An interview with Jesus

[Xenon]

Interview with Jesus
"Should," I asked, "the rich be heavily taxed?"

"Yes--for their own spiritual welfare. Don't lay up treasures here below. One can't serve God and mammon."

"Won't stringent taxation of the wealthy weaken the economy?"

"Possibly. But man doesn't live by bread alone."

"What can the wealthy do to avoid exorbitant taxes?"

"Sell all they have and distribute the proceeds to the poor."

"Should entitlement programs be expanded?"

Jesus tugged at his beard. "Exponentially. Give to everyone who begs from you, and of him who takes away your goods do not ask for them again."

"Should the Pentagon budget be increased?"

"Decreased. To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other."

"Should the U.S. have invaded Iraq?"

"Heavens, no. Blessed are the peacemakers, the meek, the merciful."

"Should politicians get tough on criminals?"

"They are too tough already. Let those without sin cast the first stone."

"What about convicted terrorists? How should they be treated?"

"Compassionately. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

"How important are family values?"

Jesus scratched his neck. "Not very. I left my own family early on. Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, sister, and mother."

"Should Social Security be a concern for the present generation of U.S. citizens?"

Jesus gazed out the passenger window at a field of lilies. "Not at all. Do not be anxious about tomorrow. For tomorrow will be anxious for itself."

"I see. What do you think about abortions and stem-cell research?"

"I don't. Perhaps now I will."

"Do you have an opinion on same-sex marriages?"

"Not really. Although I sometimes travel with twelve guys, I'm basically asexual."

"Do you favor separation of church and state?"

"Certainly. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."

"Do you think U.S. presidents should attend prayer breakfasts?"

Jesus yawned and then vigorously shook his head. "Bad idea. Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them."

"Is military experience an asset to a U.S. president?"

"Usually a debit. As I said, blessed are the meek."

"In presidential elections, should character be an issue?"

"Yes. Woe to him whom all men speak well of."

"What do you think of partisan politics?"

The pale figure rubbed his bloodshot eyes. "I try not to. A politician sees the speck in his opponent's eye, but does not notice the log in his own. A kingdom divided against itself is laid waste."

"Hmm. I take it you would never run for high office?"

Jesus closed his eyes. "Not even if I had supporters."
Originally Posted at Infidels.org (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=365)

[wraizyr]

Blah, blah, blah, decontextualized polemic.
Is there a point to this?

[Xenon]

It's there for anyone with half a brain to see. Too bad you seem to be missing that part of your anatomy.

Decontextualized "agressive controversialism"? How can things Jesus said be controversial? It's the Word of God man! Oh... maybe you meant it like "decontextualized art or practice of disputation". Yes. Correct. That's not a bad thing. I think I'll use that as part of my Custom title.

If you want to use big words wraizyr, you need to know what they mean first.

[Dark_Soul74]

Like antidisestablishmentarianism!

[wraizyr]

po·lem·ic
A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.

I'm stating that you seem to be trying to stir stuff up, and you're willing to use crappy statements/arguments to do so.


And c'mon, "Missing my brain?"
I know you can do better than that.:)

Edit:I'm probably not going to even debate much in this thread, it just seems that you're merely trying to piss Christians off, not have a decent debate/conversation.Sorry if I'm wrong.

[Xenon]

Why would this thread piss Christians off? If anything, it should piss off Republicans.

[wraizyr]

Why would this thread piss Christians off? If anything, it should piss off Republicans.
Oi, and many Christians are republicans, they associate Jesus(a little too closely,imo) with the republican party.As such, they will see this as a twisting/perversion of the words of Jesus.Also, the article has Jesus say 1 or 2 things which are against Christianity.
Now, frankly, you strike me as too bright to overlook something so obvious, hence the "polemical" comment.

As for me, I'm no Republican, but you are trying to make Jesus words fit into different situations than they were originally used for.

[Xenon]

Everything I attributed to Jesus was actually attributed as to having been said by Jesus himself in one of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)...

What are the "1 or 2 things" which are "against Christianity"? If christianity is the belief in the principles which Jesus taught, how can something Jesus himself said be anti-christianity? It doesn't make sense. Clarification would be nice...

[wraizyr]

"Do you have an opinion on same-sex marriages?"
"Not really. Although I sometimes travel with twelve guys, I'm basically asexual."

I know those are quotes by Jesus, that's why I said they are taken out of context, not,"Jesus never said that."
Pay attention.

