Since David Honig pointed out this one perfect picture, I had to put it up top.
That says it all, doesn't it?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I spent the better part of an hour putting nail polish on mirror mounts yesterday.
No, this isn't a tragic misinterpretation of my students' advice to "wear more pink." It's because the optical table looks like this:
All those black things are mirror mounts like the one in the top picture,…
So I'm back doing lab work again. That means I'm stumbling across weird stuff that Dylan might get a kick out of. Before I could start isolating any DNA, I had to make sure all my reagents and buffer solutions were ready to go. I was digging through our chemicals cabinet when I found this buffer:…
Rusty Lopez at New Covenant has responded to my post on the evolution of morality. Well, he's kind of responded, by which I mean his response doesn't actually engage what I said very much at all. He doesn't deny the fact that today's common moral precepts are significantly different from those…
James Annan writes about two programmes on the BBC. First, a good one on overselling climate change. I think that what gave the programme credibility was that they didn't talk to any of the global warming skeptics. RealClimate also has an interesting discussion.
Second, a crappy one where Bob…
That God will decapitate you if you get too close to a cardboard cutout of Bible verses?
Jeebus. Irony really is dead, isn't it?
That a telephoto lens will distort the perspective to make it look like a lot of guys praying are praying to a cardboard ten commandments?
For those who might miss it on first viewing, look over the backs of the people bowing down to the graven image of the Ten Commandments and see which Commandment you can see.
On the, um, bright side, though, some may be pleased to learn that ungodly coins are worth up to 50 times what the ubiquitous "godly" ones are...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17501178/
Is that someone dressed up as George Washington too?
Wow. George didn't even like going to church. He was a deist at most.
I don't think that is just someone dressed up like George Washington..... IT IS GEORGE HIMSELF!!! God Bless America!
This picture was featured in a diary entitled Their Reality Has Lapped Our Satire, inspired by a biblical revamping of the Statute of Liberty. We have truly reached a point where their version of "reality" is so skewed we can't even satirize it.
UNFAIR!
They're defending only the first set of Ten Commandments, the one from Ex. Ch. 20, and completely ignoring the second set, from Chapter 34. There's more than one set of Ten, remember. Discrimination! I say teach the controversy!
One big, scary game of "let's pretend". The more "real" they play make-believe, the better they feel about themselves. Ahh the slippery slopes of delusion beckon for them.
What do you mean Christians? Doesn't the picture prove they all Moonies?
That really is a perfect photo.
And, although you are a guy some people (not I) accuse of tarring all of us with the same brush, I appreciate that you used the term "Christianism" rather than "Christianity" in the title. On those terms, I couldn't agree with you more.
So was it Christianism, the godless coins, or PZ who killed Captain America?
C'mon, folks. Fess up!
What I see in this picture: asses. Dumb ones at that.
It took me a few seconds to get that one. Well played, sir. Well played indeed.
Yup, I like that term too. It suggests people more in love with identifying themselves as Christian, rather than actually being Christian. Sums up fundamentalism precisely.
Can anyone tell what the shirt of the fellow on the left says? I can make out "The Rock" at the bottom, but I can't make out the top word. I'm sure that it would confirm the irony.
"They're defending only the first set of Ten Commandments"
And what about the other five that Mel Brooks dropped? I bet they could be restored, and I nominate James Cameron to find the pieces.
Isn't it supposed to be "do not worship/bow to false idols"?
According to the KJV, the Second Commandment (from the first set) is:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them...."
The First Commandment (from the second set) is simply:
"Thou shalt make thee no molten gods."
God has a serious insecurity problem.
"Worship me damn it! Not the Golden Calf!"
My first impression was that it said "Hard Rock Cafe", but then I realized that "Rock" was on the bottom line, not the top. Looking close, I think it says something like "Supporting The Rock".
Yup, I like that term too. It suggests people more in love with identifying themselves as Christian, rather than actually being Christian. Sums up fundamentalism precisely.
