The Religion Thread

[billy.pilgrim]

praise be to the FSM

[Mr.B]

"praise be to the FSM"

Praises from the chef's favorite meatball.......no doubt.

[Boatrocker]

. . . Christianity evolved heavily in its first 400 years after it's Jewish doomsday cult beginnings.

Until evangelical fundamentalism devolved it right back into a doomsday cult.

[rstrong]

. . . Christianity evolved heavily in its first 400 years after it's Jewish doomsday cult beginnings.

Until evangelical fundamentalism devolved it right back into a doomsday cult.

Nah. Christians have been declaring that the Apocalypse would happen Real Soon Now for as long as Christianity has existed. In any decade in the last 2000 years you'll find plenty of instance of preachers who have Figured It Out, and can point to plenty of passages in the Bible showing that it would happen in their lifetime.

A Brief History of the Apocalypse

Of course the Bible, while it says that "No one knows about that day or hour....", is nevertheless quite specific about the Apocalypse happening within a lifetime of Christ's death:

"For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
- Matthew 16:27-28 (NIV)

"Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
- Mark 13:29-30 (NIV)

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
- Luke 21:32 (NIV)

"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book."
- Revelation 22:7 (NIV)

This isn't something one can pin on the Counsel of Nicea and all the other editing during the 400 years after Christ, entire Gospels suppressed. When the converts of Paul in Thessalonica were persecuted by the Roman Empire, they believed the end was upon them. This belief had largely dissipated by around AD 90, when Christians said, "We have heard these things [of the end of the world] even in the days of our fathers, and look, we have grown old and none of them has happened to us".

Another reminder for the evangelicals:

"And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins."
- Revelations 14, 3-4, KJV

Only 144,000 were to be saved. Not only are women not in on the thousand year reign of Jesus but those that were "defiled by women" are out of luck. If you are not a male virgin then you were not to be saved from the tribulations.

[rstrong]

Satanic group reveals crowdfunded monument for Oklahoma State Capitol

If the state capitol won't take it, it would probably be right at home in an Apple store.

[bannination]

Satanic group reveals crowdfunded monument for Oklahoma State Capitol

If the state capitol won't take it, it would probably be right at home in an Apple store.

LOLZ

[homerfobe]

Satanic group reveals crowdfunded monument for Oklahoma State Capitol

If the state capitol won't take it, it would probably be right at home in an Apple store.

Or Banni's front porch.

[homerfobe]

Satanic group reveals crowdfunded monument for Oklahoma State Capitol

One of your family members? A monument dedicated to your good ol uncle Hester the Molester? Weird goatness-ship runs amok in your family, don't it? There's your uncle there, your faggot goat avatar that you so proudly tout but deny in return, this is fun, show us some more family pictures. (be sure you check my spelling and punctuation real close, OK?)

[bannination]

Paint it black, then maybe homerphobe would sit in his lap.

[Bungalow Bill]

Satan--lookin' pretty good. This thing will blow the Okies' minds, especially
the little kiddies looking up to Satan for guidance. Hilarious. And who knew
The Lord of the Flies might be a Boy Scout? On the more practical side, it's
good to see the folks behind this are getting all the insurance and other
worldly matters together. Now, get thee behind my behind, way behind.

[Boatrocker]

'Cosmos' Host's Evolution Comments Interrupted by Another Glitch

An "automation glitch." S-u-u-u-r-r-e it was. Primitive red state crackers.

[rstrong]

[Mr.B]

"By the way, I'm miles away from being a prude, but I find homerphobe's language extremely offensive."

I'm no prude myself, but I find rstrong's "humor" "extremely offensive" as well.

It appears that Homerfobe has some competition in the filth department; I would never have thought that rstrong would stoop to his level.
There's something to that adage "you can't judge a book by it's cover" after all. Shame on you, rstrong; I'm sure your kids would be proud of their Dad.

[rstrong]

"By the way, I'm miles away from being a prude, but I find homerphobe's language extremely offensive."

I'm no prude myself, but I find rstrong's "humor" "extremely offensive" as well.

It appears that Homerfobe has some competition in the filth department; I would never have thought that rstrong would stoop to his level.

