http://www.wiseass.org/jesus.html

;D

This reminds me of when The Rockers broke up.  You wouldn't think two who were on the same team would be against eachother, but I suppose George like Shawn could turn on Jesus, like Shawn did on Marty.

First, who are/were the rockers. secondly, I'm pretty sure you missed the point.

Too funny





Cat

Brilliant!

That's exactly what I was getting at in the "food aid" thread.  The teachings of Jesus (I mean Jesus the Christ himself, not the fourth century pundits) are anathema to everything the Republican party stands for.

The Right really ought to devote their lives to Satan, because Satan puts YOU and YOUR money FIRST!  Of course, then they'd have to forfeit their favorite pastime, being public scolds about "personal responsibility" and sexual morality!
:P

While I question the accuracy of the "Christian" (Catholic, Protestant, and evangelical) understanding of the true message and mission of Jesus, this clip is brilliuant, and all to true of not only the neocons but of their "christain" fundamentalist dupes.  I look forward to what our conservative friends have to say.  But too funny!

First, who are/were the rockers. secondly, I'm pretty sure you missed the point.


First things first - A professional wrestling... WWE Team under the Characters of Shawn Michaels (Michael Hickenbottom) and Marty Jannetty (Fred Jannetty).

Second things second, I didn't miss the point, I just didn't take it from a liberal approach.

First things first - A professional wrestling... WWE Team under the Characters of Shawn Michaels (Michael Hickenbottom) and Marty Jannetty (Fred Jannetty).

Second things second, I didn't miss the point, I just didn't take it from a liberal approach.


Some of us don't go in for all that elitist high-culture stuff.

Some of us don't go in for all that elitist high-culture stuff.


Well of course not.

Some of us don't go in for all that elitist high-culture stuff.


Hmmmmm....high culture wrestling. That is an interesting concept. Sort of like Picasso and Van Gogh getting into a death match if they were still alive and kicking, huh?

I know, I know, I'm rambling. :P

Hmmmmm....high culture wrestling. That is an interesting concept. Sort of like Picasso and Van Gogh getting into a death match if they were still alive and kicking, huh?

I know, I know, I'm rambling. :P


Perhap's from a professional standpoint.  From an amateur standpoint, there's nothing unusual or hard to concieve about it.

Second things second, I didn't miss the point, I just didn't take it from a liberal approach.



So what is the conservative take?  Are you suggesting that the statements are inaccurately attributed to Jesus, or that they aren't really contrary to what conservatives, even on this board, advocate?

So what is the conservative take?  Are you suggesting that the statements are inaccurately attributed to Jesus, or that they aren't really contrary to what conservatives, even on this board, advocate?

Not too sure he knows what he means!

So what is the conservative take?  Are you suggesting that the statements are inaccurately attributed to Jesus, or that they aren't really contrary to what conservatives, even on this board, advocate?


A Conservative approach would be that Jesus is indeed a real person, who for real died on the cross for sins of the people, and the only way to God is through him.

Some conservative approaches wouldn't make jokes of George Bush, who is a christian. Especially jokes that were more demeaning and critisizing towards the lord than they are towards Bush.  If we saw that Bush was being hypocritical or had honest mistakes in his approach we'd attack the issue from a serious standpoint rather make fun of it.

A Conservative approach would be that Jesus is indeed a real person, who for real died on the cross for sins of the people, and the only way to God is through him.

Some conservative approaches wouldn't make jokes of George Bush, who is a christian. Especially jokes that were more demeaning and critisizing towards the lord than they are towards Bush.  If we saw that Bush was being hypocritical or had honest mistakes in his approach we'd attack the issue from a serious standpoint rather make fun of it.

And a real "Christian" would not live as a hypocrite, distorting and perverting the words of the Annointed One...as George W. Bush does. 
It's pathetic the way conservatives demand we interpret the Constitution as the Founding Fathers originally designed it, but they have no trouble revising the plainspoken words of Jesus to favor their plutocratic agenda.

And a real "Christian" would not live as a hypocrite, distorting and perverting the words of the Annointed One...as George W. Bush does. 
It's pathetic the way conservatives demand we interpret the Constitution as the Founding Fathers originally designed it, but they have no trouble revising the plainspoken words of Jesus to favor their plutocratic agenda.


