Recommended Posts

There are hundreds of these. I have to wonder how a Christian can be a Republican 

35DA59D9-6060-4E9A-A623-83950AB3A170.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

There are hundreds of these. I have to wonder how a Christian can be a Republican 

35DA59D9-6060-4E9A-A623-83950AB3A170.jpeg

They can't

Hijacking the term doesn't make them Christians any more than squeezing their eyes really really tight when they pray does.

Billy Carter said it best decades ago - "Some of these so-called Christians should be fed to the lions".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:

Spot the bigot.

image.png.8091f7648cedb940a4ae98d3465e64b9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Spot the bigot.

You got nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grrr... said:

You got nothing.

Dog might change his avatar to ‘Victim’.... that’s how Russia, Italy and Germany did it in the 30’s.  There’s no reason to re invent the wheel. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

04768C7C-2FF8-4792-8E38-F484E68E9386.jpeg

Wait a second!  That’s Charles Heston!  With Ronald Reagan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all great posts, and they call themselves Christians  but it's ok they go to church every sunday,, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These guys have a good take on "Republican Jesus"

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a religious man , but I respect those that are.. what a reveal into your soul 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

I am not a religious man , but I respect those that are.. what a reveal into your soul 

What's in his soul? At least he has one.  You are a soulless piece of shit. Calling out blatant hypocrisy on those who use fairy tales to justify shitbaggery? Please tell us what was revealed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

What's in his soul? At least he has one.  You are a soulless piece of shit. Calling out blatant hypocrisy on those who use fairy tales to justify shitbaggery? Please tell us what was revealed?

Triggered.. broaden your vocabulary and definitions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

Triggered.. broaden your vocabulary and definitions...

Answer the question.  What did you discover about his soul?  Please refute any point made in the above posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

I am not a religious man , but I respect those that are.. what a reveal into your soul 

Marxist totalitarians have no soul. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus is a prop used by those trying to screw you and expect you will thank them afterward.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wt4gtTb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Venom said:

wt4gtTb.jpg

Your meme makes no sense.  He never said not to collect taxes. He did promote socialism, so there’s that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Swimsailor said:
4 minutes ago, Venom said:

wt4gtTb.jpg

We never claimed he did.

That's the beauty of it... using Jesus for a straw man attack... if Jesus is truly in your heart, he says anything you want him to say!

And Trumpublicans get mad at -you- because you don't like their invisible friend!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Venom said:

Marxist totalitarians have no soul. 

Says the guy who supports a party that turns their back on sick, poor and hungry.  You’re so blind you can’t even see your hypocrisy when it’s pointed out in pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Not for nothing said:

all great posts, and they call themselves Christians  but it's ok they go to church every sunday,, 

And kneel in the front row and pray the loudest with their eyes scrunched really, really tight too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Venom said:

Marxist totalitarians have no soul. 

What's your idiotic point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Venom said:

wt4gtTb.jpg

Actually, he actually did say that "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's"

 

I wish you Christian's would at least ATTEMPT to understand Christianity. Jesus.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Your meme makes no sense.  He never said not to collect taxes. He did promote socialism, so there’s that.

Besides for that, he DID say it more or less :rolleyes: It is a depressing exercise to deal with cultural illiterates.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

* pro tip, what Caesar wanted was the damn taxes paid on time, all those orgies don't fund themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Actually, he actually did say that "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's"

Ceasar? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Venom said:

Ceasar? 

fucking heathen. Yeah, who was Emporer during Christ's supposed time on the dirt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

fucking heathen. Yeah, who was Emporer during Christ's supposed time on the dirt?

Emporer?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Venom said:
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Actually, he actually did say that "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's"

Ceasar? 

Yeah you know, Ceasar the guy who invented salad dressing

Dumbass

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:

 

Awesome tune. Covers aren't usually better than the original, but this one might be:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King James Bible
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Augustus (Imperator Caesar divi filius Augustus; 23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14) was a Roman statesman and military leader who became the first emperor of the Roman Empire, reigning from 27 BC until his death in AD 14.

