[Andrea_Chenier]

What?

An expression of astonishment. I just can't believe some people place Che Guevare in the same catagory as Pol Pot and Hitler.

Damn, I must say those Bible passages are pretty horrifying. Their tone is absolutely clear, not in any way justifiable. Although I'd say that those parts already derive from what Nietzsche identified as the pauline corruption of Jesus's teachings. There was only one Christian, and he died on the Cross.

[Travesty]

Paul was an asshole who added a lot of the backward regressive shit into the New Testament. He was a troll, who if you look at his life period, should never have lived as long as he did. He just kept sending out troll letters to every major Mediterranean city .

[youtube]eoBYYElyP4c[/youtube]

[Hirdmann]

An expression of astonishment. I just can't believe some people place Che Guevare in the same catagory as Pol Pot and Hitler.

Newsflash: Despite what fanboys (and -girls) claim, Che Guevara was a psychopathic criminal on par with the aforementioned gentlemen in intent, if not in capability.

Paul was an asshole who added a lot of the backward regressive shit into the New Testament.

Not according to the Apostles and the early church, anyway.
The fact that the Bible does not fit with your political agenda, is really not the Bible's problem, but yours

Though, don't get me started on all the misinterpretations......

[Rei Murasame]

None of that was addressed to me, but I just have to check: I assume that you're not implying that I've in any way misinterpreted the quotes I posted on the previous page, Hirdmann, right?

Regarding the stuff about 'political agenda', I will actually agree with you on that.

People can't pick and choose from what is codified in the book. If Paul was an 'asshole' (and I think he was an asshole), then they have to throw out the whole book. They can't just amend Christianity as they see fit. Well, they can, but Christians will not let them get away with it, because Christians regard it as the word of god. If the text says that slavery and forced marriage are okay, then they can't remove it because it's written in black and white already.

It's not like in Eastern religions where you can put a line through a moral stance and rewrite it, or change the interpretation and nullify its original meaning. Christians will never convene a meeting and place black bars over whole swaths of the bible and issue new books. It's just not how Christianity rolls.

If you don't like what's in the book, Travesty and Andrea, then it cannot be marshalled to defend your positions.

[Travesty]

Oh what makes you say that they can't ammend Christianity? The Pope can edit things.

[Rei Murasame]

How? It says what it says. How would they be able to get around the absolutely torrent of text that they'd have to edit? What would they argue? That a god that is supposedly 'never wrong' and is supposedly 'correct in all times and places', managed to somehow get one or more of his prophets and apostles to speak lies, and then those lies just so happened to endure for 2000+ years?

They've painted themselves into a corner completely.

[Travesty]

Sure they could do that. Maybe there could be a big Ecumenical council like in the olden days.

[Rei Murasame]

But wouldn't that immediately cause a crisis of legitimacy? After all, if they admit to being totally wrong on such an epic level, within a framework where 'being wrong' is not supposed to ever happen, then that leads to a question of, "where does it end?"

Christianity might undergo a collapse, or at least, that particular church might. It depends on whether the followers would see everything as suspect after that, or whether they'd just accuse the Ecumenical council of being the liars.

[Travesty]

But lolz will be had though. Besides, they have been wrong on epic levels before. Like the Reformation that was a big mistake but they lived through that.

[Brother of Karl]

Communism has more to do with Christianity than with nazism. Communism preaches egalitarianism just like Christianity does, nazism is an inherently undemocratic and antiegalitarian ideology. Communism only thinks its anti-christian because it failed to realize how much it has in common with archaic Christianity and of course because most institutional forms of Christianity are historical allies of aristocratic, monarchist, fascist and capitalist ruling classes. Jesus Christ was Che Guevara of his time.

Communism is not really Christian. It does not come out of a Christian tradition, nor does it share a similar concept of history. Communism is actually the dialectical materialist understanding of Judaism. That is, the dialectic takes the place of God. In Jewish theology, there is no concept of apocalypse, and the idea of the Messiah is completely different. The Messiah is the coming age of redemption, rather than just a person, or possibly the person who will usher in this age.

In Jewish theology, there are three ages of the Earth. First the garden of Eden, then the fall from grace and finally (in the future), the messianic age, when there will be no more wars and everyone will live happily ever after. That is, the Messianic age is supposed to exist in the physical realm rather than in the afterlife. Christianity explicitly rejects such a view of history because it believes the Messiah has already come, and the apocalypse is coming soon. Why fight for a worker state and the end of wars with the power of Christ if you will all just be raptured away soon? Better to just spread the good word and hope for the best.