That's funny, because I think "more in love with identifying themselves as Christian, rather than actually being Christian" is a pretty accurate description of liberal Christians rather than conservative (or "fundamentalist") ones. The conservatives are far closer to Christianity as it has been understood and practised for most of its 2,000 year history than are the liberals. Liberal Christianity, especially in its more extreme varieties, consists of little more than a vague belief in a benevolent God of some kind, a vague admiration for the figure of Jesus Christ, and a secular, progressive, humanist ethics dressed up with a bit of Christian terminology.
Am I still banned, them steroids for my Bronchitis do make for interesting paranoia and bouts of anger.
Nah, it's "I Love The Rock." Didn't he look hot in The Scorpion King?
I interpret "Christian" vs. "Christianist" kind of like "Muslim" vs. "Islamist." The first is simply the religion one personally practices; the second is the belief, often accompanied by violence and hatred, that the rest of the world must conform to the laws, practices and prejudices of one's own religion or suffer the consequences.
that the rest of the world must conform to the laws, practices and prejudices of one's own religion or suffer the consequences.
Er, that one must conform to the laws and practises of Christianity or suffer the consequences is precisely what Christianity has always taught. It's the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Suggestions or the Ten Basic Guidelines.
"She wants to be taken to the Captain. And she'll go without a fuss. We must honour the Code."
.
.
.
"the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."
Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah!
Anyways, weren't the 10+10 Commandments only for one teensy little desert tribe several thousand years ago? I think I'm exempt. Neener.
And no way does that shirt say "I love the rock". The top line is definitely not 'I love'. Just look at it.
"Do not bow down to idols"
Yes, many bowed down, but none got up...
Do not bow down to AMERICAN idols. AMERICAN idols, they meant to say.
Which is too bad. At least those are entertaining.
They'll make you weak in the knees, too.
I have to wonder. The crucifix, the rosary bead, the Pope's ring... are they attentions paid to these objects in violation of the 2nd Commandment? I suppose not, or surely someone would have pointed it out by now.
Matthew:
6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
I have no idea what George Washington's personal theology was but he was a churchman, a member of the vestry of The Falls Church, which is just down the street from me.
This wiki is fairly complete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_religion
Seems George made it a point not to speak about his religious beliefs.
He thought leaders shouldn't because it would lead to internal devisiveness.
"Some biographers[24] hold the opinion that many of the American Founding Fathers held convictions that as leaders of the nation, they should remain silent on questions of doctrinal details but promote the virtues taught by religion in general due to the fear of creating unnecessary divisiveness within the nation. In Washington's case, such silence would have begun even before he conceived of the colonies becoming a nation unto themselves."
Point well taken. I'd suggest that maybe the exact nature of those consequences divides Christian from Christianist--while the Christian may well believe that those who don't toe the line will suffer in the afterlife, the Christianist wants to make damn sure they suffer in this life first.
Jason, I agree entirely.
Witch burning and other misogynist capades check
Torture dissenters and members of other religions check
Stealing from the poor to benefit the power structure check
Sigh...wouldn't it be nice if that enlightened idea prevailed in these times?
(DISCLAIMER: Not meaning to get too much into a nostalgia kick--there are plenty of bad ideas from those days we've happily gotten beyond. But I miss some of the good ones we've lost.)
What? No sackcloth? No ashes?
Get with the program! For, it is written:
"Let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God."
Off with those ties! Off with those suits and jeans! Start screaming, you lazy bums!
Yes. It may not prevail, but it's not gone. Even Ronald Reagan Jr. criticized GWB for wearing his religion on his sleeve, so to speak, in tacit contrast to his father.
It sure would be nice, though, if everyone - especially elected officials of the Federal Government who are sworn to uphold and protect the Consitution - would SHUT THE HELL UP about this "Christian Nation" crap.
RedMolly,
Making people who violate the laws and practises of Christianity suffer in this life has also been standard operating procedure in most places and at most times over the history of that religion. So what you're calling "Christianism" is really just Christianity by another name.
