Anyone who actually READS the Bible would agree...

[HopeHoops]

The GOP Fundies aren't Christians. They're something one might call "pagans", except that it would smear the fine people who self-define themselves as pagans. I'm not sure there is a word for it other than "damned-assholes" and Satan is setting out extra plates at the hell-roast for when they arrive.

The GOP bible is about two pages of heavily edited excerpts from the Bible. "Suck in the idiots" is a powerful strategy.

[RKP5637]

1. The GOP Fundies aren't Christians, "they" are the evil we were warned of... n/t

[Touchdown]

2. And Barry Goldwater is "No Republican!"

Face it. They co-opted your faith. They own it now.

It is you that is not a Christian anymore. It's been stolen from you.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. That's how I see it, too.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

12. Interesting Proposition...

What should those people who adhere to the Christian faith but who don't have anything in common with the Conservative Christian movement call themselves?

I ask because I wonder how Barry Goldwater would define himself today -- certainly not a Republican. But a Democrat? I don't know. Maybe something else.

[roguevalley]

68. Ebionites, Nazarites, Messianic Jesus People, Essenes, Christian

Judeans, Spiritual beings who love the teachings of the Rabbi.

[elocs]

3. GOP Fundies are not Christians inasmuch as they are not Christ-like

and you could not say of them as the song goes "you will know they are Christians by their love". They believe in a buffet Bible where they pick and choose which scriptures are applicable. I am sure that Jesus, a great and radical Liberal, would not recognize them as followers of his teachings.

[Dogtown]

14. "No True Scotsman"

To the rest of the world, outside your faith, anyone self-defined as a Christian, is. How are we to decide? Perhaps you "True Christians" need to start making more noise than the "No True Christians"...

[Shell Beau]

5. It isn't up to me to tell anyone if they are a Christian or not.

You can get an idea by someone's actions though.

[jonnyblitz]

27. there are good christians and bad christians. it's annoying when

people want to imply that christians can never be bad by claiming that the bad ones aren't "real" christians.

[Shell Beau]

31. Christians often act un-Christian. I will never

tell someone they aren't a Christian by their actions. It is really none of my business, but if you are a person who has a holier than thou attitude, I expect you to walk the walk. I think that is the problem these days. So many Christians are cherry picking what they think the Bible is against, while at the same time doing something else they have deemed acceptable even though it may go agaist the teachings of the Bible.

[HopeHoops]

79. I call that "bashing gays at a clam bake".

Leviticus has some rather inconvenient "abominations" that they simply ignore.

[rebel with a cause]

71. A person claiming to be a christian is not suppose to be perfect

because no one ever is. Persons claiming to be christians are suppose to be striving to live by the teachings of Jesus. This is not judging an individual but saying what the group is suppose to be striving for. The meaning of the word christian is just that. I don't claim to be a christian because I don't think I live up to that standard.

As far as some people that claim to be holier than thou, these people may be more like the pharisees. Just read the parables or

[The Straight Story]

6. It is said that in the end days the church will turn 'evil' (if you will)

They will turn from the teachings of Christ and many will fall away.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. So that would make Pat Robertson the Anti-Christ.

Come to think of it, that explains a lot...

[The Straight Story]

13. Spent many years studying eschatology

The biggest sign for me is the church. And what I see going on now with it is a tad scary.

[elocs]

16. I spent a lot of time studying eschatology to prove the Rapture and concluded it's a false doctrine

created by forcing and torturing scripture as well as not recognizing already fulfilled prophecy.

[The Straight Story]

26. I would agree (nt)

[RKP5637]

15. Sure does!!! He is one evil SOB! n/t

[treestar]

7. The GOP fundies are racists

"Christian" is just their code for "European" or "white."

Note that they had no use for Obama's church, and just went on about Rev.Wright.

[kestrel91316]

8. They as a group are the antichrist.

[sweetpotato]

10. Hypocrites is what I call them.

that is all.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. Christianity is defined differently depending on the group you belong to.

So I disagree.

The KKK is a Christian based organization that believes Jesus was white and God created White people better than others. They are still Christians. The Megachruches that preach that God wants you to be rich and if you must screw over every person you meet to get there, well that is the will of Jesus, who didn't really mean all that stuff about the poor. All those people that believe that the ten commandments are the basis of all law and the only really important part of the bible, they are Christians who base their belief on Christ, as they see them. Those people that thank Jesus everytime someone sets off a bomb in a abortion clinic or kills an abortion doctor or kills an abortion doctor, they are Christians. Those Christian soldiers working for Xe, well they are Christians.

But so are people like Mother Theresa, and the millions who believe in progressive ideas of helping the poor and providing health care for all are Christians.

There are good and bad aspects in Christianity, as there is good and bad in any religion or idea.

[stray cat]

19. Words have meanings unless a good dem can blow up abortion clinics

Words do have real meanings and just because people use them incorrectly doesn't mean the word means nothing just that some people are stupid

[Ozymanithrax]

30. There was a time in history when Democrats owned slaves and denied...

freedom to anyone not white. Lieberman and the blue dogs, no matter how much we hate the idea, are Democrats. Concepts and ideologies, like any human tool, have more than one edge. They are not simply words.