Communism has a similar view of history. In the distant past, primitive humans lived in Communistic tribes. Then the agricultural revolution formed, and we ended up with large scale civilizations which necessitated class stratification and division of labor. This has continued under various systems, all creating the "seed of their own destruction" from that class stratification. Finally, the class which will have the resources to usurp control will be the workers themselves, the foundation of civilization itself. When that happens, class stratification will end and society will revert to a "natural" communistic state.

Is it any wonder that Nazis claimed that Communism was a Jewish plot? Or that Marx himself was from a Jewish family and culturally Jewish? Obviously, his religion of birth had a profound influence on his ideology.

I'd like to add that I agree with everything Rei has said on this thread.

[Rei Murasame]

But lolz will be had though. Besides, they have been wrong on epic levels before. Like the Reformation that was a big mistake but they lived through that.

Your idea would be the first time that they would ever come out and say that the Christian bible contains lies, though. That would be like if Muslims came out tomorrow morning and decided to state that whole sections of the Quran are lies. They are just not going to do that.

[Paradigm]

Paul was an asshole who added a lot of the backward regressive shit into the New Testament.

It should be noted that not all of Paul's letters are considered authentic. Some of the letters, such as Timothy and Titus, are believed to have been forged later by other people who sought to reign in some of the more radical tendencies of Christianity, particularly in relation to the role of women in the church.

[Hirdmann]

It should be noted that not all of Paul's letters are considered authentic. Some of the letters, such as Timothy and Titus, are believed to have been forged later by other people who sought to reign in some of the more radical tendencies of Christianity, particularly in relation to the role of women in the church.

There is disagreement within the circles of biblical scholarship as to those claims.

Besides, they have been wrong on epic levels before. Like the Reformation that was a big mistake but they lived through that.

Your infantile approach to those that disagree with you aside: How was the Reformation a mistake? By which criteria?

[Travesty]

Your infantile approach to those that disagree with you aside: How was the Reformation a mistake? By which criteria?

By the Vatican's criteria. Or not.

[Paradigm]

There is disagreement within the circles of biblical scholarship as to those claims.

There is some disagreement over which of the epistles are authentic. The undisputed ones are Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philipians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. The disputed ones are Colossians, Ephesians, Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews. Of these, Hebrews was almost certainly not written by Paul, and Timothy and Titus are also highly doubtful.

[Hirdmann]

There is some disagreement over which of the epistles are authentic. The undisputed ones are Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philipians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. The disputed ones are Colossians, Ephesians, Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews. Of these, Hebrews was almost certainly not written by Paul, and Timothy and Titus are also highly doubtful.

The author of Hebrews is, indeed, not known with certainty. Tradition says Paul, and there are legitimate reasons for saying so, also within biblical scholarship. It could also be someone else, and there are legitimate reasons for this too.
The point was, that there is disagreement within biblical scholarship as to whether ALL of Corpus Paulinum is authentic, or only some of it (as you describe above).

Trust me. I'm a theologian.

[Paradigm]

Trust me. I'm a theologian.

So is my grandfather.

[Hirdmann]

So is my grandfather.

Then ask him. If he's honest, which I assume as a matter of course, he'll tell you the same thing I just told you. Though he might refer to those who think differently from him as "fundamentalists" or some such nonsense.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Rich said:

No he promissed to consign them to the fires for eternity. There's no Earthly regime that was ever as cruel or as undemocratic Kim il Jesus and his father.

Doncha love how the Christians, in order to save their chicken-hearted arses from hell fire, refuse to see that the vile monster who stands on the railway siding at the heavenly Auschwitz and directs the newly raised dead to the right and right, like a celestial Doctor Josef Mengele, is none other than their "loving" "merciful" and "all forgiving" Jesus Meek and Mild. To the right where these sycophantic Simon-pure's face sucking Jesus' freckle for all eternity - and to left, where these "sinners" fry forever because they were incapable of believing in him but couldn't fake it to make it, like the foregoing scabby-gutted Christian lickspittles.

[Hirdmann]

You're obviously typing something, but all that appears on the screen is bullshit. Maybe something's wrong with your keyboard?