patrick.net

Rin says

Paul of Taurus, a man who'd only seen Jesus, as a vision on the road to Damascus. Much of today's Christianity is based out of Paul's travels and teachings throughout the empire.

Was he just another version of Joseph Smith? Or L. Ron Hubbard? Who knows?

Paul of Tarsus (note spelling) was an enforcer for the Jewish priests who persecuted Christians but then converted to the growing Christian cult, probably because that enabled him to gain more fame and fortune for himself and especially his family. Such opportunistic conversions are commonplace. He reintroduced Jewish rules into the new Christian cult, thus accomplishing much of his original, repressive raison d'être on a larger scale. Repression and sacrafice are crucial motivators and tools of Abrahamic religions, as P N Dr Lo R illustrates chronically. Islam provides by far the worst examples: the continuing practice of child sacrifice, which they call "honor killings", and recently suicide terrorism. Christians might rather have forgotten Paul but Constantine and his chosen "Christians" at the Council of Nicaea found Paul useful because he said to obey TPTB placed over you, unlike other Jews who had previously resisted Hadrian.

curious2 says

Rin

Someone who no one wants to marry and can only get sex by paying for it?

curious2 says

preferred charlatan

Right out of the Soviet Union--the atheists would stand outside churches before atheism became official and mock worshippers as they left--earning them martyrdom in God's kingdom.

You seem to rely heavily on a logical fallacy

And so what. Why are you so offended by my religious beliefs unless you think they're true? Sixty years ago it would have been routine and unquestioned and no one cared what unbelievers thought anyway. We had daily Bible readings over the PA system in school followed by a short devotional and a few seconds of silence before we ate our noon meal. I wouldn't exchange it for anything, I thought it was wonderful. We thought atheists were nuts and I still do. What kind of country to do you want, to recreate communist Russia?

curious2 says

P N Dr Lo R says

Why are you so offended by my religious beliefs unless you think they're true?

1. 2000 years of rape, murder, and mayhem.
2. Laws that restrict freedoms without justification.
3. The most vocal Christians are pro-torture and pro-death-penalty.
4. The brainwashing of children.
5. The derailing of education with misinformation.
6. Whitewashing history.
7. Corruption of the courts.
8. Prosecution of free speech.
9. Dehumanization of others.
10. Attacks on secularism.
11. Promoting lies.
12. Attacks on science and truth.
13. Endangering mankind with climate change denial.

I could go on, but those are the main things.

P N Dr Lo R says

Why are you so offended by my religious beliefs unless you think they're true?

Your religious beliefs are false. I don't recall claiming to be offended by them, do you have a link?

Calling them "Christian" does not make them so; try reading Luke and John instead of only Paul. Your comments about HIV, which spread primarily by heterosexual behavior, imply lesbians are god's chosen people. Gospel according to Cal: "And after the Africans converted to Christianity, Jesus did smite them with HIV, for worshiping Him. When wives did submit graciously to their husbands, Jesus smote them, and their children also. CAL'S PREFERRED CHARLATAN IS THE LORD, because Cal saith so."

Also, your gratuitous comments about Rin are unproved. At his age and pay grade, probably many women would like to get married to him. He pays them to go away quietly. Why are you so offended by that, unless you think he's right?

P N Dr Lo R says

Sixty years ago it would have been routine and unquestioned and no one cared what unbelievers thought anyway. We had daily Bible readings over the PA system in school followed by a short devotional....

Was that a public school? The unbelievers and non-Abrahamic believers have the same right to the equal protection of the laws as the people who call themselves Christian (and who twist that doctrine as too many Texans do). Government brainwashing might explain your false certitude, but illustrates the problem rather than excusing it. The 1st Amendment prohibited the federal government from respecting an establishment of religion, and the 14th applied that to the states also.

curious2 says

Also, your gratuitous comments about Rin are unproved. At his age and pay grade, probably many women would like to get married to him. He pays them to go away quietly.

www.youtube.com/embed/77rJ8VLj2-c

That's not why you pay a prostitute. You don't pay her for sex, you pay her to leave afterwards.

curious2 says

Also, your gratuitous comments about Rin are unproved. At his age and pay grade, probably many women would like to get married to him. He pays them to go away quietly.

In fact, during 2016, I'd turned away a visiting scholar from Chile ... you know, that very cultured woman with all the academic, vocational, and cultural achievements.

Unfortunately, she'd turned up too late in my life. If I'd met her let's say some 8+ yrs ago, things might have been different.

Today, I'm done with that stuff.

