Anti-gay American cleric banned from UK for inciting hatred

[Ibanez]

Joe are you a fan of Paul?

Care to include your sources for the above? I'm interested in reading them.

Joe, be careful with your wording - the gospels were not written by, but were attributed to Matt, Mark.... It's the gospel according to Mark. Again, these stories were originally written in Greek and translated from aramic oral history decades to centuries after the alleged death of jesus, then copied, recopied, retranslated, and re written many times. Thousands of versions of exist.

If this, the bible, fits your standard for proof, good luck to you.

Yeah, I guess all those scholars must have missed the part about where Paul "studied" Joe they looked at the Paul's writings, or better yet, those attributed to him. Paul never met jesus, and if the gospels are to be a reliable source of jesus' life info, Paul didn't really know him well either.

Where did I say that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark himself? When I'm referring to "Mark," I'm referring to the Gospel, not the person.

That aside, at Acts 22:3, Paul himself declares that he was born in Tarsus, but "was brought up in this city" and studied "at the foot of Gamaliel" -- Gamaliel being a significant figure in the First Century Sanhedrin. There are other references in Paul's actual writings in which he says that he was a Pharisee and also the son of a Pharisee.

Thus, while it is impossible to say that Paul met Jesus was Jesus was alive, it seems Paul was actually in Judea at the time of Jesus. That suggests to me that Paul must have known that Jesus truly lived and existed, and probably had some exposure to Jesus.

If it's impossible to prove that Paul met Jesus, then the story of his conversion isn't to be trusted. And if one story isn't to be trusted, can we really believe the rest of the bible? Besides, the bible is a story book. It's not meant to be taken literally. You can prove "miracles". The book was written to convert and teach, so you are going to say things like "virgin birth" and associate miracles to the man. They are stories to prove that God can do anything. Now, the OT is the same way. Stories that give you a sense of what God can do. He didn't stop the Sun a nd the Plagues are naturally occuring events, but back then that wasn't known and the FEAR of God made people believe.

Let me ask you, why should I FEAR God? How can I love and want to be close to something that i'm supposed to Fear? Why are followers of Christ called his sheep? Sheep are blindly led to slaughter and have no mind of thier own?

[Ibanez]

Where can I get one of those, the world is going to end, calendars? Why is now so special? Christians are certainly in a better place compared to 2000 years ago. People are probably dying at a much slower pace. What's changed that some think it's going to end tomorrow.

Some christians seem to want this Childish Vindictive god to rescue god-fearing folk while the rest of the world is punished in an almost I-Told-You-So approach. Unless you are Mayan, give me one good reason that you feel the end is near.

Actually, the end of the world won't be on December 12, 2012. If you read the Mayan Calender(long form like it was inteded) there are 3 possible dates, 2 have come and passed and one is another 1000 or so years away.

[D1B]

Basically he was (is) a recycled Egyptian sun-god myth. The planet has seen hundreds of religions with gods that die and are reborn. It's entirely possible that somebody was putting their own twist on the standard riff and it just happened to get legs. There were literally hundreds of "messiahs" running around the mid-east in those days.

The Messiah the Jews wanted was a military savior, not someone like Jesus. There are many fallacies like Mary being a virgin(so much so that the early meaning of virgin was simply a young girl).

Yeah, and a virgin can get pregnant. The birth of jesus was written about generations after it allegedly happened. Virgin birth stories associated with gods and messiahs were de rigueur at the time.

[D1B]

Where did I say that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark himself? When I'm referring to "Mark," I'm referring to the Gospel, not the person.

That aside, at Acts 22:3, Paul himself declares that he was born in Tarsus, but "was brought up in this city" and studied "at the foot of Gamaliel" -- Gamaliel being a significant figure in the First Century Sanhedrin. There are other references in Paul's actual writings in which he says that he was a Pharisee and also the son of a Pharisee.

Thus, while it is impossible to say that Paul met Jesus was Jesus was alive, it seems Paul was actually in Judea at the time of Jesus. That suggests to me that Paul must have known that Jesus truly lived and existed, and probably had some exposure to Jesus.

If it's impossible to prove that Paul met Jesus, then the story of his conversion isn't to be trusted. And if one story isn't to be trusted, can we really believe the rest of the bible? Besides, the bible is a story book. It's not meant to be taken literally. You can prove "miracles". The book was written to convert and teach, so you are going to say things like "virgin birth" and associate miracles to the man. They are stories to prove that God can do anything. Now, the OT is the same way. Stories that give you a sense of what God can do. He didn't stop the Sun a nd the Plagues are naturally occuring events, but back then that wasn't known and the FEAR of God made people believe.