You do realize that modern popular Christian mythology does indeed have God impregnating Joseph's wife, right?

And that it dictates a wide variety of other "extremely offensive" demands? Like a bunch of conditions under which you're pretty much required to kill people's children? Rules for selling your daughter into slavery? (Granted, modern translations put a bow tie and sparkles on it by using "handmaiden" instead of "sex slave.")

And no, you can't weasel out by claiming that the old rules are no longer in effect, because the vast majority of Christians disagree. The same-sex debate alone disproves this, and there are plenty of other issues where Old Testament rules get dragged in.

Or do you refer to my post a couple pages back...

Well, that didn't last long. The Catholic Church's 2010 ending of the code of silence - the Vatican now instructs bishops to report child abuse to police - but only where required by law - is slowly being reversed.

Italy's bishops have adopted a policy, with backing from the Vatican, that states they are not obliged to inform police officers.

So congratulations to the faithful! There will be less opportunity for the heathen to criticize the Church for raping little boys and then having them castrated - the rapes being entirely their fault - when it gets reported.

It seems fair to comment on this. After all - from having the boys castrated "to cure them of their homosexuality" after they report their priest for molesting them, to not informing police - it's all Church policy. Heck, my post wasn't even criticism; it was mere reporting.

Do you refer to my description of Christianity "evolving heavily in its first 400 years after it's Jewish doomsday cult beginnings?" Biblical scholars - even in the Vatican - agree with this description.

The Christians demand that others obey their questionable rules, and they have the (thankfully diminishing) power to force their rules on others. "No, you CAN'T buy medication on a Sunday!!!" "WE declare that only OUR particular sect of OUR religion has a monopoly on deciding who can get married!!!" "OF COURSE we can legally kidnap native children - and just a few decades ago, Jewish children - so that they can be raised as Christians!!!"

As long as Christians try to dictate policy to non-Christians, non-Christians have a right to criticize Christianity. With so much "extremely offensive" in the Bible, so much "extremely offensive" about modern Christians, OF COURSE the criticism and satire aren't going what you want to hear.

[Mr.B]

Still....."It appears that Homerfobe has some competition in the filth(y language) department; I would never have thought that rstrong would stoop to his level."

"With so much "extremely offensive" in the Bible......"

Maybe "offensive" to some; far from vulgar, though.

[rstrong]

Still....."It appears that Homerfobe has some competition in the filth(y language) department; I would never have thought that rstrong would stoop to his level."

"With so much "extremely offensive" in the Bible......"

Maybe "offensive" to some; far from vulgar, though.

Well then THAT is the core of our disagreement. You're OK with the rapes, just as long as you use "handmaiden" instead of "sex slave", being "laid with" instead of "fucked." I think it's the rape attitude - including glossing it over with happy words - that's "filthy."

In the case of the cartoon - a wife impregnated by someone other than her husband, with no say in the matter - it's the naughty word that offends you.

Not that I believe that that's the real reason you're uncomfortable with the cartoon.

[Mr.B]

Like I said..."I would never have thought that rstrong would stoop to his (Homerfobe's) level."

I am not necessarily "comfortable" with early Biblical events; they happened, they give atheists fuel for ridicule, but I, nor anyone else, past or present cannot give hard evidence as to why they occurred, as their occurrence preceded Christianity and the birth of Jesus Christ. If Jesus was comfortable with His conception and birth, why should a Godly Christian concern him/herself with how He was conceived?

My point is, you, as an atheist, find Biblical history "offensive"...that's your right; God turned your kind over to a reprobate mind; to do and think as you wish.

Your post is not only offensive, but down-right vulgar, which brings you down to Homerfobe's level of mentality and maturity. In reading your many posts, I pictured you as an intelligent, educated, individual, despite the fact you were a non-believer in a Creator. I shouldn't have left my window open.....

You made your bed, lie in it. (Be sure you show your wife and kids the "cartoon"... see if they're proud of your efforts.)

[Bungalow Bill]

Well as the pre-Christians might say, Even Homer nods. I really don't
find the story of Mary being impregnated by a supernatural being
offensive as it is silly, since IMHO she gave birth to a human after
being impregnated by another human. Nothing very offensive in
that.

