Posts 235 and 236.
#235:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->All these Jesus denigrating stories are US originated.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is wrong. Disbelief in historicity of jeebus is centuries upon centuries old. Even the Dutch School of Radical Criticism is much older than the US' rise to become superpower, let alone its recent interests in global control.
That jeebus is not in fact historic has long been argued - by theologians and ex-priests themselves. The truth is, there is no evidence for jeebus outside the babble and apocrypha; and there's sufficient evidence that he could not have existed as per the descriptions in the gospels. One could then still resort to the apocrypha - were they not so hopelessly mutually contradicting! And where they do agree, they do so only partially (like: no resurrection) whilst the rest of the same apocryphal document would disagree with all the others.
Which jeebus would people have us believe in then? The homosexual one as per one apocryphal gospel? The one where when he was a kid he killed other children (gospel of infancy of jeebus)? The many where he was never resurrected? The later Mandaean account where he was the false messiah and which told others to beware of him?
The jeebus that pronounced the sermon on the mount - which, it's been shown, no 1st century jeebus could have ever said? The one that had a miraculous birth which the early christians did not know about until the church invented it?
The Hindu version of jeebus is a purely imaginary one, where Hindus take a vague statement from the NT and then transform it into some idea and ideal recognisably Hindu. "Ah," says the Hindu (a past version of myself included), "how well jeebus agrees with the Hindu tradition. He was indeed a great teacher." Then you find out the history of that statement's evolution and that it has nothing to do with what you thought it meant.
And then you read things stated in other religions that do not speak in parables (<i>they</i> can't be construed in whichever way of the street the cat runs today, whereas NT statements can) and make clear their lessons instantly. At that point it is further underscored how much of that creation of jeebus we think of, is of our own making. Try finding <i>that</i> jesus back in any of the apocrypha - he's not there. He's certainly not there in the babble. Such a search is in vain.
What jeebus denigrating 'stories' are US originated? The one where he says you're his friend <i>if</i> you accept him, and are his enemy otherwise? That's biblical. The one where he threatens with eternal hellfire for such things as heresy, disbelief, using your rational mind, not upholding the Law of the OT? That's biblical too. The one whose promise of salvation hinges on your acceptance of his having died for you and everybody else - your non-acceptance is <i>ill-advised</i> (hear the crackling fires of hell in the background)? That's biblical too.
I can't imagine a worse jeebus than the one that threatens with never-ending punishment for relatively negatable offenses.
As for other denigrations of jeebus being invented in the US... certainly don't know about that.
In the first 3 years of catholic primary school in NL, the teachers asked us to sing the Our Father (to keep us occupied mostly) some days in the week. Those kids who <i>bothered</i> singing it did not sing the correct line "onze vader die in de hemel zijt" (our father who art in heaven) but audibly replaced the last word with something I won't repeat here but which rhymes. Think of the famous German equivalent. Yes, <i>that</i> word. The teachers heard of course, but never cared.
Did the US implant this sentiment in NL catholic schools? Or did the kids just get sick of the boring dude who spouted nonsense (parables) and was wholly irrelevant?
The kids who bothered to recite it, 'blasphemed' consistently, because they did not care about christianism, jeebus or gawd. And these were the kids of all-catholic parents - to the extent that their parents themselves might be christian (nominally so). After the first years the teachers were not interested in having us recite that again. By that time there was only apathy - no longer outright dislike - for anything jeebus-related. In general, they didn't <i>like</i> jeebus in NL, although there are religious pockets I hear. DE was little different.
As for US cases, can't make any generalisation. But my formerly christian friend regularly, absent-mindedly sings the apparently well-known Baptist ditty ('Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so'), but in an altered version that expresses his feelings: 'jeebus loves me this I know, for the babble tells me so. And if I don't love jeebus back, gawd is going to fry my back'. I don't know how the rest goes off the top of my head, but I've heard it once or twice and it is very amusing.
The US WASPy Plan did not bring that on either.
#236:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If the WASPS are reduced to attacking catholics with a media barrage on pedophile priests, it is a sign of impending doom.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->WASPs may do so selectively, by ignoring the vast number of cases of paedophilia in their own churches; but their coverage of the catholic church in the US is certainly not contrived. WASPys are thankful that the catholic church does not need to be framed and has instead made the hangman's noose to hang it with.
But as big as the US problem is, it has long existed in Europe's catholic churches. Only in the last few decades has it been publicised in the US, whereas in Europe the coverage has been consistent and constant for some time longer. (Even when we ignore the medieval accounts of similar depravity.)
The European news reports on this had nothing to do with any WASPy wish.
As regards the rest of the discussion in #234 to #238: the supposition seems quite reasonable, or maybe the US is merely trying to strengthen its own regions and subvert unified response of S and C America against US meddling.
