Jesus Christ was one of the most intolerant people in the world!

[Jamastiene]

Nope, I didn't say that. A Mass. preacher did. It is a quote from an article I just read that sent shivers down my spine. I don't come here often because I don't know how to behave, but I thought you would want to know about this and do what you see fit (pray, maybe) so that these people do not succeed in their plan to fill America with more hatred and vitriol.

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=654

Thank you for listening, er, I mean reading.

[w13rd0]

1. broken link

...what article are you referring to?

[charlie]

2. This one

link

[Jamastiene]

4. Thank you.

How did you get the html code to work? Just curious.

[charlie]

5. Stuffed it into the forum's link tag

[link:http://...|title]

It usually fixes URLs with characters the forum has trouble parsing.

[Jamastiene]

8. That's right.

I remember now. Using html here, you have to use brackets instead of parenthesis. Thanks for the info. It looks so much better when you can use the title as the link.

[Jamastiene]

3. It should be fixed now. Sorry about that.

:hi:

[bluestateguy]

6. They won't be satisfied until all gays are put into ovens and gas chambers

nt

[Jamastiene]

9. The are so hateful and vitriolic.

How can they live with themselves? Have they no compassion or shame?

I wonder why they spend so much time thinking about my private parts. I can think of a thousand better things for them to do.

[xchrom]

7. a couple of thoughts:

the first is that the conservative religous may constitute the biggest sexual pervert ever.
for a variety reasons.

but if you think about their desire to gain control over peoples bodies through their genitals -- it really does begin to look like a bunch of perverts salivating over the thought of power.

a kind of rape.

while reading the article another thing struck me -- this is not unlike the war on abortion -- the war over who is going to control womens lives.


and lastly i wonder what these mal-formed creatures think when they read descriptions of jesus sleeping with who jesus called his ''beloved'' john?
you know john sleeping with jesus -- john's head on jesus chest?
i wonder where john's hands were?

[Jamastiene]

10. I think I can name one of those reasons.

They sure spend an awful lot of time thinking about what other people, of the same gender as them, do with their own genitalia. Why are they doing that, I wonder? If they are so righteous, then why would they be spending one iota of their time thinking about that.

[xchrom]

13. their war on abortion means

they are drooling over everyon's sex lives.

constantly -- ewwww -- it's gross to contemplate.

[Akim]

11. Jefferson's Bible

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/jeff_bible.htm

Jesus Christ never uttered a single word in the Bible that you would personally find objectionable. It is his words, not the commentaries of others, that should define him.

I urge you to read "Jefferson's Bible." Thomas Jefferson, the inventor of "cut and paste," bought two Bibles and then proceeded to cut out Jesus' actual words as recorded there and pasted them in a scrapbook.

The result is a moral code that no one could possibly object to.

It seems to me that your argument is with Paul, not Jesus.

[xchrom]

12. i'm christian -- i don't have an argument with jesus.

but if you ask me -- jesus was gay so...

what's to object?

[SPKrazy]

14. Well That Is Just An Example Of A Preacher Who Hasn't Read His Bible!

either that or they are just making it up as they go along

using pick and choose scriptures to support their ideas

Jesus may not have been tolerant, but his intolerance was of people like these folks! Pharisees!

[NMMNG]

37. They only read the hateful stuff and the things they can use

to run/ruin other peoples' lives. The other things like judging not, letting the sinless cast the first stone, helping the poor, loving thy neighbor, minding their own business and such never seem to register in their brains. Such amazing selective perception they have. :eyes:

[trotsky]

15. Hmmm...

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me."

Yeah, I could see how someone might get that impression.

[Akim]

16. What Else Would You Expect Jesus to Say?

Well, this is what Jesus believed: that he was the way, the truth and the life. You don't have to agree with him, but what else would you expect him to say: "I am not the way; I am not the truth; I am not the life"? Is this your idea of a deity?

As for "no one comes to the Father but through me," Christ is alluding to his sacrifice on the cross and the bond that establishes between suffering humanity and God himself.

I am not a believer in organized religion, but I do accept the moral teachings and social gospel of Christ. You can do this without even believing that he is divine.

[Evoman]

17. Maybe he could say

I am a son of god, but not in the literal sense. I am just like you, no more divine. I have also sinned, but I am still a good person. And you can be a good person to.

[Akim]

18. Jesus Never Said He Was the "Son of God"

In truth, Jesus never said he was the "son of God." He always said he was the "son of Man."

[Zebedeo]

62. Are you joking?

Jesus, the Son of God

[Jamastiene]

64. That would actually work.

The Bible WAS written by humankind though. From what I have heard, the men who "translated" it weren't exactly wonderful people anyhow, so it just goes to show ya.

