Rachel Maddow: Frank Schaeffer Warns Against New Religious Right Threat to Obama (Psalms 109:9)

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 08:55 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZzsjULXDnA   Posted on YouTube: November 18, 2009 By YouTube Member: FixedNewsChannel Views on YouTube: 22149   Posted on DU: November 17, 2009 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 14682

 
MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show - 17 November 2009.

Rachel Maddow reports on the latest racist and disturbing attacks on President Obama, including the merchandising of Psalm 109:8 on T-shirts and teddy bears. The Biblical verses are threatening when taken out of context as they do and applied to the President.

MADDOW: "And then there's this, a Biblical quote making the rounds in anti-Obama circles, as reported this week in The Christian Science Monitor: Pray For President Obama - Psalm 109 Verse 8. What's Psalm 109:8? Well, it reads 'Let His Days Be Few, And Let Another Take His Office.' Let his days be few. Uh, it's followed immediately by another verse: 'Let His Children Be Fatherless, And His Wife A Widow.'

And don't forget, that sentiment is now being merchandized on bumper stickers, on mouse pads, on teddy bears, on aprons, framed tiles - those are nice - keepsake boxes, T-shirts. Let his days be few, ha, ha, on a teddy bear. Is anybody else creeped out by this?

Joining us now is Frank Schaeffer, whose father Francis Schaeffer helped shape the evangelical movement in the United States. Mr. Schaeffer grew up in the religious far-right. He's the author of 'Patience With God: Faith For People Who Don't Like Religion Or Atheism." Mr. Schaeffer, thanks very much for coming back on the show."

SCHAEFFER: "Thanks for having me on."

MADDOW: "'Let his days be few and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.' This is such strong language in secular terms about President Obama. Can you tell me if this means something less threatening to people hearing this in a Biblical context?"

SCHAEFFER: "No, actually it means something more threatening.

I think that the situation that I find genuinely frightening right now is that you have a ramping up of biblical language, language from the anti-abortion movement, for instance, death panels, and this sort of thing, and what it's coalescing into is branding Obama as Hitler, as they have already called him, as something foreign to our shores -we're reminded of that, he was 'born in Kenya' - as Brown, as Black, above all, as not us. He is Sarah Palin's 'not a real American.'

But now, it turns out, that he joins the ranks of the unjust kings of ancient Israel, unjust rulers, to which all these Biblical allusions are directed, who should be slaughtered, if not by God, then by just men.

So there's a direct parallel here with Timothy McVeigh's T-shirt on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing, in which he said that the 'tree of liberty had to be watered occasionally by the blood of tyrants,' and that quote we saw again at a meeting at which Obama was present being carried on a placard by someone carrying a loaded weapon.

What we're looking at right now is two things going on. We see the evangelical groups that I talk about in my new book, 'Patience With God,' enthralled by an apocalyptic vision that I go into in some detail in there. They represent the millions of people who have turned the 'Left Behind' series into best-sellers. Most of them are not crazy, they're just deluded. But there is a crazy fringe to whom all these little messages that have been pouring out of Fox News, now on a bumper sticker, talking about doing away with Obama, asking God to kill him...

Really, this is trawling for assassins. And this is serious business. It's un-American, it's unpatriotic, and it goes to show that the religious right, the Republican far-right, have coalesced into a group that truly wants American revolution, and if it turns out to be blood in the streets and death, so be it. This is not funny stuff any more. They cannot be dismissed as just crazies on the fringe. It only takes one."

- snip -

MADDOW: "And, to be clear, I mean, over-the-top political criticism is as American as apple pie, and incredibly intense criticism has been leveled at George W. Bush and against every President that's gone before him in modern times, but you're saying that there is essentially a religious inflection in the most extreme of the commentary against Obama that's operating on a religious level, that's a signal to a religiously-minded audience."

SCHAEFFER: "Absolutely. Look. This is the American version of the Taliban. The Taliban quotes the Qu'ran, and al Qaeda quotes certain verses in the Qu'ran, in or out of context, calling for jihad, and bloody war, and the curse of Allah on infidels. This is the Old Testament, Biblical equivalent of calling for holy war. Now, most Americans'll just see the bumper sticker and smile and think that it's facetious. Unfortunately, there are 22 million Americans or so who call themselves super-conservative evangelicals. Of this, a small minority might be violent. But, the general atmosphere here is really getting heated.

And what surprises me is that responsible, if you can put it that way, Republican leadership and the editors of some of these Christian magazines, etc. etc., do not stand up in holy horror and denounce this. You know, they're always asking 'Where is the Islamic leadership denouncing terrorism? Why aren't the moderates speaking out?' Well, I challenge the folks who I used to work with... I would just say to them: 'Where the hell are you? This is not funny anymore. And be it on your head if something happens to our President..."

MORE

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. He is saying what many of us have warned against

I hope people really start paying attention. And him calling them the American Taliban takes on a whole new threat level...

Oh and I got the book...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

48. we warned them about bush.

we seem to know what's going on ahead of the curve. Frustrating when no one listens.

I hope they start listening. This is a curve I don't want to go over.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

99. these people

are those talked about in the Bible as The Beast, imho.

For the Beast to exist there had to have been the False Prophet.
It is written, The False Prophet and The Beast.

[GoCubsGo]

50. What is even more scary...

Parts of the MSM are complicit in this. My local newspaper prints LTEs from these nutjobs on a daily basis. I am all for freedom of speech, but I don't think fomenting the assassination of our President is what our Founding Fathers had in mind with the 2nd Amendment.

[dgibby]

122. He hit the nail squarely on the head last night.

These people scare me more any one else on the planet. Why? Because they're right here, trying to establish a Theocracy and undermining our gov't, as opposed to a foreign group, such as the Taliban or Al Quada.

I sincerely believe that they destroyed the republican party, have infiltrated the Democratic Party, and are now actively involved in destroying it as well. We had better wake up if we want prevent this from happening to us (although when I watch the DLC and Blue Dogs, I wonder if we're already too late).

I never thought I'd ever say this, but if the radical right ever gets back in power or if the Dems keep placating them, I will seriously consider moving out of the US.