[HopeHoops]

24. Yeah, Jesus was white, had blond hair and blue eyes.

Now THAT would fit the typical Jew of the period, eh?

Oh, and the Bible was originally written in modern English.

Dumbfuckery is astonishing, isn't it?

[Ozymanithrax]

32. Yes, it is astonishing, but that doesn't mean...

that dumbfuckery can not be Christian. Christianity is a relgious ideology that can and is used to Justify whatever a group of believers want it to justify.

[HopeHoops]

36. Real Christians don't watch FOX

Christianity is an honorable belief system. It has (and still is) been used as a political control device since the Roman Empire appropriated it. The GOP is fabricating crap in the name of Christianity now. Real Christians aren't Republicans. Would Jesus approve of the GOP?

[Ozymanithrax]

38. Christianity is a belief system that can be used by anyone.

Jesus was an early reformed rabbi who has been dead for almost 2000 years. The system owes more to Paul than Jesus.

[HopeHoops]

40. BINGO!

Not many people know that!

And Paul wrote most of his stuff decades after Jesus died.

[Diclotican]

69. Ozymanithrax

Ozymanithrax

It is true, that the intelctual basis on Cristianity have more to thank to Paul, than to Jesus Crist. Not becouse he dosen't told it as he was seeing the New Testamente. But more for th fact that Paul was a man who wrote a lot to the new churches in the Empire, managed the Church in a way Jesus Crist would never do, becouse he was not a man who was in managment. He was after all a profet a carpenter, and if we look sidevice at it, a simpler man than Paul who had the education and the "Know-how" to build what would be the Cristian Church in the future. Not that I belive that Paul, or others of the early apostles in the church was ever beliving that Cristianity would surive all the persecutiones the Roman Emperors was trown at them, and that Cristianity not just survived, but also was the State Religion of the Roman Empire. A roman empire that for more than 300 year was doing it best to try to kill off as many cristians as posible.. But Cristianity survived, and was first tollerated, then made state religion in both parts of the Empire. And even survived the dark ages, and in many way was THE glue who made the posible for Europa to be what it become after the darkest ages was over. Specially becouse in most parts of europe, specially what become France England and so on the Church and it monestaries and so on was the only place you could manage some of the great knowlegde that was in the Roman Empire.. Even thou most of the knowlegde was not to survive, and the europeans had to made the wheel up twice so to speak, the Church was there, and after the "downfall" in the 400-500 and 600 AD the Church in most parts of Europe still survived, and was rebuild to what it was in the middle ages.. And it is noteworty that even when the Kings of different cultures and nations in Europe could just build "castles" in wood, the Church could still build their church and monestaries in stone. The Church was far better to administrative large building project, and the different kings and emperors, like Charlemange was werry smart, when they started to use monks, and others with education from the church in areas where it first was not been used for many many years.. Even a sort of byrocraty was being rebuild by Charlemange. But after his death the Empire was parted out, and it was never to really repeat it self in Europe, that an EMPEROR was in sharge of most, if not most of Europe.. In theory it was that, but in practice it was never like that. The different cultures, and nations was never to be under one sole ruler again.. Germany even disgenerate to more than 300 different states, with everything from free City States, to principalies who was ruled by Bishops.. And untill 1870 Germany as an whole state was never to be anything that a dream. But that is for another time to talk about I guess:)

The Early Church and early Cristianity have a lot of thanks to men like Paul, but many others, like the great church fathers, who in the 300s 400 and 500 build a great idea of what the Church could be like. And many of them also ended up as early martyres, becouse they often defended their homet towns, and citys against the barbarians who in many cases overrun the roman empire. Specially in the West the Empire was fallen by the 400s, and for all purposes the Roman Empire was ended long before the last roman Emperor was declared fired and the robes and the other emperors symbols was give back to the Emperor in the East. Who for more than 1000 year thereafter should be where the Roman Empire survived as more than a idea by men.. I mearly survived to th 600s where the empire had a large group of powerfull and hard working emperors who really put the Byzantium on the map. Even tho they lost most of the East to the new religion, Islam it surived, and was a military force to recon with for more than 500 year.. Yes they had their up and downs, but for the most part the east roman empire surived. And it is maybe worth tellin that the population in the east roman empire for the most was better educated about cristianity that was the case in the West, who for the most part never really got the same level of eaducation as in the east side of the empire. And it was in the East in many houndres of year some of the greatest church, and some of the most important places was.. And many of the churches in the east, was far greater than the same could be told in the west. Most becouse most of the City's surived the onslaugt from the barbarians.. And prospered greatly as the east roman empire surived, repealled mot of the barbarians, and conquered new lands. And also made it posible for cristianity to surive...

Diclotican

[JNelson6563]

81. I appreciate the historical perspective.

Good to see you Diclotican. If I recall, you live in the land where many of the barbarian raids were launched from. :-)

Cheers,
Julie

[phasma ex machina]

86. An old study (link lost to me, sorry) ranked Fox as most anti-Christian by a factor of 2.

OTOH Ted Turner (infamous for his hatred of Christianity) made many great biblical movies in the 1990s.

