who tried to push his version of what happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WCGreen (Reply #77)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:08 PM

176. So...Paul is the Pete Best of Christianity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:42 PM

26. See the Jefferson Bible

Don't know if you are familiar with the Jefferson Bible but I find it to be one of the most important facts that almost no one knows.

Jefferson edited the bible to exclude everything but the actual words of Jesus. He literally took a knife to it and pasted it back together. In the process he cut away all of Paul and the references to the supernatural stuff. What was left was the philosophy of Jesus which reads like a progressive's handbook.

In doing so he compared the words of Jesus amongst the rest as "diamonds in a dung hill". He had an active disdain for Paul and the rest.

The remarkable thing about the Jefferson Bible (as it became known) is that it was handed out to new members of Congress from 1904 through the 1950's. Can you imagine handing out an edited version of the bible to Congress these days? Heads would explode.

The Jefferson Bible is the perfect distillation of what is problematic in modern Christianity in America. Most of the culture war problems we face are with what I call "bookend" Christians. Those are the ones that want to ignore Jesus and focus on Genesis, Paul and Revelations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genxlib (Reply #26)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:49 PM

28. If for those who don't believe in Jesus, the guy was a pretty admirable person

Even Gandhi was a big fan of his.

Jesus helped those less fortunate and had issues with wealthy people who turned their backs.

I know alot of Athiests who show real Christian values moreso than those who scream 'I'm a Christian I'm better than you' mantras.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #28)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:10 PM

54. Jesus admirable? Really?

The guy who called the Cannanite woman a dog? The guy who made a whip and beat his fellow beings with the same? The guy who said that unless you hated your immediate family you couldn't truly love him? The guy who said that the entirety of the OT law was in effect, including those disgusting parts we all know about like selling your daughter into slavery and executing your kids for talking back to you?

What's to admire?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #54)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #62)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:38 PM

82. Wow

Pretty weak. Here's the whole scripture:

Mat 10:34-42 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (35) For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (36) And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. (37) He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (38) And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. (39) He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (40) He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. (41) He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. (42) And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.


Wow, eeeevil Jesus ends His sermon with a plea to give a cold drink to the little ones (who we are supposed to hate).

Jesus also said:

Mat 5:44-47 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (45) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. (46) For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? (47) And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?


Seems to me what Christ was saying is, LOVE GOD MOST OF ALL, more than anyone else, even if they turn on you and hate you for your faith. Love God with all your heart, mind and soul, to such a degree that all your other passions seem like nothing. And what is the chiefest commandment to those who love God like this?

Joh 13:33-35 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. (34) A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (35) By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #82)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #89)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:31 PM

94. Well Duh

Mat_5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Nice try, but you're going to have to do better than that to pin Christ as a warmonger. The variance is religious disagreement, as back then people had a bit of a problem with embracing a guy who claimed to be the Son of God. Ask Stephen, he was the first to be stoned to death for claiming Christ is the Messiah.

Act 7:54-60 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. (55) But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, (56) And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. (57) Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, (58) And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. (59) And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. (60) And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #94)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #96)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:06 AM

99. Well

thanks for giving up your argument that Christ was saying things He did not. Get back to me when you can demonstrate how the poor behavior of Christians comes from a direct command from Christ Himself.

Keep in mind, the Christ you are making guilty by association is, probably, even more progressive than you are. You will not find a more definite and hard statement than the one Christ made here:

Mat 19:20-26 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? (21) Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (22) But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. (23) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. (24) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (25) When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? (26) But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

To Christ, material wealth and power is meaningless. You have missed the great and powerful message of Christ by assuming that what you see with "Christians" today is what you get. Mind you, there are many good Christians, but the Christianity of the Benny Hinns, the Joel Osteens, the big mega-churches, the giant cathedrals lined with gold, how do you reconcile them with the Gospel?

And what if I found someone, who believes all that you believe, but who goes around stealing or even worse things than that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #99)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #100)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:13 AM

101. If you say so,

but very few historians have ever made that claim. Now, whether or not Jesus Christ is the SON OF GOD, well, that's the part you can fight about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #54)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:29 PM

81. Did he really?

Here's the scripture:

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Looks like he was testing her, as it was the Pharisees who considered the gentiles to be dogs. Yet Christ ate with "dogs," and prostitutes and thieves and other assorted sinners. It was one of the accusations the Pharisees tried to use to get Him killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #81)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 01:33 PM

152. He was testing her?

And what if she had simply given up and left after Jesus said, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs?"

BTW - you left out verses 22-23. Why? Could it be because they say this?:

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

"He answered her not a word." Nice "FU" from gentle Jesus, meek and mild.

After that, he informs the Cannanite woman - ie: the non-Jew - that he wasn't sent for people like her, but that "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

So, let me get it straight: Jesus' "test" for this woman who "cried" to him to help her afflicted daughter was:

1. don't even deign to answer a mother pleading on behalf of her sick child,
2. after further begging for his help, answer her by noting that he wasn't sent to help her or her child because she wasn't Jewish, and
3. after even more pleading for help, compare helping her to taking bread away from children and throwing it to the dogs, and then
4. finally relent only after the poor woman has groveled at Jesus' feet and accepted his characterization of her being on the level of a dog who "eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."

What an asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #152)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 09:40 PM

153. "What an asshole."

It's almost as if you've never read the Gospels at all, and didn't even get to the point where Christ says "O Woman, great is thy faith." Here is Christ being cruelly silent again before a tremendous act of mercy:

Joh 8:1-11 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. (2) And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. (3) And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, (4) They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. (5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? (6) This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. (7) So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (8) And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. (9) And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. (10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? (11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Here is Christ eating and drinking with sinners and publicans:

Mar 2:15-16 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. (16) And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

Here is Christ helping a Roman Centurion, along with giving a prophecy that men of all nations would eat with Abraham and Isaac, but the "children of the Kingdom" (the Pharisees, who felt superior to all others, even other Jews) would be cast out.

Mat 8:5-12 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, (6) And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. (7) And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. (8) The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. (9) For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. (10) When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. (11) And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. (12) But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This last one certainly establishes the point that Christ was testing her, as the entire premise of His message was that the "wicked" and the 'gentiles' and the publicans and the unwanted would find themselves exalted in His heavenly Kingdom. You would have to basically ignore the entirety of the Gospels in order to cling to your view.

Luk 18:10-14 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. (11) The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. (12) I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. (13) And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. (14) I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

How many times must Christ demonstrate that He stood in open rebellion to the self-righteousness of the Pharisees for you to believe it? Apparently, even after the miracle, it would never be enough.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #153)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 03:18 PM

157. Oh, I've read the Gospels, and Jesus was a MAJOR asshole.

Why put that poor woman through even a second of duress? Would you expect such behavior from any run-of-the-mill compassionate human being? I don't think so.

Jesus decided to means test this woman. He didn't have pity on her because of her situation or her daughter's crisis. He deigned to help her because "her faith was great," ie: because she thought the megalomaniac Jesus was a god and said so.

As far as the "miracles," give me a break. Miracles? And Santa comes down the chimney. I no more believe Jesus performed miracles than I believe he was god incarnate, if he even existed to begin with. And I've garnered all of that by reading the Gospels numerous times. Why you can't see that escapes me.

"A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher." - CS Lewis

A couple of Lewis' typical false dilemmas in that statement, but if you take it at face value, then, yes, Jesus was not the son of any god, ergo he was not a great moral or human teacher, as his loathsome actions with the Cannanite woman show in spades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #157)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 07:57 PM

159. Not many human beings

have claimed to be the living God manifested in flesh. If that is not who He was, then certainly He is something worse than a madman. But if He really did turn around and heal her daughter, I doubt if you were to ask her that she would agree with any of your sentiments. You don't believe in the entire premise, but yet you are mad that He did not heal her two minutes faster than He did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #159)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:35 PM

160. I'm not mad at anyone, especially a fiction like Jesus.

One might as well be "mad" at Zeus or any of the other make believe gods man has invented for himself.

As far as "healing her daughter," what were the chances of that? Jesus believed in demon possession, and that illness was caused by evil spirits living in people. That was the diagnosis the Canaanite woman offered to Jesus as to what ailed her daughter. So, if his cure was to drive out a demon, well, that's just believing in bullshit.

BTW - Jesus also believed children got sick because their parents pissed off god. One would hope modern science has shown the stupidity of believing in these things that "god incarnate" believed were true.

Or perhaps you believe that demons and evil spirits WERE the cause of disease back in the Biblical age, and that things have simply changed over the centuries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #160)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 10:59 PM

161. I can't seem to think

what you are referencing where you say Jesus claimed children got sick because their parents "pissed off God." The closest I can think of is here:

Joh 9:1-3 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. (2) And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? (3) Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

And, of course, it isn't saying what you claim.

