Why Stories of Jesus Became More Magical Over Time

[JoeB131]

No, not Jesus persay, to be honest is is more the idea that there is right and wrong, good and evil, and that eternal justice is dealt out in the end. It isn't pathetic to desire for a meaning in life beyond one's immediate physical existence. Humans have sought for such meaning throughout the ages. The fact that you don't wonder about these things and at the very least mock those that do just exposes you further as a, anti-social worthless and shallow social autist. It is interesting yo mention drugs, the fact you assume comfort comes through drugs just exposes your base hedonism than it does anything about me.

I do wonder about those things. I've just concluded your notion of "justice' is kind of perverted. Case in point.

Jeffrey Dahmner and Ann Frank. Which one gets into Heaven.

Now you think that Ann Frank would. She was an innocent person killed by the Nazis, but as you've said in your posts, the Jews are a fallen people and aren't getting into heaven. since she never accepted Jesus in her heart, she is going to hell for all her feelings.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Dahmner, if you believe he was sincere. Found Jesus in Prison. Got Baptized. Accepted the Lord into his heart and got all his sins forgiven. Which means that he went straight to heaven. Hopefully he didn't run into any of the guys he murdered and ate up there, because that would be totally fucking awkward.

That's a cosmology that is really, really kind of fucked up.

 

[JoeB131]

You and Christopher Hitchens are vulgar morons. She didn't just "sit there" and smile as these people died. The fact you attribute such characteristic to you just reflects your nihilistic world view and inner malice. And provides further evidence of the darkness of the atheist worldview taken to its conclusions. She provided housing and medical/emotional care for the poor and afflicted. The idea that she had to receive medical care in one of her centers or otherwise she is a hypocrite is absurd. That's like saying if you help the homeless you must live as a homeless person yourself. What a foolish thing to say. So I guess we can assume by this standard Hitchens and yourself never gave to the homeless and poor, lest he have to be poor and homeless himself? So either Hitchens is a selfish man or a hypocrite? What an absurd thing to say.

Well, it's a little bit different. If you work at a homeless shelter, you are probably either a volunteer who has health insurance from your straight job, or you are being paid a salary that has HC included.

As opposed to old Mother Teresa, fraud, phony, hypocrite, who raised millions for charity and basically decided that she was more important than her patients. Off to the Mayo Clinic she went.

However, her twisted fucking philosophy was that pain was holy, and the level of care she provided was abyssmal. No doctors, no separation of terminal patients from ones with treatable diseases, untrained nuns making medical decisions. Not to mention she took money from a lot of sleazy characters like Charles Keating and the dictator of Haiti, Baby Doc Duvelier.

She was simply an awful person who wrapped her awfulness in good intentions. Which actually, kind of describes most religious figures, when you come to think of it.

 

[HUGGY]

The argument that this or the other group in the last century has killed more people is as shallow as can be.

The SCALE of these atrocities is totally related to the MEANS of killing. Planes and bombs and tanks and machine guns and yes gas chambers are devices not available before the last 100 years or so.

On a scale of a percentage of the populations the Black Plague killed far more people in Europe than anything humans were capable of.

I believe the Christians would have killed a lot more supposed witches and heritics in the centuries around 1400 AD if they had the MEANS.

The supposition is that Christians would have armed themselves with the devices you mentioned. For example, the number of mob lynching that occurred in America during the twentieth century claim about the same number (about six thousand) of victims scholars say the Inquisition took. This would not be a fair comparison as that the Inquisition had government backing--whereas lynch mobs did not. A more accurate comparison would be how many deaths did the Church mandate as opposed to how many deaths the State mandates through the court system.

I tried (but failed in a quick search) to find the statistics of death resulting from Christian mob violence against those of a different faith as opposed to racial mob violence.

The Crusades may be more accurately compared to how many deaths resulted from the dispute of land in America between natives and immigrants.

Interesting. It has been made clear that the Christian inquisition was in fact a power AND land grab. The chuches gained substantial power by accumulating large and small title to land through false accusation and the remedy being the ownership of many farms and estates being given to the churches or just taken outright. It is amazing that no one has done a comprehensive audit of just how and when and under what circumstances the various Christian churches of the world have aquired their vast holdings of property.

 

[JoeB131]

Now you are changing your story, first you were calling women more or less sluts and said you wanted to not get married because some woman would cheat on you behind your back. Now you are saying you love women. Look just because you may or may not be sexually attracted to women, which I am beginning to doubt, doesn't mean you love them. It just shows you have a shallow view of women, view them as objects for sexual pleasure, since you yourself haven't been in a functioning relationship or had much sex yourself.