[Xenon]

There is nothing Jesus has ever said that was anti-homosexual or which could be construed in that way. In fact, the only mention in the entire new testament which is blatantly homophobic was made by Saul/Paul who was neither a disciple of Jesus' nor one whom had ever met Jesus in person.

My take on Saul/Paul is that he saw that Judaism was on the wane and that there was great opportunity in becoming one of these "newfangled Christians"; so he decided to set a large part of Christian doctrine and dogma himself based on his supposed prophecies delivered to him on the road to Damascus and in dreams he had where "God spoke to him" as a way of getting ahead in the world. Saul/Paul was an avowed Jew who persecuted Christians before he became one. It isn't much of a stretch for me to see his Judaic roots showing in his attitudes vis a vis homosexuality. Basically, what you have is Paul's interpretation of his own imagination passed on as Christian belief based on the Old Testament mores and values. Jesus never voiced an opinion to my knowledge on homosexuality. Homosexuality is not "unchristian" since Jesus never had an opinion one way or the other about it.

You have to admit though that Jesus was probably bisexual; what with spending all his time with 12 guys and some hookers and never taking a wife or anything. I bet he got freaky with Mary Magdalene and Martha. Hell, they were the first people who saw Jesus after he "arose from the dead". I guess you wake up with a pretty big boner after getting yourself crucified.

So. That was "thing number 1". What's "thing number 2", or were you just hoping you could find more than one thing wrong with the teachings of Jesus himself?

[Protosschick99]

This is stupid. I ask that this thread be deleted as it is just to provoke ppl who belong to a certain religion.

[Xenon]

Uh oh! No more freedom of speech?

Yeah, it's damn inconvenient that freedom of speech, religion and so on...

I think it's funny that when the truth gets a little too close for comfort people are always ready to request a thread deletion.

Oh no! I can't think of a counter-argument that makes sense, so I'll just ask that the thread be deleted. Is that how you're going to deal with all the doubts people have about your religion ProtossChick99? If I am in some sort of error regarding your religion, please, correct me.

Yeah. That's what I thought.

[Protosschick99]

lolz--You make me laugh Xenon :P

[Xenon]

See? God has a purpose for me after all.

I am sorry ProtossChick99. Please teach me more about how to be a better person and follower of the teachings of Christ. Praise the Lord! Hallelujiah! I feel like a new man!

PS: If you guys wonder what has happened to me, ProtossChick99 made me her new prayer project, and even though I want to remain dubious and doubtful of the teachings of Jesus, our Lord and Saviour through faith in Christ, I just can't! I had an epiphany! A real eye opening! Go read the other thread and see how the amazing power of prayer can turn a doubting Thomas, a real Saul into a Paul! Praise Jesus! Glory Hallelujiah! Amen! Wonderful sweet divine Jesus! Praise be your name. Thank you for sending ProtossChick99 into my life to touch me with your love divine.

[peace_machine]

I wonder if theXenon gets some sort of satisfaction from trying to hurt people?

Freedom of speach and whatever you can say what you want but is it really wise to argue against a topic that means so much to some people?

I'm not denying I find some humor in the thread but is there any real point to purposly trying to start something.



Well atleast the google adds are having some fun.

[Neo]

Xenon has a point you know.

But anyways, I just kinda laughed. How was this thread suppoed to be taken any other way?

What was the reason for the thread though? Sheer boredom?

-Neo

[Xenon]

This is the Members Lounge... I wasn't aware a thread needed a reason to be posted here. It's one of the reasons I didn't post it in IR.
I wonder if theXenon gets some sort of satisfaction from trying to hurt people?How does posting a humorous article hurt people. Generally, only the truth hurts. Why is that?

[WeekendLazyness]

Actually, there's no such thing as freedom of speech on forums like this. It's up to the discrimination of the admins and moderators.

[GrassDragon]

Why does is seem like every thread that mentions Jesus ends up in shit? I don't see the big deal with this story; it's just a funny/interesting article right?

[Schwitzer]

This is stupid. I ask that this thread be deleted as it is just to provoke ppl who belong to a certain religion.
If that's your honest belief, than the best response would be to not let it provoke you into making a fuss about it, wouldn't it?

[Draix]

I think it's funny that when the truth gets a little too close for comfort people are always ready to request a thread deletion.Very good point Xenon.