Let me ask you, why should I FEAR God? How can I love and want to be close to something that i'm supposed to Fear? Why are followers of Christ called his sheep? Sheep are blindly led to slaughter and have no mind of thier own?

A comparison of the epistles and the gospels could provide substantial proof that not only did Paul never meet him, but never really knew him either.

[Ibanez]

Originally in Greek, παρθένος means virgin which many scholars contend was more of a description of a young, unmarried woman or a maiden. Remeber, the meaning of words change sometimes, so a woman we would call a virgin today(as in not having had sex yet) is something different.

Once again. inconsistencies that muddy the waters.

[Ibanez]

If it's impossible to prove that Paul met Jesus, then the story of his conversion isn't to be trusted. And if one story isn't to be trusted, can we really believe the rest of the bible? Besides, the bible is a story book. It's not meant to be taken literally. You can prove "miracles". The book was written to convert and teach, so you are going to say things like "virgin birth" and associate miracles to the man. They are stories to prove that God can do anything. Now, the OT is the same way. Stories that give you a sense of what God can do. He didn't stop the Sun a nd the Plagues are naturally occuring events, but back then that wasn't known and the FEAR of God made people believe.

Let me ask you, why should I FEAR God? How can I love and want to be close to something that i'm supposed to Fear? Why are followers of Christ called his sheep? Sheep are blindly led to slaughter and have no mind of thier own?

A comparison of the epistles and the gospels could provide substantial proof that not only did Paul never meet him, but never really knew him either.

A comparison of the Old and New Testament show how god went from an Angry, Vengeful Dominat figure to a cuddly, furry, snuggle bear. You're right on the money Jeff.

[D1B]

A comparison of the epistles and the gospels could provide substantial proof that not only did Paul never meet him, but never really knew him either.

A comparison of the Old and New Testament show how god went from an Angry, Vengeful Dominat figure to a cuddly, furry, snuggle bear. You're right on the money Jeff.

Boy the OT is a whole other can of worms. I've been reading some criticism focused on the chronological order of the books as presented in the bible. Further evidence of manipulation for political gain and power.

I saw this a while back on PBS. The Catholics were pissed someone actually translated the bible into englist. Further evidence of manipulation for political gain and power.

Today, speakers of English take for granted many phrases from the King James Bible -- from "let there be light" to the word "scapegoat" -- that were the work of an intrepid 16th-century translator who met not with acclaim but with years of exile, and eventually lost his life.

But this translator, William Tyndale -- who was burned at the stake on October 6, 1536 -- was no lone renegade. Rather, he was a pivotal transitional figure, his work a step toward bringing direct experience of the Bible to a reading public.

The film BATTLE FOR THE BIBLE explores the lives and lasting influence of three major figures in the translation and propagation of the English Bible: the 14th-century theologian, politician, and reformer John Wycliffe; Tyndale; and Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VIII and advisor to the king through the period that saw the split with Rome and the creation of the Anglican Church.

The translation of the Bible into the vulgar -- the language of everyday people -- was a key element in the series of reforms within the Catholic Church that eventually resulted in what we know as the Protestant Reformation.

In the 14th century, the Roman Catholic Church was Western Europe's undisputed religious authority; and its central rituals -- the Mass and Communion -- the only legitimate pathway to salvation. The pope and the clergy held enormous power, and secular authorities looked to the Church for legitimation. Key to the Church's power was the fact that its rituals were conducted in Latin, a language inaccessible to the uneducated faithful. The public was completely dependent on the priesthood for access to salvation -- only through mysterious rituals conducted in an unfamiliar tongue could they conduct their spiritual lives.

John Wycliffe, born around 1320, was a prominent theologian at Oxford University and a leading ecclesiastical politician in the dark period of English history following the decimation of Europe's population by the Black Plague. He became convinced through his own scholarship that Scripture itself, rather than the Mass, should be seen as the source of Christian authority.

Wycliffe's notion that the Bible should be translated into the common tongue for the edification of all believers was a radical innovation, and one that spawned a movement. Working outside of the Church, translators eventually produced perhaps hundreds of so-called "Wycliffe Bibles," translated and hand-copied from the Latin. It is not clear that Wycliffe himself produced any translations into English, so they are more properly known as "Wycliffite" Bibles.

With or without Wycliffe's active involvement, the English Bible became part of an underground movement that became known as Lollardy and continued to spread after Wycliffe's death in 1384. It worried Church authorities enough that by 1407 the English translation was denounced as unauthorized, and translating or using translated Bibles was defined as heresy -- a crime for which the punishment was death by burning. In 1415 Wycliffe himself was denounced, posthumously, as a heretic. His body was exhumed and burned in 1428. Wycliffite Bibles, even after the ban, were produced in great numbers, and the 250 or so that now remain are the largest surviving body of medieval English texts. But the time was not yet right for the Bible to exist publicly in the common tongue.

