Jesus was a terrorist and an extortionist.

[Deep13]

His only gospels show that he palled-around with known extortionist, Matthew the tax collector. Sure, Matt had given up his fraudulent ways by then, but you still have to wonder about a diety who knowingly associates with someone like that.

If that weren't bad enough, one of Jesus' disciples was Simon from the terrorist group the Zealots. When JC was a kid, the Zealots were responsible for numerous attacks on lawful Roman authority resulting in several deaths. Why would god incarnate choose to pall-around with some who had terrorist ties when he was a kid?

I hope you all keep this in mind this Passover and vote for Barnabas.

[Cresent City Kid]

1. Give to Cesar what is Cesar's?

So the Romans can "spread the wealth" with their fancy roads and aqueducts?

[Deep13]

2. He's a communist!

He told that one guy he had to sell all his stuff and give it to the poor.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Jesus clearly does not believe in the free market

He should loads of respect for those fine, upstanding money changers, didn't he?

[stompk]

5. Wow. and this is the tolerant group

So I can't be a Democrat and have my religion too?

We're "tolerant" of every other group out there and bash people
who have different views, but my religion is ok to bash?

I know lots of Christian Democrats. I know Gay Christians.

I'm offended. Everyone in this post is a Bigot and a hypocrite.

If I made a post like that about Gays, Hindus, Mexicans or Green People from Mars you would
be all over me. but my religion is free game.

tolerance my @$$.

[TWiley]

7. Oh Boo Hoo.

Here, have a tissue for your issue.

By the way, not all christians are the same. Why do you insist on identifying yourself with everyone who wears a cross? Some Christians are really nasty fuckers and need to be jailed. Others seem to be kind of nice.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. did you even read the post? wearing outrage on your arm when you are part of the powerful majority

is really silly and mocks those who are oppressed.

pretending to be a victim of bigotry is really pathetic

[Deep13]

27. As always, I appreciate your well-grounded perspective.

:pals:

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. Waaaaaaaah!

:cry: :nopity:

[cosmik debris]

20. You have the right to believe your religion is right

I have the right to believe that your religion is nuts.

And we all have the right to say so.

But I suspect you won't be here much longer.

There may be a pizza in your future.

[Deep13]

24. Irony deprived.

All ideas are fair game including religious ones. Anyway, the OBVIOUS point is that people who purport to revere JC are condemning Obama for doing the same thing he did.

[Cresent City Kid]

28. I'm not bashing religion

I'm bashing republicans. I'm on Jesus' side about giving to Cesar. If I have to explain when I'm being sarcastic, then all hope is lost. How dare you call me a bigot when you don't even know what I'm talking about. I'm tolerant of all religions. I do not tolerate being called a bigot by someone who can't comprehend what they read. Up yours.

[moggie]

36. Are you a biblical literalist?

Most DU Christians emphasise the allegorical rather than literal nature of much of the bible, and I'd expect such a person to realise that the OP was in a similar vein: using Jesus's associates to illustrate that, from a Christian perspective, the whole "palling around with terrorists" attack on Obama is absurd. If the statement "Jesus hung out with some people with a bad history, therefore Jesus was bad" offends you, congratulations: you're offended by a right-wing talking point. So why whine to liberals about it?

[ZombieHorde]

37. For the record, I have personally mocked the Hindu faith on this board without reprisal.

Religion is widely considered to be choice, while gay, Mexican, and Martian is widely considered to not be a choice.

[DailyGrind51]

11. Jesus used the argument that, because Casar's image was on the coin, it belonged to him,

therefore, since Washington's image is on the dollar bill, "Render to 'Washington' the things that are 'Washington's'..."

[bridgit]

19. But then render unto God that what is God's...

[Forkboy]

3. Jesus Was A Terrorist.

Jesus was a terrorist
Enemy of the state
That's what the Romans labeled him
So he was put to death

He died for his beliefs
What's changed today?

Today bible-thumping cannibals
Reap money from his name
Buy cable networks & power
With old ladies' checks

If Jesus saw Pat Robertson
What do you think he'd say?

Tax free they re-write our laws
And sic 'em on you
Women don't control their bodies
TV preachers do

Censor everything from bathing suits
To science books
From the schoolroom to the bedroom
They want our thoughts - or else

They treat us like the Romans
Used to treat the Christians
Even some church-going folks are scared

Modern catacombs of fear
Built with money, power, and threats
Rock 'n Roll is labeled porn
Sell a record, you're under arrest

Instead of fighting AIDS
They try to stop us having sex
They brag that they won't quit
Till they take dominion over our lives

Is freedom of speech such a terrorist act
Is spiritual peace such a satanic threat
Believe what you want
But we'll fight to keep
Our heads from being cemented in your sand

- Jello Biafra

[Swamp Rat]

14. Amen!

O8)

[Deep13]

4. He's soft on crime too.

He just let that adulteress go!