I object to attempts to portray the kind-and-gentle modern western liberal versions of Christianity as authentic Christianity or true Christianity, and to dismiss "fundamentalist" or conservative Christianity as some kind of distortion or bastardization of authentic Christianity. Christianity has always been mean, harsh, dogmatic, intolerant and exclusionary, just as "fundamentalist" Christianity is today. That is Christianity's authentic character.
Insanity.
This is interesting... the weirdos are supposed to be more humble and subdued at this time of year (Lent). Nasty blog comments are not allowed. so, if you find any Christian saying something nasty during Lent, turn 'em in to their minister, pastor, etc.
Giving Something Up For Lent
In Lent, it's traditional to give up something(s) that we do a lot of and that we find pleasure in.
[...]
If giving up food isn't much of a task for you, choose something else that you have to make an effort to give up. For many people, that means 40 days without :
television
gambling
impulse shopping
catalog shopping
leaving flaming comments on blogs
dance clubbing
http://www.spirithome.com/lent.html
Ummm.... Lent's all Papist, you know. Not really Christian. Fundies don't do Lent... Heck, most Protestants don't do Lent.
No, no, see, idols are symbols of FALSE gods. Symbols of the real one are ok to bow down to.
I think someone's replaced our regular Jason with Folger's Crystals.
The Jason swap sure did throw me for a loop. Had to go back and reread portions of the thread trying to see where he got hit on the head or was replaced by his twin from the mirror universe.
So which one do you suppose wears the goatee?
And thanks for the photo, PZ. Was nice to have a hearty chuckle before heading off to work.
Judge Roy Moore is the ass who had a huge granite sculpture of the 10 commandments installed in the rotunda of the Alabama state courthouse. The Supreme Court found that it violated the separation of church and state and ordered it removed. Fundies everywhere wept and beat their chest and couldn't understand why their religious edicts have no place in a government building.
The sculpture, which the press dubbed "Roy's Rock," appears to be what everyone is groveling toward at the center of the photo. It probably also goes some way toward explaining the truncated T-shirt slogan.
And that's the real tragedy, seems to me.
Also, it's funny you should say that; my wife admonishes me not to paint the whole religion with that brush--but maybe you're right, that Christianity is a mean, cruel, brutish belief system that I should oppose with the full force of righteous indignation.
minusRusty:
None of the above. It was Marvel's need for publicity, those bastards. Although one has to think that Cap's death isn't going to be permanent. I mean the guy survived WWII and was still kicking ass until they shot him.
Wow, classy.
It does bear mentioning that 'religious persecution' the pilgrims were fleeing from when they left Holland was their children being exposed to people who were different from them.
And that's the real tragedy, seems to me.
Also, it's funny you should say that; my wife admonishes me not to paint the whole religion with that brush--but maybe you're right, that Christianity is a mean, cruel, brutish belief system that I should oppose with the full force of righteous indignation.
Sean and Craig,
It's the same old Jason. I don't really understand your comments. Were you under the impression that I have a favorable view of Christianity?
Leon,
I don't think kind-and-gentle modern western liberal Christianity is mean, cruel, or brutish (though I do consider it false and harmful nonetheless). My point is that it is this kind-and-gentle modern Christianity that is the radical departure from Christianity as that religion has traditionally been understood and practised, not "fundamentalist" Christianity. Even today, in fact, at the global level "fundamentalist" Christianity is by far the dominant strain.
And that's the real tragedy, seems to me.
Also, it's funny you should say that; my wife admonishes me not to paint the whole religion with that brush--but maybe you're right, that Christianity is a mean, cruel, brutish belief system that I should oppose with the full force of righteous indignation.
(Oops, sorry about the multiple posts. Been having some connectivity issues.)
SlackerNinja, thanks for mentioning that! That's a small, but important, bit of our history that most Americans don't know, and it's good to hear it brought to light now and then.
Yes, let's not forget they came here from the Netherlands, not directly from England. They went to the Netherlands for religious freedom; they came to America for more complex reasons.
Off-topic:
If I learn to speak like this, can I be a professor too?
The Dawkins Confusion
Naturalism ad absurdum.
by Alvin Plantinga
[snip]
The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.