William Tyndale translated the Bible while in exile.

Over the next century, however, life in England and in Europe would change radically. As the Renaissance got under way on the Continent, scholars began to rediscover Hebrew and Greek, the original languages of Scripture, and their work would spark a new series of translations even as the propagation of the printing press made possible the mass-production of books.

Perhaps the most influential publication of the early 16th century was the Dutch theologian Desiderius Erasmus's 1515 edition of the Greek New Testament, which included a new Latin translation. The translation -- which was printed and circulated widely among educated Christians across Europe -- made possible Martin Luther's 1522 publication of a new translation into German, which became perhaps the key text in the Reformation.

In England, William Tyndale, who was Luther's contemporary, set about creating an authoritative English translation of the Bible from the original texts. Tyndale worked in a harsher political environment than Luther faced on the Continent (the German authorities did not censure the reformers, while Tyndale clashed with and was reprimanded by English Catholic leaders) and eventually left England for Europe, most likely Germany, in 1524 in order to continue his work.

The version of the Bible that Tyndale completed in exile became one of the most influential works of literature in the English language, full of phrases that entered the popular lexicon and defined what we know as the voice of the scriptures. His translation was at once a major work of creative poetry and a radical reinterpretation of the sacred texts, challenging by interpretation the authority of the Catholic hierarchy, redefining "priests" as "elders" and the "Church" as a "congregation."

In 1526 Tyndale published his New Testament in a portable edition. First published in Cologne and Worms, and eventually smuggled into England in large numbers from Antwerp (where Tyndale found refuge during the late 1520s), it became a best-seller, popularized by itinerant preachers who recited Tyndale's words despite the fact that they risked burning at the stake.


Puritans who were not satisfied with the Anglican Church left England and settled in the American colonies, bringing with them the King James version of the Bible.

In 1535, the authorities finally caught up with Tyndale; he was imprisoned for more than a year in Brussels before being burned at the stake (given his popularity, he was mercifully strangled before the flames were lit). His words had taken root in England, but it would take a political upheaval to bring the Bible to the English people.

Check out Battle for the Bible on PBS.com

[Gil Dobie]

A comparison of the Old and New Testament show how god went from an Angry, Vengeful Dominat figure to a cuddly, furry, snuggle bear. You're right on the money Jeff.

Boy the OT is a whole other can of worms. I've been reading some criticism focused on the chronological order of the books as presented in the bible. Further evidence of manipulation for political gain and power.

I saw this a while back on PBS. The Catholics were pissed someone actually translated the bible into englist. Further evidence of manipulation for political gain and power.

Today, speakers of English take for granted many phrases from the King James Bible -- from "let there be light" to the word "scapegoat" -- that were the work of an intrepid 16th-century translator who met not with acclaim but with years of exile, and eventually lost his life.

But this translator, William Tyndale -- who was burned at the stake on October 6, 1536 -- was no lone renegade. Rather, he was a pivotal transitional figure, his work a step toward bringing direct experience of the Bible to a reading public.

The film BATTLE FOR THE BIBLE explores the lives and lasting influence of three major figures in the translation and propagation of the English Bible: the 14th-century theologian, politician, and reformer John Wycliffe; Tyndale; and Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VIII and advisor to the king through the period that saw the split with Rome and the creation of the Anglican Church.

The translation of the Bible into the vulgar -- the language of everyday people -- was a key element in the series of reforms within the Catholic Church that eventually resulted in what we know as the Protestant Reformation.

In the 14th century, the Roman Catholic Church was Western Europe's undisputed religious authority; and its central rituals -- the Mass and Communion -- the only legitimate pathway to salvation. The pope and the clergy held enormous power, and secular authorities looked to the Church for legitimation. Key to the Church's power was the fact that its rituals were conducted in Latin, a language inaccessible to the uneducated faithful. The public was completely dependent on the priesthood for access to salvation -- only through mysterious rituals conducted in an unfamiliar tongue could they conduct their spiritual lives.

John Wycliffe, born around 1320, was a prominent theologian at Oxford University and a leading ecclesiastical politician in the dark period of English history following the decimation of Europe's population by the Black Plague. He became convinced through his own scholarship that Scripture itself, rather than the Mass, should be seen as the source of Christian authority.