Both his adoptive surname, Caesar, and his title Augustus became the permanent titles of the rulers of the Roman Empire for fourteen centuries after his death, in use both at Old Rome and at New Rome.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Venom said:

Ceasar? 

See Luke 2:1-6

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus

The Ceasar referenced in Luke 20 is a different dude...

Show me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have? They said, "Caesar's." And he said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Luke 20:24,25).

Jesus told them to pay their fucking taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Venom said:

Emporer?  

Yep.  It's defined as: "Pendantic asshole."  If you look it up you'll find this picture next to it:

image.png.4bad988f80f1a6f51c549499c7f3228b.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

King James Bible
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Augustus (Imperator Caesar divi filius Augustus; 23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14) was a Roman statesman and military leader who became the first emperor of the Roman Empire, reigning from 27 BC until his death in AD 14.

Both his adoptive surname, Caesar, and his title Augustus became the permanent titles of the rulers of the Roman Empire for fourteen centuries after his death, in use both at Old Rome and at New Rome.

;)

???

Rome Texas?

I know a Ceasar there but he ain't no Augustus!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

See Luke 2:1-6

Jesus told them to pay their fucking taxes.

I am of the opinion that no one alive knows what the fuck Jesus said.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bridhb said:

I am of the opinion that no one alive knows what the fuck Jesus said.

I agree.  But for believers it's a reference.  They hate actually being told what's in the bible though.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bridhb said:
1 hour ago, Swimsailor said:

See Luke 2:1-6

Jesus told them to pay their fucking taxes.

I am of the opinion that no one alive knows what the fuck Jesus said.

Well, it can be narrowed down a little better than "nobody has any fucking idea."

We don't actually have a definitive historical record that such a person as Jesus even lived. He -could- be a complete fiction. But he's probably not, we have a few historical records, unfortunately all the ones I know of were fucked with by church scholars in the early medieval centuries. We have the written testimony of four men who knew him, and followed him around, during his preaching years. Unfortunately, those men did not speak English or write their testaments in a language anybody speaks today. And unfortunately (again) not only have they been translated and re-translated, church scholars have fucked with those records too.

Worse, we have scraps of the testament of James, Jesus' brother, which those church scholar rejected as part of the Bible they wanted you to know about.

So basically, whatever Jesus actual anti-Establishment preachings were, they've been re-written to suit the Establishment. Imagine the motives of a priest saying "Yeah we better take the book of that James guy out of there, we don't want the peasants to see what Jesus' own brother thought of it all." In fact, the church folk I know get kinda pissed when told that Jesus had a brother so I don't talk much about it with them

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reading suggest that all the gospels were written well after the death of Jesus and by none of the eyewitnesses.  Google says:

Written over the course of almost a century after Jesus' death, the four gospels of the New Testament, though they tell the same story, reflect very different ideas and concerns. A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel.

Christian apologists and most lay Christians assume on the basis of 4th century Church teaching that the gospels were written by the Evangelists c. 50-65 AD, but the scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c. 68-110 AD.

So they weren't written by the guys that were there.  It's likely they weren't written when anyone who might have been an eyewitness was even alive.  So there is a lot of speculation and hearsay. 

Also, there were other guys writing at the time.  There isn't much (maybe NO) corroborating information from the non-Christians.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Besides for everything else, odds are very high Jesus looked nothing at all like a tall Scandinavian hippie.

?

Is that another forum "Elk" I've missed? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bugsy said:

My reading suggest that all the gospels were written well after the death of Jesus and by none of the eyewitnesses.  Google says:

Written over the course of almost a century after Jesus' death, the four gospels of the New Testament, though they tell the same story, reflect very different ideas and concerns. A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel.

Christian apologists and most lay Christians assume on the basis of 4th century Church teaching that the gospels were written by the Evangelists c. 50-65 AD, but the scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c. 68-110 AD.

So they weren't written by the guys that were there.  It's likely they weren't written when anyone who might have been an eyewitness was even alive.  So there is a lot of speculation and hearsay. 