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[Xenon]

In any case, I would like to ask you: How did you come across this "interveiw"? Did you just find questions which sounded like the ones you asked, and took replies from jesus that sounded like he would have said them? In any case, it would behoove you if you could please point out the scriptures and passages from whence those words came. Until you do, I, and every other christian on this thread will just consider this as a pitiful attempt just to ruffle some feathers. When you find those scriptures, let me know and we can continue our debate. Do you think you're the only one who can talk to Jesus? Aren't we all supposed to have a personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour? Jesus held this interview with me in person.

No. Seriously, maybe instead of reading everyone else's replies and then aping them like some stuttering chimpanzee, you should follow the link I provided in my original quote for the source of the "interview".

Here is a list of the Bible verses that were used as Jesus' replies. These translations are mostly from the King James Version of the Bible of 1611. Often held to be the definitive translation by a majority of Protestant Christians. It uses the Renaissance English, and is far superior to modern wordings and translations as it gives a more correct and subtle meaning than modernized "slang" versions of the Bible that I've seen.

I've bolded where I paraphrased Jesus without changing his meanings, and I've included the surrounding contextual elements so that you can see that I have NOT quoted him out of context. You really should be doing this yourself, but I know you're a lazy bastard, so I'm doing it for you:

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:19-21)

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24)

Jesus said, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (Matthew 19:21)

"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again." (Luke 6:27-38)

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying; Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matthew 5:1-9)

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:1-11)

But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:48-50)

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. (Matthew 6:25-34)

And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Matthew 22:20,21)

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 6:1)


===


Blarg. I shouldn't be doing this all for you. I've done over half of them, but it's taken me longer than I wanted to spend to prove to you that these are quotes that Jesus made. Maybe if you knew your Bible a bit better... *hint hint* ...you would recognize what your own Son of God said? I know all the verses by heart, but it's finding the Chapter and Verse that I am not sure about and have had to research just because you're too lazy and/or incompetent to do so.

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[gediminas]

I guess it's pretty fun sometimes to take a long rapier of insult, pin some shit on it, equip yourself
with a heavy shield called freedom of speech and head off poking people with shit, although
hiding behind the shield... Something I should try doing sometime.

[wraizyr]

Saul/Paul who was neither a disciple of Jesus' nor one whom had ever met Jesus in person.He never physically met Jesus in person, but he was a follower of Jesus.

My take on Saul/Paul is that he saw that Judaism was on the wane and that there was great opportunity in becoming one of these "newfangled Christians"; so he decided to set a large part of Christian doctrine and dogma himself based on his supposed prophecies delivered to him on the road to Damascus and in dreams he had where "God spoke to him" as a way of getting ahead in the world.Nice theory, but Christianity didn't exactly look like it was on the road to becoming a big success story back then. (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html) People back then wouldn't have expected Christianity to survive and spread, you're just assuming they did because you can see it now.


Jesus never voiced an opinion to my knowledge on homosexuality. Homosexuality is not "unchristian" since Jesus never had an opinion one way or the other about it.Yes he did:"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."(Matthew 5:17)
God did not change his law on what is right and wrong.

You have to admit though that Jesus was probably bisexual; what with spending all his time with 12 guys and some hookers and never taking a wife or anything.
Maybe in your bizarro section of the universe being unmarried and having friends of both genders implies bisexuality, but realistically, Jesus had bigger fish to fry.

So. That was "thing number 1". What's "thing number 2", or were you just hoping you could find more than one thing wrong with the teachings of Jesus himself?
That seems to be the only thing.

I wanted to spend to prove to you that these are quotes that Jesus made.I recognized instantly that most of them are quotes of Jesus.And while I actually do agree with some of the points made in the article, Jesus was not talking about politics

"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other;
Love here is not used in the modern, sentimental sense.As such, this application is invalid. (http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatlove.html)
Smith interprets these commands as directives to tolerate injustice and be a doormat, and says "such precepts require the obliteration of one's capacity to distinguish the good from the evil." [323] Taken in their social context, these commands require no such things. "Resist not evil" is a well-known Jewish proverb (Ps. 37:1, 8; Prov. 24:19) and actually means, do not compete with evildoers by trying to outdo them in terms of getting back at them.

But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:48-50)
This says nothing about the importance of family values, Jesus is simply stating a fact:that he is not physically related to what we consider his family in a normal way.

And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Matthew 22:20,21)
And this has nothing to do with separation of church and state; the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus by making him say either give the money to the government and be treasonous to the Jews, or give it to the Jews, and be treasonous to the Romans.

