New Book Upsets Christians

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Hell, at least Dogma had a good message. I loved Dogma.

[Guest JMA]

I think SP has the right idea. Any Christian worth his or her salt won't take this book very seriously. Because they're secure in their faith. The people boycotting this don't seem to be very secure in their faith. I have no problem with them boycotting. I do, however, have a problem with a group of people trying to keep this book off the shelves. That's the decision of individual bookstores. And again, books written by Coulter are libelous, slanderous, and downright stupid. But I don't see people organizing boycotts against them. I still maintain that this is just a parody of an iconic religious figure with post-modern things thrown in.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

But for me to come in and have basically every one of my opinions shot down as "close-minded" is just ignorant.

The first thing you wrote in this thread was:

religion is bullshit

If you don't think that's close-minded, you're just ignorant.

[Guest Eagan469]

Spicy - you're not making sense.

 

You're saying that I'm close-minded for questioning the beliefs of billions of people.

 

I would say that's pretty damn open-minded, especially when I have to argue here against a bunch of stubborn hypocrites that can't think outside the box and forsake their religion for one measly conversation.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

You're just ignorant.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

You're saying that I'm close-minded for questioning the beliefs of billions of people.

 

I would say that's pretty damn open-minded, especially when I have to argue here against a bunch of stubborn hypocrites that can't think outside the box and forsake their religion for one measly conversation.

 

...

 

You're saying everyone's wrong and refuse to believe for one second that they could, possibly be right.

 

And you're calling yourself open minded.

 

If irony was... fuck, Ripper, help me out here.

[Guest SP-1]

Just let him keep talking, Tyler. If you keep reading, it lends some kind of importance to the ignorance. Replying certainly isn't going to help the thread die, yo.

[Guest Eagan469]

Eagan: The sky is blue.

 

Tyler: Prove it.

 

Spicy: He can't, what a dumbass!

 

TheMike: The sky is navy blue! Can't you be more specific? Go fuck Prince Paul!

 

Ripper: If irony was a noun, then it would fit into my sentences RIGHT NOW!

[chaosrage 0]

1.  Anyone who is using the Bible to preach hate and violence isn't a Christian. 

 

You're joking, right? Either that or you haven't read the OT.

 

I'll give you that clue free, the rest should be pretty easy to figure out if you ever read the New Testament.  Which, by the way, those using the Bible to preach hate are probably taking OLD Testament things vastly out of context and forgetting about the NEW COVENANT (New!) that is the basis for the growth of the Jewish faith into Christianity in the first place. 

 

Well whoop-de-fucking-do, if it wasn't for the OT, there wouldn't even be a NT. The OT IS still part of the bible, isn't it?

 

2.  It's a book.  There are lots of other books that preach anti-Christian messages.  Jesus was not a pot-head.  A Christian with a Bible and a heart can figure this out.  Tell the truth to those who don't know it.  Love those who reject it anyway.  This we are called to do.  There are bigger and more important causes in the world to champion right now if you are a Christian.  The Bible tells us that all will know He is God in the end, whether they want to or not.  Another book by a human author who will fade away is not going to change that eternal truth that Christians are supposed to hold dear.

 

Eternal truth? I don't care what you believe in, but when you try to act like there's no way you could possibly be wrong, you can't be taken seriously. You sound like you're ready to dismiss arguments before you even hear them.

 

How can people just skip over posts like this and jump all over Eagan?

[chaosrage 0]

By almost ALL historical accounts, Jesus of Nazareth was a real person and did live for about 33 years. He was, by the best account of most historians, a very real person. So, the author is attacking a real person.

 

If Jesus is the son of God IS an article of faith, but his actual existence is not too much in question.

That must be why all history books only say that a man named Jesus MAY have lived around that time. There's no real evidence that he ever existed. Also the fact that Jesus has a lot in common with earlier myths (See Mithra) like most of the OT stories seems to be a big hint that he didn't. He's not even in the Roman execution records.

[Firestarter 0]

How can people just skip over posts like this and jump all over Eagan?

Because Eagan's a moron.

 

Seriously, though, the funniest thing in this thread was Tyler and Mike claiming that passages they haven't read in a book they'll never buy are grounds to sue the author for libel - on behalf of someone who, even if he did exist at some point, died almost 2000 years ago and has no estate and no living relatives. Unless you think you can make a case for the Catholic Church receiving damages in Jesus's stead?

 

Guys, even if you could find some lunatic Christian version of the 9th Circuit somewhere, you'd be laughed out of court. "Ridiculous" doesn't do the idea justice. It's one of the most spectacular pinnacles of silliness I've ever seen in my life.

 

Oddly enough, the only Christian who made any sort of sense at all was SpiderPoet. That's a rather sad commentary on you lot.

 

And no, there's no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Not one scrap. And if you are a Christian there doesn't need to be.

 

Shut your ignorant mouths.

Edited September 21, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Guest Eagan469]

That's the thing. I didn't come here to post about the book, I just came here to fuck around with the religious types that I knew would see the article about it and flip out.

 

And flip out they did.

 

En masse.

[Firestarter 0]

Wonderful, now go away. You're almost enough to drive me back to the Church.

[Guest Eagan469]

Right away, Captain.

 

Man the sails! We're headed back to sanity!

[chaosrage 0]

How can people just skip over posts like this and jump all over Eagan?

Because Eagan's a moron.

