Theocracy was never a part of Jesus' teachings. Hypocrites, however, have been around forever.

Believe it or not, there are even some among atheists.

#5

Sounds like fun, but it's more fun to watch either the Rams or GB lose.

Both would be nice.

#9 |

Well, spit it out, boy, don't be shy.

The Roman Empire, for just one example of many or most, had a religious hierarchy, but it was not the supreme power of the state. Surely you can think of other examples, oh, say like the US, now or since 1776.

This might be a good time to note that the leading advocates of abolition were liberal Christians, both here and in Europe, as an example of what they were up to when the hypocrites among them weren't supporting the moneyed elite like they are now.

Political violence, historically, is about the wealthy elite advancing their own concerns for money, resources, land, and power, with religion often as as excuse.... just like it is now.

My friend Snoofy's comment inferred both religious and non-religious with "if God is on your side", also referencing the side God might not be on. And he's perfectly capable of responding appropriately, which he did, with no help at all.

I have called BS, er, I mean whataboutism as a logical fallacy when it is done every time on every thread on a particular subject by a particular poster, like MB with But Antifa! on a white supremacist thread, or Sentinel with But Swastikas! on... hey, also on a white supremist thread... which isn't the same thing as mentioning it here.

= We can get into why you are wrong

Did you want to get into that in the original koin Greek and Aramaic, or in an 500 year old English translation?

koine ... my e stuck

- Until the great experiment of the new world, theocracy was all there was.

You might want to consult your dictionary...

#15 |

Ah... characterization in lieu of argument. Is that you, Laura?

- dead dilects Jesus never even heard (dialects, one assumes)

Jesus spoke Aramaic in everyday life. Ask any scholar. He also read and spoke Hebrew from scripture. Luke, who wrote most of the Gospels, and Paul who wrote most of the rest of the NT, used the common Greek.

#16

And Donnie jumps in about how all the Roman Emperors really thought they were Gods and weren't just playing to the common people; using religion to further their personal and political goals. You also might want to consult a scholar or three.

#19

Theocracy was never a part of Jesus' teachings. Hypocrites, however, have been around forever. (see #3)

#22

The church, with people in charge, was never meant to be a theocracy, you are correct.

And again correct that it wasn't supposed to be the series of supposed rules that people have made it. My pastor was talking about her gay friends from the pulpit the other day. She's much more pissed off with her Catholic friends, lol.

#24

It makes me appreciate the breaks we get.

- the two wolves

That's about my favorite Native American story... it's basically the new testament in less than 100 words.

- Atheists are hypocrites.

More like snowflakes, really. Bring them up and they get all verklempt.

- What does that even mean.

It means the real power of the state; was it "the Gods" that ruled Rome, or the men who said they were related to Gods and went about their bidness making a profit. Scholars, unlike yourself, say it was the latter.

- Paul that never met Jesus

Ah, Ray is back from the dead!

- Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.

As is apparent from the original in context is that Paul, and John, didn't want Christians to live in rebellion and lawlessness even when there were evil governments.

"But Paul Never Met Jesus" And Other Bad Arguments About Paul On The Internet"

- So Paul is telling his people to break the law whilst simultaneously telling them to preach that other people shouldn't break the law.

So much misunderstanding would appear to be intentional.

- Nero really let us all down there.

Proof that it's intentional.

- There is no difference between a ruler appointed by god and one who says he is appointed by god if people are willing to believe god appoints leaders.

Duh... yeah there is. The first is an actual theocracy, the second is playing at theocracy... like Mao.

- As the article points out

As I pointed out, the article is about the same kind of hypocrites Jesus encountered and condemned in his day.

- outlandish, incoherent, destructive nonsense.

You start with a premise, and all your so-called arguments are just to confirm that bias.

Here, I'll let a couple of atheists and an agnostic tell you how badly that sucks:

"Ultimately, the problem with militant neo-atheism is that it represents a profound category error. Explaining religion - or, indeed, the human experience - in scientific terms is futile.