There are some Old Testament scriptures which read along the lines of "the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generation," but then they often conclude with "but the mercy of God I will visit to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments." Other scriptures also read that sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers, which implies that anyone who repents of their sins is reconciled with God. But, again, this also wasn't what you were referencing.

I also do not see any instance where illness is attributed to Demons. Jesus healed lepers, raised the dead, cured blindness, and none of their various ailments were attributed to demons. He did not heal lepers by casting out a demon. When it was a demon, it was explicitly described as a demon being cast away and the problem being demon possession. You could say that they were all suffering from mental illness, but that isn't what you're saying.

I do not spend much time going over the works of Zeus and deciding if he was an "asshole" or not. In fact, they were showing Odysseus on TV a few days ago and not once did it occur to me to wonder, one way or the other, how moral or immoral any of the fictional characters were. I have also never once fought with a Wiccan, or any other various form of pagan, about the morality or immorality of Seth, Ishtar, and so on and so forth. "Fictional" characters never annoy me enough to go through the trouble!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #28)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:20 PM

56. Maybe you value life a little more if you know you're mortal.

This isn't the case all the time, but I think some people are like, "so what? I'm going to live forever in bliss while you burn in hell anyways."

I remember being in Sunday school while they showed us a map of the world and pointed out all the places where there weren't Christains, and how sad it is that all of them are going to hell. They pitied them.

But I found it kind of condescending at the time. Mainly because at the time they were also passing pictures around of missionaries and they were practically worshipping my aunt and uncle who are complete shit eaters.

Fun times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genxlib (Reply #26)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:31 PM

60. Yes, the Founders' ideas are unknown to most Americans. The GOPTeaParty rewrote history.

The Jefferson Bible (The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth)

...Also referring to the 1804 version, Jefferson stated, "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Jefferson's claim to be a Christian was made in response to those who accused him of being otherwise, due to his unorthodox view of the Bible and conception of Christ. Recognizing his rather unique views, Jefferson stated in a letter (1819) to Ezra Stiles Ely, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know..."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Copy and paste this into your browser address to download free as a pdf:

www.pattonhq.com/links/uccministry/jeffbible.pdf


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genxlib (Reply #26)


Response to genxlib (Reply #26)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:13 PM

75. I have a similar item today

It is a Bible with Jesus' words in red, as opposed to black type for everything else. It is called the 'red letter edition', and is available wherever bibles are sold. Just FYI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trailrider1951 (Reply #75)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:33 PM

87. I have a red letter bible (KJV), and those parts are the only ones I have

ever paid much attention to.

I have tried to read the rest, but it's mostly uber-boring dreck. Proverbs is of course ok, and Psalms is poetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #87)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:52 PM

148. That was what I did as I got older. Agree completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #87)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:11 AM

163. I'd like to put in a pitch for the Book of Job, which is great in a black-humor

 

existentialist sort of way. God and Satan decide to make a wager as to whom Job is most loyal to and the way the bet is decided is to afflict poor Job with just about every bad thing you could possibly imagine to see whether his faith can be shaken.

When Job has finally had enough and asks "Why?" God responds basically with a 'Don't ask!"

Definitely my favorite book in the Bible, hands down (although Samuel 1 and II give it a run for its money)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:05 PM

50. Jesus and Paul - both make-believe personages.

That's really all you need to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #50)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #65)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:43 PM

83. Posting from CARM

is a bad idea, as they are a professional Apologetics group. Here is from the article you linked to:

"While there are several sources that suggest that Mithraism included a notion of rebirth, they are all post-Christian. The earliest...dates from the end of the second century A.D."2

I wonder who inspired who.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #83)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #91)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:38 PM

95. I didn't

dispute the Roman adoption of Mithras. Read my post again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #95)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #97)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:57 PM

98. Your argument

is that Mithraism gave birth to Christian ideas. Only that timing is important.

By the way, here is something that predates even the Persian Mithra.

Isa 53:1-11 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? (2) For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. (3) He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (4) Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. (5) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (6) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (7) He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. (8) He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. (9) And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. (10) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (11) He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

That's essentially the entire Gospel right there, here spoken of by Isaiah long before Christ. And there's much more I can provide, each of which being reflected within the Gospel story itself.

Everything that Christ claimed to be and did was written of before it happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:20 PM

57. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:28 PM

80. Paul told them who they could hate

with women and gay men topping the list. That's why the right wing reveres him.

I see Paul more as a tent meeting huckster who saw a way to take an obscure Jewish sect, twist it a little bit, and make it palatable to Rome, gaining prestige and power at the same time. He served Empire well, although he didn't live quite long enough to see Empire realize it and convert.

In any case, someone needs to point out to Hubbard and Mauch that Jesus had nothing to say about gays or abortion, either, and that knocks the underpinnings right out from under just about everything they believe in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #80)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 02:02 PM

125. Paul attacking Women and Gay men?

Last edited Wed Oct 10, 2012, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Paul's attack on Homosexual is in two passages and then used the following two words:

Arsenokoitēs (Arseno Greek for Male, Koties, Greek for sexual intercourse)
Malakos - This seem to have started out to mean a adolescent male who is the sexual object of another male but by the time of Christ had expanded to include any male who opt for a soft living as oppose to doing hard days work.

Arsenokoitēs is unknown from any Greek writing prior to St Paul. It is rarely used afterward. Thus its exact meaning is hard to determine. That it is a combination of two Greek Words for Male and Sexual Intercourse is clear, but Greeks had other more common words for what we call Homosexuality. Furthermore, even today, among the people of the Mediterranean, a man who has penetrates another male, but himself is NOT penetrated, is NOT considered a Homosexual. This concept also exists in American Prisons, where it appears to arise independently.

Arsenokoites is used in conjunction with the term "Malakos" and that combination may be the key to understanding why St Paul used the Term Arsenokites. In simple terms St Paul was condemning someone like Sandusky with the term "Arsenokoites". The term "Malakos" is also condemned, but it was a more used term among Greek Speakers, meaning male prostitutes or males who refused to do men's work.

Modern Scholars have pointed out the above and have pointed out that St Paul does not condemn Homosexuals but those Homosexuals who abuse adolescents AND males who refuse to work.

This actually makes sense, for the Ancient Greeks were known to accept Homosexuality more then the Jews and Romans and Paul was a master in the practice of Marketing, i.e. do NOT condemn something that will turn people off your message. This can be seen in Paul's visit to Athens, he does NOT condemn the idols all around him, he goes to the alter set aside for any god the Athenians did not know of and point out the Athenians have always Worshiped God based on that alter, they just have to accept the one true God. Paul does NOT Condemn the idols he still wants destroyed for that would turn the Athenians against him, instead he points out what they have in common with him and Jesus Christ. As I said, he was a master marketer of Christianity.

Thus St Paul had good reason to avoid Homosexuality as a subject, except when it was popular cause among the Greeks. Pedophiles and male's who did no work were NOT high on anyone's agenda, and thus could be safely condemned, along with "Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers...thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers...". No one liked any of them and thus all could be condemned.

On the other hand, the terms for violent crime is not mentioned in that sentence. Murder, Assault, Battery, and even rape are NOT mentioned. Fornication, being greedy, be a Drunkard, being a Slanderer, are NOT violations of the ten Commandments (and neither is Homosexuality).

One author pointed out in later books Arsenokoites is almost always listed among economic crimes. not sexual crimes, which implies it meant something of economic harm (i.e. using a slave as a sex toy even if the slave does not want to). This can be seen in the above quote, the ... is where the terms Arsenokoites and Malakos occurs. i.e. right between the sexual crimes and the economic crimes.
http://www.clgs.org/arsenokoit%C3%A9s-and-malakos-meanings-and-consequences

The same author points out that Makakos had by the time of Christ a long history of being used to any male who did NOT act like a regular male i.e. work hard outside the home. I.e. someone who did NOT work hard Physical Labor OR work hard at getting an education.

Thus St Paul did make two comments that MAY include an attack on Homosexuals, but some how he also wanted to restrict who he was condemning. The reason for the restriction may be due to concerns about how his message was being received the homosexuality but Paul did restrict his condemnation.

As to women. A Protestant minster once pointed out that if Paul knew what he letters were going to be used in later years, he would have been more careful what he wrote. Paul is noted for three comments on women, first in a letter Paul writes women should NOT be heard in Church, then in another letter he recommends a FEMALE Follower to a Church and to listen to her as if he was speaking, and third if you have to have sex, get married.