I think you miss the point, guy. Frankly, I don't blame the military wives who cheated while their men were on deployment. That's really kind of a lot to ask. I didn't feel the need to ask anyone to make that kind of commitment. And yes, watching a senior NCO get taken to the cleaners because Wife #2 got knocked up by another man and he was already paying half his salary to wife #1... that was a big turn-off.

Know, I don't, thankfully I am proud that I don't know much about your gay show. I just know that everyone I now that said they watched the show was a self absorbed liberal faggot.

I know a lot of Conservatives who are fans. Just like I know a lot of liberal and conservative fans of my beloved Chicago Cubbies. I think you just have a weak argument, because you think you are a theologian, and you can't really answer the silliness of your position..

But do carry on.

 

[Meriweather]

Interesting. It has been made clear that the Christian inquisition was in fact a power AND land grab. The chuches gained substantial power by accumulating large and small title to land through false accusation and the remedy being the ownership of many farms and estates being given to the churches or just taken outright. It is amazing that no one has done a comprehensive audit of just how and when and under what circumstances the various Christian churches of the world have aquired their vast holdings of property.

I need references for any of the Inquisitions being a power or land grab. The only instances I readily see for land grabs is those that occurred in a novel. The Crusades, not the Inquisitions were more about a land grab.

 

[HUGGY]

Interesting. It has been made clear that the Christian inquisition was in fact a power AND land grab. The chuches gained substantial power by accumulating large and small title to land through false accusation and the remedy being the ownership of many farms and estates being given to the churches or just taken outright. It is amazing that no one has done a comprehensive audit of just how and when and under what circumstances the various Christian churches of the world have aquired their vast holdings of property.

I need references for any of the Inquisitions being a power or land grab. The only instances I readily see for land grabs is those that occurred in a novel. The Crusades, not the Inquisitions were more about a land grab.

I was watching a "NOVA" special on religion specifically the time around the 1400s and how property and land holdings were proven at the time. It showed records of the oldest deeds and how the churches became wealthier. I wish I could provide a better refference but that is a starting point. From what I can remember it had to do with some famines and the people died and just left and the churches just took the land of the starving people. I wish I could remember more specifics.

 

[HUGGY]

It was a distinct advantage in those times as it is now when you can promise eternity and nobody just hauls your ass off to jail for fraud.

 

[Steinlight]

You can say Jesus didn't change anything, but is did, he declared the old law of Leviticus obsolete.

Did he?

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)

Wow, that doesn't sound like a guy who has overridden the old laws. And this is the problem. Jesus is a character made up by multiple authors. Matthew was of course, writing for a Jewish Audience before the Church decided to stop trying to convert the Jews and just went on to straight-up murdering them. So of course, his version of Jesus is going to say, "Nope, all the crazy laws Moses brought down from the mountain are still in effect." And if you belong to a church like the Seventh Day Adventists, you still follow all those crazy dietary laws.

It's when the Church decided they wanted to bring in gentiles they got rid of such silly rules as not eating pork and weenie chopping, but the stupid rules on stoning your wife or burning a witch, no one rescinded those.

But lets accept your argument, that morality changed from the Bronze Age to the time of Jesus, and less people practiced the laws in Leviticus by the time he came around.

Either way, you can't fairly attribute the laws enacted in Leviticus to Christianity, since as you say they weren't in common practice at the time.

You miss my point. If the laws in Leviticus were put down as GOD'S WORD, then how could they be rescinded? Right? Of course, i would be more impressed with Jesus if he said something like "Owning other human beings is wrong" rather than if he had said, "Hey, we don't need to do the weenie chopping anymore."

And as I said before, Christianity can't be blamed when adherents ignored Jesus saying mosaic law was obsolete or Church cannon law which condemned the belief in witches. You should take it up with the Jews, a fallen people who still claim to abide by the old law. But there wouldn't even be much of a point there, as Modern Judaism certainly doesn't abide by it in whole today.

No, nobody abides by it today, because those rules are barbaric. Which is understandable if you accept that they were written by barbarians for barbarians. But you guys insist that they were written by an infaliable God for all time. And if people were still owning slaves until 1850 or still burning witches in 1696, then the conclusion one has to draw is that we've outgrown God.

Wow, amazing that you quote one verse with no context. Galatians 3 explains that salvation comes through faith in Christ, not through the old law, and very clearly states we as Christians are not under it.