[tuckessee]

6. He's actually a figment of your delusions. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. !

:thumbsup:

[gopbuster]

9. This seems to be quite an inflammatory post that seems better placed in the religion thread.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. its now inflammatory to say, that jesus behaved much the same way that we now condemn in society?

[gopbuster]

17. I'm having to re-read the OP several times

I see in some ways it could be considered inflammatory as it is bringing out some debate regarding the very existence of Jesus. It's pushing the envelope a little IMO, but that's ok

I see the hypocritical point to the OP though

To comment, I would say, yes Jesus was a liberal and a rebel fighting against the rule of the State.

The Beatitudes seem to be missing from the principals of SOME of the Christian sectors today, but I think some are waking up as well.

[Deep13]

26. The nonexistence of the Biblical Jesus is a historical fact.

I'm not going to lie about that simply to avoid bruising your ego. There may have been someone on whom the Biblical JC was based, but it is not the god incarnate, miracle working, raising from the dead JC.

The existence or nonexistence or any person is a historical matter, not a religious one.

[mikelewis]

32. That's not entirely accurate...

Historically, there are very few people that actually existed. Names in ledgers or on head stones are the most numerous artifacts of all we have left from a very small number of individuals that lived and died. There is no proof that many people existed and no evidence that gives us any indication of the manner of lives they led or abilities they possessed. We find head stones and bones and believe we have some concept of the realities in which they existed but we base our beliefs on what we understand as the physical realities in light of our current limitations. We make guesses in the dark about so many different aspects of historical realities that are all too often greater leaps of faith than any religion would ever ask us to make. Yes, we have a great deal of scientific and archeological knowledge but that hardly scratches the surface of what the reality of those days were... life changes and evolves quicker than man has the ability to record and far faster than he could ever understand so in a way... assuming we understand any historical realities is more an act of faith than any of the religious matters.


And as for JC, there is much historical information in the Bible as well as religious information... all of it is open to interpretation and investigation... in fact, it is urged by the man himself. "Knock, and the door shall be opened, seek and ye shall find". The problem is in the way that we approach seeing him. We assume we can see with our eyes but we can't because we're blind. But then if healed, we can see. When first we see him, we "see men like trees walking" but then if we are healed again, we see clearly. And once we can finally see we understand that when he walked on water, he wasn't walking on water but was in fact, "walking on water" which was a fricken miracle because even the wind and the sea obeyed him... which they didn't obey anyone. And then we learn about ships and bread and wine and fishes and then we understand that that which we see isn't really what we see but is something much greater, sent to fool the wise.

Oh... I'm sorry, I lapsed into tongues which Paul said I shouldn't do unless there was an interpreter there to ensure outsiders didn't think I was insane. You are right... the nonexistence of the Biblical Jesus is a historical fact... though in a few short years, the nonexistence of you is going to be an even more solid fact... and Men will still be arguing over his nonexistence... so in a way, his nonexistence is more real and tangible than your existence. Weird, huh?

[Deep13]

34. Much of the historical information is false.

There never was an empire-wide census ordered by Augustus and it gives a few other details wrongly too. I reads like an oral history set to paper decades after the events in question, assuming that they happened when everyone assumes they happened. What is more, the four gospels (to say nothing of the numerous discarded gospels) disagree with each other on fundamental details. Among these is the virgin birth. Two of those gospels, I forget which off hand, give contradictory account's of JC's lineage and both trace it through Joseph who would not be his father anyway. (Where did JC get his Y chromosome if his parents were a woman and a ghost.) Plus the whole story is entirely derivative from earlier myths. All this is in addition to to the fact that miracles simply do not happen.

Frankly, the standard you are applying to justify the existence of JC would never be applied to any other historical examination. Besides, if it turns out that Shakespeare or Homer or Herman Melville were not real, no significant fact would turn on it. The writings attributed to them would still be just as good. Likewise, if Einstein were imaginary, his theory would still be accurate. Of course we do know they existed (except for Homer--he might be a myth) as we do of other significant figures because of the quality of the evidence you dismiss out of hand. I know I'm real because I can see, feel and hear it. If no one remembers me in a century, nothing significant will turn on that fact. JC is different. The underpinnings of Christianity depend on his divine existence and blood sacrifice to "redeem" the "sins" of humanity.

[mikelewis]

35. Why are you surprised to find the dead among the dead?

If you are looking for the risen Jesus in a tomb... you're wasting your time. You will never find his body because he is not among the dead but among the living. You make the same mistake many make when they read this book and think that it's supposed to make literal sense and so they, in their wisdom, take it literally and then are made fools by that wisdom. It's only the fool that comes to the book that finds the real wisdom and then is made wise through his foolishness.

For instance... the very first two pages of the Bible... Genesis 1 and 2 are completely foolish. The first page has man created with woman on the sixth day and then Genesis 2 goes and screws it all up by creating Adam on the third day and woman on the sixth. You'd think that Moses would have known better... Or maybe he did know better and it's the wise that do not know.