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 6:1)This verse is making the point that if you do good deeds in order to impress people, then your only reward is whether you manage to impress them.For this to apply to the way it is used, you have to show that the prayer breakfests are being used solely to impress people.

Maybe if you knew your Bible a bit better... *hint hint* ...you would recognize what your own Son of God said?You mean by not assuming those who wrote the Bible were in a low-context society? Done.

you're too lazy and/or incompetent to do so.
Well, I've answered your weak objections, and the only reason I can't do more is because I'm too busy; I can safely say this ad hominem is baseless. Better luck next time.^^;

[Xenon]

But I have the same opinion of your supports of the Bible. It seems we are at loggerheads.

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[SSA_Ultimasheep]

You have to admit though that Jesus was probably bisexual; what with spending all his time with 12 guys and some hookers and never taking a wife or anything.
My mom recently read a book called The DaVincii code. the main idea of the book is that the holy grail is not actually the chalice from which Jesus drank in the last supper but the tomb of Mary Magdalene(sp?) who was not a tramp as the bible makes her out to be but instead Jesus' wife. The Holy Grail apparently contained many papers and documents outlining Jesus' life and his relationship with Mary. It goes on to explain that the Holy Grail was guarded by a secret sect of monks who were somehow connected to the Masons. The crusades to find the Holy Grail were established by the Catholic Church in order to destroy the grail which supposedly would have brought the Catholic Church crashing down around the Pope's point hat by demolishing many of the beliefs that formed the basis of the Catholic Church. I'm not saying its true but it is an interesting theory.

[Protosschick99]

I bought that book thinking it would be good but was disgusted by it so I sold it on e-bay, lolz :D

[Schwitzer]

I guess it's pretty fun sometimes to take a long rapier of insult, pin some shit on it, equip yourself with a heavy shield called freedom of speech and head off poking people with shit, although hiding behind the shield... Something I should try doing sometime.
This sort of post is nothing but shit-stirring. :mad:

[Xenon]

Seraph_Knight: No, I meant "at loggerheads" just as I said. I was replying to wraizyr's comments re: weak arguments and ad hominem.

log·ger·head
- at loggerheads : in or into a state of quarrelsome disagreement

Look it up, it's in the dictionary.

SSA_Ultimasheep: I must have misunderstood the book, it's been a long time since I read it. When I read it I was pretty sure that the whole point was that the Holy Grail was actually the child of Jesus by Mary Magdalene... but perhaps I was wrong. I did however thoroughly enjoy the book.

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[ShadowGonissa]

Eck.

You're taking Jesus's words out of context. See, when Jesus said those things, He was responding to a more or less specific situation. Discernment is using different principles for different times. Like how we have proverbs that contradict themselves. "He who hesitates, dies" and "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" contradict, but the thing is, discernment calls for us to determine which proverb to follow at certain times. The questions you asked would certainly have been answered differently if Jesus was actually answering them.

[Modred]

How can things Jesus said be controversial?
Matthew 15:12--"Then the disciples came to him and asked, 'Do you realize you offended the Pharisees by what you just said?'" Apparently, the words of Jesus can be quite controversial. =D

Ok Xenon, I like your basic point, and agree with it in most regards. It is logical that Jesus would hold himself above the warfare, partisanship, and other things that make us humans the wonderfully divisive people that we are. However, I take issue with two statements.
"I see. What do you think about abortions and stem-cell research?"

"I don't. Perhaps now I will."

"Do you have an opinion on same-sex marriages?"

"Not really. Although I sometimes travel with twelve guys, I'm basically asexual."
For the first, Jesus did not promote murder, and if you consider abortion to be ending a life, then that equates murder. The Scott Peterson case has set a precedent, keep that in mind. 2nd Degree Murder conviction for killing his unborn son.

As for the homosexuality, I agree with you that Jesus never openly opposed homosexuality as far as the Gospels document, and the harshest anti-homosexual sentiments come from Paul (mostly found in Romans), who no doubt carried them over from his Jewish upbringing. You claim that Jesus said everything you wrote, in some fashion or another, in one of the four Gospels; yet in your documentation, there is no mention of sexuality, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual. I can use my searchable Bible if you wish, but I seriously doubt it will turn up anything. :)

You have to admit though that Jesus was probably bisexual; what with spending all his time with 12 guys and some hookers and never taking a wife or anything. I bet he got freaky with Mary Magdalene and Martha. Hell, they were the first people who saw Jesus after he "arose from the dead". I guess you wake up with a pretty big boner after getting yourself crucified.
But Jesus does warn against 'sexual immorality.' Mark 7:21--For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorailty, theft, murder... | Matthew 15:19--For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all other sexual immorality, theft, lying and slander.