G-d works in mysterious ways.

[damntexdem]

17. Worshippers of Baal. Or devil worshippers.

Seriously, the god they depict as theirs is one no reasonable person would want to relate to, certainly would not be willing to worship.

[Ozymanithrax]

34. We are talking about religion, and relgion is not reasonable or logical.

It is magical thinking.

[Goblinmonger]

89. Yeah, it's like they worship a god that would kill kids with a bear

because they called some guy the god liked "baldy."


oh, wait.....No, here we go...

It's like they worship some freaky god that would ask a guy to kill his only son just because.....Oh, wait, another bad example....


It's like they worship a evil god that would completely fuck with a guy's life just because he had a bet with the devil......damn, I'll get an example for you yet...


It's like they worship an F'd up god that would torch a whole town because they are evil but spare the family (minus the wife) in which the daughters get their dad drunk so they can have sex with him and get pregnant....damnit!

I give up. What were you saying again?

[elocs]

18. There must be bottom line attributes that make one a Christian in the same way

that there should be bottom line attributes that make one a Democrat. We have DINOs and undoubtedly there are CINOs. Just because there are people who call themselves Christians does not mean they are.

[YOY]

20. They turned a religion about love joy and acceptance into an apocalyptic death cult.

Sheesh...give them credit. That took skill.

[Kablooie]

21. They are Satan's foot soldiers masquerading as Christians. "Kill your president for Jesus!"

[immoderate]

22. Most arguments are about the meaning of words.

So which definition of Christian should we use? There's no real authority here once you're outside of a courtroom or classroom. Even the dictionary, which usually includes all the meanings only reports on how words are being used, not on how you're supposed use them.

Since I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Christian, I supposedly have no ax in this fire. Of course, I am always put off by people using Christian as a synonym for virtue. But if people want to call themselves Christian, who's really to deny them. Frankly, I might differ with some of them over the amount of prestige to associate with that label.

--imm

[DailyGrind51]

23. "free-market" capitalism is their religion and the dollar sign is their icon.

They worship Mammon.

[UndertheOcean]

25. Anyone who reads the bible should agree that it is the most violent collection of vile ever written

smiting , floods , genocide , vengeance , intolerance ...all are well represented within it's puke inducing paper ..... I don't know about the New Testament though because I threw away my vomit engulfed copy before getting there.

Even Mein Kempf read like Little Red riding hood compared to this .


Some people derive their Morals from this book ?

[ZombieHorde]

28. Anyone who actually READS the Bible would agree...

Christians don't exist.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016&version=NIV">Mark 16:17,18

17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

[winyanstaz]

56. umm dang..that sounds like a witch to me :)

hehehhee

[demwing]

80. Oh! Pentecostals!

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

Snake handling or serpent handling is a religious ritual in a small number of Pentecostal churches in the U.S., usually characterized as rural and Holiness. The practice began in the early 20th century in Appalachia, spreading to mostly coal mining towns. The practice plays only a small part of the church service of churches that practice snake handling. Practitioners believe serpent handling dates to antiquity and quote the Book of Mark and the Book of Luke to support the practice:

And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (Mark 16:17-18)

Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. (Luke 10:19)

[ConnorMarc]

29. I Read My Bible Daily

And the GOP are certainly NOT Christians.

Nor are the so-called and/or self-proclaimed "Christian Right" they are not Christians.

Jesus was for the LEAST of us, its all through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and beyond...in fact the ONLY group of people that Jesus outwardly attacked/rebuked were the Pharisees and Scribes...aka the Republicans and Conservatives and legalists of their time.

[Ozymanithrax]

35. Pharisees and scribes were religous leaders akin to the Taliban, not

Republicans.

[ConnorMarc]

37. I Figured I'd Have At Least One Dissenting

Tea-bagger countering my arguments.

Whatever floats your boat bub.

Jesus certainly never rallied for the rich.

The bible states explicitly "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven."

Twist and spin away bub.

[stopbush]

58. Re: Camel/eye of the needle saying in the Bible

Perhaps you don't know that there are a number of different interpretations for this supposed saying of Jesus, and that they run the gamut from your reading that it's impossible for a rich man to enter heaven, to that it's difficult and improbable but not impossible, to that it is absolutely necessary if the boat is ever going to be built. These different interpretations are based on what the word translated as "camel" means or doesn't mean in this verse.

There is nothing "explicit" in the way this verse can be interpreted, and that is no spin or twisting, believe me.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

41. Jesus was into kicking ass, condemning, and killing & torturing sinners.

You didn't read the same New Testament I did, I guess.



The complete link:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

A small sample of what's at that link:

Part of what's in Matthew:

# Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

# Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

# Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

# Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

# Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

# Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

# "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

# In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

# Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

# God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

# The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

# Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

# Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

Christianity and Jesus are all about violence, stupidity and inflicting pain and suffering.

They should only follow the good parts like the Sermon on the Mount. But they don't, so you can be a Christian and be a hateful vindictive bastard, just like your God and his son.

