Is "America Attack" now over?

I wonder just how much you understand of Christ?

 

i understand quite a lot more about human nature.

 

Oh please. That is the most ridiculous and ill-informed statement I've read in a long time.

These people USE the veil of Christianity to rally people around their murderous cause. In reality it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with bringing a part of the world under the globalists control that as of yet isn't. The people in control are not Christians, and you have bought into their con game hook, line and sinker if you actually believe that.

Obama just launched another attack on Pakistan today, so I think it makes you look rather stupid to act like it's just one side that favors attacking innocent people, when both sides are equally guilty. Obama is no less of a war-monger than Bush.

 

if far right "christian" groups had overthrown the government then there would be prayer in schools, ten commandments in every public in this nation, homosexuality would be a crime, and abortion would be illegal.

not to say this is the agenda of Christians, or the far right

but, if the "christian" far right had overthrown the nation, you'd fucking know it.

 

Exactly. Instead we have seen the exact opposite.

 

There's a difference between taking over Iraq which had nothing to do with 911 and bombing groups of terrorists in the mountains. I don't believe Obama wants to take over Pakistan. If he does I'll admit you were right, but I seriously doubt it.

 

What makes them terrorists?

 

I don't like war at all. It's sloppy, but I'd rather wage a small covert war killing small camps associated with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden than taking over countries. The lesser of two evils.

 

well at least you read between the lines - the first here to do so. yes it was deliberately provocative. if you want to wake the beast you need to poke it with a stick to make it start thinking. christianity at its core is a peaceful religion the problem is that many christians have been swayed to believe that turning away from the religion's mission statement is a good thing. i wondered how long i could keep prodding until someone woke up.

 

psst, lotta people have been saying so for awhile....

"first person to see between the lines" is missing, quite a bit

just to tell ya.

 

christianity for real came about after the death of jesus

jesus preached peace no matter how christianity has been twisted in the present or past.

the story of jesus is one where he submits to cross examination at a kangaroo court at the behest of the jewish priestly caste and is then killed by the romans to try and keep the peace in palestine (they were happy to kill jesus as long as his death meant that the taxes kept rolling in).

the stories of jesus are more over about becoming a better person and even the non believer such as myself can learn something. the main bulk of the parables look as if they've not been too mangled. gone is the all consuming hatred and vengeance of the old testament, the new testament and old testament are two completely different religions.

the old testament is about spite and general nastiness by man and god, the new testament as represented by jesus is about being some positive force for good in the world (as evidenced by the good samaritan parable).

any christian spouting hate and vengeance , brimstone and fire should be viewed with suspicion.

 

I don't think we will ever be sure what he taught, to be honest.

I don't think he wrote anything down.

So all we have is differing versions of others writings.

I don't think you can be confident at what he did teach (if anything.)

 

yes on that part looking directly at the fact that jesus wrote nothing. on the other hand socrates wrote nothing either, it was his student plato that wrote down his teachings. conicidentally it was because socrates was forced to commit suicide at the behest of the athens governing body that plato was moved to write down the discourses of socrates.

it was because jesus was murdered by the romans at the request of the jewish priestly caste

(who were part of the governing body at the time

(in the end they decided that jehovah was stronger than the might of the roman army - they were wrong, the were wrong on many things. the religious parties of judaism have basically screwed the jewish people throughout history. fast forward to the now and they are up to the same old tricks that have caused calamity amongst their flock throughout the millenia.

have a read of "the fall of jerusalem" by josephus, in the final paragraph despite what you might think of him he says something extraordinary that defies religious belief, he acknowledges that jerusalem existed before the jewish people and was built by other people not jews, someone else lived there before judaism, it was just like any other city. his point after having seen the devastation and massacre first hand (unlike his modern day detractors) was it really all worth it???
)

continued.....that christianity was elevated to the divine level. if the priests of the temple and the religious fanatics had simply ignored jesus the whole thing would have been forgotten with the natural death of jesus. christianity would never have grown so big under the banner of "non martyr". christianity may have developed into a type of buddism, jesus would have died a natural death and more importantly stuff would have been dictated directly as in the case of mohammed.

the parables of jesus are in my opinion are the closest you can can get to jesus, forget the rest, it is very mixed up. stories are easily remembered this is probably why jesus told them, it is innate in the human mind to remember stories easily. you can remember the story of "the good samaritan" as easily as you can remember "little red riding hood".

jesus was about positive messages, no where do i see a parable of jesus encouraging people to send money to fund vicious tribal wars in the middle east. forget the hatemongers that have taken over christianity.

the parables are probably the most reliable for getting a flavour of jesus, they were an oral history until stuff started getting written down some time after his death.

 

That is true. The difference, imho, is they both were alive at the same time.
Socrates did not write anything because he believed in the superiority of argument over writing.
I have much more faith Socrates' thoughts were more stringently written down than that I think Jesus' were...
Imagine taking notes in class rather than trying to remember what you were taught in later life (say about 60 years later.)
Both mens thoughts were original not based on general principles of morality and common paradigms.
Most of what is supposedly said by Jesus is only attributed to him by others and even the people (Matthew Mark Luke etc) that speak of him are not relaible sources of information - heck they may not even have existed.
If you ever did attempt to write anything, imagine then having your work bastardised, re-worked and deleted over a long period of time.

I don't see the relevance but I'll check it out.

What is the little red riding hood about - do you not think that story is not symbolic and plays with well known themes?

Ok, if I accept Jesus' words were accurately written down imagine what wasn't?
Also you have the luxury of not accepting the bits you don't like.

You seem to suggest Jesus was a happy clappy person with love in his heart blah blah blah. Great. A fairly good message.
It doesn't make it true.
Do you not accept there is great hypocrisy in words attributed to him and many a scholar who argue against the pacifism you seem to want to think he believed in.
Do tell if I am putting words into your mouth.

Again. You have no idea if this is true.

 

you're just feeling argumentative today. of COURSE it's not proven 100%. of COURSE it's a religion that's easy to adapt to oneself. most ideas that stick around a while are exactly the same.

 

Not really. Ok a little.

guy is being a little absolute don't you think?

Good point.

 

i'm not sure. he makes a good point about parables being easily remembered, like little red riding hood. i mean, most peopel who haven't heard little red riding hood for over thirty years can still sit their grandbaby on their knee and tell it to them accurately.

 

Yeah I may have missed that point.
Accurately?? Mmmmm...I imagine the original version is very different to the sanatised version most of us read at school.
I appreciate the one I can remember now is the one told to me as a child.
The one I remember she was not eat by the wolf.

 

the one i got as a child was prior to the mass litarary cleansing of the years that followed. i would compare that more to the newer hipper translations of the bibles. that doesn't mean that the original parables aren't still available with some degree of assurance that the original intent of the tale intact.

my children's stories were gory in the extreme.

 

Perhaps that is true. But I did not interprete the e.g like this:

Little red riding hood:
One of the more common interpretations refers to a classic warning against becoming a "working girl".

Red Riding Hood has also been seen as a parable of sexual maturity. In this interpretation, the red cloak symbolizes the blood of the menstrual cycle, braving the "dark forest" of womanhood.

I guess I question if all the parables he supposedly said were written down. The parable about not sleeping with another man might have been disacrded by his apologists. So if guy thinks these are the best indicators of his pov...imagine what we don't know about him.