I don't mix business and pleasure. She was a part of an institute and thus, my firm was trying to arrange philanthropy, between her place of work and our clients.

Rin says

In fact, during 2016, I'd turned away a visiting scholar from Chile ... you know, that very cultured woman with all the academic, vocational, and cultural achievements.

Rin, I defer entirely to you about your life choices, but while P N Dr Lo R is on about comments being supposedly offensive, might I please suggest giving the pluperfect a break? English has at least a dozen verb tenses, no need to get married to just one...

BTW, P N Dr Lo R, though I've mentioned the pluperfect before, that doesn't imply that I secretly think it's always the right tense to use. To the contrary, I'm sure it isn't.

curious2 says

Rin says

In fact, during 2016, I'd turned away a visiting scholar from Chile ... you know, that very cultured woman with all the academic, vocational, and cultural achievements.

Rin, I defer entirely to you about your life choices, but while P N Dr Lo R is on about comments being supposedly offensive, might I please suggest giving the pluperfect a break? English has at least a dozen verb tenses, no need to get married to just one...

I got it, you're a U Chicago type, however, when one uses the 'had', several times, it's about tossing that experience onto the back burner.

Rin says

tossing that experience onto the back burner.

Good point, book smart vs street smart. Even President Obama started talking like a yokel after moving to DC, though it never seemed to fit him.

curious2 says

At his age and pay grade

It's a shame he confines himself to the cesspools of life.

curious2 says

Was that a public school?

Bible reading and discussion of the Bible both for moral instruction and literature in public schools were routine and accepted, indeed expected, before 1963 and the lawsuit by Madelyn Murray O'Hair which stopped it. My mother, who taught from 1924 to 1970, always used Biblical stories as examples of the best literature in her English classes.

Dan8267 says

I could go on

...but nobody cares.

When my cousin Doris died in 2006 we were talking about Doris-isms and her granddaughter told about how when she was in college she introduced her to one of her Jewish friends and after she left Doris said "well, she seemed like a nice girl, it's a shame she's going to hell."

P N Dr Lo R says

Bible reading and discussion of the Bible both for moral instruction and literature

What good did it do? Now you believe the world was created in 6 days, and snakes can talk.

Strategist says

Now you believe the world was created in 6 days, and snakes can talk.

Yes, his name is Snake Plissken ...

www.youtube.com/embed/gHUqNCDwQj4

P N Dr Lo R says

curious2 says

Was that a public school?

Bible reading and discussion of the Bible both for moral instruction and literature in public schools were routine and accepted, indeed expected, before 1963 and the lawsuit by Madelyn Murray O'Hair which stopped it. My mother, who taught from 1924 to 1970, always used Biblical stories as examples of the best literature in her English classes.

Were you trying to say "Yes, it was a public school?" Perhaps if you had devoted more time to Socrates rather than reciting "devotionals" you might have a better grasp of how questions and answers and logic work.

BTW, I hope your late mother used Samuel and Luke. According to Samuel, David called Jonathan's love sweeter than that of women. Luke wrote of two men in a bed, and two women grinding together in a field. Maybe you missed those parts?

P N Dr Lo R says

When my cousin Doris died in 2006 we were talking about Doris-isms and her granddaughter told about how when she was in college she introduced her to one of her Jewish friends and after she left Doris said "well, she seemed like a nice girl, it's a shame she's going to hell."

If Jesus lived, then his parents were Jewish, as were most of his family. A parade of charlatans got many Texans to believe Joseph and Mary and most of the human race are and should be burning in Hell. It would be bizarre enough by itself, but then they call it "Christian", which leads everyone else to say "It's crazier in Texas, y'all."

"(There's Crazy, And Then There's) Texas Crazy"

curious2 says

"Yes, it was a public school?"

Yes. It wasn't seen as strange or any kind of intrustion into people's lives, it's just the way everyone lived. No one could have imagined that anyone would ever object.

curious2 says

"It's crazier in Texas, y'all."

That's right.

Without god we'd be failing morally, it would be hell on earth.

Dan8267 says

P N Dr Lo R says

Why are you so offended by my religious beliefs unless you think they're true?

1. 2000 years of rape, murder, and mayhem.

2. Laws that restrict freedoms without justification.

3. The most vocal Christians are pro-torture and pro-death-penalty.

4. The brainwashing of children.

5. The derailing of education with misinformation.

6. Whitewashing history.

7. Corruption of the courts.

8. Prosecution of free speech.

9. Dehumanization of others.

10. Attacks on secularism.

11. Promoting lies.

12. Attacks on science and truth.

13. Endangering mankind with climate change denial.

I could go on, but those are the main things.