[ConnorMarc]

42. Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You are phunee!

[Shell Beau]

43. And back to the cherry picking.

[stopbush]

45. BINGO! We have a winner.

Anyone who says otherwise is cherry picking the Bible to support a view of Yahweh and jesus that does not exist ion the Bible itself.

Jesus is a loathsome character, and Yahweh is worse.

[Shell Beau]

48. All verses need to be read in their full context, but thanks for

putting down all of the Christians on DU. Way to go!! :applause:

[stopbush]

50. The "read Jesus in context" argument hurts, rather than helps your view.

What context is there to a dogma that purports that human beings are born in a sinful state, a dogma based not upon REALITY (ie: evolution) but upon a stupid fantasy that the first human beings appeared around 6,000 years ago and were created - not evolved - by god?

If you believe science and reality, then whither the fable of Adam & Eve? if they weren't real, then they weren't around to commit original sin so man isn't born sinful. If man isn't born sinful then what need of redemption (and a redemption offered in the worst case of Stockholm Syndrome that one could have the misfortune of encountering?). If man isn't in need of a redeemer, then who needs Jesus, even if he was real?

Seen as a whole, the beliefs espoused by all religions are based in large part on demanding a high level of self loathing and willful ignorance by people who have no problem using their developed intellect in every aspect of life save their inherited-from-their-parents religion. Even the Xian writer CS Lewis said that if Jesus wasn't god then his sayings were the rants of a madman ("Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.") I don't believe there is a god, ergo I don't believe Jesus was the son of god, ergo I find myself in agreement with the second half of Lewis' qualified statement. Is Lewis' statement a put down of "all Xians?"

BTW - your assuming the status of a victim is distasteful but typical. I am not putting down Christians. I am putting down their idiotic beliefs. I said that Jesus was loathsome, not that Xians were loathsome. It would be the same if I was to put down the idiotic beliefs of republicans, like saying that their attempts to kill healthcare reform are loathsome. Doing so in no way puts down all republicans.

This is America, and I respect your right to believe whatever you will, be it Jesus, republicanism or the tooth fairy. But that respect in no way need extend itself to the actual beliefs you hold. Your beliefs are open to discussion, opinion and lampooning, just as are any other beliefs. More so if they have no basis in fact but are the whole cloth construct of the imagination. What's not open for discussion etc is whether or not you have the right to hold such beliefs. You do.

I thought we all understood that here.

[Shell Beau]

51. Ok, this is America and I do have the right to hold such beliefs, so

that isn't open for discussion.

I will not go into any Biblical context with you since you believe what you do, and I believe what I do. I don't want to convert you. I see where you stand. You made it clear. What you don't need to do is ridicule those who do believe in and hold Jesus high. Save your arguments for the religion forum.

[stopbush]

52. It's not my fault that this thread was put in GD - where you feel free to make religious comments -

when it could have just as easily been started in the Religious forum (where, apparently, you would feel that it was OK for ME to express my thoughts).

[Shell Beau]

57. I simply replied about the "cherry picking" and the Jesus is the most

loathsome person in history part. Which is ridiculous. Anyhow, you tried to give me some lesson about the Bible. That is what the religion forum is for. I don't need you to tell me about the Bible any more than you need me to tell you about it. I am well versed in it, thankyouverymuch. I was saying save your breathe for the other forum cause I ain't biting.

[stopbush]

59. Did I say that Jesus was "the most loathsome person in history?"

No, I didn't. I simply said that his teachings were loathsome. Stated plainly, Jesus could not be the most loathsome person "in history" for the simple fact that he stands outside of history, ie he's a fiction who never existed, like Captain Ahab or Sydney Carton.

Being a religionist, you jump to a typical "I'm being victimized" conclusion of your own devising. Did you ever stop to consider that it is this kind of misreading - and reading into - what others write that makes those others feel obliged to "give you some lesson about the Bible," even as you consider yourself well versed in it?

Sometimes a loathsome statement is just a loathsome statement, as in the many loathsome statements made by Jesus. There's really no reason to gild the lily by adding the qualifier of, "in history."

Agreed?

[Shell Beau]

66. No you didn't say he was the most loathsome person in history.

I apologize for saying you did say that.

I do not feel any need to go further here actually. It is a no win situation. I can argue/debate with you 'til the cows come home. You will still walk away with your beliefs, and I will walk away with mine. I think you can take a more decent approach though than calling Jesus a loathsome "character". Even if I feel other religions are silly, I never mock them around their believers. Many people here on DU are Christians among many other religions.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

67. There are other ethical guides that are not self contradictory.

That are much better. I don't need to enumerate them.

The Bible is a terrible hodgepodge of fourth-hand writings and translations and editing to support political power (Constantine and the Council of Nicaea) and hatred of women. The morals of a bunch of nomadic goatherders who had no knowledge of science, investigation, or natural phenomena, and their supserstitious beliefs are far worse than many other ethical systems.

Not to mention the fact that there is no historical proof Jesus existed and there are no contemporary accounts of his life.