Wycliffe's notion that the Bible should be translated into the common tongue for the edification of all believers was a radical innovation, and one that spawned a movement. Working outside of the Church, translators eventually produced perhaps hundreds of so-called "Wycliffe Bibles," translated and hand-copied from the Latin. It is not clear that Wycliffe himself produced any translations into English, so they are more properly known as "Wycliffite" Bibles.

With or without Wycliffe's active involvement, the English Bible became part of an underground movement that became known as Lollardy and continued to spread after Wycliffe's death in 1384. It worried Church authorities enough that by 1407 the English translation was denounced as unauthorized, and translating or using translated Bibles was defined as heresy -- a crime for which the punishment was death by burning. In 1415 Wycliffe himself was denounced, posthumously, as a heretic. His body was exhumed and burned in 1428. Wycliffite Bibles, even after the ban, were produced in great numbers, and the 250 or so that now remain are the largest surviving body of medieval English texts. But the time was not yet right for the Bible to exist publicly in the common tongue.

William Tyndale translated the Bible while in exile.

Over the next century, however, life in England and in Europe would change radically. As the Renaissance got under way on the Continent, scholars began to rediscover Hebrew and Greek, the original languages of Scripture, and their work would spark a new series of translations even as the propagation of the printing press made possible the mass-production of books.

Perhaps the most influential publication of the early 16th century was the Dutch theologian Desiderius Erasmus's 1515 edition of the Greek New Testament, which included a new Latin translation. The translation -- which was printed and circulated widely among educated Christians across Europe -- made possible Martin Luther's 1522 publication of a new translation into German, which became perhaps the key text in the Reformation.

In England, William Tyndale, who was Luther's contemporary, set about creating an authoritative English translation of the Bible from the original texts. Tyndale worked in a harsher political environment than Luther faced on the Continent (the German authorities did not censure the reformers, while Tyndale clashed with and was reprimanded by English Catholic leaders) and eventually left England for Europe, most likely Germany, in 1524 in order to continue his work.

The version of the Bible that Tyndale completed in exile became one of the most influential works of literature in the English language, full of phrases that entered the popular lexicon and defined what we know as the voice of the scriptures. His translation was at once a major work of creative poetry and a radical reinterpretation of the sacred texts, challenging by interpretation the authority of the Catholic hierarchy, redefining "priests" as "elders" and the "Church" as a "congregation."

In 1526 Tyndale published his New Testament in a portable edition. First published in Cologne and Worms, and eventually smuggled into England in large numbers from Antwerp (where Tyndale found refuge during the late 1520s), it became a best-seller, popularized by itinerant preachers who recited Tyndale's words despite the fact that they risked burning at the stake.


Puritans who were not satisfied with the Anglican Church left England and settled in the American colonies, bringing with them the King James version of the Bible.

In 1535, the authorities finally caught up with Tyndale; he was imprisoned for more than a year in Brussels before being burned at the stake (given his popularity, he was mercifully strangled before the flames were lit). His words had taken root in England, but it would take a political upheaval to bring the Bible to the English people.

Check out Battle for the Bible on PBS.com

I see papal inspirations in you future.

Signed Cap'n Cats Anointed Clairvoyant.

[Ibanez]

D1b, I was sort of confused when you were discussing the King James Bible, as that isn't the bible used by the Catholics. But I get your point and it is a very interesting one at that. Which brings me to my point. Many denominations of Christianity, worshiping the same God, worshipping from 2 different bibles. Both were created to educate and convert.






With so many different religions in the world, how could one claim to be "the true religion?"

[JoltinJoe]

Joe,
I am Jesus. Whaddaya thinka that?

PS -- This thread = Scraggle time!

[D1B]

PS -- This thread = Scraggle time!

Joe, you find that Mark source?

[D1B]

D1b, I was sort of confused when you were discussing the King James Bible, as that isn't the bible used by the Catholics. But I get your point and it is a very interesting one at that. Which brings me to my point. Many denominations of Christianity, worshiping the same God, worshipping from 2 different bibles. Both were created to educate and convert.






With so many different religions in the world, how could one claim to be "the true religion?"

The only way they do is with a gun to their head. Catholic parents do not give their children a choice. They are brainwashed into belief just as they conditioned to seek water for thirst. This is child abuse.

How else could you explain why a 10 year old, with no fear, steps up to an alter in front of other people and symbolically eats the flesh and drinks the blood of a bronze aged myth god?

Sick shit indeed.

No one willingly converts to catholocism, like cults they're either forced into it by others (parents) or self medicating to deal with mental illness, lack of social graces or lonliness.

[JoltinJoe]

PS -- This thread = Scraggle time!

Joe, you find that Mark source?