Now, we must define what 'sexual immorality' means. If we incorporate homosexuality into such a definition, recall that Jesus was also raised in a Jewish home, we can refer to the following. Leviticus 20:13--The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense. Here are the Jewish origins of what you might call the homophobic Christian movement. Since Jesus himself never mentions homosexuality, but he does mention the Jewish law, we must examine what he says about that subject, which incorporates homosexuality. Matthew 5:17-18--'Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them. I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.' Please note the italics.

So, if Jesus teaches that the Jewish law's are still in effect, and will remain in effect until the ends of the earth and of heaven, then he has condemned homosexuality since it is condemned by the law of Moses. Therefore, if Jesus were bisexual or had sex with one of the women (I can bring up documentation against such relations if you wish), then he was not perfect; thus, his sacrifice was blemished and unacceptable to God and all of Christianity since then is a lie. Take your pick Xenon, I'm curious to your response.

Wow, this really sounds like an IR thread.

[Spartan-II]

It goes on to explain that the Holy Grail was guarded by a secret sect of monks who were somehow connected to the Masons.George Washington and many other famous politicians and presidents have been masons!! And back then weren't they called the Knights Templar?

[Xenon]

Mordred: Well, my personal opinion is that all of Christianity is a lie anyways... I think everyone knew that before we started discussing this topic...

Question for you Mordred: Do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, why would you choose a moniker for yourself which recalls a certain patricide beget out of an incestuous relationship? Are incest and patricide generally things you promote? :)

Come on. We can be as inane here as you want to be. I found the interview to be funny and insightful. Exposing some of the hypocrisy of the Republican mindset. I didn't originally even think this would turn into a large and drawn out discussion on the words and works of Jesus.

Vis a vis your sexual immorality points: I believe that we can never know the true words or meanings behind the words that Jesus allegedly said. My personal opinion is that some enterprising people saw a way to capitalize on Jesus' teachings and that it was either a fluke that Christianity flourished, or some very savvy manipulation of the simple-minded masses that allowed it to gain such a toehold in the world. I think Jesus' original followers were simple people and sincere in their beliefs. I think that what we know as the organized religion of Christianity today is a perversion of whatever Jesus may or may not have said originally. I think that in the organization of Christianity and the subsumation of other "pagan" rites and rituals into the organized religion we now know as Christianity, --things like Easter, and Christmas, and Lent-- in and of their very nature changed true Christianity and imposed foreign ideas and concepts and mores into a hodgepodge of invented strictures to control and manipulate the feeble minded, the simple, and the easily led. Christianity appeals most to the common man; the downtrodden, those without resources be they mental or physical.

It has been and continues to be one of the best forms of mind-control yet invented.

If we look at the history of the region where Jesus lived and died, and if we look at some recent (and not-so recent) archaeological evidence, we find that Yaweh had a consort, a female deity. We also find a lot of neighboring cultures of the time heavily emphasized peace, and the honoring of women above men, and the attendant sexual freedoms most of these matrilineal societies contained. In my unprofessional opinion, much of the Bible was written by the "victors" so to speak.

Just as History has an inconvenient way of not necessarily being the truth, so too religion has had many "revisions" to its original forms. You believe what you believe, and that's fine. We are tollerant here in American and Canada. No problem. You wanna be a Christian? More power to you. But please don't expect me to agree with all of your points.

If you're open minded enough, here are some links to some information about some of the questions about the Hebrew faith which is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. You can clearly see (or maybe not) how certain inconsistencies are showing up with regards to what was translated (from more than 5 languages no less...) into the Bible we know and love today, and what the archaeological records show.

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/punic-gods.htm

"Giovanni Garbini states that the literary evidence when combined with the plethora of terracotta female figures, indicates that Israelite religion was not so severe, not so monotheistic, not so pure, as the bible would have us believe. He claims of those figurines ‘there is no doubt that here we have representations of a goddess widely worshipped by the Israelites’ (History and Ideology in Ancient Israel 1988; 59)."

For Dever, the terra cotta nudes, the lion lady of the Taanach cult stand, the smaller of the two pillars at the Arad temple and the bronze lady found at the base of the altar all evidence the existence of Asherah the Goddess and the prominent place she had in the religious lives of ancient Israelites.