Also, there were other guys writing at the time.  There isn't much (maybe NO) corroborating information from the non-Christians.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html

Well, if Jesus was crucified ~30AD there's no reason to assume that all his original disciples were gone by 68AD... these dates aren't exact anyway.

Flavius Josephus, not exactly a contemporary but close, mentions Jesus a few times. He's considered a heretic and traitor by all sides, Jews, Romans, -and- Christian (and that's difficult to accomplish) so I tend to think he was not spinning a fantasy to please anybody.

I'm not a Biblical scholar by any means, just read a lot. One thing I have never seen any references to, how many of Jesus' disciples could read or write? A reference to when it was "written" could very well mean when scribes started producing copies of it.

Another thing to keep in mind, IMHO there was a huge shift in Christian doctrine with Paul. Christianity was a Jewish sect until Paul decided to go prime-time. I tend to think of him as the original televangelist. Paul was not one of the original disciples, never met Jesus, and IMHO they wouldn't have liked each other if they did. But that's just my take on it... a Catholic upbringing tends to make one cynical about certain things.

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Venom said:

Ceasar? 

 

11 hours ago, Venom said:

Emporer?  

Fucking hilarious - a monkey giving spelling corrections. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Venom said:

wt4gtTb.jpg

Wrong, ya dope.  Matthew 22, 15-22.

(I know others have pointed it out already, but... still.  Can't be pointed out enough.)

9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

there was a huge shift in Christian doctrine with Paul. Christianity was a Jewish sect until Paul decided to go prime-time. I tend to think of him as the original televangelist. Paul was not one of the original disciples, never met Jesus, and IMHO they wouldn't have liked each other if they did. But that's just my take on it... a Catholic upbringing tends to make one cynical about certain things.

- DSK

I'm so conflicted by/about that guy. 

On one level, a resounding "I agree!" to the above. 

On another, 1 Corinthians 13 is pretty high on my list of favorite bible passages.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know when you have stepped through the looking glass?

When people start referencing their 'favorite bible passages.

Faaaaarking hell!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, if Jesus was crucified ~30AD there's no reason to assume that all his original disciples were gone by 68AD... these dates aren't exact anyway.

Flavius Josephus, not exactly a contemporary but close, mentions Jesus a few times. He's considered a heretic and traitor by all sides, Jews, Romans, -and- Christian (and that's difficult to accomplish) so I tend to think he was not spinning a fantasy to please anybody.

I'm not a Biblical scholar by any means, just read a lot. One thing I have never seen any references to, how many of Jesus' disciples could read or write? A reference to when it was "written" could very well mean when scribes started producing copies of it.

Another thing to keep in mind, IMHO there was a huge shift in Christian doctrine with Paul. Christianity was a Jewish sect until Paul decided to go prime-time. I tend to think of him as the original televangelist. Paul was not one of the original disciples, never met Jesus, and IMHO they wouldn't have liked each other if they did. But that's just my take on it... a Catholic upbringing tends to make one cynical about certain things.

- DSK

AFAIK there was a pretty extensive civil war in Israel right after Jesus's time and a lot of contemporary records were lost. I actually don't care if Jesus is entirely fictional, if you claim to be his biggest bunch of fans it still looks pretty stupid when you ignore what he supposedly said and/or do the opposite of everything he supposedly stood for :rolleyes:

Re Paul and Catholics: They went on a spree of taking over every pagan holiday, Jesus was born in the spring as far as I can tell and Christmas was an old German pagan holiday they wanted to take over. Also Mary being a virgin seems to have been promoted starting what  - 400 AD? Old joke about two guys in a bar in Bethlehem: "Well Joseph that is a nice story, but you still have to marry her". Seriously, if Mary was a virgin, WTF was wrong with Joseph?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2020 at 10:09 PM, Dog said:

Spot the bigot.

Spot the ill-informed Christians who don't read their own holy book. There was a whole shitload of them trespassing on the front lawn of the Whitehouse tonight.

image.png.4a68789f14a85752882cb349f400fad4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bugsy said:

My reading suggest that all the gospels were written well after the death of Jesus and by none of the eyewitnesses.  Google says:

Written over the course of almost a century after Jesus' death, the four gospels of the New Testament, though they tell the same story, reflect very different ideas and concerns. A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel.

