WatchNews coverage of the call for genocide
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Members-stand-behind-pastor-who-gave-homophobic-sermon-152735295.html
Yep, this asshole believes that gays and lesbians should be locked in concentration camps and left to die, just like Hitler's final solution for the Jews. And this is his deep, religious belief. So, according to some people on this site, we should respect that belief and not question it, nonetheless oppose it. Well, I say bullshit. This is exactly the type of thing that religion, superstition, and other forms of irrationality leads to. And if you have any doubt, watch the video on the news link that shows his "flock" agreeing with him.
Fap Fap Fap
Follow
Befriend
2,826 comments
Monterey, CA
It's amusing in a way though. I particularly 'enjoyed' his comment about 'them' dying out in a few years after being put behind electric fences because, 'ya all know why, they can't reproduce.' I think he might be missing something...
Follow
Befriend (1)
246 threads
4,656 comments
One nut Job talks smack and you persecute "religion" as a whole?
That's like blaming the Democrats for Obama's many failures. Not like that's hard to do, but still.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Helloeeze says
Unfortunately, he's not a lone nutcase in an otherwise sane community. About a third of Americans believe in shit like this because of their religion. That's why a third support nuking the middle east, torturing people, and banning gay marriage. And it's all the same third.
If only this were the exception to the rule, but it's not.
Follow
Befriend (1)
142 comments
San Jose, CA
Dan8267 says
We have been in fights before, but consider me 100% your ally on this.
Follow
Befriend (5)
1,070 comments
Santa Cruz, CA
muslims actually do it, this guy is just talking about it.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
More anal leakage from cloud that made it to the front page... Troll cloud says
First of all you need to take Cloud seriously because he's writing in all caps! And let's face it, that's always a sign of intelligence on the Internet.
I've already told Cloud, before I ignored him, twice why this is false. Yet, he keeps fucking that chicken like a good little troll. Just so that no one is tainted by this troll, I'll repeat, again, why the Stalin argument is bullshit and then I'll explain what makes the Providence Road Baptist Church case materially different.
--- Start of prior message ---
Every time atheists show that history is full of examples of religion being used to justify evil and that Christian history in particular has no gaps between its acts of evil, the religious always try to point to Communism as the one and only example of atheists doing bad things.
Yes, I will concede that atheists can do evil. No crap. Statistically, they are far less likely. Furthermore, Stalin and Mao did not do evil because they are atheists, but rather because they are dictators. To argue that Stalin was evil because he was an atheist makes as much sense as arguing that Stalin and Hitler were evil because they both had mustaches. Gee, I guess Charlie Chaplin and Tom Selleck must also be evil bastards.
You can tell he's evil by the mustache.
However, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Crusades, the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, the murder of Hypatia, and everything else I mentioned was directly and intrinsically motivated by religion. That's the difference.
Stalin was coincidentally an atheist and would have been a fucking asshole even if he was Christian. The motherfuckers in the Inquisition tortured people directly because of their religion. Totally different. To attempt to imply that Communism is evidence that atheism is bad is disingenuous. To attempt to imply that the Spanish Inquisition is evidence that religion is bad is not.
Yet, I'll have to listen to this false argument again and again for ever because it's the only ammunition the religious have against atheism.
--- End of prior message ---
So keep fucking that chicken!
Saying that atheism is bad because Stalin was an atheist and he was bad is a specific class of fallacy called Poisoning the Well which has the form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
Stalin was a dictator who lusted for power. That's why he was evil. He didn't kill people because of atheism or a desire to rid the world of religion. He killed people because he wanted to be a tyrant and people got in the way of that.
Furthermore, atheists do not follow Stalin, or praise him, or in any way agree with him. Ask any atheist what he thinks of Stalin, and he'll say Stalin was one of the worst people in history and the world is far better off without him.
But of course, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong were the only atheists in history who also happen to be megalomaniacal despots, so all trolls try to make them out to be the poster boys of atheism. When was the last time you heard an atheist praise the works of Stalin or Zedong? Oh wait, you never have.
In contrast, tens of millions of Americans do praise the works of Pastor Charles Worley and the assholes like him. As the article says, hell is entitled,
Well, that's a pretty big difference. They are buying the message.
From the video on the news article,
And that's the why I'm not poisoning the well. The Christian well, like all religions, is a well of poison. Yes, the Bible does say that gays should be put to death, and at least a third of American Christians know and follow that. This is what the Bible says about homosexuality,
That's right. The Bible comes right out and says you should murder homosexuals. The Jesus freaks aren't taking this out of context. The Bible actually advocates murder, unlike atheism.
