Author Topic: Separation of church and YOUR FACE  (Read 3265 times)

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Dirtbag
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 35308
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2012, 03:36:47 pm »
Anyone care to sum up in a couple of sentences how BabHo earned this level of loathing?

He has a thing about porn involving murder that he just HAD to share with us.

Also, he's a smarmy, sticky shitball that goes to any board we're trolling, sucks up to a female admin or mod, and sells us out if he can get her to make gagging noises for him in cybersex chat rooms.

"What can we do to help you stop screaming?"

Mangrove

  • Founder of the David Foster Wallace Appreciation Society
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11757
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2012, 03:37:03 pm »
As I understand it, that was also the standard evangelical position prior to the 1970s.  Involvement in politics of any kind would distract from God's work, therefore the thing to do was to pay your taxes, do what was required insofar as it didn't violate Christian ethics (ie; the draft) and get on with the business of saving souls.  I think some preachers even compared voting to gambling...the logic was a bit convoluted, but the prohibition that engendered was pretty strong.

And since nowadays Christians seem to spend more time bashing gays and arguing for foreign wars than spreading the word of Jesus, I think the idea that getting involved in politics would distract from God's work to be a fairly valid point.

This guy: http://www.frankschaeffer.com/  has written a number of books about how the Evangelical movement became politicized. Interesting stuff because he holds himself and his family largely responsible for this shift which he utterly regrets and is spending all his time trying to counteract.
What makes it so? Making it so is what makes it so.

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Dirtbag
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 35308
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2012, 03:40:48 pm »
Oh, and if a guy pisses him off, he immediately attacks any female member of PD who the offending male is friends with, instead of the person that pissed him off.

He's a real creep.
"What can we do to help you stop screaming?"

Tiddleywomp Cockletit

  • La Mano Famosa del Infierno
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 151970
  • Interweb Horrormonkey of Love
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #33 on: October 10, 2012, 03:50:38 pm »
All of the above. Again, and again, and again, neverending SQUICK.

Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

Verbal Mike

  • EVIL JOO
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • This Time, It's Personal
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #34 on: October 10, 2012, 03:51:23 pm »
Re BabHo: OIC. Yuck.

Mang: sounds like one hell of a story. Wish I had more time, and less books on my to-read list.
Unless stated otherwise, feel free to copy or reproduce any text I post anywhere and any way you like. I will never throw a hissy-fit over it, promise.

Cain

  • Herma-mora-altadoon ae altadoon
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 98473
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #35 on: October 10, 2012, 03:51:40 pm »
As I understand it, that was also the standard evangelical position prior to the 1970s.  Involvement in politics of any kind would distract from God's work, therefore the thing to do was to pay your taxes, do what was required insofar as it didn't violate Christian ethics (ie; the draft) and get on with the business of saving souls.  I think some preachers even compared voting to gambling...the logic was a bit convoluted, but the prohibition that engendered was pretty strong.

And since nowadays Christians seem to spend more time bashing gays and arguing for foreign wars than spreading the word of Jesus, I think the idea that getting involved in politics would distract from God's work to be a fairly valid point.

This guy: http://www.frankschaeffer.com/  has written a number of books about how the Evangelical movement became politicized. Interesting stuff because he holds himself and his family largely responsible for this shift which he utterly regrets and is spending all his time trying to counteract.

His name does seem vaguely familiar to me.  If I had the time, I'd certainly peruse his back catalogue.
"The thoughts of all men arise from the darkness. If you are the movement of your soul, and the cause of that movement precedes you, then how could you ever call your thoughts your own? How could you be anything other than a slave to the darkness that comes before? Only the Logos allows one to mitigate that slavery. Only knowing the sources of thought and action allows us to own our thoughts and our actions, to throw off the yoke of circumstance."
- R. Scott Bakker, The Darkness That Comes Before

Juana Go?

  • Hideous and Otherworldly Attack Duckling of DESPAIR
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 65322
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #36 on: October 10, 2012, 04:21:31 pm »
Jesus was being asked about the temple tax. The temple tax was a tax each Jew had to pay when they came to the temple. All Jews were required to come to the temple multiple times each year... so this was a direct tax on their meeting God's Commandments. Among the Jews of the time, this was a very contentious subject.

The Jews expected the Messiah to come, throw off the yoke of the Romans and reestablish the throne as a descendant of David's line. Jesus, on the other hand came as a spiritual, not political savior. As he latere stated to Pilate "My Kingdom is no part of this world".

So the tax statement by Jesus was defining a separation between 'church' and 'state'. Specifically, that his salvation, his kingdom and his followers were not there to overthrow the Romans, or protest unfair taxes. They were there to do God's Work. Thus, if Ceaser wanted the tax, they should pay the tax, so that they could focus on the spiritual, rather then being bogged down in the political.