Saul Olyan believes that Asherah was paired with Yahweh when Yahweh and El were identified - Yahweh naturally taking on the consort of El. He argues that opposition to this development was voiced in one hard-line party - that of the Deuteronomists who are responsible for the Biblical tradition. They then run a mud-slinging campaign against Asherah in order to disassociate the Goddess from the cult of Yahweh, their polemic being that the Goddess is nothing but an object that can be pulverised and burnt. Once she had been reduced in the minds of people to just an object, then her removal from the stage could be effectively accomplished.

Binger suggests that we have been blind to the presence of Yahweh’s female consort because of the religious interests of our predecessors and I leave the last word with her:

'Any goddess connected to a god - Baal for instance - in the way that we have seen Asherah connected to Yahweh...would, without any major discussion, be seen as the relevant god’s consort or wife. That we are dealing with the god who becomes the one God of the Jewish as well as Christian religion, seems to make quite a lot of scholars unable to imagine that asrt could be a goddess; personal piety has, however, no place in sound scholarly debate. Therefore it must be supposed that Asherah was indeed a goddess, and the consort of Yahweh' (Asherah 1997;109)

http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/guest/Ancient%20Israel/asherah.htm

Furthermore, Jesus doesn't even exist. This name was not in existence until the 1500s and is not a proper transliteration of Yahshua the only begotten son of Yahweh. The true transliteration of Yahshua is Joshua. According to Wörterbuch der Antike, the substitute name can be traced back to the Latin Iesus and the Greek Iesous. Then, it can be traced back to an adaptation of the name of the Greek healing goddess Ieso. This is confirmed by Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott. To Greeks who venerated a healing goddess Ieso, a saviour Iesousmust have been most acceptable, suggests a writer in Philologische Wochenschrift. In spite of attempts to justify the "translating" of the Father's Name and His Son's Name, it cannot be done. A person's name remains the same in all languages. The father of the Greek goddess Ieso was Asclepius, the deity of healing. The father of Asclepius was Apollo, the great Sun-deity. Thus, the name Iesous can be traced back to Sun-worship. There is also a relationship to the Egyptian goddess Isis and her son Isu. According to Reallexikon der Agpyptischen Religionsgeschichte, the name of Isis appears in hieroglyphic inscriptions as ESU or ES. Isu and Esu sound exactly like "Jesu" that the Saviour is called in the translated Scriptures of many languages. Esus was a Gallic deity comparable to the Scandanavian Odin. The Greek abbreviation for Iesous is IHS, which is found on many inscriptions made by the Church during the Middle Ages.

IHS was the mystery name of Bacchus (Tammuz), another Sun-deity. As we all know, Bacchus was the god who gave rise to the Bacchanalian. As everyone also knows, one of the main features of the Bacchanal was the massive orgies which included man-on-man, woman-on-woman and all other sorts of mixed copulation. All done under the aegis of doing homage to Bacchus. Now, if what we now call Jesus was originally one of the names of Bacchus, then who are we to say that Jesus did not participate in orgies with his 12 disciples and Martha and Mary?

Since we don't know for sure, I am not going to rule out the possibility that Jesus was a flaming bisexual, or at least may have engaged in some fun with his female followers if nothing else.

The Bible was written by people with motives. Everyday people like you and I. No matter who it is, those people are susceptible to their own prejudices and bigotries just as you and I are today. No one is perfect.

All that to say this: I don't agree with you, and I have more than enough solid proof, logic and natural theories to support my opinions. If you can show me something more logical or more solid or more theoretically believeable, I would be happy to concur with you and state those opinions. But until such a time, no; I do not believe that the Bible is the word of God.

Interesting side note about the word Bible: BYBLE was a Female deity, also known as BIBLIS, and granddaughter of Apollo, a Greek sun deity. The proper terminology to be used is scriptures. :D

[Spartan-II]

Xenon either you are a human Encyclopedia or have way too much time on your hands..

[Xenon]

The first one. I'm also a bit older than many of you here... so my extensive knowledge may just be due to extensive experience. ( I'm "old" ) :(

[wraizyr]

I don't have time for anything much, but I'd like to point out that the Bible itself the Israelites often fell into the worship of false gods.

And the dictionary had this to say about the term Bible:
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin biblia, from Greek, pl. of biblion, book diminutive of biblos, papyrus, book, from Bublos Byblos.]