Agreed.  Real christian's should seek out first of all whether George Bush is making an honestly stuipd mistake, or if he's making a stupidly honest mistake.  Once we know the difference, we should attack it from there.

At least we follow something other than our changing minds.

At least we follow something other than our changing minds.


By "we", you are referring to Christians, or conservatives?

At least we follow something other than our changing minds.

How's that now?

By "we", you are referring to Christians, or conservatives?


Christians.

How's that now?


We have ground, a base, a foundation that we go back to.  It's not just what we want when we want it.  There's something to go back to.

This reminds me of when The Rockers broke up.  You wouldn't think two who were on the same team would be against eachother, but I suppose George like Shawn could turn on Jesus, like Shawn did on Marty.


They were the chessiest tag team wrestling, back then...  ::)  ;D

We have ground, a base, a foundation that we go back to.  It's not just what we want when we want it.  There's something to go back to.


And you have the nerve to tell me that I make it sound like i'm the only one who is right, and everyone else is wrong ;D You are the biggest hypocrit on these boards! And i'm so happy that you proved it with that statement.

By the way. I have all of the qualities that you mentioned above. And I am an atheist. My family give me foundation. The love for my parents, who gave me life, are what I go back to. I don't do what I want, when I want. I know that there will be consequences for every action that I take.  And I definately don't believe that to do good in this world I have to put all of my faith in a carpenter, and a god that doesn't exist. But of course. Being the tolerant "accepting other peoples opinions, even though they differ from mine" type of guy that you say you are. I'm sure you can respect that :)

We have ground, a base, a foundation that we go back to.  It's not just what we want when we want it.  There's something to go back to.

Oh, jolly good then.

And you have the nerve to tell me that I make it sound like i'm the only one who is right, and everyone else is wrong ;D You are the biggest hypocrit on these boards! And i'm so happy that you proved it with that statement.

By the way. I have all of the qualities that you mentioned above. And I am an atheist. My family give me foundation. The love for my parents, who gave me life, are what I go back to. I don't do what I want, when I want. I know that there will be consequences for every action that I take.  And I definately don't believe that to do good in this world I have to put all of my faith in a carpenter, and a god that doesn't exist. But of course. Being the tolerant "accepting other peoples opinions, even though they differ from mine" type of guy that you say you are. I'm sure you can respect that :)




Ha Ha Ha, Ha...take a bow shall you...ha ha and ha

Ha Ha Ha, Ha...take a bow shall you...ha ha and ha


::)

Ha Ha Ha, Ha...take a bow shall you...ha ha and ha


::)

Ha Ha Ha, Ha...take a bow shall you...ha ha and ha


evading a challenge you are, master Harmonica

A Conservative approach would be that Jesus is indeed a real person, who for real died on the cross for sins of the people, and the only way to God is through him.

Some conservative approaches wouldn't make jokes of George Bush, who is a christian. Especially jokes that were more demeaning and critisizing towards the lord than they are towards Bush.  If we saw that Bush was being hypocritical or had honest mistakes in his approach we'd attack the issue from a serious standpoint rather make fun of it.


But you continue, here and in what follows this post, to ignore the vast difference between the teachings of Jesus (if they really are his teachings) and the positions taken by conservatives who alos call themselves "Christians", as that funny little clip points out.  You can't claim to support both without being a hypocrit.

evading a challenge you are, master Harmonica


Oh no, not at all. I just needed to get my laughter out first.

And you have the nerve to tell me that I make it sound like i'm the only one who is right, and everyone else is wrong ;D You are the biggest hypocrit on these boards! And i'm so happy that you proved it with that statement.

By the way. I have all of the qualities that you mentioned above. And I am an atheist. My family give me foundation. The love for my parents, who gave me life, are what I go back to. I don't do what I want, when I want. I know that there will be consequences for every action that I take.  And I definately don't believe that to do good in this world I have to put all of my faith in a carpenter, and a god that doesn't exist. But of course. Being the tolerant "accepting other peoples opinions, even though they differ from mine" type of guy that you say you are. I'm sure you can respect that :)




Take a look at what's said here.

"I have all of the qualities you mentioned above" followed by    "And I am an atheist"  Not possible, that gave the first ha.