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3 - Faith or Works of the Law - You foolish - Bible Gateway

In Hebrews it very clearly states that the old covenant is obsolete and has been replaced by the new Covenant.

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 8 KJV - Now of the things which we have spoken - Bible Gateway

 

[Steinlight]

You can say Jesus didn't change anything, but is did, he declared the old law of Leviticus obsolete.

You miss my point. If the laws in Leviticus were put down as GOD'S WORD, then how could they be rescinded? Right? Of course, i would be more impressed with Jesus if he said something like "Owning other human beings is wrong" rather than if he had said, "Hey, we don't need to do the weenie chopping anymore."



No, nobody abides by it today, because those rules are barbaric. Which is understandable if you accept that they were written by barbarians for barbarians. But you guys insist that they were written by an infaliable God for all time. And if people were still owning slaves until 1850 or still burning witches in 1696, then the conclusion one has to draw is that we've outgrown God.

Mosaic law was God's Law for the Jews. The New Covenant that came with Christ was for all mankind. It wasn't "rescinded", the Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled with the birth of Christ, and salvation came not through the old law, but for all through Christ.

27

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

Galatians 3 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile neither slave nor free nor is there male and female for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Christ didn't come down to serve your narrow liberal sensibilities. He came to provide eternal salvation to all men, slave or free. His cause was greater than mere abolitionism. However, Abolitionists heeded the word of Christ, when he said we are all one in Christ, and the lesser among us is first in the eyes of God.

So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Matthew 20 16 KJV - So the last shall be first and the - Bible Gateway

Sin and evil in the world doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, it proves he granted man free will, for without free will, no good or evil would exist.

And you keep citing this witches thing, it makes absolutely no sense to condemn Christianity if some Christians fail to follow Canon Law and recognize witches aren't real.

The Canon Episcopi

 

[Steinlight]

JoeB,

Welcome to the "vulgar moron" club. I am president, and I will send you the secret decoder ring and instructions on the secret handshake. We are not a very exclusive club, though. anyone that disagrees with Stein is at least eligible for membership....

Huggy, your membership is still pending approval by our secret nominating committee.

As long as there's no gay stuff in the initiation, I'm in.

That's how I know you are gay, you try hard liberal faggot.

 

[Steinlight]

No, not Jesus persay, to be honest is is more the idea that there is right and wrong, good and evil, and that eternal justice is dealt out in the end. It isn't pathetic to desire for a meaning in life beyond one's immediate physical existence. Humans have sought for such meaning throughout the ages. The fact that you don't wonder about these things and at the very least mock those that do just exposes you further as a, anti-social worthless and shallow social autist. It is interesting yo mention drugs, the fact you assume comfort comes through drugs just exposes your base hedonism than it does anything about me.

I do wonder about those things. I've just concluded your notion of "justice' is kind of perverted. Case in point.

Jeffrey Dahmner and Ann Frank. Which one gets into Heaven.

Now you think that Ann Frank would. She was an innocent person killed by the Nazis, but as you've said in your posts, the Jews are a fallen people and aren't getting into heaven. since she never accepted Jesus in her heart, she is going to hell for all her feelings.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Dahmner, if you believe he was sincere. Found Jesus in Prison. Got Baptized. Accepted the Lord into his heart and got all his sins forgiven. Which means that he went straight to heaven. Hopefully he didn't run into any of the guys he murdered and ate up there, because that would be totally fucking awkward.

That's a cosmology that is really, really kind of fucked up.

This idea that Anne Frank, a child, goes to hell, is absurd. She, as a child, did not know Christ or the Gospel of the Church. If she has a good heart and is moved by grace she will receive eternal salvation.

CCC847

..."Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation."

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3

As for Dahmer, if he is sincere, that is for God, who is all knowing and all benevolent, to decide. You are not all knowing or all benevolent, and cannot know Dahmer's heart.

I would say the idea that one who truly has a change of heart cannot gain redemption, in this life or the next, is fucked up.

 

[Vandalshandle]

JoeB,

Welcome to the "vulgar moron" club. I am president, and I will send you the secret decoder ring and instructions on the secret handshake. We are not a very exclusive club, though. anyone that disagrees with Stein is at least eligible for membership....

Huggy, your membership is still pending approval by our secret nominating committee.

As long as there's no gay stuff in the initiation, I'm in.

That's how I know you are gay, you try hard liberal faggot.

Well, Stein, you just lost what little credibility you had left as being a Christian. I knew it wouldn't take long!

