Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Aneristic Illusions => Topic started by: LMNO on October 09, 2012, 02:01:29 PM

Title: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: LMNO on October 09, 2012, 02:01:29 PM
In a matter of days, some 1,400 American pastors are planning to break the law.  And they're likely to get away with it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/pastors-to-challenge-irs-over-political-endorsements-and-theyre-likely-to-get-away-with-it/2012/10/04/b6fc0350-0e57-11e2-ba6c-07bd866eb71a_story.html)


QuoteAs part of "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," on Oct. 7, religious leaders across the country will endorse political candidates — an act that flies in the face of Internal Revenue Service rules about what tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, can and cannot do.

Though the regulation has been in place since 1954, in 2009, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota ruled the IRS no longer had the appropriate staff to investigate places of worship after a reorganization changed who in the agency had the authority to launch investigations.

New procedures for conducting church audits have been pending since 2009, which has left the IRS virtually impotent in conducting any kind of new investigations.


Well, fuck -- if a church wants to endorse a political candidate, then they should fucking pay taxes.

Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 09, 2012, 02:49:21 PM
Yep.

But that's for a second term thingie.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Elder Iptuous on October 09, 2012, 02:50:26 PM
what is the justification for churches not paying taxes, again?
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 09, 2012, 02:51:34 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 09, 2012, 02:50:26 PM
what is the justification for churches not paying taxes, again?

Separation of church & state.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 09, 2012, 02:54:45 PM
They've been telling people how to vote since the 80's at least. Probably longer.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Elder Iptuous on October 09, 2012, 02:57:11 PM
Roger,
so, is the thinking that churches that pay more taxes due to higher revenue will have more political clout?

TFFAYS,
i think it's a couple hundred years longer than that.  at least here in the states.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Internet Jesus on October 09, 2012, 02:58:10 PM
It'll happen and the government won't do shit.  Because most Americans don't understand why churches are tax exempt, they don't much care because they cling to their sky buddy like a binki and they have the powers of being able to distract their followers by screaming "hey look over there!"

That's how the Catholic Church has managed to avoid much fallout from covering up kiddie fucking.

Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 09, 2012, 03:03:14 PM
Yeah.

And a lot of people think telling churches ANYTHING will get them a smack from skydaddy. That's why they cower in the corner when Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking, instead of telling them to hit the road.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 09, 2012, 03:03:53 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 09, 2012, 02:57:11 PM
Roger,
so, is the thinking that churches that pay more taxes due to higher revenue will have more political clout?

TFFAYS,
i think it's a couple hundred years longer than that.  at least here in the states.

No, it's since they are non-profit and aren't (HA!) allowed to interfere in politics, they get a pass.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 09, 2012, 03:05:13 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 09, 2012, 02:57:11 PM
Roger,
so, is the thinking that churches that pay more taxes due to higher revenue will have more political clout?

TFFAYS,
i think it's a couple hundred years longer than that.  at least here in the states.

:x :x :x

Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Cain on October 09, 2012, 03:58:00 PM
Sorry, but there's only one church that matters this election cycle, and it's located in Utah.

The funny thing is, American liberals don't want to talk about it, presumably out of fear of offending people with money.  And they don't come much richer than the Church of Latter Day Saints, it must be said.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on October 09, 2012, 04:56:45 PM
What's hilarious is that the entire notion that churches shouldn't pay taxes flies in the face of specific words from Jesus ("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's").

Also, although churches have been tax free in the US since the beginning, the rule against political interference has only existed since the 50s.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Juana on October 09, 2012, 05:26:22 PM
Funny fact: that does not mean what everyone thinks it means. Jesus, in the full context of the time (an oppressed colonial backwater with an awful lot of frothing anti-Roman religious radicals in the countryside), meant that Caesar was owed nothing because he owned nothing that was in Palestine.

Quote from: Cain on October 09, 2012, 03:58:00 PM
Sorry, but there's only one church that matters this election cycle, and it's located in Utah.

The funny thing is, American liberals don't want to talk about it, presumably out of fear of offending people with money.  And they don't come much richer than the Church of Latter Day Saints, it must be said.
Jesus christ, yes. The Mormon church owns huge swaths of farmland. I've always thought they ought to be taxed on that, if nothing else.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on October 09, 2012, 05:29:57 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 09, 2012, 05:26:22 PM
Funny fact: that does not mean what everyone thinks it means. Jesus, in the full context of the time (an oppressed colonial backwater with an awful lot of frothing anti-Roman religious radicals in the countryside), meant that Caesar was owed nothing because he owned nothing that was in Palestine.

The case can be made for that, but the case can also be made that since the Pharisees had accepted Caesar's de-facto rule by using his currency, then they owed him the taxes he demanded because it's dishonest to only play the game halfway.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Juana on October 09, 2012, 05:35:38 PM
Yes he was talking to the Pharisees when he said that. But remember that in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars, Christians were trying to persaude the Romans that they weren't like those Jews, and Jesus was one of those frothing religious radicals.

I'm smelling a threadjack in the make. Separate thread or no?
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: LMNO on October 09, 2012, 05:48:01 PM
Nah, keep going.  It's interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 09, 2012, 05:56:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 09, 2012, 02:01:29 PM
In a matter of days, some 1,400 American pastors are planning to break the law.  And they're likely to get away with it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/pastors-to-challenge-irs-over-political-endorsements-and-theyre-likely-to-get-away-with-it/2012/10/04/b6fc0350-0e57-11e2-ba6c-07bd866eb71a_story.html)


QuoteAs part of "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," on Oct. 7, religious leaders across the country will endorse political candidates — an act that flies in the face of Internal Revenue Service rules about what tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, can and cannot do.

Though the regulation has been in place since 1954, in 2009, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota ruled the IRS no longer had the appropriate staff to investigate places of worship after a reorganization changed who in the agency had the authority to launch investigations.

New procedures for conducting church audits have been pending since 2009, which has left the IRS virtually impotent in conducting any kind of new investigations.


Well, fuck -- if a church wants to endorse a political candidate, then they should fucking pay taxes.

I've noticed that the IRS doesn't really like it when people flout the rules.

I kind of love the IRS.  :lulz: I have a feeling some shit's bout to go down.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Mangrove on October 09, 2012, 07:49:22 PM
Latest 'US religion in decline' poll.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-religion-survey-shows-dramatic-changes-over-just-two-decades-8203395.html
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Cain on October 09, 2012, 08:23:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 09, 2012, 05:26:22 PM
Jesus christ, yes. The Mormon church owns huge swaths of farmland. I've always thought they ought to be taxed on that, if nothing else.

Oh, its much worse than that.

The original libertarians and Birchers were heavily Mormon influenced.  The Mormon Church has a strict social and political agenda it is willing to spend millions on.  When the Mormons gave Romney senior marching orders on the ERA, he caved and did as he was told.  And now his son, a Mormon bishop who apparently idolises his father's political career is in the running for the Presidency.

And should he become President, many in the LDS will see this as a fulfillment of the White Horse Prophecy.  Which ultimately culminates in Mormon global rule and the return of Jesus, among other things.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Juana on October 09, 2012, 08:36:03 PM
Oh yeah, they're willing to spend. OH HAI Mormon spending on Prop 8.