A strict interpretation of Jesus gospel can build a strong argument that Christians should be politically neutral, focused instead on their relationship with God and their salvation through God's Kingdom.

Of course, thats assuming that the poor guy actually lived and said/did the stuff written about him. :lulz:
See, the Jews actually got a militant leader who desired the political overthrow of the Romans. Subsequent events forced Christians to strip the political and social context in order for them to survive the intense antisemitism that followed.

FYI, most of my stuff comes from this book Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches. I feel it's only fair to say, but I'm going to add that I think it's pretty well backed up by other sources, one of which is a pretty reliable account contemporary with Jesus (Flavius Josephus, who was writing a defense of his people for the Romans, who were actually there and therefore Flavius couldn't lie very much).

From what I've read, "messiah" as a concept was not a one-time thing, as the concept at the time was. David was called a messiah, as were Saul, Solomon, priests in general, and shields, too. It might've originally meant anyone or anything that had a lot of sacred power.
Now, the vast majority Jews at the time were in a lot of trouble, as they were alienated peasants, slaves, and unemployed artisans who were living in a misruled colonial backwater and seriously fucked over by their elite (who sometimes spoke of them as if they were subhuman). There were a lot of would-be messiahs running around at the time, including both Jesus and his cousin, John (speaking of which, do you really think he was executed for his comments about Herod's marriage? No, it was for agitating too loudly against the Romans, which you can read about in Flavius Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews).

This is pretty typical of these kind of situations even still. Having no way out of an oppressive situation + an engrossing religious community that can give you a purpose in life => religious extremism. You can see this in modern Palestine, too, in the form of suicide bombers.

Jesus was, for all intents and purposes, advocating for the overthrow of the Romans, to be replaced by a Jewish empire of the likes of David's kingdom (which is why his descent of David was so important) but on a much, much grander scale. They would show those fucking Romans who was boss. You can see this a little when Jesus and friends attacked the temple and his comment that he was not here to bring peace, but to bring chaos.
And, just like John, he was popular enough to warrant execution so as to prevent the lower classes from rebelling.


The reason that the Gospels don't attest to his original message is because right after this, there was indeed a rebellion. A dude named Bar Kochva lead an army of 200,000 men and successfully ran an independent Jewish state for three years before the Romans managed to crush it (they killed 500,000 people and leveled a thousand villages in the process, and then sold thousands of Jews into slavery elsewhere in the empire).
Christians, particularly the gentiles Jesus' brother, James, had grudgingly allowed Paul to baptize abroad, wanted to survive this, and so as to convince the Romans that they were not like those other, treasonous Jews, they stripped the political and social context and removed as much of the political message of Christ as they reasonably could (this accounts for a lot of the contradictions in Christ's message).
“Call me sentimental, but there’s no-one in the world that I’d like to see get dysentery more than you.” — David Nicholls (One Day)

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Dirtbag
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 35308
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #37 on: October 10, 2012, 04:23:41 pm »
Jesus was, for all intents and purposes, advocating for the overthrow of the Romans, to be replaced by a Jewish empire of the likes of David's kingdom (which is why his descent of David was so important) but on a much, much grander scale. They would show those fucking Romans who was boss. You can see this a little when Jesus and friends attacked the temple and his comment that he was not here to bring peace, but to bring chaos.

How odd, then, that he told Simon the Zealot to calm the fuck down.
"What can we do to help you stop screaming?"

Juana Go?

  • Hideous and Otherworldly Attack Duckling of DESPAIR
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 65322
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2012, 04:28:55 pm »
Do you think that's original to the context? I don't.
“Call me sentimental, but there’s no-one in the world that I’d like to see get dysentery more than you.” — David Nicholls (One Day)

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Dirtbag
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 35308
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2012, 04:32:39 pm »
Do you think that's original to the context? I don't.

I have no idea.  All I have is a battered old KJV, and I wasn't there at the time.

As far as I can see the statement about rendering unto Caesar meant that money was irrelevant to Jesus' message.  I see absolutely NO evidence that he was some sort of insurgent.  The money changers he threw out of the temple weren't Romans, they were locals, and he threw them out because they were profaning the temple, not because he had a bug against the Romans.
"What can we do to help you stop screaming?"

Juana Go?

  • Hideous and Otherworldly Attack Duckling of DESPAIR
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 65322
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2012, 04:52:14 pm »
KVJ is a terrible, terrible translation.

You can see hints of it here and there. The attack on the temple. Some of his comments (Matthew 10:35, for example: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword!"). A lot of other things in the bible don't make sense unless you put them in their historical context (again, seriously misruled colony with a lot of agitation against the Romans with an eventual successful rebellion).
I haven't sat down to read them, but the Dead Sea Scrolls are also contemporary with Jesus (or just about, as I think they might be a little bit later than him) and reveal more of this same line of thought.
“Call me sentimental, but there’s no-one in the world that I’d like to see get dysentery more than you.” — David Nicholls (One Day)

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Dirtbag
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 35308
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2012, 04:58:11 pm »
KVJ is a terrible, terrible translation.

You can see hints of it here and there. The attack on the temple. Some of his comments (Matthew 10:35, for example: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword!"). A lot of other things in the bible don't make sense unless you put them in their historical context (again, seriously misruled colony with a lot of agitation against the Romans with an eventual successful rebellion).
I haven't sat down to read them, but the Dead Sea Scrolls are also contemporary with Jesus (or just about, as I think they might be a little bit later than him) and reveal more of this same line of thought.

Actually, it all makes sense just counting his grudge against the Pharisees.  He's always talking smack about them (check out the book of Luke, chapters 11-12 for some fun shit talking), never about the Romans.

And I don't particularly trust any translation.  None of them - not one - are based on first hand accounts.  The Gospel according to Judas apparently is, but it reads like Battlestar Galactica on bad acid.
"What can we do to help you stop screaming?"

Mangrove

  • Founder of the David Foster Wallace Appreciation Society
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11757
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2012, 05:01:41 pm »
Mang: sounds like one hell of a story. Wish I had more time, and less books on my to-read list.


His name does seem vaguely familiar to me.  If I had the time, I'd certainly peruse his back catalogue.

VERBL - 'Crazy For God' is the 1st volume of his trilogy. I watched a talk/Q&A he did about his new book on tv and was fascinated by his story. Seeing how the Jesus Crazies went from 'no politics!' to being involved with politics to becoming politics is a story that is as instructive as it is scary. You start out with Conservatism and end up with Sarah Palin.

Cain - If his name seems vaguely familiar to you, it might be because I think I've mentioned him here before. Because I am a  haphazard poster, I can't always remember if I'm repeating on a subject.

I picked up 'Crazy For God' and read a number of sample chapters of his other work on the Nook. It's in my reading queue. As is 'What's the Matter With Kansas?' which covers the incredible 'presto changeo' pulled by the Republicans in which the 'party of privilege' managed to reassert itself as 'friend of the working man' while simultaneously stabbing said man in the back.  So successful was this trick, the working man thinks it's his patriotic & religious duty to repeatedly hurl himself onto the knife.
What makes it so? Making it so is what makes it so.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 8967
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #43 on: October 10, 2012, 05:07:52 pm »
The problem is that Josephus has been pretty throughly discredited as a source for anything on Jesus (the dude from the gospels) the stuff in his writings, according to most experts, was added later. In fact, as it stands now, there appear to be no non gospel writings from the period that confirm Jesus ever existed, let alone what his political and social leanings were.

So we can really only use the biblical texts to discuss the biblical Jesus (which has its own set of contradictions). Within that context, Jesus was purely a spiritual leader. At one point the Jews wanted to make him king, but he escaped. The biblical Jesus was not a political revolutionary.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Juana Go?

  • Hideous and Otherworldly Attack Duckling of DESPAIR
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 65322
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
« Reply #44 on: October 10, 2012, 05:09:21 pm »
KVJ is a terrible, terrible translation.

You can see hints of it here and there. The attack on the temple. Some of his comments (Matthew 10:35, for example: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword!"). A lot of other things in the bible don't make sense unless you put them in their historical context (again, seriously misruled colony with a lot of agitation against the Romans with an eventual successful rebellion).
I haven't sat down to read them, but the Dead Sea Scrolls are also contemporary with Jesus (or just about, as I think they might be a little bit later than him) and reveal more of this same line of thought.

Actually, it all makes sense just counting his grudge against the Pharisees.  He's always talking smack about them (check out the book of Luke, chapters 11-12 for some fun shit talking), never about the Romans.

And I don't particularly trust any translation.  None of them - not one - are based on first hand accounts.  The Gospel according to Judas apparently is, but it reads like Battlestar Galactica on bad acid.
Of course never about the Romans. They'd just crushed the hell out of Palestine for rebelling and were feeling particularly antisemitict. If I were a Christian at the time and I wanted to survive some angry Romans, I'd strip as much anti-Roman sentiment out of my religion as possible.

Which is understandable - it's not like you're ever going to get a totally 100% accurate translation anyway, but accuracy to the original text is relatively new. KVJ is especially bad, though. Talk Phoxxy about it.
“Call me sentimental, but there’s no-one in the world that I’d like to see get dysentery more than you.” — David Nicholls (One Day)