The comments reflect three different situations, the first, that women are NOT to be heard in Church, was in response to a problem that had arose among Early Christian Churches. Repeating the Last Supper had already become the focus of any meeting of any Christian Group. These started quite small, in the homes of Christians, then as the community grew Christian started to build larger buildings to hold such meetings. Unlike Pagan Temples, where the worshipers stayed outside the temple, gave their gifts to the gods to the Temple Priests who took the offering inside the temple and later came out and said it was acceptable (Thus Temples did NOT have to have room for all of its worshipers, but Christian churches did, this was the main difference between the two religious houses).

Anyway, as the Church became more and more Greek, the Greek Tradition (which was also a Roman and Jewish Tradition) that any teaching of anything was separated by sex. Among the pagans this had NOT been a problem for dogma could differ (and did) between the sexes. The problem with Christianity was dogma could NOT differ between the sexes for ALL members of the congregation participated in the repetition of the Last Supper (i.e. Both sexes at the same time, through as was traditional at that time, males on one side, females and young children on the other). Thus you had both sexes in the same room, hearing the same sermon from the same priest, but 1/2 of the listeners have been taught differently for their were women and had learned from women. Apparently some of the woman stood up and asked question about the mass, this disrupted the mass, but given the nature of the education system at the time, the only time and place they could ask.

It was this disruption Paul was saying Woman should NOT do. At the same time, it appears, the early Christians started to make sure Women and Men received the same lessons on the religion. Men would teach women of the doctrine (and in some cases, as when Paul sends a letter of Recommendation for a woman, for Women to teach men). Thus Paul's statement as to women being quite in mass became meaningless even as he lived, but it also reflects how revolutionary Christianity was, the teaching of women and men separately (except by family members) had strong roots in Roman, Greek and Jewish culture at that time. Christianity was one of the first attacks on that separate system (Please note, going to mass, men on one side, women on the other remained the norm till the High Middle Ages, when it switched to the modern concept of families staying together, an example of how hard and long it takes to change traditions).

As to women and sex, Paul seems to have a problem with the temptation of sex. He tells men to avoid women, for women will tempt them. This also followed traditional GREEK dogma, that women were weak for they needed sex, if a woman gave up sex that made her more like a man. I did not say I believed this, but it reflects Greek Dogma of the Classical and Roman Period. Thus the writing that women are evil and thus will tempt a man to break his vows, for having sex made a man weak. This dogma was still popular in the mid 20th century, when football players were told NOT to have sex with their wives the night before a game for it would make then weaker. Studies have long disproved this dogma, but it remained around till quite recently.

Thus, under the popular dogma of the time period to have anything to do with women made men weak and thus to be avoided. This dogma shows up in odd places in the bible but it exists and probably is the reason Paul never married, Unlike Peter and the Disciples (all of whom were married),

Paul was single and that permitted him to move about more then the disciples themselves. Peter and Paul both ended up in Rome, but Paul went to a lot of places in between. Paul was a well educated Jew, and thus could write (and did). Peter had some education and probably could read and write, but he appears to prefer to speak and thus we get most of what we know of Peter by the Writings in the Gossips and the Acts of the Disciples. The Acts of the Disciplines and the Gossip according to Luke are believed to have been written by St Luke, who also appears to be a follow of Paul, but had great respect for Peter.

On the other hand Paul's position that a person could be saved by faith alone, was rejected by the early Church (and remains rejected by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to this day). Catholic (and Orthodox) Doctrine says to be "saved" you must have "Good Works", i.e. helping your fellow mankind. Thus the people who organized the modern bible put the Letter from St James right after the writings of St Paul to show that despite what St Paul wrote, Good Works were still required. Luther had a problem with St James and wanted it removed from the Bible for Luther believe a person could be saved alone but accepted the Catholic interpretation that St James rejected that concept (Thus Luther wanted to removed St James). Later Protestants kept St James letter in the bible, but said the Catholics were wrong in how they read St James, in recent decades some Protestant have reviewed this debate and started to state that Luther's and Calvin's view were wrong as to St Paul and St James (adopting a more Catholic view of both).

More on this Protestant Debate on Paul:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul

One of the problems with Paul is he was a Jew, living Under Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and finally dying under Nero as opposed to someone living 2000 years later. Rome was going through a strong period of Hellenization at that time which would continue for another 200 years. It would be stopped under Constantine but that stoppage would end with the Fall of the Western Empire around 450 AD. At that point the Empire, based from 450 onward survived mostly in the East and thus became a Greek Empire. In the West you saw a decline in Roman/Latin tradition after 450, then a return to Roman/Latin tradition after about 600 AD (With some Greek in between, but also a good dose of German/Gothic traditions coming in). For this reason Orthodox Priests wear beards (Greek Tradition), Catholic Priests are clean shaven (Roman Tradition).

Paul seems to be a speaker more to keep what is good about Judaism and to adopt what was good in Hellenism for he lived in this time of transition. Thus when Paul uses the term "Faith" he does NOT mean Faith alone but to follow the will of God (Faithfulness not Faith) even if that means doing what traditional Judaism rejected. Paul's sending a woman as if he himself had gone (Which was itself a rejection of long held Greek AND Jewish dogma), his attack on Pedophilia, which by then had long been a Greek Custom, shows his efforts to keep what is good and avoid what is bad in the time of transition. Thus Paul is more progressive to Women then most of the men of his time period, and seems to only attack Pedophilia when it comes to Homosexuals. Paul still falls into the common dogma of his time that relations with a woman weakens a man, but other then that he was quite progressive when it came to women. This may be a reflection of his Roman Citizenship (Roman's women had more rights then Greek Women) and his Jewish descent (Jewish women did not have the rights of Roman Women, but they had more rights then Greek Women) but his "attacks" on women are the common attacks of the time period, based on that popular dogma that when men and women had relations, that made men weaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:45 PM

84. Because they worship evil and Jesus doesn't qualify, but Paul most certainly does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 10:50 PM

88. What's funny about Paul is that most of "his" fundamentalist writings weren't written by him.

Most biblical scholars now recognize that several of the books attributed to Paul--including 1 and 2 Timothy--were actually most likely written after his death. The style of the writing is inconsistent with the works that have a more proven connection to Paul, and these later writings reference events that are known to have happened after his deathl. At that time, attributing your own work to someone famous and well respected was not seen as dishonest. It was a way of honoring that individual and claiming that your own work was in keeping with their philosophy, even when it wasn't.

Most of Paul's more solidly attributed writings are actually remarkable for the central roles played by women, for the assertion that all are equal in Christ, for advocating the adjustment of one's own practices to better fit within the community where one finds one's self--whether that be eating "unclean" animals, allowing uncircumcised men as followers, and having women either wear or not wear the veil depending on what was less likely to offend the groups one was trying to convert. He was not the rigid dogmatist that he is so often viewed as today...for example, while he believed that an end time would come within his lifetime, and that people therefore should not waste time on marriage and family, he advocated doing what worked for yourself--staying married if you were married, and getting married if you really felt compelled to.

*note: I am an atheist (though I don't view my personal interpretation of the evidence as superior or inferior to anyone else's), who was raised as a Christian, and who views the study of Christian history and the development of its key ideas, and their diverse expression in various sects and denominations, a fascinating and worthy subject of research.*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigone382 (Reply #88)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 11:34 AM

120. Paul gets a bad rap ...

for books he didn't write.

I heard a whole sermon on the subject!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:48 AM

115. When people start quoting Paul's misogynistic messages, I

tell them that I am not a follower of Paul and to show me anything, anywhere that indicates in any manner that Jesus thought of women as less than men as Paul did and we'll talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to efhmc (Reply #115)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 05:12 PM

187. okay

As you can see, he's really quite horrible

Rand Paul Compares Paycheck Fairness To Soviet Politburo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/rand-paul-paycheck-fairness-act-soviet-politburo_n_1571789.html

Rand Paul Rails Against Pregnant Women and Medicaid
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/10/06/rand-paul-rails-against-pregnant-women-medicaid

Rand Paul nixes Civil Rights for minorities, women, disabled persons and gays
http://mbuie.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/20/4314665-rand-paul-nixes-civil-rights-for-minorities-women-disabled-persons-and-gays

Rand Paul Defends Herman Cain – Complains that Women Can’t Take a Joke
http://www.politicususa.com/rand-paul-defends-herman-cain-complains-that-women-cant-take-a-joke.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:07 PM

175. They like Paul because he was a cranky bald dude who hated sex and feared women.

'nuff said.