[HackingVictim]

The first one. I'm also a bit older than many of you here... so my extensive knowledge may just be due to extensive experience. ( I'm "old" ) :(
Extensive knowledge my ass. How about Montibancical? You seem only to discuss the lefty side of the polictical roundtable. Were the only time you "Discuss" something is to provoke a argument of a certain area... Being "Old" has nothing to do with extensive knowledge. Seeing how some of the world wide jackarses have proven that "old" does not mean knowledge.....



~HV

[Xenon]

I don't have time for anything much, but I'd like to point out that the Bible itself the Israelites often fell into the worship of false gods.You didn't even read any of it or the links, did you? What I'm saying, is that the Bible as we know it represents a modified view of the Judeo-Christian hierarchy of deities. The Jews themselves used to believe in more than one God, and they borrowed their own god(s) from other local cultures and homogenized them to be something which gave their religious leaders the most power. Of course it's in the Bible that the "bad Jews" worshipped many gods... the Bible was the winning side's propaganda tool and continues to be so today.

HackingVictim: Sorry, I have no extensive knowledge of your ass. Probably don't want any either.

I can't seem to find that word (Montibancical) in any dictionary. If you're trying to say I'm a mountebank, you need to think of another word; because there is no such thing as "Montibancical". See, that's the problem with people who try and pretend to be smarter than they are. They end up using words which don't exist.

If I seem to discuss things from the "lefty side of the political roundtable" maybe it's because that's the spectrum my ideaologies seem to fall into? Did you want me to discuss things from say, a position which I don't believe in? If I understand you correctly, you seem to want me to say something other than my own opinion? This does not compute. Please re-enter your request.

Were? Is it a full moon tonight? or am I supposed to beware of something? Do you mean "we're"? That wouldn't fit with the rest of your sentence... Oh I get it! It's supposed to be "Where"! I see it now! It still doesn't fit with the sentence, but I think I know what you mean. You might want to try some proper grammar and spelling if you don't want to come across as an uneducated fool to me.

You're also wrong when you say that being "old" has nothing to do with extensive knowledge. Being old implies a certain amount of experience. What being "old" won't help with, --as we can see from examples around the globe-- is with wisdom and maturity. I don't believe I have ever claimed to be wise or mature. I am however extensively knowledgeable.

Thanks! Have a nice day. It's been fun schooling you today.

[Spartan-II]

Xenon are the words (Acronyms actually.. *I think*) GG NO RE? in your vocab?

[Xenon]

Yes Spartan-II, they are part of my lexicon... Why do you ask? Are you suggesting I should apply them to HackingVictim?

I prefer the GGNORE spelling though, not splitting them into pairs. I also sometimes do it GGGWNORE.

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[Spartan-II]

Yes Spartan-II, they are part of my lexicon... Why do you ask? Are you suggesting I should apply them to HackingVictim?

I prefer the GGNORE spelling though, not splitting them into pairs. I also sometimes do it GGGWNORE.Indeed.. I might have to steal that one ;)

[wraizyr]

You didn't even read any of it or the links, did you?
As I said, I'm in a rush;as such, I skimmed some of it quickly.I hope to have time to go over the whole thing in greater detail soon.

Of course it's in the Bible that the "bad Jews" worshipped many gods... the Bible was the winning side's propaganda tool and continues to be so today.
No, it's in the Bible that the Jewish people worshipped many gods en masse at various times.

[Seraph_Knight]

-deleted-

[Kaervek]

What I was asking you is were those actual replies to the questions that were asked? And why should I go through and try and find those passages? You are the one who posted this in the first place. In any case, you misunderstood. Were these the answers to the questions asked, and can you prove it?

And no, Jesus did NOT hold this interveiw with you in person. The article was written by Gary Sloan. In any case, how was this interveiw indeed held with you? Can you describe what happened, or are you just lying/kidding/whatever you want to call it. Despite the fact that only those who would obey the teachings of God can hear him, who knows, maybe your a present day Saul? ...you can't be serious...

[Fenguin]

Uh, just what does "GGGWNORE" or "GGWNORE" mean anyways? Good Game, Win, Or, uhm, i dunno.
I'm guessing something along the lines of "Good game; good work (?); no rematch."

However, given that I have never owned Starcraft (all my experience with it was at a friend's house and it was too long ago anyways), I am most likely wrong.

[Louay]

Lol you guys realize that Jesus is probly looking at this thread thinking we are retarded right.