The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a "delusion."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
cld nvr qt ndrstnd why s-clld "scntst" wld spnd hs vry wkng hr pstng nn nvctv nstd f, wll, prsng scnc.
Sddnly, t ccrrd t m tht t s jst s lkly tht PZ Myrs psts ths stff nd thn wnks hmslf rw whl rdng th mndlss spw tht fllws s ny thr rsn.
Prhps smn cld d sm rsrch n wht drvs ntrnt wrds lk "Dr." Myrs nd pblsh dfntv nswr.
Jason,
1. I tend to believe that the earliest Christian beliefs are pretty well represented in the gospels -- else, why not just put words like "the rich are better than the poor, and persecute all who don't believe as you do" in Jesus' mouth, right off the bat?
2. As someone who was raised among "liberal" christians all my life, whose every generation of my family includes multiple Lutheran pastors and church musicians, and who has done a lot of ecumenical volunteer work and is therefore exposed to a breadth of "liberal" christian denominations, I can assure you that their beliefs in core christian doctrine -- especially the divinity of Christ -- is sincere and devout.
Really, it is the nondenominational megachurch-goin' fundies who have the fuzzy belief in a "Buddy Jesus" type. Their Jesus doesn't ask that they serve others (especially the poor), or live humbly, or turn the other cheek, or say anything to challenge their comfortable SUV-drivin' lifestyle at all.
Because the religion was designed to appeal to poor Roman slaves.
minimalist,
I don't know why you would think the earliest Christian beliefs are pretty well represented in the gospels. The Christian Bible is much more than the gospels, and much of the Bible was written long before the gospels were written. This includes all of the Old Testament, which portrays God as a cruel, vindictive monster. Not that the gospels are exactly a blueprint for an ethical society either. In fact, the doctrine of eternal punishment for sin, which is referred to repeatedly in the gospels, is arguably responsible for more suffering than any other Christian doctrine.
CalGeorge,
Jason Rosenhouse over at EvolutionBlog is has done a fine fisking of Plantinga's nonsense, and more is to come. Check it out.
You know I'm tiring of this sort of bullshit. All this essentially is the 'One true Scotsman' fallacy. There are no more devout believers in the 'church' you espouse to know so well than the 'church' you just tossed scorn at above.
The lutherans I know have nearly the EXACT buddy Jesus type thought as the nondenominationals I know. Both can be sincere and devout.
Things I learnt from that picture.
1. Never stand behind someone who had a chicken tika curry the night before.
2. Check the fork of your trousers before praying in public.
3. Do not confuse a person kneeling with their inherent desire to be kicked in the butt.
Jason,
RE: Sean's and Craig's comments. In the relatively recent past, there was another person named Jason who ran a blog called "Shock and Blog" or something like that. He was originally anti-atheist and evolved into something that was just anti-PZ. Due to the stupidity of his posts, he was disemvoweled and eventually left or just got banned outright (not sure which). Sean and Craig are confusing you with the other Jason (I guess they have not seen too many of your posts).
I guess there are too many Jasons in this corner of the internet. I am one, too. :P
Ah. Thanks for the explanation. I guess I need to adopt a less confusing handle.
Uniqueness of handles, or at least rarity, is very important.
True, though early Christianity was almost certainly geared toward converting Gentiles, hence much of the OT was considered dispensable for conversion purposes. (Except, of course, for the "prophetic" verses ripped out of context to "prove" that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah.) It's part of Paul's cunning, really: all the prestige of Judaism's long history without going through all the trouble of learning it.
I think I know what you're getting at: that torture and murder became acceptable in the process of conversion, because physical suffering was only temporary, whereas the Christians are in the business of saving eternal souls! And I don't disagree, but on the other hand it's unfair to attribute that directly to the gospels, considering it's completely against the message. (Yes yes, someone's going to fart "No true Scotsman" in my general direction again as if that settles anything, but it in no way contradicts my point that liberal christian theology is far closer to what's depicted in the gospels than anything the fundie/megachurch crowd can spew.)