[PurpleChez]

139. I would never try to pass myself off as a pundit...

...or, as I believe both McCain and Palin would say, a "pundint"...but I actually predicted this. I didn't foresee the racial element (which automatically brands me as too dense to be a pundint), but while the primaries were still going on I was very open with my fears, if any Democrat should win the Presidency, that the right wing would go mental, that in eight short years they had become so accustomed to the idea that the US would be forever controlled by authoritarian, fundamentalist religious nutjobs that their heads would explode at the thought of any non-thumper taking the presidency. As if we needed proof of this we now have this story... Can I have my genius grant now?

[Sinistrous]

2. Wouldn't displaying that poster/bumpersticker warrant

a visit from some men in black suits?

[bertman]

78. I think it would, Sinistrous. If that isn't advocating the demise of the President of the U.S.

I don't know what is.

[verges]

117. Advocating is not planning.

And, as I understand it, the Secret Srevice is over extended with this crap already!

[bertman]

125. They wouldn't be "over extended" if they started snatching these people up and putting

them behind bars for ADVOCATING the death of the President. The problem now is that any dickhead can say whatever he wants with impunity. When Bush was President people were thrown in jail for making jokes about him.

[verges]

200. So we should be more like Bush? nt

[Gregorian]

3. Worth watching.

I like this guy a lot.

Support the president. We need to stick together now more than ever.

[bjobotts]

23. God protect our president from the propagandists who spout hatred and fear.

[bjobotts]

24. We love our president for stopping the torture and seeking peace

[bjobotts]

25. We love our president for pulling us back from the cliff of another republican great depression

[bjobotts]

26. He seeks to unite our country andlook how craven the worms of hatred be.

[bjobotts]

27. If I were God I could come up with a better plan than that of the old testament

[bjobotts]

28. Those who condemn and call for violence do not speak for god.They are the liars warned of.

[SkyDaddy7]

54. Maybe they do not speak for "your" god...

However, the god of the Bible has a long track record of doing the most violent sick things that can be done...This can't be pushed under the carpet as it is clearly described in the Bible...And Jesus confirms. Death to those who do not believe what he does, period! Whether it is in this life or the mythical afterlife Jesus upholds the value of killing in the name of belief. Yes Jesus preaches peace but he also preaches death...Yes, there are mixed messages because it is normal men who wrote the Bible. However, the bottomline for every person alive is you must accept Jesus or die (or be horribly tortured forever depending on how one views the scripture), its not hard to understand.

Lets not continue to fool ourselves, the Bible is a Bronze Age view of the world and how people should act & think in a Bronze Age world...For "so-called" moderate Christians to act as if this is not the case only allows the nut jobs to continue operating out in the open.

The excuses are endless as to why people continue to follow such Bronze Age writings but it is what it is.

[defendandprotect]

105. Exactly . . . the most violent book ever written and needs to be condemned by

those who want democracy, human rights and peace --

Catholics also have to wake up to what they think the church is teaching and

what the hierarchy of the church is actually doing!!

Male supremacy isn't democracy!!

[AlbertCat]

115. How about just not living your life based on ancient superstitions?

The Bible is like the Mahabharata, and Gilgamesh and the myriad of other books coddled together over the ancient epochs... usually based on some truth...like a feud between ancient families no one can remember. They are all full of violence and nonsense. The Bible has no monopoly on ancient crap. They may have lovely ideas and interesting notions buried within the muck, but to "live" by them and have a "fill in the ancient text" world view is absurd and only fills the coffers of religious organizations and keeps some of the most useless people ever born in silks and satins.....and influence.

The point he made about moderates not lifting a finger to help is the most important thing he said. You fantasy, big spook in the sky believers...get your people in line. Why should I have to do it. I don't believe ancient superstitions. I live in the present! Clean your own house before the stench suffocates us all!

[SkyDaddy7]

156. Did you hear about the Somali Girl?

They stoned her to death for having an affair...The male got 100 lashes. What makes me almost as mad is hearing the Christians claim their religion is a religion of peace! Obviously they have not read their Bibles!

I am a male but I am so amazed at how many women are willing to call themselves Christians considering what the Bible makes them out to be. What even blows me away more is Gay & Lesbians that claim to be Christian? WHY WHY WHY?

IMHO, RELIGION ROTS THE MIND!!!

[GMA]

166. Please, oh, please get your facts straight--

This stoning was carried out under Sharia law. I don't think Muslims use the Bible.

[defendandprotect]

169. The poster made clear he was talking about Christians and their Bibles . . .

[GMA]

172. Then it would be best not to use

a horrible non-Christian murder as an illustration.

[defendandprotect]

177. WE are largely discussing the violence of Christianity ... and the Bible ..

read my post above --

However, ALL organized patriarchal religion has a violent history -

and, therefore, the potential for being newly violent. Remember the Vatican armies?

The Office of the Inquistion?

Conveniently, 1.5 million Muslims are now dead in Iraq.

[GMA]

181. Imagine how violent they'd been without religion--lol

That was a totally lame joke!

[defendandprotect]

183. It is a "joke" because the violent hide behind religion, as always . . .

[SkyDaddy7]

206. Who said the Muslims use the Bible?

However, to be honest the Muslims will reference the Bible (Old Testament) as it was the foundation of 3 desert religions. So, I think you may need to do some research before making such statements...That is if you really care about the truth.

Religions have served their purpose as forms of governing...The further a society can get from religion the better. America is starting slip back into the black hole and if we don't chnage we too will see more & more mindless violence. Look what we do to GLBT! And how we try to control what women do with their own bodies. Its just a short path before this Bronze Age thinking is forced on the rest of us!

Folks can act like it will never happen here but it already does.

[defendandprotect]

174. Very depressing event . . . and I am also amazed at how many women/families are

are willing to spend time and money supporting a male-supremacist religion!!

Too often one generation subjects the other to this religious indoctrination --

which is highly fear based -- and they put kids into this before the age of reason,

before they even have a chance to know their own thoughts and conscience!

[Waiting For Everyman]

161. I disagree

with everything you said. Your view of the Bible AND Jesus' message is messed up. I don't intend to argue that with you, because your position is anything but open-minded. I want to simply make it clear that not everyone here agrees with your opinion. And that's just what it is, an opinion, and not fact as you seem to think.

Frank Schaeffer though, calls it right. He is right for the right reasons, and based on current fact. Not subjective emotion, misinformation, ancient mythology, or prejudice.

[GMA]

168. Thanks for this breath of sanity.

Talk about hate-spewing, people! Come on, get a grip.