Your assuming the reality you read is the reality described and it is most decidedly not the case. The foundation of Jesus is not the blood sacrifice nor is it his divine existence... the purpose of the Bible is to confirm beyond any doubt that Jesus son of Joseph of Nazareth was one of the Messiahs that had been prophesied by Zechariah, Jeremiah and Isaiah. The virgin birth is a parable that is misunderstood as the truth, just as the relationship between John the baptist and Jesus is misunderstood, they were most certainly not cousins. What you read in the Bible is not the truth of the Bible nor the truth that is Jesus. But the truth there is in the book is based on truth and fact... just hidden so you cannot see it. For example... the lineage of Jesus in Mathew is indeed of Joseph his adoptive father, which through Levitical law is justified as the birthright of Jesus. This lineage as described by Mathew discusses the scandal of Jesus' birth by discussing four women who had given birth in scandalous situations... Ruth slipped into the bed of Boaz while he was drunk, Tamar dressed up as a whore to seduce Judah, Bathsheba was seduced by David amid a scandalous affair and the other which I cannot remember right now... what was Mathew saying by bringing scandalous women into a decidedly male genealogy? And the genealogy of Luke is not the same genealogy because Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, which was unconventional but since Luke was a gentile, we forgive him. Also, the genealogy of Luke is vitally important because whereas the genealogy of Joseph traces his root to David through Solomon the genealogy of Mary traces her root to David through Nathan which is vitally important if one is to be the true Messiah, which Jesus was.

As for Jesus' father... there was a biological father... Mary probably had a scandalous affair with a Roman soldier... but that would be the father found if Moses had continued writing Genesis from Genesis 1 and since Genesis 1 is not the foundation for the existence of Man but Genesis 2 we can say beyond a doubt that the Father of Jesus was God and not a human Man. Of course, none of this makes any sense and I do not expect you to believe any of it, Jesus always said no one pours new wine into old wineskin's but I don't believe he was always right... I believe sometimes you can sew a new patch into an old garment and it won't make the tear worse.

You also stated that miracles "simply do not happen" and that is also suspect seeing as how my thoughts are being transferred to you though the manipulation of plastic and light; I'd say that miracles can happen. Indeed, we may possibly elect a black man to the Presidency of the United States and the the fact that that's even a possibility is miraculous. You can define away any miracle, you can pretend that the miracle of the Big Bang and the existence of life in spite of that cosmic impossibility is not a miracle but then what would be miraculous in your eyes? Because you do not understand, you say that this or that is not possible... you say the dead cannot rise but you don't even know what it is to be dead so how can you say they cannot rise? You say a man cannot walk on water but you don't even know what water is so how can you say a man cannot walk upon it? You only see with your eyes and hear with your ears and so you are blind and deaf and do not understand things that you cannot see or hear and then claim those that do see and hear are fools. Perhaps all that wisdom you have is blinding you to the foolish things of life.

[gopbuster]

18. As well...the tolerance issue can be certainly inflammatory and better suited

for the Religion section of DU. Just my opinion

[Deep13]

25. Since when does tolerance have anything to do with religion? nt

[Deep13]

23. Except it is obviously about anti-Obama smear campaign. nt

[Iggo]

16. ...and a communist, and a liberal...

...and a fictional character...and...um, did I go too far?

:rofl:

[golddigger]

21. WTF is Barnabas? Is it that character from Dark Shadows?

[mikelewis]

31. Barnabas was one of the Evangelists that travelled with Paul.

In his time, he was considered more notable than Paul, being closer to the Jerusalem church as he was. In one town he was mistaken for the God Zeus while Paul was called Hermes... though this caused much indignation among both of the Apostles. He's mentioned a few times in the Book of Acts, though Paul eventually takes all the limelight in that book.

[Deep13]

22. Spell checker error: should read "Barabas."

Anyway, I was a little surprised to see my palling-around with terrorists post get buried in theology.

[Cresent City Kid]

29. same here with trickle-down sarcasm

[Deep13]

33. I don't know what that means. nt

[mikelewis]

30. Mathew and Simon were Jesus' brothers...

So he had no choice but to pal around with them... Mathew was also known as Levi and also known as Joseph, named after the adoptive father of Jesus who died in the revolt shortly after Jesus was born. Simon was the last brother in a line of 4.

Jesus had 4 brothers... James, the son of Joseph was sired a few years after Jesus was born by Jesus' uncle Alpheus in accordance with the Levirate practices of the Jews. Mathew or Levi was also known as Joseph in memory of the brother of Alpheus and husband of Mary. Then there was Jude or Judas and finally Simon the Zealot... which both were named after the Judas and the son of that Judas that led the revolt in 2 CE against the Romans which may have been the cause of death of Joseph the adoptive father of Jesus.

So you see... God had no choice but to hang around with those terrorists and extortionists... they were his family.