I have enough self-esteem to not let some stupid preacher tell me I'm a bad person, when they don't know me or a damn thing about me except that I'm alive and breathing. The doctrine of original sin is the ultimate prejudice against humanity.

The concept of original sin is highly emotionally abusive to children and adults alike. Original sin says you will never be a good person, no matter how much you try, just because your parents had sex and you were born. Now that is unearned guilt and shame and horribly psychologically unhealthy.
Read about the "poisonous pedagogy" in Alice Miller's books, of abusive fathers and breaking the child's will -- that produces psychopaths and murderers like Adolf Hitler.

And read the popularized and American version of that horrific damage Christian doctrine does to millions, read "Healing the Shame that Binds You" by John Bradshaw, Ph.D. He's an ex-Jesuit priest.


Quote from Dr. Moe at http://www.trans4mind.com/unplugged/page5.html:

Restricting myself to what I know about the Catholic system, I will attempt to answer that question now. Children brought up in the Catholic system of religious indoctrination show many of the same symptoms that children brought up in alcoholic homes demonstrated. Catholic children learn to "survive" the system by acquiescing and growing silent. They do this to avoid conflict and to placate the adults who are instructing them. They employ the same methods of survival as our ACOA's - perfectionism, good behaviour, silence and abandonment of their needs for comfort and safety.

As a child, I just tolerated the whole process of indoctrination and gave in to what my religious abusers were imposing on me. The majority of Catholic school children I grew up with did the same. Very few, if any, were engaged in a process of learning as would be the case with an adult who has chosen to become a believer. My classmates and I just tolerated the indoctrination process as something we had to put up with. Our parents were under the same spell, so we had no objective references to draw upon, and no inspiration to challenge the status quo. We were told in no uncertain terms that we must "never doubt" the Catholic Religion's message.

"So how was this Catholic message delivered?" You might ask. Through rote instructions and repetition just like our regular classes, applied with just the right amount of verbal abuse and shaming to make sure we "sinners" got the message. The more we could repeat in turn, the more accolades we received. Just like the children in alcoholic homes, we had to sit there and take it. When we repeated verbatim what they had taught us, we were showered with compliments and approval. What child does not want to gain approval from influential adults? Children want to please, and under stress, they will work doubly hard to do so.

Co-dependence was bred into us. We were not encouraged to evolve or grow. We were encouraged to learn Catechism by rote. In my father's day, Catechism was all they got at school. No maths or sciences, or anything practical that could have served them in life. In my era we were taught all the basics that the educational system required, but only after having the Catechism shoved down our throats with the emphasis on "shoved."

As Catholic children we were taught to avoid sin. We were not encouraged to think for ourselves. Instead, we were taught to adapt. We were never allowed to challenge any of what was presented to us. To do so would have been blasphemous. We were taught to be dependent (co-dependent) on the system and the system would take care of us in turn. Objecting was always met with guilt and shame. We had little to worry about as long as we accepted the party line.

To make sure we really got it, we were also taught to scrutinize our every behaviour for signs of weakness and the influence of the devil. We were taught to loathe any behaviour our nun teachers had deemed "bad." We became self-monitoring self-abusers. We learned to distrust our feelings if they did not fall in line with the prescriptions we were being fed. Many of us became full fledged neurotics as a result.

My Catholic conditioning led to low self-esteem, self-abuse for any behaviour deemed sinful and self-loathing that ensured I would fail at just about anything I tried. The worst result was that we were programmed to not trust ourselves and our inner nature. We were to rely only on the system for whatever we needed to know. Thanks to my opposition to their methods of indoctrination I became a successful psychologist and practicing therapist. I accomplished all this in spite of their programming to the contrary.
================

Original sin is a lie and a set up. If there is no original sin, then there is no need to be "saved". The reason for needing salvation is just as fake as advertising -it doesn't exist and there is no original sin, so therefore we don't need to be "saved" from judgment or damnation. These doctrines are no better than false advertising.


:popcorn:

[phasma ex machina]

88. +1 A Proverb a day keeps the demons away. nt.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[HopeHoops]

39. Is GrovelBot a Christian?

Only his mechanic knows for sure.

[stopbush]

44. I disagree very strongly, because I find the basic message of Jesus and the Bible

to be anti-human, manipulative and loathsome.

[elocs]

49. You mean that nasty stuff that Jesus said about loving your neighbor as yourself,

or feeding the hungry and caring for the poor? I would much rather see a Christianity based upon the words of Jesus. You know, I think Ghandi liked Jesus.

[stopbush]

55. I mean the stuff like saying that unless you hated your immediate family, you cannot love Jesus.

I mean the stuff about Jesus saying that he himself will cast non-believers down into eternal hellfire. And for what? Why, for not confessing him as their eternal master. In others, the kind of "stuff" that always has and always will define the slave-master relationship that Jesus DEMANDS from his followers.

I mean stuff like Jesus declining (3 times!) to heal the daughter of the Canaanite woman, first by totally ignoring her, then by saying she wasn't a Jew and then by saying that to treat her daughter would be like throwing children's food to the dogs. It was only when the woman groveled at his feet and agreed with Jesus' words that she was a dog that the "loving" Jesus deigned to heal her daughter. Was Jesus "loving this woman as he loved himself," up to and including his actions that made her grovel at his feet and say she was a dog?