 

[Steinlight]

You and Christopher Hitchens are vulgar morons. She didn't just "sit there" and smile as these people died. The fact you attribute such characteristic to you just reflects your nihilistic world view and inner malice. And provides further evidence of the darkness of the atheist worldview taken to its conclusions. She provided housing and medical/emotional care for the poor and afflicted. The idea that she had to receive medical care in one of her centers or otherwise she is a hypocrite is absurd. That's like saying if you help the homeless you must live as a homeless person yourself. What a foolish thing to say. So I guess we can assume by this standard Hitchens and yourself never gave to the homeless and poor, lest he have to be poor and homeless himself? So either Hitchens is a selfish man or a hypocrite? What an absurd thing to say.

Well, it's a little bit different. If you work at a homeless shelter, you are probably either a volunteer who has health insurance from your straight job, or you are being paid a salary that has HC included.

As opposed to old Mother Teresa, fraud, phony, hypocrite, who raised millions for charity and basically decided that she was more important than her patients. Off to the Mayo Clinic she went.

However, her twisted fucking philosophy was that pain was holy, and the level of care she provided was abyssmal. No doctors, no separation of terminal patients from ones with treatable diseases, untrained nuns making medical decisions. Not to mention she took money from a lot of sleazy characters like Charles Keating and the dictator of Haiti, Baby Doc Duvelier.

She was simply an awful person who wrapped her awfulness in good intentions. Which actually, kind of describes most religious figures, when you come to think of it.

I like how the only like you get for trashing mother teresa is from the hateful and anti-christian communist "jew" guno and are basically copying fat fuck hitchens verbatim.

So if you work for a charity, you can receive medical care better than those you serve, but if you run the charity, you can't? This is absurd and makes no sense. So by your standard, if I start a charity in Africa to alleviate suffering, and cannot provide a western level of medicine, I have no right to seek high level medical care if I have the means? What utter garbage. You are just hating her not because you care one iota for the poor she consoled and provided for, but because you hate her for being a woman of faith. Even Hitchens more or less admitted he hated Mother Teresa most of all because she didn't support birth control. At the end of the day, your hate for her is based on a shallow and leftist vendetta against her.

I like how the war mongering fat alcoholic hitchens, who spent his whole life pontificating and being an degenerate glutton, as the nerve to declare mother teresa immoral. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad and disgusting on his part and yours.

You are just looking for reasons to hate her, this idea she is immoral because she didn't build western style hospitals isn't rational hate, and is hypocritical considering neither you nor Hitchens did even a fraction of what she did to alleviate the suffering of others, if anything at all.

As for taking money from dictators, she should return the money to dictators instead of giving it to the poor? what sick and twisted logic is that?

 

[Steinlight]

JoeB,

Welcome to the "vulgar moron" club. I am president, and I will send you the secret decoder ring and instructions on the secret handshake. We are not a very exclusive club, though. anyone that disagrees with Stein is at least eligible for membership....

Huggy, your membership is still pending approval by our secret nominating committee.

As long as there's no gay stuff in the initiation, I'm in.

That's how I know you are gay, you try hard liberal faggot.

Well, Stein, you just lost what little credibility you had left as being a Christian. I knew it wouldn't take long!

I wasn't aware you had the authority to proclaim people Christian or not you sanctimonious douche.

 

[HUGGY]

JoeB,

Welcome to the "vulgar moron" club. I am president, and I will send you the secret decoder ring and instructions on the secret handshake. We are not a very exclusive club, though. anyone that disagrees with Stein is at least eligible for membership....

Huggy, your membership is still pending approval by our secret nominating committee.

A privilege I'm sure. I will put it up on my internal mental mantle right alongside the work I did on Billy Gates house and Chris McQuarrie's(The Usual Suspects) private boat. I didn't think to ask him about Keyser Soze.

 

[hobelim]

You can say Jesus didn't change anything, but is did, he declared the old law of Leviticus obsolete.

No, you are mistaken. Jesus affirmed that the law will remain in effect and in full force for as long as heaven and earth endure. Matthew 5:17-20

Paul misrepresented Jesus, Paul was the one who claimed that Jesus declared the law obsolete. If Jesus claimed to have abolished the law he was either insane or a false prophet. In light of Matthew 5:17-20, it looks like Paul was a liar.


Jesus said he did not come to abolish but to fulfill the law. To fulfill the law is to comply with its demands not abolish it.. That means Jesus came to reveal and demonstrate the only right way to understand the figurative language and hidden subjects of the law that leads to the eternal life promised for compliance, in this world, that he said was revealed to him by God.