P N Dr Lo R says

...but nobody cares.

Actually, that's only you. Anyone with a moral backbone cares a great deal about the things I listed.

But, of course, the more fervently Christian a person is, the more immoral he is. The fact that you don't care about those things demonstrates my point that Christianity corrupts and corrodes morality. Every single one of those issues is a moral issue, and one in which the harm done impoverishes future generations.

And that brings us right back to the question you asked, "why is Christianity so offensive". It's offensive because it makes people like you become immoral and harm future generations.

P N Dr Lo R says

My mother, who taught from 1924 to 1970, always used Biblical stories as examples of the best literature in her English classes.

Then your mother was a shitty teacher.

Leviticus 15:19-26

19 “Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening.
20 Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean.
21 If any of you touch her bed, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening.
22 If you touch any object she has sat on, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening.
23 This includes her bed or any other object she has sat on; you will be unclean until evening if you touch it.
24 If a man has sexual intercourse with her and her blood touches him, her menstrual impurity will be transmitted to him. He will remain unclean for seven days, and any bed on which he lies will be unclean.
25 “If a woman has a flow of blood for many days that is unrelated to her menstrual period, or if the blood continues beyond the normal period, she is ceremonially unclean. As during her menstrual period, the woman will be unclean as long as the discharge continues.
26 Any bed she lies on and any object she sits on during that time will be unclean, just as during her normal menstrual period.

The Bible is the shittiest work of fiction every written with the possible exception of the Quran.

Rin says

Yes, his name is Snake Plissken ...

A three-digit code to shut down the whole planet? That doesn't seem secure. At least ATM pins have four digits.

Rin says

Strategist says

Now you believe the world was created in 6 days, and snakes can talk.

Yes, his name is Snake Plissken ...

Watch it. If you speak Parseltongue, P N Dr Lo R might accuse you of being a witch.

FortWayne says

Without god we'd be failing morally, it would be hell on earth.

You got it backwards. The belief in the false Christian god is highly correlated to immorality. Just think about climate change, the most important moral issue of our time. You never hear an atheist or agnostic denying man-made climate change or insisting that we allow corporations to continue to pollute the world for short-term profit at the expense of all future generations. No, you only hear Christians spouting that immoral crap.

Of course, Fort Wayne will have no answer for this.

FortWayne says

Without god we'd be failing morally, it would be hell on earth.

Muslims have God. What morals do they have?

P N Dr Lo R got awfully silent. #Hitchslapped

They got it wrong, wrong god.

Strategist says

FortWayne says

Without god we'd be failing morally, it would be hell on earth.

Muslims have God. What morals do they have?

Dan8267 says

Then your mother was a shitty teacher.

Most people would be offended by this, but when I consider the source, what else should I expect? Imagine what the reaction would be if I'd said that about his mother.

FortWayne says

They got it wrong, wrong god.

Actually, it's the same damn god. The god of Abraham. So you both got it wrong. All gods are wrong.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

They got it wrong, wrong god.

Actually, it's the same damn god. The god of Abraham. So you both got it wrong.

Exactly. The dead charlatan Mohamed hijacked the god of Abraham just as FortWayne's and P N Dr Lo R's preferred charlatans did. Mohamed was worse, but the tactic is the same: take a population conditioned to believe in a paradoxically omnipotent yet inchoate monotheistic deity, and pretend to represent that deity. Mohamed used force, thus embodying omnipotence. Historically, many Christians have done the same, though currently they rely primarily on brainwahing children and trying to convert a few adults.

If an omnipotent deity wanted you to know something, he wouldn't need to pay charlatans to tell you. As a wise former priest explained, all organized churches are fundamentally about the denial of god. The minute you put one stone atop another, or fix a roof, you're saying an omnipotent deity wanted a church there, when in fact that's false: if he wanted a church there, it would be there, and you wouldn't need to build or maintain it. These institutions empower charlatans, and reward charlatans, thus luring more. Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, George "Rentboy" Rekers, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson (Yale JD lawyer realized he could gain more $$$ and power and a private jet by fleecing the faithful), on and on it goes, and suckers keep lining up. Fool them with identity and emotional sales, tell them to identify as believers and to feel good and superior to their fellow men, it works every time. "Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

www.youtube.com/embed/SdcGoBOsaQM

curious2 says

paradoxically omnipotent yet inchoate monotheistic deity

Lol, that's about it, and it's why I am not a believer, except in the Golden Rule.