What source? That original text of Mark 16 ended at verse 8, and included a claim that Jesus had been raised from the dead (contrary to the statement that the claim of the Resurrection was added later?) Here's something from an atheist website that confirms what I said.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospel ... mark16.htm

[catamount man]

D1b, I was sort of confused when you were discussing the King James Bible, as that isn't the bible used by the Catholics. But I get your point and it is a very interesting one at that. Which brings me to my point. Many denominations of Christianity, worshiping the same God, worshipping from 2 different bibles. Both were created to educate and convert.






With so many different religions in the world, how could one claim to be "the true religion?"

The only way they do is with a gun to their head. Catholic parents do not give their children a choice. They are brainwashed into belief just as they conditioned to seek water for thirst. This is child abuse.

How else could you explain why a 10 year old, with no fear, steps up to an alter in front of other people and symbolically eats the flesh and drinks the blood of a bronze aged myth god?

Sick shit indeed.

No one willingly converts to catholocism, like cults they're either forced into it by others (parents) or self medicating to deal with mental illness, lack of social graces or lonliness.

Wrong. In 1998, I left protestantism and converted to Catholicism OF MY OWN FREE WILL because protestantism just wasn't cutting it for me anymore. No one coerced me, I did it on my own after attending a few Masses and doing some reading. Why don't you just admit that you don't know everything about anybody else's personal walk of faith just because you and you alone failed in your own walk, of course, of your own free will.

D1B =

You don't know everything so quit pretending like you do.

[Col Hogan]

No one willingly converts to catholocism, like cults they're either forced into it by others (parents) or self medicating to deal with mental illness, lack of social graces or lonliness.

That's funny...my parish's RCIA program (adult eduation for those CHOOSING to become Catholics) has 16 adults who are of their own free will asking to become Catholics...

Last years RCIA (we do it in yearly cycles) had 14...

And we're just one parish...each Catholic parish has an RCIA program that has a number of adults who choose to convert...

No one is kidnapped...no one is held against their will...

And since you know nothing about these people, you're assinine assessment that they are "self medicating to deal with mental illness, lack of social graces or lonliness (SP)"... simply displays your bitterness at not getting people to follow your chosen path...

[Cap'n Cat]

No one coerced me, I did it on my own after attending a few Masses and doing some reading. Why don't you just admit that you don't know everything about anybody else's personal walk of faith just because you and you alone failed in your own walk, of course, of your own free will.

D1B =

You don't know everything so quit pretending like you do.

Talk about knowing everything! Like Jesus jerkoffs everywhere, you're pretending to be in HIS head, the very same thing you accuse him of! Same thing with the failed in his walk sh*t, you holier than thou dolt! There's therapy for deluded programmed no-minds in cults like yours.

catamountman = and


Lemme help ya, son.

http://www.ffrf.org/ The Freedom From Religion Foundation. And when you get out, free of your baggage, call me and I'll buy you dinner.

[Cap'n Cat]

No one willingly converts to catholocism, like cults they're either forced into it by others (parents) or self medicating to deal with mental illness, lack of social graces or lonliness.

That's funny...my parish's RCIA program (adult eduation for those CHOOSING to become Catholics) has 16 adults who are of their own free will asking to become Catholics...

Last years RCIA (we do it in yearly cycles) had 14...

And we're just one parish...each Catholic parish has an RCIA program that has a number of adults who choose to convert...

No one is kidnapped...no one is held against their will...

And since you know nothing about these people, you're assinine assessment that they are "self medicating to deal with mental illness, lack of social graces or lonliness (SP)"... simply displays your bitterness at not getting people to follow your chosen path...

Closed circuit to Hoagie: Someone told you long ago, Hoagie, that much of what D and I write is for effect and to elicit replies such as yours and catter's. D was exaggerating and I'm just boiling some deep Jesus freak blood. No one's recruiting atheists. Challenging the status quo, giving people an opportunity to expand their minds, that's all. They certainly don't have to. Enjoy the ride. Oh, we're serious about what we say, but badgering cult victims like catter is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Love,

Cap'n Cat

[Col Hogan]

That's funny...my parish's RCIA program (adult eduation for those CHOOSING to become Catholics) has 16 adults who are of their own free will asking to become Catholics...

Last years RCIA (we do it in yearly cycles) had 14...

And we're just one parish...each Catholic parish has an RCIA program that has a number of adults who choose to convert...

No one is kidnapped...no one is held against their will...

And since you know nothing about these people, you're assinine assessment that they are "self medicating to deal with mental illness, lack of social graces or lonliness (SP)"... simply displays your bitterness at not getting people to follow your chosen path...

