retrograde: AngryJailhouseFistfark: "That is enough to start the bloodbath of the Romans and their Pharisee dogs. But right now I'm enjoying this Last Supper and where's the girl with the foot-fetish who rubs me with her hair? I just can't get enough of that shiat, I tell you what."

friday13: Claiming they're "metaphors" are the reason that people like Sarah Palin with her crosshair posters can weasel out on Loughner.

Bigots are so funny.

So, let me get this straight. Your point is that Christ was a sword waving, Roman killing Zealot? Seriously? Hell, as ridiculous as that is it would be justified given that his nation had been occupied, its people crushed under harsh taxation, its Temple defiled and a despotic puppet regime put into power.

No, my point was that you, like a lot of other people, are cherry-picking out what you like rather than looking at the work as a whole. That and the bible in general is exceedingly violent and cruel, and should NOT be used to guide our modern society.

What's funny is that so many of the people criticizing the group/person behind this website are equally as bigoted, in that they judge all of Christians based on the behavior of a few nutjobs like this.

Here's how you can quickly determine whether this site represents the viewpoint of the average Christian: pay real close attention over the next few weeks and see it you can detect a drop in business at your favorite Starbucks. If you can't -- which I assure you will be the case -- that should make it pretty clear that most Christians are fairly level-headed.

It might be a satirical site, but it is not the usual kind, where they have an obvious tell buried inside it. It is sort of like Colbert's and Tom Tomorrow's lament that reality is becoming it's own satire. How do you satirize this without sounding ridiculous?

Teufelaffe: part of the problem: Sigh...I dont think I can be any more clear that I was illustrating a false equlivalence.

Oh, I get it. By saying that my argument was just like your hypothetical argument, and therefore my argument was just as bad as your hypothetical argument, you weren't actually trying to say that they were the same type of argument. Rather, you were...giving everyone an example of what false equivalence looks like by doing it yourself?

For centuries, Christianity has been a fairly fractured group of folks. Protestants, Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, etc have viewed themselves as separate from one another for a very long time. If you asked a Christian a hundred years ago what religion they were, you wouldn't get "Christian" as an answer. They'd tell you what specific sect of Christianity they were part of, since there really was no overreaching Christian identity at the time. Sure, the Protestants and the Catholics both believe in Jesus Christ, but suggesting to them that they were both part of the same group could get you killed, if said in the wrong the place and time.

Then, some time in the early to mid twentieth century, they started identifying (publicly at least) as "Christian" instead of "Protestant/Catholic/Lutheran/Baptist/what have you". Sure, they still maintained their own sect of Christianity, but instead of telling the rest of the world they were part of a sect, they started telling the world they were part of the whole of Christianity. Given the, I am assuming deliberate, shift in public image, it's more than a little amusing when the fringe players in Christianity start saying crazy shiat, and other more moderate elements in the Christianity group suddenly start scrambling to distance themselves and claim, "we're not like them...this time!"

The fact that you refer to yourself as a Christian indicates that, whether you want to admit it or not, at some level you buy into the idea of a Christian whole. That Baptists and Lutherans a ...

Hmmm...so choosing to label myself as a African American or black man, I am by default associated with drug dealing, murder, and "thugary". That's putting the good with the bad. Oh, and racist.

Oh no,

This thread got all weird already.

/usually after the 100th comment I call it a night
//good night

Teufelaffe: part of the problem: Sigh...I dont think I can be any more clear that I was illustrating a false equlivalence.

Sure, the Protestants and the Catholics both believe in Jesus Christ, but suggesting to them that they were both part of the same group could get you killed, if said in the wrong the place and time.

So...you understand the concept. Good.

I will return to my original point....stereotyping people, putting them in categories just so you can avoid dealing with as people, is dehumanizing and wrong.

If you want to defened your point you have to defend racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc.....Nobody's going to buy it.

reillan: Exactly. The best you could reasonably claim is that Paul was talking about rape instead of consensual sex, because the specific types of "shameful acts" are not clear; or even that their "shameful lusts" are in some way evil... "unnatural" and "shameful" do not necessarily denote "risking the fires of Hell".