Occasional "problem passages" like the "I have come to set brother against brother" part do rather confuse the issue, though, I admit, but there's absolutely nothing in there like "go and commit torture in my name."
I think I know what you're getting at: that torture and murder became acceptable in the process of conversion, because physical suffering was only temporary, whereas the Christians are in the business of saving eternal souls!
Yes, that's part of it. But it's not just that the doctrine of Hell rationalizes the infliction of suffering in this world as a way of preventing much greater suffering in the next, but that it makes the whole business of inflicting suffering more acceptable. If God's justice includes eternal punishment for the sins of a finite mortal life, then making people suffer in this life isn't such a big deal.
And I don't disagree, but on the other hand it's unfair to attribute that directly to the gospels, considering it's completely against the message.
Jesus makes reference to the doctrine over and over again in the gospels. He makes many statements to the effect that the wicked and sinful will suffer eternal punishment for their sins, using imagery of fire and burning and torment to convey the horrific nature of this fate.
This takes me back to a very early age. I recall being around age 8 and noticing how the not worshiping idols thing seemed to be contradictory to all the images of Jesus and other accouterments of churches. Once that little little spark was lighted it didnt take long to see the light shining on the many other contradictions in the tales of Christendom. Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Aesop's tales, the Brothers Grim and the Bible and related stories. Tales to pass on societies cultural norms .. maybe. Omnipotent and all seeing rules of life ... ah, not so much.
Jason,
Again, I don't disagree with the ultimately negative implications of a belief in the afterlife, but, again, you've said nothing to contradict my point that the gospels simply don't support the active infliction of suffering in any way.
Also, don't forget that afterlife-belief is highly conducive to the promotion of apathy, which is anything is more widespread and probably more dangerous than the cruelty it may inspire. It's that sort of attitude that allows cruelty to continue. As much as I admired the Christians I worked with in food pantries and hospitals, I know that there are easily ten times as many who just shamble into the pews every Sunday and kinda vaguely figger that "God'll sort things out eventually".
Jason is right regarding "liberal Christianity." Some of my best friends (to coin a phrase) are liberal "Christians," and I admire their liberality, and would much rather have them be liberal than fundamentalist. Nonetheless, when you read the Gospels, the liberal Jesus rests essentially on the beatitudes (which really cut both ways, with their overall emphasis on powerlessness and persecution) and a few sayings, most of which did not originate with him (the "golden rule" is from Hillel, "love thy neighbor" from the Torah, "casting the first stone" likely from the Stoics). Even "love your enemies" doesn't go quite as far as the Buddha, who seemed to advocate deep-sixing the concept of enemies altogether.
Even the Sermon on the Mount luxuriates in threats of hell, hard-core moralism (it's where you find the concept of committing adultery in your heart), and cutting off your offending member. Most of all in John, but even in the Synoptics, we learn over and over that there is only one path and Jesus is It. Even giving to the poor is in conjunction with "follow me." And we are assured by Jesus himself that anointing his feet with oil is a better use of precious funds than distributing them to the poor, who will always be with us.
Most of all, Jesus seems to take with complete equanimity the idea that those who don't follow him will be tortured for all eternity. He didn't have to actively advocate inflicting suffering. He was comfortable with seeing suffering inflicted forever.
Perhaps it would be more intellectually honest for liberal "Christians" to regard their liberalism as an evolution away from traditional ideology?
Golden Rule's a lot older than Hillel.
Let's not forget also that Jesus said the most important commandment of all is the commandment to love God. Not to feed the poor, or turn the other cheek, or follow the Golden Rule. But to love God with all your heart and soul.
So we atheists, who don't even believe that God exists, let alone love him, are beaking what Jesus says is the most important rule of all. So I guess there's a special place in Hell for the likes of us.
Words written on cardboard imitation of stone don't count as idols. It would have to be an image of an animal or a person or some such thing.
However, they're in big trouble for spelling out the holy name of God. You're not supposed to say Yahweh. Haven't they seen that scene in Life of Brian?
(Actually, they probably haven't.)