Closed circuit to Hoagie: Someone told you long ago, Hoagie, that much of what D and I write is for effect and to elicit replies such as yours and catter's. D was exaggerating and I'm just boiling some deep Jesus freak blood. No one's recruiting atheists. Challenging the status quo, giving people an opportunity to expand their minds, that's all. They certainly don't have to. Enjoy the ride. Oh, we're serious about what we say, but badgering cult victims like catter is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Love,

Cap'n Cat

Which is why I generally don't respond...

We all make our own beds, so to say, and who am I to try and change your mind (I've said my piece)

But, occasionally, I can't leave a challenge alone...

[ASUMountaineer]

It's sad, that like all groups, Christianity has it's nut jobs. This guy, and people of his ilk, do nothing to bring people to the faith, or the teachings of Jesus. This is a shame, this man and his people will have their day. It's clear that he knows nothing of the teachings of Christ. God doesn't hate anyone (or anything). He's teaching a lie, that's the saddest part. SMH

What "teachings of christ" do you refer to? Christ did not exist.

We've been through this D. I've never claimed to know and never claimed to be right. Just what I believe. I can't prove it, you can't disprove it, so we're at a stand still. I don't try to prove it. I don't push you to be a Christian and I don't tell you you're wrong. Just sayin...even if Christ didn't exist, what is in the Gospels is not what this clown is teaching.

To a greater extent...no one has all the answers. Not believers, not non-believers. So, what we "believe" to be fact always requires a leap of faith. That's why I find these discussions useless, yet entertaining.

[D1B]

Joe, you find that Mark source?

What source? That original text of Mark 16 ended at verse 8, and included a claim that Jesus had been raised from the dead (contrary to the statement that the claim of the Resurrection was added later?) Here's something from an atheist website that confirms what I said.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospel ... mark16.htm

Yeah, two dudes told the chicks that jesus has risen! The other authors had to "fix" the story so it made sense.

From your source:

After the Jewish sabbath, which occurs on Saturdays, women who were present at Jesus’ crucifixion come to his tomb to anoint his corpse with spices. These are things his close disciples should have done, but Mark portrays Jesus’ female followers as consistently showing more faith and courage than the men.

Why did the women need to anoint Jesus with spices? This should have been done when he was buried, suggesting that there wasn’t time to properly prepare him for burial — perhaps because of how close the sabbath was. John says that Jesus was properly prepared while Matthew relates that the women made the trip merely to see the tomb.

Faithful as they may be, none seems to be strong when it comes to thinking ahead. It’s not until they are almost upon Jesus’ tomb that it occurs to one to wonder what they’ll do about that great big stone that Joseph of Arimathaea placed there the earlier evening. They can’t move it themselves and the time to think of it was before they set out that morning — unless, of course, Mark needs this in order to answer charges that Jesus’ disciples stole the body.

By an amazing coincidence, the stone is already moved. How did that happen? By another amazing coincidence, there is someone there who tells them: Jesus has risen and is already gone. The fact that he first needed the stone removed from the tomb’s entrance suggests that Jesus is a reanimated corpse, a zombie Jesus wandering the countryside seeking out his disciples (no wonder they are hiding).

It’s understandable that the other gospels changed all this. Matthew has an angel move the stone as the women are standing there, revealing that Jesus is already gone. He’s not a reanimated corpse because the resurrected Jesus has no physical body — he has a spiritual body which passed through the stone. None of this theology, however, was part of Mark’s thinking and we are left with a slightly odd and embarrassing situation.

What a bunch of malarky.

[D1B]

The only way they do is with a gun to their head. Catholic parents do not give their children a choice. They are brainwashed into belief just as they conditioned to seek water for thirst. This is child abuse.

How else could you explain why a 10 year old, with no fear, steps up to an alter in front of other people and symbolically eats the flesh and drinks the blood of a bronze aged myth god?

Sick shit indeed.

No one willingly converts to catholocism, like cults they're either forced into it by others (parents) or self medicating to deal with mental illness, lack of social graces or lonliness.

Wrong. In 1998, I left protestantism and converted to Catholicism OF MY OWN FREE WILL because protestantism just wasn't cutting it for me anymore. No one coerced me, I did it on my own after attending a few Masses and doing some reading. Why don't you just admit that you don't know everything about anybody else's personal walk of faith just because you and you alone failed in your own walk, of course, of your own free will.

D1B =

You don't know everything so quit pretending like you do.

Catman, why wasn't protestantism working for you? You're a libertarian right? Or did you change that too? That's like leaving the libertarian party and joining the american communist party.

[D1B]

No one willingly converts to catholocism, like cults they're either forced into it by others (parents) or self medicating to deal with mental illness, lack of social graces or lonliness.

That's funny...my parish's RCIA program (adult eduation for those CHOOSING to become Catholics) has 16 adults who are of their own free will asking to become Catholics...

Last years RCIA (we do it in yearly cycles) had 14...

And we're just one parish...each Catholic parish has an RCIA program that has a number of adults who choose to convert...

No one is kidnapped...no one is held against their will...

And since you know nothing about these people, you're assinine assessment that they are "self medicating to deal with mental illness, lack of social graces or lonliness (SP)"... simply displays your bitterness at not getting people to follow your chosen path...

16 people!!! Wow indeed. Now how many are leaving the faith. How many don't attend church? According to the latest survey, they're leaving in droves. I would too, lest I be associated with a crime syndicate that has systematically raped thousands upon thousands of boys.

I don't want to get you to do anything. I'm an angel, sent down from heaven to open the eyes of knuckleheads and the deceived. Contrary to what the pope tells you, you do not need the church to receive salvation.

[D1B]

What "teachings of christ" do you refer to? Christ did not exist.

We've been through this D. I've never claimed to know and never claimed to be right. Just what I believe. I can't prove it, you can't disprove it, so we're at a stand still. I don't try to prove it. I don't push you to be a Christian and I don't tell you you're wrong. Just sayin...even if Christ didn't exist, what is in the Gospels is not what this clown is teaching.

To a greater extent...no one has all the answers. Not believers, not non-believers. So, what we "believe" to be fact always requires a leap of faith. That's why I find these discussions useless, yet entertaining.

Not talking to you ASUm. You're reasonable and not an apologist.

Sorry, I can disprove most of what you believe. This thread is littered with the errors and inconsistencies of the bible. Your god (all knowing, all powerful and all loving) is impossible - just read your bible. We're not at a stand still, the apologists are running for cover under an onslaught of scholary criticism. We read daily the follies and crimes of your organization. Major dioceses are going bankrupt and you are now complicit in the crimes through your financial support of your church. Freethinkers now don't have to worry about being ostracized by society or burned at the stake and they're finally letting religion have it.

Again, I'm not pushing you to do or be anything. I'm a saint. St. D1B - patron saint of the courageous and those seeking truth.

How much coin do you blow on that church? What is your church's share of the legal fees for pedophile priests in Boston, LA, Chicago, Portland and others? What is your church's monthly payment to vatican tyrants and beaurecrats?

You don't need the church to be a good christian. Think about it. You've died and you're face to face with jesus christ, do you really beleive he's gonna recognize your involvement with the catholic church as a gold star? Really? Think about it. The catholic church embodies everything that he was against - massive wealth, cowardice (Pope Pius in WWII), worshipping other gods (the myriad of saints, Mary), the selling of salvation, raping children, manipulation of his ministry for political gain, outlandishness, the fukcing pope and him being infallible, cultural genocide, hatred of jews.......

You're involvement with catholic church is a one way ticket to hell.

Think about it.

[ASUMountaineer]

We've been through this D. I've never claimed to know and never claimed to be right. Just what I believe. I can't prove it, you can't disprove it, so we're at a stand still. I don't try to prove it. I don't push you to be a Christian and I don't tell you you're wrong. Just sayin...even if Christ didn't exist, what is in the Gospels is not what this clown is teaching.

To a greater extent...no one has all the answers. Not believers, not non-believers. So, what we "believe" to be fact always requires a leap of faith. That's why I find these discussions useless, yet entertaining.

Not talking to you ASUm. You're reasonable and not an apologist.

Sorry, I can disprove most of what you believe. This thread is littered with the errors and inconsistencies of the bible. Your god (all knowing, all powerful and all loving) is impossible - just read your bible. We're not at a stand still, the apologists are running for cover under an onslaught of scholary criticism. We read daily the follies and crimes of your organization. Major dioceses are going bankrupt and you are now complicit in the crimes through your financial support of your church. Freethinkers now don't have to worry about being ostracized by society or burned at the stake and they're finally letting religion have it.

Again, I'm not pushing you to do or be anything. I'm a saint. St. D1B - patron saint of the courageous and those seeking truth.

How much coin do you blow on that church? What is your church's share of the legal fees for pedophile priests in Boston, LA, Chicago, Portland and others? What is your church's monthly payment to vatican tyrants and beaurecrats?

You don't need the church to be a good christian. Think about it. You've died and you're face to face with jesus christ, do you really beleive he's gonna recognize your involvement with the catholic church as a gold star? Really? Think about it. The catholic church embodies everything that he was against - massive wealth, cowardice (Pope Pius in WWII), worshipping other gods (the myriad of saints, Mary), the selling of salvation, raping children, manipulation of his ministry for political gain, outlandishness, the fukcing pope and him being infallible, cultural genocide, hatred of jews.......