And yet, I have sympathy for Christianity for a lot of reasons:

* It's where I came from (well, aside from my Jewish grampa on mom's side).
* Jesus was a good role model and Christianity has a good message (that Golden Rule) even if it doesn't really sink in for a lot of people.
* Christianity provides some immunity against joining Islam, which is a ridiculously violent cult bent on world domination.
* Churches provide communities, and therefore meaning, for lots of people.
* Christianity provides a lot of people hope in hopeless situations. Who am I to take that away without anything better to offer?

Strategist says

but still not a fair question.

Dan is obfuscating, I'm calling it out, totally fair.

Dan8267 says

This is a No True Scottsman argument.

No it's not. It's simply stating that you have to practice what your religion dictates, not what your personal, incorrect interpretation of that religion leads you to believe.

Dan8267 says

So, by your criteria, no terrorist can be a Muslim by definition, and therefore no Muslim is a terrorist.

What you're really getting at is exactly my point above. I'm sure you're aware their are many different denominations of Protestantism. From Catholics to Seventh Day Adventists. In the same way there are many sects of Islam. In many cases the divisions are over petty things like how to baptize(sprinkle vs immerse). But in some cases they are much larger. There are many Catholic church's that mandate you cannot go to heaven without practicing the sacraments. In many other protestant denominations, this is heresy as it amounts to salvation by works. The larger differences ARE important, and you cannot judge all of a religion based on one extreme sect.

Dan8267 says

No moral entity, nonetheless the embodiment of morality, would allow atrocities to be committed in his name.

Now we're getting somewhere. Your problem isn't with God, it's with choice. And hypocrisy obviously. I don't think you understand this, you're too busy being angry to get past that.

Dan8267 says

You see, I have this psychological condition called empathy which allows me to value the lives of others.

Bullshit. Most people aren't sociopaths, so we're all generally against these same things. But only YOU rant about religion. Why? I'm not letting you off with some impersonal excuse.

And I'll say this. If you can't be honest about your hatred of my God, you can't bad mouth Him or His followers here. At least not with any dignity or justification.

NuttBoxer says

Dan is obfuscating,

Obfuscating my ass. I gave you a very clear, direct, and defensible answer. Then you pussied out.

NuttBoxer says

No it's not. It's simply stating that you have to practice what your religion dictates, not what your personal, incorrect interpretation of that religion leads you to believe.

It's clearly a No-True-Scottsman argument as you are literally arguing that any Christian, no matter how fervent in his belief and proselytizing, is not a real Christian if he does any evil in the name of Christ. Well, that include 99% of Christians throughout history including today. It also includes all American Christians who are pro-war, pro-torture, pro-death-penalty, anti-gay, or climate change deniers.

NuttBoxer says

Dan8267 says

No moral entity, nonetheless the embodiment of morality, would allow atrocities to be committed in his name.

Now we're getting somewhere. Your problem isn't with God, it's with choice. And hypocrisy obviously. I don't think you understand this, you're too busy being angry to get past that.

That's a load of bullshit. My problem is with brainwashing people to make irrational choices and to corrupt government. It would be trivial for your fictional god, if he were real, to make it clear to every single person on Earth what his wishes are in a completely unambiguous way. There would be no debate about which religion was right or which wars or policies were just. God could have a damn Twitter feed answering questions 24/7. None of this would interfere with choice.

[stupid comment limit]

Furthermore, you are making an ad hominem by falsely accusing me of being angry. It's childish, and it's obvious that you are spreading that lie in order to discredit me. You feel the need to do this because you simply are not intelligent enough to come up with a rational argument to defend your position, so you are hoping you can fool the audience into thinking that I'm the irrational one. The audience isn't as dumb as you.

This isn't anger, but rather the certainty one gets from being on the side of truth and having the evidence and reasoning to back up his position. That's a feeling you will never know.

Dan8267 says

NuttBoxer says

Dan8267 says

However, its followers have committed the greatest atrocities in all of human history and continue to do great harm to America today.

I'm gonna get right in your face and make you justify your BS position. What did believers of Jesus Christ ever do to YOU. Not humanity, not 500 years ago. YOU personally.

Nothing. The messenger is irrelevant. I've never been raped. I'm still against the legalization of rape. I've never been murdered. I'm still against the legalization of murder. I've never been tortured. I'm still against the legalization of torture.

You see, I have this psychological condition called empathy which allows me to value the lives of others. Either you get that or your don't. If you don't get that, there is nothing I can do to ...

NuttBoxer says

Bullshit. Most people aren't sociopaths, so we're all generally against these same things. But only YOU rant about religion. Why? I'm not letting you off with some impersonal excuse.