(also, they apparently haven't read much Gore Vidal).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #175)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 06:41 PM

188. Told my paster that if Paul is in heaven it's not a place I want to be.

Liberal Lutheran, he laughed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 04:48 PM

186. Paul wrote the Epistles, converted the Gentiles, and is historically more significant than Jesus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:33 PM

2. Why am I surrounded by these people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #2)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:07 PM

52. It must be awful. Wait. I am too.

Sucks, doesn't it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:57 PM

179. rofl n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:36 PM

4. Consider the source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:02 PM

35. And considering Jesus Did NOT condemn gays or abortion.

What Jesus has to say has little weight with fools like this.

But in a way he did condemn slavery. How can you treat others with love and kindness if you treat them as slaves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:38 PM

5. therefore "IF being gay were so god-awful, why didn't Jesus or Paul condemn it"? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:08 PM

20. +1000 - great retort (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:49 PM

29. And if being rich was so god-awful why didn't Jesus condemn it...

Wait, he did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:57 PM

49. You're reading my mind...

is this some of gaydar thing you've got going on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #5)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:19 PM

143. Er well um not everything they said was meant to be taking literally

 

That "love everyone" stuff had the implied subtext "but not gays".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:40 PM

6. Slavery is a blessing? Then I have an immediate job opening for them.

Ramming speed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:42 PM

8. Um, yes, Jesus did condemn it.

That is how I take Jesus' admonition, "that which you do to the least of us you do unto me."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:44 PM

11. Very nice take on that statement. Book and verse ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yesphan (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:00 PM

15. Matthew 25: 35-40

Last edited Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Matthew 25: 35-40 "‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ "

Jesus was basically answering his followers' question about whether they will get into heaven. He in essence said yes, because you fed me, clothed me and took care of me when I was in need. They then grew concerned, because none of them had done that; they had never seen him in need. He then explained that when they helped those who were in need, that was the same thing (that which you do to the least of us you do unto me).

Christianity has long taught that we should empathize with “the least of these,” and particularly with the poor and oppressed (see Luke 4:18). The tealiban's brand of "Christianity" is a sharp departure from that and, IMO is not following Jesus at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:14 PM

21. And then thou saw mine pension fund, and thou fuckest me, Elder RobMe. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:51 PM

30. Someone once said I was a 'Matthew 25' Christian when I qroted this

And I guess I am. I love your reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:29 PM

44. Yes, nice. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:53 AM

117. reads like a bad play

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yesphan (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:02 PM

17. Matthew 25:45

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Matthew 25:45
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Context:

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

http://kingjbible.com/matthew/25.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:43 PM

9. Perhaps Jesus did condemn it,

but the muckity mucks that put together the "approved" scriptures left it out.
How do this guy find the wherewithall to draw breath ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:44 PM

10. Am not a believer in the rapture, however, if there really is one I hope God takes

 

them up and bring them back to rebirth as the things the hate. They love the south then bring him back as a african-american living in NYC. If they are a christain bring them back as a muslim. You kinda get the drift.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:18 AM

164. Me, I want to come back as a flea so I can bite rich Republicans in the ass. I would like to

 

think that Jesus the Nazarene would approve of the sentiment (and maybe get a laugh out of it too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #164)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 09:07 AM

169. LOL, your funny. Not a bad idea

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #164)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:55 AM

170. Actually, you should consider...

coming back as a deer tick and give them Lyme disease that goes undiagnosed until stage 3 when it is hard to treat and causes considerable distress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3catwoman3 (Reply #170)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:54 PM

171. LOL. Well, sort of. (The (lapsed?) Buddhist in me recoils at the

 

idea of inflicting that kind of suffering on any living creature.) But I take your point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:49 PM

12. I remember when H. W. denounced David Duke when he was the Republican nominee for LA governor.

I remember when John Warner spoke out against Oliver North's Senate bid and sponsored another Republican to run as an independent which helped allow Chuck Robb to win re-election.


There was a time when even the Republicans had the guts to actively and loudly denounce the crackpots in their party during election time. Nowadays, they won't even denounce them. They just quietly pull their funding without once vocally distancing themselves from the loons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:52 PM

13. Why are Arkansas Republicans such stupidest pieces of pig shit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #13)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:51 PM

31. Their schools?

(some of worst in nation for a long time)

Also: The Southern Baptist Convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:53 PM

14. If they approved it, why didn't they have slaves?

The Bible hardly contains all the things ever said by either Jesus or Paul.

Jesus was absolutely clear everyone was to be treated as a loved one equal to oneself, to feed the poor and care for the sick. He said these things over and over in what we have in the Bible. The monsterousness of modern conservatism is that propaganda twists the message into just the opposite.

The Bible instructs us thousands of times to feed the poor and care for the sick. The GOP is utterly opposed to feeding the poor and caring for the sick, calling it immoral. Instead they focus all their effort on calling abortion a sin, which, incidentally, the Bible doesn't do once. Now, it is okay with me if someone considers abortion a sin, or a none of my business. But I will focus my efforts on feeding the poor and caring for the sick, as instructed because I see it is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Second Stone (Reply #14)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:27 PM

58. Dear Second Stone:"Jesus was absolutely clear everyone was to be treated as a loved one"

WRONG. Jesus was all about hate and injustice.
Why do I have to keep pointing this out???
Why do Christians NOT read ALL of the New Testament?

Read these statements of Jesus and John the Baptist and John of the Gospel
and then tell me where your kind Jesus is.
Some examples from the Gospels:

Matthew


While insulting the Pharisees and Sadducees, John the Baptist calls an entire generation a "generation of vipers." 3: 7

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

"the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

Jesus tells his disciples to keep away from the Gentiles and Samaritans, and go only to the Israelites. 10:5-6

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10: 14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

"Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." 10:33

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

"He that is not with me is against me." 12:30

"Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him." 12:31-32 (the unforgivable sin--repeated 3 times )

Jesus often called people names. One of his favorites was to call his adversaries a "generation of vipers." 12:34

Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

Jesus refuses to heal the Canaanite woman's possessed daughter, saying "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." 15:22-26

The ever-so-kind Jesus calls the Pharisees "hypocrites, wicked, and adulterous." 15:2-3

"Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Whoever falls on "this stone" (Jesus) will be broken, and whomever the stone falls on will be ground into powder. 21:44

In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

Jesus condemns the Jews for being "the children of them which killed the prophets." 23:31

Jesus blames his the Jews (who were then living) for "all the righteous blood" from Abel to Zecharias. 23:35

The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

"His blood be on us, and on our children." This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries. 27:25


Mark


Jesus becomes angry at those who said that he had "an unclean spirit," so he announces the unforgivable sin: "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." 3:29

Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11
Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman's daughter, calling the woman a "dog". After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil. 7:27

If you're ashamed of Jesus, he'll be ashamed of you. 8:38

Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16

Luke


Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3 : 9

John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3 :1 7

Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." If you don't like what Pat Robertson says (or any other Christian), then you don't like Jesus, and if you don't like Jesus, you don't like God. 10:16

Jesus says, "He that is not with me is against me." 11:23

Those who "blaspheme against the Holy Ghost" will never be forgiven. 12:10
God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47

According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30

Jesus also believes the story about Noah's flood and Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32

In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them hither, and slay them before me." 19: 22-27

John

People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36

The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

John, with his usual anti-Semitism, says that the Jews persecuted Jesus and "sought to slay him." 5:16, 18

John says that Jesus "would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." 7:1

No one could speak openly about Jesus "for fear of the Jews." 7:13

If you don't believe in Jesus, you will "die in your sins" (and then go to hell). 8:24

Jesus calls his opponents (the Jews) the sons of the devil. 8:44

"Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him." 10:31

Once again, "the Jews" are accused of trying to kill Jesus. 11:8

If you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell. 12:48

Jesus is the only way to heaven. All other religions lead to hell. 14:6

John blames the Jews for the death of Jesus. 19 : 7, 12, 14-15

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father."
If you follow Jesus' teachings, God will love you -- otherwise... well, you know. 14:21

Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

Now that Jesus has come, non-believers have no excuse for not believing in him. 15:22

The Jews are blamed for the death of Jesus. 19: 7-15

"For fear of the Jews"
You've got to watch out for Jews wherever you go. 19:38

John, with his usual anti-Semitism, says that the disciples hid in locked room "for fear of the Jews." 20:19

=================
What loving jesus? He's a homicidal maniac.

I have too much self-respect to worship a homicidal sadistic alleged son of god.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #58)


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #58)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 06:55 PM

70. His instructions to me were specific

and to play nice. What he says will happen to those who don't isn't required of me to do it. And it seems like the right thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Second Stone (Reply #70)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:41 AM

105. Oh, so you're not going to hell like everybody else?

How did he communicate your special status to you? On the phone, the internet, a guy in a plane pulling a banner with YOUR NAME ON IT ???