Couple this with the partial laundry list of reasons to despise Jesus as enumerated in post #41 above, and you get the picture. Nice stuff, huh?

THAT, my friend, is Xianity based upon the very words of Jesus.

The Jesus of the Bible is very much like today's republicans. His actions - taken in context and as a whole - reveal a self-centered megalomaniac who is on a major power trip. it's all about Jesus. Like the republicans, he seeks to soften the blow by tossing out a few humanistic things that people can relate to, all of which come down to a variation on the centuries-before-Jesus-was-a-glimmer-in-a-fiction-writer's-imagination Tenet of Reciprocity (Golden Rule). Republicans toss out words like "family values" while enacting policies that hurt families. Jesus tosses out the Golden Rule while telling people they don't have it within themselves to follow the Golden Rule, and that even if they try their best to do so, they're damned to hell for eternity if they don't confess HIM as saviour.

Does it get any nastier than that?

I assume that's what you're talking about.

[ZombieHorde]

61. Gandhi also liked beating his wife. nt

[stopbush]

62. And gentle Jesus, meek and mild had no problem fashioning his own scourge

and beating animals and humans alike with it in the temple.

Why is it that the violent actions and words of Jesus are always overlooked by the faithful?

[ZombieHorde]

63. Because people conform their Gods to themselves. nt

[stopbush]

65. And, of course, people only know how to identify a god when they see one

because man has defined what a god is...which is basically a superhuman.

Ever notice how all gods have the same characteristics as men, but that they can do things men can't do (the omniscient/omnipotent thingee)? Gods can come back from the dead, men can't. Gods know all things, men tremble in abject fear and stupidity. Gods can be generous if the mood moves them, men are poor and despicable. Some gods are born of virgins, etc.

The only reason people think Jesus is a god is because he just happens to have the same man-decided traits every god has had since well before he came on the scene.

With gods, the ideals/traits come first and the particular story comes second. Jesus is no different. Jesus is like New Coke - a combination of traits we already know (ie: fizzy, comes in a can, other things that define soft drinks or - in this case - a god, etc) but he's "new."

[Diclotican]

72. stopbush

stopbush

Maybe because he was REALLY PISSED over the fact that ANIMALS and trade was been conducted inside the walls of the Temple. Who in his world was a really holly place to worship Lord.. My guess is that most persons would be really pissed off if they was believing in something, and was going to a Temple, and then looking at it, recognize the fact that it was using as trading ground, and as a place to slaughter animals.. That could, and should have been taking place outside the walls of the temple. Jerusalem was big enough to that.. It was one of the biggest City's in what is today Israel.. It was a holly place where the second temple was the centerpiece of everything judaism believed in. And the fact is that Jesus for all purposes was a jew all his life.. It was first when the jews got into this rebel business in the 100s as Christianity was starting to build something else. And for the romans, who ruled most of Europe, North Africa, most of the Middle east and so on. Christianity was nothing more than a jewish cult, where their prophet was killed by the romans in the year 33 (even tho they doesn't know what it was they was doing when they killed Christ, and started a new time line) To the romans Christianity was a suspects sect who should be monitored.. And it was not until the 300s that Christianity should be friends with the roman emperors and the roman state. And even as they was the Emperors favored religion, the Emperor Constantinus the great was not baptized before he was an old man, who was sick and at the end of his life. His mother was an cristian by the way and it was maybe because of her, that Christianity in the end got into the favored religion - and got back most of the land, and the churches they once lost when they was not in favor in the Court..

Diclotican

[stopbush]

77. Many people get really pissed off but don't resort to violence.

That quality escaped Jesus in this instance. I only relate the story to counter the obviously false belief that Jesus didn't have a violent bone in his body.

But it's even worse than that. Jesus' act of violence in the Temple puts the big ol' religious seal of approval on any and all acts of violence as long as the perpetrator of said violence avers that the act was performed under the banner of god-directed/inspired righteousness.

There's more:

Look at the moneychangers' business from their perspective. Every male Jew was REQUIRED by the law to make an annual blood and cash sacrifice at the Temple. If they chose to visit the Temple in Jerusalem to pay their homage, they could bring their own money and animal for such a sacrifice, but they risked their animal being rejected by the Rabbis as being unclean. They also risked bringing coinage that was unacceptable for offering at the Temple.

Money changing was a business set up to HELP Jews change their currency into a currency that was ACCEPTABLE to the temple. The business was approved of by the Rabbis who ran the Temple. The ancient world had myriad currencies in use, and the Temple only accepted coinage that was approved by the Rabbis (they certainly were not going to accept the coinage of their oppressors as an offering to god). The moneychangers offered the Jews a needed service. Same deal with the venders offering animals for sale for burnt offering. Yes, the venders and money changers charged a fee for these services, but one would have to believe that the rate they charged was better than the rate a visiting Jew would have been offered by a Roman money changer.