I've also heard it put forward that the passage refers to certain types of pagan temple prostitution, although, like the apology you put forward, that particular explanation tries to shoehorn a lot of extra meaning into the the passage that isn't exactly apparent in a plain text reading. Now that I think about it, I'm not even sure how widespread that type of "temple prostitution" actually was; most of what I've heard about it was un-sourced commentary from Christian sources.

Furthermore, if you read the rest of Paul's epistles, he frequently condemns any heterosexual activity outside of marriage, too. As in, it was the type of sin where he probably wouldn't have considered you to be "saved" if you willfully engaged in it on a regular basis. (He also considered sex within marriage to be a distraction that you should avoid if you're strong enough.) Unless you want to assert that Paul secretly believed in homosexual marriage, (despite not mentioning it in any of his writings regarding whether or not people should be getting married,) you're going to be really hard pressed to make the case that Paul was okay with homosexuality, even the loving, monogamous kind.

I boycott Starbucks because I see enough douchebags right here. I don't need an $8 cup of coffee to go with it.

Dear Starbuck's,

It's bad enough that you turned my family name into a punchline for most of the 90s. Worse yet, that dumb people add an s to my name because of you. But your worst crime is omitting that damn apostrophe. It's possessive NOT PLURAL. If your logo designer wants you to make a spelling error GET ANOTHER DESIGNER.

Hey, assholes

civil rights > "tradition"

And if the Bible said that you must sacrifice newborn babies to God and stuff fire ants into your genitals before running off a cliff while screeching like a howler monkey, you'd do that too?

apeiron242: Dear Starbuck's,

It's bad enough that you turned my family name into a punchline for most of the 90s. Worse yet, that dumb people add an s to my name because of you. But your worst crime is omitting that damn apostrophe. It's possessive NOT PLURAL. If your logo designer wants you to make a spelling error GET ANOTHER DESIGNER.

No, it makes sense for the name to be plural - they're all about the bucks.

No, the Bible only tells YOU not to lie with a man as you would a woman. But what if your neighbor is gay? The Bible only says love thy neighbor.

Moral of the story: Live and let live, and let God go the judging.

Coffee is some bean-silt mixed with hot water. Sounds like raw sewage to me. Who drinks this diarrhea intentionally?

I feel bad for giving that a page view stat. I'm going to go visit some planned parenthood sites to balance it out. yeesh.

jst3p:
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are...

Way ahead of you, Stephen. Waaaaay ahead of you.



"Wait... what?"

Martian_Astronomer:
I've also heard it put forward that the passage refers to certain types of pagan temple prostitution, although, like the apology you put forward, that particular explanation tries to shoehorn a lot of extra meaning into the the passage that isn't exactly apparent in a plain text reading

I think at this point us rational people should just say "FARK that guy!" and stop trying to figure out what the Bible really was "really saying". Odds are it was saying:

Stone witches.
Kill gays.
Beat your wife.

Because no matter what kind of decent guy Jesus may have been, the Good Book was assembled and edited by Bad Men. There's no getting around that. Either one is a non-Christian and rejects it as a bronze/iron-age fairytale, or one is a progressive Christian and accepts that parts of it deviate monstrously from the concept of a loving God and should be disregarded without any apology.

dlatino3: Hmmm...so choosing to label myself as a African American or black man, I am by default associated with drug dealing, murder, and "thugary". That's putting the good with the bad. Oh, and racist.

And the thread's award for Making a Racist Comment in an Attempt to Call Someone Else Racist goes to dlatino3. Congratulations!

I could certainly go for a cup of cocoa and a cookie of some sort in the near future.

Guys, I'm a Christian. It's things like this that make the lot of us look like idiots. I'm reasonably sure that God doesn't have a problem with Starbucks. Sweet leaping Jesus on toast, people.

part of the problem: I will return to my original point....stereotyping people, putting them in categories just so you can avoid dealing with as people, is dehumanizing and wrong.

So, if someone told you they were a member of the KKK, I'm sure you'd totally give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume they were a racist, right? I mean, to do otherwise would be dehumanizing and wrong.

I created this alt just for this thread: part of the problem: I will return to my original point....stereotyping people, putting them in categories just so you can avoid dealing with as people, is dehumanizing and wrong.

So, if someone told you they were a member of the KKK, I'm sure you'd totally give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume they were a racist, right? I mean, to do otherwise would be dehumanizing and wrong.

That was trolltastic.....
I can only infer you're in favor of stereotyping people unfairly. In the case above the party was self identfying, the earlier point(s) were about people who were stereotyped by others. So, you must be ok with that.

But lets cut to the chase, since the discussion was about Christians, are you saying that all Christians, everywhere, throughout time, every single one, is the moral equalivent of the hypothetical Klansman?

I'm betting you're going to say yes and start channeling Chris Hitchens followed by the usual spleen venting. Ho hum. Why is it so hard to just say, "Ok, we'd be better off is we started treating each other like people not like members of opposing gangs?"

Before you go all flame war, I'll leave you with this little nugget.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=11376

There are some really smart, sensible, atheists around here that are a pleasure to interact with and learn from. They understand the difference between sarcasm and ideas, they give and take well, and know what dialogue means. Study them.

part of the problem: I created this alt just for this thread: part of the problem: I will return to my original point....stereotyping people, putting them in categories just so you can avoid dealing with as people, is dehumanizing and wrong.

So, if someone told you they were a member of the KKK, I'm sure you'd totally give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume they were a racist, right? I mean, to do otherwise would be dehumanizing and wrong.

That was trolltastic.....
I can only infer you're in favor of stereotyping people unfairly. In the case above the party was self identfying, the earlier point(s) were about people who were stereotyped by others. So, you must be ok with that.

But lets cut to the chase, since the discussion was about Christians, are you saying that all Christians, everywhere, throughout time, every single one, is the moral equalivent of the hypothetical Klansman?

I'm betting you're going to say yes and start channeling Chris Hitchens followed by the usual spleen venting. Ho hum. Why is it so hard to just say, "Ok, we'd be better off is we started treating each other like people not like members of opposing gangs?"

Before you go all flame war, I'll leave you with this little nugget.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=11376

There are some really smart, sensible, atheists around here that are a pleasure to interact with and learn from. They understand the difference between sarcasm and ideas, they give and take well, and know what dialogue means. Study them.

You do realize that someone whos not christian is not automagically an athiest, right?

As for the comparison between klansman and christian, I think it's pretty appropriate. Both have very strong-held beliefs that some others find repugnant. They both have a public image that is different from the way they actually are. They both get pigeonholed by people who jump to conclusions based solely on their stated affiliation. Only real difference I can see between them is christians have better PR. Just because you don't like what the Klan represents doesn't mean you're not doing as much dehumanizing stereotyping as other people are when they lump all christians in with the fundie crowd.

/for the record, I am not christian, klan, or atheist.

The fundies see it as a sweet deal, they just do the "work" of their hateful, spiteful, egotistical and emotionally insecure "all powerful" deity (because he's still not powerful enough to do it himself) and he'll fast track you into heaven.

If heaven actually existed, it would be absolutely full of total pricks.

Christianity is bullshiat anyway; fundie American bible-thumping money-hungry politically-meddling christianity doubly so.

gwowen: The Goddamn Batman: Error establishing a database connection

Goddamnit.

god hates perl

Can't be, what do you think the universe is made of?

No Such Agency: I think at this point us rational people should just say "FARK that guy!" and stop trying to figure out what the Bible really was "really saying".

While I don't personally believe that Paul of Tarsus has the authority to tell people in the 21st century what to do by fiat, my point was that Christians can't easily say "fark Paul" without calling into question most of what it means to be Christian. The book of Romans is the most detailed explanation of the Christian concepts of Jesus as a payment for sin, and the content of the gospels themselves, written at least 20 years after Paul, was influenced by Paul's doctrine (some hardcore Christians will probably dispute that second part, though.) The passage quoted in the article is part of Paul's introduction explaining that man rejected God, so if you're simply calling that Paul's opinion, then there's really no reason to say that "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" is more than one of Paul's opinions either.

I'm perfectly content to say that the passage represents an opinion founded in the time it was written and leave it at that; however, if you believe that the passage is divinely inspired, you're going to have issues, one way or another.

OK who's been messing with the Cool Aid?

mysticcat:

These guys are theological idiots. As a Christian, it blows my mind that there are so many pastors, preachers, televangelists and the like who have such a distorted view of Christianity and who completely misunderstand the Bible. The Old Testament is not an instruction manual. The New Testaments message is not "Sinners will burn in hellfire for all eternity." Paul was writing letters to fledgling churches addressing specific issues arising in their communities 2000 years ago. He never intended his letters to be read as a literal guide to living in the 21st century. Much of this stems from practicing "soundbite Christianity" - using snippets of the scripture to justify actions or beliefs while completely leaving out the context or overriding message. It would be like taking a bunch of ten second clips of "Psycho" and making it look like a romcom. It saddens me that this is how much of our society views Christianity.

So much this.

Diogenes:

I want some Christian, without citing Scripture or dodging to the "Christian nation" nonsense, to explain to me how my rights are less important than theirs, or why my having rights impedes on theirs.

Most of us can't because most actual followers of Christ would tell you that your rights are actually more important than ours. And yes, I could provide several Scriptural references on that - in context, no less, and most of them New Testament (since so many so-called Christians like to ignore the Old Testament) - but this thread isn't about that, nor is that what you asked.

sno man:

"mysticcat's sanctimonious BS"

k, here's the thing...
The whole "Christianity" thing as been owned by these guys for a while now.
You want it back... Take it back. Step up! SPEAK UP! BE LOUDER, be less batshait. Until then, the rest of us are gonna point to these guys as the standard...


THIS. SO MUCH THIS. There is a REASON that we make the blanket statements: You don't tell the loons to get back in the corner. You make farking excuses for them, for Christ's sake. And yes, I DID mean to capitalize that; He may have been a violent apocalyptic preacher, but he was STILL more "love your neighbor (or else my dad'll fark you up, of course)" than most "christians" you see out there. THAT deserves some props.

GAT_00: BackinIndy: They should really boycott Starbucks because the coffee is burned, bitter, and just plain nasty.

That new Blonde stuff is actually all right. It doesn't come close to anything good like Dunkin Donuts, but it's way better than the old stuff.

Blonde: Coffee for people who hate real coffee.

I was pretty saddened the day Starbucks decided to start serving trucker diner coffee. But people like what they like, I guess.

BackinIndy: They should really boycott Starbucks because the coffee is burned, bitter, and just plain nasty.

GAT_00: That new Blonde stuff is actually all right. It doesn't come close to anything good like Dunkin Donuts, but it's way better than the old stuff.

That new Blondie stuff is better than just "all right." It's Rapture.

wyltoknow: Yes, even though Starbucks has held progressive attitudes on a multitude of issues for years and therefore attracted a large progressive customer base, I'm sure that a few bigoted Chrisitans will be able to show them what's what by boycotting them. The coffee giant is toppled for sure. Take that, homosexual community!

Diogenes: Look how well it worked against Disney.

Or Planned Parenthood.

dee231: ugh now I want a mocha frappuccino

/no whip


Better make than an orange mocha frappuccino.

retrograde: AngryJailhouseFistfark: "That is enough to start the bloodbath of the Romans and their Pharisee dogs. But right now I'm enjoying this Last Supper and where's the girl with the foot-fetish who rubs me with her hair? I just can't get enough of that shiat, I tell you what."

friday13: Claiming they're "metaphors" are the reason that people like Sarah Palin with her crosshair posters can weasel out on Loughner.

Bigots are so funny.

So, let me get this straight. Your point is that Christ was a sword waving, Roman killing Zealot? Seriously? Hell, as ridiculous as that is it would be justified given that his nation had been occupied, its people crushed under harsh taxation, its Temple defiled and a despotic puppet regime put into power.

There is an enormous body of research pointing incontrovertibly to the fact that Christian traditions of peace and low explicitly applied only to the Christians themselves. That comes from Abrahamic law all the way back to Abraham; the Jewish laws are very strict that transgressions would be punished equally (eye for an eye) within the Jewish community, but that outsiders had no such protection, and were fair game for the hundreds of atrocities and genocides detailed in the Old Testament. They were not Jews, therefore they were not human.

Jesus and Paul continued this tradition, that non-Christians were fair game for theft, murder, and forced conversion; only the saved were worthy of protection of law. Hundreds of references litter the New Testament to take up arms against the outsiders, especially anyone who doubts or attacks them, verbally or physically, whereas "looking the other cheek" and "love thy fellow" is preached to the congregation to keep the group whole and keep them from falling apart. Look at philosophy from the early Roman Christian era and the dark ages, what has been found: Wars and genocides were justified by the fact that others were not Christian, taking guidance from the scriptures that preachers to this day use to condemn others to hell and death.

It is no stretch to see the early Christians as a Manson or Jonestown sort of cult. The later books have a decidedly different character, though, more about worshiping authority (invoking Jesus's name and drawing connections to Paul) than each other and God.

BackinIndy: They should really boycott Starbucks because the coffee is burned, bitter, and just plain nasty.

Pretty much that.

PillsHere: Not that it's a surprise, but the fact that this guy is trying to get on TV, is soliciting donations to get himself on TV, and disguising it as a ploy to make a stronger Christian nation makes me sick.

Besides that, he's WAAAAYYYYY behind Newt and Mitt in that game.

Snarky or not, I had to make a comment on the site. My tag was Jim. I lol'd

well heck, my comment is "under moderation"... bet it doesn't make the page after all.

I'll post it here, just in case it doesn't make the page, lol

I'd like to take a moment and comment on this "article." As a God-loving member of the Christian faith, if we are going to boycott companies that side with homosexuals, we need to be specific. Here is a list (and I might forget a few here) of companies around the united states who support the community.

Wal-Mart
K-Mart
Sears
Verizon
AT&T
Sprint
Apple
HP
Motorola
Samsung
Sony
Dell
Sharp
The Movie Industry as a whole
The Video game industry
T-Mobile
Addidas
Puma
the NBA
the NFL
the NHL
MLB
the Music Industry
the internet
the U.S. government

The oppression that is being given to Christians is almost overwhelming. We should find a new home, somewhere that won't persecute us for believing what we do.

This somehow sounds familiar...

foxyshadis: There is an enormous body of research pointing incontrovertibly to the fact that Christian traditions of peace and low explicitly applied only to the Christians themselves. That comes from Abrahamic law all the way back to Abraham; the Jewish laws are very strict that transgressions would be punished equally (eye for an eye) within the Jewish community, but that outsiders had no such protection, and were fair game for the hundreds of atrocities and genocides detailed in the Old Testament. They were not Jews, therefore they were not human.

I had forgotten about this. "They shall know that we are christians by our love", indeed. I always get a kick out of that line.

Jesus and Paul continued this tradition, that non-Christians were fair game for theft, murder, and forced conversion; only the saved were worthy of protection of law. Hundreds of references litter the New Testament to take up arms against the outsiders, especially anyone who doubts or attacks them, verbally or physically, whereas "looking the other cheek" and "love thy fellow" is preached to the congregation to keep the group whole and keep them from falling apart. Look at philosophy from the early Roman Christian era and the dark ages, what has been found: Wars and genocides were justified by the fact that others were not Christian, taking guidance from the scriptures that preachers to this day use to condemn others to hell and death.

It is no stretch to see the early Christians as a Manson or Jonestown sort of cult. The later books have a decidedly different character, though, more about worshiping authority (invoking Jesus's name and drawing connections to Paul) than each other and God.

Yep. Ya know what's funny? A lot of the later books are forgeries. It's kinda sad, that; people claiming truth based on demonstrable falsehoods.
Ya want proof they're likely forgeries? Not my job, but it is Bart D. Ehrman's. His books Forged, Misquoting Jesus, and Jesus, Interrupted are a nice start on the road for ya. Here's his

Fine. His Curriculum Vitae is at http://www.bartdehrman.com/curriculum.htm . And FARK this damn link fail thing.

I really detest that burnt swill, but I'll be at Starbucks tomorrow buying a Trenta something or other.