The fact that you cannot understand that I might be against something because it has harmed other people rather than because it has harmed me indicates that you lack empathy.

NuttBoxer says

And I'll say this. If you can't be honest about your hatred of my God, you can't bad mouth Him or His followers here. At least not with any dignity or justification.

Only an idiot would think I hate your fictional god. How could one possibly hate a fictional character?

Get over yourself. You are that smart. Your god never existed in the first place. No one loves or hates a being that does not exist. You are projecting my rejection of your god as a rejection of you. You are demonstrating what DarkMatter2525 describes in this video.

www.youtube.com/embed/-j8ZMMuu7MU

I don't reject you because I reject your god. I reject your god because he's a lie. I reject you because you are a liar and a fool.

There's nothing you can do to make me accept your phony god because you cannot make him real. If you want me to accept you, then stop being delusional and a liar.

NuttBoxer says

But only YOU rant about religion. Why?

God is the obsession of atheists. A cruel joke they play on themselves.

For Dan & curious2, here's an excerpt from the Zoroastrian take on the Book of Revelation ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frashokereti

Excerpt: "At the end of the "third time" (the first being the age of creation, the second of mixture, and the third of separation), there will be a great battle between the forces of good (the yazatas) and those of evil (the daevas) in which the good will triumph. On earth, the Saoshyant will bring about a resurrection of the dead in the bodies they had before they died. This is followed by a last judgment through ordeal. The yazatas Airyaman and Atar will melt the metal in the hills and mountains, and the molten metal will then flow across the earth like a river. All mankind—both the living and the resurrected dead—will be required to wade through that river, but for the righteous (ashavan) it will seem to be a river of warm milk, while the wicked will be burned. The river will then flow down to hell, where it will annihilate Angra Mainyu and the last vestiges of wickedness in the universe."

The term, Saoshyant, is the ancient Persian (Avestan language) terminology for Savior

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoshyant

Seriously, the more things change, the more they stay the same. One culture started this stuff, 1500 B.C.E to 1000 B.C.E, and then, a bunch of ahem ... original thinkers, photocopy this stuff for what would be the modern era for the ancient world, 10 B.C.E to 700 A.D.

Yes, Islam was the last of the plagiarizers.

Rin says

Seriously, the more things change, the more they stay the same. One culture started this stuff, 1500 B.C.E to 1000 B.C.E, and then, a bunch of ahem ... original thinkers, photocopy this stuff for what would be the modern era for the ancient world, 10 B.C.E to 700 A.D.

Yes, Islam was the last of the plagiarizers.

Zorastrian is a peaceful religion. Islam is a fucking violent religion. Mohammad took the worst of all religions, put it together, added some of his own crap, and voila, you have a religion that fucks up the whole world.

P N Dr Lo R says

NuttBoxer says

But only YOU rant about religion. Why?

God is the obsession of atheists. A cruel joke they play on themselves.

Another false assertion that is easily disproved. Philanthropy, business, and family matter much more to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (one atheist the other agnostic). Biology matters much more to Richard Dawkins, and astronomy mattered much more to Carl Sagan. There is no evidence to suggest that atheists are obsessed with any particular religion, let alone a particular monotheistic one.

The statement above illustrates yet again the pattern of religious salesmanship: persuade the flock to identify as believers and then say something that sounds bad about the other side. They'll identify and then get excited about feeling superior and empty their pockets for you. It works especially on people who are otherwise losers and have no other way to feel good about themselves, or even OK about themselves.

curious2 says

"Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Same story different day. Full quotation from LBJ, originally about racism and the KKK:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

P N Dr Lo R copies his User name from the transmission of his old Cadillac, which is also his avatar, desperate to feel superior. Cadillac makes a fine automobile, but that cannot compensate for the person driving it.

curious2 says

The statement above illustrates yet again the pattern of religious salesmanship: persuade the flock to identify as believers and then say something that sounds bad about the other side. They'll identify and then get excited about feeling superior and empty their pockets for you.

Here's the thing, if the Christian post-mortum was so great, then why doesn't an idiot like P N Dr Lo R wear a t-shirt which says, "I Hate Black People" in the South Side of Chicago or North Philadelphia. He'd immediately be gunned down and then, he'll ascend to a greater high, than anyone who disagrees with him. Remember, being murdered is not suicide and thus, not a sin. He can ask forgiveness to Jesus for his overt racism during the Bardo plane transition.

In reality, he's not confident about anything. Even his real so-called faith is if-y because he really doesn't know what's beyond this life and thus, is hedging his bet. A real believer would prefer being killed off, then in living on some sinful physical plane of existence.