#235:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->All these Jesus denigrating stories are US originated.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is wrong. Disbelief in historicity of jeebus is centuries upon centuries old. Even the Dutch School of Radical Criticism is much older than the US' rise to become superpower, let alone its recent interests in global control.
That jeebus is not in fact historic has long been argued - by theologians and ex-priests themselves. The truth is, there is no evidence for jeebus outside the babble and apocrypha; and there's sufficient evidence that he could not have existed as per the descriptions in the gospels. One could then still resort to the apocrypha - were they not so hopelessly mutually contradicting! And where they do agree, they do so only partially (like: no resurrection) whilst the rest of the same apocryphal document would disagree with all the others.
Which jeebus would people have us believe in then? The homosexual one as per one apocryphal gospel? The one where when he was a kid he killed other children (gospel of infancy of jeebus)? The many where he was never resurrected? The later Mandaean account where he was the false messiah and which told others to beware of him?
The jeebus that pronounced the sermon on the mount - which, it's been shown, no 1st century jeebus could have ever said? The one that had a miraculous birth which the early christians did not know about until the church invented it?
The Hindu version of jeebus is a purely imaginary one, where Hindus take a vague statement from the NT and then transform it into some idea and ideal recognisably Hindu. "Ah," says the Hindu (a past version of myself included), "how well jeebus agrees with the Hindu tradition. He was indeed a great teacher." Then you find out the history of that statement's evolution and that it has nothing to do with what you thought it meant.
And then you read things stated in other religions that do not speak in parables (<i>they</i> can't be construed in whichever way of the street the cat runs today, whereas NT statements can) and make clear their lessons instantly. At that point it is further underscored how much of that creation of jeebus we think of, is of our own making. Try finding <i>that</i> jesus back in any of the apocrypha - he's not there. He's certainly not there in the babble. Such a search is in vain.
What jeebus denigrating 'stories' are US originated? The one where he says you're his friend <i>if</i> you accept him, and are his enemy otherwise? That's biblical. The one where he threatens with eternal hellfire for such things as heresy, disbelief, using your rational mind, not upholding the Law of the OT? That's biblical too. The one whose promise of salvation hinges on your acceptance of his having died for you and everybody else - your non-acceptance is <i>ill-advised</i> (hear the crackling fires of hell in the background)? That's biblical too.
I can't imagine a worse jeebus than the one that threatens with never-ending punishment for relatively negatable offenses.
As for other denigrations of jeebus being invented in the US... certainly don't know about that.
In the first 3 years of catholic primary school in NL, the teachers asked us to sing the Our Father (to keep us occupied mostly) some days in the week. Those kids who <i>bothered</i> singing it did not sing the correct line "onze vader die in de hemel zijt" (our father who art in heaven) but audibly replaced the last word with something I won't repeat here but which rhymes. Think of the famous German equivalent. Yes, <i>that</i> word. The teachers heard of course, but never cared.
Did the US implant this sentiment in NL catholic schools? Or did the kids just get sick of the boring dude who spouted nonsense (parables) and was wholly irrelevant?
The kids who bothered to recite it, 'blasphemed' consistently, because they did not care about christianism, jeebus or gawd. And these were the kids of all-catholic parents - to the extent that their parents themselves might be christian (nominally so). After the first years the teachers were not interested in having us recite that again. By that time there was only apathy - no longer outright dislike - for anything jeebus-related. In general, they didn't <i>like</i> jeebus in NL, although there are religious pockets I hear. DE was little different.
As for US cases, can't make any generalisation. But my formerly christian friend regularly, absent-mindedly sings the apparently well-known Baptist ditty ('Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so'), but in an altered version that expresses his feelings: 'jeebus loves me this I know, for the babble tells me so. And if I don't love jeebus back, gawd is going to fry my back'. I don't know how the rest goes off the top of my head, but I've heard it once or twice and it is very amusing.
The US WASPy Plan did not bring that on either.
#236:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If the WASPS are reduced to attacking catholics with a media barrage on pedophile priests, it is a sign of impending doom.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->WASPs may do so selectively, by ignoring the vast number of cases of paedophilia in their own churches; but their coverage of the catholic church in the US is certainly not contrived. WASPys are thankful that the catholic church does not need to be framed and has instead made the hangman's noose to hang it with.
But as big as the US problem is, it has long existed in Europe's catholic churches. Only in the last few decades has it been publicised in the US, whereas in Europe the coverage has been consistent and constant for some time longer. (Even when we ignore the medieval accounts of similar depravity.)
The European news reports on this had nothing to do with any WASPy wish.
As regards the rest of the discussion in #234 to #238: the supposition seems quite reasonable, or maybe the US is merely trying to strengthen its own regions and subvert unified response of S and C America against US meddling.