Golden Rule's a lot older than Hillel.
Absolutely. Hillel was likely the most proximate source for Jesus though.
So I guess there's a special place in Hell for the likes of us.
At least we'll be in good company, eh?
I'll just say that most evangelical mega churches are seen as liberal by the real fundies. And how anyone can call eternal suffering in hell not supporting the active infliction of suffering is beyong me.
> So I guess there's a special place in Hell
> for the likes of us.
w00t!
I'll bring the toast-tite irons and cheap white bread!
Looks like George Washington dropped a contact lens.
What was that Franken line about the question of Hillel and Jesus? Something about: "Jesus was a great man and had great ideas, none of them new..."
BlueIndependent wrote:
Something about: "Jesus was a great man and had great ideas, none of them new..."
I've heard it remarked that the only really original contribution Jesus made to theology was the concept of Hell.
If you think Christianity is so monolithic it can be represented by 1 picture, obviously you're not a very observant person.
And seeing that observation is at the core of science, when someone can get a Ph.D. from the establishment in science without being very observant, that's a bad thing.
The liberal Christians are going to hate me even more for this, but..... I have to say also that in addition to finding them intellectually dishonest I think their version of Christianity is inherently unstable and self-destructive.
Religions must assert their exclusivity and superiority to attract members and survive. Any religion that fully embraces the values of tolerance and pluralism is not going to last long. If you don't think it's important whether people join your religion rather than a different religion, or no religion at all, you're probably not going to put a lot of effort into recruiting new members to replace the ones you lose through death and defection. You're probably not going to put a lot of effort into trying to ensure your own children grow up to belong to your religion rather than something else. And without that kind of committment to bring in new blood, your religion is probably going to wither away and die.
We can see this happening right now in the declining and aging memberships of the liberal protestant denominations and sects. All the vitality is in conservative and "fundamentalist" Christianity, with their aggressive missionary programs and evangelism, homeschooling and parochial schools, "Jesus Camps" for kids, "Promise Keepers" for adults, cable TV channels, universities and law schools, etc. The liberal sects aren't doing any of this.
Well.
You've got to recall that God had an interest in defaming Satan. The whole 'Lake of Fire' thing was blown completely out of proportion. You see, Satan has a liking for large punch bowls of strong liquor. And he likes to keep some of them lit - he thinks it livens up the debauchery. Now one evening, King Solomon was making an ass out of himself, chasing one of Satan's violin players about - and the violin player dodged behind a bowl of flaming liquor. Solomon ran into it, got splashed with flaming liquor, and burned rather badly. Satan put out the fire and rushed him off to the ER as quick as possible, but Solomon, ever the politician, saw an opportunity to make a big stink out of things. And so, each time he told the story, the punch bowl got bigger and bigger, and he burned for a longer and longer period of time - like something you might hear from a fisherman in Galilee.
Of course Solomon had been angry with Satan for a long time. You see, all of Solomon's wives and harem girls ran off shortly after he showed up in Hell. Solomon blamed that on Satan, even though it was Eve who told them that if they didn't like Solomon, they should just dump him. And really, they wouldn't have listened to her at all if Solomon hadn't been such a prick in the first place.
Religions must assert their exclusivity and superiority to attract members and survive. Any religion that fully embraces the values of tolerance and pluralism is not going to last long.
That may not be true of religion inherently. The non-Abrahamic religions of the classical world lived together fairly peacefully (one of my favorite Romans is the guy who made a hobby of collecting priesthoods, and amassed several hundred as I recollect), and it's possible in East Asia to be simultaneously Taoist, Buddhist, and Confucian. Sure, this gets into the messy realm of "folk" religion, but still, when you look at religion throughout history and worldwide, the necessity of asserting exclusivity and superiority was introduced by Abrahamic monotheism. Jonathan Kirsch credits the Maccabees with introducing holy war and martyrdom, although I think the real roots are found in Deuteronomy.