I recall you linking to the wiki article on the White Horse prophecy and suspecting that. I'm really glad they're such a small minority.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: BabylonHoruv on October 10, 2012, 01:16:46 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 09, 2012, 05:26:22 PM
Funny fact: that does not mean what everyone thinks it means. Jesus, in the full context of the time (an oppressed colonial backwater with an awful lot of frothing anti-Roman religious radicals in the countryside), meant that Caesar was owed nothing because he owned nothing that was in Palestine.

Quote from: Cain on October 09, 2012, 03:58:00 PM
Sorry, but there's only one church that matters this election cycle, and it's located in Utah.

The funny thing is, American liberals don't want to talk about it, presumably out of fear of offending people with money.  And they don't come much richer than the Church of Latter Day Saints, it must be said.
Jesus christ, yes. The Mormon church owns huge swaths of farmland. I've always thought they ought to be taxed on that, if nothing else.

I'd disagree about Christ saying Caesar was owed nothing.  He specifically mentioned the face on the coinage, that face was Caesar's.  So Caesar was owed the coin, which had his face on it.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Juana on October 10, 2012, 02:16:48 AM
Shut the fuck up. No one cares about your wretched, creepastic opinion.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 03:19:50 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 02:16:48 AM
Shut the fuck up. No one cares about your wretched, creepastic opinion.

I'm Man Yellow, and I agree with the above statement.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Don Coyote on October 10, 2012, 03:47:50 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 03:19:50 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 02:16:48 AM
Shut the fuck up. No one cares about your wretched, creepastic opinion.

I'm Man Yellow, and I agree with the above statement.

I am garbage eating urban predator and I approve this message.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 10, 2012, 04:26:08 AM
Quote from: American Jackal on October 10, 2012, 03:47:50 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 03:19:50 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 02:16:48 AM
Shut the fuck up. No one cares about your wretched, creepastic opinion.

I'm Man Yellow, and I agree with the above statement.

I am garbage eating urban predator and I approve this message.

I approve of garbage eating urban predator, Man Yellow and this message.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Freeky on October 10, 2012, 10:35:59 AM
I agree with all that.  Plus another couple levels of meta.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Verbal Mike on October 10, 2012, 12:27:05 PM
Anyone care to sum up in a couple of sentences how BabHo earned this level of loathing?
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 10, 2012, 01:39:11 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:
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Cain on October 10, 2012, 03:23:41 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.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Juana on October 10, 2012, 04:33:45 PM
Quote from: VERBL on October 10, 2012, 12:27:05 PM
Anyone care to sum up in a couple of sentences how BabHo earned this level of loathing?
He's into snuff porn.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 04:36:47 PM
Quote from: VERBL on October 10, 2012, 12:27:05 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.

Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 04:37:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 10, 2012, 03:23:41 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.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 04:40:48 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.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 10, 2012, 04:50:38 PM
All of the above. Again, and again, and again, neverending SQUICK.

Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Verbal Mike on October 10, 2012, 04:51:23 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.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Cain on October 10, 2012, 04:51:40 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 04:37:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 10, 2012, 03:23:41 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.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Juana on October 10, 2012, 05:21:31 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 10, 2012, 01:39:11 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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=r6XpvpcOMrcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cown+pigs+war+and+witchcraft&source=bl&ots=xQSDKYDfdm&sig=V3qWdcBRf7FkkIjp8Or1-b-CwXw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fJN1UOeqJoKQiALNnYCADQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=messiahs&f=false). 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).
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 05:21:31 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.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Juana on October 10, 2012, 05:28:55 PM
Do you think that's original to the context? I don't.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 05:32:39 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 05:28:55 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.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Juana on October 10, 2012, 05:52:14 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.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 05:58:11 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 05:52:14 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.

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.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:01:41 PM
Quote from: VERBL on October 10, 2012, 04:51:23 PM
Mang: sounds like one hell of a story. Wish I had more time, and less books on my to-read list.

Quote from: Cain on October 10, 2012, 04:51:40 PM

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.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 10, 2012, 06:07:52 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.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Juana on October 10, 2012, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 05:58:11 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 05:52:14 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.

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.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 06:10:26 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 10, 2012, 06:07:52 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.

Again, the Gospel According to Judas.  Google it up, it reads like Kerry Thornley on a bad trip.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 06:13:09 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 05:58:11 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 05:52:14 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.

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.

Well, sure.  But the fact remains that he talked shit about the Pharisees all day long in every translation, and never once about the secular authority of either Rome or Herod.  His beef was with the priesthood, because he felt that they were perverting the word of God.

MANG:  Conservative?  HA!  Read the book of Luke sometime.  Jesus was a screeching liberal.

In fact, IMO, the book of Luke redeems the whole message, morally if not historically.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Juana on October 10, 2012, 06:24:10 PM
Sure, he hated the Pharisees. They were Roman lackeys. But, seriously, to survive they needed to strip as much as they could of anti-Roman sentiment from the oral history. Which they did.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 10, 2012, 06:07:52 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 just did a check and I am absolutely not seeing that, Rat. If it was something most experts were saying, about a million articles would be popping and and I've not seen so much as one.

Regardless, there are other contemporary texts to discuss the social and political context of the era though, among them the Dead Sea Scrolls. Like I said, they back up the social and political context, and you can't discount them at the very least in that regard.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Cain on October 10, 2012, 06:28:17 PM
All wrong.

Jesus was a mushroom (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909327,00.html).
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
Could Jesus' shit talking about the Pharisees be considered an indirect critique of the Romans? The Jews of the day knew that the Temple & the people that ran it were entirely in the pocket of the Romans.  It's why you have the Sadducees - learned scholars outside of Temple Inc. Which apparently, is how the institution of the Rabbi came to be. You can't trust the Temple priests to give you spiritual advice or intelligent commentary on Judaism, so you instead seek counsel from a group of unpaid, devout scholars who like to debate scriptural issues.

[But I don't know....I'm by no means an expert on these things and it's been a long time since I've studied anything about this period. Just a thought.]



PS. Not read the Gospel of Judas, though I do think I either have that in my library somewhere or have a commentary on it that I have not got 'round to. I've not read Luke in any detail. In fact, I got more interested in reading books about the Bible as opposed to reading the thing itself. I was raised in an almost entirely religious-free environment for which I am extremely thankful. My parent's apathy (especially my mother's absolute rejection of Catholicism) meant that very little Jesus ever got hardwired into us as kids. By the time I was in my teens I knew far more about Buddhism (by choice) than I ever knew about Christianity.

Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 06:29:44 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 06:24:10 PM
Sure, he hated the Pharisees. They were Roman lackeys.

That would be "Herod".  The Romans took no hand in local religions at that time (with the exception of any religion that employed human sacrifice, which they exterminated on sight).
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
Could Jesus' shit talking about the Pharisees be considered an indirect critique of the Romans? The Jews of the day knew that the Temple & the people that ran it were entirely in the pocket of the Romans. 

Again, you seem to be conflating the Jewish king with the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were of course political, being a priesthood, but their only dealings with the Romans seemed to be "keep things nice & quiet so the Romans won't get their hooks in the temple treasury".
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:33:41 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 10, 2012, 06:28:17 PM
All wrong.

Jesus was a mushroom (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909327,00.html).

You sure? I had it on good authority from the [ahem] 'historians' quoted by Dan Brown that Jesus was, in fact, an Egyptian trained Sex Magician.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Templar_Revelation
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
Could Jesus' shit talking about the Pharisees be considered an indirect critique of the Romans? The Jews of the day knew that the Temple & the people that ran it were entirely in the pocket of the Romans. 

