If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patheos)   Progressive Christian (yes, they exist) lays out case for Evangelical Republicans being guilty of Onanism, and no he isn't talking about when they think of Saint Sarah at night   (patheos.com) divider line 318
    More: Obvious, progressive Christians, Republican, sister-in-law  
•       •       •

3353 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 2:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



318 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-19 04:30:31 PM  

Infernalist: walkingtall: Elzar: This is one reason why we think christians are farking insane - making a far out claim like this without ever having established proof for the existence of a being or entity known as 'The Devil'. I can read an entire wall of reasonable text from a christian and then, *BAM* a whackadoo statement like this pops up...

Umm what the heck are you talking about? Lucifer is in the very first book of the Bible. Jesus was tempted by the Devil and knew all the scriptures about Jesus. He simply twisted them and tried to get Jesus to sin against His father. This is mainline Christian doctrine. What makes it whackadoo?

Adam and Eve were tempted by The Serpent.  Not Satan.

Secondly, the old Testament(Torah) treats him not as someone trying to drag everyone to Hell, but as a Celestial District Attorney, charged with standing before God and listing all your sins and explaining why you don't deserve to get into Heaven.

Hell, in the book of Job, Satan is IN HEAVEN HANGING OUT WITH GOD, and they make a bet about Job.  Satan gets to go down there and rip his life apart, kill all his kids, take all his wealth and possessions and leave him with just a bunch of 'friends' that encourage him to CURSE GOD AND DIE.

Instead, Job maintains and God eventually rewards his masochism after admonishing him for being OVERLY SELF-RIGHTEOUS.  That's right, Job still gets reprimanded before God goes ahead and gives him back his wealth and possessions and allows him to have a bunch of kids again to replace the ones that God Killed.

And throughout this story, it's Satan acting as God's agent, only able to assail Job with god's permission.  Think about 'that' for a while.

And lastly, in the New Testament, you see the Satan transform from an agent of God into an enemy of God.

So, in essence, you have three different beings holding the title.  The Serpent, Satan, and Lucifer.  All distinct entities with different purposes and goals.


Just for a fun useful fact to learn on a Monday afternoon.  In Jew tradition Satan (Shaitan) is not a name but a title, one that roughly equals "prosecuting attorney"   so thier tradition says that the guy hanging out with God discussing Job is basically an angel whose whole Job is to disagree with God-about everything, -all the time .  Basically God created him solely so he wouldn;t be constantly surrounded by yes-men
 
2013-08-19 04:30:41 PM  

Bloody William: Elzar: Its almost as if the Bible was written by mortal men all intent on enacting their own agenda... certainly not a master work deserving the hyperbolic opinion of, "most complex and deep work that has ever existed "

Next you'll be saying that most of the New Testament and the ideas shaping all Christian churches were written not by Jesus and the apostles, but an angry Greek guy several decades after Jesus was killed.


An angry Greek guy who did NOT like women, I might add.
 
2013-08-19 04:33:26 PM  

walkingtall: Problems with this article:
*walkingtall is too stupid to overcome what he's been told is true.

I have known what the true point of the story is even before I became a Christian. I have never stepped foot in a church nor talked to another Christian that interprets this in any way different then the author does. He died for violating the spirit of the law. That is what Jesus fought the Pharisees about so vehemently. They got the laws right technically and missed the entire point and spirit of the law. The author uses this like this is some kind of profound knowledge only known to world outside of Christendom. That is where the article fails so badly.


Not even remotely true.  I was as much indoctrinated as a youth inf the form of the lies of the church.  This was specifically used to say "Don't masturbate" and it is also used in the Abortion side to condemn women for having sex.  Since I have completely removed myself from people who dictate their lives around a collection of 3000 year old fairy tales some things such as this have never been cleared up.  This article cleared up another lie propagated by "Christian's".
 
2013-08-19 04:36:09 PM  

Infernalist: Bloody William: Infernalist: So, in essence, you have three different beings holding the title.  The Serpent, Satan, and Lucifer.  All distinct entities with different purposes and goals.

That's before you get into the perception of the devil influenced over centuries by literature, unjustified and nonscriptural superstition, and other religions. The devil as most Western Christians see him now is far more influenced by Milton, Bosch, and Dante than anything in the Bible. Add to it the prominent similarities of the devil as depicted culturally to many pagan gods and demigods, and the fact that the popular image of what hell is is more a cross between Bosch and Looney Toons than even anything Dante wrote, nevermind what was actually in the Bible, and you have a concept of evil tainted by centuries of adaptation completely outside of scripture.

To be blunt, the image of Satan with the cloven hooves and horns comes straight from Pan of Greek Mythology.


While the devil's who conceptual framework comes from Mithraism (which thanks to Manicheaism, often got blended with Christianity hisotirically)  "The Devil" is basically Ahriman, the evil sith lord-esque opposite number of the Persian God of Light Ahura Mazda.  Persian Mythology has them as equally matched Gods engaged in a struggle for supremeacy of the universe with all creatures having to pick a side, but hmanity being basically the deciding vote which will tip the scales one way or the other since we are joint creations of BOTH the light and dark gods (ahura mazda created the first idealized humans  but Ahriman captured them and corrupted thier nature, meaning we are creatures of the dark with a spark of light in us (basically our soul and higher inincts)
 
2013-08-19 04:39:32 PM  
There are lots of progressive Christians.

Like Jesus, for one.
 
2013-08-19 04:40:18 PM  

Magorn: Infernalist: Bloody William: Infernalist: So, in essence, you have three different beings holding the title.  The Serpent, Satan, and Lucifer.  All distinct entities with different purposes and goals.

That's before you get into the perception of the devil influenced over centuries by literature, unjustified and nonscriptural superstition, and other religions. The devil as most Western Christians see him now is far more influenced by Milton, Bosch, and Dante than anything in the Bible. Add to it the prominent similarities of the devil as depicted culturally to many pagan gods and demigods, and the fact that the popular image of what hell is is more a cross between Bosch and Looney Toons than even anything Dante wrote, nevermind what was actually in the Bible, and you have a concept of evil tainted by centuries of adaptation completely outside of scripture.

To be blunt, the image of Satan with the cloven hooves and horns comes straight from Pan of Greek Mythology.

While the devil's who conceptual framework comes from Mithraism (which thanks to Manicheaism, often got blended with Christianity hisotirically)  "The Devil" is basically Ahriman, the evil sith lord-esque opposite number of the Persian God of Light Ahura Mazda.  Persian Mythology has them as equally matched Gods engaged in a struggle for supremeacy of the universe with all creatures having to pick a side, but hmanity being basically the deciding vote which will tip the scales one way or the other since we are joint creations of BOTH the light and dark gods (ahura mazda created the first idealized humans  but Ahriman captured them and corrupted thier nature, meaning we are creatures of the dark with a spark of light in us (basically our soul and higher inincts)


That whole mythology gets 'really' interesting when you find out that Ahura Mazda had a son named Mithras that came to earth in the flesh, had a dozen disciples, died and went to hell to fight Ahriman for the souls of mankind.

And then he rose from the dead.

And, as I understand it, the mythology predates Christianity by about a thousand years or so.
 
2013-08-19 04:42:36 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: There are lots of progressive Christians.

Like Jesus, for one.


I thought he was Jewish, unless you mean the lawn guy.
 
2013-08-19 04:43:27 PM  
Made.  Up.

BULLSH#T.


Can we move on as a species?
 
2013-08-19 04:44:34 PM  

Infernalist: That whole mythology gets 'really' interesting when you find out that Ahura Mazda had a son named Mithras that came to earth in the flesh, had a dozen disciples, died and went to hell to fight Ahriman for the souls of mankind.

And then he rose from the dead.

And, as I understand it, the mythology predates Christianity by about a thousand years or so.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-19 04:45:46 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Infernalist: That whole mythology gets 'really' interesting when you find out that Ahura Mazda had a son named Mithras that came to earth in the flesh, had a dozen disciples, died and went to hell to fight Ahriman for the souls of mankind.

And then he rose from the dead.

And, as I understand it, the mythology predates Christianity by about a thousand years or so.

[i.imgur.com image 640x729]


I'm so stealing that for future debates.
 
2013-08-19 04:48:25 PM  

syrynxx: Republicans sure spend a lot of time worrying about other people having sex.


This is a disturbing fact.
 
2013-08-19 04:48:38 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Infernalist: That whole mythology gets 'really' interesting when you find out that Ahura Mazda had a son named Mithras that came to earth in the flesh, had a dozen disciples, died and went to hell to fight Ahriman for the souls of mankind.

And then he rose from the dead.

And, as I understand it, the mythology predates Christianity by about a thousand years or so.

[i.imgur.com image 640x729]


A nitpick! According to the bible, Jesus was *not* born on, or anywhere near December 25th. While the christian church *pegged* that day so that it would match up with existing traditions, the bible bits about Jesus's Birth talks about shepherds tending there flock/sheep outside. At night.

There is NO farkING WAY that was in December, at night, in the dead of winter.
 
2013-08-19 04:51:22 PM  

Felgraf: ArcadianRefugee: Infernalist: That whole mythology gets 'really' interesting when you find out that Ahura Mazda had a son named Mithras that came to earth in the flesh, had a dozen disciples, died and went to hell to fight Ahriman for the souls of mankind.

And then he rose from the dead.

And, as I understand it, the mythology predates Christianity by about a thousand years or so.

[i.imgur.com image 640x729]

A nitpick! According to the bible, Jesus was *not* born on, or anywhere near December 25th. While the christian church *pegged* that day so that it would match up with existing traditions, the bible bits about Jesus's Birth talks about shepherds tending there flock/sheep outside. At night.

There is NO farkING WAY that was in December, at night, in the dead of winter.


Yeah, that's the point that the pic makes.  Nothing of what is associated with Christ is original.  It's all based on god-figures that predate his own time.
 
2013-08-19 04:56:24 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Infernalist: That whole mythology gets 'really' interesting when you find out that Ahura Mazda had a son named Mithras that came to earth in the flesh, had a dozen disciples, died and went to hell to fight Ahriman for the souls of mankind.

And then he rose from the dead.

And, as I understand it, the mythology predates Christianity by about a thousand years or so.

[i.imgur.com image 640x729]


I really don't think the god of wine was "King of Kings" or "Alpha and Omega". I also don't think he was born of a virgin.

Citations, please?
 
2013-08-19 04:58:16 PM  
walkingtall:Yes it does. However you miss one thing. The Bible is both the most complex and deep work that has ever existed yet still simple enough for a child to understand. Jesus was able to boil the entire Bible down into two sentences Matthew 22:36-40. Love your Father with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself.

Well, there's the problem right there.  Find me a Republican that isn't, at his or her core, self-loathing.
 
2013-08-19 04:58:32 PM  

draypresct: ArcadianRefugee: Infernalist: That whole mythology gets 'really' interesting when you find out that Ahura Mazda had a son named Mithras that came to earth in the flesh, had a dozen disciples, died and went to hell to fight Ahriman for the souls of mankind.

And then he rose from the dead.

And, as I understand it, the mythology predates Christianity by about a thousand years or so.

[i.imgur.com image 640x729]

I really don't think the god of wine was "King of Kings" or "Alpha and Omega". I also don't think he was born of a virgin.

Citations, please?


Were you wanting the long-form birth certificate?
 
2013-08-19 04:59:45 PM  

draypresct: ArcadianRefugee: Infernalist: That whole mythology gets 'really' interesting when you find out that Ahura Mazda had a son named Mithras that came to earth in the flesh, had a dozen disciples, died and went to hell to fight Ahriman for the souls of mankind.

And then he rose from the dead.

And, as I understand it, the mythology predates Christianity by about a thousand years or so.

[i.imgur.com image 640x729]

I really don't think the god of wine was "King of Kings" or "Alpha and Omega". I also don't think he was born of a virgin.

Citations, please?


Well if Jesus was only the politically expedient combination of four local pre-existing religious figures not five then that... well that doesnt' actually change anything.
 
2013-08-19 05:11:04 PM  

Infernalist: Yeah, that's the point that the pic makes. Nothing of what is associated with Christ is original. It's all based on god-figures that predate his own time.


Wow. The more things change the more they stay the same. These arguments have been put forth since the Christian church began and they were disproven then and they are disproven now. No serious historian puts forth that Christ didn't exist number one and all the theories about how Christ was nothing more then an amalgam of previous pagan gods has been disproven as well. Yet here we are again. Just like Dan Brown putting forth texts about Jesus being a husband and father as some kind of hidden truth. All those heretical theories had their day in court and were rejected not because of any conspiracy but simply because they had no truth or evidence for them. Reaching for straws as always.
 
2013-08-19 05:15:58 PM  

walkingtall: Infernalist: Yeah, that's the point that the pic makes. Nothing of what is associated with Christ is original. It's all based on god-figures that predate his own time.

Wow. The more things change the more they stay the same. These arguments have been put forth since the Christian church began and they were disproven then and they are disproven now. No serious historian puts forth that Christ didn't exist number one and all the theories about how Christ was nothing more then an amalgam of previous pagan gods has been disproven as well. Yet here we are again. Just like Dan Brown putting forth texts about Jesus being a husband and father as some kind of hidden truth. All those heretical theories had their day in court and were rejected not because of any conspiracy but simply because they had no truth or evidence for them. Reaching for straws as always.


These aren't arguments that Jesus didn't exist. They are arguments that the accounts of Jesus have been manipulated over time.

You are correct - no one seriously believes he didn't exist. You are beyond help if you think there's been zero manipulation of the accounts of his life. That's the point that this makes.
 
2013-08-19 05:20:04 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Infernalist: That whole mythology gets 'really' interesting when you find out that Ahura Mazda had a son named Mithras that came to earth in the flesh, had a dozen disciples, died and went to hell to fight Ahriman for the souls of mankind.

And then he rose from the dead.

And, as I understand it, the mythology predates Christianity by about a thousand years or so.

[i.imgur.com image 640x729]


I think that was kind of the point of having the virgin birth and stuff. It was tacked on because it was expected in a story about a god's kid. Kind of like we expect "once upon a time" when you read a kid's fairy story now.
 
2013-08-19 05:24:53 PM  

draypresct: zeroman987: So you take two quotes out of context without any attempt to understand what is going on. The first quote is sandwiched between the parable about the thief in the night and the mustard seed.

What context would turn the first quote into an attempt to make people "be good to each other"?


Why does it have to? He is clearly saying that his ideas would be so revolutionary that it would turn even family members against each other. Look at where it is found in Luke, not Matthew. He talks about a fire he is going to start, and how he wishes there was kindling already lit. It is pretty clear. His ideas are like fire; as simple as it sounds, treating others how you would like to be treated is  painful and  difficult. Although I guess just taking quotes out of context without thinking about them to ridicule the beliefs of others is easier than trying to engage in the material. (While as a non-believer I don't believe anyone should be forced to read anything they don't want to, if someone is talking about how Jesus is full of crap, they should at least engage themselves on the subject or remain silent.)


The second one is the only time Jesus flips his shiat in the Bible. It is actually a very human moment and shows us that even Jesus has his limits to his patience. However, it is illustrative of how offensive the money changers in the temple actually are; how would you like it if people were using your religion to make money?

Um, no, that's not the only time Jesus flips out. Apparently moneychangers are more offensive than state executions or slavery (neither of which led to Jesus physically attacking anyone), but not as offensive as a fig tree that isn't bearing fruit in April.

. . . when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. . . . And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. ... And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.


So a bad fig tree is equivalent to flipping out? Do you think that Jesus did this because he was angry? It sounds like you are ascribing your own pettiness to him and completely miss the point of the story.

The fig tree showed signs that it was bearing fruit, but wasn't actually bearing fruit. Jesus did this to show his disciples that saying "good" things was not enough, you had to do good things as well. Jesus was telling them that he can see through the bullcrap and he knows whether you have actually accepted him (bearing good fruit), independent of putting up the all the signs (the leaves), even if you cannot.

The fig tree actually ties into the money changers because the money changers were trying to drum up business by associating themselves with the temple. They had leaves, but they were bearing no fruit.
 
2013-08-19 05:25:04 PM  

Tigger: You are correct - no one seriously believes he didn't exist. You are beyond help if you think there's been zero manipulation of the accounts of his life. That's the point that this makes.


That depends on what you mean by manipulation. The four gospels differ but they are written by 4 different people with 4 different points of view and for different audiences. Obviously when Jesus was born was kind of decided by committee since we didn't really have concrete data to work with. So for whatever reason Dec 25th was decided upon. I don't think God cares about that. If you mean manipulation of Jesus's message then you and I disagree.
 
2013-08-19 05:25:21 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: ArcadianRefugee: Onan's sin was simply original sin; like Adam, Onan disobeyed a direct order from God.

Apparently, God's touchy about that sort of thing.

That is a specific Christian dogma.


I never knew that. Why doesn't it state a reason for rejecting that concept? That page says "here's in the Bible (God's word, mind you) where it says how all mankind fell into sin, but we don't accept that".
 
2013-08-19 05:26:36 PM  

Tigger: These aren't arguments that Jesus didn't exist. They are arguments that the accounts of Jesus have been manipulated over time.


Nope Read up the thread my friend. It was put forth as obvious that Jesus never existed. Like it was a known fact. It was that assertion I was refuting.
 
2013-08-19 05:31:54 PM  

walkingtall: Tigger: You are correct - no one seriously believes he didn't exist. You are beyond help if you think there's been zero manipulation of the accounts of his life. That's the point that this makes.

That depends on what you mean by manipulation. The four gospels differ but they are written by 4 different people with 4 different points of view and for different audiences. Obviously when Jesus was born was kind of decided by committee since we didn't really have concrete data to work with. So for whatever reason Dec 25th was decided upon. I don't think God cares about that. If you mean manipulation of Jesus's message then you and I disagree.


So all that stuff that Paul talks about that directly contradicts Mark and Matthew isn't manipulation?
 
2013-08-19 05:33:55 PM  

walkingtall: Tigger: You are correct - no one seriously believes he didn't exist. You are beyond help if you think there's been zero manipulation of the accounts of his life. That's the point that this makes.

That depends on what you mean by manipulation. The four gospels differ but they are written by 4 different people with 4 different points of view and for different audiences. Obviously when Jesus was born was kind of decided by committee since we didn't really have concrete data to work with. So for whatever reason Dec 25th was decided upon. I don't think God cares about that. If you mean manipulation of Jesus's message then you and I disagree.


This is where it always falls apart:  You're going to have to start deciding which parts of the life of jesus the church changed for political reasons (eg birthday because 'God doesn't care about that') and which parts of the life of jesus weren't changed. What about the Virgin Birth or the resurrection? Common enough beliefs across numerous religions and an excellent candidate for an aspect of the belief system that could have been co-opted for religious reasons. Why is it that those definitely weren't changed but the birthday was?
 
2013-08-19 05:34:58 PM  

walkingtall: Tigger: These aren't arguments that Jesus didn't exist. They are arguments that the accounts of Jesus have been manipulated over time.

Nope Read up the thread my friend. It was put forth as obvious that Jesus never existed. Like it was a known fact. It was that assertion I was refuting.


Well that person is wrong. I didn't account in my post for the possibility that someone could be that dumb.
 
2013-08-19 05:36:15 PM  
Christians have failed to successfully deliver the message of Jesus of Nazareth because they continue to treat the Gospel as a book of laws instead of a philosophy book.
 
2013-08-19 05:38:29 PM  

Mouldy Squid: So all that stuff that Paul talks about that directly contradicts Mark and Matthew isn't manipulation?


If you would like to get into a debate about the minutiae of Christian theology that is great but the argument seems to be in this thread about number one the very existence of Jesus and number two did He really say and do the things the Bible ascribes to him. The same argument that has raged for 2000 years by skeptics everywhere. It seems to be the consensus, and correct me if Im wrong, but some put forth he never existed at all and was nothing but a myth and some admit He existed but everything He said and did was made up afterwards to fit a particular narrative. Do I have that right?
 
2013-08-19 05:42:17 PM  

Tigger: Well that person is wrong. I didn't account in my post for the possibility that someone could be that dumb.


You must be new to fark. I am told in every thread I mention Jesus by pretty much every person how stupid I am to believe that Jesus was a real person. More seem to believe that then you seem to want to believe. I find that interesting.
 
2013-08-19 05:43:21 PM  

walkingtall: Obviously when Jesus was born was kind of decided by committee since we didn't really have concrete data to work with. So for whatever reason Dec 25th was decided upon


...Yeah, no big reason like to try and disrupt and usurp pagan Solstice festivals to try and gain a foothold in society at the time.  They just picked the date out of a hat.
 
2013-08-19 05:46:16 PM  

IlGreven: ...Yeah, no big reason like to try and disrupt and usurp pagan Solstice festivals to try and gain a foothold in society at the time. They just picked the date out of a hat.


OK...so that was the reason. hence the reason I stated "for whatever reason". If that was the reason GREAT. I don't care if he was born on dec 25th or feb 1st or whatever. If it isn't clear what day it was it must not matter. We picked a day for whatever reason and on dec 25th I wake up and give thanks that my savior was born. Im not exactly sure how you are trying to make me look dumb with your statement.
 
2013-08-19 05:46:55 PM  

walkingtall: Mouldy Squid: So all that stuff that Paul talks about that directly contradicts Mark and Matthew isn't manipulation?

If you would like to get into a debate about the minutiae of Christian theology that is great but the argument seems to be in this thread about number one the very existence of Jesus and number two did He really say and do the things the Bible ascribes to him. The same argument that has raged for 2000 years by skeptics everywhere. It seems to be the consensus, and correct me if Im wrong, but some put forth he never existed at all and was nothing but a myth and some admit He existed but everything He said and did was made up afterwards to fit a particular narrative. Do I have that right?


Literally one person in this thread stated that there isn't definitive evidence for the existence of Jesus.
 
2013-08-19 05:47:33 PM  

walkingtall: Tigger: Well that person is wrong. I didn't account in my post for the possibility that someone could be that dumb.

You must be new to fark. I am told in every thread I mention Jesus by pretty much every person how stupid I am to believe that Jesus was a real person. More seem to believe that then you seem to want to believe. I find that interesting.


There is no serious scholarly debate about whether Jesus existed. The fact that there might be a few dumb people that think he didn't is irrelevant.

The issue that you are resolutely failing to address is how are you going to determine what bits of the life of christ were conveniently invented for political reasons (as you pointed out - his birthday) and what absolutely definitely weren't invented for political reasons - for example the virgin birth or the resurrection.

There need to be non-arbitrary distinctions between the two classes of information or it is just as likely that the resurrection is made up for political reasons as the birthday.
 
2013-08-19 05:51:47 PM  
They should bring back the old Christian Socialist Party. Maximum overtroll.
 
2013-08-19 05:52:25 PM  

walkingtall: Infernalist: Yeah, that's the point that the pic makes. Nothing of what is associated with Christ is original. It's all based on god-figures that predate his own time.

Wow. The more things change the more they stay the same. These arguments have been put forth since the Christian church began and they were disproven then and they are disproven now. No serious historian puts forth that Christ didn't exist number one and all the theories about how Christ was nothing more then an amalgam of previous pagan gods has been disproven as well. Yet here we are again. Just like Dan Brown putting forth texts about Jesus being a husband and father as some kind of hidden truth. All those heretical theories had their day in court and were rejected not because of any conspiracy but simply because they had no truth or evidence for them. Reaching for straws as always.


um...you do realize that the christian gods are rather late to the scene...
 
2013-08-19 05:54:10 PM  

Tigger: This is where it always falls apart: You're going to have to start deciding which parts of the life of jesus the church changed for political reasons (eg birthday because 'God doesn't care about that') and which parts of the life of jesus weren't changed. What about the Virgin Birth or the resurrection? Common enough beliefs across numerous religions and an excellent candidate for an aspect of the belief system that could have been co-opted for religious reasons. Why is it that those definitely weren't changed but the birthday was?


This is my theory. JUST my theory with no basis in any facts simply conjecture. I have always wondered if Jesus's disciples knew what His birthday was. Why was it not given in any of the four gospels? Here is my theory. Jesus made sure that the only thing that could be worshipped is Him. What I mean by that is that He left nothing that could be worshipped. There is nothing left from His earthly walk that can be proven. It is that way because He knew we would worship the thing and not Him. If we definitely knew His birthday then that day would become an idol. Children born on that day would be seen as special the day itself would be worshipped not his birth. Look at how Catholics worship saints finger bones. That kind of thing. He wanted none of that so no thing that could be made an idol is left. What was important for us to know is what we have left. His message and his good news.
 
2013-08-19 05:55:26 PM  

walkingtall: Tigger: This is where it always falls apart: You're going to have to start deciding which parts of the life of jesus the church changed for political reasons (eg birthday because 'God doesn't care about that') and which parts of the life of jesus weren't changed. What about the Virgin Birth or the resurrection? Common enough beliefs across numerous religions and an excellent candidate for an aspect of the belief system that could have been co-opted for religious reasons. Why is it that those definitely weren't changed but the birthday was?

This is my theory. JUST my theory with no basis in any facts simply conjecture. I have always wondered if Jesus's disciples knew what His birthday was. Why was it not given in any of the four gospels? Here is my theory. Jesus made sure that the only thing that could be worshipped is Him. What I mean by that is that He left nothing that could be worshipped. There is nothing left from His earthly walk that can be proven. It is that way because He knew we would worship the thing and not Him. If we definitely knew His birthday then that day would become an idol. Children born on that day would be seen as special the day itself would be worshipped not his birth. Look at how Catholics worship saints finger bones. That kind of thing. He wanted none of that so no thing that could be made an idol is left. What was important for us to know is what we have left. His message and his good news.


so do you completely ignore pagans now or do you just insult us with your ignorance and indifference?
 
2013-08-19 05:56:33 PM  

walkingtall: Tigger: This is where it always falls apart: You're going to have to start deciding which parts of the life of jesus the church changed for political reasons (eg birthday because 'God doesn't care about that') and which parts of the life of jesus weren't changed. What about the Virgin Birth or the resurrection? Common enough beliefs across numerous religions and an excellent candidate for an aspect of the belief system that could have been co-opted for religious reasons. Why is it that those definitely weren't changed but the birthday was?

This is my theory. JUST my theory with no basis in any facts simply conjecture. I have always wondered if Jesus's disciples knew what His birthday was. Why was it not given in any of the four gospels? Here is my theory. Jesus made sure that the only thing that could be worshipped is Him. What I mean by that is that He left nothing that could be worshipped. There is nothing left from His earthly walk that can be proven. It is that way because He knew we would worship the thing and not Him. If we definitely knew His birthday then that day would become an idol. Children born on that day would be seen as special the day itself would be worshipped not his birth. Look at how Catholics worship saints finger bones. That kind of thing. He wanted none of that so no thing that could be made an idol is left. What was important for us to know is what we have left. His message and his good news.


So you're just going to ignore the issue. Only the bits that aren't important were subject to political pressure and they didn't matter to God - all the important bits like the resurrection definitely weren't because......The End.
 
2013-08-19 05:58:35 PM  
Tigger:

So you're just going to ignore the issue. Only the bits that aren't important were subject to political pressure and they didn't matter to God - all the important bits like the resurrection definitely weren't because......The End.

At this point I think walkingtall is ignoring my comments on purpose.  he hasn't addressed ANY of what I asked him.  curious, that.  ah well.
 
2013-08-19 05:59:05 PM  

Tigger: There is no serious scholarly debate about whether Jesus existed. The fact that there might be a few dumb people that think he didn't is irrelevant.


You are wrong about that among lay people Im afraid. I am CONSTANTLY debating about the very existence of Jesus. Especially on fark. I am called nasty names by supposedly very educated people by putting forth that Jesus was a real person. Just that one fact, while not debated by any serious historian has been propagated throughout the culture. It sticks because it is very convenient to say to a Christian. "Oh you dummy Jesus never existed at all, everyone knows this and science has proven this". It makes any further debate kind of pointless. So it continues.
 
2013-08-19 06:00:02 PM  

walkingtall: Tigger: There is no serious scholarly debate about whether Jesus existed. The fact that there might be a few dumb people that think he didn't is irrelevant.

You are wrong about that among lay people Im afraid. I am CONSTANTLY debating about the very existence of Jesus. Especially on fark. I am called nasty names by supposedly very educated people by putting forth that Jesus was a real person. Just that one fact, while not debated by any serious historian has been propagated throughout the culture. It sticks because it is very convenient to say to a Christian. "Oh you dummy Jesus never existed at all, everyone knows this and science has proven this". It makes any further debate kind of pointless. So it continues.


it should be irrelevant to you what others think about your gods.  what matters is YOUR connection to the divine, not theirs.
 
2013-08-19 06:01:02 PM  

Weaver95: At this point I think walkingtall is ignoring my comments on purpose. he hasn't addressed ANY of what I asked him. curious, that. ah well.


I don't know what you asked me Weaver but Ill answer whatever you got. It is hard because you break my heart Weaver. You went to the dark side. Or you were always dark side and you did a good job of trolling me over the years. What you got?
 
2013-08-19 06:02:49 PM  

walkingtall: Mouldy Squid: So all that stuff that Paul talks about that directly contradicts Mark and Matthew isn't manipulation?

If you would like to get into a debate about the minutiae of Christian theology that is great but the argument seems to be in this thread about number one the very existence of Jesus and number two did He really say and do the things the Bible ascribes to him. The same argument that has raged for 2000 years by skeptics everywhere. It seems to be the consensus, and correct me if Im wrong, but some put forth he never existed at all and was nothing but a myth and some admit He existed but everything He said and did was made up afterwards to fit a particular narrative. Do I have that right?


No, you do not. No one here who is serious denies that Jesus of Nazareth existed, or that he espoused a radical Jewish religious philosophy, some of which made it into the Gospels and other books of the New Testament. Jesus the Christ, and the teachings that flow from the now divine being, are the parts that have been made up, messed with and borrowed from other god-figures. Paul is pretty certain, in fact dead certain, that Christ was divine. Mark and Matthew not so much. The solidification of the Christ and his divine nature wasn't even settled until the Council of Nicaea which gives almost four hundred years of time for all kinds of credulous things to me made up, messed with and borrowed from other god-figures. Political expediency, establishment of religious orthodoxy and the manipulation of base texts to make them more appealing to a gentile population (one specifically used to god-kings, semi-divine beings and men made into gods) all played a part in the creation of the Christ mythos.

The fact is that Paul did purposefully alter and manipulate the fledgling religion in direct defiance of and in opposition to the Mother Council headed by James in Jerusalem. He was recalled to Jerusalem twice to answer for his heretical teachings and writings, the prime of which was the the claim that Jesus was the Son of God. Had the Jewish revolt in 66 CE (and the subsequent civil war) not resulted in the complete destruction of the Second Temple and the religious hierarchy, it is very likely that the Jesus movement would have remained a Jewish religious sect. Without the authority of the Mother Council of James and the other Jesus movement leaders, Pauline philosophy was completely unopposed and spread widely in Rome.
 
2013-08-19 06:03:16 PM  

walkingtall: Weaver95: At this point I think walkingtall is ignoring my comments on purpose. he hasn't addressed ANY of what I asked him. curious, that. ah well.

I don't know what you asked me Weaver but Ill answer whatever you got. It is hard because you break my heart Weaver. You went to the dark side. Or you were always dark side and you did a good job of trolling me over the years. What you got?


did you ever get around to addressing the issue of conservative christians and their prosperity gospel theology?  specifically, i'm wondering how one can base an economic agenda on ayn rand, then try to claim that one is still a christian...because the two ideologies are in all ways opposed.  In fact you couldn't get more opposite if you tried.
 
2013-08-19 06:04:34 PM  

IlGreven: walkingtall: Obviously when Jesus was born was kind of decided by committee since we didn't really have concrete data to work with. So for whatever reason Dec 25th was decided upon

...Yeah, no big reason like to try and disrupt and usurp pagan Solstice festivals to try and gain a foothold in society at the time.  They just picked the date out of a hat.


It's a bit more complicated than that, but the adoption of pagan festivals did help.
 
2013-08-19 06:05:38 PM  

Mouldy Squid: IlGreven: walkingtall: Obviously when Jesus was born was kind of decided by committee since we didn't really have concrete data to work with. So for whatever reason Dec 25th was decided upon

...Yeah, no big reason like to try and disrupt and usurp pagan Solstice festivals to try and gain a foothold in society at the time.  They just picked the date out of a hat.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but the adoption of pagan festivals did help.


and we're still trying to scrub the christian out of some of 'em....
 
2013-08-19 06:06:28 PM  

robbiex0r: demaL-demaL-yeH: ArcadianRefugee: Onan's sin was simply original sin; like Adam, Onan disobeyed a direct order from God.

Apparently, God's touchy about that sort of thing.

That is a specific Christian dogma.

I never knew that. Why doesn't it state a reason for rejecting that concept? That page says "here's in the Bible (God's word, mind you) where it says how all mankind fell into sin, but we don't accept that".


That is not what the Torah says. The Hebrew word "sin" makes its very first appearance in the story of Cain and Abel.
Hint: The Fall of Man is yet another Christian dogma.
 
2013-08-19 06:07:23 PM  

walkingtall: Tigger: There is no serious scholarly debate about whether Jesus existed. The fact that there might be a few dumb people that think he didn't is irrelevant.

You are wrong about that among lay people Im afraid.


I didn't take a position on lay people: The 'serious and scholarly' obviously make that point. If you want to keep banging on about that then be my guest but it's completely farking irrelevant to the core issue.
 
2013-08-19 06:09:20 PM  

walkingtall: Tigger: This is where it always falls apart: You're going to have to start deciding which parts of the life of jesus the church changed for political reasons (eg birthday because 'God doesn't care about that') and which parts of the life of jesus weren't changed. What about the Virgin Birth or the resurrection? Common enough beliefs across numerous religions and an excellent candidate for an aspect of the belief system that could have been co-opted for religious reasons. Why is it that those definitely weren't changed but the birthday was?

This is my theory. JUST my theory with no basis in any facts simply conjecture. I have always wondered if Jesus's disciples knew what His birthday was. Why was it not given in any of the four gospels? Here is my theory. Jesus made sure that the only thing that could be worshipped is Him. What I mean by that is that He left nothing that could be worshipped. There is nothing left from His earthly walk that can be proven. It is that way because He knew we would worship the thing and not Him. If we definitely knew His birthday then that day would become an idol. Children born on that day would be seen as special the day itself would be worshipped not his birth. Look at how Catholics worship saints finger bones. That kind of thing. He wanted none of that so no thing that could be made an idol is left. What was important for us to know is what we have left. His message and his good news.


Yep.

There is a simple explanation of why Jesus's birthday is not recorded: it didn't matter to the original movement when he was born. It is only once Jesus becomes a divine being that his birthday has any significance.
 
Displayed 50 of 318 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report