Gimme a break.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #105)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:56 AM

118. He communicates...

By putting his image on toast. I know- I have seen the pictures

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #118)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 02:09 PM

127. Holy Toast!!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #127)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 02:15 PM

129. Supposedly Jesus gave the disciples bread...

and told them to eat it because it is his body. I really think he just said "eat me"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #58)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 07:10 AM

112. Holy Crap

And I thought that Republicans were guilty of being literalists who took quotes out of
context to support their biases ! WTF ? Why resent the idea of God ? Why the need to be "right"?

"Blessed are they who take no offense at Me."

He calls out and defines evil for what and who it is (e.g. Pharisees and money changers)
He defines what piety is (and homicide has nothing to do with it) basically love and mercy.

Do I have to be an atheist to be given equal rights by folks like you on this blogosphere?

Anytime a poster mentions God, that thread digresses into a philosophical fire-fight which
is the equivalent of "thread litter"; It becomes a waste of time.

Do you have proof that I exist ?
Do you have proof that YOU exist ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_Klonopin (Reply #112)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:07 PM

123. Welcome to religion discussions on DU.

Visit the Religion forum for more of this type of dialogue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_Klonopin (Reply #112)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 02:08 PM

126. "out of context" won't wash.

short statements such as I have quoted are pretty clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #58)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:41 PM

172. Best post I've read and 100% accurate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:00 PM

16. not sucha blessing if you are the slave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:18 PM

22. Part of this is our fault

We should never have let our radio and TV be completely taken over by psychopaths, traitors, and murderers. If we had snuffed out the Hate Radio boom 20 years ago when it became clear what Pigboy was, things wouldn't have gotten nearly this bad. The only creature who would have to fear Loy Mauch would be his prize pig, with whom he would be copulating while clutching his bible. I bet we would all be astounded at how many Republicans, especially in the "heartland", agree with this douche bag and everything else that they hear on the radio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #22)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:54 PM

33. Agreed.

And the consistent application of the Fairness Doctrine would have done the trick.

If every station had to give EQUAL TIME to a liberal point of view after hours of Rush's hot air, it just wouldn't have been worth it to them.

They'd have played music instead. Or talked about sports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:19 PM

23. When one attacks the Confederate Battle Flag, he is certainly denouncing

SLAVERY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What in the world is wrong with High School History in Arkansas. Surely he was taught that ARKANSAS was subject to the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION!

And that Arkansas, despite its valiant heroes, belonged to the CONFEDERACY THAT LOST THAT UNPLEASANT CONFLICT OVER NORTHERN INTOLERANCE FOR SLAVERY!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:36 PM

24. IF slavery is so great then why aren't white people wanting to be slaves?

Hey, I have no problem with owning a few white people.

Yet strangely few white people ever put themselves on the market as slaves.

(except for the kind that always to wear leather and those kinds of slaves never want to do the dishes)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to booley (Reply #24)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:25 PM

41. It's funny, isn't it? That dissonance.

I've heard several other white people gripe about how "easy" blacks an mexicans and natives have it in this country. Like it's the land of milk and honey. Of course, all those non-white people are totally government -subsidized, they get a free ride, unlike hardworking whites, don'cha know.

So, every time I hear this, I ask, "Well, if the technology existed, would you become a black person?"

The answer is never "yes." NEVER. They think on two levels; on one level, they know that life fucking IS harder for minorities in this nation and that whites, in general, have a privileged status by comparison. But htye also "know" that it's the other way around, because people keep telling them that it is so.

So they begrudge people who they also see as beneath them.

And that's racism in a nutshell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:40 PM

25. As a Christian

it is people like this who make me facepalm.Christianity as told in the Bible is a religion that cares for the sick, poor, oppressed, orphan, and the widow. Christianity does have a social justice aspect to it. I don't want to make this into a long theological post, but even some people in my own faith (Presbyterian) seem to forget this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thatwhichisnt (Reply #25)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:53 PM

32. And to welcome the stranger, the immigrant

Also forgotten by RW Christians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thatwhichisnt (Reply #25)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 06:25 PM

67. see my post #58 above.

"as told in the Bible" --see all the hateful stuff in #58 and then tell me how loving xtianity is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #67)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:17 PM

90. I read it...

...but I don't know what it is that you see that the vast majority of people don't see. Even most people that don't believe in Jesus would agree that his message, when read in context was one of love and compassion. That you don't is kind of strange. I can almost understand those who believe, mistakenly, I think, that Jesus was not an actual historical figure. But your attempts to take a few words out of context and others that even out of context don't portray any hatred is puzzling. Is there anyone that you DO think has or had a positive message?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vasmosn (Reply #90)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:05 AM

108. So you can't see how hateful the alleged words of Jesus are?

Do you not understand what you read? Do you have problems with reading comprehension????

The stuff I quoted is extremely plain and easy to understand. And it is not "A few words taken out of context". It is cruel and hateful on its face. Many, many examples.

You can't see that the 57 examples I quoted are cruel and unjust? And ALL from the alleged words of Jesus in the New Testament.

How about some more?


Matthew

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3: 10, 12

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

"The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20: 9, Dt.21: 18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. The parable ends with this: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you." If you are cruel to others, God will be cruel to you. 18:23-35

"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and rents the vineyard to others. 21:33-41

"Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Whoever falls on "this stone" (Jesus) will be broken, and whomever the stone falls on will be ground into powder. 21:44

In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13



Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

Mark


Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12

Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13

Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20 : 9, Dt.21 : 18-21) 7: 9-10

Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9 :43-49

God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and gives the vineyard to others. 12:1-9

Jesus tells his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. 14:22-24

Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16

Luke


God strikes Zacharias dumb for doubting the angel Gabriel's words. 1:20

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3: 9

John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17

Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. 8:27-37

Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15

Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5

Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47

"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." 13:3, 5

According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31

Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27

Jesus also believes the story about Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32

In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27

Jesus tells his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. 22:19-20

John


Jesus believed the stupid and vicious story from Numbers 21. (God sent snakes to bite the people for complaining about the lack of food and water. Then God told Moses to make a brass snake to cure them from the bites.) 3:14

"God so loved the world, that he gave his His only begotten Son."
As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16

People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3 :18, 36

The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14

Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." 6:53-66

============

Want even more examples of your Jesus?
Hatred of womenMatthew


Jesus says that divorce is permissible when the wife is guilty of fornication. But what if the husband is unfaithful? Jesus doesn't seem to care about that. 5:32, 19: 9

When Jesus' mother wants to see him, Jesus asks, "Who is my mother?" 12:47-49

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 19:29

"Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days." Why? Does God especially hate pregnant and nursing women? 24:19

The kingdom of heaven like ten virgins who went to meet their bridegroom. Five had oil for their lamps and five didn't. When the bridegroom was ready for them, only the five well-oiled virgins got to have sex with him on their wedding night. The bridegroom shunned the other five, saying "Get lost. I don't even know you." The moral to the story is this: watch out, you never know when (or with whom) Jesus will come.25:1-13

Mark


Jesus shows disrespect for his mother and family by asking, "Who is my mother, or my brethren?" when he is told that his family wants to speak with him. 3:31-34

Jesus will reward men who abandon their wives and families. 10:29-30

In the last days God will make things especially rough on pregnant women. 13:17

Luke


"They had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren."
Oh God, another barren woman! It's always the woman's fault in the Bible. 1: 7

Even Mary had to be "purified" after giving birth to Jesus. Was she defiled by giving birth to the Son of God? 2:22

Males are holy to God, not females. 2:23

Peter and his partners (James and John) abandon their wives and children to follow Jesus. 5:11

Jesus, when told that his mother and brothers want to see him, ignores and insults them by saying that his mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it. 8:20-21

Jesus insults his mother (the Most Holy Blessed Virgin Mary). 11:27-28

Abandon your wife and family for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 18:29-30

John



"Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
And his most blessed mother said unto him, "I'm your fucking mother, you jerk." (Or words to that effect.) 2:4

Jesus magically perceived that a Samaritan woman had been married and divorced five times previously. (He could spot a divorced woman a mile away.) Since women weren't allowed to get a divorce, it was always the woman's fault and divorced women were considered outcasts. This was a great opportunity for Jesus to explain why the Mosaic marriage laws were unjust and correct them -- if he thought they were wrong, that is, which apparently he didn't. 4: 7-18

Jesus tells Mary Magdalene not to touch him because he hasn't yet ascended -- as if the touch of a woman would defile him and somehow prevent him from ascending into heaven. 20:17


==============================
This Jesus terrorizes people and constantly abuses them. He enjoys it!! He's licking his chops over the chance to kill all people on earth. He's no saintly kind figure.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #108)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:27 PM

155. Um, no...

And I'm not going to answer each and every one of these "quotes" but if you'd like to take your best two or three and get my explanation of them, I'm willing. Your "reading comprehension" jabs tell me much more about where you're coming from though. As for Jesus being fictional but Buddha real, it's interesting that you'll believe in the existence of a person born half a millenium before Jesus but not Jesus who came later, had more contemporaneous mentions and probably the greatest effect on humanity of any person. Keep in mind that the New Testament of the Bible is not one book that someone found, it is a compilation of several books written about Jesus and his ministry. It would have been quite some feat to have all the people that mention Jesus and wrote about Jesus to have conspired to create this myth. It seems irrational to me to believe in people that lived 500 years before Jesus with less proof of their existences than we have of Jesus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vasmosn (Reply #155)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:46 PM

156. There is no proof of Jesus' existence outside the bible.


I use facts and reasoning to guide my life.