And why is this a surprise? The Bible was written by Bronze-Aged and Iron-Aged scumbags who bashed gays, treated women as property, practice slavery and genocide regularly. Why the fuck would you take any moral lessons from such people? And that's why religion is bad. It's based on evil, obsolete cultures, and the unquestioning acceptance of their bigoted words.
But hey, Tom Selleck has a mustache and so did Stalin, so Selleck must be a mass murderer. And we'll cherry pick statements form the Bible and still call it the word of god.
The only way to end gay bashing is to abandon all Bronze and Iron Age religions -- oh shit, that's all the religions in the world except Scientology. Does anyone want to defend Scientology here?
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
clambo says
Yes, and not just a few, but tens of millions if not hundreds of millions, which only goes to further the truth that religion inherently promotes evil.
Religion is based on superstition and unquestioning of a central authority, especially monotheist religions. How can such a system not lead to evil?
People make their god into an omnipotent being, and we all know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So of course, their fictitious god is going to become an advocate of evil. It's the very nature of unquestioned, unchallenged power. No theology can avoid this inherent problem.
Follow
Befriend
2,826 comments
Monterey, CA
Dan8267 says
In fairness though, the Bible advocates murder for quite a few things.
Follow
Befriend
2,826 comments
Monterey, CA
Dan8267 says
Do what?
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Helloeeze says
While some christians reject the law in the OT entirely Jesus only revokes some of the OT laws, not all of them.
People just cherry pick what they want to believe anyway, and explain away what they don't like regardless of what Jesus taught or what laws the bible lays out.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
32 comments
this has nothing to do with Christianity, this is just some moron who claims to be Christian and is inciting hate in the name of religion.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Helloeeze says
Stupid is as stupid does. The Christian law or philosophy is what they actually follow, not what they are "supposed" to follow.
But even if all Christians and their churches tore the Bible in half and burned the Old Testament, renouncing it completely and vowing to read, speak, and follow only the New Testament, Christianity would still suck ass, and here's why...
The New Testament is okay with slavery. Yep, slavery. The New Testament not only condones slavery, but legitimizes it, a point made by southern ministers before and during the Civil War. You see, slavery was rampant in the Iron Age world, the time of Jesus. Yet, Jesus never condemned slavery, the single most egregious evil of his time. And Jesus's followers and the leaders of his newly founded cult, er, church were 100% pro-slavery like most non-slaves at the time.
The question of whether or not slavery is evil is the easiest moral question in history. The answer is an obvious "fuck no!". To not even get this moral question right, proves beyond any doubt that the Bible sucks ass as a moral guide and has no divine (at least not a benevolent creator's) wisdom. And no matter what you do, you can't polish that turd.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
jaz5 says
Congratulations your logical fallacy is no true Scotsman.
Don't worry, this is a very common fallacy made by christians when another christian cherry-picks one of the more abhorrent (and there are plenty to choose from) portions of the bible to preach.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
leoj707 says
So true. The No True Scotsman fallacy is a go to tool to justify an evil organization. Hell, it could even be used to justify Nazism. After all, there sure to be 1 drafted soldier in the Nazi army who actually thinks that killing Jews is a bad thing. So let's ignore the other 99% as a fringe case.
Unfortunately, this kind of hatred is not a fringe case. It's quite normal and prevalent. In fact, it's so overwhelmingly prevalent that it becomes ridiculous to argue that its a red herring.
Follow
Befriend (5)
1,070 comments
Santa Cruz, CA
Don't worry about me taking marching orders from some asshole who just passed the collection plate.
Never happen pal.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
32 comments
leoj707 says
Well, there is nothing wrong with my argument.
I stated that it is nothing to do with Christianity. You are confusing teachings of the church with the definition of Christianity.
Christianity implies following the teachings of Christ, not the teachings of the church. Over the centuries, starting with the Nicean creed, the church has come up with their own brand of beliefs that they mistakenly label as Christianity. The beliefs of a true Christian and the beliefs of the church don't necessarily align on all fronts.
For instance the church opposes homosexuality and contraception when the teachings of Christ have said nothing about either subject.
Please show me where you find references against homosexuality in the bible?
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
jaz5 says
You are joking right?
Here is your fist hint John 5:46-47.