I like your version better.

[trotsky]

19. Actually, we have absolutely no idea what Jesus himself believed.

If he even existed, that is.

He himself didn't leave a scrap of anything with his own words on it. We have to rely on what men a couple of generations removed from the incidents happened to write down, and then which was translated, edited, re-translated, re-edited, and compiled into what is now known as the Christian bible.

You don't "accept the moral teachings and social gospel of Christ," because no one can know exactly what they were. I feel that although there are some good messages in there, it's not complete, and not a perfect moral guide.

[Akim]

20. If You Mean You Can't Interview Jesus, You're Right

If we follow your criteria then 90 percent of historical figures in antiquity never existed. What saved this simple man from anonimity was precisely his adherents' belief that he was god. I don't think any serious historian now doubts the existence of the historical Jesus.

As for his teachings (which like Socrates' were transcribed by others), we can never be sure that we have the best possible record. Still, what we have is enough to make him the most influential figure in history.

Incidentally, I don't believe that Trotsky ever rejected anything that Jesus said or which is attributed to Jesus. Now, that is a subject worth looking into.

[Zhade]

21. Actually, there are biblical scholars who doubt he existed.

And many biblical scholars have found that the very few possible extrabiblical references to Jesus in antiquity are either incomplete, don't mention Jesus but rather Christians (which is not evidence that he existed, but that people calling themselves Christians existed) or - as in the case of Josephus - are completely fabricated. Remember, these are people who have a vested interest in NOT disputing the biblical assertion that he existed.

(As far as the swipe at trotsky, you're way off, because he's not named after THAT Trotsky.)

[Akim]

23. There is Only One Trotsky I've Heard Of

In my great limited universe, there is only one Trotsky. And I didn't make a "swipe" at him. In fact, Trotsky in his Autobiography says that Jesus was the first Communist. And, pray tell, who is this other Trotsky?

[Evoman]

24. And Tony Blair is the only Blair I have heard of

So anybody who uses the name Blair must be talking about him!

And a friend of mine had a dog called Trot. They called him Trotsalot, Trotters and Trotsky.

[Akim]

26. He's the Only Blair I've Heard of, Too

[Zhade]

27. Ask trotsky. I don't recall who he's named after.

He can tell you, though, if you ask nicely.

[Akim]

28. I'm Sure He'll Tell Me, By the By

I'm sure he'll tell me, by the by.

As regards your motto, it is a not-so-innocent Israel and a not-so-innocent Hezbollah waging war on a very innocent Lebanon. Both appear to be determined to fight to the last Lebanese.

[Zhade]

29. Yes. I weep for the Lebanese people, who didn't ask for this.

I also feel that way about the Israelis who don't support Israel's actions but still get hit by Hezbollah rockets.

I had hopes for a cease-fire, but with the Israeli government stating they can continue to "defensively" attack (pretty much whoever they suspect) after the truce is in effect, I fear we won't see one anytime soon.

[trotsky]

22. What Zhade said.

:)

(You do know that the gospels were not written by the men whose names they bear, right? But rather followers who came a generation or two later?)

[Akim]

25. The Original Trotsky Said Jesus Was the First Communist

Whoever happened to transcribe the Gospels or whoever's name is affixed to them, their content was part of the Christian oral tradition since the death of Jesus. None of the actual history has ever been disproved, and much that seemed unprovable has been proved. For example, the existence of Pontius Pilate. Many doubted that he was an actual historical figure and others thought him a composite until a tablet was found with his name and years of tenure less than 100 years ago in Palestine.

Nevertheless, whether Christ is God or whether he lived or not, is not the point. It is the teachings ascribed to Christ in the Gospels that matter. And those teaching are neither archaic nor irrelevant to today's world.

In fact, in his Autobiography, the original Trotsky wrote that Jesus was the first Communist.

[trotsky]

30. I really don't care about the "original Trotsky."

As Zhade tried to point out to you, my handle has nothing to do with him, so I'm not quite sure what kind of point you're trying to make.

It's a good thing you don't give much weight to whether Jesus was a god or whether he even existed. But regarding his teachings, quite a few are rather archaic, and some are fairly disturbing. There are moral systems today that are far superior to what is laid out in the New Testament - moral systems that do not depend on threat of punishment or hope for reward.

[godhatesrepublicans]

32. I'm guessing "Trotsky" was the name of his horse growing up.

[Akim]

33. TRotsky Is Trotsky Is Trotsky

Alright, your handle has nothing to do with Trotsky (the one and only Trotsky, Lenin's ally and Stalin's foe). Nevertheless, 100% of those with some smattering of knowledge of world affairs in the last century will assume that it does. In case you are unaware of it, let me make you aware of it.