What became obsolete after the revelation of Jesus was the oral law, the traditions of men as he called it, which goes into great detail about how to properly conform to the literal letter of the law while neglecting the weightier matters implied by the not so subtle figurative language used.

Even the command to 'eat my flesh' was a sublime teaching about how to correctly understand and comply with Kosher law which teaches how to differentiate between what is clean or unclean teaching; what expands and enlightens or what defiles and contaminates the mind..

It has nothing whatever to do with what you eat and serve for meals, a tradition of men that for the most part puts the entire burden of complying with Kosher law on women.

Jesus said that unless you eat his flesh, receive this teaching, and drink his blood, comply with the law accordingly, you cannot have life in you. (Life is in the blood , life is the promise for the righteous observance the law.) The promised of eternal life for obedience to the law can only be fulfilled and received by doing it whether you are male or female, young or old, rich or poor, gay or straight, a cop or a criminal, a saint or a sinner, Jew or Gentile.

However difficult it may be for a believer to believe, perjury in the name of God, setting aside the divine commands, and desecrating the teachings of Jesus is not the way to eternal life.

 

[Vandalshandle]

JoeB,

Welcome to the "vulgar moron" club. I am president, and I will send you the secret decoder ring and instructions on the secret handshake. We are not a very exclusive club, though. anyone that disagrees with Stein is at least eligible for membership....

Huggy, your membership is still pending approval by our secret nominating committee.

A privilege I'm sure. I will put it up on my internal mental mantle right alongside the work I did on Billy Gates house and Chris McQuarrie's(The Usual Suspects) private boat. I didn't think to ask him about Keyser Soze.

Huggy, our nominating committee for the Vulgar Morons club (Stein) seems to be a little "Iffy" about nominating you for membership in our organization. Perhaps you can ask him to explain this:



I suspect that before long, you will be one of us!

 

[HUGGY]

JoeB,

Welcome to the "vulgar moron" club. I am president, and I will send you the secret decoder ring and instructions on the secret handshake. We are not a very exclusive club, though. anyone that disagrees with Stein is at least eligible for membership....

Huggy, your membership is still pending approval by our secret nominating committee.

A privilege I'm sure. I will put it up on my internal mental mantle right alongside the work I did on Billy Gates house and Chris McQuarrie's(The Usual Suspects) private boat. I didn't think to ask him about Keyser Soze.

Huggy, our nominating committee for the Vulgar Morons club (Stein) seems to be a little "Iffy" about nominating you for membership in our organization. Perhaps you can ask him to explain this:



I suspect that before long, you will be one of us!

Well..... Since you put it like that......

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, amazing that you quote one verse with no context. Galatians 3 explains that salvation comes through faith in Christ, not through the old law, and very clearly states we as Christians are not under it.

Okay, I would think that a quote from Jesus would be more meaningful than a quote from Paul.

Of course, the bible is like a Buffet Table, you can pick out any verse to justify any mean, stupid, racist, misogynistic thing you want to do.

Or you can just assume it's all the ramblings of Bronze Age assholes and get on with your life because there probably isn't a God, and even if there is, he's not hung up on this shit.

 

[JoeB131]

Mosaic law was God's Law for the Jews. The New Covenant that came with Christ was for all mankind. It wasn't "rescinded", the Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled with the birth of Christ, and salvation came not through the old law, but for all through Christ.

Or that when the Jews weren't buying it, they changed the sales tactic for Pagans and told them that weenie chopping was out and the Shrimp Cocktails were in.

But the mean-spirited shit about Slavery and Burning Witches? Yeah, we are totally keeping that.

Christ didn't come down to serve your narrow liberal sensibilities. He came to provide eternal salvation to all men, slave or free. His cause was greater than mere abolitionism. However, Abolitionists heeded the word of Christ, when he said we are all one in Christ, and the lesser among us is first in the eyes of God.

You know, if you are going to claim salvation comes from doing the right thing in addition to accepting Jesus into your heart, then Jesus probably should have said something about Slavery. YOu know, something like, "Owning another human being and raping the shit out of her is wrong."

And you keep citing this witches thing, it makes absolutely no sense to condemn Christianity if some Christians fail to follow Canon Law and recognize witches aren't real.

Except the Bible says that they are real, and you need to kill the shit out of them.

The fact is, Canon Law didn't change. What changed was that we got technologically advanced enough to realize that there were no witches. God didn't change, we did.