[SkyDaddy7]

213. Don't get me wrong...

I happen to agree with many of Jesus teachings...However, there is no need to inject magic and supernatural meaning into what he says. Jesus was no different than any other philosopher yet we don't see folks dying over David Hume.

The reason I said what I said about Jesus is he never rejected Leviticus and the simply disgusting things spread all through "god's law"...This leaves the door wide open for nut jobs! Jesus actually voiced his strong support for such barbaric laws. Yes, there are conflicting messages but "god's law" is what it is! BARBARIC!

We don't need "religion" and "myths" to follow the teachings of any human being including Jesus...Once magic and the after life are injected and the ultimatum is set "Except Jesus or burn in hell" his teachings become garbage! You may choose to ignore the bad side of Jesus and thats your choice but as long as so called moderates do this then the nut jobs can operate as a "normal" part of society.

We have religion to thank for women not being treated as equals and GLTB people being treated as second class citizens...The distrust of science and much much more!

[Tx4obama]

4. EVERYONE should watch this video and send it to everyone you know! n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

5. I beleive he knows of what he speaks..and that scares the crap out of me.

Brings this to mind.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=T...

<snip>
He was the nation's most revered war hero, who late in life was transformed into its top soldier for peace. Yet in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize-winner and survivor of four wars between Israel and the Arabs was killed by a fellow Jew. Authorities identified the gunman as Yigal Amir, a 27-year-old student at Bar Ilan University who had links to the extremist group Eyal, which opposes any attempt to make peace with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Israel Radio said Amir, who was arrested at the scene, quickly confessed to the assassination and told police: "I acted alone on God's orders, and I have no regrets."

The assault took security forces by surprise, occurring at the biggest gathering in years of pro-government peace activists. But experts on the Israeli radical right said the writing had long been on the wall. Rabin had been labelled a "traitor" by Jewish extremists ever since he signed the 1993 peace agreement in Washington with PLO Leader Yasser Arafat. Protesters in Jerusalem last month displayed photo montages of Rabin dressed in a Nazi Gestapo uniform, implying that he shared guilt for the deaths of Jews killed by Palestinian terror. But the majority of Israeli Jews, who distance themselves from that extremist fringe, felt the same horror at the assassination as did the rest of the world.
<snip>

[bjobotts]

29. Me 2. No talking to fanatics...they are delusional and don't understand principles.

[bjobotts]

31. A Sociopath like O'Reilly is just as guilty of mudering Tiller as the trigger man

[bjobotts]

33. Beck is just as guilty of murder as the cop-killer who thought Obama was taking away his guns

Beck incites violence daily and i only hope it returns on him rather than anyone else. His insanity and propaganda is set to divide the nation and protect the wealthiest among us and their trans national corporations. He is paid millions for treason to democracy. If a civil war ever broke out he would be one of the first whose head would end up on a pike. He'd sell his mother for the right price. Literally insane and completely delusional.

Our founders fought for liberty and freedom and justice for all ("under god" was added in the '50s by congress to show the communists we believed in religion but was not included by our founders) Now we have the American Taliban fundamentalists pointing out who to kill...That is not democracy.

[vaberella]

39. Normally I hate your spam-like posts...but today I commend you. n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

44. I cant stand his spam-like posts either

I wonder why he does that, but this was one of the good ones.

[get the red out]

74. +1

I agree with all of them. I am deeply disturbed by these people and worry about what lengths they will go to, just like the Taliban. The Christian Right and the Taliban are twins separated at birth as far as I am concerned.

[AlbertCat]

133. but today I commend you.

I don't.

O'Reilly and Beck are not just as guilty as those criminals who acted. They are irresponsible and despicable and clueless to their complacency and enablement, but that is not as great a crime as actually pulling the trigger.

Personally, I blame Hip Hop.


NO! Of course I don't. But blaming Beck is just like blaming Rock & Roll or violence in movies. These things, like O'Reilly, may be factors...even huge factors, but they are not just as guilty. What of the hundreds of thousands of people who watch Beck daily but do nothing like murder? The murderer is guilty of the murder. O'Reilly and Beck are indeed guilty of something....but not the murder.

This "just as guilty" rhetoric sounds just like them! So, if someone reads your posts and decides Beck is too dangerous to live and murders him....are you just as guilty as they for the murder?

Try to remain rational. Otherwise you might as well be a teabagger.

[Turborama]

6. K&R Isn't promoting the death of the President a crime?

BTW How do you get the transcripts so quickly? Do you write them yourself?

[GMA]

170. K&R--

what is wrong with the people here on du???? There's sarcasm, and then there's pure, unadulterated hatred. The stuff spewing out on this thread is truly sad.

But, since you brought it up, doesn't anybody remember the glee over the movie "Death of a President"?

[Turborama]

182. "what is wrong with the people here on du???? "

There's mostly concern and some religious debate actually. I can't see any "sarcasm, and pure, unadulterated hatred" as you describe it.


Comparing what happened when Busch was in power to what's happening now is a typical Republican/Faux news tactic. Instead of trying to do that here, you'd be better off taking it to freeperville.

[Grassy Knoll]

7. What a sad pathetic antic , those repricks .....

Wont be happy until they have the office again, no matter what cost !!!

[maxpower]

8. This is getting scary

I have been worrying since he announced his candidacy.




Peace,
Max

[Shanti Mama]

9. I'm very frightened for the US and the world

I wasn't a big fan of Schaeffer's before but I can see in the video that he really believes what he is saying. And he's placing the blame where it belongs, on the leadership of the Christian far-right.

As he says, WHERE ARE THEY?

[ihavenobias]

10. K & R n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. very scary stuff!!! THIS NEEDS TO GO VIRAL!!! for the safety of the world

[Piewhacket]

12. Not many sreps left on this ladder to insanity. Yikes. He's scared, and he should know.

[madrchsod]

13. that`s why they strung up jesus on the cross

he was a threat to their beliefs and corruptions.

jesus did`t die for their sins

[Sinti]

15. "their beliefs and their corruptions" in that sense he did die for their sins

if he ever existed

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

101. Few realize the insult not only to those of Christian faith but Muslim too

in denying Christ. That said, these people talked about by Schaffer are EVIL, and know not Christ.

http://www.soundvision.com/Info/Jesus/inIslam.asp

The Islamic and Christian views of Jesus: a comparison
The person of Jesus or Isa in Arabic (peace be upon him) is of great significance in both Islam and Christianity. However, there are differences in terms of beliefs about the nature and life occurrences of this noble Messenger.