I believe that some men, perhaps even most men, are capable of being moral beings without any moral system at all. For the rest, there is religion. But what are these moral systems that neither punish nor reward?

[trotsky]

34. You're telling me you've really never heard of one?

OK, for starters, read a little bit about utilitarianism.

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

[Akim]

35. On Utilitarianism

I have read the article on utilitarianism that you helpfully suggested. Very interesting indeed. I am familiar with all the names it mentions, but must aver it does not mention this Trotsky who is not Leon Trotsky.

One point that I do most heartily agree with: No man who considers himself intrinsically moral should regard the moral improvement of others as his peculiar responsibility, for this invariably leads to the kind of moral tyranny that is itself a moral outrage.

[trotsky]

36. OK, let's take a step back here.

Leon Trotsky has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with ANYTHING in this conversation.

Got it?

YOU brought up his name because you thought my username was because of him. It's not. So forget about Trotsky, OK?

:eyes:

No man who considers himself intrinsically moral should regard the moral improvement of others as his peculiar responsibility, for this invariably leads to the kind of moral tyranny that is itself a moral outrage.

Funny, because that sentence quite readily applies to Jesus of your bible.

[Akim]

39. The Men Who Wrote the Bible Considered Jesus God

ME: No man who considers himself intrinsically moral should regard the moral improvement of others as his peculiar responsibility, for this invariably leads to the kind of moral tyranny that is itself a moral outrage.

YOU: Funny, because that sentence quite readily applies to Jesus of your bible.

ME: But, remember, the Bible was written by men who considered Jesus God. They interpreted his words and acts in the light of that belief. And, yes, some have misused Jesus' authority to establish moral tyranny, much as, say, capitalists have used Jeremy Bentham, or communists Karl Marx.

[trotsky]

49. You're missing the point.

Let's look at your original statement:

No man who considers himself intrinsically moral should regard the moral improvement of others as his peculiar responsibility, for this invariably leads to the kind of moral tyranny that is itself a moral outrage.

Was Jesus a man? Well, not all Christians agree, but I think it's a pretty common belief that he was both fully human and fully god. Was he intrinsically moral? I'm sure there's SOME Christians who might disagree, but I think that's also going to be a tenet shared by just about every one of them. Did he believe the moral improvement of others was his responsibility? Holy cow, did he ever!

So there you go - the man meets all the criteria of the first part of your statement. Clearly, Jesus himself "leads to the kind of moral tyranny that is itself a moral outrage." And on that point, I completely agree.

[Akim]

50. The Moral Tyranny Was Not Inflicted By Jesus

But the moral tyranny was not inflicted by Jesus Christ himself. Remember, he is the one who went among lepers and outcastes.

He is also the one who said:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 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 despisefully use you and persecute you." Matthew, v, 43-46

Now, that is a new theology and revolution in the concept of morality.

Read my comments on Falwell, Swaggart and Tilton on this thread. We are not too far apart.

[trotsky]

51. You didn't say it had to be.

But in actuality, it is. If you believe that hell exists (and Jesus clearly did), that's moral tyranny.

[Akim]

52. Hell Is the Separation of Man From God — No Torments Though

But no one compels you to believe in hell because Jesus did. And did he really? Hell, as I understand it, is simply the separation of man from God. The torments of hell are allegorical.

[trotsky]

53. Jesus spoke quite frequently of hell.

The weeping, the gnashing of teeth, the fire that cannot be extinguished, etc.

Have you ALL of your bible, or just the happy bits?

[Akim]

54. As I Said, The Hell of the Bible Is Allegorical

As I said, hell is allegorical. The real punishment is estrangement from God. The fire, the brimstone etc. is just a means of trying to explain in physical terms the metaphysical torment of such estrangement.

By the way, nobody has to go to hell however great his sins. "I'm sorry" wipes all sins.

I pity those who attempt to turn the world's most compassionate religion into a revanchist ideology — whether they try do so from a position of believers or unbelievers.

[trotsky]

55. What makes you qualified to make that decision?

Millions of Christians, some in this very forum, will disagree wholeheartedly with you. They believe hell is a real place, where souls are tortured and punished for eternity. Many of them point to the very words attributed to Jesus in the bible. If they're so wrong, would you mind setting them straight? You know, settle the issue once and for all? You'd go a long way toward eliminating the Falwells, Swaggarts, and Robertsons of the world, since you hold the biblical truth and what they believe is false.

[Akim]

56. Every man must judge what he reads by his own lights. n/t

Every man must judge what he reads by his own lights.