No contemporary accounts in the bible. No details of his life known, no basic descriptions. Lots of errors and contradictions.

Read this, I'm not retyping it:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/JesusExist.htm

I know quite well how the Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine to solidify his political power. They wanted to oppress women and slaves, and arbitrarily edited and threw out lots of writings to form the canon. Invented doctrines, added doctrines and stories over several centuries. All written by men and men hallucinate and think god is talking to them when it's brain chemistry.


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." --Carl Edward Sagan, 1934-1996

Show me your extraordinary evidence, please:




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:45 PM

27. Bat.

Shit.

Krazy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NOLALady (Reply #27)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:16 PM

144. Yes, those xtians are.

Who futilely try to explain away the hateful, vindictive, sadistic Jesus.

Uh-huh...........

They musta flunked reading comprehension.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 03:56 PM

34. The Republicans are going nuts in trying out-crazy each other in Arkansas. From yesterday:

 

Charlie Fuqua, Arkansas Legislative Candidate Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious Children In Book

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021495866

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:05 PM

36. Paul was as human as anyone here, so he said wrong things sometimes,

just as all of us have done. Conversely, he neglected to do the right thing, at other times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:09 PM

38. Leaving us the problem of figuring out when he was right and when he was wrong.

We only know him from his writings in the one book.

If he got some of that wrong, then the book's not authoritative.

If we know how to tell when he got it right, then we have a better way of knowing right from wrong than the book does.

It's almost like we should just ignore Paul and use our own best judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #38)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:12 PM

39. Yes, essentially.

Personally, I think he got much of what he wrote wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:07 PM

37. so many ways

for racism to manifest. in the USA you get elected to office and your books get published. go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:16 PM

40. Because, Rep. Hubbard,

Slavery in the Bible was not the slavery of the South. Slavery in Jesus' time was more like indentured servitude and ran for a period of years. A slave could expect to be free at some point, unlike slaves in the South. The Hebrew Bible makes it clear that when you don't work on the Sabbath, neither do your slaves or animals. Just that one verse gives Biblical slaves more consideration than Southern slaves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catrose (Reply #40)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:25 PM

92. Exactly!

Not to mention that slavery throughout most of history was not based on race nor was it usually for life. On top of that, slaves had many rights. In some societies, slaves were considered practically part of the family. It generally was not an inherited state either. For that matter, even in the western hemisphere, slavery did not take the same shape as it ended up taking in the souther US. This is why it's so frustrating when people start talking about how slavery has always existed and blah, blah. Slavery as practiced in the US was a whole different kind of slavery from slavery practiced in most of the world to that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:27 PM

42. Well sir Paul does the scripture our church is built on...

Galatians 5 (NIV)
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Minister Zach R. Freedom Christian Ministry ...Lawrencville Ga

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:28 PM

43. State GOP pulls funds for now, but will start funneling money once the furor dies down.

Bet on it, just the way Priebus and the national Pukes are doing with Todd Akin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:40 PM

45. Good question

Perhaps Christianity is inherently flawed, as all religions are. Now Mr. Mauch, kindly grab a large sack and head out for the nearest cotton field -- as a slave you'll work long hours with no compensation under the most miserable and dehumanizing conditions, but hey, you'll surely discover that it ain't so God-awful after all!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zambero (Reply #45)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:40 PM

145. The Abrahamic religions are flawed and inconsistent & contradict themselves.

Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism are consistent.

Buddhism is often considered to be a philosophy b/c in its purest form it has no god. Buddha is revered as a teacher. Buddha was an awakened man.

Buddhism has no scriptures by Buddha, for example, that they have to ignore and hide, because Prince Siddhartha, Gautama the Buddha, said NOTHING hateful.

Oh and BTW, The Buddha ACTUALLY LIVED. They have shrines with teeth, hair and bone fragments left over from when he was cremated.
One Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_the_Tooth



Hundreds of monks memorized the teachings of Buddha. As soon as he died, all these teachings were written down on palm leaves in the Pali language.

Secular humanism is a philosophy with no contradictions.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:43 PM

46. They actually put Paul much higher. They won't admit this but a study

of what each proposed clearly demonstrates this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:51 PM

47. Yeah - like homosexuality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:56 PM

48. Quoting himself at length, he digs himself deeper in his hole

He sent an email to a local TV station, wanting his words to be taken not 'out of context'. So we find he also writes:

The existence and lifestyle of the people of Africa has been almost unchanged since the beginning of time, and if our black brothers and sisters can allow themselves to see it this way, maybe they can in time develop a better understanding of how and why they were placed here. Would it have been better for black Americans of today if their ancestors had never been brought to these shores? Would their lives honestly have been better as African tribesmen? If things had been reversed, it is very doubtful that the white race would have been able to cope and endure such challenges if enslaved in Africa, as the black race did in America. The e question now is, with the black race several generations into this process, will they allow themselves to take advantage of the gift that was given to them, and redeem those trials and tribulations of their ancestors? Blacks today must ask themselves, "Is their life better spent as U.S. citizens living in America, or as African tribesmen living in grass huts and constantly searching for their food?" Is life better for black Americans to be living in an America that is still evolving in its understanding of what it means to be a multicultural nation, or would they be more content living under the same conditions as those endured by most living in Africa today? Wouldn't life for blacks in American today be more enjoyable and successful if they would only learn to appreciate the value of a good education? Also, wouldn't life for blacks in America today be more successful if they would only see government entitlement programs as a last resort, or as for those who simply cannot provide for themselves due to physical or mental handicaps? Will black pride ever convince their race to take full advantage of those things that would encourage their fellow Americans to see them as equal and contributing members of the American experience? Is black pride enhanced or diminished by the continued acceptance of the victim label, as encouraged by liberal whites and far too many impressionable leaders within the black community?

http://www.kait8.com/story/19755221/ar-rep-makes-multiple-controversial-statements-in-self-published-book


Yep, he goes on at length about how slavery was saving them from 'grass huts', and how it's black people's fault if 'fellow Americans' don't see them as equals. The man is such a thorough-going racist, and he blames his targets for how he hates them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #48)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:31 PM

59. It's not quite accurate to paint Africa of today the way he does either

It is not all grass huts and no change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #59)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:42 PM

63. Oh yes, that's an integral part of his racism

He thinks Africans are incapable of making any progress without the benevolent white man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #48)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:12 PM

132. Good question.

" Would their lives honestly have been better as African tribesmen?"

I would ask, "Would the lives of Africans have been better if Africa had not been colonized?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NOLALady (Reply #132)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:13 PM

142. he's seen too many of those african cartoons boiling the missionaries in the pot

i took african american history in college. there were some great civilizations, besides egypt, that came out of africa. I remember my teacher telling us when the slavers came and missionaries, they talked about the blood and body of christ. when their families were taken, they thought that the europeans were cannibals. I find it rather humorous considering the cartoons made denigrating africans.

and, you're right, where would africa be today if it had not been colonized. chomsky wrote about india, how india had some of the finest textiles, until the british conquered one province at a time. he said you can tell the most impoverished provinces, those were the ones colonized first. the indians were banned from weaving; they were forced to grow what the british wanted them to grow; thus causing starvation in areas. one thing was the growing of opium and cotton for the british textile mills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NOLALady (Reply #132)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:33 AM

165. Interesting analogue (precedent to Thanksgiving): would the lives of native Americans

 

have been better if this land had not been colonized?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:09 PM

53. You know what Jesus REALLY didn't condemn? Abortion and gay marriage. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 05:16 PM

55. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You ignorant Arkansas fuckwad.

