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 130
    More: Obvious, progressive Christians, Republican, sister-in-law  
•       •       •

3344 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 2:25 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-19 04:06:06 PM
4 votes:

walkingtall: astro716: I think the point is that he doesn't think there's a biblical backing for conservative evangelicals' violating the spirit of the (biblical) law and thrusting more suffering upon the poor.

Has it really got to the point where we have two sides so demonizing the other that this statement is ok in any discussion? You should be ashamed of yourself. Useless emotion filled accusations do not a debate make. There is not a single conservative evangelical that you can show me wishes, desires, or through inaction, is ok with suffering upon the poor. They might not agree with the path and methods to help but to make a claim like this and projecting evil motives on an entire group of people is simply ridiculous. Fark is always up in arms about how bad Christians are yet claims and rhetoric like this is never challenged. Shameful


Beg your pardon:
Congressman Stephen Fncher quoting the bible to justify cutting food stamps:"the one who is uniwlling to work shall not eat
Polling Evangelicals: Cut Aid to World's Poor, Unemployed
And then there's the matter of the Tea Party and where they get thier support form and what they are doing:

White evangelical Protestants are roughly five times more likely to agree with the Tea Party movement than to disagree with it, Pew found.

-House Tea Party Republicans leading fight to cut food stamps by $40 Billion

 Sequestration cuts Head Start for 57,000 children


so now you were saying?
2013-08-19 02:29:36 PM
4 votes:
Kinda like how people think Sodom was destroyed because of teh ghey even though the reasons are explicitly and implicitly spelled out multiple times in the Bible as not having anything to do with said ghey?
2013-08-19 03:33:15 PM
3 votes:
1) Treat others as you would like to be treated.
2) Be kind to the less fortunate.
3) This existence is temporary and less important than what lies ahead.
4) Be grateful for the good things.

Somehow this got twisted into Prop 8 and all sorts of other weirdness.
2013-08-19 02:42:52 PM
3 votes:
I dunno...I consider most evangelicals to be flat out heretics anyways. Most if not all of their views directly contradict the new testament. Especially the prosperity gospel people...farking bottom feeders.
2013-08-19 02:34:10 PM
3 votes:
That was a very well written article. Damn shame the lesson is lost on the modern evangelical movement tho.
2013-08-19 02:27:44 PM
3 votes:
Republicans sure spend a lot of time worrying about other people having sex.
2013-08-19 07:10:47 PM
2 votes:

walkingtall: Infernalist: Christians that tithe with the idea that god will reward them with riches are followers of Mammon and are in for one HELL of a surprise if Heaven and Judgment Day is real.

Ok. I agree with that. That is very foundational Christian doctrine that we are saved by the blood of Christ alone and not what we do. Are you claiming that isn't theology? Do you even know what Christian theology states? Not some minor point but core baseline Christian beliefs? I see an awful lot of strawman beating going on.


What I know and what I see is that Christianity, on a whole, has drifted from its core principles of acts of faith, charity, forgiveness, acceptance and not judging others.

Christianity has become about wealth, prosperity, being holier than thou and, god help us all, a political statement.

Christianity should be about disdaining wealth and possessions, acts of kindness, helping others, feeding and clothing the poor, helping the sick, visiting the forgotten and disdained...Christianity should be humble and quiet, leading by example and showing the world a pristine faith that does good things because that's the right thing to do and Jesus would approve.  Real Jesus, not GOP Jesus.

Christians should not celebrate in gold-plated churches that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Its preachers and leaders should not be filthy rich with fancy cars.

This is why the non-religious portion of America mocks Christianity.  Because they spend so much time talking about doing good things and charity and helping...and all we see is the leaders getting richer, getting arrested for drug use/buying, and getting busted for illegalities.  All they see is a corrupted Church that cares only about enriching itself and justifying that enrichment by clinging to the obscenity of a doctrine that God wants you to be rich.

No.  No, he really really doesn't.  He wants you to set aside your riches and Follow Him.

I used to be a Christian and I used to think that I left the Church.  In truth, I didn't leave the Church, the Church left me.
2013-08-19 07:03:14 PM
2 votes:

walkingtall: Infernalist: Why? Faith isn't something that can be torn down by reason and logic or debate.

It just IS. You believe it. It's faith. You don't reason with faith, you accept it and you move on.

It's an unassailable element.

That isn't true. There are good logical reasons to believe that God exists, Jesus walked the earth and was who He says He was. Even though I put my faith in the truth of those things because they are ultimately improvable in concrete terms that faith is not blind. You can have blind faith but it isn't a very smart thing to do. God certainly doesn't ask it of us.


If you need proof that Jesus was real, then you're not taking it on faith.  Faith requires no proof.  It's belief.  If you're treating it as a case of "Well, here's why I think God is real and that Jesus was the Son of God" and you bust out reality-based reasons like historical documents and fossil records backing up the flood and Creation 'science', then you're missing the entire farking point.

Faith just IS.  Evidence just doesn't enter into the equation.  Evidence is the realm of science and reality.  Faith is the realm of the spiritual.
2013-08-19 05:15:58 PM
2 votes:

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 04:44:34 PM
2 votes:

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 04:39:32 PM
2 votes:
There are lots of progressive Christians.

Like Jesus, for one.
2013-08-19 04:06:40 PM
2 votes:

walkingtall: The Devil knows the Bible better than any biblical scholar that has lived or will ever live.


Best excuse against studying the Bible ever.

Here's a fun experiment: show me in the bible where the devil actually is "the devil" as you see him. How do you picture the devil? What passages of the Bible reflect this against artistic and literary depictions of the dark and middle ages, and after? The serpent in the Bible is inferred to be the devil according to some Christians, but it is not explicitly said that the serpent is the, or any, devil. "Lucifer" appears no-farking-where in the old testament, and "Ha-Satan" is simply "the adversary," and is identified as an indefinite opposition twice as often as it is identified as a specific force (in Job and Zechariah).

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing religious people that he's at fault, giving them an excuse to not examine themselves and their choices.
2013-08-19 03:50:08 PM
2 votes:

walkingtall: Oh I get it. And as I just pointed out this has been used as an indictment against all conservative Christians and even being told we want nothing better then for the poor to suffer and that generalization is what I fight against. The author made the same generalization. Using one story and how it has been misinterpreted to condemn and entire group of people and everything else they might believe. I take umbrage to that characterization.


So you're not for gutting the programs that heal the sick, and feed the poor and hungry, help reform and comfort those who are in prison, provide openhanded hospitality to aliens in our land, help protect widows and orphans, and that keep people off the street?

You must be some sort of CCINO.
2013-08-19 03:39:31 PM
2 votes:

walkingtall: spongeboob: The Author is not condemning Christians as a whole, he is condemning those that not only do not help their fellow man but those who gain from the suffering of others.

Really? People have been doing that since I don't know...forever. Jim Jones used to Bible to have orgies and convince many people to kill each other and themselves. There are lots of non Christians right now profiting mightily off the misfortune of others. What has this to do with Jesus? As a Christian my first loyalty is to Jesus and what He did and how He lived. So how does evil people doing evil things have any bearing on the message of Jesus?


I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
The message of this article was to Christians, using the Bible to talk to non-Christians doesn't work outside of Jack Chick tracts. The author is trying to point out to some particular Christians that they are not following the teachings of the Bible, can you really not understand that?
2013-08-19 03:30:58 PM
2 votes:
any Christian that clings to any part of the Prosperity Gospel is an adherent of Mammon, not God.
2013-08-19 03:30:02 PM
2 votes:

walkingtall: Obama's Reptiloid Master: You kidding me? That's not even a controversial interpretation of the Onan story. Like, everyone but southern big tent revival preachers who got their degrees at Hollerin' Bob's School a'Divinity and Faith Healin' agrees with that interpretation because it's so painstakingly straightforward.