But SP does the same damn thing. I don't have a problem with people jumping Eagan. Just don't leave everyone else out.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Hey, his posts are alright sometimes, when you get past the vague mysticism and hallucinations.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Seriously, though, the funniest thing in this thread was Tyler and Mike claiming that passages they haven't read in a book they'll never buy are grounds to sue the author for libel

I pulled that Carville quote about righties boycotting movies they've never seen out of my ass after reading 1 and a half pages. It sure became more profound pages later.

[Guest Boo_Bradley]

Not that anyone actually cares, but this is the longest thread I've ever started... hmmm

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Ripper: If irony was a noun, then it would fit into my sentences RIGHT NOW!

irony

 

noun 1: witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid" [syn: sarcasm, satire, caustic remark]

 

Wonderful, now go away. You're almost enough to drive me back to the Church.

You're out again?

 

I pulled that Carville quote about righties boycotting movies they've never seen out of my ass after reading 1 and a half pages.

Kind of like lefties and The Passion.

[Guest SP-1]

Yes, because I'm the only person who has convictions and approaches them from a standpoint of, "They are the truth."

 

If you believe in something without believing it's the truth, then I'd say you've a weak stance no matter what it is.

 

chaos, I'm going to give you a free pass on your OT comments. I'm a Pastoral Ministries major at a Christian university, smack in the middle of Old Testament Survey. I think I'm probably a tad more familiar with Christian doctrine and the Old Testament than most people are.

 

Christians must consider the Old and New Testaments together. A Christian that is preaching violence and hate based on the OT alone has missed it's point entirely, and probably hasn't cracked the NT seriously in quite some time.

 

Now, if you'd like to compare lecture notes with me sometime, I'd love to. I enjoy seeing how it's interpereted by others.

[Firestarter 0]

Wonderful, now go away. You're almost enough to drive me back to the Church.

You're out again?

At least until the damn Pope dies. To paraphrase Sir Humphrey Appleby, though, it doesn't seem like the Lord's all that keen for him to join Him.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Of course you realize a good number of people, wanting to revert to the pre-Vatican II days, think the Pope is too liberal. We could end up with someone more conservative.

[Styles 0]

But SP does the same damn thing. I don't have a problem with people jumping Eagan. Just don't leave everyone else out.

Because SP is simply defending his religious beliefs which are under attack (whether you agree with him or not) while Eagen has openly stated he's here to antagonize those who hold religious beliefs. I would say it's grounds for a banning but if I did, and irony was rain, we'd all have our wedding day...or something...

[Firestarter 0]

Of course you realize a good number of people, wanting to revert to the pre-Vatican II days, think the Pope is too liberal. We could end up with someone more conservative.

I'll settle for anyone who can take a shit by himself. Anyone who doesn't think he'll be judged by the number of people he saints. Hell, I'll settle for anyone who doesn't look like a three year-old corpse and can get through more than five words of a speech without having a fucking aneurysm.

 

Taking a moral stand against raping children would be kind of nice, too, but it is the Catholic Church, so I'm not getting my hopes up.

[Firestarter 0]

Oh, and I'd also appreciate it if the next Pope was capable of understanding that waging a war to remove an insane dictator from power and NOT letting him and his spawn rape, murder, torture, starve, and enslave the population of an entire country is a GOOD thing. Y'know, all that shit in the Bible about acting righteously and protecting the weak from the evil?

 

"Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked."

- Psalms 82:3-4

[Guest JMA]

Kind of like lefties and The Passion.

I thought Jews were the ones boycotting that. And for some reason all the gay guys my mother knows boycott Mel Gibson movies...

 

I believe Gibson's father is anti-semetic (Gibson himself has apologized for his behavior on occasion). I can't speak for other liberals, but I really don't care much about the movie. I actually like the story of Christ as I like many other tales from religions. It's unique and inspiring. I don't believe a lot of things about it, but I still like it. And if you're wondering, I think Jesus WAS based on a real person. There isn't much evidence for that, but it's something I believe. And I'm an Atheist.

[Guest JMA]

Oh, and I'd also appreciate it if the next Pope was capable of understanding that waging a war to remove an insane dictator from power and NOT letting him and his spawn rape, murder, torture, starve, and enslave the population of an entire country is a GOOD thing. Y'know, all that shit in the Bible about acting righteously and protecting the weak from the evil?

 

"Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked."

- Psalms 82:3-4

Didn't the Church take a similar stance in WWII?

[Firestarter 0]

Worse. Before, during, and after World War II, the Catholic Church actively collaborated with the Nazis. After all, they were killing Jews, and like the rest of Europe, the Church didn't have much of a problem with that.

Edited September 21, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Guest Eagan469]

Because SP is simply defending his religious beliefs which are under attack (whether you agree with him or not) while Eagen has openly stated he's here to antagonize those who hold religious beliefs. I would say it's grounds for a banning but if I did, and irony was rain, we'd all have our wedding day...or something...

It's a message board, lighten up.

 

Whatever I said in this thread are my own personal beliefs.

 

If you're offended by them, it's not my problem.

[Anakin Flair 0]

Kind of like lefties and The Passion.

I thought Jews were the ones boycotting that. And for some reason all the gay guys my mother knows boycott Mel Gibson movies...

 

I believe Gibson's father is anti-semetic (Gibson himself has apologized for his behavior on occasion). I can't speak for other liberals, but I really don't care much about the movie. I actually like the story of Christ as I like many other tales from religions. It's unique and inspiring. I don't believe a lot of things about it, but I still like it. And if you're wondering, I think Jesus WAS based on a real person. There isn't much evidence for that, but it's something I believe. And I'm an Atheist.

I thought the Jes and the Catholics were boycotting this movie due to the portrale (sp?) of Jesus.