The problem is that the paradigm (poison, in my opinion) of exclusivity, once introduced, has become dominant, at least where the Abrahamic religions rule. The first people Christians turned on once their worship was decriminalized by Constantine were not pagans, but their fellow Christians: the "heretics" and "apostates."
So while not true of religion inherently, it's certainly true in today's world that the intolerant monotheisms have the most vitality. They're the ones with the chutzpah to persecute others. And that's what "liberal" monotheism can't compete with.
Eve?! I thought it was Lilith!
A guy from Jersey hears that the Amish are so into the bible as literal truth that they not only have no electricity, but will follow to the letter the command of Jesus to "turn the other cheek" if hit in the face. Being from Jersey, he decides to try this out. When he gets to Lancaster, he sees an Amish man strolling down the street, runs up, and punches him square in the jaw. The Amish man calmly wipes the blood from his mouth, and dutifully turns to present his other cheek to the man from Jersey. Gleefully, the man punches the Amish man in the mouth again, but is dismayed when the rather large and strong Amish man smiles and removes his coat, as if to fight. The man from Jersey stammers "wait, you're supposed to turn the other cheek, right?".
"Yes," says the Amish man, "and now that the scripture has been obeyed, I may proceed to thrash you."
No point, just thought it was funny.
Sorry for the confusion, Jason.
Of course, it might be fun if we pretended you ARE the other Jason... we could scare the remaining trolls into thinking that by hanging out here, the insane Jason somehow got "infected."
Wasn't this whole "graven image" thing one of the reasons for Martin Luther's schism from the Catholic church? Isn't it also the basis of the Islamic prohibition against images of people (especially the Prophet)?
That guy's T-shirt says "DEMAND the Rock."
It's one of the underlying sources of Luther's criticisms, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it "one of the reasons."
Protestantism was the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity, in my opinion.
Yes. Animals, too.
[1] The golden rule (in the "West") originated with the classical Greeks. Someone as learned as Hillel would have found our about it.
It was certainly known of, and used as an ideal in Alexandrine Egypt ...
[2] Some irony!
What's the second commandment on the markers, that they are all bowing down to?
"Do not bow down to idols"
( ! )
...when you look at religion throughout history and worldwide, the necessity of asserting exclusivity and superiority was introduced by Abrahamic monotheism.
Tom Holland suggests in Persian Fire, that the original spark might have been Zoroastrianism and the Persian empire. That light vs darkness thing. Although it wasn't as exclusive at first as later monotheist religions.
It sure looks to me like the George Washington looking guy trims the corners of his beard. What an outrage. Surely he shall roast in Hell for ever.
Just as I thought. Rock worshippers. The symbol-minded.
Then your opinion needs reworking. Protestantism is a grand leap forward from the control and silliness of Catholisism. How thinking for yourself can be worse than having others make a sheep of you is beyond me.
Yeah because "christians" NEVER behave like sheep.
minimalist,
I hope you are not trying to imply that Paul was anything less than a very learned man among Jews. He studied under Gamaliel who was one of THE leading Parisees of the Jewish people in his day. Paul himself held a position of great authority that no mere Torah-abusing hack would have been able to get before he became a Christian. If anything, Paul was in a position to understand the Torah better than the vast majority of the Jews of his day.
Point taken Steve_C but there is far less of it in Protestant denominations or at least there should be.
That wasn't original; he got it from the Persians.
Point taken Steve_C but there is far less of it in Protestant denominations or at least there should be.
LOL! You must not live in the south.
I thought it was the idea of the Devil being the evil counterpart of God was borrowed from the Persians.
Texas. Deep enough?
Open letter to PZ:
What happened to your three-post limit rule? Please bring it back.
Thank you.
Does anyone know what event this picture was taken at?
Desert Donkey: When I was a guide at an international chemistry olympiad once when it was here in Montreal, we took the teams around to see Montreal's architecture and such, and the Iranian team was amazed and intrigued by the statues and paintings inside the enormous Catholic churches here ... they asked about that to some people and got a few shrugs ...
Yes. It was taken outside the Supreme Court as the Court heard arguments in the Van Orden and McCreary County Ten Commandments cases.