I mean using this as a tool to condemn Christians as a whole. People have always used the Bible as a tool to oppress and further their own agenda. Christian do it just as badly as anyone else. People in this thread claim to know more about the Bible then Christians and that may be true. The Devil knows the Bible better than any biblical scholar that has lived or will ever live. He still misses the point though. And that is where people like Weaver95 go wrong. Also the author of the article, badly


The Author is not condemning Christians as a whole, he is condemning those that not only do not help their fellow man but those who gain from the suffering of others.
2013-08-19 03:04:04 PM
2 votes:

walkingtall: Obama's Reptiloid Master: You kidding me? That's not even a controversial interpretation of the Onan story. Like, everyone but southern big tent revival preachers who got their degrees at Hollerin' Bob's School a'Divinity and Faith Healin' agrees with that interpretation because it's so painstakingly straightforward.

I mean using this as a tool to condemn Christians as a whole. People have always used the Bible as a tool to oppress and further their own agenda. Christian do it just as badly as anyone else. People in this thread claim to know more about the Bible then Christians and that may be true. The Devil knows the Bible better than any biblical scholar that has lived or will ever live. He still misses the point though. And that is where people like Weaver95 go wrong. Also the author of the article, badly


But isn't the author a self professed Christian?  I thought the point of the article wasn't to condemn Christians, but to condemn people who will actively attack safety nets.
2013-08-19 02:58:22 PM
2 votes:
As a scholar of ancient Israel, I find the author to be spot-on.  Nice find, subby.
2013-08-19 02:50:08 PM
2 votes:

Obama's Reptiloid Master: hubiestubert: You mean the Bible actually condones all this sort of welfare? What were these folks, dirty Commies?

Well...

Nomadic herder and agricultural communities did have a flexible system of property ownership and many mutual obligations of support, owing to a more community-organized model. It was only later adoption of specialized labor and the creation of intertribal trade markets that allowed the rise of an owner class...

Oh. You were being facetious. I apologize. Your people's ways are yet strange to me.


I maintain that if Jesus were to take up his mission in today's world, he'd be a crunch-head hippie commie.

1) He clothed the poor.

2) He fed the poor.

3) He condemned the rich.

4) He had authority issues with the established Church.

5) He hung out with a buncha dudes.

6) He slept at the strangest times.  Seriously, taking a nap while your boat is in danger of sinking?  Dude was sleepy, for real.

7) He basically told the world to be good to each other.

8) Nonviolent protester.

9) Quit his dayjob to join a wandering commune.
2013-08-19 02:41:43 PM
2 votes:
The Slacktivist is pretty damn awesome. If you haven't checked out his epically brutal ongoing page-by-page dissection of the Left Behind series, you really should.
2013-08-19 02:41:31 PM
2 votes:
TFA: Christians have twisted a story about the evil of neglecting the weak and poor into a tale condemning masturbation.

Par.  For.  Course.
2013-08-19 02:36:54 PM
2 votes:

Weaver95: That was a very well written article. Damn shame the lesson is lost on the modern evangelical movement tho.


Someone should compile a list of lessons taught in the bible that are completely lost on modern evangelical movements.

Lessons: the Bible's Good Teachings or LBGT for short.
2013-08-19 02:35:36 PM
2 votes:
Asshole conservatives exploit religious passages to support their personal interests and prejudices?  Must be a day that ends in "y".
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 02:35:34 PM
2 votes:

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


It's easier than taking responsibility for your own life.
2013-08-19 02:35:29 PM
2 votes:

Princess Ryans Knickers: Bloody William: But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother." But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother's wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.

What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.
This seems less a condemnation of masturbating, and more a condemnation of pulling out.

Try reading the story in context. It's clear that it's not about masturbating. It's about not fulfilling his duty to give her a child.


And exploiting the situation and misfortune of others for personal pleasure and gain.
2013-08-19 02:34:10 PM
2 votes:

Bloody William: But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother." But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother's wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.

What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.
This seems less a condemnation of masturbating, and more a condemnation of pulling out.


Try reading the story in context. It's clear that it's not about masturbating. It's about not fulfilling his duty to give her a child.
2013-08-19 02:34:04 PM
2 votes:

Bloody William: But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother." But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother's wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.

What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.
This seems less a condemnation of masturbating, and more a condemnation of pulling out.


It's a condemnation of not caring for old, childless women in your family.
2013-08-20 02:15:26 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: I am debating deep theology with people with zero understanding of what they are debating.


That may be part of your problem.

However, I'm afraid another part is that some few of us may have a significantly better understanding of deep theology, and how it varies between Christian denominations. EG...

walkingtall: Communion is designed to symbolize the sacrifice Christ made for us and the fact He went to the Cross and spilled His blood for our benefit. That's it.


While that may be true from some Protestant standpoints, from the Catholic standpoint (and thus, the doctrine of the numerical majority of the world's Christians), that's NOT it. Communion is not just mere symbol of the sacrifice (though that's part of it), but also a sacramental and causal means by which God conveys inward grace; with transubstantiation (as opposed to mere consubstantiation et cetera) considered essential to that.

walkingtall: Oh I know exactly why I am greeted with derision. I have no illusions to that. I believe in God I believe in Christ and I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.


[Insert cheap shot snark on general reading comprehension.]
2013-08-20 11:29:42 AM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Prosperity gospel exists and Im certainly not going to defend it. It isn't biblical and it has no weight behind it.


You're discounting the weight of the numbers of American (self-identified) Christians ascribing to it, which appears functionally more similar to a defense of it than an attack. If, as you seem to say, you consider Prosperity Gospel to be a dangerous heresy, and thus a problem for the Church, it would seem that the first step to addressing the problem would be to recognize the exact extent.

walkingtall: What communion means has never changed. At least that I know of.


There's considerable difference in at least parts of what it "means" between Catholic and Protestant creeds -- transubstantiation, transignification, impanation, consubstantiation, memorialism, and so on.

walkingtall: I have had enough of science patting itself on the back at how impartial and self correcting it is.


The series is more about science patting itself on the back on how well the current ideas stand up to testing, whenever anyone bothers. (Contrast Deuteronomy 6:16....)

walkingtall: Unless I missed something, and that is very possible, I was given the assertion that all Christians at all times believe that the bread and wine of Communion physically turns into flesh and blood when we put it in our mouths.


You missed something. Check back through the thread, and re-read the exact claims carefully; it doesn't look like any of the posts have been removed. As I noted, you appear to be confusing majority as universality.
2013-08-20 11:22:44 AM
1 votes:

walkingtall: LOL. This must be what debating Bill Clinton is like. Technically right is the best right and always leave wiggle room. Unless I missed something, and that is very possible, I was given the assertion that all Christians at all times believe that the bread and wine of Communion physically turns into flesh and blood when we put it in our mouths.


No, You were given the assertion that the majority of Christians who have ever lived believed it. Somehow, in your mind that became "all Christians who ever lived believed it at all times ever." Even after abb3w pointed out that your misunderstanding, you just repeated it.

Not only that, but that claim was made in direct response to your patently ridiculous, and staggeringly ignorant claim that "No Christian has ever believed that they are dining on the actual physical blood and flesh of Christ during Communion."

 To summarize:

Fool: "No Christian has ever believed that"
Farker: "What? Most Christians throughout history have believed exactly that. Here's a link to prove it"
Normal Person: "Look at that. Apparently most Christians throughout history really have beleived that. I guess I was wrong"
Fool: "Yeah, well even your link says that not every Christian believes it, so your claim that every Christian everywhere for all eternity has always believed it for every second of their lives was obviously wrong. And this is just another demonstration of your ignorance of Christianity"

And you wonder why you are greeted with derision instead of discussion?
2013-08-20 10:32:32 AM
1 votes:

walkingtall: draypresct: Your view of transubstantiation does not match the beliefs of the majority of Christians who have ever lived.

. We can go into the nuances all day if you like of the theology. It is one of those things that religion has taken and run with. It was a very simple ceremony given by Christ in the beginning and its meaning has ebbed and flowed throughout history. The root of all of it is the same though.

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

The first known instance was the 11th Century. So your assertion that my beliefs differ from all of Christian history is false. As I stated it has ebbed and flowed from one extreme to the other. Different denominations have come up with various things over time. Some good some not so good. To characterize all Christians in all time believing in literal Transubstantiation is incorrect. Very interesting bit of Christian history there.