[trotsky]

57. So in other words, you're just shaking the dust from your sandals.

When it comes to actually DOING something, that's not your problem.

[Akim]

58. Is There a Forum Here Where Fundamentalists Are Combatted?

[trotsky]

59. Yeah, it's called "the real world."

Check it out sometime.

[Akim]

60. "Check It Out Sometime." When You Are Through Using It. n/t

[godhatesrepublicans]

31. With jackassery like this coming from pulpits, it's no wonder...

... this country is turning into a Fundie hellhole.

[Evoman]

40. I don't find the jack-asses at the pulpits disturbing.

What I find disturbing are the people who sit there and listen.

[Akim]

48. Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart and Robert Tilton

Personally, I find them vastly amusing, especially the televangelists. Of course, their heyday is long gone and they don't put up the kind of show they used to (neither does the circus).

There's Jerry Falwell, every day more bloated and grotesque, who seems to have sold himself a dispensation for gluttony. He is certainly a creature of biblical dimensions: in his Autobiography he reveals that his father killed his grandfather.

Then there is Jerry Lee Lewis' cousin Jimmy Swaggart, who (barely) survived the embarrassing scandal with the prostitutes (the most embarrassing aspect of which was that he hired them to watch them do a Pee Wee Herman). He now preaches and sings to a tiny congregation in a vast arena, the camera always panning to the same faces, while strategically placed curtains conceal a desert of vacant seats.

Then, there is the gold standard in ministerial hypocrisy, Robert Tilton, with his jet-fire petitions for $1000 contributions, which he calls "seed money." That is, the more you give him, the more you will get from the celestial treasurer. In addition, the $1000 will get you a swath of cloth blessed by the preacher. He was once also in the habit lying prostrate on top of all his prayer requests as he invoked God's blessing for these lost souls (saved him the trouble of reading them), but he gave that up when he claimed to have gotten blood poisoning from the ink, which required all kinds of cosmetic facial plastic surgery (or so he said).

One would have to have a heart of stone not to be moved (to laughter) by their performances.

I pity those who watch them and actually believe what they say. I pity more, however, those who scoff at them but believe them a threat to the Republic. But most of all, I pity those like you, who actually believe that this is Christianity.

[godhatesrepublicans]

61. Point.

After all without followers, Hitler, Bin Laden and the witch finders of the 17th century would just have been "the neighborhood crank." It's why I hold every registed Republican equally culpable for what Chimp has done.

[Jamastiene]

63. "witch finders"

What is that? I have always heard the phrase "witch hunters" to refer to that whole thing. Just curious.

[NMMNG]

38. Isn't it curious?

The Fundie God and Jesus always seem to share the same bigotries and exhibit the same vitriolic hatred as the Fundies do?

[Jamastiene]

41. Makes you wonder who was made in who's image, doesn't it?

:P

[NMMNG]

42. Indeed

:yoiks:

[sakabatou]

43. ...

:puke:

"(Peter LaBarbera) called for the repeal of all "sexual orientation laws" -- laws that ban discrimination against gays -- because they violate religious freedom. He demanded the closing down of all "homosexual establishments." And he spoke of the "need to find ways to bring back shame to those practicing homosexual behavior."

Someone doesn't become a lawyer because they think homosexuality shouldn't be protected? Then I'm glad they didn't join.
Homosexuality is more dangerous than smoking? As far as I know, only smoking gets you emphasema and other nasties. And as for AIDS, straight people have HIV the most. They also want to make hate-crimes against the GLBT community "not hate-crimes," in fact I bet they want to make it legal.

"Jesus Christ was one of the most intolerant people in the world!"

Really now? It's only because of the perversion of his teachings that make people like those today. What fuckers.

All of these people would be welcomed by the KKK.

[Jamastiene]

44. They certainly think like the KKK.

In a way, they are more dangerous, because they aren't seen as a violent group, when in reality, they are.

[NMMNG]

46. They are infinitely more dangerous,

because their behavior is protected by "freedom of religion". They are even working to have their bigotry towards gays legalized under the "deeply held religious beliefs" meme. So discriminating against, harassing, assaulting and even killing other humans is supposed to be acceptable now just because your religious views say so? Pardon my anger but that is f*cked up beyond belief.

[Jamastiene]

47. What kills me is that

they no longer say murder is wrong or any of the other things in the 10 commandments. The only sin left in their eyes is loving someone of the same sex. Everything else if fine with them. That is exremely fucked up. Yet, they don't want us to call them extremists. :wtf:

[sutz12]

45. "Bob Knight of Concerned Women for America "

How's that for a gender bending oxymoron?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: