"Totally coup, yo."

Jesus was a reactionary douchebag

Jun

13

by

Some really obnoxious and mindless cliches have been popping up from commenters in a previous article about how Jesus was really a swell guy who had such nice teachings, and if only his followers hadn’t distorted his message we’d all be living in some hippy’s fever dream conception of a socialist commune with free tofu for all and an open bar by the pool between three and five by now.

It’s actually kind of amazing how rarely it’s suggested that the whole idea of Christianity was a bad one from the start. Even non-Christians tend to fetishize this idea of an initial state of grace from which we’ve all fallen because of some mysterious, inherent human flaw and the corruption that results. It’s a story which has been regurgitated for so long that it’s almost been ingrained into our genes. But when you look at what evidence is available, the claim that Jesus was an advocate for peace and tolerance and other nice, liberal things falls flat.

Jesus was more like Harold Camping than any ‘progressive’ religious leader today

One of the fantasies Jesus confused with reality

According to the earlier Gospels, Jesus definitely appeared to share Camping’s beliefs about the imminent End Times. In Mark and Matthew and Luke you find parallel passages where Jesus tells his followers something like this:

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Matthew 4 also portrays Jesus as a crazed cult leader. He goes out to the desert for 40 days, after which he “sees the Devil.” After a little verbal spar between the two – and here I always like to imagine a half-starved, rambling, hallucinating  Jesus standing around a desert talking to a sand dune which kind of looks like Satan from a certain angle – Jesus finds a beach and starts telling some fishermen to follow him because it’s the END OF THE WORLD and give up all your belongings because you won’t be needing them soon, blah, blah, blah.

If you heard of someone doing that today, you’d laugh at him. And you’d be right to laugh at him. It’s only because of of a nostalgic haze that so many of us don’t laugh at Jesus today. But we should.

Jesus endorsed Old Testament law


Most legal scholars consider Jesus’ legal views ‘stupid’ and ‘barbaric’

Even though Jesus seemed to believe the end was nigh, he still had some pretty strange thoughts about how people should live in the meantime. He wanted everyone to follow Old Testament law. That means slavery and public stonings and other really weird, ancient shit we all should have outgrown by now.

Nice liberal Christians and their sympathizers like to emphasize the supposedly loving side of Jesus. But how loving can someone be when they’re OK with stoning gay people, adulterers, rape victims who don’t scream loudly enough, and anyone who picks up sticks on the wrong day to death in public? The same people who would be righteously indignant over someone suggesting we all follow Old Testament law in an American southern accent don’t seem to have a problem with the same being said by Jesus.

Jesus was haughty

Jesus has this framed in his office

So let’s say you’re in your local bar having a few drinks after work and some scruffy-looking guy walks up to and says something like this:

“I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

or this:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

And his unjustified ego issues didn’t stop after his crucifixion, either. When Jesus supposedly woke up after being dead for a few days, he famously saw Mary Magdalene first – at least that’s how it goes in John. Once she recognized him, he made sure to warn her not to touch him, as if her touch would demean him somehow.

Going back to meeting a guy like this in a bar: How would you react to someone like this? Be honest. Nobody in their right mind would spend another minute with him. He’d be the pariah of the bar. That sad, desperate, possibly schizophrenic guy in the corner with delusions of granduer – that’s how Jesus would appear if he were around today.

Jesus was not a huge fan of peace and tolerance

En garde!

The whole concept of Hell as a place of eternal punishment for sinners starts with Jesus. Even Harold Camping doesn’t believe in that, so maybe my earlier comparison was unfair to him. But for some reason, modern Christians and their sympathizers can look at the same guy who spread this myth of fire and brimstone as a punishment for skepticism and freethought and perceive him as the ultimate ancient rebel. It’s absurd.

And as far as peace goes, Jesus takes a pretty explicit stance against it:

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

It’s almost as if Jesus were holding a press conference and a reporter asked his thoughts on peace. And then Jesus says, “I’m against it!” And then somehow today the liberal Jesus fanboys and fangirls have twisted that around as if he said the exact opposite of what’s quoted. That takes a Fox News-level of  cognitive dissonance-handling skills.

Face it, you wouldn’t hang out with Jesus. Only gullible assholes would. If there was a historical Jesus, then the Republican Jesus crowd is probably right about him. And that’s the problem with Christianity, not that Jesus’ message was corrupted. It was fucked up from the start.

  • anonymouse

    T-minus 4 hours until we see the first of many many long and incoherent rants in the comments

  • CrazyMama

    Wrong..

    Jesus said those who live by the sword die by the sword.

    Jesus spoke out against stoning and said let he who has not sinned throw the first stone.

    Jesus wasn’t perfect, he was human, he never even said he was the son of god. The miracles were exaggerations like the game telephone children play when they are little. By the time all the jesus stories were written down things were exaggerated. He never rose from the dead. That was Paul’s story to convert pagans who believed in the sun god.

    Like I said in one of my rants, there is a good chance jesus was several people rolled into one. Life of Brian is probably more accurate than one would believe.

    See I can do a rant that makes sense.

    • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh Bunting

      No, you can’t. You’re not contradicting anything I wrote here. I don’t see how Matthew 26:52 is relevant, since Jesus thought everyone was going to die soon anyway. And saying that someone should throw the first stone isn’t speaking out against stoning. Neither is saying that laws which require stoning shouldn’t be changed… And you don’t need to say that you’re the son of God in order to be haughty and arrogant, that’s just one extreme.

  • Jim Phillips

    Right on. Even Richard Dawkins gets on this horseshit bandwagon about Jesus being some swell dude who’s just misunderstood, instead of a hysterical, totalitarian cunt.

  • CrazyMama

    Nobody said jesus was perfect. And actually if you read the books left out of the bible, there is a passage saying he used his powers to kill a bird to show off when he was a kid. Also don’t forget he disobeyed his parents and then had the gull to talk back to his mother. If jesus were my son I would have whooped his ass right there for talking to me like that.

    Nobody is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes even jesus.

    • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh Bunting

      @CrazyMama, I’m not arguing against the idea that Jesus wasn’t perfect. I’m arguing against the idea that he was even a decent person.
      @Reed, Jesus could have said he was against stoning. He didn’t. He could have said he “had come to bring peace.” He said the opposite. Jesus couldn’t back up his arrogant claims, and if you think he could, or if you think you can, I’d like to see the evidence. I don’t believe in sin, so I think he was wrong about nobody being against sin. Also, he could’ve just said “Don’t throw rocks at people until they die.” He didn’t. He said OT law was a good thing and that we should worship the god of the OT. As for your interpretation of his apocalypse rantings, things are always tense when it comes to political issues, so that couldn’t have been what Jesus was talking about. Even if he were, he was definitely way off on the timeline. Do you have any other mindless cliches to type out?

  • Reed

    You all have no idea what you’re talking about. Let it go.

    You have to understand the Jewish context the Gospels were written in. Jesus was definitely revolutionary in that context. He talked to whores and lepers and died for them (in the story, at least). That was very radical.

    Jesus was definitely was anti violence. That was his whole schtick. Blessed are the Peacemakers, etc. Given the powers he supposedly had, he could have torn down the Roman Empire, slaughtered armies, etc. But he didn’t even fight his own execution. He did say that he came to bring a sword, but given that he never raised one in anger and said he who lives by it dies by it, that was obviously a metaphor. It means he didn’t come to preserve the status quo, but to mix things up. The status quo was very violent. He was not.

    As for his arrogance. It’s not boasting if you can back it up. The Son of God isn’t boasting by just calling it as it is. If he didn’t, he’d have been misleading.

    He was against stoning. Don’t you see? It’s a trick question. Nobody is without sin (except him) so nobody gets to throw stones. He was without sin (again, in the story) but he didn’t stone anyone.

    He did believe the end was coming soon. Or at least, the Gospel writers thought so, and they had good reason to. Things were very tense between the Romans and the Hebrews and revolution was in the air. It finally all hit the fan with the fall of the temple. The gospels were written soon after that. They didn’t predict the end based on some bullshit numerology like Harold Camping. They predicted it because, in a very important way, it happened.

    You can make Jesus out to be a prick by just picking lines here and there, just like Jerry Falwell does. That’s no way to read a text, especially a really old one.

  • CrazyMama

    I was always taught in catholic school the book of revelations was a symbolic political text meant for the jewish people about Rome crushing itself.

  • CrazyMama

    and Jesus was a decent guy. He gave the lepers free healthcare and didn’t discriminate against gentils.

  • Saucelah

    You’re cherry picking your quotes, and ignoring those quotes that contradict. That’s as bad as Fox News right there.

    And you’re not accepting the context either. When Jesus says let him with no sin throw the first stone, he is not saying someone should throw the first stone. They believed all people had sin, so clearly, in context, he is saying no one should throw the first stone.

    I’m an atheist. I don’t care about Jesus. According to the gospel writers, he said some stuff I like, and some stuff I don’t. But at least take all of it into account when evaluating him.

  • Anthony

    The fictional character Jesus also thought (or was portrayed and/or interpreted to think) that poverty couldn’t be overcome:

    New Living Translation (©2007):
    You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.
    English Standard Version (©2001):
    For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.
    New American Standard Bible (©1995):
    For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me.
    International Standard Version (©2008):
    You will always have the destitute with you, but you will not always have me.
    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995):
    You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me with you.
    King James Bible:
    For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

    What a perfect excuse to oppress the masses. I guess Jeebus and Ayn Rand have more in common than I thought.

  • James

    i just think this is poorly researched… its pretty easy to cherry pick quotes from the bible to say whatever you want them to say, especially when you ignore context. the church folk call that proof texting.

    for example, you proof texted Matthew 5 to argue that Jesus believed in “the OT law” without any examination of the many many instances where Jesus contradicts or re-interprets OT law. One of Jesus’ favorite phrases is “you have heard it said X, but I tell you Y,” where X is some long-cherished OT law and Y is some new interpretation of Jesus’ that turns the traditional law on its head. Its pretty obvious throughout the book of Matthew that Jesus’ relationship with the OT (and the common interpretations of it) was pretty damned complicated. One line out of context doesnt tell us much.

    But i think that’s indicative of your whole attitude here… grab one line without really learning what it means, then try to say some inflammatory things based on it (calling Jesus a douchebag is a good way to rack up the clicks, regardless of how well-reasoned the accusation is). I mean, you cite apocalypticism as evidence that Jesus expected everyone to die. well, about 100 years of research on Jewish apocalypticism says that the “end of the world” and “everyone’s gonna die” language is metaphorical, and what Jesus was really talking about was probably the imminent destruction of Israel by the Romans. Never mind things like “research” though, that gets in the way of a sweet ass headline.

  • Rosy

    You left out the time when Jesus was grumpy and cursed a fig tree to death for not producing fruit out of season.

  • Anthony

    Saucelah: I’m confident that the author of this article “took all of it into account” when “evaluating” the words of the fictional character Jesus. The simple point he is trying to make is that people have a tendency to portray this character as essentially or entirely benevolent and loving. He isn’t. The verses which are “cherry picked” are being presented to illustrate this point. Although this character did say a few things which we in the modern world may reasonably consider ethical, he also said alot of batshit crazy things which we must deem patently unethical by current standards. Something else you may want to consider is how seriously we should take a figure who speaks about mercy and love in one breath, and eternal judgement in the next. I think this point is also implicit in what the author wrote.

  • Saucelah

    Many of the quotes he cherry picked are contradicted by both the context of the times and further developed by other stories in the gospel. So he has not proved that Jesus is not essentially benevolent and loving. He has, however, proven that you can make someone look bad no matter what else they said or did aside from a few quotes dragged away from any meaning.

    One cannot take quotes out of context, without consideration for what’s around them, for the time and place it was stated in, and without consideration of other statements and actions of the character or individual—which is, by the way, the definition of cherry picking in this context, no need to put it in quotes as if I made it up—and then claim to make a conclusion about the essential nature of someone’s character.

    Well, you can’t unless you work for Fox News.

  • Anthony

    James: The verses that the author cited are only “out of context” according to your own personal interpretation, which I assume is gleaned from your adherence to one of the many different sects of Christianity. Even if it is based on research you have done, I think you are assuming false premises. The words that the author cited are plain and simple. They leave no room for interpretation by any reader with even a semi-objective mindset. I don’t believe that you have an objective approach to reading scripture. If you did, you’d probably conclude that the “X/Y” assertions and “new interpretations” that “turn traditional law on its head” directly contradict his words in Matthew 5:17-20, and therefore the reader ought not take Jesus seriously. Why not just say outright: “I have come to change/reinterpret the laws of Judaism.?” Why would a god (or son of) speak so ambiguously? I’m not an expert on Jewish Law, but I do know that it is meticulously designed and is not open to dissent. This is one of a litany of instances of simple contradiction to be found in the scriptures. The faithful always have some way around them though, some circular argument that goes on for hours, or any of a number of inane rationalizations. If taken to its logical conclusion, the debate always ends with the faithful saying that their position is “a matter of faith” or “a mystery.”

  • Anthony

    Saucelah: The quotes are contradicted? I don’t know what that means. He didn’t prove Jesus is not essentially loving, etc? How do you explain the fucked up, barbaric, primitive things he said? The quotes are dragged away from any meaning? You mean they are out of context, I think. I believe I covered that. See my previous post. Cherry picking again? Yes. They are cherry picked. For a purpose. See my previous post. I shan’t respond further. Good day.

  • james

    Anthony: context always matters, its the difference between knowing a metaphor when its staring you in the face and taking things literally — like “i came to bring a sword.” Using your view that these words are obvious on their face and not open to interpretation, why didnt jesus just hand some dude a sword? maybe since he was talking about a sword while not literally bringing one, he was speaking in metaphor?

    no one is objective — you think the author doesnt have an ax to grind with the bible? im not objective either, but im certainly not one of “the faithful” youre talking about. i dont think the bible is magical, but i also dont think this is a good way to investigate it.

    but c’mon – the author here is trying to compare jesus to modern american progressives. i think the biggest problem with the way people interpret the bible is that everyone insists on reading it like a personal message to them — like wondering what jesus thinks of universal health care or abortion or the estate tax. If jesus ever lived, it was 2000 years ago in palestine, so he was probably talking about 2000 year old palestinian political questions, not modern american ones. if you want to know jesus’ politics, ask what he thought about roman occupation or sadducean control of the priesthood or something.

    my bottom line is this – anyone trying to get modern political answers directly out of the words of jesus, without worrying about context or history, is just trying to grind their ax. like i said – calling jesus a douchebag will rack up the clicks, no doubt.

  • CrazyMama

    Tony..
    What did Jesus say that was unethical? I am just curious..

    He never once said he was the son of God. He said we all sons and daughters of God.

    And that there always will be poor comment goes with the Jesus the magical messiah story of him knowing he was going to die. I was told it was Jesus’ live in the moment quote, but I could see how it would be preceived as him being an arogant jerk. However according to one of the gnostic scriptures, Jesus and Judas had set it up together that Judas would be betray him.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_judas.html

  • Anthony

    James: There is no context within which one could read the very plainly stated verses quoted here, in any way, other than imparting what is plainly fucking stated. You haven’t demonstrated how they are taken out of context, and you won’t, because they aren’t. Yes, the christ character spoke in metaphors. The sword in “I came to bring a sword” is a metaphor. “Using my view” the sword can only be interpreted as violence, death, war, stabbing, slashing, poking, fencing, or at the very least serious conflict. It’s a fucking sword after all. WHAT THE FUCK ELSE IS IT SUPPOSED TO MEAN? Context doesn’t enter into language that straightforward unless the word sword has some other meaning. So yes, I “take it literally” that he meant he intended to bring about all those things (conflict, etc.) or something similar.

    Actually there are reasonably objective people in this world, though noone is perfectly objective, if that’s what you meant, which is pretty condescending. You certainly aren’t objective James. Your whole argument appears to be subjectively emotional. Good job spelling sadducean though.

    Yes. The author has an “axe to grind.” I’d have thought that was obvious what with the title of the article. What the fuck did you expect!? Did you ever consider that he may have very good reasons for having said axe? Also, this isn’t an “investigation” of the fucking bible. The author probably doesn’t have time to dissect every bullshit contradiction in the New Testament simply to placate readers who miss the point. This is a simple article illustrating the fact that the christ character, as plainly presented in scripture, said alot of things with profoundly unethical implications.

    The author is not “trying to get modern political answers directly out of the words of Jesus.” Apparently you missed the entire point of the article. Please refer to the last sentence in the above paragraph. I shan’t respond further. Good day.

  • Anthony

    Did that woman just address me as Tony? Fuck off lady. I was done with you after the last article.

  • james

    just to go into one example a little further, there are hundreds of interpretations of the “sword” beyond a simple reference to violence. heres a bunch of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword

    and as always, context is instructive. read the rest of Matthew chapter 10, especially verse 35 (the one right after the sword line). Jesus is talking about the division caused by his teachings — not because those who follow him are violent people who go around with swords killing everyone else, but because the teachings “turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother,” etc. Jesus teachings bring division because theyre controversial, not because they advocate violence.

    jesus often advocated for people to leave their families and ignore the orders of their parents. some folks (like me) interpret that to be a systematic rejection of Jewish and Roman patriarchy, in which fathers owned their wives and children. Jesus rejected that ownership and told people to reject their parents and follow his teachings instead. that certainly caused division and set sons against their fathers and daughters against their mothers, hence the metaphorical “sword” jesus was referring to. context makes that pretty clear, and the consequences of those who followed Jesus’ teachings is further explored in the book of Acts and some of Paul’s letters. families were torn apart when people started rejecting the idea that they were owned by their father.

    personally, i think its a positive ethic that rejects patriarchal ownership, but i can see how it would cause some divisive, even violent, consequences. anyway, the sword is just one example of how context ALWAYS matters.

  • james

    if you agree he has an ax to grind, why would you also suggest he’s being objective? to me those seem mutually exclusive — hence my point that no one is objective. we’ve all got axes to grind.

  • Anthony

  • http://youtu.be/KlKKHPpM1Cg joe dixon

    For fuck’s sake. Of course Jesus is a twat. His behavior is pretty small minded and useless. You want revolutionary? Then he should have denounced slavery and genocide. Think of it, you could have owned or slaughtered whole families but the moment you followed Him you get into heaven? That’s it? By this reasoning Hitler could have gotten in if he accepted Christ in his heart but Ann Frank would roast forever because she didn’t. Fuck that noise.

    Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, et al are all products of their time (even if they were just story book characters) who said and did things that were not terribly exceptional. No matter how much people want to argue other wise. Had one of these pricks actually warned people about how germs spread or explained things like chemical imbalances then they’d have given the world something awesome that would have saved a lot of people a lot of suffering. But they didn’t because they couldn’t because they didn’t know. They added nothing to our knowledge and could just as easily be accused of holding us back as a species.

  • CrazyMama

    Tony if you can call me a “cunt” and a “twat,” I can call you Tony. Usually those words are saved for naughty talk and if my husband were to call me that outside of naughty talk his laundry would accidently end up either bleached or in with a leaking color. Just some advice incase you ever buy a mail order bride that speaks english.

    Joe dixon, the old hitler argument is a good one, don’t forget to throw in the crusaders. And I agree, most of what Jesus, muhad and buddha said is pretty much common sense. What goes around, comes around. And I am guessing you haven’t looked into Jewish or Muslim law, they get into hygeine. For fuck sake there are whole chapters in leviticus dedicated to that. Circumsion is jewish custom that we know is hygenic and doctors recommend it for newborn boys now. They get into cross contaimination of food too in the ot.

  • CrazyMama

    I would also like to point out, the greeks studied the human condition, ie the mental state of humans. Chemical imbalances weren’t studied like they are until now. And up until recently we knew very little about mental illness, neurological disorders and so on and so forth.

    And for a long time only religious people studied mental illness at all. Christians for the most part treated it as a demonic possession and did awful things to people. There were mystics, who didn’t really have magic powers, but were considered so because of their understanding of the human condition. They understand the power of mind over matter and how to use things that the ancient greeks did. Things like hippotherapy, aroma therapy, aquatherapy, which we know can help people, along with medication at times. They also used nutrition and herbs. Most of the medications used today are chemicals found in herbs. These people didn’t have magical powers, they just had an understanding of nature and man that had been passed down from generation to generation. Then the christians tried to whipe them off the earth and called them witches. So to support the argument against religion, this would be something to consider.

    Speaking of the greeks, when the lost gospels were found in the desert during the 40′s, they also found a copy of plato’s republic.

  • http://youtu.be/KlKKHPpM1Cg joe dixon

    “And I am guessing you haven’t looked into Jewish or Muslim law, they get into hygeine. For fuck sake there are whole chapters in leviticus dedicated to that. Circumsion is jewish custom that we know is hygenic and doctors recommend it for newborn boys now. ”

    You’d guess wrong. The ‘hygiene’ they talk about is how to kill an animal and keeping girls away from you when they have their period. This had nothing to do with germs. And where did you get the idea that doctors recommend circumcision? Next time you might want to check with The American Academy Of Pediatrics before writing such a statement. I know you don’t give shit about science but 40 years of medical research shouldn’t be so blithely dismissed. No, the health policies of Muslims and Jews that exist in their holy books is fairly useless and if applied today would do little to promote hygiene.

  • http://youtu.be/KlKKHPpM1Cg joe dixon

    “Things like hippotherapy, aroma therapy, aquatherapy, which we know can help people” Aquatic therapy is one thing. But Hippotherapy and Aroma therapy is something else all together. Neither of those last 2 are evidence based that they work. Testimonials and anecdotes don’t count.

    “Most of the medications used today are chemicals found in herbs.” I’m not so sure about that. I do know you shouldn’t fall into the absurd notion that what our ancestors did with medicine is good and today we’re getting it all wrong. Which is where you seem to be going. Very little ancient medicine is helpful. For every aspirin (

    “When the lost gospels were found in the desert during the 40’s, they also found a copy of plato’s republic.” What is your source for that information? I’ve never heard of that.

  • http://youtu.be/KlKKHPpM1Cg joe dixon

    Sorry, I don’t know what happened but here is the complete paragraph:

    “Most of the medications used today are chemicals found in herbs.” I’m not so sure about that. I do know you shouldn’t fall into the absurd notion that what our ancestors did with medicine is good and today we’re getting it all wrong. Which is where you seem to be going. Very little ancient medicine is helpful. For every aspirin (which came from Willow Bark) there was far more blood letting. Just because it’s natural doesn’t make it good.

  • CrazyMama

    I didn’t say that we should go with herbs before modern medicine, don’t put words in my mouth. Most anti biotics came from fungus, certain plants make lacatives, certain plants can even cause abortion hence why when pregnant doctors tell you to avoid certain herbs. How many ob appointments have you had, call an office right now and ask them if you don’t believe me..

    And sometimes you have to try something yourself to see whether it works and studies can’t always factor in everything, Before you go there I am not saying that every alternative therapy works, because most don’t but there are some that do work. Hippotherapy isn’t just about horsebackriding and in many cases it works best along with medications. There is a built in behavioral plan with horseback riding that very few activities have. You act up you get hurt by a giant animal. Then it usually involves taking care of the animal which teaches children a valuable lesson.

    And as for circumsion, I was told in the maternity wing at mercy hospital in 2005 that circumsion would prevent future infections and that many uncircumsised penis’ would get infected under the foreskin and eventually they’d have to get it done when they are older. I can’t remember the statistics, but it does happen.

    And look up the nag hammadi library.. Plato was included..

  • http://anteprepro.xanga.com/weblog/ Anteprepro

    “Jesus teachings bring division because theyre controversial, not because they advocate violence”

    Yeah, bringing division, admitted to be at odds with peace, is sooo ethical. But at least he’s not violent, right? (Pay no attention to the hellfire behind the curtain).

    “Jesus rejected that ownership”

    It’s amazing how Jesus can plainly state things, like upholding OT Law, and Christians handwave about how he didn’t mean it. And then they cobble together a series of “well this might have been metaphor for this” to reach completely unfounded conclusions about how fantastical Jeebus was. For fucks’ sake, I thought the “end of the world is a metaphor for the end of Israel (despite a sign of the end of the world being the re-establishment of Israel)” schtick was inane, but saying that Jesus wanted to disciples to hate their families is an indicator that he advocated for the independence of children from parents and for wives to not be treated as property? Either Jesus is the worst communicator the world has ever seen or you are just pulling stuff out of your ass.

    “but c’mon – the author here is trying to compare jesus to modern american progressives.”

    The point is that people are consistently saying that Jesus is a decent guy because people cherry pick some of his teachings and go on to believe that Jesus was akin to a hippy/socialist/ pacifist. You have done something similar by attempting to squint really hard and see Jesus telling people to abandon their families as an attempt to overthrow the “patriarchy”. The article shows why believing Jesus to be a super-progressive like that is stupid.

  • Jay A Mayhem

    It’s simple…the Bible is pure fiction and stupidity, there is NO “God”, or “Jesus’ for that matter! Christianity is a cult, a ‘mafia” and the reason for so many stupid Americans! I’m sure there was a “dude” named Jesus, some bi-sexual hippie with lots of good drugs to draw sheople to his flock, but, all in all, he was a CUNT!!!

  • CrazyMama

    Hippotherapies benefit for children with cp..

    http://www.horsesandhumans.org/Newsletters/hhrfnlv1-2008.pdf

    But you have to take into account that any “alternative” therapy should be used with other therapies. And any therapy that is being used isn’t going to be as effective without a strong family support system. However oldest therapy is hippotherapy, hence demonstrating the Greeks knowledge of the human condition.

    Hippotherapy has been used for thousands of years and science is proving why it is effective. It has to do with the built in behavioral plan, the self esteem that comes from having control of a giant animal and the proprioceptive input a one recieves from riding the horse.

    For all you idiots who don’t know what proprioceptive means here is a definition..

    A sensory receptor, found chiefly in muscles, tendons, joints, and the inner ear, that detects the motion or position of the body or a limb by responding to stimuli arising within the organism.

    For obvious reasons this provides proprioceptive input for people who need it that either can’t get it conventionally because of a handicapped or for people who can’t get enough in cases for people with adhd. However Hippotherapy and adhd have not been studied like it has been for CP, but most kids with adhd calm down after getting proprioceptive input. Again this should not replace medications, so don’t think I am saying that at all.

    Sorry for this off topic rant, but I had to prove Joe Dixon wrong..

    And again I am not implying that alternative therapies should replace conventional approaches. And in most cases of adhd, autism, cp, or you name it neuro behavioral disorder that requires medication and occupational therpay, it also requires a behavioral plan and positive reinforcement when something is accomplished, which some of these alternative therapies provide.
    Obviously I am not talking about aroma therapy. I am talk about more physical alternative therapies. And anyone who would try something dumb like going to an “herbalist” or accupuncture for a neuro behavioral disorder isn’t doing their homework. So don’t put that as something I implied either. Aroma therapy does help, hence why sitting in a garden is relaxing but it’s not a long term cure, it’s like a quick buzz of relaxation. Look up people that have lost sense of smell, it causes people to get very depressed.

  • Tim

    If Jesus was a real person, of course.

  • http://www.cinemasucks.com/ Mike C.

    I have trouble with any reference to the apocalypse being considered metaphorical. Not due to research on my part, but because I’m skeptical the end has ever not been nigh with Abrahamic types.

    It doesn’t surprise me that people take Jesus, and other popular biblical ideas, out of context. Actually looking at the text doesn’t yield much to talk about. It’s such an incoherent read, it’s no wonder people will latch onto the nearest “interpretation” of it.

    But even for scholars, I think, having to deal with the anonymity of the authors, common ideas for the time that would’ve placed things in a firmer context, and the vast procession of copies and translations, is the verbal equivalent to an archeologist sculpting a complete skull around a couple incisors.

    What I do find bewildering is how the average person can pick up their KJV or NIV, read some out of context platitudes, and pretend it just gave them some clear an profound insight into their life’s dilemmas. A lot of it is so specific, or absurd, that I wonder if they’re just meditating; lulled into calm by the tedium of words that refuse to gel into anything relatable.

    I figure you might as well shuffle pages from some Law & Order scripts together with the owner’s manual for a Black and Decker toaster, and a fourteen-year-old Nebraskan girl’s diary from 1974, and start looking to that for solace.

  • CrazyMama

    Arguing with atheist on the beast comments is the most internet fun I had in years. It’s as fun as arguing with right winged christians from Texas, well almost as fun.. The christians get super mad when you tell them Jesus was a reincarnation of buddha and then I take quotes out of context to prove it. It’s funny because I know more about the bible then they do and then when they are divorced and remarried, I point to the quote where Jesus said that is adultery. Baptists are allowed to divorce and remarry.

    Never mind christians are more fun because they usually get high on the defense.

  • CrazyMama

    scri,
    I think Josh brunting and Ian murphy make a strange good team. I just wish they’d use their evil powers for good and start covering more progressive issues and uncovering astro turf organizations that try to appear to be grass roots. Like the pro charter education groups funded by the gates foundation..

    Seriously.. you guys are the only truly progressive voice in Buffalo. Unless you want me to have my child (and many other children in the good city of buffalo and other working class cities like detroit) either become a corporate asset or indoctrinated by the catholic church.

    The Buffalo news is only telling half truths.. Read yesterdays article about the parent trigger law and what they say about compton. It’s all bull shit! HELP!!!!

  • http://anteprepro.xanga.com/weblog/ Anteprepro

    Are fucking retarded, ScriLly? That one little passage is supposed to be interpretted as overturning the long tradition of stoning people to death in all circumstances? Talk about cherry picking. Jesus also says this in Mark 7: ” 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.””

    Yes, consistent with what the article said about Jesus supporting OT Law, here is Jesus, bitching about people not adhering to OT law, explicitly referring not only to stoning but to one of the most horrific stoning laws in the OT (death for not respecting your parents). Again, it’s amazing how the things that Jesus outright says, clearly and directly, can be ignored while the things that he merely suggests might be the case, if you interpret it just so, are of paramount in importance. Is it any wonder why there are so many divisions in Christianity when you have so many addle-brained interpreters, whining about cherry picking while cherry picking themselves? It’s absurd, and all because they refuse to just look at the text plainly and thoroughly and realize that using all of the Bible and selective interpretations of any given part of it, you can argue for anything and its opposite. Because realizing that would mean the end of regarding the Bible as a useful guide to anything.

    (An alternative explanation for the “cast the first stone” passage is here: http://www.new-life.net/faqs/biblical-questions/is-the-god-of-the-old-testament-the-same-as-the-god-of-the-new-testament-2/)

  • http://www.playonenote.com Harris

    Yup, Jesus was insane. That part about casting the souls of the demons into the pigs and then driving them over the cliff was just absurd. If you’re freaking omnipotent, why waste all that bacon? I’m actually being serious here. That seems awfully cruel. Just make ‘em vanish.

  • http://anteprepro.xanga.com/weblog/ Anteprepro

    ” My point is not to pretend to know what Jesus was like, unlike the article, the point I’m making is the argument is thin, very thin and even if you were right you haven’t proved it and basically no one can. It’s all second hand quotes from revised and translated bibles.”

    In that case, I agree completely.

    • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh Bunting

      It always seems super important to point out that the Bible is revised and translated when you point out all the evil shit Jesus said, but nobody ever seems to bring that up when they pretend that Jesus was ALL ABOUT LOVE, MAN.

  • Chris Kelley

    In order, since you specifically asked for rebuttals:

    POINT 1

    “Jesus was more like Harold Camping than any ‘progressive’ religious leader today.”
    ‘Imminent End Times’: Jesus (actually called Yeshua, in original language; it means “Salvation-Now”) taught that the End Times were beginning with the ‘cosmic’ “summer period” of the harvest of souls (the ‘fields are white all over’ statement). This is directly tied to the Biblical Feasts that ADONAI established in the Old Testament, that Messiah Yeshua has currently completed the ‘spring side’ of. The next ‘cosmic’ observance will be the Feast of Trumpets (which has become confused with the Jewish New Year, and renamed as Rosh-Hashanah). Unlike a whole bunch of ignorant people, the Book itself teaches that the Ending-of-the-Days occurs over a comparatively long period of time.

    “…which shall not taste of death…”
    Yeshua often taught about the spiritual implications of rejecting him, the Messiah of both Israel and the world outside of Israel. When he identified death in the corporeal sense, He once called it ‘sleeping’ (right before he brought the girl in question -back from the dead-, for the record). So if HE calls something Death, He is identifying spiritual death; you know, the Fire And Brimstone that you rail against so much due to…not LIKING the idea, basically?? Before He died, and bridged the gap between Evil Humans and the Righteous God, people would go to a place (termed “Abraham’s Chest” in the text) that’s best described as a “holding place.” It was nice and all, but it was still separated from G-d, until He paid the only price that absolves evil: blood.

    “…Jesus as a crazed cult leader. He goes out to the desert for 40 days, after which he ‘sees the Devil.’ ”
    He did. He is the Messiah, so it stands to reason that He’d be dealing with things on a level higher than your standard, mired-in-the-filth, sinful Humans. Likewise, His doing so fulfilled Hebrew prophecy about, guess who, THE MESSIAH. Why would He need to do so? Well, for one, He had/has no evil nature. Human nature has only been evil since the first man and woman committed high treason against their Creator, and aligned with a genuine monster. Without the actual Dark Angel to tempt Him, He wouldn’t have been “tempted in all ways [we] are tempted, yet sinned not,” which was kind of important to establish: Messiah was and is Perfect: period. But that’s probably lost on you.

    “I always like to imagine…”
    That, at least, is admittedly one of your strongest traits.

    “END OF THE WORLD”
    Actually, His statement was that ‘the Kingdom of G-d [was] at hand’. Anyone who looks into the Feasts of ADONAI can begin to understand the allusions they ALL make, to the Life of The Messiah. The Kingdom’s arrival was the establishment of our hearts, rather than a beautiful building with walls, as the dwelling place for Ruach Ha’Qodesh, “Spirit, The Holy”.

    “…give up all your belongings…”
    ‘The things that you own end up owning you.’ Guess where that’s from? Tyler Durden, in this interesting little movie called FIGHT CLUB. Tyler’s message echoes a lot of the stuff that Messiah Yeshua said to walk away from. Also, since you had no interest in pointing it out: He said to give all that money the guy had to…the poor and destitute, rather than to Him? Now THERE’S a modern cult leader, if I EVER saw one!!!

    Meanwhile, as an aside: notice that He said “One thing you lack.” One; single; thing. That’s rather amazing, when you think about it.

    “If you heard of someone doing that today, you’d laugh at him.”
    True enough…except if He was, oh I don’t know…performing the Messianic miracles, those that the Messiah was prophesied to do. When He answered Yochanan the Immerser’s (John the Baptist’s) followers, on their leader’s question on whether He was in fact the Messiah, “Go back to John and tell him what you have seen and heard–the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised to life…”, that was, line for line, the things Messiah was supposed to do, ‘in concert’ with each other, that no one else was going to do. So…again: your assumption, time and again throughout your material, is that Yeshua…”Jesus”…was “some crazy nut”…with the abilities of a G-d? Aha: you don’t dwell on the latter much, do you. Imagine that.

    Coming soon: POINT 2!

    • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh Bunting

      Saying that Jesus meant a “spiritual” death in Matthew 16:28 makes Jesus even MORE like Harold Camping. That’s the exact same excuse Camping used when his prediction failed. He claimed it was a “spiritual Judgment Day.” So that rebuttal fails and proves my point.

      What evidence supports your claim that Jesus “saw the Devil” and performed miracles? Or that human nature is evil? You’re just preaching instead of rebutting any of my claims. This whole whinefest can be summarized as “Yeah, you’re right about Jesus, but I like him. And he was magic!” It’s ridiculous.

      And by the way, Fight Club was a book, which was later made into a movie. You obviously only watched the movie. And the main character ‘kills’ Tyler. But yeah, the Tyler Durden character is a modern cult leader, like Jesus was in ancient times. So what?

      Don’t bother with point 2 if you don’t have a point 1. And you don’t.

  • thisagain

    He explicitly states that the most important thing that makes a person either good or bad is how they treat the left out and disadvantaged among us.

    I’m guessing this is far beyond your moral credentials.

    What he said was that he came to “fulfill the law,” specifically it’s best intentions. He said the law was given to people only because they were “hard hearted.” But the entirety of law “could be summed up by Love your neighbor as you love yourself and love God with all your heart.”

    So… would you stone yourself?

    He said those who broke “the law” and “taught others to do so” would be “called least in the Kingdom of Heaven,” and vice versa. A few things…

    1) He’s already summarized the law as about love, so why do you assume he’s talking about stoning etc.?

    2) He says those that break the law and encourage others to do so might still end up IN the Kingdom of Heaven.

    3) He says those who follow the law will be CALLED the greatest and vice versa. He could’ve said they would BE the greatest, but he says call… it seems to me like he’s pointing out the importance of following moral rules to keep people from writing you off, at least that could be part of it.

    I’ve read your stuff for a while. It sucks that progressive politics so often gets caught up in this rebellious middle schooler “religion sucks” bullshit.

    If you don’t get it, sorry for you. There are a lot of people who do, mixed in with the crazies and fundamentalists.

    ps – Instead of freaking out about creationism, which is completely harmless to the progress of mankind (prove it otherwise), why not focus some of your wrath towards the fact that many fundmanetalists in the US believe the end of the world through nuclear warfare is a thing to be desired (seriously, it’s in their movies), whereas internationalism and attempts to make food/healthcare human rights are obviously signs of the Anti-Christ (totally not exaggerating, I grew up in church and heard this exact thing often.)

    cheers

    • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh Bunting

      @thisagain – You’re not citing anything at all (people who use this kind of argument never do), so I just have to guess what you’re referring to. The parts that deal with being amongst the disadvantaged are in the context of Jesus’ apocalyptic cult. There’s nothing in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says to only fulfill the “best intentions” of the Old Testament law. You’re just making that up. In fact, Jesus seems to want to focus on making it even worse. Before, it was a crime to commit adultery, which is bad enough. But Jesus wanted to make it a crime to even think about adultery. Maybe you think that’s “the best intentions of the law.” I don’t. It’s savage and barbaric.

      I’ve never heard of any cult leaders who didn’t oversimplify their beliefs by saying they’re “all about love.” The problem with that is that people like yourself will take that one part out of context and blow it up out of proportion and ignore the rest of what he said. I assume he’s “talking about stoning, etc.” because he said he wanted to keep old testament law. Which involves stoning.

      If Jesus thought the OT law were moral, as you seem to, or that creationism is harmless, I really don’t know what to tell you. It’s a lot like the guy here who said that Jesus really did perform miracles and so his arrogance was justified.

  • thisagain

    WAIT!!! I take it all back! I just learned there is “NO GOD” from reading the petty and mean-spirited comments on this post! Thanks guys. I’m going to belittle the hopes and dreams of my loved ones.

    Okay, but seriously… why are you asking for “proof” about what an ancient person did or didn’t do? How do you think that could be obtained even for a secular historical figure?

    What’s important is the impact of the teaching and life story of a person, both on society and on an individual. That includes both the bad and the good things. Both the Falwells and the MLKs.

  • Chris Kelley

    Fun times…

    “Saying that Jesus meant a “spiritual” death in Matthew 16:28 makes Jesus even MORE like Harold Camping. That’s the exact same excuse Camping used when his prediction failed. He claimed it was a “spiritual Judgment Day.” So that rebuttal fails and proves my point.”

    Since there was plenty of evidence in the very Book that Camping claimed to cite that was in fact decidedly against his claims (including that whole “no man knows the hour, except the Father” part), I don’t suppose the reality that Camping was branded a lunatic by many firmly Bible-believing ministers means much to you. Big shock, really.

    Of course, with an open mind, I myself shouldn’t be so quick to discount the notion that all of them did die. As crazy as it might sound, maybe one of them (Yochanan/John, namely, of Good News, three letters and Apocalypse renown) did keep on going. I highly doubt it, since there’s plenty of other references to such things “he who drinks the water I give will never thirst again”, again a spiritual allusion…but G-d alone knows.

    “What evidence supports your claim that Jesus “saw the Devil” and performed miracles? Or that human nature is evil? You’re just preaching instead of rebutting any of my claims. This whole whinefest can be summarized as “Yeah, you’re right about Jesus, but I like him. And he was magic!” It’s ridiculous.”

    If we’re talking about evidence, what evidence supports your affirmation that His seeing Satan ‘makes Him a kook’? Your disbelief in the reality of spiritual beings, maybe? Charles Fort, classic investigator of anomalistics (coiner of the notion of “Fortean”, anomalous events) and satirist of most of the claims of the philosophy of science itself, had a phrase for it: damned data. “It can’t be, therefore it isn’t.” How many near-death experiences have been reported? How many of those reports include ‘negative experiences’…namely sightings of rather disturbing beings that seem rather…’hell-bent’…on dragging said soul to a certain place? More than most of the TV specials ever want to talk about. How many times is poltergeist activity reported? Are they ALL hoaxes or hallucinations, including the ones where family members develop claw or bite marks on their arms, legs, faces, etc.? That’s some amazing discipline, for a hoax.

    The spiritual world is real, and malevolent entities are real. Stick your head in the sand if you want, it just makes you more of a fool. Scream that none of your claims are refuted, and…you didn’t back them up with anything other than your subjectivist outlook on society, then and now: “…other really weird, ancient shit we all should have outgrown by now.” As opposed to really stupid, modern shit that we should all have recognized for the idiocy that it is…?

    And…’magic’. You mean the miracles, i.e. the overcoming of naturally-limiting mortal condition and/or physical laws? They’re still happening to this day. One I saw with my own eyes was someone half dead of emphysema in a wheelchair…as realistic a disease as leprosy still is…get up, and be healed from it. No medical records needing be brought up, in ‘on stage’ fashion; it just happened, and their was praising of the Creator who did it. Don’t believe it?? *Shrugs* It doesn’t matter if you don’t believe it; it happened. People are healed in the name of Yeshua/Jesus, daily. Period. “If you don’t believe Me for My words, then believe in My works.” ‘Magic’ has nothing to do with it.

    “And by the way, Fight Club was a book, which was later made into a movie. You obviously only watched the movie. And the main character ‘kills’ Tyler. But yeah, the Tyler Durden character is a modern cult leader, like Jesus was in ancient times. So what?”

    Yeah, and you forgot to mention that the other characters surrounding the main are somewhat if not outright confident that Tyler will shortly return, and the author of the book himself said the film was better. Way to try to completely ignore the Yeshuan message of telling people to give/throw away what they own, if it (ultimately an idol, one way or another) owns them.

    You’re right, though: why even bother. You’ve already made up your own mind, and further discussion IS rather pointless. Best to just let you shuffle your way to your eventual retroactive abortion, or whatever ‘liberal’ term I should be using these days. “Shake the dust off one’s feet, and go to the next town,” indeed.

    Shalom, all, if it means anything.

    • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh Bunting

      A lot of people think Camping is crazy. A lot of people thought Jesus was crazy (John 7:20, John 8:52). I’m finding it hard to believe that you’re even trying to argue against my point since you keep making it for me.

      The burden of proof is on the other side, since there being a devil and having seen it are both pretty extraordinary claims. There are plenty of cases in human history of people being crazy, but none of these kinds of supernatural claims being true. If you really believe in this “spiritual world” and angels and demons and all that goofy stuff, show the evidence instead of just preaching.

      Haha, I am familiar with Charles Fort and his beliefs. They’re funny. Do you also believe that world leaders are secretly reptilian aliens from another planet? And if not, why not?

      What’s your point in bringing up Fight Club? Are you assuming that I think it’s a great idea to throw away your belongings and join a cult just because I read it? Way to totally fail to counter anything I’ve said though.

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh Bunting

    There could easily be evidence for supernatural events. But then belief in them wouldn’t need to be faith-based.
    People argue about politics, economics, art, sports, and everything else. Why should religion be any different?

  • thisagain

    JOSH:

    “You’re not citing anything at all (people who use this kind of argument never do)…”

    What did you want me to cite? Glad you know all about “people like me” and what we “never do.”

    “The parts that deal with being amongst the disadvantaged are in the context of Jesus’ apocalyptic cult.”

    So because he emphasized that life was short his moral teaching is invalidated?

    “There’s nothing in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says to only fulfill the “best intentions” of the Old Testament law. You’re just making that up.”

    NOPE, YOU’RE WRONG. That is the primary purpose of the Sermon on the Mount…

    “Moses told you… but I tell you…” the same wording is repeated multiple times. Jesus said the law was given the way it was because people were hard in their hearts, but the ENTIRE law could be summed up by “love your neighbor as yourself.”

    This is an incredibly radical message, more radical than any secular politics to follow it, although the best secular radicals (including Marx, Chomsky, etc.) have readily and regularly recognized the debt progressives owe to Christian social teaching.

    LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR SUMS UP EVERYTHING according to Jesus. Yes, it invalidates stoning adulterors etc. You would not do that to yourself or to someone you love.

    As for why Jesus didn’t spell that out explicitly so that you personally would have one less issue with his teaching, I would venture a few guesses…

    A) He might have when speaking to someone else, but it was not included in the Gospel.

    B) He wasn’t trying to incite or confuse sincere religious people anymore than he already was or cloud his message. He believed in focusing on the most important principles: LOVE, forgiveness, trusting in God… he saw it as axiomatic that those preclude stoning (as have almost all of his followers), but didn’t want to known primarily as a defender of promiscuity.

    C) Old Testament law about stoning etc. was not regularly enforced, especially by the time of Jesus. For example, when Joseph learned Mary was pregnant he “decided to quietly divorce her so as not to expose her to public shame.”

    He wasn’t worried about her public STONING because that would have been an unusual occurrence, something that various witnesses would have had to drag her to court for.

    (Not saying that still isn’t f-ed up, but Jesus was building on the seeds of something decent growing out of something shitty, the same way progressive Americans can build from the good things in the slave-owner written Constitution while still hating slave-era relics like the electoral college, etc.)

    Basically, Bunting, you are seriously ignorant of the historical Christian religion. You think early Christians (those alive in the generation immediately following Jesus death, like Paul, for example) believed in stoning adulterers and so on?

    In Paul’s letters he scolds Christians for holding church orgies. Scolds them. Saying “everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial.” He didn’t say they should be stoned, that they were going to hell, or even that they should be thrown out of the church.

    As far as the “if you think about possessing a woman you have committed adultery with her in your heart,”

    Now you’re just bullshitting! You KNOW it wasn’t Jesus’s intention to recommend that everyone who has wanted to get with his neighbor’s wife should be stoned. In fact, by showing the similarity between thinking and doing he was trying to reduce social judgment for people’s personal mistakes, consistent with everything else he was saying and doing about it.

    (At least two of the women who were mentioned as members of Jesus / the disciples inner circle were women thought to have been prostitutes, which I’m sure would be just more cause for ridicule for people like you, even though it invalidates what you’re saying about Jesus and Old Testament law.)

    Finally, he didn’t say “I want to keep everyone following the Old Testament Law,” he said, “the law won’t pass away,” it’s still a “testament” in the sense that it says something spiritual, albeit something related the context in which it was formulated.

    Sorry to get so semantical, but you’re the one hung up on those words and missing the central message of Jesus’ teaching, life, and early followers.

    • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh Bunting

      What you could cite would be biblical verses, since that’s pretty much all we have to go on for what Jesus is supposed to have said. But that’d be getting a little too close to an evidence-based analysis for people like yourself, so I guess you won’t be doing that. And having skimmed through your responses, that definitely seems true.

      He wasn’t emphasizing that life is short. He thought the end of the world was coming, just like Harold Camping and Jim Jones and other people like that. So doing one last big rush to convert everyone doesn’t tell us anything about “moral teachings” any more than a holiday sale at a car dealership does.

      Just asserting that I’m wrong doesn’t make it so. That’s just preaching. So I’ll say again that your claim about how Jesus wanted to emphasize “the best intentions” of OT law (whatever that means) is just not true. If anything Jesus expands the scope of what’s a crime according to this God person, and invents an entirely new and horrible punishment to be applied to those who don’t worship him. He really sounds like a great guy, doesn’t he?

      I don’t know where you think I said anything about Paul-era Christians. The article I wrote was about Jesus.

      Do you seriously not even realize that you’re just re-writing the Gospels while I’m simply quoting them as they are? I mean sure, it’s easy to make up a completely different character, call it Jesus, and then re-write the dialogue. But so what? What does that have to do with anything? “See when Jesus said that the world’s going to end and that everyone who doesn’t believe in him will burn in hell forever, he really meant to love your neighbor!” That’s so lazy and pathetic, even for an wannabe apologist.

      Regarding creationism, I think it’s wrong to lie to people about important issues, and how we came to exist I think is a pretty important issue. Creationists want to impose their nonsense on public science classes. When they do that, it indoctrinates potential future scientists with pseudoscience, and they’re all each going to have to spend time learning biology after high school when they could be doing other things.

  • thisagain

    ps – I think the Old Testament Law is profoundly immoral and ALSO think creationism is harmless. Capitalist fundamentalism is what is holding back scientific progress.

    When has some kind of technological benefit for mankind been delayed due to someone’s belief that life shows signs of intelligent design?

  • thisagain

    About other cults and love. Cults emphasize love for other followers and potential converts.

    Jesus emphasized love for ALL outsiders, disposed, poor and disadvantaged people. (His predecessor John the Baptist was even more blunt, the wealth of those who had more than enough should go to those who didn’t have enough.)

    Socialism is Christianity adapted to a modern world. Let me guess… you don’t like socialism either because “it’s been tried” but then “it failed”.

    It takes a bigger human being to find the good from ideologies that have also been used to justify a lot of evil.

    But I guess that doesn’t make for punchy headlines and articles that are satisfying for your inner 13 year old.

  • http://anteprepro.xanga.com/weblog/ Anteprepro

    ” But the entirety of law “could be summed up by Love your neighbor as you love yourself and love God with all your heart.”

    So… would you stone yourself?”

    That explains these complaints perfectly!

    Jesus: The First Christian Cherry-Picker!

    ” It sucks that progressive politics so often gets caught up in this rebellious middle schooler “religion sucks” bullshit.”

    Please shut up for one minute, actually LOOK at the arguments being said instead of just focusing on one, without getting all blustery about how mean everyone is to your sacred cows and abandoning any claims to intellectual consistency when addressing things. Actually think about whether your counter-arguments actually make sense, or if they are just quibbles for the sake of quibbling. Do this before you accuse others of having the middle school mentality. Because your first counter-argument here consists entirely of muddling things. You resolve the “fulfill the law” quote and “law is love” quote by, apparently, interpreting it as saying that Jesus will only fulfill the OT law that relates to love God and love thy neighbor (and thus all that stuff about stonings, restrictions on diets and clothing, and whatever other icky stuff are all swept under the rug at the reader’s discretion). I’m afraid that you can’t just argue with that kind of deliberate inconsistency. You Christians who argue this are the opposite of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: It’s goalpost shifting all the way down. Shroedinger’s Cat Target Practice. Also, I repeat: Mark 7: ” 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”” In other words: you are wrong. The stonings are a major part of the OT law that Jesus wants preserved.

    “ps – Instead of freaking out about creationism, which is completely harmless to the progress of mankind (prove it otherwise), why not focus some of your wrath towards the fact that many fundmanetalists in the US believe the end of the world through nuclear warfare is a thing to be desired (seriously, it’s in their movies), whereas internationalism and attempts to make food/healthcare human rights are obviously signs of the Anti-Christ (totally not exaggerating, I grew up in church and heard this exact thing often.)”

    The latter two are far more fringe, with creationism being roughly 50% of the population and with the potential of seriously damaging our science education and thus our ability to be on the cutting edge of biological research. There’s also the principle of miseducating all children with such blatant bullshit under the guise of “teaching the (non-existent) controversy”. Are you seriously going to defend the largest deliberate misinformation movement currently in existence?

  • http://anteprepro.xanga.com/weblog/ Anteprepro

    “Sorry to get so semantical, but you’re the one hung up on those words and missing the central message of Jesus’ teaching, life, and early followers.”

    Yeah, dude. Don’t get trapped into this whole “words have meaning” game that THE MAN wants you to play. You gotta FEEL what Jesus was saying, not look at the words and sentences and that kind of nonsense. You have to read everything in context and figuratively and thinking of the history and of all the alternative meanings for each word and each sentence, sure, but it’s all about using all of that reinforce what you FEEL Jesus is saying, and ignoring everything you can’t finagle to feed into that narrative. Jesus is you, and me, and everything we want him to be. May the Christ be with you, and may you always remember: God was just kidding about the stoning thing. It was all a metaphor, I’m sure.

  • thisagain

    @ Josh Bunting

    “When they do that, it indoctrinates potential future scientists with pseudoscience, and they’re all each going to have to spend time learning biology after high school when they could be doing other things.”

    I appreciate that this is a clear answer rather than the ominous but vague calls to alarm that “intelligent design” evokes in somed people, but it is actually pretty silly.

    Future scientists will be slowed down in their research because a paragraph (or chapter let’s say) in a high school biology class told them that the way that life is so intricate, emergent and cool makes some people believe there is a supernatural purpose behind it?

    (For the record I’m not in favor of adding such chapters, I just don’t feel stronlgy about it one way or the other.)

  • thisagain

    @ Anteprepro

    “You have to read everything in context and figuratively and thinking of the history…”

    Must be great for you not to have to think about any context or history. Saves a lot of time.

    “Are you seriously going to defend the largest deliberate misinformation movement currently in existence?”

    Not defending it, but your claim is absolutely insane. How about global warming denial, the war on terror, the war on drugs, the “great man” theory of history, the idea that CEOs and stock holders produce society’s wealth, the idea that US foreign policy is a source for good, that terrorists just “hate our freedom,” that military spending makes us safer, that bailing out the banks is the solution to economic crisis, that universal health care will revive the vengeful ghost of Josef Stalin, etc., etc., etc.

    I doubt if creationism cracks the top 1,000 of the largest (let alone most dangerous) deliberate misinformation movements currently in existence.

    “the potential of seriously damaging our science education and thus our ability to be on the cutting edge of biological research.”

    And this would happen how? I’m not trying to be a jerk on this point in particular, I just don’t see any plausible scenario of cause and effect.

  • thisagain

    @ Josh Bunting and Antepro together…

    ” without getting all blustery about how mean everyone is to your sacred cows ”

    Wrong. I’m not blustery about people being mean. I’m just annoyed with people being jackasses.

    You claim that Jesus was in favor of stoning. Jesus has exactly one recorded commentary on stoning, and he proclaimed it to be absurd, since no person is blameless and therefore can’t pretend to be morally outraged by another person’s mistake.

    As for his more general beliefs, they focus on love and non-violence. The reason I don’t reference every verse about this (and there are dozens from Jesus alone) is that it is generally assumed even by cranky atheists I know that this is true. Even Nietzsche and Rand base their dislike of Christianity in large part on this.

    I understand you don’t like Jesus. You may have som coherent reasons to feel that, even if I don’t agree.

    The idea that he supports stoning and other brutal aspects of Old Testament law just because he once said (or is recorded to have said) “the law will never pass away,” in spite of that comment being against his major stated messages and actions, that is bad faith.

    And no, you didn’t mention Paul, but since the Gospels were written by early Christians, the beliefs of early Christians about what Jesus meant are definitely relevant to the texts that you’re condemning him from.

    I’m happy with your responses, in that open-minded people who stumble on this article and subject themselves to the full comment thread will see clearly the difference in what we believe and can make their own choice about it accordingly, assuming they were a bit on the fence beforehand.

    I guess that’s what we both wanted, a clear delineation of our views. You think mine are nonsense or worse… I would have preferred you actually understood what I was saying first, but lost cause and what not.

    I shouldn’t have compared you to children, it’s a cheap shot, but then again this is the internet (anonymous comment dept.) which seems to bring that out in people.

  • thisagain

    ps – Why do you all assume I’m Christian? And why do you assume “people like myself” don’t like “evidence-based approaches”?

    How exactly did you come to know all about my viewpoints on major issues, my area of studies and profession (science related, thanks for asking!)

    I know many religious people are closed-minded and judgmental, and that inhibits their intellectual growth among other things. Is it possible non-religious people can repeat those same mistakes?

  • thisagain

    just one more, sorry. the idea that movements towards world government and economic rights represent the “spirit of the antichrist” is definitely not fringe among evangelical leaders and teachers. unfortunately.

    this is coming from someone who was raised in mainstream evangelical denominations. i guess i’m not sure if most of the listeners in the pews fully agree, but they certainly don’t debate their pastors’ ideas on the subject.

  • Roxy

    This blog totally had made my morning! Dude are you serious! The writer of this blog, not sure where he/she gets their information from but it has “I’m very ignorant and dont know it” written all over it. Anyways, according to many comments on here, Jesus was in fact Perfect, he never sinned, nor did he disobey His father. Yes he was in a human body which we are sinners by nature, however bc he was also 100% God he was perfect. The fact that many ppl here including the blogger are soooo far gone on who Jesus actually is, saddens me and hopes that you take the time to actually study with an open mind, not a bigot way of thinking on the life and love of God. Anyone who says “God is fake, he’s a fraud”, you obviously have no commensense…

  • http://anteprepro.xanga.com/weblog/ Anteprepro

    “Must be great for you not to have to think about any context or history. Saves a lot of time.”

    Way to miss the fucking point of what I was saying: that you only think about such things in order to make it so that you never have to commit and can just find whatever nebulous interpretations appeal to you most. Which is totally what you just did in taking that quote from me out of context! Funny how that works out.

    “How about global warming denial, the war on terror, the war on drugs, the “great man” theory of history, the idea that CEOs and stock holders produce society’s wealth, the idea that US foreign policy is a source for good, that terrorists just “hate our freedom,” that military spending makes us safer, that bailing out the banks is the solution to economic crisis, that universal health care will revive the vengeful ghost of Josef Stalin, etc., etc., etc.”

    Do 50% of our entire population believe this, and do all of these have absolutely no evidence at all? I may be willing to concede that all of these are more dangerous, but I don’t feel that they are both 1. as common and 2. as baseless as creationism. Though depends on the specifications of “the war on terror”. Some of these are only half-truths and are also just half-assed ideas that people uncritically hold onto, rather than elements in a relentless campaign to misinform (“hate our freedom”, “source for good”, “bailing out banks”). I will grant that global warming denial, the two War on Concepts, the Socialist Healthcare meme, and military and CEO worship are closer to the money, though. Global warming denial is more dangerous, and a better conservative astroturf science denial venture, but it just doesn’t have the same amount of lies (while still having the same number of deluded morons and people who spout the same lies and fallacies, over and over and over).

    “And this would happen how? I’m not trying to be a jerk on this point in particular, I just don’t see any plausible scenario of cause and effect.”

    It’s simple: if we teach students creationism is as true as evolution, or don’t teach evolution at all, those who go into fields relevant to biology and get into research will not be able to have evolution as an explanation. This means that, without knowledge of how species are connected and how natural selection works, it will be harder to use animal models for medicine, it will be harder to understand and combat diseases that develop resistances to antibiotics, etc., and we will give up a key element of understanding ecology. To say nothing of the possible discoveries we will forfeit by giving up on a key principle of modern biology. It’s akin to scrapping relativity from physics.

    “. Jesus has exactly one recorded commentary on stoning, and he proclaimed it to be absurd, since no person is blameless and therefore can’t pretend to be morally outraged by another person’s mistake.”

    So, again, no one pays fucking attention to fucking Mark fucking 7. Or to the fact that it is fucking ridiculous to fucking draw general principles from the one time Jesus said to not stone someone. Do you realize also that this principle, if you buy that is actually what Jesus meant, of “we can’t punish someone else because we aren’t perfect” means that we forfeit any claim to a justice system, at all? I guess that’s consistent with “turn the other cheek”, but I doubt that that was meant as a general principle to guide our everyday lives either.

    “As for his more general beliefs, they focus on love and non-violence.”

    And how everyone will burn in Hell.

    “The idea that he supports stoning and other brutal aspects of Old Testament law just because he once said (or is recorded to have said) “the law will never pass away,” in spite of that comment being against his major stated messages and actions, that is bad faith.”

    What is really bad faith is your disbelief in his explicit statement that he will uphold the Old Testament Law, and the fucking other quote I have where he explicitly mentions stoning as part of that law, in favor of wide-eyed interpretations of other passages in an attempt to say “nah, that doesn’t sound like him”.

    “I guess that’s what we both wanted, a clear delineation of our views. You think mine are nonsense or worse…”

    Not really nonsense: intentionally skewed towards the status quo by intentionally ignoring some segments of the Bible because of your interpretations of other segments. Standard “feel-good” interpretation via cherry picking.

    “the idea that movements towards world government and economic rights represent the “spirit of the antichrist” is definitely not fringe among evangelical leaders and teachers. ”

    Key word: “evangelical”. They are themselves on the (rather thick, right-wing) fringe of mainstream Christianity. Creationism in the U.S. is pretty much a major element in most forms of Christianity, aside from Catholicism (but it still comes up occasionally) and other very liberal breeds of Christian.

  • http://anteprepro.xanga.com/weblog/ Anteprepro

    Roxy, the adults are talking here. Spouting the basic assumptions of Christianity without actually offering any evidence of those assumptions is exactly the problem this article is complaining about. You have offered nothing except to show the kind of crap that has made us all sigh in disbelief at the very start of this. Address the content with points of actual substance instead of “Jeebus was God so obviously He is good (which is also liberal ?)”. Or go back to playing Four-Square with little Suzie and Maxine instead of polluting the internet by arrogantly presenting your unevidenced presumptions as a rebuttal.

  • http://anteprepro.xanga.com/weblog/ Anteprepro

    “Josh, you are not quoting actual scripture.”

    Familiar with the terms “hoist them by their own petard” or “beat them at their own game”, Chris? I think that’s the general jist of this phenomenon of fighting English Biblical interpretations while still using the English translation of the Bible. Which is important because it shows what a seething pile of self-refuting nonsense this Christianity we observe today is, even barring translation difficulties.

    • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh Bunting

      Can anyone condense any arguments by Jesus fanboys and fangirls that haven’t already been refuted? There’s no way I’m going to go through all that tripe.

  • Anthony

    Chris Riordan: I dislike the term agnostic and think that those without a religious affiliation who use it are mealy mouthed cowards. Your assertion that “no one knows, end of discussion” is pretty arrogant as is your earlier conjecture that atheists who debate with the religious “are worried that, in the event they are wrong, they won’t be lonely in hell/purgatory.” Atheists engage the religious in debate and discussion with the hope that the religious person might, at the very least, recognize the difference between rationality and dogmatic beliefs. It is the “agnostic” that can be reasonably accused of being secretly concerned about the possible supernatural repercussions of their worldview. You believe in no known religion, and yet you concede the possibility of the existence of some form of archetypal god, and this in spite of a total lack of evidence (and a mountain of evidence to the contrary). So- who’s afraid here? Also, back to your assertion that “noone knows.” People with a basic understanding of what is evidently true- do in fact know- to within a reasonable certainty- that none of the gods that the human race has historically worshipped- exist. That’s a straightforward fact with no room for arguement in the realm of empirical reality. The typical agnostic tends to state that they don’t believe in a god such as Yaweh, Allah, etc., but they cannot know that there isn’t some all powerful abstract “source” or “intelligence”. Why bother with that if not to hedge your bets because you think this “being” might take mercy on you when you die? Or maybe you just don’t like conflict. Telling people you are an agnostic lets them know that you will only ever take the debate about religion so far. Also- your arguement that “science is incapable of examining or testing for the existence of things that have no physical effects etc.” is childish to the point of absurdity. Please stop this.

  • Anthony

    I am writing this to be intentionally rude.

  • Anthony

    Everyone must recognize that thisagain is in a “science related” profession. He is a sandwich technician. No? Telecommunications facilitator? Sanitation engineer? Statistical analysis distributor?

  • thisagain

    @ Anteprepro

    1) “we can’t punish someone else because we aren’t perfect” means that we forfeit any claim to a justice system, at all?”

    No, only to a system with punishment/retribution rather than prevention/restitution as goals.

    I’m not for the retribution system, how about you?

    2) I had to read Mark 7 like 5 times. At first I had no idea how you took a chapter consisting largely of Jesus borderline making fun of Old Testament law, calling it “merely human tradition” and “far from the heart of God…”

    He explicitly says that Jewish dietary laws are INVALID and should not be regularly followed.

    How could you claim this chapter has to do with Jesus being pro-stoning etc?

    I THINK you’re talking about when he calls them out for not following the “stoning of disobedient children” text. (Obviously they didn’t follow it, it was ridiculous.)

    Here’s the leap that just boggles my mind… you think based on that Jesus is telling them, “Yeah, so what you should really do, and what I came here to tell everyone, is to stone every child who disobeys! That’s my message!”

    I thought I was very familiar with anti-Christian / skeptic arguments of every kind. I have never heard this chapter cited by any of them before. There’s a reason why.

    ps – Evangelicals make up about 60% of US Protestants, and continue to grow while mainline denominations decline.

  • thisagain

    I’m not surprised Josh is unable to understand or respond coherently to a single point I’ve made, except to label me a “fanboy.”

    He did the same thing when I questioned his hatchet piece on Wikileaks. End of “debate”? He slapped on a “face palm” image. This is what political debate is coming to in America. Eye-rolling is the “nuclear option.”

    I’m sorry I post a lot here. The central aspect of the world’s largest belief system is under debate, it deserves more than patronizing one-liners.

    It is weird to do it in this forum, but I wasn’t asked to speak in front of a crowd, so here it goes…

  • thisagain

    And now my AWESOMEST and LONGEST comment. (Maybe should have just led with this one.)

    I’m both deeply admiring and deeply suspicious of religious people. Life has shown me some of the best and worst people that Christianity has to offer. I’ve spent quite a while in Latin America and Africa, which is where I found most of the best.

    When you focus on that verse, “the law will never pass away,” you act like it’s a cop out to bring in historical context or relevance to Jesus’ other teaching.

    Let me share a true short story about Christians from Central America. I met some in a community health project, I found out they had been tortured by death squads in the 80′s and was asking how had they ever been able to move on and even forgive those who brutalized them. Anyway, in that conversation they mentioned how a particular quote from Jesus that had at first confused them had later helped them survive.

    Jesus once told his disciples “I speak in parables so some won’t understand.” They didn’t understand that until serious government and paramilitary persecutions began.

    At that point priests, pastors and church-goers who directly rebuked the social hierarchy in El Salvador were put on lists and carried out in the middle of the night, many never seen again.

    So they developed ways of speaking out that indirectly condemned social injustice, but in a way that the authorities couldn’t pick up (or couldn’t be too sure of).

    So, back to Jesus.

    Y’all want to be play armchair quarterback and imply that a moral Jesus should have said straight up, “Old Testament law, the most sacred thing to all you people and basis of your whole society, is violent, superstitious bullshit, and you should all disavow it right now!”

    Maybe you even imagine him getting in some witty and R-rated barbs at the Torah’s expense, as you might imagine you would if in his time and place.

    I mentioned earlier that (from all I’ve read) stoning was not generally the end result of known adultery in Israel at that time, HOWEVER, stoning or worse most definitely WERE the result for straight-up blasphemy, especially blasphemy with heavy political overtones (remember that the High Priests were the local government).

    INEVITABLE RESULT: IMMEDIATE and brutal execution for Jesus and all his known sympathizers. His message never gets out, his followers never multiply, quite possibly the enlightenment, based on ideals of universal human dignity and solidarity, happens centuries late as a result.

    There was a reason Jesus was sometimes indirect in his wordings. Maybe my explanation of his reason isn’t the best, but it’s certainly more plausible to me then the idea that one abstract/mystical quote from Jesus about the law, taken out of all context, cancels out everything else he said and did.

    (And yes, even that one statement is immediately connected with the statement that he was going to “fulfill” the law. Not sure why you’re acting like I inserted that word into the text myself.)

  • Anthony

    This again thisagain?

  • thisagain

    I’m going to make this my last post. Didn’t mean to annoy. But people keep bringing up Jesus and hell.

    3 Little Known Facts

    1) Jesus always used the word “Gehenna,” the name of a specific garbage dump outside the city, where trash was burned to prevent the spread of disease. (This word is the source of all his comments on “hell”.) So the question isn’t, “Was he speaking metaphorically?” (Obviously.) But, “what was the meaning of the metaphor?”

    2) Whenever phrases are translated as “eternal punishment” etc in the new testament, the word translated as eternal also has the meaning “absolute” or “final” in the original texts. Many scholars believe that was the intended meaning of the authors, but not just scholars…

    3) The “eternal torment” view of the afterlife was not held by a majority of early Christians or early Christian leaders. Again, I’m not gonna lay out a thesis worth of citations here, I’m almost finished…

    BUT if you want some real evidence for this, take it from the opponents of their view, who ultimately won in terms of official dogma. They themselves complained that the eternal torment view of hell was not widely accepted.

    It became official church dogma when Christianity became the state religion of Rome, so it’s hardly a coincidence that the emerging view of hell, a dark and hideous underworld where you hang out with a creepy looking anti-god, matches Roman mythology extensively.

    Okay, that’s it guys. You don’t know me and I don’t know you. This is a “dissident” website and I definitely respect that spirit. I appreciate that you allowed my comments. Feel free to tear them apart or ignore them.

    I’m done, peace out.

  • progressivedouchebag
  • Anthony

    Yeah, “peace out.” Douche.

  • http://anteprepro.xanga.com/weblog/ Anteprepro

    Thisagain: 1. A system with prevention/restitution as a goal still needs to do so by means of punishment. That’s fantastic that you’re trying to see the most liberal possible motives, again, but it’s just hand-waving.
    2. “I THINK you’re talking about when he calls them out for not following the “stoning of disobedient children” text. (Obviously they didn’t follow it, it was ridiculous.)”

    Exactly. When chastising them for following kosher law, he uses this as an example of God’s law that they don’t follow in lieu of their own, human traditions. If it was a ridiculous law, why is it in the Old Testament in the first place, put in place by the same God Jesus claims to be, in the same laws Jesus explicitly says he will uphold, and is brought up as an example of God’s law that people disobey? Do you interpret it otherwise? That he is not just saying “Oh, kosher is soooo 1000 years ago” but also saying “Oh, those Ten Commandments are sooooo 1000 years ago”? Because that remains to be seen.

    3. Upper level estimate of Evangelicals is around 35% of the U.S., which is 45% of Christians. Not quite as fringe as I thought, granted, but not your unevidenced 60% either.

    “Jesus once told his disciples “I speak in parables so some won’t understand.””

    Because He is a good, caring God who wants everyone to have a chance at salvation and to have those who learn of his grand moral teachings to be able to live a moral life! Of course! It only makes sense that a Mangod trying to teach people a new moral code would take on the same M.O. as the fucking Riddler.

    “Y’all want to be play armchair quarterback and imply that a moral Jesus should have said straight up, “Old Testament law, the most sacred thing to all you people and basis of your whole society, is violent, superstitious bullshit, and you should all disavow it right now!””

    Nah, a wink-wink nudge-nudge and self-contradictory stances on the subject should suffice. Because obviously Jesus was vewy vewy afwaid of getting executed for being mouthy against authority figures. It’s why he lived such a long life. Oh, wait. It’s why he was terrified when he expected to be killed. Oh, wait. It’s all because he knew he’d be silenced forever when he was executed. Oh, wait. Why exactly is the guy who claims to be God afraid to say what he really means?

    ” Maybe my explanation of his reason isn’t the best, but it’s certainly more plausible to me then the idea that one abstract/mystical quote from Jesus about the law, taken out of all context, cancels out everything else he said and did.”

    Certainly no need to have a coherent idea of what Jesus meant using as much of what he said as possible. Nah, disregard that quote because it means that he might support stoning! Like he implies he does in that other quote that totally doesn’t mean what it says! And him directly saying something about his opinion toward the OT is “abstract/mystical” but “He who is without sin cast the first stone” in the context of one person being stoned to death for adultery (doesn’t that not happen, according to you?) obviously, in a non-”abstract/mystical” way, means that we should never, in any circumstances, stone people to death for crimes anymore. No need for Jesus to say that directly. He said that to directed a bunch of random people to save a woman’s life, so it must apply universally. Oh, and to say nothing of the fact that the authenticity of those popular lines, that serve as such a stunning defense of the morality of Christ, happen to be in question. Again: Cherry picking for the lose.

  • Anthony

    Chris Riordan: Now you are sticking up for the accuracy and/or validity of Wikipedia? Really? I’ll totally own up to my posts cosisting of arguements in favor of the author’s main point, which I happen to agree with (not quite sychophantry, but whatever). And yes- I have resorted to name calling. Bad form perhaps, I just get frustrated with silly people. I wouldn’t classify my posts as babbling, I thought they were coherent enough. I also wouldn’t categorize what I’m writing as trolling necessarily. I’m not going to sit here and go point by point without having a bit of fun. You are a practicing Christian? I thought you were a “militant agnostic”. How does that work? Fuck- please don’t answer that.
    Don’t take yourself so seriously kiddo. When you are hanging out with Jesus in heaven you and he can always have a good laugh about the internet atheists who are roasting in hell (or have been annihilated or however you want to interpret it).

  • Anthony

    Chris Riordan is a confused teenager and a doo doo face.

  • Anthony

    Yeah that’s all really interesting. Doo doo face.

    • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh Bunting

      @ThisAgain you better do another TL;DR sermon or else you might fall behind in the mindless cliches contest.

  • Anthony

    Yes- it’s all true. I’m a troll and an ass kisser. If Bunting or any member of The Beast staff were here in front of me, I’d filate them and tickle their taint if they asked me to. And yes I am also a mental midget and have nothing to contribute to any discussion. I haven’t made one salient point in any of my posts. I have been intellectually excoriated by the esteemed former editor of this wonderful online zine, the christian agnostic Mr. Chris Riordan. (or whatever his real name is) As he has redundantly written- I don’t know him or who he is. I yield sir. You win. Your judgement of me is final and everlasting. In the words of Reuben Cogburn: “I bow out.” Rather than continue this pointless back and forth- I will concede you are the victor. Although I will continue to criticize your posts, any responses from you will be ignored. You are clearly a superior human and I understand now that corresponding with you is an act of futility. Good day.

  • Anthony

    Regarding Christian agnosticism, the fundamental problem for me is the mental partioning that people who claim this belief system seem to want to engage in. A Christian agnostic acknowledges their uncertainty concerning the claims of Christianity, and yet they assert their belief in said claims in the same breath. This dissonance concerning belief and knowledge is the problem for me. I consider myself a rationalist. Any beliefs I hold are based on reasonable evidence. Religious beliefs are not. They just aren’t. So, to proclaim oneself an agnostic (in the sense that some type of god, in an archetypal form presented and worshipped by humanity, might actually exist) is almost a denial of (or a demonstration of ignorance of) scientific facts which demonstrate that the opposite is true. From the standpoint of my personal worldview, beliefs and knowledge are inseperable and interdependent. Knowledge sometimes leads to belief, and vice versa. But they are ALWAYS based on reasonable observable evidence. The Christian agnostic believes themselves capable of separating the two because they hold a different definition of belief than the rationalist. When they speak of belief, they are referring to a position held without reasonable evidence. They are referring to an emotionally subjective opinion based on cultural tradition, doctrine, dogma, scripture, historical records, interpretation- etc. Again, none of these meets the criteria of reasonably observable evidence- even losely.

  • Anthony

    Regarding Wikipedia, this site is useful for basic referencing but it is not considered a 100% credible source of information by, well, anyone. Any community college professor (high school teacher also, come to tnink of it) will tell you that they’d better not see Wikipedia in your list of sources or references when you turn in a paper. Again, it is a good reference for other accessing other websites and basic information, but don’t assume that it is accurate or valid. K kids?
    Regarding the “statement”:
    “By its own definition, science is incapable of examining or testing for the existence of things that have no physical effects, because its methods rely on the observation of physical effects. Proponents of supernaturalism say that their belief system is more flexible, which allows more diversity in terms of intuition and epistemology. Some opponents argue that many supernatural claims involve physical phenomena that can be tested, but believe that scientific tests to date have failed to uphold the validity of those claims.”
    I can’t even begin to address the problems with this statement. This doesn’t even qualify as a line of reasoning on any level. It really does look like something a young teenager would compose. Sad really.
    So, science is incapable of testing for non-existent things. And? What is your point exactly? It’s difficult for me to believe that someone who wrote this (or cut and pasted it, or whatever) was ever an editor anywhere, let alone this magnificent online zine (the staff of which I’d filate, etc.). Is filate a word?

  • George O’Neill

    Face it: if you belive in miracles or magic, you are living outside of reality. REALITY. Get it through your thick, christian skulls. If you make any exscuse for jesus and his special powers, get your fucking head checked out, and also stop breeding please.

  • George O’Neill

    Fuck historical perspective. It doesn’t make you apologists any better than those of us who detest religion. Look at the results..results… results of this jesus horseshit.

    Fuck context. Bullshit is always recognizable as such, regardless of the “context” of which it was written in the sand.

    George O’Neill

  • Anthony

    Let that baby go troll!

  • Pingback: free playstation 3

  • Archives