Wanted - Jesus

[Che1990]

Wow, this is fucking hilarious! Sorry to all you christians out there, I'm no longer one of you.

http://www.alexanderbaron.150m.com/jesus_postcard.jpg

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Congrats! :D

http://www.ottophoto.com/gallery/FIREWORK.jpg


BTW: What are you now?

[OleMarxco]

Oh, he? He's just another decaying organic matter like all the other shitholes of us. Nothing special :)

[RABBIT - THE - CUBAN - MILITANT]

picture wont load ... what is it?

[el nicaraguense]

even tho u no be christian u still need respect people

[Che1990]

Oh spare me the tears. I don't like Christianity so I'll take the piss out of it. What happened to freedom of speech. Christ...(no pun intended)

[Che1990]

http://www.hippocrates.com.au/freedom/images/jesus.gif


Here it is again, the old one won't work because the site closed down.

[nightwatchman]

this poster is great. I have put this poster up in my nieghboorhood and have found that it was ripped off the telephone pole 2 hours later

[Alice in Ganjaland]

Ah such hate...I don't follow Christian ideology but I think you're being a little bit too immature. I remember someone saying on the political picture thread that Jesus was technically a communist.

[Black Dagger]

I remember someone saying on the political picture thread that Jesus was technically a communist.

That's ahistorical. Communism did not exist in its contemporay form a thousand years, and neither did Jesus, so i guess the point is moot. Supporting homophobia, beating slaves (and slavery), sexism, obedience to the state etc. etc. etc. is not the stuff of communists, throw out 'the book' and think for yourself!

[Alice in Ganjaland]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 31 2005, 07:05 AM

I remember someone saying on the political picture thread that Jesus was technically a communist.

That's ahistorical. Communism did not exist in its contemporay form a thousand years, and neither did Jesus, so i guess the point is moot. Supporting homophobia, beating slaves (and slavery), sexism, obedience to the state etc. etc. etc. is not the stuff of communists, throw out 'the book' and think for yourself!

You are missing my point, I know Communism wasn't existing thousands of years ago in it's present form, duh obviously, I meant that some of it's essential characteristics were quite dominant in some of the teachings of Jesus e.g the encouragement of public sharing of property and the emphasis put on the gap between the rich and the poor, etc...also communes were established by early Christians to share their goods.

I do agree with you on the homophobia, etc. though, and the Bible is technically a bunch of corrupted and plagiarized books taken from older religions, but there are some important points in there. I hope I'm not sounding like a Christian sympathizer here, but many of people seem to miss some underlying points.

[Black Dagger]

I meant that some of it's essential characteristics were quite dominant in some of the teachings of Jesus e.g the encouragement of public sharing of property and the emphasis put on the gap between the rich and the poor, etc...

Could you perhaps provide some biblical references for me? Although it really doesn't matter how many sentences you can lift from obscure verse, actions are more important than words, and neither 'jesus' nor christianity as a religion, has ever endorsed anything remotely close to communism.



also communes were established by early Christians to share their goods.

Sharing is not monopolised by communism. I'm sure 'sharing' is common amongst the neo-nazi movement also, in fact it's quite common among the Christian Patriot movement (militant christian movement for the destruction of the Zionist Occupation Government- the term they used to describe the US govt- and supporters of racial apocalypse). They live on secured compounds, in 'commune' like conditions- self-providing environment and so forth.


I hope I'm not sounding like a Christian sympathizer here, but many of people seem to miss some underlying points.

You are, yeah :(

[Alice in Ganjaland]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 1 2005, 03:36 AM

I meant that some of it's essential characteristics were quite dominant in some of the teachings of Jesus e.g the encouragement of public sharing of property and the emphasis put on the gap between the rich and the poor, etc...

Could you perhaps provide some biblical references for me? Although it really doesn't matter how many sentences you can lift from obscure verse, actions are more important than words, and neither 'jesus' nor christianity as a religion, has ever endorsed anything remotely close to communism.



also communes were established by early Christians to share their goods.

Sharing is not monopolised by communism. I'm sure 'sharing' is common amongst the neo-nazi movement also, in fact it's quite common among the Christian Patriot movement (militant christian movement for the destruction of the Zionist Occupation Government- the term they used to describe the US govt- and supporters of racial apocalypse). They live on secured compounds, in 'commune' like conditions- self-providing environment and so forth.


I hope I'm not sounding like a Christian sympathizer here, but many of people seem to miss some underlying points.

You are, yeah :(

:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but can you come across as an even bigger bigot? I know Christianity today CERTAINLY has nothing to do with Communism, I'm refering to Christianity in it's early beginnings. You should stop being so biased and check it out yourself.

I'm not siding with Christians or Jesus, I'm just putting some points of theirs across, I know that most of them don't practice what they preach and are a bunch of filthy hypocrites but that is beside the point, it's their ideology I'm refering to.

And I wasn't refering to any neo-nazi or any Christian Patriot bullshit, I was refering to THE EARLY CHRISTIANS AND THEIR SOCIETY.

[Black Dagger]

I'm sorry, but can you come across as an even bigger bigot?

How am i coming across as a 'bigot'? Could you point out where?


I know Christianity today CERTAINLY has nothing to do with Communism, I'm refering to Christianity in it's early beginnings. You should stop being so biased and check it out yourself.


I have, and i'd like for you to provide some evidence that this actually the case? And if you can... why is this relevant today?


I'm not siding with Christians or Jesus, I'm just putting some points of theirs across,

Hmm, and when i put my points across which contradict christianity, you label me a bigot? How is that not taking sides?



it's their ideology I'm refering to.

I know, and their ideology, now or 2000 years ago- had nothing to do with communism, forget communism, it has never ever been even remotely progressive! I'm asking you to provide actual examples biblical or historical, as to how this is the case. Besides, what's the point of trying reallllllly hard to find little scraps of 'socialism' in a reactionary ideology? Why not just junk that, and focus on actual socialism/socialist theory? I just don't understand why you're bothering to defend them?


And I wasn't refering to any neo-nazi or any Christian Patriot bullshit, I was refering to THE EARLY CHRISTIANS AND THEIR SOCIETY.

I didn't say that you were, my point was that early christians having 'communes' does not mean that they were in any way progressive, as to quote my last post, "sharing is not monopolised by communism"- reactionaries share too, so? Why does it matter if some early christians had 'communes'- which in a contemporary context probably resembled a 'cult compound'.

[Alice in Ganjaland]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 2 2005, 05:05 AM
I know, and their ideology, now or 2000 years ago- had nothing to do with communism, forget communism, it has never ever been even remotely progressive! I'm asking you to provide actual examples biblical or historical, as to how this is the case. Besides, what's the point of trying reallllllly hard to find little scraps of 'socialism' in a reactionary ideology? Why not just junk that, and focus on actual socialism/socialist theory? I just don't understand why you're bothering to defend them?


And I wasn't refering to any neo-nazi or any Christian Patriot bullshit, I was refering to THE EARLY CHRISTIANS AND THEIR SOCIETY.

I didn't say that you were, my point was that early christians having 'communes' does not mean that they were in any way progressive, as to quote my last post, "sharing is not monopolised by communism"- reactionaries share too, so? Why does it matter if some early christians had 'communes'- which in a contemporary context probably resembled a 'cult compound'.

How am i coming across as a 'bigot'? Could you point out where?
Rethinking it now, you're not a bigot, I'm sorry. I just get emotional over those things. I apologise.



I have, and i'd like for you to provide some evidence that this actually the case? And if you can... why is this relevant today?
Firstly, I was incorrect not definging what I meant to say. I was refering to general communism, in which people simply believe in communal living and ownership of property. I apologise for the ambiguosity of my points.

I also never meant it to have any relevance to contemporary events. I was just making a general statement geez.



Hmm, and when i put my points across which contradict christianity, you label me a bigot? How is that not taking sides?
I'm sorry, but again, an error on my path. It just sickens me when people just bag on Christianity for no good reason like the author of this thread. I don't support Christians but I just believe people should just have some level of tolerance in them and respect, even though the other side may not show it, that does not mean you have to resort to shit-flinging.



I have, and i'd like for you to provide some evidence that this actually the case? And if you can... why is this relevant today?
Again I am refering to general communism, and there are many points on this which I will not bother to quote.



I know, and their ideology, now or 2000 years ago- had nothing to do with communism, forget communism, it has never ever been even remotely progressive! I'm asking you to provide actual examples biblical or historical, as to how this is the case. Besides, what's the point of trying reallllllly hard to find little scraps of 'socialism' in a reactionary ideology? Why not just junk that, and focus on actual socialism/socialist theory? I just don't understand why you're bothering to defend them?
You are right on this point and the others that follow, but again I did not intend to sound as if I'm defending them...I know it came across like that but I am NOT defending them.

[drain.you]

To be fair, communism did exist thousands of years ago, Marx talked about how primitive communism existed. And Jesus and most of the Bible is pretty communistic, all the prophets help people and promote equality, question authority,etc. I'm not a Christian but the Bible's message is good - I just don't believe in the supernatural powers of the people in it and the existance of a God.

[RABBIT - THE - CUBAN - MILITANT]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 31 2005, 10:16 AM

I remember someone saying on the political picture thread that Jesus was technically a communist.

Supporting homophobia, beating slaves (and slavery), sexism, obedience to the state etc. etc. etc. is not the stuff of communists, throw out 'the book' and think for yourself!
since when did Christ support any of these things? or Christianity for that mater (be it tradionaly judeo-protestant Christianity , Catholicism or Orthodox denomenations)

[Black Dagger]

To be fair, communism did exist thousands of years ago, Marx talked about how primitive communism existed.

No, it didn't. 'Primitive communism' is not communism, so you can't say 'communism did exist thousands of years ago'- when that system would not be acceptable to any modern communist, nor is it applicable for future communists societies. So-called 'primitive communism'- is merely a society without class and the state, pre-capitalism- it obviously does not imply the hallmarks of modern communist theory- merely a basic structural similarity.



And Jesus and most of the Bible is pretty communistic,

I don't want to labour on this point but... could you provide some examples?



all the prophets help people and promote equality, question authority,etc.

Where does the bible promote the questioning of authority? One of the major premises of the bible and monotheistic religions in general, is that you should obey the authority of god, 'his' church and representatives. The biblical jesus even instructs 'his followers' to obey the roman state. The key problem with the bible, because it was written by so many different people, over such a long period of time, it is riddled with contradictions.

Sometimes it makes vague or overt references to treating people fairly, being compassionate, forgiving, and then in the next book god is commanding 'his people' to wipe out another, to kill the men, boys, torch the land, divide up the looted livestock etc. and take the 'beautiful virgins' as wives (and kill all the non-virgin women). Or it is supporting slavery, sexism, the murder of inter-racial and same-sex couples and so forth.

Outside of a couple of lines from jesus and random sayings in proverbs or the 'old testament', the 'rich man' and the 'eye of a needle', 'do unto others etc.'- the bible does not promote equality. And certainly if you're to take all the pro-equality, justice sections and weigh them against the reactionary sections- the latter is far more dominant. As i said earlier in this thread. As communists we should not be looking to find 'nice' bits in texts that are in totality- and in practice today by the majority of people-reactionary. If you want to read something that promotes equality, and gives sound advice for how to be a communist, read communist literature!



I'm not a Christian but the Bible's message is good -

No, it's not. First of all there's no such thing as 'the bibles message'- the bible has infinite messages, it's very vague and contradictory- if you look at as just a piece of prose- it's 'message' is not consisent- there are several- they change etc., and more often than not the 'message' is reactionary. Why do we need to read or value the bible to know that murder is 'bad'? Or that we should be 'nice' to people? These are self-evident to most people.

[che's long lost daughter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:36 PM
http://www.hippocrates.com.au/freedom/images/jesus.gif


Here it is again, the old one won't work because the site closed down.
If Che1990 think that this poster is against Jesus, think again. If you look at it on a revolutionary basis, it's a very good promotional scheme and it portrays Jesus as a revolutionary, not a religious figure or prophet of some sort. And I agree with Alice, Jesus, was a communist in his own way...maybe not the ideal communist like modern day ones but he did a lot of things which can be considered as revolutionary as what have been mentioned by Alice.

[Guerrilla22]

werd

[Atlas Swallowed]

Everything Jesus taught was revoulutionary in his time. His teaching have been twisted by those in power for control of the masses. If he were alive today he would probably be assasinated as are most great leaders who work for the greater good of all.

[which doctor]

I wish we had reliable, factual accounts from Jesus' time. I would eally like to know and understand this man better, so I could really see what he tried to do in hi lifetime.

[Guerrilla22]

Jesus was not a revolutionary, since he was made up.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:13 AM
Jesus was not a revolutionary, since he was made up.
No one knows for sure that he was made up, show me proof that he didn't exist. I think he did exist, but his life has become so twisted and warped that it doesn't much resemble the life that he actually led.

[Technique3055]

Jesus was a utopian (or Christian) socialist. Infact, he was among the first.

Honestly, this is extremely immature.

[Ownthink]

Oh boo-hoo hoo to all you Christians!

Honestly, I don't even think Jesus existed. His story, the outline of it, called the "hero plot", where a hero is revolutionary, dies, is resurrected, etc was already outlined in history before his "time".

See "The God Who Wasn't There".

[black magick hustla]

I don't see what is the point of arguing for an imaginary figure.

There are no roman documens, or non christian chronists that recorded something of him.

[Defiance]

It's obvious here that people have probably never read any of Jesus' teachings and have only known of him through a conservative perspective. do you honestly believe that the likes of Bush or any other self-proclaiming Christian douche bag follows the teachings of Jesus? do you think Jesus would have favored the act of going into Iraq and bombing the crap out of it? I guess you would if you didn't know any better. don't be scared, open up a Bible and have a little read of the gospels. Then, I can assure that you will be fast to realize that those in power who claim so that the U.S. is a "Christian nation", is nothing more than an utter disgrace to what Jesus stood for.

Jesus was a socialist. and is most certainly one of my heroes.

definitely check this out - http://harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html

I'm also pretty certain that there's factual evidence that shows there was indeed an activist named Jesus that existed in those times. I'll find some sources...

[Black Dagger]

It's obvious here that people have probably never read any of Jesus' teachings and have only known of him through a conservative perspective.

I was raised with 'jesus' teachings' my entire life! Primary school, high-school, i went to church every saturday until i was 18! And i have read the bible, so please don't tell me that it matters who is putting the spin on- the 'teachings of jesus'- they'll never sound like communist ideas. Why 'revere' a person whose best teaching is merely 'love one another as yourself/do unto others as would like them to do unto you' - i.e. be nice to people, because (most of the time) they'll be nice back. That idea seems obvious to me, so why is it so significant.

Now if there were some teachings about the exploitation of a capitalist society, or the need to abolish te state, capitalism, 'authority', hierarchy and so forth, i might be more inclined to listen to 'his' teachings. But unfortunately for jesus to have those ideas would be ahistorical, since not only did 'communism' not exist, neither did modern capitalism. Therefore any teachings 'he' may have come up with have certain historical limits, unfortunately for teachings to be relevant (particularly for communists)- they must have at least some reference to class, the revolutionary overthrow of capital, smashing of the state, classless society etc.


Jesus was a socialist

No, he was a 'reformed' (as opposed to orthodox) Jew. Capitalism or indeed socialism (!) did not factor in to any of his teachings. Any attempt to apply 'his teachings' to such topics is counterfactual/ahistorical.


I'm also pretty certain that there's factual evidence that shows there was indeed an activist named Jesus that existed in those times. I'll find some sources...

Good luck! What will you do if you find no evidence?

[philalethian]

Hello, I'm very interested in this debate, as I am both a socialist and Jesus scholar. The issue surrounding Jesus' view of economics is particularly complicated. If you really wish to understand it better, i highly reccomend Douglas Oakman's "Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day." My masters thesis is a socio-economic reading of the temple event in Mark 11:11-25, and it deals with Jesus' view of economics (you can download it here if you want http://www.2riyal.com/Thesis.pdf If you don't, i don't blame you), and have done a lot of research into first century economics.

The first problem is understanding economics in the first century C.E. Much like today, the first century had two dominant economic philosophies, but they were not capitalism and socialism. The two economic philosophies that controlled the distribution of all goods in the ancient world were "redistribution" and "recoprocity" (see the famous economic historian Karl Polanyi for much more on these systems). Redistribution was a system were goods were collected at a central location and redistributed by a leader. As is often the case the leaders were the economic elite, and did not redistribute wealth fairly. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer (not unlike capitalism in that respect). recoprocity was a system of gift giving based on honor and shame. It is an honor to give gifts of your field to family, friends, neighbors, and they in turn are shamed if they do not give gifts of thier harvest, hunt etc... This favored by the peasantry, as it ensured an equal distribution of goods. First century economics is obviously much more complex than this, but i thought it would be important to summarize the two main systems of distribution of goods.

The second problem is understanding Jesus' (here i'll only talk about the Jesus of the gospels and not the historical Jesus but we have no idea who the historical Jesus was) take on it. In my research, i have noticed that in the gospel of Mark and in Luke Jesus has taken a strong stance against the wealthy and against redistributive economic policies. Jesus seems very against the centralization of wealth since he takes a strong stance against wealth, storing wealth at the temple, and anyone making a profit off the poor. This makes sense since in the ancient world most people believed that all wealth was finite and thus anyone who makes extra wealth can only do so at the expense of others. Therefore, Jesus would naturally oppose the wealthy because according to beliefs common in the ancient world, becoming rich is inherently a form of theft from the poor. So it make sense that Jesus, who stands for economic justice, would oppose the system that is controlled by the wealthy to make the wealthy rich at the expense of the poor.

Now the last problem is how do we brings these ideas into the modern debate. It seems Jesus (at least the character in mark and luke) would be in favor of a sytem of economic justice and against the unjust system. So it seems that Jesus would oppose capitalism, since in capitalism the workers get screwed and the wealthy get richer. Although he is against all centralization, he is also for putting the decision of how wealth is distributed into the hands of the workers through a smaller village economy. I admit i am very bias in my interpretation, but it seems that Jesus would be in favor of socialism, but to say that Jesus was a socialist would be anachronistic.

While Jesus' particular economic beliefs are complex and difficult to understand, what can be assured is that jesus supported the poor, hated the rich, and supported economic justice, even if he had to get violent (Mark 11:15-18).

Having said that, many of Jesus' followers held very communistic beliefs. The historian Luke describes the early church as being communistic.

Acts 2:44 All who believed were together and had all things in common;
Acts 2:45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.

Acts 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.
Acts 4:33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
Acts 4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.
Acts 4:35 They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

It doesn't take a Marx scholar to see the connection to Marx here. And i don't think it is a stretch to say that the first century church, who was made up of people who knew and heard the actual historical Jesus speak, believed that they had to have communistic economic policies as a church. So i don't think it is too far of a stretch to conclude that the historical Jesus probably did teach many things that supported economic justice to a revolutionary extreme, so much so that his followers lived in a way that can be recognized today as marxist.

I don't fully understand all that was going on in the first century but i hope this sheds a bit of light on the topic or at least gets a good debate going.

[TheReadMenace]

Where does the bible promote the questioning of authority?

Mark 12:14-17

14They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?

15Should we pay or shouldn't we?" But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it."

16They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied.

17Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

First off, a denarius was equivalent to a day's wages. So the fact that a priest could so easily produce a denarius automatically set up a divide between the people and the priest, as most peasants and labourers had to work an entire day for one denarius. On the coin, on which was inscribed Caesar's face, was written: Caesar Augustus, the son of God. This is a sign of authority. But from a religious perspective, anyone claiming to be the son of God must be a heretic, and blasphemy is a horrible sin. Jesus recognises this, hands it back to the priests so they can keep their blasphemy and says, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's' - that is, nothing; he is a blasphemer.

Andrew

[Ownthink]

^ Ah, yes. Along with promoting other great things like the stoning of children and destruction of whole cities because they fuck in a different way than you!

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 10:03 AM

Where does the bible promote the questioning of authority?

Mark 12:14-17

14They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?

15Should we pay or shouldn't we?" But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it."

16They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied.

17Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

First off, a denarius was equivalent to a day's wages. So the fact that a priest could so easily produce a denarius automatically set up a divide between the people and the priest, as most peasants and labourers had to work an entire day for one denarius. On the coin, on which was inscribed Caesar's face, was written: Caesar Augustus, the son of God. This is a sign of authority. But from a religious perspective, anyone claiming to be the son of God must be a heretic, and blasphemy is a horrible sin. Jesus recognises this, hands it back to the priests so they can keep their blasphemy and says, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's' - that is, nothing; he is a blasphemer.

Andrew
Uh... how does that passage reflect a 'questioning of authority'? The message over the passage appears actually to be quite the opposite. When asked whether christians should obey the laws of the roman state, i.e. by paying their annual taxes, 'Jesus' tells them too... "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." If he was challenging the authority of the state he would be telling them not to pay taxes.

Feel free to find an (obscure) passage from the gospels to further support your claims, and i'll post my passages pertaining to the murder of 'sodomites' and 'micegenators', the stoning of rape victims, genocide of neighbouring peoples peoples and so forth. There is so much contradictory and/or vague statements in there, it is easy to establish biblically supported but opposing positions on a number of issues, because the bible like all religious texts is subject to interpretation. And like most religious texts, the language and meaning of what is written is often (deliberately?) vague, misleading and/or ambiguous.

It's quite obvious that the message of the Bible is not to question or challenge authority, because the Bible is a religious text- it is the source text of Christianity, it is the source for Christian claims of religious authority. Christianity is 'right' and 'good' because of what this book says, and this book says that you should obey 'god' and 'his' church, 'his' clergy- obedience to the authority of 'god' is perhaps the most well established principle in the bible, because if people don't obey 'god' they can't be christians. Because being a christian implies accepting the authority of 'god', 'his' rules and teachings.

That is the problem that i have with the bible as a source of world-perspective, not only is it over a 1000 years-out-of-date, (i.e. its target audience was not people living in 2005, but 0005!)- it was written in a cultural context that is completely alien to me, and the majority of people alive today. Not only that but much of the content is highly questionable from a communist perspective. Why should i accept the authority of 'god', the bible and 'his' church if they're all saying that i should stone 'the sodomites' to death? Or rape victims? Or that i should beat disobedient slaves (the bible does not make a strong stand against slavery, why? Because of the historical-cultural context, when the authors of the bible were writing slavery was acceptable as normative for society), or that the 'head' of 'the woman' is 'man'- and other sexist crap? I'm a communist, i find that stuff abhorrent, but how can i rationally, logically, justify 'believing in' or even endorsing a 'god' that says such things? God is perfect by definition, so it is not the case of 'him' being mistaken on these issues, they are clearly 'gods' words, and i should (if i am to be a christian) accept them.

[TheReadMenace]

I'm not defending the Bible, and I think Christianity is as full of shit as any one of you, but I'm pointing more to Jesus, because my views on the Nazarene line up with Philalethians (I'd read his posts before mine; he's more educated in it than I am.)

And Sodom and Gommorah weren't about homosexuality. That's a fundamentalist creation. Not that it makes their destruction any more acceptable, but that debunks the whole 'gays are sinful' bullshit.

Either way, the god of the bible is an asshole.

Andrew

[CCJ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:24 PM
destruction of whole cities because they fuck in a different way than you!
Where, exactly, does the Bible say this?

[Black Dagger]

Read Genesis 19:1-27 (that's the reference in my bible- it should be around that in yours if you have one).

The first part of the chapter is entitled 'The Depravity of Sodom', and the second, 'Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed', from which the homophobic slur 'Sodomite' originates.

Bascially, two angels came to Sodom to visit Lot, they want to spend the night 'in the square', i.e. outside in the town, but Lot 'strongly' urges them to stay inside with him. A little bit later, 'the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man surrounded the house'.

Apparently finding the two men that have just arrived in town sexually irresistable (not knowing that these two 'men' are in fact angels, not men), they surround Lots house and demand of Lot: 'bring them out to us, so that we may know them'. To 'know' someone in this context meaning to have sex with them.

Lot went 'out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, i have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof". But they replied 'stand back!', and they said, 'This fellow [Lot] came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them [the two guys they wanted to 'know']. Then they 'pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down'. But the men inside [the angels] grab Lot, pull him inside, shut the door and 'strike with blindness' the men outside, so they cannot find the door.

The next part of the chapter is entitled, 'Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed'- the city and all of its inhabitants except for Lot and his family and so forth are killed.

The above story portrays the men of Sodom (all of them!) as insatiable 'sodomites'- the classic christian stereotype of gay men, that is gay men who are sexually aggressive, even towards people who are not gay or do not welcome their advances. Another disgusting part of the story (there's two actually), is Lot offering his young virgin daughters to be raped by the 'mob'! Wow, that's lovely.

The mob 'of course' turns this offer down and then looks to Lot instead, angered by his interference and threaten to rape him as well. Later on 'god' turns Lots wife into a 'pillar of salt' just because she looks back over her shoulder as Sodom is being destroyed, wow, that's fair!

Oh and then, Lot and his daughters had to live in a cave, and his daughters took turns getting him drunk (evil women! :rolleyes: ) so they could have sex with him and get pregnant.

I have no idea who the 'Moabites' or 'Ammonites', but it is then claimed that these two ethnic groups derive from this incest. Most likely a manifestation of the prejudice of the writer(s) of this section of the bible. I.E. 'oh yeah, you know the french? They're descendant from the incest of X and Y! LOL!' Kind of thing, more great stuff!

[CCJ]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 16 2005, 06:23 AM
Read Genesis 19:1-27 (that's the reference in my bible- it should be around that in yours if you have one).

The first part of the chapter is entitled 'The Depravity of Sodom', and the second, 'Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed', from which the homophobic slur 'Sodomite' originates.

Bascially, two angels came to Sodom to visit Lot, they want to spend the night 'in the square', i.e. outside in the town, but Lot 'strongly' urges them to stay inside with him. A little bit later, 'the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man surrounded the house'.

Apparently finding the two men that have just arrived in town sexually irresistable (not knowing that these two 'men' are in fact angels, not men), they surround Lots house and demand of Lot: 'bring them out to us, so that we may know them'. To 'know' someone in this context meaning to have sex with them.

Lot went 'out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, i have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof". But they replied 'stand back!', and they said, 'This fellow [Lot] came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them [the two guys they wanted to 'know']. Then they 'pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down'. But the men inside [the angels] grab Lot, pull him inside, shut the door and 'strike with blindness' the men outside, so they cannot find the door.

The next part of the chapter is entitled, 'Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed'- the city and all of its inhabitants except for Lot and his family and so forth are killed.

The above story portrays the men of Sodom (all of them!) as insatiable 'sodomites'- the classic christian stereotype of gay men, that is gay men who are sexually aggressive, even towards people who are not gay or do not welcome their advances. Another disgusting part of the story (there's two actually), is Lot offering his young virgin daughters to be raped by the 'mob'! Wow, that's lovely.

The mob 'of course' turns this offer down and then looks to Lot instead, angered by his interference and threaten to rape him as well. Later on 'god' turns Lots wife into a 'pillar of salt' just because she looks back over her shoulder as Sodom is being destroyed, wow, that's fair!

Oh and then, Lot and his daughters had to live in a cave, and his daughters took turns getting him drunk (evil women! :rolleyes: ) so they could have sex with him and get pregnant.

I have no idea who the 'Moabites' or 'Ammonites', but it is then claimed that these two ethnic groups derive from this incest. Most likely a manifestation of the prejudice of the writer(s) of this section of the bible. I.E. 'oh yeah, you know the french? They're descendant from the incest of X and Y! LOL!' Kind of thing, more great stuff!
You are only using one interpretation of the Bible. Nonetheless:

- The sin of Sodom was not that they had male/male sexual intercouse. Rather, it was that they were inhospitable and that they neglected the poor, the orphans, and the elderly. The enounter you mention occured only after God decided to destroy Sodom.

- The obvious sin that the Sodomites wish to commit against Lot and the angels is not that of loving male/male sexual intercourse, but rather rape, something I think that we can all agree is bad, be it homosexual or otherwise.

Another interpretation is that instead of "...all of the men..." it is "...all of the people."

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by CCJ+Nov 15 2005, 08:51 PM--> (CCJ @ Nov 15 2005, 08:51 PM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 10:24 PM
destruction of whole cities because they fuck in a different way than you!
Where, exactly, does the Bible say this? [/b]
I was referring to Sodom and Gemorrah, and they were destroyed by God because of their deviant practices, among others, sex and Sodomy.

[CCJ]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Nov 16 2005, 09:45 PM--> (Ownthink @ Nov 16 2005, 09:45 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 08:51 PM

[email protected] 13 2005, 10:24 PM
destruction of whole cities because they fuck in a different way than you!
Where, exactly, does the Bible say this?
I was referring to Sodom and Gemorrah, and they were destroyed by God because of their deviant practices, among others, sex and Sodomy. [/b]
See my above post.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 09:47 PM
It's obvious here that people have probably never read any of Jesus' teachings and have only known of him through a conservative perspective. do you honestly believe that the likes of Bush or any other self-proclaiming Christian douche bag follows the teachings of Jesus? do you think Jesus would have favored the act of going into Iraq and bombing the crap out of it? I guess you would if you didn't know any better. don't be scared, open up a Bible and have a little read of the gospels. Then, I can assure that you will be fast to realize that those in power who claim so that the U.S. is a "Christian nation", is nothing more than an utter disgrace to what Jesus stood for.

Jesus was a socialist. and is most certainly one of my heroes.

definitely check this out - http://harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html

I'm also pretty certain that there's factual evidence that shows there was indeed an activist named Jesus that existed in those times. I'll find some sources...
You guys are dumb. If you actually read the bible, you will find that Jesus was an insane man who used the same techniques to recruit followers as modern day cults, (ignore your family etc.) Jesus was the old time Charles Manson. Jesus said things like "bring all those who do not believe in me and slaughter them before me" and things like that. Real nice, huh?.

soo...


do you think Jesus would have favored the act of going into Iraq and bombing the crap out of it?

YES.

[CCJ]

Originally posted by The wise old [email protected] 19 2005, 05:01 PM
You guys are dumb. If you actually read the bible, you will find that Jesus was an insane man who used the same techniques to recruit followers as modern day cults, (ignore your family etc.) Jesus was the old time Charles Manson. Jesus said things like "bring all those who do not believe in me and slaughter them before me" and things like that. Real nice, huh?.
Excuse me? Where did he actually say that in the Bible? Jesus was a pacifist. You really ought to read the Bible before you start ranting about it.

[TheReadMenace]

Originally posted by The wise old bird+Nov 19 2005, 05:01 PM--> (The wise old bird @ Nov 19 2005, 05:01 PM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 09:47 PM
It's obvious here that people have probably never read any of Jesus' teachings and have only known of him through a conservative perspective. do you honestly believe that the likes of Bush or any other self-proclaiming Christian douche bag follows the teachings of Jesus? do you think Jesus would have favored the act of going into Iraq and bombing the crap out of it? I guess you would if you didn't know any better. don't be scared, open up a Bible and have a little read of the gospels. Then, I can assure that you will be fast to realize that those in power who claim so that the U.S. is a "Christian nation", is nothing more than an utter disgrace to what Jesus stood for.

Jesus was a socialist. and is most certainly one of my heroes.

definitely check this out - http://harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html

I'm also pretty certain that there's factual evidence that shows there was indeed an activist named Jesus that existed in those times. I'll find some sources...
You guys are dumb. If you actually read the bible, you will find that Jesus was an insane man who used the same techniques to recruit followers as modern day cults, (ignore your family etc.) Jesus was the old time Charles Manson. Jesus said things like "bring all those who do not believe in me and slaughter them before me" and things like that. Real nice, huh?.

soo...


do you think Jesus would have favored the act of going into Iraq and bombing the crap out of it?

YES. [/b]
Where the hell did you pull that shit out of?

[Zombie]

Jesus was born for you to have monkey faces and alligator paws.
If he existed, he was a drunkard and a dopehead and a womeniser.
If he didn't, shit, he didn't.
That doesn't change the fact that the majority of the world population is brain dead. Always was. Always will be.

Keep debating, you'll learn something useful before you die. Who knows.

[Zombie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:18 PM
Oh, he? He's just another decaying organic matter like all the other shitholes of us. Nothing special :)
Oh but he was, Mr Durden.
His name has been plagiarised, commercialised, revered, used to kill and bless and rape and most importantly to subdue millions of empty souls in seekage of jewish avant-gardism.
I don't see your name having any copyright next to it.

[Black Dagger]

You really ought to read the Bible before you start ranting about it.

I have, you're looking at a born and bred catholic, i was forced to attend mass until i finished school!

Let's let Jesus give his side of the story on this whole 'pacificism' dealy:

Matthew 10:34-39

'Not Peace, but a Sword'

"Do not think that i have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For i have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against eher mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household.

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it".
----------

The 'Prince of Peace' is back! And he's pissed! "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword"!


And Luke has a similar message for us, Jesus:

Luke 12:49-54

'Jesus the Cause of Division'

"I came to bring fire to the earth, and how i wish it were already kindled! I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and what stress I am under until it is completed! Do you think that i have come to bring peace to the earth? No, i tell you, but rather division! From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against trhee; they will be divided:
father against son
and son against father
mother against daughter
and daughter against mother,
mother-in-law against her
daughter in law
and daughter-in-law against
mother-in-law"

There's also a nice section before this passage in Luke, about how slaves should behave.

Luke 12:35-39

'Watchful Slaves'

"Be dressed for action and have your lamps lit, be like those who are waiting for their master to return from the wedding banquet, so that they may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks. Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly i tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves.
----

Jesus tells us 'blessed are' the slaves that are obedient and whom 'the master' finds alert when he checks upon them, do you notice how in these sections jesus does not question the institution of slavery at all? His statements in the above and below sections, are implicit acceptances of slavery as an institution, as is the case in the Torah and Qur'an, slavey is never questioned- it is reinforced, and the 'proper' manner in which to treat and admonish slaves is explained to us. This is not suprising given the historical-social-cultural context in which the bible (and these other texts) were written.

They are like all texts, products of the specific historical conditions in which they are created- and thus influenced by the norms, prejudices and superstitions of that period. That is precisely why it is foolish to 'live' by the bible, because as a 'guide to living' it is outdated by something like 1500-2000 years, we don't accept slavery anymore, nor the stoning of adulterers or rape victims, or the murder of gay peoples, and no, nor do we accept that women are 'ritually unclean' during menstruation and 'forbidden to touch' for several days/weeks- why? Because these are outmoded and barbaric (from our contemporary context) practices, but such was the historical context of the time.

The next section (this is the one directly preceding 'Jesus the Cause of Division') follows on with this slave story,

'The Faithful or the Unfaithful Slave'

Luke 12:41-49

Peter said, "Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for everyone?" And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and prudent manager whom his master will put in charge of his slaves, to give them their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. Truly i tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his posessions [including his other slaves?]. But if that slave says to himself, 'my master is delayed in coming', and if he begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know , and will cut him to pieces, and put him with the unfaithful. That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to who much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.
----------

In these sections jesus compares his followers (christians) to slaves and god/himself to a slave master, and the message is clear, Luke 12:40 (from 'Watchful Slaves')- "You must be ready, for the son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour". And as happened to the slaves in the story above, if we, gods slaves are not prepared for his arrival (as per relevations) than we shall be treated as we should be, like disobedient or 'bad' slaves, and so deservingly beaten. Curiously, he also warns that even if we don't know what we're supposed to be doing, and thus do the wrong thing by accident- we should still get a beating, but a 'light' one! Well, geeze, thanks all-forgiving, all-loving, all-compassionate lord!

[Xvall]

Jesus was a socialist.

So was Santa Clause, but you don't see us worshiping either of them because they aren't fucking real.


You are only using one interpretation of the Bible. Nonetheless:

How else am I supposed to interpret a story about slaying homosexuals? Is it a metaphor? What good is it if it has multiple intepretations? I can basically claim that it means whatever I want? How do you know which interpretation is the right one?

[CCJ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:25 AM
How else am I supposed to interpret a story about slaying homosexuals? Is it a metaphor? What good is it if it has multiple intepretations? I can basically claim that it means whatever I want? How do you know which interpretation is the right one?
Excuse me, I meant translation. The "Hebrew Bible" was written in Hebrew (hence the name). When you translate things, they can possibly change meaning, especially when you have translators who are biased against certain groups - such as, currently, homosexuals or, when the original King James Bible was translated, witches.

Nonetheless, did you even bother to read the entirety of my post? Or just that one little section?

[Black Dagger]

CCJ, are you going to reply to my post?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:25 AM

Jesus was a socialist.

So was Santa Clause, but you don't see us worshiping either of them because they aren't fucking real.
:lol: Xvall, hilarious as always.

Jesus was not a communist! Claiming to be a "savior" and a "son of the creator of Earth and all of mankind" and having yourself idolized above everyone else is not a very communistic thing to do. Neither is slaying homosexuals, for that matter.

[CCJ]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 20 2005, 04:40 PM
CCJ, are you going to reply to my post?
No. You win. Jesus was a very bad man.

[Defiance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:25 AM

Jesus was a socialist.

So was Santa Clause, but you don't see us worshiping either of them because they aren't fucking real.

the issue on whether Jesus truly existed or not had very little to do with my argument.

_____________

it's funny how most of you have completely bypassed philalethian' post.

*shrugs*

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

First allow me to say fuck Jesus.


To be fair, communism did exist thousands of years ago, Marx talked about how primitive communism existed. And Jesus and most of the Bible is pretty communistic, all the prophets help people and promote equality, question authority,etc. I'm not a Christian but the Bible's message is good - I just don't believe in the supernatural powers of the people in it and the existance of a God.

Promoted equality??

The persecution of homosexuals and women is promoting equality?

How about advocating slavery?

:rolleyes:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's obvious here that people have probably never read any of Jesus' teachings and have only known of him through a conservative perspective. do you honestly believe that the likes of Bush or any other self-proclaiming Christian douche bag follows the teachings of Jesus? do you think Jesus would have favored the act of going into Iraq and bombing the crap out of it? I guess you would if you didn't know any better. don't be scared, open up a Bible and have a little read of the gospels. Then, I can assure that you will be fast to realize that those in power who claim so that the U.S. is a "Christian nation", is nothing more than an utter disgrace to what Jesus stood for.

Jesus was a socialist. and is most certainly one of my heroes.

definitely check this out - http://harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html

I'm also pretty certain that there's factual evidence that shows there was indeed an activist named Jesus that existed in those times. I'll find some sources...

Oh yeah?

Let's see what Jesus had to say:

“Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (1 Peter 2:18). "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ" (Ephesians 6:5).

“Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God” (Colossians 3:22; see also Ephesians 6:5-6). “Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things” (Titus 2:9-10).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Homosexuals, "effeminate" men?

"Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. (1 Corinthians 6:9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind(1 Corinthians 6:10)"

Don't offend the "socialist" Jesus, or:

"Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.(Matthew 13:41) The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers(Matthew 13:42)"

What about people that don't follow Jesus?

“And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak . . . because thou believest not my words” (Luke 1:20). “And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost” (Acts 12:23). “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

We might want to split this to religion..

[Black Dagger]

No. You win. Jesus was a very bad man.

So you're not going to bother defending your point of view, at all? That clearly shows the strength of your position.

[CCJ]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 23 2005, 02:30 AM

No. You win. Jesus was a very bad man.

So you're not going to bother defending your point of view, at all? That clearly shows the strength of your position.
Or...wait for it...wait for it...I don't blindly believe in anything and I can be convinced that I'm wrong sometimes.

I outlined my opinion, I was proved wrong, I recognised that I was wrong.

Demonising convincability is...well...just plain stupid.

[Black Dagger]

I outlined my opinion, I was proved wrong, I recognised that I was wrong.

You 'recognised' you're wrong, but you did facetiously, " No. You win. Jesus was a very bad man" is a sarcastic admission- hence i thought you were being sarcastic, not truthful, so i asked you to defend yourself, if you do admit you were wrong, that's fine.