I want to meet this prick face to face and see what Jesus said about turning the other cheek.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 06:25 PM

68. You know, this is gooing TOO f@cking far....black folks chafed under the lash

and chain 160+ years ago....His type might find themselves in a world of physical pain is they attempt to reinstate that ish....Trust me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 06:48 PM

69. You don't need to

scratch very deep to find "Christian Reconstructionism" festering just below the surface of this scab. Not only are these white hooded knuckle walkers crawling out from under their rocks again, but they have also, and not surprisingly, ascended to prominence in Republican politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 07:39 PM

71. jesus did, indirectly

slavery can not be reconciled with:

Matthew 7:12


12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:31


31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

A similar passage, a parallel to the Great Commandment, is Luke 10:25-28


25And one day an authority on the law stood up to put Jesus to the test. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to receive eternal life?”
26What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you understand it?” 27He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’(Deuteronomy 6:5) And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ”
28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do that, and you will live.”.


Anyone who says they would wish their neighbor to enslave them is either lying or insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 07:41 PM

72. Slimy racist lying republican pig shit - Who could possibly disagree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:06 PM

73. Jesus Horatio Christ, what a dumb ass inbred, redneck fuckstick!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:11 PM

74. Jewish law did not prohibit abortion either...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:17 PM

76. this man really wants his state prison slave labor chain gangs back..with him as the whip cracker

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:21 PM

79. Hmmm, lets see, they condemned adultery, can I watch while you stone Gingrich

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:47 PM

85. Very sad. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:49 PM

86. Good question. Because they were both just end-times cult leaders

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:28 PM

93. They probably did until Rome rewrote Christianity in the mold of their slave state

Rome did not abolish slavery when Rome became Christian. Christians became slavers and remained so until the U.S. finally abolished it, long after Latin America threw out slavery and the Church in unison during their liberation revolutions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:18 AM

102. The thing these worthless souls will say and do to attract racist vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:34 AM

104. Well

If slavery is just peaches and cream, why doesn't this rat bastard volunteer to be a slave?

I thought so

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:03 AM

107. Mathew 5:17. I guess he skipped that chapter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 02:18 AM

109. Then you've got the GOP in Arkansas saying that there should be a Death Penalty

for "unruly children," (?!) as reported at ThinkProgress:

Republican Candidate In Arkansas Says Parents Should Seek Death Penalty Against ‘Rebellious Children’


http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/08/974321/republican-candidate-in-arkansas-says-parents-should-seek-death-penalty-for-rebellious-children/?mobile=nc

Don't know the veracity of this story.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 06:28 AM

110. If slavery was so wonderful, why didn't you put your neck in the yoke?

put your own children into slavery if it is so wonderful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 06:51 AM

111. This guy is the pioneer. In four years, expect a pro-slavery plank in the Republican platform.

They've been for it for decades now, just quietly. They began with foreign slave labor. Outsourced manufacturing went to countries that often allowed slave labor in their factories. Illegal immigrants sometimes found themselves working as slaves. Republicans have fought to protect these practices. Expect them to fight to expand them, under the guise of allowing the "free" market to work its magic.

Ironic that the "free" market system leads to slave labor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #111)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:42 AM

114. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #111)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:37 AM

166. At which point, I think we can realistically expect to see Abraham Lincoln

 

literally spin in his grave

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 09:04 AM

113. As an atheist . . .


. . . I'm somewhat glad that a funda-Christian has admitted that the abolition of slavery had nothing to do with anything Biblical. Slavery existed for centuries under Christianity without as much as noticing it was immoral. However, this admission is a "mixed blessing" in this context.

However, now this embarrassing truth is being used as a way of approving of slavery and the Confederacy, who would have rather destroyed the nation over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #113)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:39 AM

167. The 'abolition' of slavery had a lot to do with things Biblical. Radical

 

abolitionists like John Brown took much of their warrant from Scripture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #167)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:46 PM

173. Sorry, but no.

They used Exodus, but if there's not a general prohibition against slavery in that book. Pharaoh got punished not for slavery, but enslaving God's chosen people, who immediately after freedom, were allowed and even encouraged to have slaves themselves. Since being enslaved was fresh in their minds, it might have been the one commandment God would have made that they would have followed. That would have been a great opportunity to say, "Thou shalt not have slaves."

But John Brown, and others, reinterpreted the Bible, or as I say, misread the Bible to find an antislavery theme in it. There is no passage that can be interpreted as prohibition of slavery. None. There are a few that regulate how your slave should be treated, a few reasonable, a few barbaric.

This should tell you how "strong" the Bible is against slavery: The Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma (an anti-choice group) has said that chattel slavery is evil. Whereas ordinary slavery, (that is, the good sort that The Chosen practiced under auspices of God) where you just don't pay the people who work for you, is good. They're fundamentalists, and they've had to go mealy mouthed about it.

I can show you the passages, but please I don't have too much time now. Put slavery and Bible in Google and you'll see them. God doesn't say once that he has a problem with slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #173)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:21 PM

178. Saying that John Brown and the radical abolitionists 'reinterpreted' or 'misread' the

 

Bible is a bit like saying that Martin Luther (and, by extension, John Calvin) 'reinterpreted' or 'misread' the Bible, imho.

You might wish to check out the following link before dismissing Brown so cavalierly: http://abolitionist-john-brown.blogspot.com/2007/05/john-browns-liberation-theology-how-and.html

Read Stephen Oates' To Purge this Land with Blood and then tell me Brown was not using a primarily mainstream reading of the Bible to justify his abolitionist views. The fact that slavers also used the Bible to justify their pro-slavery views does not mean that Brown's reading of the Bible was that out of step with his contemporaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #178)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:17 PM

180. I'll repeat:


Go to Google look up all the Bible passage concerning slavery. Find the one that prohibits it, the one that says slavery itself is a sin, or is detestable in the eyes of God, or any other such renouncement. Anything else you say is off topic.

There are none. It doesn't matter what you say questioning John Brown about the Bible is like questioning Martin Luther, Calvin or even Jesus Christ. It won't change the fact that the passage doesn't exist. At the most, you're merely distracting from the fault.

You're presenting a fallacy. Argument from authority.

And when you say John Brown represents a "mainstream" reading of the Bible, it's likely because Abolitionists like him influenced what's now the mainstream reading.

Since you brought up Luther and Calvin, how come John Brown could see the Bible was anti-slavery, but they couldn't? In fact, no one before the Abolitionists ever found an antislavery message in the Bible. It's why it was allowed to flourish in the New World to begin with.

Please see the heading that says I'm an atheist. If you don't want to read my declaring what I think of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Bible, you shouldn't take them for comparison again.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #180)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 05:46 PM

181. As I understand it, Brown found Biblical warrant for abolitionism in the

 

New Tesstament admonition of the Christ figure to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (There were other New Tesstament passages Brown relied upon to justify his use of violence to end slavery, although I cannot summon them to mind at the moment.) In a sense, while he admired the Old Testament warriors, Brown placed himself solidly in the mainstream of Calvinist thought that relied upon the New Testament's 'Covenant of Grace' to supplant the Old Testament's 'Covenant of Law.'

Not to be pedantic, but both Luther and Calvin died long before the English landed at Plymouth Rock so they can hardly be held to task for failing to condemn something (slavery in the New World) that post-dated their deaths. Slavery simply was not on either man's theological horizons and criticizing them for failing to condemn slavery smacks a bit of 'presentism,' whereby we judge the past by our own standards.

I'm also an atheist but can recognize that in Brown's mind he saw himself as carrying out what he and his fellow radical abolitionists believed to be God's will. This sub-thread started back in post #113 when you claimed that "the abolition of slavery had nothing to do with anything Biblical." Based upon our exchange since then, it seems fairly clear to me that neither of us will convince the other.

So I would merely leave you with these words from Brown's closing speech to the Virginia court, prior to his sentencing:

"This Court acknowledges, too, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed, which i suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament, which teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me, further, to remember them that are in bonds as bound with them. I endeavored to act up to that instruction . . . ." (Cited in James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 209).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #181)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 09:59 PM

182. And that was all Brown's interpretation.


Do you understand what an interpretation is, as opposed to a literal reading? You haven't yet offered the passage that would disprove what I said, and you yourself now admit that the one John Brown found, was at best, indirect. I'll agree that ending slavery became a Christian cause, but not because of anything the Bible said.

Here's what actually happened: by the 18th century, Christians had begun to view faith as a humane one that would have results on earth as well as heaven. The earliest abolitionist (a British Navy doctor, the guy's name) was appalled at the conditions of the slaves transported by sea. If it offended his conscience so much, that he thought God Himself must be against slavery. Then he looked in the Bible and he wasn't about to admit that God didn't detest it. Like anyone else, he looked to be confirmed, not disproved in what he believed. So, cobbled together a bunch of partial quotes and general principles, like The Golden Rule, to bolster his belief and spread it to other people. And it worked, even if it was fraud.