"It would be as bizarre as to launch a scientific investigation into the truth of Anna Karenina or love," de Botton says.

"It's a symptom of the misplaced confidence of science . . . It's a kind of category error. It's a fatally wrong question and the more you ask it, the more you come up with bizarre and odd answers."

#34

See #33.

Also, you are babbling now... OK, you were babbling before, just not as prolifically.

- No one posting here even really knows if Jesus actually existed much less what he spoke about or taught

Here, maybe, lol. But among scholars of history it's not even a question.

The prepubescence is strong in these ones, as is the fear of those things their biases don't confirm.

And the broad brush strokes confirm it, as does the selective editing.

Not automatically, earned via asinine posts.

- a glorified cult.

The fear and defensiveness just drips off of you, in characterization rather than argument.

But one supposes that "Love one another" and Love your neighbor as your self" could be seen as a horrible philosophy.

Perhaps I should assign to you all the deaths over the last century or so from atheist leaders like Mao, Pol Pot, or Stalin?

Naw, that would be stupid.

- a cult

Still with the ad hominen. Guess that's what logical fallacies are for; when you have no real argument.

One could claim that the atheists and their leaders I mentioned above belong to a cult.

But that would also be stupid.

- I didn't do that.

You continue to assign me to what you call a cult. You did do that.

I could do the same, but I'm not quite that stupid.

And I'm not even one of the rwing "christians" the article is about. Like you aren't one of Mao's or Stalin's atheist followers.... oh, wait, maybe you are!

You continue with your broad brush name calling. It says more about you than about me.

#60

Don't be Dad, Angry.

It's only somewhat surprising to see the same people making the same Category Errors over and over again.

SO, J PWhipped, did those lab results ever come back telling you whether or not your significant other really loves you?

I mean, since only science has the answer to every question and all.

Truth is that:

"Ultimately, the problem with militant neo-atheism is that it represents a profound category error. Explaining religion - or, indeed, the human experience - in scientific terms is futile.

"It would be as bizarre as to launch a scientific investigation into the truth of Anna Karenina or love," de Botton (an atheist) says.

"It's a symptom of the misplaced confidence of science . . . It's a kind of category error. It's a fatally wrong question and the more you ask it, the more you come up with bizarre and odd answers."

see link #33

I love science, it's great for a lot of things, but not everything. Most scientists know it's limits and don't think that it answers all questions. As a matter of fact, much of science is "accepted theory" as scientists understand that in many cases they have some evidence, and some proofs, but they don't have all the facts to move beyond calling something a theory or an accepted theory.

Then we have those who say that if we don't agree with their Category Error, then we belong to, "a cult".

There is plenty of evidence of order in what could have well been a universe of chaos... last year's Nobel Price Winner figured that the odds of that order occurring naturally to be as close to zero as one can get. Yet any theory of why that order exists, such as multiverses, string theory, or living in a computer simulation are better to some than the theory that order was created.

As much damage as fundamentalism has done to the credibility of religion or politics, say communism, socialism, or atheism, it does not negate the theories themselves.

I've been as hard or harder on fundamentalist "christians" than anyone here. Yet I get called a cultist for having beliefs that are different from some agnostics and or atheists. Should I start calling them, "Neo-Atheist cultists"?

That would be just as stupid as what they do.

#88

Neo-Agnostic cultist.

One who is poorly educated in definitions:

How To Tell A Cult From A Religion?

"Ahead, we spoke with cult researcher and author Janja Lalich, Ph.D., professor emerita of sociology at California State University, Chico, about the key distinctions, explicit and implicit, between legitimate religions and cults."

More practical proofs and evidences

- contradictory thinking

Would apparently be what you call "thinking".

You have faith in your significant other... you also have evidence and proofs of that faith.

You believe that your car will stop when you apply the brakes... it's happened so often that now you have faith that it will.
You also have the evidence that supports that faith with the brake job done last week.

Really, you've crossed the border of the ridiculous here.

- laughable link

No argument, just characterization.... wait, is that you, Laura?