Source of information about Jesus in Islam

Most of the Islamic information about Jesus is actually found in the Quran.

The Quran was revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and memorized and written down in his lifetime. Today, anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim believes in the complete authenticity of the Quran as the original revealed guidance from God.

Source of information about Jesus in Christianity

Christians take their information about Jesus from the Bible, which includes the Old and New Testaments.

These contain four biblical narratives covering the life and death of Jesus. They have been written, according to tradition, respectively by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are placed at the beginning of the New Testament and comprise close to half of it.

Encyclopedia Britannica notes that none of the sources of his life and work can be traced to Jesus himself; he did not leave a single known written word. Also, there are no contemporary accounts written of his life and death. What can be established about the historical Jesus depends almost without exception on Christian traditions, especially on the material used in the composition of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which reflect the outlook of the later church and its faith in Jesus.

Below are the views of Islam and Christianity based on primary source texts and core beliefs.


ISLAM


1. Do Muslims believe he was a Messenger of One God? YES

Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.

The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:

"The Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger before whom many Messengers have passed away; and his mother adhered wholly to truthfulness, and they both ate food (as other mortals do). See how We make Our signs clear to them; and see where they are turning away!" (Quran 5 75).


2. Do Muslims believe he was born of a Virgin Mother? YES

Like Christians, Muslims believe Mary, Maria in Spanish, or Maryam as she is called in Arabic, was a chaste, virgin woman, who miraculously gave birth to Jesus.

"Relate in the Book the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her family, to a place in the East. She screened herself from them; then We sent to her Our spirit (angel Gabriel) and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: I seek refuge from you in God Most Gracious (come not near) if you do fear God. He said: Nay, I am only a Messenger from your Lord, to announce to you the gift of a pure son. She said: How shall I have a son, when no man has ever touched me, and I am not unchaste? He said: So it will be, your Lord says: ‘That is easy for Me; and We wish to appoint him as a sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It was a matter so decreed" (Quran 19:16-21).


3. Do Muslims believe Jesus had a miraculous birth? YES

The Quran says:

"She (Mary) said: ‘O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.' He (God) said: ‘So (it will be) for God creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: ‘Be!'- and it is" (3:47).

It should also be noted about his birth that:

"Verily, the likeness of Jesus in God's Sight is the likeness of Adam. He (God) created him from dust, then (He) said to him: ‘Be!'-and he was" (Quran 3:59).


4. Do Muslims believe Jesus spoke in the cradle? YES

"Then she (Mary) pointed to him. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' He (Jesus) said: ‘Verily! I am a slave of God, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet; " (19:29-30).

5. Do Muslims believe he performed miracles? YES

Muslims, like Christians believe Jesus performed miracles. But these were performed by the will and permission of God, Who has power and control over all things.

"Then will God say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! recount My favor to you and to your mother. Behold! I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit (the angel Gabriel) so that you did speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel. And behold: you make out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and you breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by My leave, and you heal those born blind, and the lepers by My leave. And behold! you bring forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the children of Israel from (violence to you) when you did show them the Clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: ‘This is nothing but evident magic' (5:110).

[Sinti]

108. Christians and Muslims should not take this statement personally

They should not be insulted by the opinions of nonbelievers. That said, I apologize if you feel insulted. It was certainly not my intention. I would gladly take back what I aid if you, or anyone else, can provide me with one single non-Biblical historical reference to the existence of this person Jesus.

If he did exist, was crucified, and rose to the heavens upon resurrection I would expect the Romans would have certainly written down such an unusual thing. Even if he merely was born and died, if he had a following the Romans, or other regional players, would have written it down somewhere. The Bible as we know it was born out of the Council of Nicea. I would not trust Emperor Constantine as far as I could throw him - he was, after all, a Roman Emperor.

Provide a historical reference, and I will moderate my language on this henceforth and formally apologize for actually speaking a lie.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

127. apology accepted.

[Piewhacket]

146. A conditional offer of apology is not an apology but rather...

an offer to tender an apology on the fulfillment
of the condition.

Sooo.. to get the apology you must first fulfill
the requested condition, THEN you might get
an apology which you might (or not) accept.

As to whether people believe, accept, doubt,
or deny Christ... you aren't in charge of
that (your Grand Inquisitor is).

Offended by a doubt or denial of Christ
you may be, but then a profession of belief
in Christ might be equally offensive to others.

So what result do you seek with such views, Jihad??

[Sinti]

149. Namaste n/t

[Piewhacket]

165. namaste

i'm from a long line of Christians,
my great-great grandaddy, the Rev. Piewhacket, taught
his grandson, my granddaddy the Rev. Piewhacket,
who taught me that:

Matthew 7:12
12 Therefore 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.
(see also Matthew 22:35 , Luke 10:25-28 )

I sometimes find it difficult to understand how a
person calling themselves a "Christian" can have
overlooked books of Matthew and Luke in the Bible, or forgotten
the second highest law of their faith. Its all very curious.

But then I looked further and discovered a great teaching
from the Talmud,where a gentile taunted the Rabbi
that he would study the Torah if the Rabbi could teach it to
him while he stood upon one foot. The Rabbi agreed and replied
"What is hateful to yourself, do not do to others, that is the whole
of the Torah, the rest is commentary. Now go and study it."

And then I found it everywhere else. In ancient China,
ancient Greece, everywhere man has been. I found this concept
is not confined to the Christians at all, but is a nearly universally
accepted precept of both secular morality and religious faith.
It may actually be the source of all secular law.
What think you of that?

So there it is.
It is as universal a truth as exists in the minds of men.
How then could any Christian possibly overlook it?
How then can any believing person, Christian, Muslim, Hindu,
Buddist, overlook it. How could any non-believing person
overlook it.




=========================
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.

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
In Accord Luke 10:25-28

[Sinti]

212. Human beings often seem to seek complexity

Do what you can - which is behave exactly how you wish all other humans would behave, because the only thing you actually can control is your own actions. It's simple, easy and effective - it may take some practice. However, this philosophy keeps us from being able to use our sharpened sticks as often as we would like. I hope we grow out of this habit of stabbing and bashing people for fun and profit.

Thanks, I enjoyed this post

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

208. Actually I was talking about what the poster said

they apologized for the comments insulting my fragile ego.