Follow
Befriend (13)
49 threads
2,625 comments
Premium
jaz5 says
Multiple times in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. let's go to the NT:
Romans 1:26-28
Romans 1:31-32
and esp. 1 Corinthians 6:9-13
Helloeeze says
Nevermind that not a jot or tittle shall pass from the law until ALL is fulfilled (why bother saying this a few days prior to the resurrection, to a bunch of Jews anyway who wouldn't bother with pork or shellfish by habit?) or that those who break the law, even though they have faith in Jesus, will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Paul needed to convert Greeks, Syrians, and Germans. That's why he dropped the pork.
Actually, the evidence for an historical Jesus is pretty weak. Jesus could be a figment of Paul's imagination - remember, he only met Jesus in visions. There is no evidence Paul was ever in Israel! Plenty of California newage nuts say they've met Babu Swami in the Himalayas, but they've never had a passport. Think of all the BS Karate guys who say they learned at the foot of the Shaolin temple or from Bruce Lee himself.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
thunderlips11 says
Just shows that pork politics have been going on for ages.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
thunderlips11 says
What! Next you're going to tell me that wrestling is fake.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
The Bible is like the only book where every line is numbered because every line is suppose to be taken literally and seriously and as the unquestionable word of god. Can you image if the same thing were done with other books?
Chambers of Secrets 3:17-18
I hope Mr Potter will always be around to save the day.
Don’t worry, I will be.
Deathly Hallows 14:27
Not my daughter, you bitch!
Follow
Befriend (5)
1,070 comments
Santa Cruz, CA
But the old testament is Jewish.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
clambo says
Oh so true.
However Christians as always pick & choose.
Where the Old Testament agrees with their current beliefs it is God's Word and must be obeyed in every particular.
Where it DISAGREES with your Christian sect, then it's only history & useful context.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,495 comments
clambo says
No, not quite. The old testament is a rewrite of the torah to proclaim the coming of Jesus. This was done to provide some historical legitimacy to the early christian religions (there were lots of them who spent a lot of time fighting each other) in order to be taken more seriously. Religions at the time were a very big business, with lots of support from the state if they were recognized by the powers that be. Constantine finally recognized the christian church primarily because there was so much infighting it was causing problems with the his empire. He believed a recognized official church would pull together into a cohesive organization and stop fighting. That was wrong big time.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Dan8267 says
Good point, but not the only book. The Quran and Book of Mormon are done the same way.
The only non-religious document I have seen where every line is numbered is a legal deposition and yes they do that because it is important to know what is on every line.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
bob2356 says
Yes, and the OT is not a word-for-word rewrite. There are additions and subtractions to add a little christian flavor.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
clambo says
ding ding ding ... a winner
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
bob2356 says
what books of the OT are you talking about here?
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
leoj707 says
great point .... which came first?
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,181 threads
6,153 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
bob2356 says
I had not heard of this. Can you give an example of a change?
I always assumed that the Christian Old Testament was exactly the Torah, prophets, etc (the Torah being only the first 5 books).
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
and a pretty exact match to the Dead Sea scrolls and the Sumerian texts .... that is why I askd too.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,495 comments
Patrick says
I should look this up so I don't look dumb but from memory the torah is the first section of the Jewish bible (tanach) and consists of I think 5 books. There are changes in wording, grammer, and order between the torah and the old testiment. Many were made to fortell the coming of christ and legitimize christianity. Many others were just bad translations. The only examples I can remember off the top of my head was Danial being turned into a prophet and the young woman being turned into a virgin. The latter is a really big deal, probably a mistranslation but it leads to the entire virgin mary thing. Some other major tenants of christian religion are also based on bad translations.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,495 comments
Also the old testiment was translated from the torah several different times at different periods in history with the translaters bias being thrown in. Plus it went from form hebrew to greek to english. There are some concepts that simply don't translate.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,181 threads
6,153 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
Yes, it's true that the NT does not specifically call Mary a virgin. In fact, there's a bit where Jesus' mother and brothers (!) come to take him home because they think he's not well. But those are NT things though.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
King Herod didn't have any doubts about Mary's kid.
The 3 Magi had no doubts.
John the Baptists had no doubts.
But, those may not be a big deal, so, I would like to point out that Jesus never, ever, pointed to his mother and said, "I was born of a virgin!" Not even once. He made his case by teaching, doing maricles and going to the cross and rising again. Then he met with his posse and gave them the blueprints. I'm pretty sure it is the reserection that was the corner stone for the movement. The V-birth is right up there with Isis and Osiris - except the Bible prophets said it before it happened, and the eqyptians wrote about their gods after it happened.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,495 comments
Patrick says
I reread some of my books on the subject one thing that comes up is this:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 NAB
Which what I believe the references about the translation problem about the virgin stems from. This passage is frequently seen as also a fortelling of Mary. I've done a lot of reading about early christianity, but I'm certainly not a blblical scholar.