[rstrong]

I am not necessarily "comfortable" with early Biblical events; they happened, they give atheists fuel for ridicule, but I, nor anyone else, past or present cannot give hard evidence as to why they occurred,

Well, THERE'S an interesting court defence.

"My client fully admits raping that woman and killing her kids. He has no regrets, and he reserves the right, nay, the necessity of doing it again! But since no-one past or present can give hard evidence of *why* he did it, my client should be excused. Nor should anyone hurt his feelings over it."

as their occurrence preceded Christianity and the birth of Jesus Christ.

The Old Testament is just as much part of Christianity as the New Testament. Christians still commonly define Christianity by cherry-picking OT rules to match their opinions and prejudices.

If Jesus was comfortable with His conception and birth, why should a Godly Christian concern him/herself with how He was conceived?

If I were a Godly Christian, I would certainly want a reliable definition of what Christianity IS. I would want to know what God wanted of me.

As a Godly Christian I would wonder about the vast number of deletions and additions in the Bible centuries after Christ. We KNOW about these from looking at early versions of the Gospels found over the years. For example the Gospel of Mark ending with the women fleeing from the empty tomb... The End, roll credits. The longer ending - with Jesus's resurrection, the resurrected Jesus's orders emphasizing ministry, missionary work, evangelism, and baptism - still didn't appear in Gospels of Mark 300 years later.

Even beyond that, we know that the New Testament was assembled several hundred years AFTER Christ, its contents picked from a much larger collection of gospels and letters and wildly differing Christian beliefs. For example there were competing popular views of the very nature of Christ. At the Council of Nicea they chose the Trinity version. Other views - and their followers, were suppressed. Other aspects of Christianity were edited out at synods before and after, with much the same results for their followers.

As a Godly Christian I'd be concerned that when I find myself before the Pearly Gates, I might be asked why I didn't follow Sabellianism, Arianism, the Gnostic Gospels or the teachings of Origen - all common in early Christianity, and all edited out over the first 600 years. The response, "Bad editing" might not go over when much of the information is available.

That you even ask, tells me that you don't believe in Christianity or what it stands for. You believe in belief itself, which is a different thing entirely. Born in a different part of the world you'd be thumping a different holy book, and you wouldn't question why for an instant.

My point is, you, as an atheist, find Biblical history "offensive"...that's your right; God turned your kind over to a reprobate mind; to do and think as you wish.

You have no problem with your mythology's endorsement and even requirements for killing children and raping women.... And those who disagree are "reprobate minds." Riiiiight.

Your post is not only offensive, but down-right vulgar, which brings you down to Homerfobe's level of mentality and maturity.

You lack of protest over the Church having the boys castrated "to cure them of their homosexuality" after they report their priest for molesting them is noted.

As is your protest over a naughty word describing a story from a mythology where - looking at both the stories and at the history of the church - the boys' fate could hardly be a surprise to anyone.

When people are unwilling to question their own beliefs, unwilling to question what the church is dictating to them in the face of a "forget about who Jesus actually was or what he taught - WE know better" attitude, what happened to the boys, people burned at the stake, etc., follows.

In reading your many posts, I pictured you as an intelligent, educated, individual, despite the fact you were a non-believer in a Creator. I shouldn't have left my window open.....

Again, as long as Christians try to dictate policy to non-Christians, non-Christians have a right to criticize Christianity. With so much "extremely offensive" in the Bible, so much "extremely offensive" about modern Christians, OF COURSE the criticism and satire aren't going what you want to hear.

Not sugar-coating my opinions where no sugar-coating is deserved, does not imply a lack of intelligence or education. It implies frustration with YOUR lack of education, and individuality.

You made your bed, lie in it. (Be sure you show your wife and kids the "cartoon"... see if they're proud of your efforts.)

How about I show them your concerns - in context with your lack of concerns.

[rstrong]

There seems to be a common trait of the religions: Unlike Atheists, Christians haven't the slightest interest in Christianity's origins and history, or the Bible's origins and history, and how people have changed the message over the centuries.