So that took me all of 25 seconds to get a truer view of Communion than the statement "All Christians have always believed in physically eating Christ and drinking His blood and that is sick to Jews" and that is what I stated was false. That is my experience on fark. Someone makes a sweeping statement backed up by one quote taken completely out of context and that is given the weight of actual fact. I am then challenged to refute that patently shallow statement and I have to show my work from 25 different sources. It is a very one sided way to debate.


Whoops! You didn't read that article closely enough. The term "transubstantiation" is first referenced in the 11th Century, but only the term. If you bothered to spend more than "25 seconds" reading you would see that the doctrine of it goes back much further. As the very article you linked to states: "Otherfourth-centuryChristianwriters say that in the Eucharist there occurs a "change",[28] "transelementation",[29]"transformation",[30] "tra nsposing",[31] "alteration"[32] of the bread into the body of Christ." The doctrine was there, well established very early on.

By your repeated exclamations of surprise at what everyone else here already knows, it is clear that your education about the actual history of your religion is sorely lacking.

And with this I bid you good day.
2013-08-20 10:18:58 AM
1 votes:
 

walkingtall: Wow I truly do learn something new every day. Everything quoted by dema-l is accurate except he completely and totally misses the entire point by such a large margin I am flabbergasted. I really didn't believe this misinterpretation truly existed. I did not know such self described scholars could so completely miss the point on a piece of theology any school child could learn in 3rd grade. Im not trying to be insulting but substituional theology and spirit behind communion is taught very early. Using the exact same words you used in your posts but from a very different foundation.


Taught by whom? Which flavour of Christianity are you? I'll guess: the one true flavour, right? What you were taught is the only correct version, right? You obviously aren't Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, otherwise you wouldn't be stupidly arguing that "no christian has ever believed that they are dining on the actual physical blood and flesh of Christ during Communion" since that has been core doctrine of both of those sects for nearly 2000 years. Literally billions of people believed exactly that. It is only since the Protestant Reformation that the miracle of the Eucharist has been questioned, and even then most of the "big" Protestant churches (Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans etc) have some sort of doctrine that consubstantiates the divine nature of Christ into the wine and wafer.

I will defer to demaL on the particulars of Judaism, it is clear he knows a great deal about it and my focus wasn't Judaism or even Christianity. I would even defer to another biblical exegesist if there were a one here, but I certainly won't take your ill-educated blather to be anything other than what it is: ignorance and foolishness.

Go back to your bible circle. It certainly hasn't prepared you for this.

Don't bother replying, I won't see it. You have earned yourself a place on the ignore list. I see no reason to further humour you.
2013-08-20 10:18:35 AM
1 votes:

walkingtall: draypresct: Through this thread, people have made statements and backed them up with specific quotes.
Throughout this thread, you've made unsupported statements contradicting the supported, referenced points. You've been asked to support some of your statements, and have ignored these requests.

Here we go. There has been not a single supported statement made in this thread. Paul did not make up Jesus divinity, Council of Nicea did not make up Jesus divinity, communion is not the act of physically eating Christ and drinking his blood and the assertion that no Jew does communion is false. Did I miss something? None of these things are true. I don't have to disprove an untruth. Google it for yourself. I always find it interesting that I am always challenged to show my work against statements that are patently false with nothing but smoke and mirrors behind it.


I supplied biblical quotes. Abb3w and Spongeboob supplied links giving information about the popularity of prosperity gospel among Christians. demal_demal_yeh supplied a biblical reference about drinking blood.

You responded to some of these posts, so I know you don't have these people on 'ignore'.

If you believe what you're saying, why not try debating in good faith?

/Thanks Abb3w, Spongeboob, and demal_demal_yeh, by the way, for another Fark thread where I learn new things.
2013-08-20 10:12:06 AM
1 votes:

Infernalist: Science that requires faith is not science.


Science does require taking of as basis for inference certain primary premises not dependent on any philosophical prior -- mostly inherited from axiomatic mathematics, which allows a scientist to note that 5+3^2=14 along the way. The Münchhausen trilemma leaves having some such primary premises more or less inevitable.

In the case of science, however, that starting "creed" is relatively unremarkable, especially compared to most religious creeds.
2013-08-20 10:02:23 AM
1 votes:

walkingtall: /It seems to me that the doctrines and history of your religion are more familiar to me than to you.
//Does that bother you nearly as much as it bothers me?

Of course when your goal is to pick some ultimately meaningless semantics about early church history and play word games to try and justify your agenda then yeah. you are much more familiar with that. If you are talking about real theology and real beliefs about Christ then no you know less then nothing. You are stubbornly wrong about what you think you do know. As evidenced by your entire post. You are taking the words of one early church leader who was emphatically trying to make some strong points and extrapolating meaning from them that is not real. Not Christian has ever believed that they are dining on the actual physical blood and flesh of Christ during Communion. They are debating about the fact that this this is an actual representation of the act of sacrifice that Christ entailed. Because of your lack of foundational knowledge about all aspect of Christian theology you come up with this idea that Judaism is above some archaic belief about eating flesh and drinking blood. It is understandable but a little bit more humility might be in order on your part.


Is it possible you have never heard of the Catholics? The miracle of transubstantiation is a bedrock, mainline, core belief. It has been since at least ca. 100 CE. Not figurative, not symbolic, but true actual blood and flesh of Christ.

Ignatius, 106 CE: "theyabstainfrom the Eucharist and fromprayer,becausethey confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of ourSaviorJesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, andwhichthe Father, of His goodness, raised up again "
Justin Martyr, 150 CE: "Notas common bread and common drinkdowe receive these; but in like manner asJesus Christ our Savior, having been madefleshbytheWord of God, hadbothflesh and blood for our salvation, so likewisehavewe been taughtthat the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which ourbloodandfleshbytransmutation arenourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

You might also want to look at the writings of Thomas Aquinus, Archbishop Hildebert of Tours, The Fourth Lateran Council, The Council of Trent, and even Martin Luther. Itis clear from multiple sources that the Eucharist was very strictly believed to be the actual body and blood of Christ, from the earliest days of Christianity, through to the modern day. The Protestants might have criticized it, but both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches hold it as a foundational belief.

You can rant and rave all you want, but I will use actual scholarship and research to form my opinions about Christianity. It is a pity that you won't.
2013-08-20 04:27:34 AM
1 votes:

walkingtall: demaL-demaL-yeH: Are you having a stroke or are you using word salad as the base for your poeslaw?

Interesting you cannot follow what I am saying. I am saying the debate among the early fathers and the whole blood and flesh quotes you took completely out of context of anything else is that there was one school of thought that stated that communion was basically a pretty meaningless ritual vs communion was a very meaningful demonstration of the sacrifice of Christ. Hence all the language about blood and flesh. The idea being that this ceremony has power. The same power it has today. I took communion two days ago and it means the same now as it did then. I can explain if you wish but suffice to say as I stated before you missed the entire point. You are not even in the stadium to the point. Is that better for you?


You are denying what has been a basic dogma of your religion since at least 100 CE: Your Eucharist is an act of ritual cannibalism, and participants consume the actual blood and body of a human being. They are not taken out of context - it is a constant theme throughout the history of Christian theology - Ignatius, Justin, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

I am telling you that drinking blood, whether literal of symbolic, is repugnant to Jews. Always has been. Always will be. Did. Not. Happen. No way. No how.
2013-08-20 03:46:38 AM
1 votes:

walkingtall: /It seems to me that the doctrines and history of your religion are more familiar to me than to you.
//Does that bother you nearly as much as it bothers me?

Of course when your goal is to pick some ultimately meaningless semantics about early church history and play word games to try and justify your agenda then yeah. you are much more familiar with that. If you are talking about real theology and real beliefs about Christ then no you know less then nothing. You are stubbornly wrong about what you think you do know. As evidenced by your entire post. You are taking the words of one early church leader who was emphatically trying to make some strong points and extrapolating meaning from them that is not real. Not Christian has ever believed that they are dining on the actual physical blood and flesh of Christ during Communion. They are debating about the fact that this this is an actual representation of the act of sacrifice that Christ entailed. Because of your lack of foundational knowledge about all aspect of Christian theology you come up with this idea that Judaism is above some archaic belief about eating flesh and drinking blood. It is understandable but a little bit more humility might be in order on your part.


Are you having a stroke or are you using word salad as the base for your poeslaw?
2013-08-20 03:21:13 AM
1 votes:

walkingtall: demaL-demaL-yeH: But even symbolic acts of ritual cannibalism are repugnant to Jews, and always have been.

You are way off on Christian doctrine. Christ broke bread and stated to eat this in remembrance of me. Not take this bread and eat me. This is just so silly I can believe I am typing this. There is nothing cannibalistic about communion. If church leaders made up some doctrine about it being the actual literal blood and flesh of Christ then so be it but there is nothing biblical to back that up. The passage is clear what it means. What has been added to it is irrelevant. Passages were used to justify slavery and justify thinking that blacks were sub human with no soul. Completely misses the point of the Bible in its full context just as you have done.


I'm telling you flat out that no 1st Century CE Jew would do this.
None would participate, either: It is repugnant beyond words.
John (6th chapter), Matthew, Luke, and I Corinthians,  render it in Greek "This is my body." and "This is my blood."
Not.
Possible.
For.
A.
Jew.

walkingtall: they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins


This directly contradicts your assertion, by the way. Want to try to dissect it in Attic Greek? Or should I drag in Justin Martyr (100-165 CE), who also wrote:
"And this food is called among us  Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

That's literal in Greek, too.

/It seems to me that the doctrines and history of your religion are more familiar to me than to you.
//Does that bother you nearly as much as it bothers me?
2013-08-20 02:43:18 AM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: But even symbolic acts of ritual cannibalism are repugnant to Jews, and always have been.


You are way off on Christian doctrine. Christ broke bread and stated to eat this in remembrance of me. Not take this bread and eat me. This is just so silly I can believe I am typing this. There is nothing cannibalistic about communion. If church leaders made up some doctrine about it being the actual literal blood and flesh of Christ then so be it but there is nothing biblical to back that up. The passage is clear what it means. What has been added to it is irrelevant. Passages were used to justify slavery and justify thinking that blacks were sub human with no soul. Completely misses the point of the Bible in its full context just as you have done.
2013-08-20 02:35:02 AM
1 votes:

walkingtall: demaL-demaL-yeH: For example, no Jew would drink blood or participate in any other acts of ritual cannibalism. Just. Un. Farking. Thinkable.)

You have an entire holiday built around celebrating innocent animals being slaughtered and the blood being put on doors to ward against the angel of death killing all the first born and you are going to throw stones against a ritual that is symbolic in nature? Really?


We don't practice animal sacrifice and haven't (with the exception of Ethiopians) for around two thousand years. Blood is the life on an animal. Consuming blood is specifically prohibited by God(Leviticus 17:10-14).

And, since at least 106 CE (according to Ignatius in his letter to the Romans), your Eucharist has been a  literal, not symbolic, act ofcannibalism.

/But even symbolic acts of ritual cannibalism are repugnant to Jews, and always have been.
2013-08-20 01:59:39 AM
1 votes:

Mouldy Squid: Do you know that there were two opposing views? You have heard of Arius, right?


Why would you ask that question of one who obviously had never even heard of, let alone read, Augustine of Hippo?
/Required reading in comparative religion; emphatically not my idea.
//Nothing personal, but you people believe some really strange stuff.
//(For example, no Jew would drink blood or participate in any other acts of ritual cannibalism. Just. Un. Farking. Thinkable.)
2013-08-20 01:37:36 AM
1 votes:

Infernalist: walkingtall: Infernalist: Faith just IS. Evidence just doesn't enter into the equation. Evidence is the realm of science and reality. Faith is the realm of the spiritual.

That is false. Science, as practiced by human beings, is chock full of faith. Humans have a hole that faith in something seems to fill. What that something is is where you get to choose. Most of anything is believed through faith. Very little is actually provable in a concrete sense. That is more of a philosophy debate. My faith isn't blind. I don't like blind faith and if belief in God and Jesus could only be done blindly I wouldn't believe it. Take that as you want.

Science that requires faith is not science.


OTOH, the thing about science is that an awful lot of what's been proven scientifically has been proven by people who have the degrees and the specialized knowledge that allow them to prove those things. Everybody else - the lay people, if you will - kind of have to take the things science has to tell us on faith. Yes, if they had that specialized knowledge, they, too, could perform the experiments necessary to prove those things.

In a lot of ways, it's like the Catholic Church before the printing press; a handful of people were literate enough to tell everybody else what the Bible said, and because those people couldn't read Latin, they had to take it on faith.

I'm not trying to equate the two directly, but there are parallels running from faith to science. The argument that "science is more true because the scientific method allows you to prove things" is still going to be largely theoretical to vast swaths of the lay public. Religious faith is the same way. Less so these days thanks to widespread literacy, but that's still what it boils down to.

Put another way, the religious are engaged in one grand experiment; where scientists seek to figure out what makes the universe tick, the religious have a very specific hypothesis: there is a God, and for those who follow His Commandments, Heaven awaits. The proof for or against that hypothesis is testable by any man or woman.

They just tend not to be able to publish afterwards.
2013-08-20 01:12:22 AM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Mouldy Squid: The university that granted my MA in Comparative Religion seemed to think I was intellectual enough. But then again, one of the best universities in Canada must not hold a candle to your bible circle

I don't care what your MA is from. If you tell an untruth it is an untruth. A lie from someone with an MA is still a lie. False confidence in education is a very serious problem with all of academia today. If you try and tell me that Paul made up the divinity of Christ years and years after Christ's death then you are wrong. If you know you are wrong and saying it anyway then you are a liar. Just as Dan Brown stating that it is an absolute fact that the Council of Nicea decided that Christ was divine 300 years after his death is a lie. It isn't true. It has never been true and it has been thoroughly debunked. I don't care if Dan Brown has 4 Phds in Christian History. He wrote a falsehood. You are doing the same trying to tell people Paul made up the divinity of Christ over the objections of the rest of the early Christian church.


Why do you have such a hate on for Dan Brown? Do you think that somehow a fiction writer's books have any bearing on the scholarship of religion? Just what do you think went on at the Council of Nicaea if not the bishops deciding on the doctrine of the Christians. Do you know that there were two opposing views? You have heard of Arius, right?

So call me a liar if you want. It is the last weapon you have in this argument, and shows your desperation.
2013-08-19 11:11:24 PM
1 votes:

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.


You don't by any chance remember Mithras' birthday, do you?

It was in late December, the 20-somethingth, I think...
2013-08-19 08:02:15 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Mouldy Squid: 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.

This is completely 100% false. Im sorry but this theory has been put forth and rebuked at every turn. Paul did not create core doctrine. He refined it but the core existed from the very beginning. I cant take seriously the rest of what you wrote because this is demonstrably false and it shows a non intellectual bias that is pointless to debate.


Citations please. The core theology, from even Jesus himself, calls him the Son of Man. We don't get Son of God until Paul. You also haven't answered why Paul was called before James the brother of Jesus to answer for his teachings. Could it be because they were not the same as what James was teaching? Could it be that Paul was teaching things about Jesus that James found heretical? That he was preaching to gentiles which was strictly against the Law? Paul was even condemned by Peter who was also preaching in Rome, to Jews, with the sanction of James.

The university that granted my MA in Comparative Religion seemed to think I was intellectual enough. But then again, one of the best universities in Canada must not hold a candle to your bible circle.
2013-08-19 07:26:17 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: spongeboob: That is not how it works you claim Prosperity Gospel is not Mainstream you prove above I posted link for 50/260 of the largest Churches in America preach the Prosperity Gospel, that is 19% in America and here are some other quotes with citations

I don't care if 259 out of 260 churches in America preach prosperity gospel you cant defend it biblically. People will believe what they want to believe. There is a grain of truth about prosperity gospel as there is with most heresy but to study the Bible at any length is to reject it.

Think about this a second. The Bible has been around for 2000 years. 70% of America claims to be Christian. Every single person just about knows about revelation and the story of the anti Christ. The prophecies are pretty clear. When he arrives on the scene it should be obvious who he is and what is going on. Yet the scripture is clear that most will follow the antichrist. How could that be? Pretty much 100% of all churches will follow him. There will be almost 0 resistance. How could that be? The growth of prosperity gospel shows how it will be. You till people what they want to hear when they want to hear it all truth will be thrown out. That is human nature and I cant do anything about it but follow God and read and learn the Bible.

Not Germane to discussion

Wow this may be the best deflection on Fark, you first claim that Prosperity Gospel is not embraced by Christians when confronted with the facts that at least 17% of American Christians believe in the the Prosperity Gospel, and 61% buy at least some of it, you act like I am preaching the Prosperity Gospel and you say 'you can't defend it Biblically' could you please point out where I seemed to defend the Prosperity Gospel? But I like how even if 259/260 churches preach the Prosperity Gospel you will still claim that doesn't matter real Christians don't believe it.
2013-08-19 07:19:55 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: I don't care if 259 out of 260 churches in America preach prosperity gospel you cant defend it biblically.


You still aren't addressing the issue tho, you're changing the subject.  prosperity gospel theology is real and it has a strong influence on the evangelical wing of the Republican party.  the question is - as a Christian, what are YOU gonna do about it?  saying 'oh well it's not really christianity' means you let heresy and sin corrupt your churches and lead others out of your faith down to follow a false god.  either you confront it...or you don't.

I don't envy you your choices.  I wouldn't blame you for ignoring the problem.
2013-08-19 07:19:10 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: There is not a single conservative evangelical that you can show me wishes, desires, or through inaction, is ok with suffering upon the poor.


GSS-2000, variable RICHHLTH ("Is it just or unjust - right or wrong - that people with higher incomes can: a. Buy better health care than people with lower incomes"), it's about 10% of conservative Baptists who think it's entirely just.

(Most of the other GSS questions on poverty you could argue about being because of the government involvement -- though with some difficulties.)

walkingtall: It isn't accepted or liked among conservative Christian churches.


Citation? It is at least more popular with conservative Christians, suggesting that it is likely to be at least better accepted/liked among conservative Christian churches.
2013-08-19 07:02:54 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Weaver95: because it IS dangerous, and you don't seem to want to confront that reality.

*sigh*

I am not a proponent of prosperity gospel. I have called it heresy myself in this thread. It is bad and dangerous. Im not sure what you are looking for as far as a rejection. Calling something heresy is pretty much it there Weaver.


but you don't seem to want to fight against it or reclaim your faith from it's influence.
2013-08-19 07:00:47 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Infernalist: Why? Faith isn't something that can be torn down by reason and logic or debate.

It just IS. You believe it. It's faith. You don't reason with faith, you accept it and you move on.

It's an unassailable element.

That isn't true. There are good logical reasons to believe that God exists, Jesus walked the earth and was who He says He was. Even though I put my faith in the truth of those things because they are ultimately improvable in concrete terms that faith is not blind. You can have blind faith but it isn't a very smart thing to do. God certainly doesn't ask it of us.


do you accept the existence of pagan gods and spirits then?  by your logic, you essentially must do so.
2013-08-19 06:59:30 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: One study quoted in the book found that 50 of the 260 largest churches in America promote the prosperity gospel.

Your own link shows that conservative Christian scholars and churches completely reject prosperity gospel. The entire article is about how dangerous it is.


because it IS dangerous, and you don't seem to want to confront that reality.

*sigh*
2013-08-19 06:58:56 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: One study quoted in the book found that 50 of the 260 largest churches in America promote the prosperity gospel.

Your own link shows that conservative Christian scholars and churches completely reject prosperity gospel. The entire article is about how dangerous it is.


50 out of 260 is 20%.  That's a lot of churches and Christians worshiping a pagan god.
2013-08-19 06:56:39 PM
1 votes:
Christians that tithe with the idea that god will reward them with riches are followers of Mammon and are in for one HELL of a surprise if Heaven and Judgment Day is real.
2013-08-19 06:54:13 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Infernalist: So, why do you think that you have to defend your faith?

I suppose I don't HAVE to. Most Christians don't. They simply ride with whatever wave they find themselves on. Keep quiet and keep your head down. That is simply not who I am. We are called upon biblically to answer questions and be knowledgeable about our faith. Christianity hides nothing. Everything we believe is in a book anyone can read. There is no secret committee debating specifics that aren't for lay people to understand. The Bible is and always has been hotly debated by every corner of humanity since it was laid on paper. That is why I defend the faith.


Why?  Faith isn't something that can be torn down by reason and logic or debate.

It just IS.  You believe it.  It's faith.  You don't reason with faith, you accept it and you move on.

It's an unassailable element.   It can not be defended because it cannot be attacked.
2013-08-19 06:51:04 PM
1 votes:
One study quoted in the book found that 50 of the 260 largest churches in America promote the prosperity gospel.

So only 19% of the largest Christian churches preach the Prosperity Gospel and that is not counting televangelists.
2013-08-19 06:46:19 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: but...you ignore the corrupting influences within your own chosen faith. just in this thread alone you blinded yourself to the very real dangers and influences of prosperity gospel preachers on evangelical christianity.

It has been rejected. It isn't accepted or liked among conservative Christian churches. About every other Sunday my pastor gets angry that prosperity gospel is out there. Every church I know of rejects it. What more can we do? It has no biblical authority. It is out there because people want to believe it. It is easy. It is convenient. People have always done crap like that.


you could fight it.  you could stop electing GOP politicians who follow prosperity gospel theology.  you could cut off the flow of money into the megachurches and corporations who keep pushing a message that brutally rapes your religious ideology and whores it out for to the highest bidder in the marketplace.
2013-08-19 06:45:51 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: but...you ignore the corrupting influences within your own chosen faith. just in this thread alone you blinded yourself to the very real dangers and influences of prosperity gospel preachers on evangelical christianity.

It has been rejected. It isn't accepted or liked among conservative Christian churches. About every other Sunday my pastor gets angry that prosperity gospel is out there. Every church I know of rejects it. What more can we do? It has no biblical authority. It is out there because people want to believe it. It is easy. It is convenient. People have always done crap like that.


Could you please point me to citations of mainstream Christian Pastors actually denouncing the prosperity gospel?
2013-08-19 06:45:01 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: but...you ignore the corrupting influences within your own chosen faith. just in this thread alone you blinded yourself to the very real dangers and influences of prosperity gospel preachers on evangelical christianity.

It has been rejected. It isn't accepted or liked among conservative Christian churches. About every other Sunday my pastor gets angry that prosperity gospel is out there. Every church I know of rejects it. What more can we do? It has no biblical authority. It is out there because people want to believe it. It is easy. It is convenient. People have always done crap like that.


Anecdotal stories do not equate into data/evidence.  Do you need a list of active mega-churches that beg for money every Sunday/Wednesday on the free cable channels between 11-19 and promise that prosperity will come your way if you just send them some money today?
2013-08-19 06:36:19 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: walkingtall: Infernalist: What's funny is that you think faith needs defending.

Absolutely. Blind faith is silly. If God told me to walk off a ledge of a cliff I would do so. I would do so because I have faith in God's goodness and power and would do what He told me to. That is faith. It is a faith grounded in many years of study and thought and learning. As a new Christian I would guarantee you that would be looking down to see if there was something that would catch me or do some serious questioning about why. I wouldn't lack faith in God as existing but faith in who He was. Faith is not all or nothing and it isn't blind.

but...you ignore the corrupting influences within your own chosen faith.   just in this thread alone you blinded yourself to the very real dangers and influences of prosperity gospel preachers on evangelical christianity.


Not to mention the origin of this argument, which is the neglect of the poor in favor of political tribalism.
2013-08-19 06:28:28 PM
1 votes:
walkingtall:

prosperity theology isn't even a real theology. It is rejected by pretty much any church you want to name.

Christian prosperity theology is rejected by non-christian-prosperity churches.  Therefore, Christianity is clean of any prosperity gospel. Also, it is no true Scotsman....
2013-08-19 06:26:22 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Mouldy Squid: 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.

This is completely 100% false. Im sorry but this theory has been put forth and rebuked at every turn. Paul did not create core doctrine. He refined it but the core existed from the very beginning. I cant take seriously the rest of what you wrote because this is demonstrably false and it shows a non intellectual bias that is pointless to debate.


and in with that the last remaining shred of credibility went up in flames.
2013-08-19 06:26:06 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Weaver95: that doesn't answer my question. look - prosperity gospel theology is a very real and powerful influence on the Republican religious right wing. it's well funded, and very organized. it pushes it's agenda relentlessly.

No it isn't. Im afraid you are seeing boogey men under the bed and it has the face of Joel Osteen. It is a fringe belief system taken to extremes. There is nothing biblical about "name it claim it" theology. It is indefensible as a theology. It is not affecting anything but people's individual relationship with God and while that is sad enough it has no real power.


Paul Ryan is 'fringe'?  huh.  interesting.
2013-08-19 06:25:38 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Weaver95: it should be irrelevant to you what others think about your gods. what matters is YOUR connection to the divine, not theirs.

If you cannot defend your faith what is the use? What would happen if Im wrong? I was an atheist from the very darkest pits of atheism. Nobody was more atheist than me. However, I did come to the realization about what I believed and its implications for example how I raised my children, and I knew that if there was truth I wanted to know it no matter what the outcome might be. If it meant all was pointless in this life then so be it. If there truly was no God then so be it. If there was and was unknowable then so be it. Etc. I simply wanted to walk in truth whatever that might be.

Being able to defend my faith is very relevant. It does matter. I might never reach a single person on any site I write to but just maybe I can plant a seed. A seed to help someone seek the truth. That is why I put up with the abuse and the names and definitely being in the minority on most subjects. To be laughed at and called names even just on the Internet is painful. Nobody likes to think everyone thinks them stupid. Yet here I am.


What's funny is that you think faith needs defending.
2013-08-19 06:24:05 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Weaver95: it should be irrelevant to you what others think about your gods. what matters is YOUR connection to the divine, not theirs.

If you cannot defend your faith what is the use? What would happen if Im wrong? I was an atheist from the very darkest pits of atheism. Nobody was more atheist than me. However, I did come to the realization about what I believed and its implications for example how I raised my children, and I knew that if there was truth I wanted to know it no matter what the outcome might be. If it meant all was pointless in this life then so be it. If there truly was no God then so be it. If there was and was unknowable then so be it. Etc. I simply wanted to walk in truth whatever that might be.

Being able to defend my faith is very relevant. It does matter. I might never reach a single person on any site I write to but just maybe I can plant a seed. A seed to help someone seek the truth. That is why I put up with the abuse and the names and definitely being in the minority on most subjects. To be laughed at and called names even just on the Internet is painful. Nobody likes to think everyone thinks them stupid. Yet here I am.


that's just it - you aren't defending your faith.  you think you are but...you ignore evidence that doesn't fit with your ideology, you ignore facts that don't fit your narrative and you assume everyone should be christian just like you without considering that there are other faiths and beliefs that are equally as valid as your own.  i'm sure you have a strong belief in your gods...but you'd better get used to dealing with the fact that there are others out here in the world who's religious ideals predate your own and have just as much right to live their lives their way as you do with you and yours.
2013-08-19 06:20:34 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Weaver95: 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.

prosperity theology isn't even a real theology. It is rejected by pretty much any church you want to name. There have been all kinds of heretical beliefs spouted about for 2000 years. Are you really painting all conservative Christians as prosperity gospel believing? That is 100% false and no wonder I didn't answer. My eyes must have glazed over it as completely nonsensical.


that doesn't answer my question.  look - prosperity gospel theology is a very real and powerful influence on the Republican religious right wing.  it's well funded, and very organized.  it pushes it's agenda relentlessly.  YOU might not want to confront it's influence on christianity in the US but that doesn't make it go away.  So I guess that tells me something about your knowledge of your own theology and how it affects the world around you.
2013-08-19 06:05:38 PM
1 votes:

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 06:03:16 PM
1 votes:

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 06:02:49 PM
1 votes:

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 06:00:02 PM
1 votes:

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 05:58:35 PM
1 votes:
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 05:56:33 PM
1 votes:

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 05:54:10 PM
1 votes:

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 05:52:25 PM
1 votes:

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 05:47:33 PM
1 votes:

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 05:46:55 PM
1 votes:

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 05:42:17 PM
1 votes:

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 05:36:15 PM
1 votes:
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 05:33:55 PM
1 votes:

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 05:31:54 PM
1 votes:

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 05:11:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:33:26 PM
1 votes:

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 04:30:31 PM
1 votes:

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 04:24:30 PM
1 votes:

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.


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 "
2013-08-19 04:23:51 PM
1 votes:
The prosperity gospel and its adherents have usurped the true message of Christ and they do so strictly out of greed.  "Just give more and God will surely make you rich!  It hasn't happened yet?  Then give MOAR."

Their self-sanctified selfishness is what drives many away from the Church and, to me, is reaching that level of corruption that many people associate with the selling of indulgences in the Dark Ages.
2013-08-19 04:17:57 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-08-19 04:13:04 PM
1 votes:

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?


Yes or No

Do you now or have you ever logged into Fark.com using the username Bevets?
2013-08-19 04:05:26 PM
1 votes:

Esc7: /oh no i'm smug!  literally the worst thing a person could be!


Smug monster, rubbing the noses of fundies/evangelicals in their hypocrisy.

They're only faithfully following the teachings of Conservative(SM) Jebus, who said:
Starve the poor. (Kill SNAP)
Throw the deadbeats out on the streets. (Kill Section 8)
Kill the ill. (Repeal Obamacare and defund Medicaid.)
Rob the elders of treasure and health. (Privatize Medicare and Social Security.)
Criminalize being born elsewhere. (No Anmestey[sic] for Messicans and other non melanin-challenged people.)
Punish prisoners while they're already being punished. (Mandatory minimum sentences, privatized prisons, exporting prisoners to other states away from their families, and ending and defunding reform and education programs.)
2013-08-19 04:04:57 PM
1 votes:

astro716: Good on them. Seriously. I guess I missed the word "conservative" in my statement, because I know a lot of progressive Christians do actually read their own holy book.


Ah, alright! No worries. =)

Weaver95: I'm not Christian and even I want to burn the prosperity gospel preachers at the stake for heresy. Thats how offensive they are.


Pretty much, yeah. My own religious views have drifted and are... difficult to classify now, but jesus fark does the Prosperity Gospel make me froth with anger.
2013-08-19 03:59:58 PM
1 votes:
I'm not Christian and even I want to burn the prosperity gospel preachers at the stake for heresy. Thats how offensive they are.
2013-08-19 03:56:39 PM
1 votes:

astro716: Show me the evangelical action group calling their congressmen to reinstate funds from the SNAP cuts, and then we'll talk about my shame.


Well, the UCC and a lot of other left wing churches have been protesting the insanity that's happening in NC. (It's not JUST religious people at the moral monday protests, mind), especially pissed about how it's going to dispraportionately affect the poor.

The pastor of the church I grew up in was even one of the folks arrested (for... ... I'm not sure, since what they were doing was completely legal. ... The same thing the folks in WI were getting arrested for, I suppose.)


zeroman987: 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?


Aye, the one time Jesus gets truly, utterly, rip-roaringly pissed is when people are utilizing religion to line their own pockets. Not the roman soldiers come to take him to his death, not Judas, not Satan, but the *moneychangers*.

... And yet the prosperity gospel IS A THING. That *still* hurts my head.
2013-08-19 03:54:26 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Scaevola: Here's something for everyone to realize: trying to live one's life by the teachings of a 2000-2500 year old book requires a pretty sophisticated interpretive framework. This is a pretty good book to read that will help sharpen a person's thinking on this.

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. There are many things in the Bible debated about and discussed 2000 years later and that is the magic of God inspired text.


I'm not going to get an answer from you, am I?
2013-08-19 03:52:29 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Esc7: Well I can't speak for the majority but I'll say I always thought Onan was a story about masturbating. Until today that is.

And this is why Christianity is failing. Christians don't even know what they claim to believe. Christians know very little history and precious little Bible. Today I will have someone in some forum tell me how Christian they are except for the whole Jesus was God thing. Well, believe that if you want but kind of hard to say you are a Christian if you do. etc

You sit there all smug like this author has hit the nail on the head but the real problem is that people do not even know what they are supposed to believe nor do any due diligence.


I AM NOT a Christian.  My family never were Christians and our ancestors never were.  I've been inside two churches my entire life (for weddings) and I've seen a few bibles in hotel rooms.  That's it.  I am completely ignorant of Christianity except for when I run into it in popular culture, in articles like this one, and in politics.

And let me tell you, all I've picked up is that everything sexual seems to be sin, masturbation included.  Stupid abstinence school programs even said that the Christian god dislikes masturbation!

So if finding this article elucidating, and also standing in contrast to the political religious party of America makes me "smug" go ahead and call me a smug SOB.

/oh no i'm smug!  literally the worst thing a person could be!
2013-08-19 03:52:17 PM
1 votes:

ArkPanda: As a Progressive Christian (at least occasionally) I have to say this is a bit of a stretch.  The guy spends 95% of the article on a detailed analysis of Genesis 38 and the context it needs to be understandable.  So far, so good.  Then at the end he tacks on "Oh, by the way, fark Republicans."


I don't think that last bit was tacked on.  It was kinda the point that the whole article was building to.
2013-08-19 03:47:26 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: spongeboob: The message of this article was to Christians, using the Bible to talk to non-Christians doesn't work outside of Jack Chick tracts. The author is trying to point out to some particular Christians that they are not following the teachings of the Bible, can you really not understand that?

Oh I get it. And as I just pointed out this has been used as an indictment against all conservative Christians and even being told we want nothing better then for the poor to suffer and that generalization is what I fight against. The author made the same generalization. Using one story and how it has been misinterpreted to condemn and entire group of people and everything else they might believe. I take umbrage to that characterization.


When you're done clutching your pearls, you can tell me how conservative evangelicals are fighting the Republican assault on government programs that help poor people (and not those that make weapons).
2013-08-19 03:41:31 PM
1 votes:
*reads headline and braces self*

*clicks and reads TFA*

I am pleasantly surprised.

astro716: I think the point is that he doesn't think there's a biblical backing for conservative evangelicals' violating the spirit of the (biblical) law and thrusting more suffering upon the poor.


It ain't just "spirit", bud.
2013-08-19 03:37:38 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: The Devil knows the Bible better than any biblical scholar that has lived or will ever live.


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...
2013-08-19 03:36:54 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-08-19 03:33:44 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Which parts trouble you the most? Which parts are you struggling with?

I never claimed I needed your help. You put forward that my understanding of Biblical principles is cause for derision. I am simply asking which of my beliefs about the Bible are worthy of your derision.


Well you could start by answering my question about prosperity gospel theology....
2013-08-19 03:27:48 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: astro716: I think the point is that he doesn't think there's a biblical backing for conservative evangelicals' violating the spirit of the (biblical) law and thrusting more suffering upon the poor.

Has it really got to the point where we have two sides so demonizing the other that this statement is ok in any discussion? You should be ashamed of yourself. Useless emotion filled accusations do not a debate make. There is not a single conservative evangelical that you can show me wishes, desires, or through inaction, is ok with suffering upon the poor. They might not agree with the path and methods to help but to make a claim like this and projecting evil motives on an entire group of people is simply ridiculous. Fark is always up in arms about how bad Christians are yet claims and rhetoric like this is never challenged. Shameful


Show me the evangelical action group calling their congressmen to reinstate funds from the SNAP cuts, and then we'll talk about my shame.
2013-08-19 03:27:38 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Uranus Is Huge!: For me your posts show up in a color reserved for the Troll Hall of Fame, but I will go ahead and point and laugh at both your literal-mindedness, and your grasp of the Bible.

Please feel free to point out how my grasp of the Bible is so bad. I would very much like to hear this.


Are you familiar with prosperity gospel theology at all?
2013-08-19 03:26:36 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: astro716: I think the point is that he doesn't think there's a biblical backing for conservative evangelicals' violating the spirit of the (biblical) law and thrusting more suffering upon the poor.

Has it really got to the point where we have two sides so demonizing the other that this statement is ok in any discussion? You should be ashamed of yourself. Useless emotion filled accusations do not a debate make. There is not a single conservative evangelical that you can show me wishes, desires, or through inaction, is ok with suffering upon the poor. They might not agree with the path and methods to help but to make a claim like this and projecting evil motives on an entire group of people is simply ridiculous. Fark is always up in arms about how bad Christians are yet claims and rhetoric like this is never challenged. Shameful


Well now that was very carefully phrased indeed....
2013-08-19 03:25:18 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Uranus Is Huge!: My favorite parts of the bible are the ones where Jesus tells everybody how wrong they are, but never gets around to telling them why or what's right.

Because they would not listen. He told His disciples what to do, He used parables to teach, He taught by example. He used what would translate across all the ages. If you had a group of people that wanted you dead and would not listen to anything you had to say but asked you direct questions you could only hope to do as well as Jesus did. He answered them honestly and 100% truthfully but did not elaborate because He knew it was useless.


For me your posts show up in a color reserved for the Troll Hall of Fame, but I will go ahead and point and laugh at both your literal-mindedness, and your grasp of the Bible.

Hint: Jesus' message is pretty clear. Modern Christians reject most of it in favor of an obsession with a handful of Paul's teachings.
2013-08-19 03:22:35 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: I just did some reading up on Fred Clark and this whole progressive Christianity whatever is. Interesting stuff. Obviously I don't agree with a lot of their beliefs nor do I think there is solid biblical foundations for a lot of what they claim but I hadn't heard of this before so at least I got that going for me...sigh.


What do you think of conservative republican attempts to combine ayn rands objectivism with evangelical Christianity? I'm curious to know your opinion.
2013-08-19 03:16:15 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: I just did some reading up on Fred Clark and this whole progressive Christianity whatever is. Interesting stuff. Obviously I don't agree with a lot of their beliefs nor do I think there is solid biblical foundations for a lot of what they claim but I hadn't heard of this before so at least I got that going for me...sigh.


I think the point is that he doesn't think there's a biblical backing for conservative evangelicals' violating the spirit of the (biblical) law and thrusting more suffering upon the poor.
2013-08-19 03:15:13 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: Weaver95: Princess Ryans Knickers: Bloody William: But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother." But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother's wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.

What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.
This seems less a condemnation of masturbating, and more a condemnation of pulling out.

Try reading the story in context. It's clear that it's not about masturbating. It's about not fulfilling his duty to give her a child.

And exploiting the situation and misfortune of others for personal pleasure and gain.

the last being the key to the whole thing.  Not only did he not want the bother of raising another child but if his brother had no male heir then by levitcal law all his property, livestock, etc became Er's eventually leaving the widow with bupkiss, so part of this is also Er's attempt to take what does not belong to him


Understanding the social system of the era helps you to understand the true 'evil' of what Onan is doing and why God felt compelled to end him as he did.
2013-08-19 03:14:47 PM
1 votes:

Uranus Is Huge!: 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.

My favorite parts of the bible are the ones where Jesus tells everybody how wrong they are, but never gets around to telling them why or what's right.


Should have made this a long time ago:

i.imgur.com
2013-08-19 03:13:07 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: Princess Ryans Knickers: Bloody William: But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother." But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother's wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.

What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.
This seems less a condemnation of masturbating, and more a condemnation of pulling out.

Try reading the story in context. It's clear that it's not about masturbating. It's about not fulfilling his duty to give her a child.

And exploiting the situation and misfortune of others for personal pleasure and gain.


the last being the key to the whole thing.  Not only did he not want the bother of raising another child but if his brother had no male heir then by levitcal law all his property, livestock, etc became Er's eventually leaving the widow with bupkiss, so part of this is also Er's attempt to take what does not belong to him
2013-08-19 03:10:19 PM
1 votes:

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.


My favorite parts of the bible are the ones where Jesus tells everybody how wrong they are, but never gets around to telling them why or what's right.
2013-08-19 03:07:21 PM
1 votes:

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.


He fails so badly for interpreting this in a way that everyone else does?

/DOES NOT COMPUTE
2013-08-19 03:06:32 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Obama's Reptiloid Master: You kidding me? That's not even a controversial interpretation of the Onan story. Like, everyone but southern big tent revival preachers who got their degrees at Hollerin' Bob's School a'Divinity and Faith Healin' agrees with that interpretation because it's so painstakingly straightforward.

I mean using this as a tool to condemn Christians as a whole. People have always used the Bible as a tool to oppress and further their own agenda. Christian do it just as badly as anyone else. People in this thread claim to know more about the Bible then Christians and that may be true. The Devil knows the Bible better than any biblical scholar that has lived or will ever live. He still misses the point though. And that is where people like Weaver95 go wrong. Also the author of the article, badly


"Attacking christians as a whole" translated from walkingtall-speak==attacking the beliefs of willfully ignorant Christians who are actually republicans.
2013-08-19 03:01:41 PM
1 votes:

Karac: 10) Handed out free health-care. Even for the really expensive, really terminal cases.


Don't forget about the already terminal cases too
2013-08-19 02:59:43 PM
1 votes:

Infernalist: 7) He basically told the world to be good to each other.

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.



http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/10.html#34

8) Nonviolent protester.


2:14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/2.html#11
2013-08-19 02:58:20 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Wow there is so much wrong with that article I don't even know where to begin. I knew fark would be all over this as soon as I saw it.


Please proceed, governor....
2013-08-19 02:57:05 PM
1 votes:

GameSprocket: I read that as "Onionism" and thought it meant that Evangelical Republicans don't know the difference between reality and satire.


Fits
2013-08-19 02:54:45 PM
1 votes:

enry: Disposable Rob: Progressive Christian(yes they exist)

They? Before I even hovered over the link, I figured it would be Fred Clark (okay, the Patheos link was a big clue). Clark is literally the only person I've read on the Internet who claims to be both a progressive and an Evangelical Christian. "They" may exist, but in the same way that Bigfoot may exist.

I'm not evangelical, but progressive Christians do exist.

/Episcopal, recovering Catholic
//Lutherans (at least ELCA) are generally more liberal too


Yeah, I suppose that if you have to specify someone is a progressive Christian, you are likely talking about someone who is Evangelical, Southern Baptist, or a similar stripe.
2013-08-19 02:52:59 PM
1 votes:

Infernalist: Obama's Reptiloid Master: hubiestubert: You mean the Bible actually condones all this sort of welfare? What were these folks, dirty Commies?

Well...

Nomadic herder and agricultural communities did have a flexible system of property ownership and many mutual obligations of support, owing to a more community-organized model. It was only later adoption of specialized labor and the creation of intertribal trade markets that allowed the rise of an owner class...

Oh. You were being facetious. I apologize. Your people's ways are yet strange to me.

I maintain that if Jesus were to take up his mission in today's world, he'd be a crunch-head hippie commie.

1) He clothed the poor.

2) He fed the poor.

3) He condemned the rich.

4) He had authority issues with the established Church.

5) He hung out with a buncha dudes.

6) He slept at the strangest times.  Seriously, taking a nap while your boat is in danger of sinking?  Dude was sleepy, for real.

7) He basically told the world to be good to each other.

8) Nonviolent protester.

9) Quit his dayjob to join a wandering commune.


10) Handed out free health-care.  Even for the really expensive, really terminal cases.
2013-08-19 02:52:09 PM
1 votes:

Infernalist: Obama's Reptiloid Master: hubiestubert: You mean the Bible actually condones all this sort of welfare? What were these folks, dirty Commies?

Well...

Nomadic herder and agricultural communities did have a flexible system of property ownership and many mutual obligations of support, owing to a more community-organized model. It was only later adoption of specialized labor and the creation of intertribal trade markets that allowed the rise of an owner class...

Oh. You were being facetious. I apologize. Your people's ways are yet strange to me.

I maintain that if Jesus were to take up his mission in today's world, he'd be a crunch-head hippie commie.

1) He clothed the poor.

2) He fed the poor.

3) He condemned the rich.

4) He had authority issues with the established Church.

5) He hung out with a buncha dudes.

6) He slept at the strangest times.  Seriously, taking a nap while your boat is in danger of sinking?  Dude was sleepy, for real.

7) He basically told the world to be good to each other.

8) Nonviolent protester.

9) Quit his dayjob to join a wandering commune.


See, but those are all things republicans claim to be, while they act the opposite.
2013-08-19 02:48:32 PM
1 votes:

walkingtall: Wow there is so much wrong with that article I don't even know where to begin. I knew fark would be all over this as soon as I saw it.


You kidding me? That's not even a controversial interpretation of the Onan story. Like, everyone but southern big tent revival preachers who got their degrees at Hollerin' Bob's School a'Divinity and Faith Healin' agrees with that interpretation because it's so painstakingly straightforward.
2013-08-19 02:47:28 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: Kristoph57: Weaver95: That was a very well written article. Damn shame the lesson is lost on the modern evangelical movement tho.

Someone should compile a list of lessons taught in the bible that are completely lost on modern evangelical movements.

Lessons: the Bible's Good Teachings or LBGT for short.

It's weird that I'm pagan and I know more about the bible than most Christians.


Not weird. Normal. They aren't taught to think.
2013-08-19 02:46:44 PM
1 votes:

Disposable Rob: Progressive Christian(yes they exist)

They? Before I even hovered over the link, I figured it would be Fred Clark (okay, the Patheos link was a big clue). Clark is literally the only person I've read on the Internet who claims to be both a progressive and an Evangelical Christian. "They" may exist, but in the same way that Bigfoot may exist.


I'm not evangelical, but progressive Christians do exist.

/Episcopal, recovering Catholic
//Lutherans (at least ELCA) are generally more liberal too
2013-08-19 02:36:49 PM
1 votes:
Progressive Christian(yes they exist)

They? Before I even hovered over the link, I figured it would be Fred Clark (okay, the Patheos link was a big clue). Clark is literally the only person I've read on the Internet who claims to be both a progressive and an Evangelical Christian. "They" may exist, but in the same way that Bigfoot may exist.
2013-08-19 02:36:26 PM
1 votes:
If they spilled their seed like Onan did, they were warned, they might go ow-ow-out like a blister in the sun.

userserve-ak.last.fm
Saw what you did there.
2013-08-19 02:35:49 PM
1 votes:
As a Progressive Christian (at least occasionally) I have to say this is a bit of a stretch.  The guy spends 95% of the article on a detailed analysis of Genesis 38 and the context it needs to be understandable.  So far, so good.  Then at the end he tacks on "Oh, by the way, fark Republicans."
2013-08-19 02:35:41 PM
1 votes:
I don't want them using the Bible to tell me how to live my life any more than I want some conservative evangelical whackjob using the Bible to tell me how to live my life.
2013-08-19 02:34:52 PM
1 votes:
People credulous enough to be Christian in this day and age should generally not be trusted to do something as complicated and logically complicated as interpret scripture.
2013-08-19 02:34:08 PM
1 votes:
I'm stuck in my temple (have to help out later) with a calender describing Halitzah
so getting a kick, etc.
2013-08-19 02:34:02 PM
1 votes:

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

Indeed they do.


It's almost as if they have a need to live vicariously, what with the strictures of their own beliefs.  I've wondered - what if everyone did do as they profess and become like them?  Whose sex lives would they obsess over then?
2013-08-19 02:32:56 PM
1 votes:
But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother." But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother's wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.

What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.

This seems less a condemnation of masturbating, and more a condemnation of pulling out.
2013-08-19 02:32:43 PM
1 votes:

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


They also spend alot of time making sure other people don't live a decent life.
2013-08-19 02:29:04 PM
1 votes:
...which also proves that these weird little stories in the Bible can be interpreted in any way you see fit to justify your own worldview.
 
Displayed 130 of 130 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report