You're involvement with catholic church is a one way ticket to hell.

Think about it.

1) Thanks for the compliment, I try to be reasonable (damn law school ). I agree, you don't need a church to be a christian...Jesus never attended a church (unless you consider the Synagogue [sp?]).

2) You may feel that you can disprove most of what I believe, and 90% of scientific fact is still a hypothesis. No one knows the all the answers...even science requires faith. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been scrutinized for errors. Everything done by humans will have errors. I'm not defending "errors" in the Bible, I have a different take on the Bible than many people. I don't feel the Bible was intended for literal translation as others do. Much of it, I believe, is stories meant to put forth a moral. Sometimes I feel more like a deist, but I digress.

3) I am not Catholic, so I don't have to worry about what you wrote above. I have no regard for the Pope. As for my church, my wife and I don't belong to a church, we're not members. I have been baptized, but the church we go to we're not members of. We donate when we feel. I read the Bible, I'm in a bible study with some friends each week and we will read passages and discuss it, and it comes to these types of discussions at times. Granted, we're all Protestant. The Catholic Church (which seems to be what you have your biggest beef with) is not even on my radar. I don't buy into the things they do, it's not for me. That's not to say other people who are Catholic are bad. Just not for me.

4) Here is my thing, I would never promise I am 100% correct to anyone. I believe what I believe and that's cool for me. I think we all need to be open minded and live morally (whose morals?) Good question, the golden rule is a good start.

[D1B]

Not talking to you ASUm. You're reasonable and not an apologist.

Sorry, I can disprove most of what you believe. This thread is littered with the errors and inconsistencies of the bible. Your god (all knowing, all powerful and all loving) is impossible - just read your bible. We're not at a stand still, the apologists are running for cover under an onslaught of scholary criticism. We read daily the follies and crimes of your organization. Major dioceses are going bankrupt and you are now complicit in the crimes through your financial support of your church. Freethinkers now don't have to worry about being ostracized by society or burned at the stake and they're finally letting religion have it.

Again, I'm not pushing you to do or be anything. I'm a saint. St. D1B - patron saint of the courageous and those seeking truth.

How much coin do you blow on that church? What is your church's share of the legal fees for pedophile priests in Boston, LA, Chicago, Portland and others? What is your church's monthly payment to vatican tyrants and beaurecrats?

You don't need the church to be a good christian. Think about it. You've died and you're face to face with jesus christ, do you really beleive he's gonna recognize your involvement with the catholic church as a gold star? Really? Think about it. The catholic church embodies everything that he was against - massive wealth, cowardice (Pope Pius in WWII), worshipping other gods (the myriad of saints, Mary), the selling of salvation, raping children, manipulation of his ministry for political gain, outlandishness, the fukcing pope and him being infallible, cultural genocide, hatred of jews.......

You're involvement with catholic church is a one way ticket to hell.

Think about it.

1) Thanks for the compliment, I try to be reasonable (damn law school ). I agree, you don't need a church to be a christian...Jesus never attended a church (unless you consider the Synagogue [sp?]).

2) You may feel that you can disprove most of what I believe, and 90% of scientific fact is still a hypothesis. No one knows the all the answers...even science requires faith. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been scrutinized for errors. Everything done by humans will have errors. I'm not defending "errors" in the Bible, I have a different take on the Bible than many people. I don't feel the Bible was intended for literal translation as others do. Much of it, I believe, is stories meant to put forth a moral. Sometimes I feel more like a deist, but I digress.

3) I am not Catholic, so I don't have to worry about what you wrote above. I have no regard for the Pope. As for my church, my wife and I don't belong to a church, we're not members. I have been baptized, but the church we go to we're not members of. We donate when we feel. I read the Bible, I'm in a bible study with some friends each week and we will read passages and discuss it, and it comes to these types of discussions at times. Granted, we're all Protestant. The Catholic Church (which seems to be what you have your biggest beef with) is not even on my radar. I don't buy into the things they do, it's not for me. That's not to say other people who are Catholic are bad. Just not for me.

4) Here is my thing, I would never promise I am 100% correct to anyone. I believe what I believe and that's cool for me. I think we all need to be open minded and live morally (whose morals?) Good question, the golden rule is a good start.

Good post. Sorry, I thought you were catholic.

It's just sad, all the time and human energy wasted on belief in silly gods. Until we realize that our efforts should be focused on improving man versus worshipping bronze age gods, we are doomed to perpetual war, famine, disease, neurosis and suffering.

The most violent place on earth is the cradle of the big three. Nuff said....