[TicketyBoo]

129. Is it enough for you

to believe that Jesus existed by the fact that we use his birth to determine our calendar all these years later?

There is history.

[Sinti]

138. One non-biblical reference is all I ask

just one. The fact that we continue to use the old Roman manner of keeping time is no sort of proof. January 1st begins our year, not December 25th. Many of us use C.E. (Current Era) rather than A.D. (Anno Domini)? Many myths have lasted for centuries, that does not make them truths.

[Waiting For Everyman]

171. ok...

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/157

http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidence-and-answers/di...

(excerpt from 2nd ref)
Historical Textual Evidence for Jesus’ Existence
There are over 42 sources within 150 years after Jesus’ death which mention his existence and record many events of his life.

1. 9 Traditional New Testament Authors

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude.

2. 20 Early Christian Writers Outside the New Testament

Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum.

3. 4 Heretical Writings

Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection.

4. 9 Secular Sources

Josephus (Jewish historian),
Tacitus (Roman historian),
Pliny the Younger (Roman politician),
Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories),
Lucian (Greek satirist),
Celsus (Roman philosopher),
Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution),
Suetonius, and
Thallus.

[comrade snarky]

178. 150 years after he died is not contemporaneous

Neither is 75 yeas or 50 or even 25. For example, Josephus wrote of the stories people were telling about Jesus almost 100 years after he died. Even if it's accurate and not a later forgery as has been suggested it's still far from an account of the historical Jesus.

Using the gospels for proof is a textbook case of circular reasoning. The book says it's true so it must be true, see, the book says so and it doesn't lie because the book says it's truth. Anyway, not one of the gospels was written by people who actually saw Jesus. The earliest gospel is from a generation later.

By the middle of the second century Christianity had grown to the point of legend. It's less than 100 years later that it becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Texts referring to Christians is no proof of Jesus. I can point you to articles about Harry Potter fans. That doesn't mean he's real.

[Waiting For Everyman]

184. When historians write about Harry Potter's life, that claim might fly.

As I guessed beforehand, this wasn't about validity after all. It's evident that you didn't read the links but that's ok.

Socrates didn't write anything either, yet I somehow never hear of anybody questioning his existence. Now why would such an intelligent man never write anything? I find that unbelievable.

[comrade snarky]

187. Because there are also contemporaries of Socrates

Who write about him and his influence during his lifetime and just after he died. Plato for one.

If there were no mentions of Socrates until 40 years after his hemlock highball and then there was nothing from people who actually met him, but only mentions of his followers that look suspiciously like they were inserted later by loyal Greek loving philosophical adherents.

Well then, you might have a point. Since that's not the case...

[comrade snarky]

189. And by the way, I did read your links

And I find them wanting as proof of a historical Jesus.

To take a few, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger write a century or more after Jesus. Not exactly eyewitnesses. Josephus is a bit better at 90 years. They write of contemporary Christians of the first and second century CE and stories they have heard of Jesus. That's it.

As much as you want it to be true, there is no record of Jesus from his own time.



Edited for typo

[Waiting For Everyman]

191. "Contemporaneous" was not asked for in the post I responded to.

That's your own requirement which to me, is arbitrary. As far as I'm concerned, evidence is evidence regardless of timing.

(Of course that's after discounting the fact that most of the New Testament is contemporaneous and/or eyewitness accounts. But don't bother telling me - I'm aware of all the supposed "reasons" why those somehow "don't count" too. Thing is, I don't agree on that either. I've read all the "debunking" arguments before and find them to be absurd nonsense.)

[comrade snarky]

194. Believe if you want to, that's called faith

When you make claims of historical proof for the existence of Jesus maybe have something better than stories told to a Roman 100 years after he is supposed to have been executed or the same Roman noting the existence of late 1st century Christians.

No one questions the existence of those guys. Why? Because there are primary and secondary historical accounts of their existence. The exact thing the Jesus story doesn't have.

And no, I don't take the bible as proof of the bible. No one who isn't already a believing Christian would.

[Sinti]

204. Thank you for your effort

Please keep in mind that I am not saying the Biblical Jesus did not exist. I merely added the caveat "if he existed," because I'd prefer not to spread lies if I can help it. In no way is it meant as an insult to anyone. I used to be a Christian

I hope you didn't expect me to go visit your apologetics sites and accept what they say on face, without any critical thought of my own.

Secular sources

Josephus - Yes, Josephus refers to a Jesus, but this is not the Jesus of the Bible. This is Jesus, the son of Damneus, who is made high priest by the King of Agrippa. The Biblical Jesus is never made high priest of anything by the authorities. I'll happily agree there was a Jesus with a brother named James. There were many individuals named Jesus in that area at that time.

Josephus on the Death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 C.E.
Josephus, Antiquities
Book 20: chapter 9
CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.
1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity . Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin 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 sanhedrin without his consent. (24)
Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Tacitus - writing in 115 CE states that Nero blamed the Christians for the fire. In the passage used by the apologetics Tacitus refers to " one Christus" being crucified by Pontius Pilate in Tiberia. Christus is Greek for "Messiah." Many false profits were put to death under Roman rule. I will say that the word Christian, as derived from Christus, did come into use during Tacitus time, though it was not in the common vernacular yet.

Tacitus never mentions the name "Jesus" in all of his works. There is only this ONE reference to one Christus. If Tacitus is actually referring to the Biblical Jesus, why didn't Clement of Alexandria use this work when he was compiling references to the existence of the Biblical Jesus from pagan sources in the 3rd century CE?

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."

Pliny the Younger - became Governor of Bithynia (part of Turkey) around 110 CE and wrote a letter because he was having trouble with the Christians. The Christ he refers to is the person in the Bible, but it in no way gives any proof that the Biblical Jesus existed. It does prove Christians existed.

Phlegon - was born in about 80 CE. There were Christians in the first century CE, and he seemed to be telling their stories, a tall tale about an eclipse and such.

Lucian - lived from 125-180 CE. This individual is a Satirist. He is making fun of Christians. Historical personages making fun of Christians does not provide proof of the Biblical Jesus. He has no reference and probably does not care for the historical accuracy of the crucifixion. He's a comedian. This is an example of ridicule:

... the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.... Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.

Celsus did most of his writing between 175 and 180. He does not like Christians and, while he believes there was a Jesus, he believes Jesus was the illegitimate son of Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera. Again, this is proof of Christians existing.