"My family give me foundation. The love for my parents, who gave me life, are what I go back to."  Sure when it comes down to if limblifter happens to agree with it. Once that's thrown out the window, as Lindsay Buckingham would say, "Go your own way" and that's what ends up happening.  Second Ha

"I don't do what I want when I want"  Third and largest Ha of the quote.  Liberal's are all about doing what they want when they want, it's 95% of what they fight so strongly for.

Here comes the "take a bow shall you".  "I know that there will be consequences for every action that I take"  Extremely against what liberals pretty much stand for. The idea is for consequences and punishments to be eliminated, unless it's straight forward gonna hurt "me".  However, gotta respect that it's at least realized, not practiced,  that not everything goes.

Two Ha's for his arrogant and degrading manor of saying "A God that doesn't exist"  Which rather anyone likes it or not, IS an attack on me.

Finally the last Ha comes from limblifter thinking he got me.

But you continue, here and in what follows this post, to ignore the vast difference between the teachings of Jesus (if they really are his teachings) and the positions taken by conservatives who alos call themselves "Christians", as that funny little clip points out.  You can't claim to support both without being a hypocrit.


Then what does it make a liberal who is a christian?  A plain liar?  I know the answer to this is No, the answer is no.  But you have no ground any more solid than I do, with your question.

Two Ha's for his arrogant and degrading manor of saying "A God that doesn't exist"  Which rather anyone likes it or not, IS an attack on me.




As a non-believer myself, I can't resist jumping in on this.  Faith is one thing, and if yours gives you comfort, well and good, but for some of us, what you have faith in is a fairy tale. 


Then what does it make a liberal who is a christian? A plain liar? I know the answer to this is No, the answer is no. But you have no ground any more solid than I do, with your question.


I do have solid grouns for my question, since the fact remains that conservatives take positions that are diametrically opposed to many of the (supposed)  teachings of Jesus.  And I'll go you one further.  Back in 1970 the Chilean college of Catholic clerics stated that there are more of the teaching of the Gosples in the doctrins of socialism than in those of capitalism.  It is clearly an exaguration, but in many ways, Christ was a Commie.

As a non-believer myself, I can't resist jumping in on this.  Faith is one thing, and if yours gives you comfort, well and good, but for some of us, what you have faith in is a fairy tale. 

I do have solid grouns for my question, since the fact remains that conservatives take positions that are diametrically opposed to many of the (supposed)  teachings of Jesus.  And I'll go you one further.  Back in 1970 the Chilean college of Catholic clerics stated that there are more of the teaching of the Gosples in the doctrins of socialism than in those of capitalism.   It is clearly an exaguration, but in many ways, Christ was a Commie.


Fairy tale is all fine, but please explain to me how telling me that I pretty much believe in Santa Clause is "respect".

Secondly, please go further into the ways Jesus was a commie, I'm willing to read what your willing to type.

Ha Ha Ha, Ha...take a bow shall you...ha ha and ha




Take a look at what's said here.

"I have all of the qualities you mentioned above" followed by "And I am an atheist" Not possible, that gave the first ha.


"My family give me foundation. The love for my parents, who gave me life, are what I go back to." Sure when it comes down to if limblifter happens to agree with it. Once that's thrown out the window, as Lindsay Buckingham would say, "Go your own way" and that's what ends up happening. Second Ha

"I don't do what I want when I want" Third and largest Ha of the quote. Liberal's are all about doing what they want when they want, it's 95% of what they fight so strongly for.

Here comes the "take a bow shall you". "I know that there will be consequences for every action that I take" Extremely against what liberals pretty much stand for. The idea is for consequences and punishments to be eliminated, unless it's straight forward gonna hurt "me". However, gotta respect that it's at least realized, not practiced, that not everything goes.

Two Ha's for his arrogant and degrading manor of saying "A God that doesn't exist" Which rather anyone likes it or not, IS an attack on me.

Finally the last Ha comes from limblifter thinking he got me.




Why must you always make personal attacks? I would advise you to read the rules of the board again.






Cat

Why must you always make personal attacks? I would advise you to read the rules of the board again.






Cat


Slap on the wrist for me, and where is the one for limblifter?