Christian apologists and most lay Christians assume on the basis of 4th century Church teaching that the gospels were written by the Evangelists c. 50-65 AD, but the scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c. 68-110 AD.

So they weren't written by the guys that were there.  It's likely they weren't written when anyone who might have been an eyewitness was even alive.  So there is a lot of speculation and hearsay. 

Also, there were other guys writing at the time.  There isn't much (maybe NO) corroborating information from the non-Christians.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html

Way back in college I took a course on the New Testament as historical document (hint: it's a crappy one) taught by the professor who went on to head the Religious Studies department. So it wasn't some crackpot.

A few salient points -

Matthew, Luke and Mark were almost the same, with Mark written first and the other two cribbed/copied/adapted later. They were likely written 65-90 CE, a generations or two after the events they describe. That the actual authors were the names apostles is highly unlikely.

John is later. Around 90 CE or later. It is linguistically different from the others,and differs on a few key points.

There are a few things about their original language and scripts that date them. For example, Matthew, Mark and Luke refer to "the Temple", whereas John refers to teaching in a "synagogue." But there was only one Temple until the Romans destroyed it in 70 CE. The term "synagogue" didn't really exist prior to that, as everyone worshiped in the one Temple. So the inclusion of the word for "synagogue" in the untranslated documents indicates they definitely date after the sack of Jerusalem.

There are also a few other things, like "Nazarareth" wasn't really a political division of Israel or Rome at the time of Jesus' alleged birth. Like "synagogue" it reflects a later understanding of the geography of the region.

 

Also - the creation of the Bible was a really, really political and even dangerous process. There were literally murders and quite a lot of intrigue while the decisions were made about what was considered canonical and what was not included. There are many, many writings from that period which weren't included, and the final Bible as we know it today didn't really start to resemble it's current form until like the 4th or 5th century or later. There were also lots of fraudulent writings, forgeries, etc. etc. as well as possible legitimate documents which were excluded.

 

It was actually a fascinating course, and we covered a lot of readings from the entire New Testament (and let me tell you, that Paul was kind of a twisted little dude), as well as assorted works from people like St. Augustine and a few other more contemporary scholars. That course is one reason this crusty 'ole atheist is pretty well versed in the Bible. Between that and being raised Catholic, where they rotate though reading the whole NT and much of the OT every few years in weekly mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:
11 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Another thing to keep in mind, IMHO there was a huge shift in Christian doctrine with Paul. Christianity was a Jewish sect until Paul decided to go prime-time. I tend to think of him as the original televangelist. Paul was not one of the original disciples, never met Jesus, and IMHO they wouldn't have liked each other if they did. But that's just my take on it... a Catholic upbringing tends to make one cynical about certain things.

- DSK

AFAIK there was a pretty extensive civil war in Israel right after Jesus's time and a lot of contemporary records were lost. I actually don't care if Jesus is entirely fictional, if you claim to be his biggest bunch of fans it still looks pretty stupid when you ignore what he supposedly said and/or do the opposite of everything he supposedly stood for :rolleyes:

Re Paul and Catholics: They went on a spree of taking over every pagan holiday, Jesus was born in the spring as far as I can tell and Christmas was an old German pagan holiday they wanted to take over. Also Mary being a virgin seems to have been promoted starting what  - 400 AD? Old joke about two guys in a bar in Bethlehem: "Well Joseph that is a nice story, but you still have to marry her". Seriously, if Mary was a virgin, WTF was wrong with Joseph?

Paul is responsible for some of the worst teachings misused by modern Christianity.

He was by all accounts, kind of an odd dude and kind of short. Prior to his fateful trip to Damascus, he'd been roundly reject by the daughter of a wealthy merchant (I believe it was...it's been a while) and he had some issues with women in general as he had no real success procuring a wife. This is evident in the epistles and the letters, where he put in such famous ideas as "women shouldn't teach or speak in the church," the submissiveness of wives to their husbands, etc. etc. It's where a lot of the in-built misogny and male-centering of modern evangelical Christianity comes from.

This is mostly from recollection, I do not after 30+ years recall all the details of where this stuff was cited. Some of it was in lecture, but this guy told some great stories in class...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Way back in college I took a course on the New Testament as historical document (hint: it's a crappy one) taught by the professor who went on to head the Religious Studies department. So it wasn't some crackpot.

A few salient points -

Matthew, Luke and Mark were almost the same, with Mark written first and the other two cribbed/copied/adapted later. They were likely written 65-90 CE, a generations or two after the events they describe. That the actual authors were the names apostles is highly unlikely.

John is later. Around 90 CE or later. It is linguistically different from the others,and differs on a few key points.

There are a few things about their original language and scripts that date them. For example, Matthew, Mark and Luke refer to "the Temple", whereas John refers to teaching in a "synagogue." But there was only one Temple until the Romans destroyed it in 70 CE. The term "synagogue" didn't really exist prior to that, as everyone worshiped in the one Temple. So the inclusion of the word for "synagogue" in the untranslated documents indicates they definitely date after the sack of Jerusalem.

There are also a few other things, like "Nazarareth" wasn't really a political division of Israel or Rome at the time of Jesus' alleged birth. Like "synagogue" it reflects a later understanding of the geography of the region.

 

Also - the creation of the Bible was a really, really political and even dangerous process. There were literally murders and quite a lot of intrigue while the decisions were made about what was considered canonical and what was not included. There are many, many writings from that period which weren't included, and the final Bible as we know it today didn't really start to resemble it's current form until like the 4th or 5th century or later. There were also lots of fraudulent writings, forgeries, etc. etc. as well as possible legitimate documents which were excluded.

 

It was actually a fascinating course, and we covered a lot of readings from the entire New Testament (and let me tell you, that Paul was kind of a twisted little dude), as well as assorted works from people like St. Augustine and a few other more contemporary scholars. That course is one reason this crusty 'ole atheist is pretty well versed in the Bible. Between that and being raised Catholic, where they rotate though reading the whole NT and much of the OT every few years in weekly mass.

What changes did King James make?  I'm sure he was an objective translator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Paul is responsible for some of the worst teachings misused by modern Christianity.

He was by all accounts, kind of an odd dude and kind of short. Prior to his fateful trip to Damascus, he'd been roundly reject by the daughter of a wealthy merchant (I believe it was...it's been a while) and he had some issues with women in general as he had no real success procuring a wife. This is evident in the epistles and the letters, where he put in such famous ideas as "women shouldn't teach or speak in the church," the submissiveness of wives to their husbands, etc. etc. It's where a lot of the in-built misogny and male-centering of modern evangelical Christianity comes from.

This is mostly from recollection, I do not after 30+ years recall all the details of where this stuff was cited. Some of it was in lecture, but this guy told some great stories in class...

So Paul was an incel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fat Point Jack said:

What changes did King James make?  I'm sure he was an objective translator.

There were a couple I recall hearing about.

I believe  “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” - Exodus 22:18 was a big mistranslation from the original languages.

The word mekhashepha was ambiguous and unclear and could have been interpreted as "herb mixer" or more likely "poisoner."

We know how that worked out for the witches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

So Paul was an incel?

I wasn't going to go there, but he had some characteristics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

AFAIK there was a pretty extensive civil war in Israel right after Jesus's time and a lot of contemporary records were lost. I actually don't care if Jesus is entirely fictional, if you claim to be his biggest bunch of fans it still looks pretty stupid when you ignore what he supposedly said and/or do the opposite of everything he supposedly stood for :rolleyes:

Re Paul and Catholics: They went on a spree of taking over every pagan holiday, Jesus was born in the spring as far as I can tell and Christmas was an old German pagan holiday they wanted to take over. Also Mary being a virgin seems to have been promoted starting what  - 400 AD? Old joke about two guys in a bar in Bethlehem: "Well Joseph that is a nice story, but you still have to marry her". Seriously, if Mary was a virgin, WTF was wrong with Joseph?