"Above all Christians are disloyal, and every church is an illicit collegium, an insinuation deadly at any time, but especially so under Marcus Aurelius. Why cannot Christians attach themselves to the great philosophic and political authorities of the world? A properly understood worship of gods and demons is quite compatible with a purified monotheism, and they might as well give up the mad idea of winning the authorities over to their faith, or of hoping to attain anything like universal agreement on divine things."

Mara Bar Serapion - Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem in 586 BCE. There was no "Jewish kingdom" as referenced in this letter after 586 BCE. One would have to assume that this statement refers to a Jewish King prior to 586 BCE, and not the Biblical Jesus. It's the only way it makes sense. Judea was under Roman domination during the life of Jesus. Read what the letter from the prisoner encouraging his son to take the straight and narrow path actually says:

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given

Thallus - At best, Thallus was born in 80 CE or later. He is either a contemporary of Phlegon or comes after him, there were Christians then, and he was repeating their myths. This does not give historical proof of Jesus. It's a repetition of the myth with the eclipse and such.

According to your Christian Apologetics Site Carm:

His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.

*snip*

The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.

The excerpt they quote is this one:

Jesus Christ, according to the prophecies which had been foretold about him beforehand, came to his passion in the eighteenth year of Tiberius, at which time also we find these things written verbatim in other commentaries of the gentiles, that an eclipse of the sun happened, Bithynia was shaken by earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings collapsed, all of which agree with what occurred in the passion of the savior. Indeed Phlegon, who is an excellent calculator of Olympiads, also writes about these things, writing thus in his thirteenth book...

I will happily deal with the "20 Early Christian Writers Outside the New Testament" part later. Tired now. The Gospel of Thomas... are basically extra-Biblical texts that the Vatican tossed out, because they no longer fit their doctrine, so technically they are not non-Biblical references. And Obviously, the New Testament Gospels in Bible are in the Bible and cannot be considered non-Biblical.

[Sinti]

210. I do not wish to convert Christians

to some other religion, or to non-religion. I love them as is, no problems, especially if they follow the 'do unto others' version of Christianity - if they follow the other style I would try to change their minds.

I think it's a great offense to purposefully repeat untruths to my fellow man. Truth matters, I believe it is incumbent upon me to speak it as I know it.

Therefore, I apply the same standard to Christians that I apply to Scientologists. I feel this should be acceptable to a rational person. Just because Tom Cruise says we have body thetans that we have to exorcise from ourselves (or however they put it), does not make it so. No offense intended to Tom Cruise or other Scientologists. I could say I'm a fairy with glittering golden wings all day long, I might even believe it under the influence of LSD, but that would not make it true for others.

Heretical Sources

(they're heretics now, then they were good Christians):

Clement of Rome - is the fourth Pope. The Pope saying the Biblical Jesus existed doesn't really prove anything.

2 Clement - is a sermon that was written in 140-160 CE by an anonymous Christian author and improperly attributed to Clement of Rome. A Christian saying 100 years later that the Biblical Jesus existed doesn't really prove anything.

Ignatius - was the pastor of a local congregation who died 110 CE. Christians existed in 110 CE, I will agree to that - proof of the Biblical Jesus is not proven by that fact.

Polycarp - the bishop of Smyrna who lived from 69-155. The existence of Christians and the existence of the Biblical Jesus are not synonymous.

Martyrdom of Polycarp - the fact that a Christian bishop died for his beliefs in 155 CE is not a historical reference to the existence of Jesus. I could be executed tomorrow for my belief in the Kingdom of Faerie, but that would not make it exist for others.

Didache - you mean the 1st Century book that shows people how to be Christian? If so, are you insulting me?

Barnabas - I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Are you referring to the Gospel of Barnabas, which states that Jesus was never crucified, but rather it was Judas Iscariot that was crucified in his place? Are you referring to the Epistle of Barnabas, which was likely written in Alexandria around 130 CE? The first would be a heck of a stretch to offer up as proof a extra-Biblical book from the 6th or 7th century. The second is a letter written by a Christian, it is a historical reference to the existence Christians, not of the Biblical Jesus.

Shepherd of Hermas - Three witnesses say that Hermas was the brother of Pope Pius I, that would place this Christian writing in about 140-160 CE. Again, a Christian writing about his religion does not equate to historical proof of the Biblical Jesus.

Fragments of Papias - in the second century a Christian named Papias wrote down oral traditions he heard. A Christian writing about Christianity does not equal a historical reference for the Biblical Jesus.

Justin Martyr - 100–165 CE a Christian apologist writing that "Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius." is not a historical reference for the Biblical Jesus. It is a historical reference, and does refer to the Biblical Jesus, but it is merely further proof that Christians existed, which is not in dispute at this time.

Aristides - is another Second Century Christian Apologist. Again, a Christian writing about his religion is not historical proof of the Biblical Jesus.

Athenagora - I'm assuming you mean Athenagoras of Athens 133-190 CE. He never mentions the Biblical Jesus at all in his writing. The words "Son of God" in ancient Greek-Speak simply mean holy man. The closest he comes to speaking of Jesus is reprinted below. If you insist that he means literally son of god, he could have been speaking of Dionysus or Hercules, both of whom were claimed to be sons of god.

we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal... by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being... for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son... But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father... it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence... but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things...

Theophilus of Antioch - converted to Christianity after studying the Scriptures. Many people converted to Christianity after reading their books. In what way does this offer historical proof of the Biblical Jesus?

Quadratus - was the bishop of Athens after Publis. The work attributed to him states that those healed or raised from the dead by Christ were still living after 100 CE - 70 years later. This fact alone brings the whole work into question for me, regardless of the fact that a Christian writing about Christ does not prove the Biblical Jesus existed.

Aristo of Pella - was a Jewish Christian in the mid second century who wrote an apology against the Jews. This is not a reference affirming the existence of the Biblical Jesus, this is a guy trying to say that Christians are not Jews.

Melito of Sardis - the writings of a Second Century Christian bishop are not a reference affirming the existence of the Biblical Jesus.

Diognetus - Are you referring to the Epistle to Diognetus? This would be a letter written no earlier than 130 CE by a Christian attempting to separate Christian beliefs and practice from that of the pagans and Jews. How is this reference affirming the existence of the Biblical Jesus?

Gospel of Peter is an apocryphal text which places responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus upon Herod Antipas rather than to Pontius Pilate. So, they church did not include it in the Bible. This would actually add credence to my point of view that the Biblical Jesus is a creation agreed upon by the originators of the church.