"I don't do what I want when I want"  Third and largest Ha of the quote.  Liberal's are all about doing what they want when they want, it's 95% of what they fight so strongly for.



And here you may call me digit-lifter.
:P

You sound like you got your ideas about liberalism from Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter.  I'll wager you don't really know what liberalism is.  Look up the difference between liberal and libertine, and do not confuse the two.

What I see with conservatives is a drive for the financial elite to be able to do whatever they want.  The financial elite shall define civil rights, criminal law, tax codes, moral values, and the truth itself.  The financial elite shall not be held accountable for their actions, while the rest of us get homilies about personal responsibility and 100 year jail sentences.  Rush Limbaugh shall be a junky and advocate draconian drug laws,  William Bennett shall scold the rest of us for our lack of family values and gamble away millions the capital of iniquities, Las Vegas.  So goes the plutocracy of the Right.  Frolicking in poppy fields for the rich, a hod full of bricks for the poor.
Fuggem all, that's what I say!

And here you may call me digit-lifter.
:P

You sound like you got your ideas about liberalism from Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter.  I'll wager you don't really know what liberalism is.  Look up the difference between liberal and libertine, and do not confuse the two.

What I see with conservatives is a drive for the financial elite to be able to do whatever they want.  The financial elite shall define civil rights, criminal law, tax codes, moral values, and the truth itself.  The financial elite shall not be held accountable for their actions, while the rest of us get homilies about personal responsibility and 100 year jail sentences.  Rush Limbaugh shall be a junky and advocate draconian drug laws,  William Bennett shall scold the rest of us for our lack of family values and gamble away millions the capital of iniquities, Las Vegas.  So goes the plutocracy of the Right.  Frolicking in poppy fields for the rich, a hod full of bricks for the poor.
Fuggem all, that's what I say!


I know what liberalism is, and most liberals of today are about as truly unliberal as they can get.  "Open Minded" yeah right.

Fuggem seems to be a rather popular quote.

Take a look at what's said here.

"I have all of the qualities you mentioned above" followed by    "And I am an atheist"  Not possible, that gave the first ha.


"My family give me foundation. The love for my parents, who gave me life, are what I go back to."  Sure when it comes down to if limblifter happens to agree with it. Once that's thrown out the window, as Lindsay Buckingham would say, "Go your own way" and that's what ends up happening.   Second Ha

"I don't do what I want when I want"  Third and largest Ha of the quote.  Liberal's are all about doing what they want when they want, it's 95% of what they fight so strongly for.

Here comes the "take a bow shall you".  "I know that there will be consequences for every action that I take"  Extremely against what liberals pretty much stand for. The idea is for consequences and punishments to be eliminated, unless it's straight forward gonna hurt "me".  However, gotta respect that it's at least realized, not practiced,  that not everything goes.

Two Ha's for his arrogant and degrading manor of saying "A God that doesn't exist"  Which rather anyone likes it or not, IS an attack on me.

Finally the last Ha comes from limblifter thinking he got me.



You can try to insult me all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you are a hypocrite. ;D


Forget it! I had written something in response to your garbage. But everything that you wrote above says more about who you really are, and how everyone sees you. Good luck with aaaaaalllll that!

If liberals aren't liberal then how are they liberals?

Liberal, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Independents,etc.... does it seem to matter? they all do or say what they think is right. and some things are so screwed up, it will go beyond our lifetime to fix them... if they can be fixed at all 

You can try to insult me all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you are a hypocrite. ;D


Forget it! I had written something in response to your garbage. But everything that you wrote above says more about who you really are, and how everyone sees you. Good luck with aaaaaalllll that!








Everyone?  Ask Bobby, Howard, Rocknrollfan, and GWBush2004 what they think of me, plus countless others, and it won't be the negative response your hoping for.  But I assume you'll only be looking at those who already had there opinions written in stone long before this topic even took place.

Fairy tale is all fine, but please explain to me how telling me that I pretty much believe in Santa Clause is "respect".

Secondly, please go further into the ways Jesus was a commie, I'm willing to read what your willing to type.


I can respect your right to believe in god, Santa Clause, or even the tooth fairy, and respect your right to voice your beliefs, without believing in any of them myself. 