The other reference to this is the translation of the greek to english of the conversation with the angel. The greek is ambigious, there is a specific phrase for virgin in greek that was not used, so is probably should have been interpreted as since I do not know a man. According to people who actually speak ancient greek the translation to "virgin" doesn't really make sense. It's even more complicated by the fact if luke were actually writing the words of mary it would have been from aramaic into greek in the first place.
Anyway the point was the ot is not a direct translation of the torah, in addition to lots of translation errors and changing the order, there was some bias that changed the in meaning in places. Nit picking arguments about every single point could and have occupied centuries. Hey bap I said it leads to, not is. Plenty of biblical scholars agree with me on that point.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
you mis-read my questions. I'm interested in the info and the sources. I was not throwing rocks. It's hard for me to write my questions with a light hearted "oh, that sounds interesting" tone. My bad. Not throwing rocks bob, honest.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,495 comments
Bap, my two really good books on the subject are in storage for the next 6 months so I can't really give your specifics, which is why I said up front it was off the top of my head. A quick look on the internet doesn't come up with much that is any good, not unusual.
There has been endless debates for almost 2000 years about whether the differences are deliberate or inadvertent mistranslations as well as deliberate creative interpretation. Most of what I've read of the history of the early church politics leans toward deliberate distortions for political reasons. I believe that. The competition for recognition between religions (and between the various branches of Christianity) was vicious and high stakes. There was real money involved.
Intent can't be proven. But experts far beyond me say that the OT gives a sometimes very different meaning to the same basic document in many places. Too much difference to be simply bad clerical work. On the other hand we are talking about multiple translations over a thousand years involving 4 different languages. So, who really knows?
Follow
Befriend (13)
49 threads
2,625 comments
Premium
Just like the NT bears witness to debates between Judaizers (law keepers) and Paulites (law tossers) and many other groups (christology), the OT was also written and edited by at least 4 groups that had axes to grind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
the Yahwist source ( J ) : written c. 950 BC in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
the Elohist source ( E ) : written c. 850 BC in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
the Deuteronomist ( D ) : written c. 600 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
the Priestly source ( P ) : written c. 500 BC by Kohanim (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon.
I strongly recommend Israel Finklestein's books on Biblical Archeology. He was a big wig with the Israeli Government's archeology teams back in the 60s and 70s when the governnment was going all out to find items that would testify to independent, ancient Hebrew ownership of Israel AND the Sinai.
"Find us the title deeds of Israel" Menachem Begin said.
Most of the books in the latter OT are a lot later - archeologists think Daniel is 200-100BC. The evidence for this is that Daniel knows many specifics of that century, but when he looks back in time, like to the Babylonian Captivity, he gets many details wrong, naming cities that did not exist 400 years ago, or claiming imperial capitals that weren't the capitals at that time (and would have been common knowledge that somebody smart enough to write about, and indeed was part of that empire, wouldn't have gotten wrong).
Daniel gets a lot of facts wrong with the Persian Empire (Darius and Cyrus and Xerxes) which is centuries before, gets some facts wrong about Alexander (which was a century or so before his real writing time), and very few facts wrong when writing about his own era and about the Romans who are on the verge of dealing the death blow to the Selucids.
The book pretends to have been written 500BC and to be talking about he future, but it's really the other way around.
An analogy:
Imagine if somebody wrote a book in 1950 claiming to be a seer who lived in 1780, newly independent America under the Articles of Confederation. But he named the capital of the US as DC (it was NYC), and the capital of Russia as Moscow (it was St. Petersburg). He listed all the events of the 19th Century with worse accuracy than those of the 20th. For example, saying that the "Fight against the Brothers started at the battle of the Place of Peace (Shiloh)" (it was Ft. Sumter or First Bull Run if you look for land battles), but said the "The Birds of the Red Circles attacked the Island in the sea of Peace and set fire to many ships" (December 7th). Now he claims that "A Great Bear will attack the People" but that "God has given the Republic weapons of great fire!" and urged "True Believers" to use them first.
In short Daniel was a ~200BC Hebrew version of a John Bircher, pretending to have written 300+ years earlier.