Apocalypse of Peter was written in about 100 CE that is a good example of popular Christian writing at the time and gives descriptions of heaven and hell. This is in no way a historical reference affirming the existence of the Biblical Jesus. If you are offended, please look back to my initial statement about Scientology.

Epistula Apostolorum is a 'letter' describing Christian theology, and criticizing Gnosticism. It was written in about 150 CE, based on Biblical and extra-biblical work. This is not an historical reference for the existence of the Biblical Jesus.

Christians saying that Christ existed, getting their ducks in a row, or explaining themselves to the non-Christian world does not offer proof of anything, other than that there were Christians in the second century. That fact is not in dispute. Hence, I will continue to maintain the caveat of "if Jesus existed."

[prestonPjr21]

215. Sorry!

I`m a little confused,the writers you are quoting sound like the same people who are writing hear-say about Obama...

Don`t sweat it, trying to disprove Yeshua... sit back and just have patience, we all will find out the real scoop!

[Sinti]

216. Hi, welcome to DU

I don't wish to disprove Yeshua (Jesus) - it was a historical issue. I agree, patience is the best way to deal with things.

[prestonPjr21]

221. Bless You!!!

And Thank You...

[comrade snarky]

142. Seeing as how the whole AD calender thing

Came into common use between the 7th and 9th century I'd have to say no. Before that most of the Christian world used dating based on the Roman emperor or the local Roman consul or what they thought was the year of Earth's creation.

Charlemagne is the one who popularized dating based on AD in Europe.

There is history there, just not history that points to an actual historical Jesus.

[AlbertCat]

147. we use his birth to determine our calendar all these years later?

You're joking right?

[TicketyBoo]

199. No. I'm not joking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnkvfyp3p9U

[comrade snarky]

201. How do you figure that as proof?

It makes no sense to me.

Oh, and while the link to Bing there gives a rough sketch of Christ's life in a smooth velvety voice, you may want to reconsider spokesman. Ol Bing had "issues" with the gay and liked to get a little slappy with his kids.

[TicketyBoo]

205. I know the history with Bing

and his older kids.

Not many of his generation were too accepting of "the gay."

I love Bing Crosby. Reminds me of my childhood.

Could have found just the text, but mostly on Christian sites, so thought "Der Bingle" would be less offensive.

No winning here, I reckon.

If you don't go with a headbanger or a rapper, you're too conservative?

I like Bing Crosby and Perry Como. So sue me.

[comrade snarky]

209. So, when asked a question about your claim

Which had nothing to do with belief or non-belief all you do is proselytize?

Neat. You must be a treat at parties.

I assume at this point, because you have been asked several times to back up your statement and have failed completely to do so or to even attempt a reply, that there will be no reasoned argument forthcoming. It's not that I expected one but it is surprising to see a person argue themselves into an indefensible corner with their first post on a thread.

Believe or don't, I could not care less. However, when you make ridiculous claims of fact like stating the use of the Anno Domini calender is proof of a historical Jesus expect to be challenged.

[TicketyBoo]

218. I do believe that it is strong proof.

We have based our time keeping on the life of this single individual.

[comrade snarky]

220. We have a very different definition of proof

Mine requires... well, proof. At least evidence.

The Jewish calendar is dated from what they thought was the creation of the world. Is that proof the earth is 5770 years old?

Are the names for days of the week and months proof of astrology and the existence of Roman and Greek gods?

If the A.D. dating is evidence for the historical Christ then surely this evidence is just as compelling? If Christ, why not the Roman god Saturn for whom Saturday is named?

The problem here is you take the existence of Jesus as an article of faith. That's fine, as I said above I do not care in the least if you do. The problem arises when you or others feel a need to "prove" your faith correct and attempt to shape history to fit your specific narrative. I think we've had more than enough of that in the world.


Have your faith, if it helps you, then great but don't expect anyone else to accept false assertions because they help you believe.

[TicketyBoo]

222. I really don't expect

anyone to accept what I believe to "help me" believe. Enough people believe it that I have no need to proselytize.

I believe because so many others do. I find it more incredible that so many learned people, past and present, would accept the truth of Jesus Christ if it were not true than the fact that He was real. I mean, something happened. His disciples did not die for their beliefs for a lie, after all.

[comrade snarky]

223. And yet you do proselytize

And argue by appeal to authority.

After all no belief held by many people, for thousands of years has ever been wrong. Not one people were willing to die for anyway. That's why Islam is true right?

[TicketyBoo]

226. I'm speaking of the people who died

for Christ who actually knew him.

But we have other things to worry about in the here and now than my belief or your lack of same. Right?

Which is why, no, I do not proselytize.

[comrade snarky]

227. Then the reason you posted ol' Bing

Telling the inspiring story of Jesus is what? Filler? Something you thought would be new to us unbelievers?

Or was it supposed to open my eyes to the glory of Christ?

Never mind, this is going nowhere. You don't answer questions or back up statements with anything more than "I believe" even when those statements make claims of historical fact and you have been asked directly to explain what you mean. Based on that I find you are either being consciously evasive or are unable to tell the difference between history and faith.

Either way it's impossible to have a 2 way conversation.

[TicketyBoo]

228. Okay.

As I said, there are other things more appropriate to be discussed here than my faith or your lack thereof.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[comrade snarky]

229. That's not what I've been discussing

I've been trying to talk about history.

[comrade snarky]

130. You wont get one

There is no contemporaneous mention of Jesus in any of the Roman records and they wrote down pretty much everything.

You can find a couple of passages in Josepheus "History of the Jews" that mentions him but that was written in 93 AD. Rather a bit late there. The first Christian gospel by Mark was probably written 35 to 60 years after Jesus is said to have died. That's like me writing about JFK using only the stories his friends tell about him.


Edited for dumb mistake

[AlbertCat]

145. Few realize the insult...

... religion is to the rational.

So take your stupid lecture elsewhere and whine. Let's compare him to Scooby Doo. It doesn't mean any of them existed.

Jesus , if he did existed, certainly was not what is described in the Bible. There is good evidence he never existed.

Nor Solomon, nor Moses, nor David and a whole host of characters made up to make a point. (like god....made up)


Be insulted...I don't care. That's your problem, not mine. Why should I have respect for something that condemns me to eternal torment....ETERNAL.... just for who I am? I don't.