I think there was endemic riot and civil war thru most of that period. The Romans were all "What the fuck is -wrong- with you people?!?" and eventually decided it wasn't worth the expense of trying to keep order so they could collect taxes. IIRC the population of Israel/Judea peaked around 200 BC and declined in fits and starts until the 1800s.

There is a lot of indication that in the original texts, Mary was not described as a virgin. If so, that's some serious revisionism.

- DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I think there was endemic riot and civil war thru most of that period. The Romans were all "What the fuck is -wrong- with you people?!?" and eventually decided it wasn't worth the expense of trying to keep order so they could collect taxes. IIRC the population of Israel/Judea peaked around 200 BC and declined in fits and starts until the 1800s.

There is a lot of indication that in the original texts, Mary was not described as a virgin. If so, that's some serious revisionism.

- DSK

 

Apparently things have not improved all that much in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a friend who was a hermeneutics scholar and I had not heard the word before I met him. This meant that he specialized in interpreting Biblical text by reading it in the original languages: Hebrew, Ancient Greek, and Aramaic. He said that many key parts of both the OT and NT are really quite different in the original text than in the King James, Revised Standard, or other modern Bibles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fat Point Jack said:

What changes did King James make?  I'm sure he was an objective translator.

Very political, but also an impulse to try and "get back to Jesus' original teachings." At this point, the Bible had been argued over and re-written and books added and books dropped, in Latin, by people that we would nowadays consider the Catholic hierarchy, for over a thousand years, and almost everybody was sick of the bullshit.

England had just had three or 4 generations of almost-civil-war over the power of the foreign church vs the power of the monarchy, with some amazingly modern salesmanship applied on both sides. There had been a movement to have religion be in English (not the English we speak today, but fairly close) and to have the Bible written in English.... of course the first few guys to do that, they burned at the stake, but eventually the idea caught on.

King James wanted to straddle a lot of fences. He wanted a Bible that would unify all the different direction that "church" in the UK was going, and head off for good and all time the impulse to go back to Catholicism. Personally, he actually wanted to impose an austere Scottish version of Christianity (although he was very conflicted about the Scottish church, he was probably gay) on the rest of England but wanted to do it in trappings they would accept, etc etc. Aside from all the politics wrapped up in it, IMHO it was a good effort.

BTW (personal note) I am not a Christian. I just can't make myself believe so much wild unproven nonsense. The idea of redemption and all that is attractive, but somehow all the bullshit that people tried to shovel into me at an early age just ended up making me reject the whole mind-control scheme. But it's a fascinating field of human study, and as Frenchie noted there is some beautiful literature, wrapped up in it.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, astro said:

How do you know when you have stepped through the looking glass?

When people start referencing their 'favorite bible passages.

Faaaaarking hell!

 

What?  It's a beautiful passage.  The middle bit was the reading at my Mom's funeral (in French, which is even more beautiful, IMO).

 

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 

If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

 

Love is patient, love is kind.

Love does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 

Love does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 

Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. 

 

Where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 

For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. 

But the greatest of these is love.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

BTW (personal note) I am not a Christian. I just can't make myself believe so much wild unproven nonsense. The idea of redemption and all that is attractive, but somehow all the bullshit that people tried to shovel into me at an early age just ended up making me reject the whole mind-control scheme. But it's a fascinating field of human study, and as Frenchie noted there is some beautiful literature, wrapped up in it.

- DSK

Yeah, the last straw was when I found out how babies were made, sometime in the 5th grade.  

I worked with four engineers, one with an extensive background in soils and geology,  that were born again.  All were firm believers in young earth as that is what the bible said (in their, and their preacher's view).  The funny thing was, none of them agreed on just how "young" the earth was.  I just could not understand how people with a background in science and logic could convince themselves of that conclusion on faith.

Yes, religion is fascinating.  One of my favorite classes was a "non-tech elective", East Asian Religions.  I also spent 18 years going to a Greek Orthodox church (after some Catholic and growing up in a Southern Baptist family).  Each church visit, and especially Easter, was almost an anthropological expedition for me.