Assuming that you are much more familiar with the New  Testament than I am, I would suggest you spend some time reading up on both Marx's writings and the literature on European Socialism.  As a professional academic the (very frugle) Vermont State College system pays me $18/ hour plus milage just to drive to off campus locations, and I never do research either for students, or for projects other than those I chose.

That said, isn't there something about the good samaritan?  I also recall something about rich men, camals, and the eye of a needle.

I can respect your right to believe in god, Santa Clause, or even the tooth fairy, and respect your right to voice your beliefs, without believing in any of them myself. 

Assuming that you are much more familiar with the New  Testament than I am, I would suggest you spend some time reading up on both Marx's writings and the literature on European Socialism.  As a professional academic the (very frugle) Vermont State College system pays me $18/ hour plus milage just to drive to off campus locations, and I never do research either for students, or for projects other than those I chose.

That said, isn't there something about the good samaritan?  I also recall something about rich men, camals, and the eye of a needle.


Marx as in Karl Marx?  European socialism? Such as the ancient Mesopotamians?  Egyptian civilization and veiws of faith? 

Marx as in Karl Marx?  European socialism? Such as the ancient Mesopotamians?  Egyptian civilization and veiws of faith? 


Yes, Marx as in Karl Maex, "the Moore".  European Socialism such as Sweden.

I also recall something about rich men, camals, and the eye of a needle.

According to some Rapture Ready, the eye of the needle was not a literal sewing needle, but a very narrow gate through the wall of the city of Jerusalem.  Other scholars have said the word "camel" itself is a mistranslation from the Greek word for "sailor's rope," or "cable."

http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq369.html

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=952041

Other scholars poo-poo the revision and says this one is indeed literal:

http://www.debunker.com/texts/needleye.html

I have heard both the passage and the cable theories several times before.  There are perhaps hundreds of linguistic discrepancies in ancient texts translated from Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, to early Modern English, to contemporary English.
What amuses  me is how ready funny-mentalists are to proclaim every word of the Bible is literally true--even in modern English--except Matthew 19:24, because the literal modern English translation is inconvenient for dogmatic rich people.
Hmmmmm....
::)

Yes, Marx as in Karl Maex, "the Moore".  European Socialism such as Sweden.

I'll look into it

According to some Rapture Ready, the eye of the needle was not a literal sewing needle, but a very narrow gate through the wall of the city of Jerusalem.  Other scholars have said the word "camel" itself is a mistranslation from the Greek word for "sailor's rope," or "cable."

http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq369.html

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=952041

Other scholars poo-poo the revision and says this one is indeed literal:

http://www.debunker.com/texts/needleye.html

I have heard both the passage and the cable theories several times before.  There are perhaps hundreds of linguistic discrepancies in ancient texts translated from Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, to early Modern English, to contemporary English.
What amuses  me is how ready funny-mentalists are to proclaim every word of the Bible is literally true--even in modern English--except Matthew 19:24, because the literal modern English translation is inconvenient for dogmatic rich people.
Hmmmmm....
::)


In part this is why I have refered to the "supposed teachings" of Jesus, although some biblical scholars have raised more fundamental issues regard his real message.

In part this is why I have refered to the "supposed teachings" of Jesus, although some biblical scholars have raised more fundamental issues regard his real message.


I think an extremely important thing to realize when looking at/questioning the situation is to realize that the Bible is not/nor can it be translated in formal equivalence. It's just not possible.  Dynamic equivalence, is the only method of translation souly because languages differ so much from one to the other.

I also don't think it's extremely important to analyze whether all stories of the Bible are archtype or prototype.  Learning from them is.

I think an extremely important thing to realize when looking at/questioning the situation is to realize that the Bible is not/nor can it be translated in formal equivalence. It's just not possible.  Dynamic equivalence, is the only method of translation souly because languages differ so much from one to the other.

I also don't think it's extremely important to analyze whether all stories of the Bible are archtype or prototype.  Learning from them is.


There are some biblical scholars (I am not such a scholar) who believe that the deciples got it all wrong.  Some suggest that Jesus was married to Mary Magdolin and that his real aim was to reintroduce the Godess into Jewish religion.  I have no way to judge these hypothosies, but some, at least, of the evidance they propose is interesting, if not convincing.