And, no, I don't hate religion. It's actually kinda interesting from a human behavior POV. But it doesn't get a pass. It gets the same scrupulous look as everything else. The fact it can't hold up to examination is not my fault. It has no authority over me and I don't have to defer to your fragile feelings about it.

Maybe I'll give it a bit of a pass when the religious give reason, skepticism and empirical evidence the same respect you demand. Lord knows (any Lord) you guys benefit greatly from what the employment of those things have yielded (science). Little baby Jesus did not give us the light bulb, y'know.

Cheesus and the eternal Gouda on a cracker!

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

207. You are entitled to your opinion sweetie

[Sinti]

14. These people are not Christians

they are a large, brainwashed cult. Some of us have been banging the drum about them for years now. They need some sort of intervention, or mass deprogramming. They are getting very dangerous.

Edited to add:

Sarah Palin is from this cult.

[comrade snarky]

98. No, they are Christians

The Islamic purity police in Saudi Arabia are Muslim.

The Hindu nationalists in India are Hindu.

The Orthodox settlers in the West Bank are Jewish.

And the Army of God in the US is Christian.


I agree with you they are dangerous and getting more so as they lose any grip on political power. However, there's no arbitrary line at which you can say "this person is a real christian and that one is not" just because you don't agree with their interpretation. They self identify as Christian. That makes them Christian extremists.

[Sinti]

100. I did not intend to make a "no true Scotsman" argument

My intention was to say that this is not a "Christian" thing - they are extremists, and it doesn't matter what book they use to excuse themselves. People have been very tolerant of them, precisely because they say they are Christians. The mainstream faith does not feel threatened by them.

There is a tendency to think and say that they are not dangerous. When they speak in praise those who "become violent in your faith" and voice similar rhetoric that appears to the outside world as promoting violence, it is not because they are following faith. Additionally, I am not misunderstanding what they say because I am not Christian.

I hear this very often from mainstream Christians, "when they say 'his blood will be spilled upon the ground' they don't mean it literally, you just don't understand because you don't belong to their church." Therefore, I want the mainstream to understand that they do mean it, it's not some confusion on the part of non-Christians.

Many people here and elsewhere, myself included, have spent years trying to explain to others that these people mean business and are very dangerous. It's a huge cult that uses Christianity as cover. Just like Wahhabi Muslims are a huge cult that use religion as cover. In this nation, continuing to describe them as 'Christians' excuses them and gives them cover for further actions, because we are a majority Christian population. Nonviolent Christians feel threatened by us (persons of other faiths), rather than by them.

[defendandprotect]

107. While I largely agree with your concerns, unfortunately the right wing has

financed much of this religious violence --

See my post above --

However, as long as people support organized patriarchal religions -- middle men --

we are not going to have democracy and we will have continued violence.

Male-supremacy isn't democracy!!

[comrade snarky]

126. We agree for the most part

And you're right. It doesn't matter what book they use or creed they spout, they'll find something to fill that need to be right. To be better than their neighbors.

You make a good point about excusing then because they are Christian but I'm coming from a slightly different angle. I see mainstream Christians disavowing the nut-balls. Brushing them aside because they aren't "real" Christians. Then the extremist Christian brethren, the ones who haven't quite openly called for or done violence yet excuse their own behavior by doing the same. Everyone gets to be innocent because the one who bombed the clinic wasn't a real Christian.

I think it's better for the ones who actually try to follow the teaching of that Jesus guy to own up to the extremists in their midst. Christian terrorism exists, and when someone on the fringe kills people the spiders who sit fat and happy at the center of the web should get all the credit they deserve for their violent rhetoric. There are too many excuses made for disgusting behavior because it wears a robe, collar or a funny hat.

Like you I've been following these people for many years and I don't like the direction the Christian right is moving. As they lose political power they are radicalizing even further. The dehumanization of non-Christians is increasing, making violence all the more likely. Frankly, if they don't manage to stop some of the legislation currently in Congress and regain some sense of power in the 2010 election I expect some violence. They think they are under attack and many believe their non-violent options are dwindling.

[Sinti]

157. Fair enough

Have you had any luck actually getting through to mainstream Christians on the ground? I started with a "hey, look what your brethren are doing" approach, but got brushed off as being reactionary, and not understanding. So, I picked up the approach of, "this is highly improper, look at what your brethren are doing." Of course, neither approach works for me

I will probably be among the first they murder, not just because I'm a deist/pagan/whatever, but because I find them completely intolerable and I live in Idaho among them. Their flock is programmed, the pulpit has a total lock on their information. Most of their followers are terrified people who think the devil is constantly out to get them.

Any ideas on how to break through their Iron Curtain?

[comrade snarky]

167. Sadly no...

I'm in San Francisco and that type of christian is a much rarer bird around here. The few I do run into are usually through work and that's not a time I can really get into it. Them being clients or employees of clients.

The only way I've been able to actually engage with the fundamentalist types is to let them try to convert me and steer the conversation to theology in general then segue into what gets done in god's name. It works on a 3 hour flight but I sure wouldn't want a fundamentalist neighbor thinking I was a potential convert. I mean after the flight I can just walk away and be done with them. Some of 'em start to get angry when the conversion doesn't take. Idaho is beautiful but I don't envy you those neighbors.

One thing to think about, never underestimate the power of camouflage. If the worst happens and things go real bad if you know what how they think you can always *convert* until you escape. I'm no Thomas Moore, I'd have no problem lying to a guy with a headman's axe.

Renounce my heresy? Sure! Right up until you put down the gun and turn around. Then smack with the cricket bat!

One of the many benefits of Atheism. No god to be mad if I betray him.

[prestonPjr21]

197. First of all...

I would like to try to make you understand. A true believer in Christ would never consider associating with these what ever they are who call themselves christians. A true believer stays far away from religious tradition and teachings. A true believer could never be a republican. I am a believer, and know that if a person says he or she is also, and follow republican beliefs, they are a lost confused liar. Like I said, I am a believer in Christ and I tell you the truth; I would call a fellow Democrat non believer a brother or sister way before a so called christian republican! The two words together sound like an oxy-moron to me! Jesus was always hanging with the non believer, that is why he came...

[Sinti]

211. Welcome to DU n/t

[AlbertCat]

150. is not a "Christian" thing

It' a very Christian thing. They've been doing this kind if thing for CENTURIES!


Actually....it's a religious thing.