A den of thieves? Hardly. The money changers and animal venders were the ancient world's version of the gift shop that operates in every religion-based hospital in the world, only today, you're not required by the law to buy a get-well card or make a donation to the hospital's annual appeal.

Were Jesus around today, he'd probably upset the flower cart at Mt Sinai Medical Center and beat the house-keeping staff with a scourge fashioned from the cord of a window blind. He'd then visit the cancer ward, emptying the beds and telling every patient that they were "men of little faith" for looking to modern medicine to treat their ills, rather than just staying home and praying to him to be healed ("ask, and it shall be given unto you.").

[baldguy]

46. The word you're looking for is "Pharisees".

[johnaries]

76. Thank you. That's what I would say. Don't insult Pagans.

They're exactly like the idiots who tried to politicize general guidelines into "rule of law" to the point that they forgot the original purpose of the guidelines. The Pharisees.

As the Dao De Jing says:

Harmony neither acts nor reasons;
Love acts, but without reason;
Justice acts to serve reason;
But ritual acts to enforce reason.

When the Way is lost, there remains harmony;
When harmony is lost, there remains love;
When love is lost, there remains justice;
But when justice is lost, there remains ritual.

[patrice]

47. They are the crowd shouting, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!"

Whether it's:
a Soldier who will most assuredly die in an un-necessary War that they LUST for and Idolize;
an Innocent Iraqi who just "accidentally" turns out to be collateral damage;
the ignorant poor who will NEVER have an opportunity to work for more than minimum wage;
a slave in a foreign country who produces the un-necessary junk that fills Wal Mart's shelves;
an un- or under-insured American who suffers and dies, often old and completely alone, from preventable and treatable illness;
a criminal warehoused for as long as possible with no real provision for remediation;
future generations who will suffer and even die from the effects of environmental degradation;
other ethnic groups who are denied a full communion of open and trusting hearts;
GLBT who are forced into unending in-authenticity amongst those who hate them;
heteroes who enslave one another, in the name of the materialistic proofs of "love" and "success," and call it marriage;
. . . .

ALL are scapegoated, ALL are eagerly crucified sooner or later, either physically or spiritually, publicly or privately, because of/for/by our sins/shortcomings/errors on the altar of small mind-and-hearted, petty, gossiping, Pharisee hypocrites and their BLASPHEMING churches.

Indeed, indeed, the Money Changers ARE in The Temple!

[winyanstaz]

53. As a Pagan, I truly appreciate you knowing there is a big difference .....

between these sick people and real pagans. They are no more "Pagan" then they are "Christian".
As a Pagan, I have nothing against Christ and in fact I think of him as a God/Goddess aware/cosmic consciousness/Christ Consciousness/Enlightened Being on earth. But then again I think you ALL are aspects of God/Goddess on earth too ...just not as aware....yet.
I think your last name for them is the correct one :)...

[Beregond2]

54. I don't agree that

Christianity is whatever you want to call that, nor that Paul "invented" it. The teachings of Jesus are very clear. He was about replacing the over-complex, arbitrary and oppressive Jewish Law with it's essence: love God and demonstrate that by loving your neighbor as yourself. It is really that simple.

Now if you are talking about the mythology that grew up around Jesus after his death, yes, Paul and any number of others contributed to that. I don't reject that, as I see it as another important expression, and way of actualizing, Jesus' message. But I don't take it literally. That would be "eating the menu instead of the meal," as Alan Watts used to put it.

What are the right-wingers? They are the contemporary equivalent of the Pharisees, who saw obeying every jot and tittle of the Law as vital to salvation. The Religion of Law versus the Religion of Love has been a perpetual battle within Christianity. When it became the official religion of Rome, the Roman tendency toward legalism tilted the church very much in that direction, and the current leadership of the Catholic church is taking it as far that way as it can. They are addicted to power, and are despreately clinging to it.

I think power has a lot to do with right wing mentality in general. The leaders are men who are fighting to retain their hold on power, and the rank-and-file are the powerless who cling to the fantasy that they can acheive power by licking the fingers of their masters. I have quoted this before, but it is so apt, here it is again:

"Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. That is why they will follow us." - John Dickinson.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

73. The problem is that the Bible is a contradictory mess.

You have to ignore the parts where Jesus is in favor of violence, cruelty, torture and eternal damnation, because it's a total mess of documents written at different times and places, by people who had an ax to grind(Paul and his hatred of women & sex), or edited by an emperor's committee who wanted to retain political power, and there were various schisms and doctrinal changes.

If they wanted to have a document that was a good moral guide they would keep the Sermon on the Mount and throw out nearly everything else.

I do not understand why Christians insist Jesus is a good guy in the Bible. He may have been in real life, but we don't know that for a fact; we don't have any independent evidence that Jesus existed, and no contemporary accounts of his life.

In fact, Jesus has the same birthday and same exact life story as many other gods, like Tammuz, Osiris, Apollo, Mithra, and many others. Also born of a virgin, worker of miracles, etc.

Basically they took the standard god stories and stuck his name on it. There is nothing unique about the Jesus story.