Government, especially ours, should be, and seems that it was intended to be, secular in order to succeed and promote the progression of humanity.  In my experience "faith" is too powerful to allow that to happen as it "trumps" all logic.  The great thing for governments is that faith can be used to control large fractions of the population and if used correctly, justify just about anything the government does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Had a friend who was a hermeneutics scholar and I had not heard the word before I met him. This meant that he specialized in interpreting Biblical text by reading it in the original languages: Hebrew, Ancient Greek, and Aramaic. He said that many key parts of both the OT and NT are really quite different in the original text than in the King James, Revised Standard, or other modern Bibles.

Whoda thunk?

I saw a documentary about Noah's ark and the Great Flood.  Scientists (damn them!) found records of hundreds of floods in that area over a 1000 year period.  But no one great flood.  Cuneiform tablets found in the area supported their findings.  They also showed the "boat builders" built boats that were more like floating baskets.  It is a physical impossibility to build that type of floating object as large as the Bible said the ark was.  They found no evidence of anyone building a boat that looked like what we typically see in renderings of Noah's ark.

Eventually science will probably prove the Bible is nothing more than historical reporting as seen in the eyes of the people at the time, altered over the years to support the beliefs of the writers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jules said:

Whoda thunk?

I saw a documentary about Noah's ark and the Great Flood.  Scientists (damn them!) found records of hundreds of floods in that area over a 1000 year period.  But no one great flood.  Cuneiform tablets found in the area supported their findings.  They also showed the "boat builders" built boats that were more like floating baskets.  It is a physical impossibility to build that type of floating object as large as the Bible said the ark was.  They found no evidence of anyone building a boat that looked like what we typically see in renderings of Noah's ark.

Eventually science will probably prove the Bible is nothing more than historical reporting as seen in the eyes of the people at the time, altered over the years to support the beliefs of the writers.

I didn't think there was any doubt, already.... the Bible is a collection of some really old folk-tales, many (most? all? when did we invent "fiction"?) of which are embellishments of stuff that happened and got repeated. Boring stories don't get repeated. No matter how people try to stick to the truth as they've learned it, some distortion always creeps in... then there's the embellishment to make it memorable and to keep the peasants' attention.

It's easily possible, in a land where spring floods are a way of life, and disastrous floods a couple of times a generation, how could there NOT be "The Great Flood Story" as part of that culture's self-defining narrative? And it's an easy step from there to Uncle Dork-ball's HU-U-UGE boat that he built to escape the flood.......

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

I didn't think there was any doubt, already.... the Bible is a collection of some really old folk-tales, many (most? all? when did we invent "fiction"?) of which are embellishments of stuff that happened and got repeated. Boring stories don't get repeated. No matter how people try to stick to the truth as they've learned it, some distortion always creeps in... then there's the embellishment to make it memorable and to keep the peasants' attention.

It's easily possible, in a land where spring floods are a way of life, and disastrous floods a couple of times a generation, how could there NOT be "The Great Flood Story" as part of that culture's self-defining narrative? And it's an easy step from there to Uncle Dork-ball's HU-U-UGE boat that he built to escape the flood.......

- DSK

There are plenty of folks, a large % of my in-laws just a tiny example, who believe in a worldwide flood after it rained 40 days and nights, and Noah's ark. As literal history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

There are plenty of folks, a large % of my in-laws just a tiny example, who believe in a worldwide flood after it rained 40 days and nights, and Noah's ark. As literal history.

Context... it IS literal history! It just happened to people for whom "worldwide flood" means one that goes from here to there... their entire known world. And their language had no word for "mountain" the nearest equivalent for us would be "medium size sand dune."

I was just thinking about the fact that the Jews actually had inherited some kind of "Great Flood" narrative from both the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians. So the original flood story would have added in plenty of "hah, you think -that's- a great flood, you guys don't know from the floods we get HERE."

But if they envision that God wrote the Bible in English (on a manual typewriter, probably) then they will not appreciate this kind of thinking. Probably best to not even start on the begetting....

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites