religious discrimination

[Pete]

I noticed I made a typo. Paul did not stand against slavery. 

I agree with you Jonathan. Jesus said   “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18). "

This means he agreed with all the stoning, killing, vicious laws to be found in the OT.

[mererdog]

43 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I want to believe in an afterlife, God, etc...I simply cannot find a way to do so that meshes logically.

Well, you don't want to believe in just any old afterlife, God, or whatever, though, do you? I mean, you don't want to believe in an afterlife where your loved ones suffer, or a God who hates your loved ones, do you?

Most people want to believe in a world that agrees with them. A world where what they consider good is rewarded and what they consider bad is punished. Look at your earlier objection again, "Killing without cause the innocent.  Like...those kids...that God killed...because their friend called his prophet bald?" What you seem to be saying is that the morality espoused by the Bible does not match your current understanding of morality, and you therefore cannot accept it as true.

Edited November 22, 2016 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

39 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Keep the old law.  Christ said that.  Keep it until all has been fulfilled.  It hasn't.  The old law is evil in many places.  But of course, evil is a value judgment that we place on it which you reject.

Since the Law came from God, and God is all good, it must follow that the Law is all good.  Unless of course, you care about external reality.  

Since the Law came from Scripture, and Scripture came from a less than perfect priesthood -- (this is me being nice) -- the Law can also be less than perfect.  Much less.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

59 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

modern psychology would also suggest that if a person wants to believe something they will find a way to do so.  I want to believe in an afterlife, God, etc...I simply cannot find a way to do so that meshes logically.

There is always the Agnostic Way.  "I don't know."

I hope this doesn't seem argumentative.  I think that sometimes the search for answers is more interesting than the answers -- which frequently are not available.  I think that sometimes, "Maybe" is good enough.  At least, for now.

[mererdog]

On 11/20/2016 at 11:02 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

No.  Simple irritation.  I observe 2,000 years of Christian mayhem.  Dan tells me that they weren't real Christians.  Where does the mayhem flow from Scripture? I show him an example and he tells me that I don't understand Scripture.  I'm not arguing.  I'm done.  

The Beatles wrote a bunch of songs. Charles Manson listened to those songs and heard warnings of an upcoming race war and calls to provoke that war with violent acts. There were quite a few deaths as a result. But where does the blame lie? What is the problem?

Is it the violent imagery of Rocky Raccoon?

Is it the obvious literal interpretation of Happiness Is A Warm Gun?

I don't think so. See, an awful lot of people listen to Beatles songs. Overall, those who listen to the songs are not really much different than their neighbors who don't. So it seems fairly clear that the songs are not the source of the problem. You disagree?

Edited November 22, 2016 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

The Beatles wrote a bunch of songs. Charles Manson listened to those songs and heard warnings of an upcoming race war and calls to provoke that war with violent acts. There were quite a few deaths as a result. But where does the blame lie? What is the problem?

Is it the violent imagery of Rocky Raccoon?

Is it the obvious literal interpretation of Happiness Is A Warm Gun?

I don't think so. See, an awful lot of people listen to Beatles songs. Overall, those who listen to the songs are not really much different than their neighbors who don't. So it seems fairly clear that the songs are not the source of the problem. You disagree?

If I understand what you are doing, you are using the Beatles' music as an analogy to the Gospels; and Charles Manson as an analogy to Christian history.

Really.  This is clever.

Was Charles Manson anything more than an aberration?  2,000 years of history is not an aberration.  It is the norm.

[cuchulain]

On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 10:14 AM, mererdog said:

The Beatles wrote a bunch of songs. Charles Manson listened to those songs and heard warnings of an upcoming race war and calls to provoke that war with violent acts. There were quite a few deaths as a result. But where does the blame lie? What is the problem?

Is it the violent imagery of Rocky Raccoon?

Is it the obvious literal interpretation of Happiness Is A Warm Gun?

I don't think so. See, an awful lot of people listen to Beatles songs. Overall, those who listen to the songs are not really much different than their neighbors who don't. So it seems fairly clear that the songs are not the source of the problem. You disagree?

One individual, or even a small percentage of the population, got something negative from the beetles.  What percentage have done so based upon Christian doctrine?  There is a significant difference, I think, when the numbers increase that dramatically.

[cuchulain]

In reference to my wanting to believe.  I do not want to believe in any old God, any old religion.  I use what I know to compare with what I believe to be the truth.  When the Christian book in particular is touted as the only truth and as infallible, I cannot reconcile.  It is not a predetermined bias against the religion.  I was brought up as Christian as a child.  Childhood indoctrination has a tendency to stick, if you will reference modern psychology again.  I fall into the category of wanting to believe something, of having used to believe something, and still rejecting the message on the basis that it fails.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

21 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

If I understand what you are doing, you are using the Beatles' music as an analogy to the Gospels; and Charles Manson as an analogy to Christian history.

Really.  This is clever.

Was Charles Manson anything more than an aberration?  2,000 years of history is not an aberration.  It is the norm.

An addendum to my previous comments.  There is the matter of intent.

The Beatles did not intend their music to lead to violence.  By contrast, the propagandists who wrote the Gospels clearly had a plan.  They intended to shift blame for the death of Jesus, from the Roman government, which killed him.  Who did they choose for the substitute?  "The Jews."  Not even some Jews.  No.  The blame was shifted to "the Jews."  It worked, as demonstrated by history.

Now a bit of family history.  My mother still recalls how, when she was a child, the girl next door wouldn't play with her.  Because she, my mother-to-be, had killed Christ.  My own experiences were more subtle.  I had them.  This slur is something that the Catholic Church did not repudiate until Vatican II.  The passion plays continue.  Of course, the various Protestant churches still have not confronted their own history.

I grow weary of people making excuses for the Gospels.  They are what they are.  A source of misery.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

In reference to my wanting to believe.  I do not want to believe in any old God, any old religion.  I use what I know to compare with what I believe to be the truth.  When the Christian book in particular is touted as the only truth and as infallible, I cannot reconcile.  It is not a predetermined bias against the religion.  I was brought up as Christian as a child.  Childhood indoctrination has a tendency to stick, if you will reference modern psychology again.  I fall into the category of wanting to believe something, of having used to believe something, and still rejecting the message on the basis that it fails.

The details differ.  I was brought up Jewish.  Still, I can relate.

[cuchulain]

It seems a rarity to me for other people to understand that the gospel simply fails for me.  Is it such an aberration of modern psychology that a person can think logically about what they have been taught in the past, and reject what so many other people accept?  Is Atheism in such a category that it is considered deviant still?  My 18 year old son relates.  A classmate of his went to school in an Atheist t shirt.  All it said was Atheist, nothing on it other than that.  8 football players waited after school in an attempt to corner him.  I am certain they had good intentions, being such fine upstanding Christian souls.  Or as Dan would say...they aren't REALLY Christian, since they were planning something bad.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 11/23/2016 at 4:18 PM, cuchulain said:

It seems a rarity to me for other people to understand that the gospel simply fails for me.  Is it such an aberration of modern psychology that a person can think logically about what they have been taught in the past, and reject what so many other people accept?  Is Atheism in such a category that it is considered deviant still?  My 18 year old son relates.  A classmate of his went to school in an Atheist t shirt.  All it said was Atheist, nothing on it other than that.  8 football players waited after school in an attempt to corner him.  I am certain they had good intentions, being such fine upstanding Christian souls.  Or as Dan would say...they aren't REALLY Christian, since they were planning something bad.

It sounds like an expression of Christian Love to me.

[mererdog]

On 11/23/2016 at 11:22 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 By contrast, the propagandists who wrote the Gospels clearly had a plan.  .

Ah. So we are now into the realm of conspiracy theory. Read between the lines and look at your history and it's all so clear, eh? 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

Ah. So we are now into the realm of conspiracy theory. Read between the lines and look at your history and it's all so clear, eh? 

Conspiracy theory?  No.  My maternal grandfather came from Russia.  To my grandfather, the worst, most awful thing that one person could say to another was -- "You have a Christian heart. " Just an observation.  This is what Christian Love means to me.  It is part of my heritage.  

It's too late to tell me that they weren't true Christians.

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

On 11/23/2016 at 0:22 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 By contrast, the propagandists who wrote the Gospels clearly had a plan.  They intended to shift blame for the death of Jesus, from the Roman government, which killed him.  Who did they choose for the substitute?  "The Jews."  Not even some Jews.  No.  The blame was shifted to "the Jews."  It worked, as demonstrated by history.

If the gospel writers were telling the truth, it wasn't just propaganda.. And the blame was assigned to some Jews, not all Jews. After all, those who wrote about it were also Jews. 

"Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him" (Matthew 26:3-4).

"Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified" (Matthew 27: 22-23).

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23).

"Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death" (John 11:53).

"Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man " (Luke 23:4).

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

19 hours ago, Dan56 said:

If the gospel writers were telling the truth, it wasn't just propaganda.. And the blame was assigned to some Jews, not all Jews. After all, those who wrote about it were also Jews. 

"Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him" (Matthew 26:3-4).

"Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified" (Matthew 27: 22-23).

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23).

"Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death" (John 11:53).

"Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man " (Luke 23:4).

 

 

 

That is a very big if.  

The Gospel accounts stink of propaganda, politics and ulterior motive.  If there is any reason to regard any of it as truthful history; it is not apparent.  In any event, I am concerned with history.  Not theology.

There is small point in quoting these Scriptures.  That is where I formed my opinion.  At best, I find them implausible.  That is me being nice.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

On 11/26/2016 at 8:53 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

That is a very big if.  

The Gospel accounts stink of propaganda, politics and ulterior motive.  If there is any reason to regard any of it as truthful history; it is not apparent.  In any event, I am concerned with history.  Not theology.

There is small point in quoting these Scriptures.  That is where I formed my opinion.  At best, I find them implausible.  That is me being nice.

Thanks for being nice, how we phrase things makes a difference

Propaganda is biased, and generally spewed to support an agenda or benefit the propagandist.. How did the apostles who wrote the new testament benefit from it? What did they have to gain from it? They were persecuted and killed.. The motivation for propaganda usually has a self-serving benefit. The gospel writers profited nothing, they achieved no political advances, so that "ulterior motive" you mentioned could have simply been to relay the truth..Most people won't die to propagate a lie.

[mererdog]

On 11/25/2016 at 0:24 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

This is what Christian Love means to me.  It is part of my heritage.  

Heritage is an interesting word. I grew up in the South, so it is extra-interesting to me. It makes me think of the times I've had guys telling me black people can't be trusted, invariably rattling off some laundry list of grievances their family has had to put up with over the years at the hands of Them. Heritage has always seemed kind of stupid to me.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On ‎2016‎年‎11‎月‎28‎日 at 2:22 AM, Dan56 said:

Thanks for being nice, how we phrase things makes a difference

1.  Propaganda is biased, and generally spewed to support an agenda or benefit the propagandist.. How did the apostles who wrote the new testament benefit from it? What did they have to gain from it? They were persecuted and killed.. 2.  The motivation for propaganda usually has a self-serving benefit. The gospel writers profited nothing, they achieved no political advances, so that "ulterior motive" you mentioned could have simply been to relay the truth..3.  Most people won't die to propagate a lie.

1.  Yes.  My point exactly.

2.  Yes.  When was the last time anybody blamed the Italians for the death of Jesus?  Not a trivial thing for spreading propaganda throughout the Roman Empire.  When the Emperor is Christian, they really have to shift blame.

3.  The Gospel propagandists were not "most people."   Perhaps you can tell me why they lied.  The phrase that comes to my mind is "pious fraud."

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 hours ago, mererdog said:

Heritage is an interesting word. I grew up in the South, so it is extra-interesting to me. It makes me think of the times I've had guys telling me black people can't be trusted, invariably rattling off some laundry list of grievances their family has had to put up with over the years at the hands of Them. Heritage has always seemed kind of stupid to me.

I could have said family history.  Consider it done, retroactively.