N e ways


Uh, just what does "GGGWNORE" or "GGWNORE" mean anyways? Good Game, Win, Or, uhm, i dunno.
GGWNORE means Good Game Won No Rematch

~Louay

[Schwitzer]

I doubt it; Jesus died years ago.

[Neo]

Lol you guys realize that Jesus is probly looking at this thread thinking we are retarded right.

N e ways

Uhm. The fact that Jesus would be looking at anything would be pretty interesting.

I doubt it; Jesus died years ago.
What Schwitzer said --^ (See I can type the "c" :P)

-Neo

[singo]

Like antidisestablishmentarianism!or...erm....pneumoult ramicroscopicsilicavulcanosis?(sp)

that funky disease u get from breathing in to much finedust from volcanoes?


thats a long word

on topic (ish)



George Washington and many other famous politicians and presidents have been masons!! And back then weren't they called the Knights Templar?yeh, but the knights templar as an order were wiped out and SUPPOSEDLY lived on as organizations such as the freemasons



and as soon as im sober i will post links

[Spartan-II]

Thanks singo ^_^

[singo]

http://www.templarhistory.com/strict.html

http://www.templarhistory.com/masonic.html

http://www.templarhistory.com/still.html

have some links :P

[Modred]

Ok, this thread has pretty much descended into uselessness while I was gone, and you still never answered my question Xenon about how all of those things in the "interview" were from the scriptures. While you can drench me with facts all day long, can you answer that question? Also note how I can ask you without insulting your intelligence. Or your choice of username. Or anything else personal.

Let me simply anazlye your input to this. First, you posted an article which applied some of Jesus' teachings to modern scenarios. I liked it on most points, and was generally amused. You then insulted wraizyr's intelligence. Then you claimed that everything you posted was at some point said by Jesus in one of the four Gospels. Following this, you mentioned how a large part of Christianity is based off of Paul's application of Judaism to Jesus' teachings (which I agreed on), but then spit out unsupported (still unsupported) claims that Jesus was either homosexual or bisexual. After this, you insulted PC and followed that with a sarcastic joke about being a 'prayer project.'

Then, you insulted Seraph and proceeded to post your proof from the Gospels of what Jesus said. To this, I responded that you left out anything about the homosexuality debate, and provided you with a quote in which Jesus supports the Old Testament laws, which do prohibit homosexuality. In response, you brought up my username, which is totally irrellevant. In addition, you said we can't know what Jesus said, which means the original article you posted is useless. Following this, you mentioned that Asherah was the consort of Yahweh, which was only vaguely supported in your link and then tried to prove that Jesus was bixesual because of the root of his name.

After this, you mentioned how you were older and more experienced than most of us, implying that your knowledge is far superior to our own. This led to you insulting Hacking_Victim for no particular reason whatsoever (which had nothing to do with the thread). And you have posted nothing, save about GGNORE, since then.

Essentially, my complaint is that you make assumptions, claim to have support, give a little, then flood us with facts to show your extensive knowledge. Yet you manage to beat around the bush and insult as many people as you can who disagree with you. Now, I'll make a few notes below:

]In 1978, Israeli archaeologists excavating at an eighth-century B.C. site in the eastern Sinai desert found several Hebrew inscriptions mentioning Ba'al and El in the form of "Elohim," a name used to refer to God in the Hebrew Bible. Further, whenever the Jews refer to God or our God they use "Eloh, Elohaino or Elohim."
In these texts Asherah is listed in connection with Baal, but not as his consort. Her consort, very clearly, is El - the senior deity of the Canaanite pantheon, creator of heaven and earth, Eternal father, the ageless one, father of years.
Your sources do not agree. Is El the same as Baal or not? Give me more unverifiable sources!

Middle English, from Old French Jehan, from Late Latin Ioannes, Iohannes, from Greek Ioannes, from Hebrew yôhanan, Yahweh has been gracious
There we have the evolution of the name John (minus some markings I couldn't do with my keyboard). So, is everyone by the name of John automatically associatied with whatever ANY of the previous incarnations might have meant? If a person in early Roman civilization was name Ioannes, does that inexplicably connect him to me?

And to wrap it all up, if you really want to keep up the bitingly sarcastic insults, there are two things I can do. One, start reporting every, single one of your posts that I find overtly offensive (which wouldn't be all of them), or I can start flaming you back. Flame wars are no fun, and I dislike the tediousness of the former choice, so let's just be civil now, shall we?