Again, you seem to be conflating the Jewish king with the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were of course political, being a priesthood, but their only dealings with the Romans seemed to be "keep things nice & quiet so the Romans won't get their hooks in the temple treasury".

Fair enough. I didn't appreciate the distinction there.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
PS. Not read the Gospel of Judas, though I do think I either have that in my library somewhere or have a commentary on it that I have not got 'round to.

Look it up online.  Seriously, it's a must-read.  If it was readable.  Stars fighting each other in the sky, etc.

Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
I've not read Luke in any detail.

It's worth reading.  It's the sort of thing that attracted the poor into the church in the early days.

Sort of like Revelation, which is NOTHING like it's portrayed to be by the religious nuts.  It's more a promise that people will, at some point, get precisely what they deserve.

For example, look up revelation 11:18 sometime.  The republicans don't like that verse much.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: LMNO on October 10, 2012, 06:37:53 PM
Incidentally, the Book of Judas firmly supports TGRR's "Malevolent Deity" theory.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 06:39:51 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
Could Jesus' shit talking about the Pharisees be considered an indirect critique of the Romans? The Jews of the day knew that the Temple & the people that ran it were entirely in the pocket of the Romans. 

Again, you seem to be conflating the Jewish king with the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were of course political, being a priesthood, but their only dealings with the Romans seemed to be "keep things nice & quiet so the Romans won't get their hooks in the temple treasury".

Fair enough. I didn't appreciate the distinction there.

Herod was the Jewish king, by the whim of the Roman Emperor (or his appointed governor).  He was directly responsible to Rome, which took a very strong hand in his affairs.  He was nominally a part of the priesthood, but in name only.

The actual functioning priesthood itself was mostly left alone, because the Romans were pragmatic enough (usually) to realize that allowing local religions to flourish caused less problems.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 06:41:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 10, 2012, 06:37:53 PM
Incidentally, the Book of Judas firmly supports TGRR's "Malevolent Deity" theory.

Not really.  It supports the idea that Judas was in on the whole thing from the beginning, though, and that God definitely has a vengeful side to him, even after Jesus.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Cain on October 10, 2012, 06:41:10 PM
JEWISH POLITICS AT THE TIME OF JESUS:

Pharisees - hate Sadducees.  Hate the Hasmonean dynasty supported by them, asked Romans to abolish it.

Romans - abolished it, put Herod in charge. 

Sadducees  - hate Herod, so he uses the Pharisees to bolster his power base.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
PS. Not read the Gospel of Judas, though I do think I either have that in my library somewhere or have a commentary on it that I have not got 'round to.

Look it up online.  Seriously, it's a must-read.  If it was readable.  Stars fighting each other in the sky, etc.

Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
I've not read Luke in any detail.

It's worth reading.  It's the sort of thing that attracted the poor into the church in the early days.

Sort of like Revelation, which is NOTHING like it's portrayed to be by the religious nuts.  It's more a promise that people will, at some point, get precisely what they deserve.

For example, look up revelation 11:18 sometime.  The republicans don't like that verse much.

Aha. Thanks for the tips Rog. I just checked my books...I actually have 'Beyond Belief' by Elaine Pagels which is actually about the Gospel of Thomas and not of Judas.

I would ask Mrs Mang about the Bible for, once upon a very long time ago, she was a Baptist and she knows the book far better than I. Though, my attempt to discuss Revelation with in the past was short lived.

Me: So, when you were in the church, what did you think of Revelation?
Mrs Mang: TL/DR....thought it was scary, freaked me out and didn't read it.

Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: LMNO on October 10, 2012, 06:45:59 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:41:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 10, 2012, 06:37:53 PM
Incidentally, the Book of Judas firmly supports TGRR's "Malevolent Deity" theory.

Not really.  It supports the idea that Judas was in on the whole thing from the beginning, though, and that God definitely has a vengeful side to him, even after Jesus.


No?  I was pretty sure it says that the thing we call "God" is really a mean and petty fallen angel who fucks with the world because it can, and the "true" god is far above the earthly realm, and doesn't really give a shit about us.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:50:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 10, 2012, 06:45:59 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:41:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 10, 2012, 06:37:53 PM
Incidentally, the Book of Judas firmly supports TGRR's "Malevolent Deity" theory.

Not really.  It supports the idea that Judas was in on the whole thing from the beginning, though, and that God definitely has a vengeful side to him, even after Jesus.


No?  I was pretty sure it says that the thing we call "God" is really a mean and petty fallen angel who fucks with the world because it can, and the "true" god is far above the earthly realm, and doesn't really give a shit about us.

Sounds like Gnostic territory. My understanding is that the Demi-Urge is not necessarily 'evil' but it is incomplete, confused and that the material world is flawed because the agencies of creation are too.

http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Cain on October 10, 2012, 06:55:36 PM
And the name of that fallen angel is Angra Mainyu.  /blatant spoiler
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Juana on October 10, 2012, 06:58:53 PM
 :lulz:

Quote from: Cain on October 10, 2012, 06:28:17 PM
All wrong.

Jesus was a mushroom (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909327,00.html).
:lulz: I love that idea. Definitely explains Revelations.



Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:29:44 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 06:24:10 PM
Sure, he hated the Pharisees. They were Roman lackeys.

That would be "Herod".  The Romans took no hand in local religions at that time (with the exception of any religion that employed human sacrifice, which they exterminated on sight).
Okay, I had forgotten about that. Herod, though, was the one who had Jesus and John executed (and also Mang's point about keeping shit quiet so the Romans keep their mitts off the treasury).
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 07:06:28 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
PS. Not read the Gospel of Judas, though I do think I either have that in my library somewhere or have a commentary on it that I have not got 'round to.

Look it up online.  Seriously, it's a must-read.  If it was readable.  Stars fighting each other in the sky, etc.

Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
I've not read Luke in any detail.

It's worth reading.  It's the sort of thing that attracted the poor into the church in the early days.

Sort of like Revelation, which is NOTHING like it's portrayed to be by the religious nuts.  It's more a promise that people will, at some point, get precisely what they deserve.

For example, look up revelation 11:18 sometime.  The republicans don't like that verse much.

Aha. Thanks for the tips Rog. I just checked my books...I actually have 'Beyond Belief' by Elaine Pagels which is actually about the Gospel of Thomas and not of Judas.

I would ask Mrs Mang about the Bible for, once upon a very long time ago, she was a Baptist and she knows the book far better than I. Though, my attempt to discuss Revelation with in the past was short lived.

Me: So, when you were in the church, what did you think of Revelation?
Mrs Mang: TL/DR....thought it was scary, freaked me out and didn't read it.

Pity.  It's great stuff, but it's commonly misrepresented as God going batshit on everyone and his dog.  It isn't. 

Quote from: Revelation 11:18And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.




Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 07:07:44 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 06:58:53 PM
:lulz:

Quote from: Cain on October 10, 2012, 06:28:17 PM
All wrong.

Jesus was a mushroom (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909327,00.html).
:lulz: I love that idea. Definitely explains Revelations.



Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:29:44 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 06:24:10 PM
Sure, he hated the Pharisees. They were Roman lackeys.

That would be "Herod".  The Romans took no hand in local religions at that time (with the exception of any religion that employed human sacrifice, which they exterminated on sight).
Okay, I had forgotten about that. Herod, though, was the one who had Jesus and John executed (and also Mang's point about keeping shit quiet so the Romans keep their mitts off the treasury).

Um, that was my comment.

And no, Herod didn't execute Jesus.  Pilate did.  Herod didn't have the power to put a man to death at that time.  Execution via government was reserved strictly to the Romans.  The pressure put on Pilate by the Pharisees was based on the first commandment of colonial government:  Thou Shalt Not Kick Up a Ruckus.

Herod was on the sidelines for that one, mostly BECAUSE he had John the Baptist killed, which itself kicked up a ruckus.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 10, 2012, 07:08:22 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 10, 2012, 06:24:10 PM
Sure, he hated the Pharisees. They were Roman lackeys. But, seriously, to survive they needed to strip as much as they could of anti-Roman sentiment from the oral history. Which they did.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 10, 2012, 06:07:52 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 just did a check and I am absolutely not seeing that, Rat. If it was something most experts were saying, about a million articles would be popping and and I've not seen so much as one.

Regardless, there are other contemporary texts to discuss the social and political context of the era though, among them the Dead Sea Scrolls. Like I said, they back up the social and political context, and you can't discount them at the very least in that regard.

The social and political context of Israel was full of messiahs, most of whom were politically revolutionary.

I was a bit brief before, since I was writing from my phone, but I'll expand a bit.

There are three schools of though on Josephus' comments about Jesus.

1. Its all 100% original to Josephus
2. It's 100% bullshit added later by Christians to bolster their claims
3. Josephus may have made some commentary based on the stories and rumors about Jesus and the early Christian beliefs, but these were heavily embellished later.

A good summary and links to sources:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page10.htm

However, even if we were to accept wholesale Josephus' account, it says nothing about Jesus being a political activist. He says Jesus was a great guy did some wonderful stuff and got killed by Pilate "at the suggestion of the principle men among us" (the Jews). If Jesus had been a political rebel, Pilate would not have needed the Jews to egg him into killing Jesus. Pilate and the romans were used to dealing with Jewish rebels and political messiahs.

However, it would make much more sense if Jesus were a religious rebel. Pilate wouldn't care so much about that, but his allies among the Pharisees and Priests would. In many of the gospel accounts, Jesus is directly attacking the spiritual leadership of the Jewish nation. He calls the Pharisees "whitewashed graves"and "serpents, offspring of vipers". He condems them as mistreating the Jews "as sheep without a shepherd". He says that they "bind up heavy loads" on the Jews. For example, the Pharisees were principle among those that began to strongly codify laws around the commandments, for example, not working on the sabbath, became "You can't wear sandals held together with iron nails, because the iron makes you do extra work to lift your foot".

The money changers mentioned earlier are another example.

Nowhere in the Gospels or in Josephus does Jesus appear to go against the Romans, he appears entirely focused on the religious leaders with a religious message.

Regardless of what the original Jesus may have said... the spiritual messiah image is the Jesus that Christians follow and the Jesus applicable to the discussion about the interpretation of his statement to pay back Caesar's things to Caesar.

Oh and Herod didn't have Jesus killed... he whimped off and passed him to Pilate with a "this isn't my jurisdiction" sort of cop-out.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 10, 2012, 07:19:50 PM
And there's the possibility that Jesus was a fictional, or at least composite character. It's all force-fitted to old Jewish prophecies.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 07:19:50 PM
And there's the possibility that Jesus was a fictional, or at least composite character. It's all force-fitted to old Jewish prophecies.

If that's the case, then Ivan Stang wrote Luke.

No shit.  It reads like him.  "Quit your fucking worrying."
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 10, 2012, 07:36:13 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 07:19:50 PM
And there's the possibility that Jesus was a fictional, or at least composite character. It's all force-fitted to old Jewish prophecies.

If that's the case, then Ivan Stang wrote Luke.

No shit.  It reads like him.  "Quit your fucking worrying."

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

You know, Luke was the only one who mentioned a virgin birth. And he was a Greek.  :lol:
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 07:38:07 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 07:36:13 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 07:19:50 PM
And there's the possibility that Jesus was a fictional, or at least composite character. It's all force-fitted to old Jewish prophecies.

If that's the case, then Ivan Stang wrote Luke.

No shit.  It reads like him.  "Quit your fucking worrying."

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

You know, Luke was the only one who mentioned a virgin birth. And he was a Greek.  :lol:

Again, pure Stang/Philo Drummond.  I'm surprised he wasn't visited by 3 wise yetis.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 10, 2012, 07:41:38 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 07:38:07 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 07:36:13 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 07:19:50 PM
And there's the possibility that Jesus was a fictional, or at least composite character. It's all force-fitted to old Jewish prophecies.

If that's the case, then Ivan Stang wrote Luke.

No shit.  It reads like him.  "Quit your fucking worrying."

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

You know, Luke was the only one who mentioned a virgin birth. And he was a Greek.  :lol:

Again, pure Stang/Philo Drummond.  I'm surprised he wasn't visited by 3 wise yetis.

Those writings could still turn up.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 07:43:06 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 07:41:38 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 07:38:07 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 07:36:13 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 07:19:50 PM
And there's the possibility that Jesus was a fictional, or at least composite character. It's all force-fitted to old Jewish prophecies.

If that's the case, then Ivan Stang wrote Luke.

No shit.  It reads like him.  "Quit your fucking worrying."

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

You know, Luke was the only one who mentioned a virgin birth. And he was a Greek.  :lol:

Again, pure Stang/Philo Drummond.  I'm surprised he wasn't visited by 3 wise yetis.

Those writings could still turn up.  :lulz:

*looks up methods of "aging" parchment*
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 07:53:20 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 07:06:28 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
PS. Not read the Gospel of Judas, though I do think I either have that in my library somewhere or have a commentary on it that I have not got 'round to.

Look it up online.  Seriously, it's a must-read.  If it was readable.  Stars fighting each other in the sky, etc.

Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
I've not read Luke in any detail.

It's worth reading.  It's the sort of thing that attracted the poor into the church in the early days.

Sort of like Revelation, which is NOTHING like it's portrayed to be by the religious nuts.  It's more a promise that people will, at some point, get precisely what they deserve.

For example, look up revelation 11:18 sometime.  The republicans don't like that verse much.

Aha. Thanks for the tips Rog. I just checked my books...I actually have 'Beyond Belief' by Elaine Pagels which is actually about the Gospel of Thomas and not of Judas.

I would ask Mrs Mang about the Bible for, once upon a very long time ago, she was a Baptist and she knows the book far better than I. Though, my attempt to discuss Revelation with in the past was short lived.

Me: So, when you were in the church, what did you think of Revelation?
Mrs Mang: TL/DR....thought it was scary, freaked me out and didn't read it.

Pity.  It's great stuff, but it's commonly misrepresented as God going batshit on everyone and his dog.  It isn't.

Quote from: Revelation 11:18And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Good point. Back in the day before Mrs Mang became a born-again Heathen, she went to Bible study classes. While in that reality tunnel, she said that everyone were deeply impressed by their pastor because he had gone to school and studied the Bible deeply. And being something of an asshole at times I asked:

Me: So, Pastor **** can read Latin, Greek & Hebrew?
Mrs Mang: No.
Me: Where did he study theology?
Mrs Mang: At a bible college....in the South.
Me: Then you weren't studying the Bible...it's just endlessly rehashing the particular interpretation agreed by the Southern Baptists.

And so we get locked into the same tired interpretations over and over again. The fun part is that the bits that Baptists really like to harp on about like The Rapture aren't even in the damn book to begin with. All the 'floating zombie at the end of days' silliness came out of a crank Scottish minister in the 19th century. Nothing to do with Revelation at all.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 10, 2012, 07:58:40 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 07:43:06 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 07:41:38 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 07:38:07 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 07:36:13 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 07:19:50 PM
And there's the possibility that Jesus was a fictional, or at least composite character. It's all force-fitted to old Jewish prophecies.

If that's the case, then Ivan Stang wrote Luke.

No shit.  It reads like him.  "Quit your fucking worrying."

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

You know, Luke was the only one who mentioned a virgin birth. And he was a Greek.  :lol:

Again, pure Stang/Philo Drummond.  I'm surprised he wasn't visited by 3 wise yetis.

Those writings could still turn up.  :lulz:

*looks up methods of "aging" parchment*

Stain it with Lipton tea.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 10, 2012, 08:01:01 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 07:53:20 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 07:06:28 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
PS. Not read the Gospel of Judas, though I do think I either have that in my library somewhere or have a commentary on it that I have not got 'round to.

Look it up online.  Seriously, it's a must-read.  If it was readable.  Stars fighting each other in the sky, etc.

Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
I've not read Luke in any detail.

It's worth reading.  It's the sort of thing that attracted the poor into the church in the early days.

Sort of like Revelation, which is NOTHING like it's portrayed to be by the religious nuts.  It's more a promise that people will, at some point, get precisely what they deserve.

For example, look up revelation 11:18 sometime.  The republicans don't like that verse much.

Aha. Thanks for the tips Rog. I just checked my books...I actually have 'Beyond Belief' by Elaine Pagels which is actually about the Gospel of Thomas and not of Judas.

I would ask Mrs Mang about the Bible for, once upon a very long time ago, she was a Baptist and she knows the book far better than I. Though, my attempt to discuss Revelation with in the past was short lived.

Me: So, when you were in the church, what did you think of Revelation?
Mrs Mang: TL/DR....thought it was scary, freaked me out and didn't read it.

Pity.  It's great stuff, but it's commonly misrepresented as God going batshit on everyone and his dog.  It isn't.

Quote from: Revelation 11:18And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Good point. Back in the day before Mrs Mang became a born-again Heathen, she went to Bible study classes. While in that reality tunnel, she said that everyone were deeply impressed by their pastor because he had gone to school and studied the Bible deeply. And being something of an asshole at times I asked:

Me: So, Pastor **** can read Latin, Greek & Hebrew?
Mrs Mang: No.
Me: Where did he study theology?
Mrs Mang: At a bible college....in the South.
Me: Then you weren't studying the Bible...it's just endlessly rehashing the particular interpretation agreed by the Southern Baptists.

And so we get locked into the same tired interpretations over and over again. The fun part is that the bits that Baptists really like to harp on about like The Rapture aren't even in the damn book to begin with. All the 'floating zombie at the end of days' silliness came out of a crank Scottish minister in the 19th century. Nothing to do with Revelation at all.

I think there's something in the NT about being "caught up in the clouds with Jesus", but who the fuck knows what it's referring too.
Mushrooms works for me.  :lol:
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 08:19:22 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 07:53:20 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 07:06:28 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
PS. Not read the Gospel of Judas, though I do think I either have that in my library somewhere or have a commentary on it that I have not got 'round to.

Look it up online.  Seriously, it's a must-read.  If it was readable.  Stars fighting each other in the sky, etc.

Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
I've not read Luke in any detail.

It's worth reading.  It's the sort of thing that attracted the poor into the church in the early days.

Sort of like Revelation, which is NOTHING like it's portrayed to be by the religious nuts.  It's more a promise that people will, at some point, get precisely what they deserve.

For example, look up revelation 11:18 sometime.  The republicans don't like that verse much.

Aha. Thanks for the tips Rog. I just checked my books...I actually have 'Beyond Belief' by Elaine Pagels which is actually about the Gospel of Thomas and not of Judas.

I would ask Mrs Mang about the Bible for, once upon a very long time ago, she was a Baptist and she knows the book far better than I. Though, my attempt to discuss Revelation with in the past was short lived.

Me: So, when you were in the church, what did you think of Revelation?
Mrs Mang: TL/DR....thought it was scary, freaked me out and didn't read it.

Pity.  It's great stuff, but it's commonly misrepresented as God going batshit on everyone and his dog.  It isn't.

Quote from: Revelation 11:18And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Good point. Back in the day before Mrs Mang became a born-again Heathen, she went to Bible study classes. While in that reality tunnel, she said that everyone were deeply impressed by their pastor because he had gone to school and studied the Bible deeply. And being something of an asshole at times I asked:

Me: So, Pastor **** can read Latin, Greek & Hebrew?
Mrs Mang: No.
Me: Where did he study theology?
Mrs Mang: At a bible college....in the South.
Me: Then you weren't studying the Bible...it's just endlessly rehashing the particular interpretation agreed by the Southern Baptists.

And so we get locked into the same tired interpretations over and over again. The fun part is that the bits that Baptists really like to harp on about like The Rapture aren't even in the damn book to begin with. All the 'floating zombie at the end of days' silliness came out of a crank Scottish minister in the 19th century. Nothing to do with Revelation at all.

Well, that's exactly it.  They took a book that - while admitedly deranged - discusses the judgement of the rich and powerful, and used it as a tool to scare the shit out of the proletariat.

If you read it on your own, with that in mind, it's a whole different book, no matter what you actually believe with respect to the religion.  It's like hearing Libertarians spout off about Adam Smith for 30 years (as I did) before actually reading Wealth of Nations myself, and realizing that Libertarians are retards.  Adam Smith has to be the most misquoted man ever.  Aside from whomever wrote the new testament, I mean.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 08:28:39 PM
On the other hand, I only read the old testament on those nights when Warren Ellis isn't weird enough.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: LMNO on October 10, 2012, 08:31:37 PM
I just read it for the Begats.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 08:38:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 10, 2012, 08:31:37 PM
I just read it for the Begats.

It's all smiting and begetting.  Non-stop.

And then Jezebel... :lulz:...Jezebel gets KILLED via defenestration by the GOOD GUY for NOT betraying her husband.  And THEN she gets a posthumous reputation as a whore for STAYING LOYAL to her husband.

That part cracks me up.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Internet Jesus on October 10, 2012, 08:39:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 10, 2012, 03:23:41 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.

That's my understanding as well and also at some level why I kind of hope the Jesus freaks are right, because Jesus is gonna spit them out for being lukewarm. (Rev 3:16)
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 08:45:59 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 10, 2012, 08:39:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 10, 2012, 03:23:41 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.

That's my understanding as well and also at some level why I kind of hope the Jesus freaks are right, because Jesus is gonna spit them out for being lukewarm. (Rev 3:16)

My guess is that "shat upon from a great height" would take on a whole new meaning.

Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 10, 2012, 09:09:16 PM
Much of Revelation is symbolic. Various beasts representing governments, just as we see in Daniel. The lake of burning fire symbolizing eternal destruction. Indeed it was called Gehenna, gehenna was a place outside the walls of Jerusalem where the garbage was dumped and burned. There was always fire/smoke in gehenna, but it wasn't burning the same trash over and over forever ;-)
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Internet Jesus on October 10, 2012, 09:21:17 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 10, 2012, 09:09:16 PM
Much of Revelation is symbolic. Various beasts representing governments, just as we see in Daniel. The lake of burning fire symbolizing eternal destruction. Indeed it was called Gehenna, gehenna was a place outside the walls of Jerusalem where the garbage was dumped and burned. There was always fire/smoke in gehenna, but it wasn't burning the same trash over and over forever ;-)

One guys symbolism is another's misunderstood literalism.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 10:05:11 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 10, 2012, 09:09:16 PM
Much of Revelation is symbolic. Various beasts representing governments, just as we see in Daniel. The lake of burning fire symbolizing eternal destruction. Indeed it was called Gehenna, gehenna was a place outside the walls of Jerusalem where the garbage was dumped and burned. There was always fire/smoke in gehenna, but it wasn't burning the same trash over and over forever ;-)

You'll be laughing out the other side of your neck when the 7-headed beastie eats you and your car.

Nobody likes a smartass. 
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 10:07:36 PM
This interpretation of an apocryphal 1600-4000 year old series of books brought to you by the History Channel, the same people that brought you "The History of UFOs".  Please to ignore the anachronisms required for this interpretation.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 10:10:51 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
PS. Not read the Gospel of Judas, though I do think I either have that in my library somewhere or have a commentary on it that I have not got 'round to.

Look it up online.  Seriously, it's a must-read.  If it was readable.  Stars fighting each other in the sky, etc.

The Gospel of Judas is one side of a second-century fight about who Christians should follow.  The author of Judas felt that any church that based its
ritual and doctrinal practice on the authority of the apostles was leading Christians astray.  The Eucharist, in particular, offended him, because it's a
reenactment of the human sacrifice of Jesus, and human sacrifice is not a good thing; it's actually an offering to Nebro/Ialdabaoth, the chief archon
and ruler of this world.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 10:14:21 PM
Quote from: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 10:10:51 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
PS. Not read the Gospel of Judas, though I do think I either have that in my library somewhere or have a commentary on it that I have not got 'round to.

Look it up online.  Seriously, it's a must-read.  If it was readable.  Stars fighting each other in the sky, etc.

The Gospel of Judas is one side of a second-century fight about who Christians should follow.  The author of Judas felt that any church that based its
ritual and doctrinal practice on the authority of the apostles was leading Christians astray.  The Eucharist, in particular, offended him, because it's a
reenactment of the human sacrifice of Jesus, and human sacrifice is not a good thing; it's actually an offering to Nebro/Ialdabaoth, the chief archon
and ruler of this world.

That's funny, because I've read it, and it's nothing like that.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 10:22:05 PM
The wikipedia short & dirty:

QuoteIn contrast to the canonical gospels which paint Judas as a betrayer of Christ who delivered him up to the authorities for crucifixion, the Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given by Christ. The document also suggests that Christ planned the course of events which led to his death. This portrayal seems to conform to a notion current in some forms of Gnosticism, that the human form is a spiritual prison, that Judas thus served Christ by helping to release Christ's soul from its physical constraints, and that two kinds of human beings exist: the men furnished with the immortal soul which is "from the eternal realms" and "will abide there always" ("the strong and holy generation...with no ruler over it", to whom Judas belongs), and the other ones, the majority of mankind, who are mortal and therefore unable to reach the salvation. The Gospel of Judas does not claim that the other disciples knew about Jesus's true teachings. On the contrary, it asserts that they had not learned the true Gospel, which Jesus taught only to Judas Iscariot, the sole follower belonging to the "holy generation" among the disciples.

Also, stars fighting in the sky, and Jesus laughing a lot and telling Judas that EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 10, 2012, 10:29:31 PM
JW's actually interpret the 7 headed wild beast as the United Nations, with Babyon the Whore (all the christian religions that are in bed with politics) riding it. The horn that "speaks blasphemous things" is the UN trying to create world peace, which is only possible through Jesus Kingdom. They also believe that the Beast will turn on the Harlot and kill her, that is, the governments will recoginize that most of the worlds problems stem from religion, so they'll turn on religion, destroying it utterly and that is the beginning of the Great Tribulation which precedes Armeggedon.

JW's see all other Christian religions the way that Evangelical protestants see the Catholics. 
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 10:31:53 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 10, 2012, 10:29:31 PM
JW's actually interpret the 7 headed wild beast as the United Nations, with Babyon the Whore (all the christian religions that are in bed with politics) riding it. The horn that "speaks blasphemous things" is the UN trying to create world peace, which is only possible through Jesus Kingdom. They also believe that the Beast will turn on the Harlot and kill her, that is, the governments will recoginize that most of the worlds problems stem from religion, so they'll turn on religion, destroying it utterly and that is the beginning of the Great Tribulation which precedes Armeggedon.

JW's see all other Christian religions the way that Evangelical protestants see the Catholics.

JWs are also enrolled in a religion that says that 1/3rd AT MOST of them get into heaven, no matter how good they are.

So I don't think I'll be listening to them.

My favorite interpretation is that the 7 headed beast is actually the successor kingdoms to Alexander's empire, which would mean that John of Patmos successfully predicted something that happened 300 years before he was born.

Let's try that out:  I predict that America will break free from England in a revolutionary war.

I IZ PROPHET!
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 10:32:24 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 10:22:05 PM
The wikipedia short & dirty:

QuoteIn contrast to the canonical gospels which paint Judas as a betrayer of Christ who delivered him up to the authorities for crucifixion, the Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given by Christ. The document also suggests that Christ planned the course of events which led to his death. This portrayal seems to conform to a notion current in some forms of Gnosticism, that the human form is a spiritual prison, that Judas thus served Christ by helping to release Christ's soul from its physical constraints, and that two kinds of human beings exist: the men furnished with the immortal soul which is "from the eternal realms" and "will abide there always" ("the strong and holy generation...with no ruler over it", to whom Judas belongs), and the other ones, the majority of mankind, who are mortal and therefore unable to reach the salvation. The Gospel of Judas does not claim that the other disciples knew about Jesus's true teachings. On the contrary, it asserts that they had not learned the true Gospel, which Jesus taught only to Judas Iscariot, the sole follower belonging to the "holy generation" among the disciples.

Also, stars fighting in the sky, and Jesus laughing a lot and telling Judas that EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE.

Yeah, the first half of that is wrong.  The first edition of the Gospel of Judas published by National Geographic played up the angle that Judas was Jesus' best friend,
and Judas was just doing what Jesus asked him to do.  Turns out the translation team made a couple of serious mistakes (which, to their credit, they fixed in the
critical edition of the text, but probably no one except scholars look at that) - the Jesus in the Gospel of Judas is a thoroughly spiritual being who comes and goes
to the "great and holy generation" at will.  He has no need for Judas to help get him crucified, nor does he order him to, he merely says, this is what's going to happen,
and it's not to Judas' credit.  It is, in fact, worse than anything the disciples are doing, and the disciples are actively leading ordinary Christians astray.  And Jesus only
reveals the truth to Judas apparently to make him suffer, because Judas won't ever have any part of the great and holy generation.  I find the Jesus portrayed in the
Gospel of Judas to be kind of a dick.

I should mention that I'm halfway through writing my dissertation on the Gospel of Judas.  Most of what first came out about it, like that first book, and the godawful
fucking "documentary" aired on the National Geographic Channel, tries to spin it in a positive light, but it's not.  It's a second-century hit-piece against apostolic
Christianity.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 10:34:23 PM
Quote from: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 10:32:24 PM
Yeah, the first half of that is wrong.  The first edition of the Gospel of Judas published by National Geographic played up the angle that Judas was Jesus' best friend,
and Judas was just doing what Jesus asked him to do.  Turns out the translation team made a couple of serious mistakes (which, to their credit, they fixed in the
critical edition of the text, but probably no one except scholars look at that) - the Jesus in the Gospel of Judas is a thoroughly spiritual being who comes and goes
to the "great and holy generation" at will.  He has no need for Judas to help get him crucified, nor does he order him to, he merely says, this is what's going to happen,
and it's not to Judas' credit.  It is, in fact, worse than anything the disciples are doing, and the disciples are actively leading ordinary Christians astray.  And Jesus only
reveals the truth to Judas apparently to make him suffer, because Judas won't ever have any part of the great and holy generation.  I find the Jesus portrayed in the
Gospel of Judas to be kind of a dick.

I should mention that I'm halfway through writing my dissertation on the Gospel of Judas.  Most of what first came out about it, like that first book, and the godawful
fucking "documentary" aired on the National Geographic Channel, tries to spin it in a positive light, but it's not.  It's a second-century hit-piece against apostolic
Christianity.

Actually, I never saw the National Geographic thing, as I don't watch TV.  I've just read a half dozen translations of it.

And you aren't taking the "stars at war" thing away from me, so SHUT UP.

Man Yellow,
Has to cling to SOMETHING.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 10:45:00 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 10:34:23 PM
Quote from: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 10:32:24 PM
Yeah, the first half of that is wrong.  The first edition of the Gospel of Judas published by National Geographic played up the angle that Judas was Jesus' best friend,
and Judas was just doing what Jesus asked him to do.  Turns out the translation team made a couple of serious mistakes (which, to their credit, they fixed in the
critical edition of the text, but probably no one except scholars look at that) - the Jesus in the Gospel of Judas is a thoroughly spiritual being who comes and goes
to the "great and holy generation" at will.  He has no need for Judas to help get him crucified, nor does he order him to, he merely says, this is what's going to happen,
and it's not to Judas' credit.  It is, in fact, worse than anything the disciples are doing, and the disciples are actively leading ordinary Christians astray.  And Jesus only
reveals the truth to Judas apparently to make him suffer, because Judas won't ever have any part of the great and holy generation.  I find the Jesus portrayed in the
Gospel of Judas to be kind of a dick.

I should mention that I'm halfway through writing my dissertation on the Gospel of Judas.  Most of what first came out about it, like that first book, and the godawful
fucking "documentary" aired on the National Geographic Channel, tries to spin it in a positive light, but it's not.  It's a second-century hit-piece against apostolic
Christianity.

Actually, I never saw the National Geographic thing, as I don't watch TV.  I've just read a half dozen translations of it.

And you aren't taking the "stars at war" thing away from me, so SHUT UP.

Man Yellow,
Has to cling to SOMETHING.

Wouldn't dream of it.  Especially since that is part of the text:

[Judas] said, "Teacher,
why [do you laugh at us?"]
[Jesus] answered him, [and said], "I am not
laughing [at you (pl.)], but at the error
of the stars, because these six
stars wander with these five
warriors, and all of them
will perish with their creations."

Incidentally, every time Jesus says, "I'm not laughing at you, but..." he is actually laughing at you.  Like I said, a dick.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Don Coyote on October 10, 2012, 10:46:22 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 10:22:05 PM
The wikipedia short & dirty:

QuoteIn contrast to the canonical gospels which paint Judas as a betrayer of Christ who delivered him up to the authorities for crucifixion, the Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given by Christ. The document also suggests that Christ planned the course of events which led to his death. This portrayal seems to conform to a notion current in some forms of Gnosticism, that the human form is a spiritual prison, that Judas thus served Christ by helping to release Christ's soul from its physical constraints, and that two kinds of human beings exist: the men furnished with the immortal soul which is "from the eternal realms" and "will abide there always" ("the strong and holy generation...with no ruler over it", to whom Judas belongs), and the other ones, the majority of mankind, who are mortal and therefore unable to reach the salvation. The Gospel of Judas does not claim that the other disciples knew about Jesus's true teachings. On the contrary, it asserts that they had not learned the true Gospel, which Jesus taught only to Judas Iscariot, the sole follower belonging to the "holy generation" among the disciples.

Also, stars fighting in the sky, and Jesus laughing a lot and telling Judas that EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE.

I don't remember stars fighting the sky. Has more of the Gospel of Judas popped up?
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 10:49:57 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on October 10, 2012, 10:46:22 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 10:22:05 PM
The wikipedia short & dirty:

QuoteIn contrast to the canonical gospels which paint Judas as a betrayer of Christ who delivered him up to the authorities for crucifixion, the Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given by Christ. The document also suggests that Christ planned the course of events which led to his death. This portrayal seems to conform to a notion current in some forms of Gnosticism, that the human form is a spiritual prison, that Judas thus served Christ by helping to release Christ's soul from its physical constraints, and that two kinds of human beings exist: the men furnished with the immortal soul which is "from the eternal realms" and "will abide there always" ("the strong and holy generation...with no ruler over it", to whom Judas belongs), and the other ones, the majority of mankind, who are mortal and therefore unable to reach the salvation. The Gospel of Judas does not claim that the other disciples knew about Jesus's true teachings. On the contrary, it asserts that they had not learned the true Gospel, which Jesus taught only to Judas Iscariot, the sole follower belonging to the "holy generation" among the disciples.

Also, stars fighting in the sky, and Jesus laughing a lot and telling Judas that EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE.

I don't remember stars fighting the sky. Has more of the Gospel of Judas popped up?

Actually, quite a bit of it has.  There was this antiquities dealer in Ohio, Bruce Ferrini, who had the text for a while, but he had to give it back to the woman
who sold it to him basically because his check didn't clear.  Only it turns out that he didn't give everything back.  While the court case against him was ongoing,
those fragments were held as police evidence, and only got into the hands of the translation team in 2009.  But a lot of the stuff about the stars, like that bit
I quoted in my previous post, was in the 2006 edition.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 10, 2012, 10:58:49 PM
Weren't the disciples a little retarded anyway? They never got what Jesus was saying to them even though they followed him around 24/7 and had nothing else to think about.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 11:03:28 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 10:58:49 PM
Weren't the disciples a little retarded anyway? They never got what Jesus was saying to them even though they followed him around 24/7 and had nothing else to think about.

This is true.  It's most clear in the Gospel of Mark.  They never understand Jesus in that gospel, only the demons and one legionnaire know who Jesus really is, and in the end,
absolutely none of them are saved.  (Consensus in the scholarly community is Mark originally ended at 16:8 - everything after that was added later to try to make it not so bleak.)
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 10, 2012, 11:06:17 PM
Quote from: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 11:03:28 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 10:58:49 PM
Weren't the disciples a little retarded anyway? They never got what Jesus was saying to them even though they followed him around 24/7 and had nothing else to think about.

This is true.  It's most clear in the Gospel of Mark.  They never understand Jesus in that gospel, only the demons and one legionnaire know who Jesus really is, and in the end,
absolutely none of them are saved.  (Consensus in the scholarly community is Mark originally ended at 16:8 - everything after that was added later to try to make it not so bleak.)

QuoteAnd they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

THE END.

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 11:07:37 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 11:06:17 PM
Quote from: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 11:03:28 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 10:58:49 PM
Weren't the disciples a little retarded anyway? They never got what Jesus was saying to them even though they followed him around 24/7 and had nothing else to think about.

This is true.  It's most clear in the Gospel of Mark.  They never understand Jesus in that gospel, only the demons and one legionnaire know who Jesus really is, and in the end,
absolutely none of them are saved.  (Consensus in the scholarly community is Mark originally ended at 16:8 - everything after that was added later to try to make it not so bleak.)

QuoteAnd they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

THE END.

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Just one among the many reasons Mark is my favorite canonical gospel.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 10, 2012, 11:13:13 PM
I like this rant in Matthew. It's another thing you never hear evangelicals quoting.  :lulz:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=KJV
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 11:28:35 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 11:13:13 PM
I like this rant in Matthew. It's another thing you never hear evangelicals quoting.  :lulz:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=KJV

Yeah.  If folks really read the Bible literally, like they claim to, every church in the nation would have to kick AA groups out of their basements:

Give strong drink to one who is perishing,
and wine to those in bitter distress;
let them drink and forget their poverty,
and remember their misery no more.
(Proverbs 31:6-7)
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 11, 2012, 01:47:36 AM
2 words: Lot's daughters.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 11, 2012, 02:45:37 AM
Quote from: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 10:45:00 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 10, 2012, 10:34:23 PM
Quote from: deadfong on October 10, 2012, 10:32:24 PM
Yeah, the first half of that is wrong.  The first edition of the Gospel of Judas published by National Geographic played up the angle that Judas was Jesus' best friend,
and Judas was just doing what Jesus asked him to do.  Turns out the translation team made a couple of serious mistakes (which, to their credit, they fixed in the
critical edition of the text, but probably no one except scholars look at that) - the Jesus in the Gospel of Judas is a thoroughly spiritual being who comes and goes
to the "great and holy generation" at will.  He has no need for Judas to help get him crucified, nor does he order him to, he merely says, this is what's going to happen,
and it's not to Judas' credit.  It is, in fact, worse than anything the disciples are doing, and the disciples are actively leading ordinary Christians astray.  And Jesus only
reveals the truth to Judas apparently to make him suffer, because Judas won't ever have any part of the great and holy generation.  I find the Jesus portrayed in the
Gospel of Judas to be kind of a dick.

I should mention that I'm halfway through writing my dissertation on the Gospel of Judas.  Most of what first came out about it, like that first book, and the godawful
fucking "documentary" aired on the National Geographic Channel, tries to spin it in a positive light, but it's not.  It's a second-century hit-piece against apostolic
Christianity.

Actually, I never saw the National Geographic thing, as I don't watch TV.  I've just read a half dozen translations of it.

And you aren't taking the "stars at war" thing away from me, so SHUT UP.

Man Yellow,
Has to cling to SOMETHING.

Wouldn't dream of it.  Especially since that is part of the text:

[Judas] said, "Teacher,
why [do you laugh at us?"]
[Jesus] answered him, [and said], "I am not
laughing [at you (pl.)], but at the error
of the stars, because these six
stars wander with these five
warriors, and all of them
will perish with their creations."

Incidentally, every time Jesus says, "I'm not laughing at you, but..." he is actually laughing at you.  Like I said, a dick.

He's just doin' what he's told.  He has to tell the truth, right? 

I mean, I tell the truth all the time, and nobody calls ME a...

uh.

wait.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 11, 2012, 02:46:17 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 11, 2012, 01:47:36 AM
2 words: Lot's daughters.  :lulz:

It's just like I fucking told you:  There has ALWAYS been Seguin.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 11, 2012, 05:53:00 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 11, 2012, 02:46:17 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 11, 2012, 01:47:36 AM
2 words: Lot's daughters.  :lulz:

It's just like I fucking told you:  There has ALWAYS been Seguin.

:lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz:

Verily.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 11, 2012, 05:53:19 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 11, 2012, 02:46:17 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 11, 2012, 01:47:36 AM
2 words: Lot's daughters.  :lulz:

It's just like I fucking told you:  There has ALWAYS been Seguin.

:lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz:

Verily.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Forsooth on October 15, 2012, 03:51:57 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 11, 2012, 05:53:19 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 11, 2012, 02:46:17 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 11, 2012, 01:47:36 AM
2 words: Lot's daughters.  :lulz:

It's just like I fucking told you:  There has ALWAYS been Seguin.

:lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz:

Verily.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Internet Jesus on October 16, 2012, 04:23:18 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 10:58:49 PM
Weren't the disciples a little retarded anyway? They never got what Jesus was saying to them even though they followed him around 24/7 and had nothing else to think about.

That's why Jesus had to go to Paul, according to Marcion at least.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 05, 2012, 06:22:42 PM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/04/14703656-pulpit-politics-pastors-endorse-candidates-thumbing-noses-at-the-irs?lite

QuoteThe alliance is seeking to force a court showdown over the constitutionality of the law, violation of which can cost churches their tax-exempt status. Since Oct. 7, the original Pulpit Freedom Day, many pastors who participated in the protest have posted their remarks online or sent them to the Internal Revenue Service, essentially daring the agency charged with enforcing the prohibition to put up or shut up.

So far, the IRS has done the latter.

Kinda smart on their behalf.  They can always crush peoples' nuts after the election.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Luna on November 05, 2012, 07:59:14 PM
Quote from: Reverend Roadkill on November 05, 2012, 06:22:42 PM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/04/14703656-pulpit-politics-pastors-endorse-candidates-thumbing-noses-at-the-irs?lite

QuoteThe alliance is seeking to force a court showdown over the constitutionality of the law, violation of which can cost churches their tax-exempt status. Since Oct. 7, the original Pulpit Freedom Day, many pastors who participated in the protest have posted their remarks online or sent them to the Internal Revenue Service, essentially daring the agency charged with enforcing the prohibition to put up or shut up.

So far, the IRS has done the latter.

Kinda smart on their behalf.  They can always crush peoples' nuts after the election.

They've been pulling this shit for years, and the IRS has been ignoring them.

If and when the IRS decides to collectively fuck the lot of them in the assets, I will be sitting on the sidelines with a bowl of popcorn.  I might even purchase a vuvuzela for the occasion.
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: dontblameyoko on November 07, 2012, 06:47:53 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 16, 2012, 04:23:18 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 10, 2012, 10:58:49 PM
Weren't the disciples a little retarded anyway? They never got what Jesus was saying to them even though they followed him around 24/7 and had nothing else to think about.

That's why Jesus had to go to Paul, according to Marcion at least.

:lulz:  I hadn't heard that one before!
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2012, 12:14:28 AM
So, I spent the morning mercilessly hounding Todd Akin on Facebook.

Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on November 08, 2012, 02:42:46 AM
Quote from: Mitt Romney's Favorite Wife on November 08, 2012, 12:14:28 AM
So, I spent the morning mercilessly hounding Todd Akin on Facebook.

I want to look, but it's probably been deleted by now.

Like the way shit always gets deleted from Kirk Cameron's page.  :sad:
Title: Re: Separation of church and YOUR FACE
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on November 08, 2012, 11:33:56 AM
Quote from: Mitt Romney's Favorite Wife on November 08, 2012, 12:14:28 AM
So, I spent the morning mercilessly hounding Todd Akin on Facebook.

links? It's probably been deleted, though...