More explanation of the fantastic coincidences:
http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/who-put-the-x-in-x-mas.html

[Beregond2]

82. There are plenty of reasons to think Jesus

was a real person. The very facts you cite, for example. No one who was making up a religion would create such a contradictory portrait. Yes, the gospels are highly divergent from each other and were written at different times for different audiences. But that does not mean there is no kernel of truth there. Very few serious biblical scholars think that Jesus did not exist. The earliest strands in the gospels are what is referred to as the 'Q' document, a collection of Jesus' sayings. And they are quite consistent with the philosophy espoused in the Sermon on the Mount. The hateful passages you cite are from later writings, mostly in John, which were influenced by a conflict with the Jerusalem church.

The resemblance between Jesus' life story and that of other god-men is an indication of it's timeless applicability, not it's falsehood. It is one of many forms the "perennial philosophy" has taken in human history. That is the mythological content of the story, which is just as important, though not "factual." I seriously doubt that anyone thought of it in terms of historicity at first. They were used to using the part of their brains wired for "mythos," which, sadly, we are not today. I think they would have found our obsession with facts childish and laughable. They knew that the important truths could only be pointed at through mythology, not stated.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. I love this desire to pawn off all the bad in religion onto 'them'

The fact is our Party is rife with cherry picking superstitious hypocrites of the first order. They proclaim the Bible tells them to oppose equal rights for me, but they like to forget that the same authors in the Bible that they quote against me wrote in favor of slavery. So when Obama opposes marriage equality on the basis of his faith this means he must also favor slavery, or he's just a cherry picking poser. The Book teaches that slaves are to obey their masters. Take it or leave it. You can not have your anti gay bullshit without accepting a pro slavery text. And yet Obama says Rick Warren is in charge of God and God is in charge of marriage and the Bible, well, it is THE Word. Of God. Some of it.
Not just the GOP. Sorry.

[stopbush]

64. A good point.

At its base, the conflict in our country isn't between republican and Democrat as much as it is between reality and religion.

[dysfunctional press]

70. ""Suck in the idiots" is a powerful strategy."

is pretty much all that needs to be said about the bible, period.

political affiliations and leanings are an entirely separate issue.

[Swamp Rat]

74. "The Bible" is a construct.

There is no 'One Christian Bible'. It has had more authors and editors than any other body (more like loose collection) of work in existence.

Thus spake Zarathustra. :)

[LeftyMom]

75. The foul, judgmental crap is all in there too. Jesus didn't make it go away, he added some.

Supposedly the same guy who said the meek would inherit the earth said a lot of nonsense about dividing families and bringing swords too. And the idea that OT law doesn't apply to Christians comes from Paul, not Jesus. Liberal fluffbunny Christians are quick to dismiss Paul except for that whole part about being able to eat shrimp and not stone gay people*, then all the sudden he's a valid source again. Pick one, wouldja?

Neither hippie Jesus nor Rambo Jesus is consistent with the text. Liberal Christian fluffbunny Christianity is no more biblically sound than fundie fire and brimstone Christianity, because you can't make a coherent ethical system out of several thousand years of contradictory nonsense, blatant falsehood and goat herder legal codes, especially after several thousand more years of dodgy translations of dodgy translations, handcopying telephone by the semi-literate and political editing.

* Not that I object to not stoning gay people, but hey, let's just admit that the bible says to do it and the bible is fucking crazy and move the fuck on with civilization, okay people?

[Beregond2]

84. There was a time when I would have agreed with this.

But then I actually studied religion, and realized it is an evolving tradition, like everything else in human civilization. It is humanity using that part of their minds that creates meaning; and that there is nothing less rational than settling for a meaningless life.

The human need for religion isn't going to go away, any more than our need for oxygen. It is what gives our lives purpose.

I have no problem with people criticising religion, if they do so intelligently. In fact, we have a duty to criticise it; that is part of being intelligently engaged with our culture. But most of the criticism I see on this board is so ignorant and malicious, it can't be taken seriously. Most of the religion-haters here have siezed on one or two facets of it and rejected the whole based on them. They lack the knowledge or even the categories of thought to discuss it constructively. They just rage and foam at the mouth and blather a few boiler-plate generalities, and in general behave exactly like the fundie nut-jobs they despise.

It's very discouraging.

[LeftyMom]

85. That's nonsense. There is no human need for religion,

as there are plenty of humans getting along just fine without it, and they certainly don't lack for purpose.

[phasma ex machina]

90. +1 G-d programmed us using C, wrote the truth in our hearts, and made us hungry for spirituality. nt

[lonestarnot]

78. Personally, I'm not their judge, but I can still be critical and say fuck 'em!

:evilgrin:

[Sheltiemama]

83. I'm on my 15th book of the Bible.

I've read all four of the gospels and one of their favorite books, Leviticus. Now I realize just how much they've cut and pasted only certain verses.

[Goblinmonger]

87. Man, this never gets old for some people, does it?

Or in the words of Gwen, this shit is bananas.

It's not just good people that are Christians. Others above have told you the same, but just wanted to let you know there was one more that saw the fallacy in your OP.