I wasn't singling out Luther and Calvin. I was saying everyone in Christianity before the 18th century, including its leaders, missed the Biblical renouncement of slavery that John Brown seemed to find so explicit. It wasn't that people were disregarding the Bible, it wasn't even discussed, it wasn't preached about, at any level of Christianity. The reason: there was nothing in the Bible to even hint at it.

In fact, before the 18th century, slavery wasn't considered wrong. Not just by Christians, but by Jews and Muslims. They couldn't find an interpretation in their scriptures that hinted at slavery being wrong.

John Browns interpretation has couple of seams. First, "Do onto others . . . " wasn't used to mean flatten class differences. The statement, applied to slavery, was interpreted as "Do onto a slave as you would have them do onto you as a slave."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 11:03 AM

119. Oh, those crazy fundymentalpatients!

Just when you think they can't sink any lower they always manage to do so.

Fundamentalist religion is the biggest blight on the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #119)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:06 PM

122. Fundamentalists can and will sink lower than their imagined Satan ever would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:02 PM

121. The slavery we had in the US was completely different than that of those days. For one thing back

then it was not based on color and in the book of Philemon Paul did give guidelines regarding how one had to treat a slave. These guidelines were totally ignored in what our country called slavery. These idiot rethugs are full of their own fantasies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:57 PM

124. Ah, preaching hate in the name of Jesus

--there has to be a special place in Hades for these fuckers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to felix_numinous (Reply #124)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:41 AM

168. Dante reserved the lowest circle of his Inferno to the hypocrites. That

 

probably meets your criterion for a 'special place in Hades'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 02:12 PM

128. Soooooo . . . . would Mauch be cool with Jesus being the slave of Herrod?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:58 PM

131. He's right about the bible.

Paul's letters clearly tell slaves to be content with their lot in life cause the afterlife will be awesome!1!

Yeah and that's from the supposedly "enlightened" part of the bible that "real Christians" point to as their guide. Not to be confused with the fundies who favor the blood 'n' guts OT.

Hard to believe that compilation is considered enlightened by anyone, anywhere.

Julie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #131)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:35 PM

133. He's also wrong about the Bible -- he thinks it's a good book

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 05:46 PM

134. What medication is Mr. Hubbard taking presently?

Whatever that medicine is, he needs to quit, because it's impairing his judgment big time. Either that or he doesn't think the USA is a civilized country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 09:37 AM

136. Religion bashing is self-indulgent and counter-productive

 

Well, historically the opposition to slavery has been largely Christian. St. Patrick, perhaps the first successful abolitionist in history, convinced the Irish to give up slavery. In the English colonies the Quaker, John Woolman, was successful in talking Quakers into giving up slavery and was a tireless opponent of it. Looking into the history of the struggle to abolish slavery, it's clear that Christians are predominant in the effort.

I'd like to know what The Reverend Martin Luther King jr. would have had to say in this discussion as well as as people like Congressman John Lewis who might still tell us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Anthony McCarthy (Reply #136)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 11:24 AM

138. Actually,

SOME 'christians' were effective in opposing slavery. Others used their religious beliefs to justify slavery.

BTW, I find it interesting how quickly 'christians' call 'religion bashing' on those of us who choose not to believe these myths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 10:15 AM

137. Maybe Jesus and Paul were racists too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 12:07 PM

139. sounds like he's using a pre-civil war argument

"see, they had slaves in the bible, therefore, it's okay." I do not want to live in his biblical fantasy land-it would be a nightmare. as plato states, it is either true or false. slavery is either good or bad. and, being a humanist, I say it is totally an evil thing. therefore, sir, you are one piece of evil, ignorant shite.

I also don't want to live back three thousand years ago before the enlightenment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 12:21 PM

140. Because then, shit bag, slavery was common place and acceptable...

and slavery then did not have the same connotations that it had for slaves that were brought here. Seeing that where the nonexistent jesus lived was Roman territory, the Romans used slavery as a way to pay off debts owed. indentured servitude was rare.

If any one thinks the babble has a moral role to play in the 21st century, they are an idiot. People like Jon Hubbard and Mauch have NO place in politics in this day and age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 12:33 PM

141. the Old Testament says to free your slaves every seven years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:40 PM

146. Because they were ignorant, superstitious goatherders, that's why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #146)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 04:48 PM

158. As many still are.

 

Slavery was institutionalized in all ancient agrarian cultures, thus it is not surprising that the Hebrew Bible simply takes it for granted -Unless one believes the work to be that of a god, in which case it is very puzzling,

The Christian New Testament is actually, as I recall, a bit vague on the practice - but certainly never condemns it.

One should read Frederick Douglass's Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass written in 1845 shortly after he escaped from the opportunity of slavery into which he had been born in The Gracious and Christian South. Here is a small excerpt from a section in which he discusses why it was worse to be the slave of a piously religious (Christian) owner, than of a non-religious one:

I have said my master found religious sanction for his cruelty. As an example, I will state one of many facts going to prove the charge. I have seen him tie up a lame young woman, and whip her with a heavy cow skin upon her naked shoulders, causing the warm red blood to drip; and, in justification of the bloody deed, he would quote this passage of Scripture--"He that knoweth his master's will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes."

Master would keep this lacerated young, woman tied up in this horrid situation four or five hours at a time. I have known him to tie her up early in the morning, and whip her before breakfast; leave her, go to his store, return at dinner, and whip her again, cutting her in the places already made raw with his cruel lash. The secret of master's cruelty toward "Henny" is found in the fact of her being almost helpless. When quite a child, she fell into the fire, and burned herself horribly. Her hands were so burnt, that she never got the use of them. She could do very little but bear heavy burdens. She was to master a bill of expense; and as he was a mean man, she was a constant offence to him. He seemed desirous of getting the poor girl out of existence. He gave her away once to his sister; but, being a poor gift, she was not disposed to keep her. Finally, my benevolent master, to use his own words, "set her adrift to take care of herself." Here was a recently-converted man, holding on upon the mother, and at the same time turning out her helpless child, to starve and die! Master Thomas was one of the many pious slaveholders who hold slaves for the very charitable purpose of taking care of them.


This is what the grand Battle Flag of The Confederacy represents, and those values sadly are with us still.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 03:03 PM

149. Confederate philosophy, read the dreck (emboldening font mine) and weep:

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day.

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail.

That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal...

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society.

Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so.

It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else.

Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world.

I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph...


http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

This is where the conservatives began calling liberals insane, by their logic. That is what it boils down to, accept inequality as the basis of society or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 09:25 AM

151. Hey, Hubbard, you moron: "do unto others as you would yourself".

Do YOU want to be a slave?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:50 AM

162. I guess this is final proof that the neanderthals did mate with real humans.

We should have killed them off when it was still legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:56 PM

174. The right-wing extremists in this country couldn't be more obvious...

Backed by their corporate sponsors, they are forming an overall agenda to reduce the need to pay people either a living wage or not pay them at all...

1) Attack the rights of women and introduce the narrative that women should be paid less, or better yet, be satisfied with keeping the home. (Todd Akin, among others. Missouri)

2) Put forth the idea that child labor laws should be repealed. (Newt Gingrich, among others.)

3) Now comes the rhetoric that African-Americans had it made as slaves and if slavery was so bad why didn't Jesus object.

As I've said before, the right-wing extremists, henchmen to their corporate masters, are engaged in a attempt to take us back to the days when white men ruled the world.

Please respond with any other examples of this agenda if you have them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #174)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 01:28 PM

184. actually, I was thinking the same thing

slave labor for the corporate masters, and their justification for it. and their justification goes along the lines: bible, bible, ayn rand, bible, bible, social darwinism, bible, bible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:12 PM

177. It's possible there were originally condemnations of slavery in the Gospels

but that they were edited out to appease the Romans(after all, the early Church mainly existed under the rule of various Caesars).

This is also possibly why the Catholic Church up until Vatican II officially held every Jewish person that ever existed personally responsible for the Crucifixion(despite the fact that that event was the work of the Romans and carried out solely through the decisions of Roman officials).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:24 PM

183. This thread is making my headache worse.

Could we all try to get along a little more even if some of us are atheists and some are believers? If you have been raised to care for the poor and defenseless, if you believe that slavery is an abomination ( and I hope I don't presume too much by saying that) then why is this thread turning into a pissing contest? I don't understand what this thread has turned into, I really don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 02:03 PM

185. All the posts on whether Jesus was historical figure, myth, etc. --- YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT!

The point is that there are Republicans in 21st Century United States who still think SLAVERY WAS A GOOD THING!!! People need to know about this!!

Holy crap! The atheists are missing the forest for the trees on this one!! I have no desire to argue with anyone, but Jeez!! some people are totally missing the point!!

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread