Orgies for Jesus

Orgy[Site editor’s note: The following is an excerpt from the new Disinformation title 50 Things You’re Not Supposed To Know: Religion, authored by Daniele Bolelli.]

What if Christian theology dismissed the virgin birth and other miracles as fairy tales? What if your pastor/priest told you to flush the Ten Commandments down the toilet and instead live life to the fullest? What if Sunday service at your local church consisted in a juicy orgy? All of this could have happened had Carpocrates had his way.

Carpo … who? The lead character in our story was the leader of a second century Christian community based in the Greek islands. Back in those days, early Christians couldn’t agree on just about anything. Official Christian doctrine hadn’t been fully established yet, so an extremely wide range of opinions and teachings fell under the label of “Christianity.” The only thing they had in common was that they all thought Jesus was a cool guy. Other than that, everything else was up for debate since they couldn’t even agree on which books should become official scriptures. Some Christians believed their religion was to remain exclusively for Jewish people. Others wanted to open it to all ethnicities. Some believed Jesus and God were one. Others were far from sold about this. Some were strict ascetics. Others enjoyed a very sensual life. Some promoted women as leaders within their groups. Others felt women were good to cook dinner and make babies, but religious leaders? Ha!

In the midst of this very chaotic beginning, Carpocrates emerged as a particularly charismatic preacher, who soon attracted enough of a following as to give birth to his own branch of Christianity. His ideas were just a tad on the wild side. Jesus—Carpocrates argued—was as human as anyone else. He was a visionary whose brilliance and wisdom put him in touch with God, but was not God himself. This didn’t diminish Jesus’s status in Carpocrates’s eyes, since it set him up as a model of behavior that regular human beings could hope to emulate. The whole story of the virgin birth made Carpocrates laugh. In his view, good old Jesus was conceived in the old fashioned way: through sweaty sex. The depth of Jesus’s wisdom was enough for Carpocrates to admire and love him, so he felt no need for any supernatural special effects.

Since this beginning was apparently not controversial enough, Carpocrates promptly taught his followers to reject Mosaic Law as well as the prevailing morality of his times as mere human opinions, not divine commandments. A goodie-goodie morality was according to Carpocrates nothing but a cage built by those who were too scared by life’s intensity. The soul could only achieve freedom and fulfillment by experiencing all of life, without discriminating too much. Only in this way, it would free itself from the cycle of reincarnation …

Oh, yeah, did I forget to mention that? Carpocrates’s followers—like the members of many other early Christian sects—fully believed in reincarnation. And just like several tantric schools found in the history of both Hinduism and Buddhism, they also believed that human beings should explore every emotion without holding back. Sensual pleasure in their eyes was not any less sacred than the most spiritual practices, so good food, sex and every other earthly joy was embraced as a stepping stone toward liberation.

This determination to live life to the fullest went hand in hand with another radical notion. Carp considered differences in wealth and social class as unnatural perversions. Since everyone is born naked and equal in front of God, human attempts to gain status at the expense of others were misguided and ultimately against God’s plan. The cure for the very human tendency toward ego aggrandizing was to discourage the evil of private property. Instead, everything—from material possessions to sexual partners—was to be held in common. Coupled with Carp’s insistence on indulging in sensual pleasures, this idea led his followers to regularly stage sexual orgies as part of their spiritual practices … which makes you wonder: just how different would the world be had mainstream forms of Christianity decided to embrace Carpocrates rather than stern moralists like Saint Paul and Saint Augustine? I think it’s a safe bet that church attendance would be much higher.

, , , , , , ,

  • JaceD

    Now this is a form of Christianity I could believe in!

  • Anonymous

    Now this is a form of Christianity I could believe in!

  • GoodDoktorBad

    Oooh, Rock me Carpocrates!!!

  • Anonymous

    Oooh, Rock me Carpocrates!!!

  • Ronniedobbs

    coming for the second coming

    • Nononym

      Hmmmmmmm…….they say Jesus loves me, but then, why won’t he swallow? 

      • Ronniedobbs

        because making mouth babies is just as bad as abortion, duh

        • BurningTightRope

          amazing 5 likes + 3 likes on 2 completely off thread and pointlessly ignorant statements. at least bolelli is TRYING to say something intelligent. is this what you boil the intellect of your anti-christian paganism down to? is this any indication of what this site is filled with, gutter mouths simply trash talking and mocking what they claim to ‘choose’ to not believe in? where’s the ‘dislike’ button? 

          sorry guys. did i make a mistake by assuming that people who don’t believe religion can actually have some sense of taste and equal respect for the people we disagree with? this sort of mockery is every bit as intolerant as so many claim ‘they’ are against us. compared to this, a philosophy that says  ‘love one another’ doesn’t sound so ‘off’ . 

          is it possible for us to believe differently without base and ignorant verbal hostility? i’m really wanting to know.

          • oeden

            yes, I remember when Disinfo came out many years ago.  It put out tight, well researched pieces.  Now it is a mix between Raw and FOX.  

          • A Christian

            I think DisInfo draws in the anti-establishment types by its very nature, and some would say America is still in some sense a Christian institution.  Basically, people here want drastic change and some seem to have targeted that at Christianity as much as at the fiscal dealings of our Gov’t.  That and many here lean to the left which has historically been the majority of non Christians in the United States.

          • Aphroditeskiss

            “…America is still in some sense a Christian institution….”

            Actually, America has NEVER been a Christian institution. If you look at the founding documents (such as the Constitution), they clearly state that there will not be a set religion for the country, and that the right to worship (or not) as you will is yours, and you are not answerable for that to any government-run institution. Between that and the fact that the majority of the Founding Fathers were either agnostic or atheist does not hold up to this silly idea that America is a “Christian nation”.

          • A Christian

            Actually there were some Atheists and Agnostics but by no means a majority.  The constitutional view of inherent equality of human freedoms and life drew from the Christian moral foundation.  By a Christian institution I was refering to the influence and majority of the population, not a legalistic binding sense.  Trying to redact history because of your disdain for Christianity is not only ignorant but pointless.

          • Aphroditeskiss

            “…America is still in some sense a Christian institution….”

            Actually, America has NEVER been a Christian institution. If you look at the founding documents (such as the Constitution), they clearly state that there will not be a set religion for the country, and that the right to worship (or not) as you will is yours, and you are not answerable for that to any government-run institution. Between that and the fact that the majority of the Founding Fathers were either agnostic or atheist does not hold up to this silly idea that America is a “Christian nation”.

          • Aphroditeskiss

            If Christians had respect for those who don’t believe in God, we would likely have more respect for them/you.
            Also, there are very few modern Christians who actually practice the love one another ideal. Most are highly judgmental and proselytizing. 

            Personally, I do think it would be possible for both sides to engage in an open debate, if Christians would lay down their weapons. I realize there are plenty of antagonistic atheists out there; however, most of the  venom and utter hatred comes from the Christian camp. 

          • BurningTightRope

            @Aphroditeskiss – Aside from your point being bias and over generalized, lumping all christians into a certain ilk, you do have some points. — I consider myself a “recovering christian” and have returned to a largely agnostic point of view. That said, I think I’m very qualified to speak on both sides of the issue. I’ll never forget on the very first day that I became a christian, the only thing I said to my long standing, close friends was that I was born-again. INSTANTLY they shunned me without a word. And from that point on largely treated me like an outsider, though I did not disrespect them, judge them or proselytize or preach at them. Ha! I even kindly passed the joints while I hung out with them. But they gave up on me pretty fast. —- They had an instant prejudice without my saying a word, despite them having known (and “loved”) me for several years prior. From that point I was ongoingly ostracized. It was this action on their part which largely drove me into exclusively christian subcultural circles. There is NO QUESTION of that. Not to mention, anytime I did try to talk about my change of life (not witnessing ;-p) – but just about my head, like normal people, the other person almost always turned my experience into their argument and put me on the defensive. It was unreal, I couldn’t say “hi” to an old friend on the street without getting blasted with psuedo-scientific atheism just for answering their question “so what have you been up to?”.

            Your simple presupposing about people who believe in christianity is incredibly knee-jerk and common. On one hand, yes – there are believers who cause this kind of reaction. I ran into them ad nauseam and equally (as a believer) couldn’t stand them. So your point is taken, but you fail to see that non-christians also have their weapons loaded and cocked as a paranoid precaution as they / we are constantly looking for a fight. It’s unrealistic to make statements that say that Christians in general disrespect, or that “very few” actually practice “love one another” or that “most” are highly judgmental and proselytizing or that “most of the venom and utter hatred” comes from the Christian camp. In my experience for 30 years observing both sides, ANY over generalizing of either camp is simply wrong. Doing so is subjective and slanted and exacerbates the problem. All christians and all people are not static, nor the same. Everyone grows and changes and is on the exact same search to find happiness and balance in ones inner heart and life – no matter what or how we believe. (unless we are truly defective somehow and are utterly sociopathic and violent).

            One of my biggest arguments on the whole topic is that atheists, christians, pagans, and any sort of believers are PEOPLE first and foremost; and the root of problems, for ALL who practice any ideology, comes from being human. Period. Non-believers are so fond of pointing at all sorts of ill behavior by alleged christians in the name of God, but they almost always fail to see that it does not matter what a human believes or attempts to practice, as all humans fail and all humans are duped, and all humans are ultimately self serving and self preserving. We’re all victims of nature and nurture. —– I have experienced a percentage of ill behavior, by a smaller percentage of christian labeled people, but I cannot count every christian throughout history, nor through every season or trial of life, as fucked up. My bad experiences have been at the hands of a few, behaving in very human ways that have caused my displeasure. While they have used God as their justification, their actions were purely animal driven by their own selfish ambitions and personalities. —– Point being, no matter what the belief system, humans behave like humans. It’s simply bigotry to label any general group of people as being more to blame of ill behavior. That’s a large part of why religion evolved in the first place, society trying to find a less easily refutable reason for people to behave better toward one another. Emphasizing the concept of “god(s)” and the unknown / “supernatural” simply made sense for saying “you don’t like social rules of general conduct for all ? – take it up with god” – humans will always battle with other humans who put forth rules of order. The existence of god is still hard to argue, since NO ONE CAN REALLY KNOW —  Regardless of choosing not to believe. 

            My disdain with behavior on this site, as far as mockery and name calling and generalization of any group that is made up of somewhat free thinking individuals, is what I see as one of my reasons for remaining on the spiritual fence. If unbelievers generally acted better than believers, I might be swayed – but it turns out they are no less or more fucking human than the christians they loathe. And that’s why Paul says “ALL are GUILTY and fall short of the glory of God”. “God” can act as a mechanism for a person to aspire to a higher state of being or to at least practice not doing wrong out of fear of punishment. Whatever the method – it’s ’cause PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY SELFISH and can be pretty fucked up to one another, whether they try to follow christianity or not. When the do, sometimes they succeed to act altruistically, sometimes, by human nature, they don’t.

            The simplicity of “love one another” is a non-religious ideal. What’s your excuse? What’s my excuse? In both camps I’m SICK of the air of “we’re more superior than them” – “we’re NOT”.

          • BurningTightRope

            @Aphroditeskiss – Aside from your point being bias and over generalized, lumping all christians into a certain ilk, you do have some points. — I consider myself a “recovering christian” and have returned to a largely agnostic point of view. That said, I think I’m very qualified to speak on both sides of the issue. I’ll never forget on the very first day that I became a christian, the only thing I said to my long standing, close friends was that I was born-again. INSTANTLY they shunned me without a word. And from that point on largely treated me like an outsider, though I did not disrespect them, judge them or proselytize or preach at them. Ha! I even kindly passed the joints while I hung out with them. But they gave up on me pretty fast. —- They had an instant prejudice without my saying a word, despite them having known (and “loved”) me for several years prior. From that point I was ongoingly ostracized. It was this action on their part which largely drove me into exclusively christian subcultural circles. There is NO QUESTION of that. Not to mention, anytime I did try to talk about my change of life (not witnessing ;-p) – but just about my head, like normal people, the other person almost always turned my experience into their argument and put me on the defensive. It was unreal, I couldn’t say “hi” to an old friend on the street without getting blasted with psuedo-scientific atheism just for answering their question “so what have you been up to?”.

            Your simple presupposing about people who believe in christianity is incredibly knee-jerk and common. On one hand, yes – there are believers who cause this kind of reaction. I ran into them ad nauseam and equally (as a believer) couldn’t stand them. So your point is taken, but you fail to see that non-christians also have their weapons loaded and cocked as a paranoid precaution as they / we are constantly looking for a fight. It’s unrealistic to make statements that say that Christians in general disrespect, or that “very few” actually practice “love one another” or that “most” are highly judgmental and proselytizing or that “most of the venom and utter hatred” comes from the Christian camp. In my experience for 30 years observing both sides, ANY over generalizing of either camp is simply wrong. Doing so is subjective and slanted and exacerbates the problem. All christians and all people are not static, nor the same. Everyone grows and changes and is on the exact same search to find happiness and balance in ones inner heart and life – no matter what or how we believe. (unless we are truly defective somehow and are utterly sociopathic and violent).

            One of my biggest arguments on the whole topic is that atheists, christians, pagans, and any sort of believers are PEOPLE first and foremost; and the root of problems, for ALL who practice any ideology, comes from being human. Period. Non-believers are so fond of pointing at all sorts of ill behavior by alleged christians in the name of God, but they almost always fail to see that it does not matter what a human believes or attempts to practice, as all humans fail and all humans are duped, and all humans are ultimately self serving and self preserving. We’re all victims of nature and nurture. —– I have experienced a percentage of ill behavior, by a smaller percentage of christian labeled people, but I cannot count every christian throughout history, nor through every season or trial of life, as fucked up. My bad experiences have been at the hands of a few, behaving in very human ways that have caused my displeasure. While they have used God as their justification, their actions were purely animal driven by their own selfish ambitions and personalities. —– Point being, no matter what the belief system, humans behave like humans. It’s simply bigotry to label any general group of people as being more to blame of ill behavior. That’s a large part of why religion evolved in the first place, society trying to find a less easily refutable reason for people to behave better toward one another. Emphasizing the concept of “god(s)” and the unknown / “supernatural” simply made sense for saying “you don’t like social rules of general conduct for all ? – take it up with god” – humans will always battle with other humans who put forth rules of order. The existence of god is still hard to argue, since NO ONE CAN REALLY KNOW —  Regardless of choosing not to believe. 

            My disdain with behavior on this site, as far as mockery and name calling and generalization of any group that is made up of somewhat free thinking individuals, is what I see as one of my reasons for remaining on the spiritual fence. If unbelievers generally acted better than believers, I might be swayed – but it turns out they are no less or more fucking human than the christians they loathe. And that’s why Paul says “ALL are GUILTY and fall short of the glory of God”. “God” can act as a mechanism for a person to aspire to a higher state of being or to at least practice not doing wrong out of fear of punishment. Whatever the method – it’s ’cause PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY SELFISH and can be pretty fucked up to one another, whether they try to follow christianity or not. When the do, sometimes they succeed to act altruistically, sometimes, by human nature, they don’t.

            The simplicity of “love one another” is a non-religious ideal. What’s your excuse? What’s my excuse? In both camps I’m SICK of the air of “we’re more superior than them” – “we’re NOT”.

          • BurningTightRope

            @Aphroditeskiss – Aside from your point being bias and over generalized, lumping all christians into a certain ilk, you do have some points. — I consider myself a “recovering christian” and have returned to a largely agnostic point of view. That said, I think I’m very qualified to speak on both sides of the issue. I’ll never forget on the very first day that I became a christian, the only thing I said to my long standing, close friends was that I was born-again. INSTANTLY they shunned me without a word. And from that point on largely treated me like an outsider, though I did not disrespect them, judge them or proselytize or preach at them. Ha! I even kindly passed the joints while I hung out with them. But they gave up on me pretty fast. —- They had an instant prejudice without my saying a word, despite them having known (and “loved”) me for several years prior. From that point I was ongoingly ostracized. It was this action on their part which largely drove me into exclusively christian subcultural circles. There is NO QUESTION of that. Not to mention, anytime I did try to talk about my change of life (not witnessing ;-p) – but just about my head, like normal people, the other person almost always turned my experience into their argument and put me on the defensive. It was unreal, I couldn’t say “hi” to an old friend on the street without getting blasted with psuedo-scientific atheism just for answering their question “so what have you been up to?”.

            Your simple presupposing about people who believe in christianity is incredibly knee-jerk and common. On one hand, yes – there are believers who cause this kind of reaction. I ran into them ad nauseam and equally (as a believer) couldn’t stand them. So your point is taken, but you fail to see that non-christians also have their weapons loaded and cocked as a paranoid precaution as they / we are constantly looking for a fight. It’s unrealistic to make statements that say that Christians in general disrespect, or that “very few” actually practice “love one another” or that “most” are highly judgmental and proselytizing or that “most of the venom and utter hatred” comes from the Christian camp. In my experience for 30 years observing both sides, ANY over generalizing of either camp is simply wrong. Doing so is subjective and slanted and exacerbates the problem. All christians and all people are not static, nor the same. Everyone grows and changes and is on the exact same search to find happiness and balance in ones inner heart and life – no matter what or how we believe. (unless we are truly defective somehow and are utterly sociopathic and violent).

            One of my biggest arguments on the whole topic is that atheists, christians, pagans, and any sort of believers are PEOPLE first and foremost; and the root of problems, for ALL who practice any ideology, comes from being human. Period. Non-believers are so fond of pointing at all sorts of ill behavior by alleged christians in the name of God, but they almost always fail to see that it does not matter what a human believes or attempts to practice, as all humans fail and all humans are duped, and all humans are ultimately self serving and self preserving. We’re all victims of nature and nurture. —– I have experienced a percentage of ill behavior, by a smaller percentage of christian labeled people, but I cannot count every christian throughout history, nor through every season or trial of life, as fucked up. My bad experiences have been at the hands of a few, behaving in very human ways that have caused my displeasure. While they have used God as their justification, their actions were purely animal driven by their own selfish ambitions and personalities. —– Point being, no matter what the belief system, humans behave like humans. It’s simply bigotry to label any general group of people as being more to blame of ill behavior. That’s a large part of why religion evolved in the first place, society trying to find a less easily refutable reason for people to behave better toward one another. Emphasizing the concept of “god(s)” and the unknown / “supernatural” simply made sense for saying “you don’t like social rules of general conduct for all ? – take it up with god” – humans will always battle with other humans who put forth rules of order. The existence of god is still hard to argue, since NO ONE CAN REALLY KNOW —  Regardless of choosing not to believe. 

            My disdain with behavior on this site, as far as mockery and name calling and generalization of any group that is made up of somewhat free thinking individuals, is what I see as one of my reasons for remaining on the spiritual fence. If unbelievers generally acted better than believers, I might be swayed – but it turns out they are no less or more fucking human than the christians they loathe. And that’s why Paul says “ALL are GUILTY and fall short of the glory of God”. “God” can act as a mechanism for a person to aspire to a higher state of being or to at least practice not doing wrong out of fear of punishment. Whatever the method – it’s ’cause PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY SELFISH and can be pretty fucked up to one another, whether they try to follow christianity or not. When the do, sometimes they succeed to act altruistically, sometimes, by human nature, they don’t.

            The simplicity of “love one another” is a non-religious ideal. What’s your excuse? What’s my excuse? In both camps I’m SICK of the air of “we’re more superior than them” – “we’re NOT”.

  • Ronniedobbs

    coming for the second coming

  • Peanut

    “I think it’s a safe bet that church attendance would be much higher.”

    I think that if this were true, then mainstream Christianity *would* have adopted Carpocrates’ interpretations.

    • Gregory Wyrdmaven

      Well, actually I think church attendance would be lower because “church attendance” as something needed by a Xian would not be as necessary as it is now.  Xians today are out in a world that is begging them to enjoy it and just about when they’re about to question a religion that paints the world as fallen and evil and sick with sin, they go to church for another session of mental conditioning and are told that they’re supposed to be miserable now but just wait until you die and you’ll get a mansion, a crown with stars in it and a free lifetime Netflix subscription.

      Which is why it is encouraging to see these “new” Xians who think Jesus will bless them with a mansion NOW, not just later…it shows that they’re enjoying living on this planet and after a few more centuries, maybe they’ll have a nice stiff drink and finally order those toys for the bedroom.

      (Also, don’t mind the Trolls…Disinfo is rife with them.  Everyone thinks they’re a guru these days who knows “teh truth.”)

  • Peanut

    “I think it’s a safe bet that church attendance would be much higher.”

    I think that if this were true, then mainstream Christianity *would* have adopted Carpocrates’ interpretations.

  • Nononym

    Hmmmmmmm…….they say Jesus loves me, but then, why won’t he swallow? 

  • Nononym

    Hmmmmmmm…….they say Jesus loves me, but then, why won’t he swallow? 

  • Nononym

    Hmmmmmmm…….they say Jesus loves me, but then, why won’t he swallow? 

  • Ronniedobbs

    because making mouth babies is just as bad as abortion, duh

  • http://profiles.google.com/donbarno Don Barno

    So, is this the same vapid and empty conspiracy-nut garbage that I consistently see bandied about disinfo?

    Peanut nails this on the head; to imply that the church willfully acted against its own self interest like that is retarded. Disinfo needs to start fact-checking the loonies it lets post moronic articles here, forreal.

  • http://profiles.google.com/donbarno Don Barno

    So, is this the same vapid and empty conspiracy-nut garbage that I consistently see bandied about disinfo?

    Peanut nails this on the head; to imply that the church willfully acted against its own self interest like that is retarded. Disinfo needs to start fact-checking the loonies it lets post moronic articles here, forreal.

    • Tanner

      Don Barno and Peanut. PLEASE work on your “reading comprehension” before you comment. I will only explain this once. The primary interest of pretty much all Christian churches is NOT in simply increasing attendance, it’s in accruing financial resources. Read the WHOLE article. A whole bunch of this kind of followers (who don’t believe in income disparity or that some of us are more in touch with the divine than others) will give LESS MONEY to the church than just a few worshipers who believe that a special few (ie the one’s who run the church because they are more in touch with God) deserve to be rich. DUH.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4U66JNVG4262FKLQSHB4BNJ6WI ruckus enfant
  • 5by5

    Orgies. Now there’s something I can get behind.

  • 5by5

    Orgies. Now there’s something I can get behind.

  • Rudolph

    I can just hear it now… “Grandma got boinked by a reindeer…”

  • Rudolph

    I can just hear it now… “Grandma got boinked by a reindeer…”

  • Tanner

    Don Barno and Peanut. PLEASE work on your “reading comprehension” before you comment. I will only explain this once. The primary interest of pretty much all Christian churches is NOT in simply increasing attendance, it’s in accruing financial resources. Read the WHOLE article. A whole bunch of this kind of followers (who don’t believe in income disparity or that some of us are more in touch with the divine than others) will give LESS MONEY to the church than just a few worshipers who believe that a special few (ie the one’s who run the church because they are more in touch with God) deserve to be rich. DUH.

  • Anonymous

    It is very Nice Message being Given by the Jesus Christ for the awareness of Humankind.Everyone can not ignore it message.
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111128203849AAxrVq9

  • Halstensmith

    It is very Nice Message being Given by the Jesus Christ for the awareness of Humankind.Everyone can not ignore it message.
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111128203849AAxrVq9

  • Mortensmith

     I think that this is very Good Message being Given by the Jesus Christ.
    http://hdsocson.vn/member.php?19889-Genesy

  • Anonymous

     I think that this is very Good Message being Given by the Jesus Christ.
    http://hdsocson.vn/member.php?19889-Genesy

  • hihoze

    This so called church was tried in America…it was called a Hippie Commune. It was a total failure.

  • Anonymous

    This so called church was tried in America…it was called a Hippie Commune. It was a total failure.

  • Anonymous

    newbie – this is the second “article” i’ve scrutinized by Bolelli, the other being god’s hit man. the 1st thing i’ll say is i’m primarily a skeptic, meaning, i don’t trust anyone – not bible, not bolelli, equally. also, i am not a sycophant and will not just drink in this stuff b/c some bad writer has a personal agenda or ax to grind against any ideology just b/c they do. 

    I HEAVILY scrutinize ‘hit man’ and found it to be a horribly written opinion. no form of new information and certainly no new truth, if any truth at all. this sad article is the same droll drool. reading between the snide pseudo-intellect i as the simple question (as with ‘hit man’) What Is Your Point????

    it’s so easy to point a finger at ancient history and some ancient person and use the pet example as fuel for some personal vendetta against any ideology one wants to trounce. it’s bad argument and bad writing and even a bad portrayal of bad history. and we’re all supposed to wag our heads in approval and just gulp down the sludge b/c it gives us a warm fuzzy to buttress our choice of hedonism. 

    well, my choices and my hedonism stand on their own two feet and actual reason, thank you very much. i will not genuflect before such trite and flimsy “case studies” against christianity. you might as well say “well my mommy beat me once for masturbating, therefore ALL mommies are oppressive and twisted bitches in league with god to throttle my sexual freedom” ——- your 2 cases, this and ‘hit man’ are absurd. 

    if you’re gonna “preach” in defiance of christianity at least make a logical case;  meaning step outside of your personal, subjective biases and use some sort of truth to make actual points. this tactic of “what if’s” coupled with your apparent  deep lack of understanding of the religion you are trying to dismantle is an illustration of why ‘normal’ people view we unbelievers as they do. these writings are examples of pagan crap theology. talk about disimformation.

  • BurningTightRope

    newbie – this is the second “article” i’ve scrutinized by Bolelli, the other being god’s hit man. the 1st thing i’ll say is i’m primarily a skeptic, meaning, i don’t trust anyone – not bible, not bolelli, equally. also, i am not a sycophant and will not just drink in this stuff b/c some bad writer has a personal agenda or ax to grind against any ideology just b/c they do. 

    I HEAVILY scrutinize ‘hit man’ and found it to be a horribly written opinion. no form of new information and certainly no new truth, if any truth at all. this sad article is the same droll drool. reading between the snide pseudo-intellect i as the simple question (as with ‘hit man’) What Is Your Point????

    it’s so easy to point a finger at ancient history and some ancient person and use the pet example as fuel for some personal vendetta against any ideology one wants to trounce. it’s bad argument and bad writing and even a bad portrayal of bad history. and we’re all supposed to wag our heads in approval and just gulp down the sludge b/c it gives us a warm fuzzy to buttress our choice of hedonism. 

    well, my choices and my hedonism stand on their own two feet and actual reason, thank you very much. i will not genuflect before such trite and flimsy “case studies” against christianity. you might as well say “well my mommy beat me once for masturbating, therefore ALL mommies are oppressive and twisted bitches in league with god to throttle my sexual freedom” ——- your 2 cases, this and ‘hit man’ are absurd. 

    if you’re gonna “preach” in defiance of christianity at least make a logical case;  meaning step outside of your personal, subjective biases and use some sort of truth to make actual points. this tactic of “what if’s” coupled with your apparent  deep lack of understanding of the religion you are trying to dismantle is an illustration of why ‘normal’ people view we unbelievers as they do. these writings are examples of pagan crap theology. talk about disimformation.

  • Anonymous

    amazing 5 likes + 3 likes on 2 completely off thread and pointlessly ignorant statements. at least bolelli is TRYING to say something intelligent. is this what you boil the intellect of your anti-christian paganism down to? is this any indication of what this site is filled with, gutter mouths simply trash talking and mocking what they claim to ‘choose’ to not believe in? where’s the ‘dislike’ button? 

    sorry guys. did i make a mistake by assuming that people who don’t believe religion can actually have some sense of taste and equal respect for the people we disagree with? this sort of mockery is every bit as intolerant as so many claim ‘they’ are against us. compared to this, a philosophy that says  ‘love one another’ doesn’t sound so ‘off’ . 

    is it possible for us to believe differently without base and ignorant verbal hostility? i’m really wanting to know.

  • Anonymous

    yes, I remember when Disinfo came out many years ago.  It put out tight, well researched pieces.  Now it is a mix between Raw and FOX.  

  • Gregory Wyrdmaven

    There is a valid argument here.  Yes, animals derive pleasure no doubt from eating, playing and playing hide the sausage.  But humans can really appreciate these sensual pleasures on not just a physical, emotional level but through our imaginations as well.  I firmly think the idea of having a long list of sins, and an ever-lengthening list of things that are illegal, are a way to keep people in line by not letting them open up to living.  Most Xians today are looking for a better life after death, which is a shame.  Of course the new “Supply Side Jesus” idea lets Xians have a mansion NOW and later in heaven (which is of course heresy). 

    Also, the pre-Xians in Europe were people who had a lust for life, with their feasts and their mead and their human sacrifices and the winners in the So You Think You’re a Xian competition naturally outlawed most of what the prior culture practiced.  And a lot of what the prior cultures practices involved having a good time.

    Xians are deprived of the act of living.  And missing out on certain things like the Joy of Sex, the enjoyment of drink, munching or smoking the herbs of the field, etc are ways for them to remain stunted, miserable, paranoid, waterheaded sheep just like their masters want them to be.

    Someone needs to tell these pitiable folks that earth is the part of heaven we can touch.

    Fiat lux

    • Anon

      You probably shouldn’t talk about things when the only information you have on them is none. You should do some research on what kinds of sexual relationships tend to be the most fulfilling and long-lasting and what kind of couples tend to have them. Don’t be surprised if sex and cohabitation before marriage turn out to be harmful, and within marriage tend to be beneficial and satisfying. Christian teachings support these psychological and statistical results, although I think we can agree that many people are overzealous and extremely negative, which doesn’t help the Christian case.

      You also miss the mark when you say that Christians (evidently you’re too lazy to even label them properly?) can’t enjoy alcohol – which is what I assume you mean by drink. Yes, some large Christian sects do ban or restrict consumption, and almost all encourage moderation. For most of those in the largest Christian sect, Roman Catholicism, that really just means “don’t be a drunken jerk.” I hope that all people can get behind the idea of knowing one’s personal limits.

      As for the herbs of the fields, I’m guessing you mean marijuana. Once again, you miss the mark. Christians are generally encouraged to obey the secular laws of the land where those laws are not clearly in conflict with Church teaching – if the law of the land allowed you to murder people who offend you, Christians would still be bound by Church law not to do that. An extreme example, but here’s my point: In the US, marijuana is against the law, and while citizens may oppose that law, they break it at their own risk. Christians are supposed to avoid situations that lead them to commit irresponsible, unthinking, illegal, and sinful acts – another maxim that I hope most people can support to some extent. Where legal, that’s another case of knowing one’s limits.

      • Calypso_1

        X marks the spot

  • Gregory Wyrdmaven

    There is a valid argument here.  Yes, animals derive pleasure no doubt from eating, playing and playing hide the sausage.  But humans can really appreciate these sensual pleasures on not just a physical, emotional level but through our imaginations as well.  I firmly think the idea of having a long list of sins, and an ever-lengthening list of things that are illegal, are a way to keep people in line by not letting them open up to living.  Most Xians today are looking for a better life after death, which is a shame.  Of course the new “Supply Side Jesus” idea lets Xians have a mansion NOW and later in heaven (which is of course heresy). 

    Also, the pre-Xians in Europe were people who had a lust for life, with their feasts and their mead and their human sacrifices and the winners in the So You Think You’re a Xian competition naturally outlawed most of what the prior culture practiced.  And a lot of what the prior cultures practices involved having a good time.

    Xians are deprived of the act of living.  And certain things like the Joy of Sex, the enjoyment of drink, munching or smoking the herbs of the field, etc are ways for them to remain stunted, miserable, paranoid, waterheaded sheep just like their masters want them to be.

    Someone needs to tell these pitiable folks that earth is the part of heaven we can touch.

    Fiat lux

  • Gregory Wyrdmaven

    Well, actually I think church attendance would be lower because “church attendance” as something needed by a Xian would not be as necessary as it is now.  Xians today are out in a world that is begging them to enjoy it and just about when they’re about to question a religion that paints the world as fallen and evil and sick with sin, they go to church for another session of mental conditioning and are told that they’re supposed to be miserable now but just wait until you die and you’ll get a mansion, a crown with stars in it and a free lifetime Netflix subscription.

    Which is why it is encouraging to see these “new” Xians who think Jesus will bless them with a mansion NOW, not just later…it shows that they’re enjoying living on this planet and after a few more centuries, maybe they’ll have a nice stiff drink and finally order those toys for the bedroom.

    (Also, don’t mind the Trolls…Disinfo is rife with them.  Everyone thinks they’re a guru these days who knows “teh truth.”)

  • Gregory Wyrdmaven

    Well, actually I think church attendance would be lower because “church attendance” as something needed by a Xian would not be as necessary as it is now.  Xians today are out in a world that is begging them to enjoy it and just about when they’re about to question a religion that paints the world as fallen and evil and sick with sin, they go to church for another session of mental conditioning and are told that they’re supposed to be miserable now but just wait until you die and you’ll get a mansion, a crown with stars in it and a free lifetime Netflix subscription.

    Which is why it is encouraging to see these “new” Xians who think Jesus will bless them with a mansion NOW, not just later…it shows that they’re enjoying living on this planet and after a few more centuries, maybe they’ll have a nice stiff drink and finally order those toys for the bedroom.

    (Also, don’t mind the Trolls…Disinfo is rife with them.  Everyone thinks they’re a guru these days who knows “teh truth.”)

  • Gregory Wyrdmaven

    Well, actually I think church attendance would be lower because “church attendance” as something needed by a Xian would not be as necessary as it is now.  Xians today are out in a world that is begging them to enjoy it and just about when they’re about to question a religion that paints the world as fallen and evil and sick with sin, they go to church for another session of mental conditioning and are told that they’re supposed to be miserable now but just wait until you die and you’ll get a mansion, a crown with stars in it and a free lifetime Netflix subscription.

    Which is why it is encouraging to see these “new” Xians who think Jesus will bless them with a mansion NOW, not just later…it shows that they’re enjoying living on this planet and after a few more centuries, maybe they’ll have a nice stiff drink and finally order those toys for the bedroom.

    (Also, don’t mind the Trolls…Disinfo is rife with them.  Everyone thinks they’re a guru these days who knows “teh truth.”)

  • Gregory Wyrdmaven

    Well, actually I think church attendance would be lower because “church attendance” as something needed by a Xian would not be as necessary as it is now.  Xians today are out in a world that is begging them to enjoy it and just about when they’re about to question a religion that paints the world as fallen and evil and sick with sin, they go to church for another session of mental conditioning and are told that they’re supposed to be miserable now but just wait until you die and you’ll get a mansion, a crown with stars in it and a free lifetime Netflix subscription.

    Which is why it is encouraging to see these “new” Xians who think Jesus will bless them with a mansion NOW, not just later…it shows that they’re enjoying living on this planet and after a few more centuries, maybe they’ll have a nice stiff drink and finally order those toys for the bedroom.

    (Also, don’t mind the Trolls…Disinfo is rife with them.  Everyone thinks they’re a guru these days who knows “teh truth.”)

  • Gregory Wyrdmaven

    Well, actually I think church attendance would be lower because “church attendance” as something needed by a Xian would not be as necessary as it is now.  Xians today are out in a world that is begging them to enjoy it and just about when they’re about to question a religion that paints the world as fallen and evil and sick with sin, they go to church for another session of mental conditioning and are told that they’re supposed to be miserable now but just wait until you die and you’ll get a mansion, a crown with stars in it and a free lifetime Netflix subscription.

    Which is why it is encouraging to see these “new” Xians who think Jesus will bless them with a mansion NOW, not just later…it shows that they’re enjoying living on this planet and after a few more centuries, maybe they’ll have a nice stiff drink and finally order those toys for the bedroom.

    (Also, don’t mind the Trolls…Disinfo is rife with them.  Everyone thinks they’re a guru these days who knows “teh truth.”)

  • Gregory Wyrdmaven

    Well, actually I think church attendance would be lower because “church attendance” as something needed by a Xian would not be as necessary as it is now.  Xians today are out in a world that is begging them to enjoy it and just about when they’re about to question a religion that paints the world as fallen and evil and sick with sin, they go to church for another session of mental conditioning and are told that they’re supposed to be miserable now but just wait until you die and you’ll get a mansion, a crown with stars in it and a free lifetime Netflix subscription.

    Which is why it is encouraging to see these “new” Xians who think Jesus will bless them with a mansion NOW, not just later…it shows that they’re enjoying living on this planet and after a few more centuries, maybe they’ll have a nice stiff drink and finally order those toys for the bedroom.

    (Also, don’t mind the Trolls…Disinfo is rife with them.  Everyone thinks they’re a guru these days who knows “teh truth.”)

  • Jose Nungaray

    If God would think like men then the whole of existence would be damned. All this misinformation on this site is nothing more then mortals talking pure nonsense. The faith in God is what makes you a conscious being that all the human disorderly is what makes us imperfect, but it is through the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ that gives us the opportunity to be wholesome through God in JesusChrist. The Love of God is what gives you a different perspective in life and you appreciate the whole human race with kindness and respect. Men and women are equal in the eyes of God. May God bless you and may you see the truth and light through JesusChrist.

  • Jose Nungaray

    If God would think like men then the whole of existence would be damned. All this misinformation on this site is nothing more then mortals talking pure nonsense. The faith in God is what makes you a conscious being that all the human disorderly is what makes us imperfect, but it is through the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ that gives us the opportunity to be wholesome through God in JesusChrist. The Love of God is what gives you a different perspective in life and you appreciate the whole human race with kindness and respect. Men and women are equal in the eyes of God. May God bless you and may you see the truth and light through JesusChrist.

    • Xfhdhjc

      if the love of god is what makes us a conscious being then how can i even speak let alone type 

  • Bigclippin

    Maan, this article here is straight up blasphemy. Now I myself am no pastor, but I am a christian. This fellow Carpocrates seemingly was only being rational about Jesus, using his own natural reasoning and human thought process. As far as the early church of Christ not being fully intact doctrine wise, that is false. The Lord sent the apostle Paul out from Jerusalem to Greece and Asia to establish the early Christian church, where the doctrine of Christ was firmly put in place. Anyone who wishes to read more about this, can by reading in the New Testament, the bokks Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, iThessalonians. It says in Mark13:22 that many would come in the name of Jesus to deceive all who would hear. The bible warns not to stray from the Lord’s set doctrine. The bible also tells us that unless one is born again in spirit, they cannot even begin to comprehend the things of God. Our natural humanity simply cannot grasp it. Thats why when someone comes along saying something sounding like coherent thought against God, people will cling to it, hoping that maybe, just maybe Jesus is not God, and I can go on living life on my own terms doing as I wish consequence-free, without worry of an eternal hell. To that kind of person I say seek Jesus for yourself

    • Eric_D_Read

       “As far as the early church of Christ not being fully intact doctrine wise, that is false. The Lord sent the apostle Paul out from Jerusalem to Greece and Asia to establish the early Christian church, where the doctrine of Christ was firmly put in place.”
      Other than Paul himself, who was there to back that statement up.

      • Calypso_1

        Pauline Christianity is a heresy.

      • SoldierOfGod

        Lets see there is Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, James, Luke so and so on… oh yeah and the very guy who sentenced Jesus, Pontius Pilate who would later start the Christian Church in Ethiopia

        • Calypso_1

          ouch

    • WoodGas1

      How many people died in those wars over whether the trinity was three parts of one or one part of three?

    • Aphroditeskiss

      You do realize that the Bible, as quoted above, was not put into use until several HUNDRED years after Jesus died, right? There was this lovely little gathering called the Council of Nicea, where early church fathers of various sects voted on which books would make the cut. Hence, the New Testament. It is historical fact that in Carpocrates’ time, the early church was, indeed, many different branches. Why do you think the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church acted as separate entities? Read a book other than the Bible every once in a while and you will realize there is a whole other world (proven in fact, by more sources than one singular, and really, insignificant, book). You may even come to see that this whole thing is just a farce. *GASP*!

  • Bigclippin

    Maan, this article here is straight up blasphemy. Now I myself am no pastor, but I am a christian. This fellow Carpocrates seemingly was only being rational about Jesus, using his own natural reasoning and human thought process. As far as the early church of Christ not being fully intact doctrine wise, that is false. The Lord sent the apostle Paul out from Jerusalem to Greece and Asia to establish the early Christian church, where the doctrine of Christ was firmly put in place. Anyone who wishes to read more about this, can by reading in the New Testament, the bokks Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, iThessalonians. It says in Mark13:22 that many would come in the name of Jesus to deceive all who would hear. The bible warns not to stray from the Lord’s set doctrine. The bible also tells us that unless one is born again in spirit, they cannot even begin to comprehend the things of God. Our natural humanity simply cannot grasp it. Thats why when someone comes along saying something sounding like coherent thought against God, people will cling to it, hoping that maybe, just maybe Jesus is not God, and I can go on living life on my own terms doing as I wish consequence-free, without worry of an eternal hell. To that kind of person I say seek Jesus for yourself

  • Anonymous

     “As far as the early church of Christ not being fully intact doctrine wise, that is false. The Lord sent the apostle Paul out from Jerusalem to Greece and Asia to establish the early Christian church, where the doctrine of Christ was firmly put in place.”
    Other than Paul himself, who was there to back that statement up.

  • Anonymous

    Pauline Christianity is a heresy.

  • Anonymous

    This is very Truth and spiritual  Message being given by the Jesus to all the People.
    http://forum.wicked.com/member.php?37231-Bailbee

  • Comgallsmith

    This is very Truth and spiritual  Message being given by the Jesus to all the People.
    http://forum.wicked.com/member.php?37231-Bailbee

  • Anon

    You probably shouldn’t talk about things when the only information you have on them is none. You should do some research on what kinds of sexual relationships tend to be the most fulfilling and long-lasting and what kind of couples tend to have them. Don’t be surprised if sex and cohabitation before marriage turn out to be harmful, and within marriage tend to be beneficial and satisfying. Christian teachings support these psychological and statistical results, although I think we can agree that many people are overzealous and extremely negative, which doesn’t help the Christian case.

    You also miss the mark when you say that Christians (evidently you’re too lazy to even label them properly?) can’t enjoy alcohol – which is what I assume you mean by drink. Yes, some large Christian sects do ban or restrict consumption, and almost all encourage moderation. For most of those in the largest Christian sect, Roman Catholicism, that really just means “don’t be a drunken jerk.” I hope that all people can get behind the idea of knowing one’s personal limits.

    As for the herbs of the fields, I’m guessing you mean marijuana. Once again, you miss the mark. Christians are generally encouraged to obey the secular laws of the land where those laws are not clearly in conflict with Church teaching – if the law of the land allowed you to murder people who offend you, Christians would still be bound by Church law not to do that. An extreme example, but here’s my point: In the US, marijuana is against the law, and while citizens may oppose that law, they break it at their own risk. Christians are supposed to avoid situations that lead them to commit irresponsible, unthinking, illegal, and sinful acts – another maxim that I hope most people can support to some extent. Where legal, that’s another case of knowing one’s limits.

  • Anonymous

    X marks the spot

  • SoldierOfGod

    More revisionist history.

    Carpocrates was just another man creating his own religion for his own gain, much like many other men who would do it throughout history.

    Jesus talked of hoping men would ALL believe ONE thing together, not have multiple religions with multiple interpretations. HE delivered mankind from the Law handed down by Moses, and HE gave us salvation through Grace. He preached to Love one another as you would Love yourself.

    If you can read, The Bible clearly illustrates how Mankind is saved by Grace not works. All the Old Testament writings are examples of Grace, and the New Testament is the Prophecy that reveals the True Love of God. Jesus gave Moral guidelines to follow, to have a Life that would be abundant and give glory to what he preached.

    Men who aren’t really Christians promote themselves as such, yet pervert the Word to suit there agenda. The Apostle Paul, who was Saul of Taursus a persecutor of Christians before his conversion, wrote letters upon letters to the churches of that time that they were teaching false doctrine, exposing the hypocrisy of their actions. Jesus said the same about the Pharisees and Scribes.

    All religions acknowledge Jesus as a Teacher, Healer, Prophet and such. Men have a hard time with believing the simple truth Jesus preached about.

    This writer purports Carpocrates as a Christian yet all the actions of Carpocrates proves he is nothing more than a man giving validity to living licentiously under a guise of Christianity. Religion is man made and and true Christianity is not a Religion.

    Just another example of how people disparage the truth about Jesus and lead people away from God, just like he warned the Apostles of such things before he was brutally beaten beyond recognition and did the work on the Cross.

    • LionDinner

      Man, can you be MORE STUPID? Please, youre not STUPID enough, Jehova might go into a fit unless you get more stupid RIGHT NOW, or Hell Awaits

      • A Christian

        Such astute clarity and mastery of the Queen’s English should be preserved for the ears of nothing less than Shakespeare himself LionDinner!  The task of presenting your contingent more accurately would challenge Nietzsche himself.

    • Cybersaur

      true love? he tried to kill everyone with noahs ark remember

    • Jake Grimes66

      If Jesus was here today, he’d hang with me waaaaaaay before hanging with you…  Jesus wasn’t  as condescending, uptight, self-righteous and delusional….

  • SoldierOfGod

    More revisionist history.

    Carpocrates was just another man creating his own religion for his own gain, much like many other men who would do it throughout history.

    Jesus talked of hoping men would ALL believe ONE thing together, not have multiple religions with multiple interpretations. HE delivered mankind from the Law handed down by Moses, and HE gave us salvation through Grace. He preached to Love one another as you would Love yourself.

    If you can read, The Bible clearly illustrates how Mankind is saved by Grace not works. All the Old Testament writings are examples of Grace, and the New Testament is the Prophecy that reveals the True Love of God. Jesus gave Moral guidelines to follow, to have a Life that would be abundant and give glory to what he preached.

    Men who aren’t really Christians promote themselves as such, yet pervert the Word to suit there agenda. The Apostle Paul, who was Saul of Taursus a persecutor of Christians before his conversion, wrote letters upon letters to the churches of that time that they were teaching false doctrine, exposing the hypocrisy of their actions. Jesus said the same about the Pharisees and Scribes.

    All religions acknowledge Jesus as a Teacher, Healer, Prophet and such. Men have a hard time with believing the simple truth Jesus preached about.

    This writer purports Carpocrates as a Christian yet all the actions of Carpocrates proves he is nothing more than a man giving validity to living licentiously under a guise of Christianity. Religion is man made and and true Christianity is not a Religion.

    Just another example of how people disparage the truth about Jesus and lead people away from God, just like he warned the Apostles of such things before he was brutally beaten beyond recognition and did the work on the Cross.

  • SoldierOfGod

    Lets see there is Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, James, Luke so and so on… oh yeah and the very guy who sentenced Jesus, Pontius Pilate who would later start the Christian Church in Ethiopia

  • RUSerious!

    Disinformation the name says it all. LMAO!!! Everything this site produces is pure drivel and….disinformation. Anyone who believes half of this stuff is deluded.

  • RUSerious!

    Disinformation the name says it all. LMAO!!! Everything this site produces is pure drivel and….disinformation. Anyone who believes half of this stuff is deluded.

  • Anonymous

    ouch

  • Anonymous

    ouch

  • Anonymous

    ouch

  • Daniel given

    No, After all the diseases, unwanted children and ruined lives, this type of thing would generate have dies an early an may I say a much needed death.

  • Daniel given

    No, After all the diseases, unwanted children and ruined lives, this type of thing would generate have dies an early an may I say a much needed death.

    • Aphroditeskiss

      Except for the fact that the ancient Greeks had condoms very similar to those used today. These were actually effective at preventing disease, and even more so, unwanted pregnancies. As for your ruined lives, everyone who participated knew what was going on. Therefore, they were not only ok with it, but also a willing participant. 

      Good try, though.

      Next time, read a little bit about the culture in which these events took place before applying your oh-so-sensible opinions to them. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4U66JNVG4262FKLQSHB4BNJ6WI ruckus enfant
  • Ginnung

    Im amazed! at how many xtians check out this site… last time I checked they still were content with chik comics and other christian porn a la “I was a teenage satinc cultist and killed 120 million babies but then I found the Lord (LOL)”

  • Ginnung

    Im amazed! at how many xtians check out this site… last time I checked they still were content with chik comics and other christian porn a la “I was a teenage satinc cultist and killed 120 million babies but then I found the Lord (LOL)”

  • LionDinner

    Man, can you be MORE STUPID? Please, youre not STUPID enough, Jehova might go into a fit unless you get more stupid RIGHT NOW, or Hell Awaits

  • A Christian

    I think DisInfo draws in the anti-establishment types by its very nature, and some would say America is still in some sense a Christian institution.  Basically, people here want drastic change and some seem to have targeted that at Christianity as much as at the fiscal dealings of our Gov’t.  That and many here lean to the left which has historically been the majority of non Christians in the United States.

  • WoodGas1

    Keep the faith! Did these guys ever fire bomb anybody?

  • Anonymous

    Keep the faith! Did these guys ever fire bomb anybody?

  • Anonymous

    Keep the faith! Did these guys ever fire bomb anybody?

  • Anonymous

    Keep the faith! Did these guys ever fire bomb anybody?

  • Anonymous

    How many people died in those wars over whether the trinity was three parts of one or one part of three?

  • Cybersaur

    true love? he tried to kill everyone with noahs ark remember

  • Xfhdhjc

    if the love of god is what makes us a conscious being then how can i even speak let alone type 

  • Jake Grimes66

    If Jesus was here today, he’d hang with me waaaaaaay before hanging with you…  Jesus wasn’t  as condescending, uptight, self-righteous and delusional….

  • A Christian

    Such astute clarity and mastery of the Queen’s English should be preserved for the ears of nothing less than Shakespeare himself LionDinner!  The task of presenting your contingent more accurately would challenge Nietzsche himself.

  • Jesse

    HELL YEAH! now that’s something i could look forward to… 

  • Jesse

    HELL YEAH! now that’s something i could look forward to… 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VN6I2RWLS666KKQR6UIPNLBGGU Seeker

    Wonder why so many spout replies without checking out history to see if it is true.
    Many sects of early christianity were into orgies of a type as reported by tertulian and many others who eventually got their type of christianity, which fit with current greek thought, as the dominant type.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VN6I2RWLS666KKQR6UIPNLBGGU Seeker

    Wonder why so many spout replies without checking out history to see if it is true.
    Many sects of early christianity were into orgies of a type as reported by tertulian and many others who eventually got their type of christianity, which fit with current greek thought, as the dominant type.

  • Aphroditeskiss

    You do realize that the Bible, as quoted above, was not put into use until several HUNDRED years after Jesus died, right? There was this lovely little gathering called the Council of Nicea, where early church fathers of various sects voted on which books would make the cut. Hence, the New Testament. It is historical fact that in Carpocrates’ time, the early church was, indeed, many different branches. Why do you think the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church acted as separate entities? Read a book other than the Bible every once in a while and you will realize there is a whole other world (proven in fact, by more sources than one singular, and really, insignificant, book). You may even come to see that this whole thing is just a farce. *GASP*!

  • Aphroditeskiss

    Except for the fact that the ancient Greeks had condoms very similar to those used today. These were actually effective at preventing disease, and even more so, unwanted pregnancies. As for your ruined lives, everyone who participated knew what was going on. Therefore, they were not only ok with it, but also a willing participant. 

    Good try, though.

    Next time, read a little bit about the culture in which these events took place before applying your oh-so-sensible opinions to them. 

  • Aphroditeskiss

    If Christians had respect for those who don’t believe in God, we would likely have more respect for them/you.
    Also, there are very few modern Christians who actually practice the love one another ideal. Most are highly judgmental and proselytizing. 

    Personally, I do think it would be possible for both sides to engage in an open debate, if Christians would lay down their weapons. I realize there are plenty of antagonistic atheists out there; however, most of the  venom and utter hatred comes from the Christian camp. 

  • Aphroditeskiss

    “…America is still in some sense a Christian institution….”

    Actually, America has NEVER been a Christian institution. If you look at the founding documents (such as the Constitution), they clearly state that there will not be a set religion for the country, and that the right to worship (or not) as you will is yours, and you are not answerable for that to any government-run institution. Between that and the fact that the majority of the Founding Fathers were either agnostic or atheist does not hold up to this silly idea that America is a “Christian nation”.

  • BurningTightRope

    @Aphroditeskiss – Aside from your point being bias and over generalized, lumping all christians into a certain ilk, you do have some points. — I consider myself a “recovering christian” and have returned to a largely agnostic point of view. That said, I think I’m very qualified to speak on both sides of the issue. I’ll never forget on the very first day that I became a christian, the only thing I said to my long standing, close friends was that I was born-again. INSTANTLY they shunned me without a word. And from that point on largely treated me like an outsider, though I did not disrespect them, judge them or proselytize or preach at them. Ha! I even kindly passed the joints while I hung out with them. But they gave up on me pretty fast. —- They had an instant prejudice without my saying a word, despite them having known (and “loved”) me for several years prior. From that point I was ongoingly ostracized. It was this action on their part which largely drove me into exclusively christian subcultural circles. There is NO QUESTION of that. Not to mention, anytime I did try to talk about my change of life (not witnessing ;-p) – but just about my head, like normal people, the other person almost always turned my experience into their argument and put me on the defensive. It was unreal, I couldn’t say “hi” to an old friend on the street without getting blasted with psuedo-scientific atheism just for answering their question “so what have you been up to?”.

    Your simple presupposing about people who believe in christianity is incredibly knee-jerk and common. On one hand, yes – there are believers who cause this kind of reaction. I ran into them ad nauseam and equally (as a believer) couldn’t stand them. So your point is taken, but you fail to see that non-christians also have their weapons loaded and cocked as a paranoid precaution as they / we are constantly looking for a fight. It’s unrealistic to make statements that say that Christians in general disrespect, or that “very few” actually practice “love one another” or that “most” are highly judgmental and proselytizing or that “most of the venom and utter hatred” comes from the Christian camp. In my experience for 30 years observing both sides, ANY over generalizing of either camp is simply wrong. Doing so is subjective and slanted and exacerbates the problem. All christians and all people are not static, nor the same. Everyone grows and changes and is on the exact same search to find happiness and balance in ones inner heart and life – no matter what or how we believe. (unless we are truly defective somehow and are utterly sociopathic and violent).

    One of my biggest arguments on the whole topic is that atheists, christians, pagans, and any sort of believers are PEOPLE first and foremost; and the root of problems, for ALL who practice any ideology, comes from being human. Period. Non-believers are so fond of pointing at all sorts of ill behavior by alleged christians in the name of God, but they almost always fail to see that it does not matter what a human believes or attempts to practice, as all humans fail and all humans are duped, and all humans are ultimately self serving and self preserving. We’re all victims of nature and nurture. —– I have experienced a percentage of ill behavior, by a smaller percentage of christian labeled people, but I cannot count every christian throughout history, nor through every season or trial of life, as fucked up. My bad experiences have been at the hands of a few, behaving in very human ways that have caused my displeasure. While they have used God as their justification, their actions were purely animal driven by their own selfish ambitions and personalities. —– Point being, no matter what the belief system, humans behave like humans. It’s simply bigotry to label any general group of people as being more to blame of ill behavior. That’s a large part of why religion evolved in the first place, society trying to find a less easily refutable reason for people to behave better toward one another. Emphasizing the concept of “god(s)” and the unknown / “supernatural” simply made sense for saying “you don’t like social rules of general conduct for all ? – take it up with god” – humans will always battle with other humans who put forth rules of order. The existence of god is still hard to argue, since NO ONE CAN REALLY KNOW —  Regardless of choosing not to believe. 

    My disdain with behavior on this site, as far as mockery and name calling and generalization of any group that is made up of somewhat free thinking individuals, is what I see as one of my reasons for remaining on the spiritual fence. If unbelievers generally acted better than believers, I might be swayed – but it turns out they are no less or more fucking human than the christians they loathe. And that’s why Paul says “ALL are GUILTY and fall short of the glory of God”. “God” can act as a mechanism for a person to aspire to a higher state of being or to at least practice not doing wrong out of fear of punishment. Whatever the method – it’s ’cause PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY SELFISH and can be pretty fucked up to one another, whether they try to follow christianity or not. When the do, sometimes they succeed to act altruistically, sometimes, by human nature, they don’t.

    The simplicity of “love one another” is a non-religious ideal. What’s your excuse? What’s my excuse? In both camps I’m SICK of the air of “we’re more superior than them” – “we’re NOT”.

  • BurningTightRope

    @Aphroditeskiss – Aside from your point being bias and over generalized, lumping all christians into a certain ilk, you do have some points. — I consider myself a “recovering christian” and have returned to a largely agnostic point of view. That said, I think I’m very qualified to speak on both sides of the issue. I’ll never forget on the very first day that I became a christian, the only thing I said to my long standing, close friends was that I was born-again. INSTANTLY they shunned me without a word. And from that point on largely treated me like an outsider, though I did not disrespect them, judge them or proselytize or preach at them. Ha! I even kindly passed the joints while I hung out with them. But they gave up on me pretty fast. —- They had an instant prejudice without my saying a word, despite them having known (and “loved”) me for several years prior. From that point I was ongoingly ostracized. It was this action on their part which largely drove me into exclusively christian subcultural circles. There is NO QUESTION of that. Not to mention, anytime I did try to talk about my change of life (not witnessing ;-p) – but just about my head, like normal people, the other person almost always turned my experience into their argument and put me on the defensive. It was unreal, I couldn’t say “hi” to an old friend on the street without getting blasted with psuedo-scientific atheism just for answering their question “so what have you been up to?”.

    Your simple presupposing about people who believe in christianity is incredibly knee-jerk and common. On one hand, yes – there are believers who cause this kind of reaction. I ran into them ad nauseam and equally (as a believer) couldn’t stand them. So your point is taken, but you fail to see that non-christians also have their weapons loaded and cocked as a paranoid precaution as they / we are constantly looking for a fight. It’s unrealistic to make statements that say that Christians in general disrespect, or that “very few” actually practice “love one another” or that “most” are highly judgmental and proselytizing or that “most of the venom and utter hatred” comes from the Christian camp. In my experience for 30 years observing both sides, ANY over generalizing of either camp is simply wrong. Doing so is subjective and slanted and exacerbates the problem. All christians and all people are not static, nor the same. Everyone grows and changes and is on the exact same search to find happiness and balance in ones inner heart and life – no matter what or how we believe. (unless we are truly defective somehow and are utterly sociopathic and violent).

    One of my biggest arguments on the whole topic is that atheists, christians, pagans, and any sort of believers are PEOPLE first and foremost; and the root of problems, for ALL who practice any ideology, comes from being human. Period. Non-believers are so fond of pointing at all sorts of ill behavior by alleged christians in the name of God, but they almost always fail to see that it does not matter what a human believes or attempts to practice, as all humans fail and all humans are duped, and all humans are ultimately self serving and self preserving. We’re all victims of nature and nurture. —– I have experienced a percentage of ill behavior, by a smaller percentage of christian labeled people, but I cannot count every christian throughout history, nor through every season or trial of life, as fucked up. My bad experiences have been at the hands of a few, behaving in very human ways that have caused my displeasure. While they have used God as their justification, their actions were purely animal driven by their own selfish ambitions and personalities. —– Point being, no matter what the belief system, humans behave like humans. It’s simply bigotry to label any general group of people as being more to blame of ill behavior. That’s a large part of why religion evolved in the first place, society trying to find a less easily refutable reason for people to behave better toward one another. Emphasizing the concept of “god(s)” and the unknown / “supernatural” simply made sense for saying “you don’t like social rules of general conduct for all ? – take it up with god” – humans will always battle with other humans who put forth rules of order. The existence of god is still hard to argue, since NO ONE CAN REALLY KNOW —  Regardless of choosing not to believe. 

    My disdain with behavior on this site, as far as mockery and name calling and generalization of any group that is made up of somewhat free thinking individuals, is what I see as one of my reasons for remaining on the spiritual fence. If unbelievers generally acted better than believers, I might be swayed – but it turns out they are no less or more fucking human than the christians they loathe. And that’s why Paul says “ALL are GUILTY and fall short of the glory of God”. “God” can act as a mechanism for a person to aspire to a higher state of being or to at least practice not doing wrong out of fear of punishment. Whatever the method – it’s ’cause PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY SELFISH and can be pretty fucked up to one another, whether they try to follow christianity or not. When the do, sometimes they succeed to act altruistically, sometimes, by human nature, they don’t.

    The simplicity of “love one another” is a non-religious ideal. What’s your excuse? What’s my excuse? In both camps I’m SICK of the air of “we’re more superior than them” – “we’re NOT”.

  • BurningTightRope

    @Aphroditeskiss – Aside from your point being bias and over generalized, lumping all christians into a certain ilk, you do have some points. — I consider myself a “recovering christian” and have returned to a largely agnostic point of view. That said, I think I’m very qualified to speak on both sides of the issue. I’ll never forget on the very first day that I became a christian, the only thing I said to my long standing, close friends was that I was born-again. INSTANTLY they shunned me without a word. And from that point on largely treated me like an outsider, though I did not disrespect them, judge them or proselytize or preach at them. Ha! I even kindly passed the joints while I hung out with them. But they gave up on me pretty fast. —- They had an instant prejudice without my saying a word, despite them having known (and “loved”) me for several years prior. From that point I was ongoingly ostracized. It was this action on their part which largely drove me into exclusively christian subcultural circles. There is NO QUESTION of that. Not to mention, anytime I did try to talk about my change of life (not witnessing ;-p) – but just about my head, like normal people, the other person almost always turned my experience into their argument and put me on the defensive. It was unreal, I couldn’t say “hi” to an old friend on the street without getting blasted with psuedo-scientific atheism just for answering their question “so what have you been up to?”.

    Your simple presupposing about people who believe in christianity is incredibly knee-jerk and common. On one hand, yes – there are believers who cause this kind of reaction. I ran into them ad nauseam and equally (as a believer) couldn’t stand them. So your point is taken, but you fail to see that non-christians also have their weapons loaded and cocked as a paranoid precaution as they / we are constantly looking for a fight. It’s unrealistic to make statements that say that Christians in general disrespect, or that “very few” actually practice “love one another” or that “most” are highly judgmental and proselytizing or that “most of the venom and utter hatred” comes from the Christian camp. In my experience for 30 years observing both sides, ANY over generalizing of either camp is simply wrong. Doing so is subjective and slanted and exacerbates the problem. All christians and all people are not static, nor the same. Everyone grows and changes and is on the exact same search to find happiness and balance in ones inner heart and life – no matter what or how we believe. (unless we are truly defective somehow and are utterly sociopathic and violent).

    One of my biggest arguments on the whole topic is that atheists, christians, pagans, and any sort of believers are PEOPLE first and foremost; and the root of problems, for ALL who practice any ideology, comes from being human. Period. Non-believers are so fond of pointing at all sorts of ill behavior by alleged christians in the name of God, but they almost always fail to see that it does not matter what a human believes or attempts to practice, as all humans fail and all humans are duped, and all humans are ultimately self serving and self preserving. We’re all victims of nature and nurture. —– I have experienced a percentage of ill behavior, by a smaller percentage of christian labeled people, but I cannot count every christian throughout history, nor through every season or trial of life, as fucked up. My bad experiences have been at the hands of a few, behaving in very human ways that have caused my displeasure. While they have used God as their justification, their actions were purely animal driven by their own selfish ambitions and personalities. —– Point being, no matter what the belief system, humans behave like humans. It’s simply bigotry to label any general group of people as being more to blame of ill behavior. That’s a large part of why religion evolved in the first place, society trying to find a less easily refutable reason for people to behave better toward one another. Emphasizing the concept of “god(s)” and the unknown / “supernatural” simply made sense for saying “you don’t like social rules of general conduct for all ? – take it up with god” – humans will always battle with other humans who put forth rules of order. The existence of god is still hard to argue, since NO ONE CAN REALLY KNOW —  Regardless of choosing not to believe. 

    My disdain with behavior on this site, as far as mockery and name calling and generalization of any group that is made up of somewhat free thinking individuals, is what I see as one of my reasons for remaining on the spiritual fence. If unbelievers generally acted better than believers, I might be swayed – but it turns out they are no less or more fucking human than the christians they loathe. And that’s why Paul says “ALL are GUILTY and fall short of the glory of God”. “God” can act as a mechanism for a person to aspire to a higher state of being or to at least practice not doing wrong out of fear of punishment. Whatever the method – it’s ’cause PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY SELFISH and can be pretty fucked up to one another, whether they try to follow christianity or not. When the do, sometimes they succeed to act altruistically, sometimes, by human nature, they don’t.

    The simplicity of “love one another” is a non-religious ideal. What’s your excuse? What’s my excuse? In both camps I’m SICK of the air of “we’re more superior than them” – “we’re NOT”.

  • BurningTightRope

    @Aphroditeskiss – Aside from your point being bias and over generalized, lumping all christians into a certain ilk, you do have some points. — I consider myself a “recovering christian” and have returned to a largely agnostic point of view. That said, I think I’m very qualified to speak on both sides of the issue. I’ll never forget on the very first day that I became a christian, the only thing I said to my long standing, close friends was that I was born-again. INSTANTLY they shunned me without a word. And from that point on largely treated me like an outsider, though I did not disrespect them, judge them or proselytize or preach at them. Ha! I even kindly passed the joints while I hung out with them. But they gave up on me pretty fast. —- They had an instant prejudice without my saying a word, despite them having known (and “loved”) me for several years prior. From that point I was ongoingly ostracized. It was this action on their part which largely drove me into exclusively christian subcultural circles. There is NO QUESTION of that. Not to mention, anytime I did try to talk about my change of life (not witnessing ;-p) – but just about my head, like normal people, the other person almost always turned my experience into their argument and put me on the defensive. It was unreal, I couldn’t say “hi” to an old friend on the street without getting blasted with psuedo-scientific atheism just for answering their question “so what have you been up to?”.

    Your simple presupposing about people who believe in christianity is incredibly knee-jerk and common. On one hand, yes – there are believers who cause this kind of reaction. I ran into them ad nauseam and equally (as a believer) couldn’t stand them. So your point is taken, but you fail to see that non-christians also have their weapons loaded and cocked as a paranoid precaution as they / we are constantly looking for a fight. It’s unrealistic to make statements that say that Christians in general disrespect, or that “very few” actually practice “love one another” or that “most” are highly judgmental and proselytizing or that “most of the venom and utter hatred” comes from the Christian camp. In my experience for 30 years observing both sides, ANY over generalizing of either camp is simply wrong. Doing so is subjective and slanted and exacerbates the problem. All christians and all people are not static, nor the same. Everyone grows and changes and is on the exact same search to find happiness and balance in ones inner heart and life – no matter what or how we believe. (unless we are truly defective somehow and are utterly sociopathic and violent).

    One of my biggest arguments on the whole topic is that atheists, christians, pagans, and any sort of believers are PEOPLE first and foremost; and the root of problems, for ALL who practice any ideology, comes from being human. Period. Non-believers are so fond of pointing at all sorts of ill behavior by alleged christians in the name of God, but they almost always fail to see that it does not matter what a human believes or attempts to practice, as all humans fail and all humans are duped, and all humans are ultimately self serving and self preserving. We’re all victims of nature and nurture. —– I have experienced a percentage of ill behavior, by a smaller percentage of christian labeled people, but I cannot count every christian throughout history, nor through every season or trial of life, as fucked up. My bad experiences have been at the hands of a few, behaving in very human ways that have caused my displeasure. While they have used God as their justification, their actions were purely animal driven by their own selfish ambitions and personalities. —– Point being, no matter what the belief system, humans behave like humans. It’s simply bigotry to label any general group of people as being more to blame of ill behavior. That’s a large part of why religion evolved in the first place, society trying to find a less easily refutable reason for people to behave better toward one another. Emphasizing the concept of “god(s)” and the unknown / “supernatural” simply made sense for saying “you don’t like social rules of general conduct for all ? – take it up with god” – humans will always battle with other humans who put forth rules of order. The existence of god is still hard to argue, since NO ONE CAN REALLY KNOW —  Regardless of choosing not to believe. 

    My disdain with behavior on this site, as far as mockery and name calling and generalization of any group that is made up of somewhat free thinking individuals, is what I see as one of my reasons for remaining on the spiritual fence. If unbelievers generally acted better than believers, I might be swayed – but it turns out they are no less or more fucking human than the christians they loathe. And that’s why Paul says “ALL are GUILTY and fall short of the glory of God”. “God” can act as a mechanism for a person to aspire to a higher state of being or to at least practice not doing wrong out of fear of punishment. Whatever the method – it’s ’cause PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY SELFISH and can be pretty fucked up to one another, whether they try to follow christianity or not. When the do, sometimes they succeed to act altruistically, sometimes, by human nature, they don’t.

    The simplicity of “love one another” is a non-religious ideal. What’s your excuse? What’s my excuse? In both camps I’m SICK of the air of “we’re more superior than them” – “we’re NOT”.

  • A Christian

    Actually there were some Atheists and Agnostics but by no means a majority.  The constitutional view of inherent equality of human freedoms and life drew from the Christian moral foundation.  By a Christian institution I was refering to the influence and majority of the population, not a legalistic binding sense.  Trying to redact history because of your disdain for Christianity is not only ignorant but pointless.

  • JaDE

    Insignificant book?  Last time I checked it was he best-seller of all times, lol

  • Reasoniest

    The early Christian church was a bit of a mess, which is what a lot of Paul’s letters were about fixing.  As they brought in new members, especially gentiles from pagan religions, they had to fight off a lot of those people’s traditions and beliefs from corrupting their message.  The Gnostics were a particularly troubling group, arguing that the body didn’t matter and if you could disconnect yourself from it, you could sin all you wanted.  Just look up the Gnostic texts.  They’re pretty much old school New Age writings, with Jesus as a hero saving some goddess bound to the Earth. Some real weird stuff. 

    • Reasoniest

      Why do you think we practice Christmas and Easter?  Why is Mary so important to the Catholic Church?  Read about the “Christian” Emperor Constantine and his adoption of pagan beliefs and traditions into Christianity to make it easier to convert pagans. Even with a written Bible today, most Christians practice some or all of these traditions.  I’m not judging, just saying.

  • A Christian

    The insignificant book that created the Holy Roman Empire, influenced Europe for the last 1700 years, inspired the ideal of human equality apart from government and the fact that we are talking about it in the hear and now.  You can argue all you want about what kind of influences it has had over time…but insignificant?  Try picking up a book every once and a while that has anything to do with Western history or the Middle East/North Africa and you might learn a thing or two.

    • A Christian

      Forgot to mention that it dramatically effected what we consider the English language, particularly the King James 1611.

      • A Christian

        Oh yeah, why do we consider the calender year to be 2012 again?  I think that had something to do with Christianity as well.

  • A Christian

    I am going to guess and say that it is somewhere around the same amount that are being murdered on a yearly basis in the United States.  I could be wrong though, go ahead and give us the digits on it.

  • A Christian

    I am going to reject your claim of Greek condoms on the ground of the fact that you cannot give me a certified original text, after all, we should have a fair standard of historical evidence from those times that applies to something more that just Biblical Canonical text, wouldn’t you agree?

    • Calypso_1

      I wouldn’t totaly discount it.  It is a debated topic among medical historians.  The Greeks made extensive use of abortion – mechanical and pharmacological and resinous cervical barriers. http://www.bmj.sk/2007/10803-12.pdf

      As to condoms the historical record is scant but you may use this as your starting point.

      From HISTORIA MEDICINǼ  -The George Washington University School of Medicine
       
      “Condoms are by no means a modern day method.  Historically, condoms  were used to prevent the spread of disease as there was little understanding of  how  women  became pregnant.  Records of condom use dates back to 3000 B.C. where King Minos of Crete, son of Zeus and Europa, utilized  the  bladders of goats to protect himself during  intercourse (1).    By  1000  B.C.,  Egyptians  were  using  a linen  sheath  around  the  penis  to  protect  from spread  of  disease.    Little  documentation  or records of condoms have been found after this time period; although, there is some evidence from cave paintings and  historical  documents that a condom-like device was used in Europe and imperial Rome (2). “ 
       
       
      1. Riddle, John M. Contraception and Abortion from
      the Ancient World to the Renaissance. Cambridge,
      MA: Harvard University Press; 1992.
       
      2. Camp, John. Magic, Myth, and Medicine. Taplinger
      New York, NY: Publishing Co., INC.; 1973.

  • snizz

    the editorializing might have been a little heavy, but it is interesting to think about how things might have been different if different books were chosen to become part of what would become an organized religion. the fact of the matter is that the main reason christianity had a chance of spreading farther than the middle east is because of the romans. organized religion is an effective way of controlling large numbers of people; i think this is a statement that any reasonable person can see. what better way to subjugate millions of ignorant people than create a moral code based on a charismatic character that was pushed by authority figures? (tangentially, i think that the modern church is much like the pharisees that jesus fought against.) 

    when constantine commissioned the first version of the bible (and yes, he paid for it), scholars compiled the best known versions of the jesus story available. many centuries later “gnostic” gospels were discovered that paint a very different picture of who jesus might have been. should they be included? i don’t think many christians today would want things in the gospels of thomas or mary magdalene to be part of the canon. and there is the sticky word: canon. christianity as we know it today follows a version of the story that is declared “official” and all other works are supposedly dubious. 

    while the construction of the book that formed the historically relevant version of christianity is a different argument from the one this author is making, i think the point of this article is to point out that at one point, christianity was so divided in its ideology that it included a hedonistic sect (and honestly, how hard is it to sell physical excess as an ideology?). this interesting historical fact is not useful for understanding how the current church is organized, but it is fun brain candy for people who like weird stories. 

    • Elementoperation

      thank you so much for refuting BurningTightRope in clear and elegant language.  

      • BurningTightRope

        No argument here on the clear and elegant (or did you mean “eloquent”) language from “snizz”. It’s nice to see a view that is well spoken and thoughtful. I don’t really disagree with snizz, nor did I read snizz as a refutation.

        However, “elegance” aside, yes, hypothetically speaking, it would be interesting if different books were chosen. But, they weren’t. I’m not sure how many of the rejected writings people have read, but they were rejected for reasons and not just whim, as well as being argued over for centuries. But  many of the non-selected writings were still respected as holding some honest information. But some where rejected for the very reason that they were sensationalized toward “helping” the christian cause. If it was truly all about a conspiracy of political control over the ignorant masses, why throw out anything? And further, why would many of these writers (and editors) be so willing to die and be tortured and killed in order to perpetuate something that they wrote that they absolutely KNEW not to, in the slightest way, hold any truth? 

        I’m a bit of a skeptic myself. But speculating on what isn’t, as snizz implies isn’t much more than a philosophic exercise (fun brain candy for people who like weird stories) I totally agree with snizz on that. 

        Christianity is what it is. I’ve read enough of the apocryphal books to be open minded about considering them, as well as to “get” why they were not included. The real beauty of it all is that, those books are still here for us to read regardless of inclusion or not. Their exclusion in no way STOPS anyone from reading, studying and considering them for what might be gleaned. “The Forgotten Books of the Bible”, “The Lost Books of Eden”, Thomas, Nicodemus, The Infancy, Mary, etc….. READ THEM – No Roman Emperor is stopping you. If you have an open mind and read them in context of the whole story, you might or not see why they didn’t make the cut. I came to my own conclusions. Speculating is just that, speculating. This isn’t a battle of “us and them” — we’re all “us”. Think, educate, encourage. 

        If my atheism is tearing down the positive heart of a person helped by their belief in god to their hurt – i’m a f**king bad atheist. 

        As far as Rome goes, YES! Snizz is partly correct that the Roman Empire played a HUGE roll in the spread of christianity. And YES, some of it was by political mechanisms. But one must not forget that Rome was in fatal opposition of it for quite some time. Constantine did not convert until 320-something AD. Nearly 200 years after the alleged existence of Jesus. The idea of Rome orchestrating the spread of christianity as a means of control is a fairly feeble method, if control is the aim. Rome did pretty damn well with controlling the “ignorant” by their pan-theism in tandem with the sword for 200 years before Constantine. The idea that the jesus religion was this greatly designed Roman ploy is absurd. Especially since such a complex idea can not be so easily forced into the conscience of an individual. Atheism is proof of that. 

        Further, the idea of Rome using christianity as a way to “create and impose a moral code” is incredibly naive (no disrespect intended). The reason I say this is that moral codes have pre-existed christianity and Rome since the evolution of society. So many anti-theists balk at the idea of moral codes as religious invention, only because they associate them utterly with religion, and religion with oppressive control. But the fact is, if one believes in any mechanism of evolution, — morality is an innate human development [i’m hungry, DON’T STEAL MY FOOD] and so on. And what human, whether believing in deity or not, would not be morally pissed at the rape of wife or daughter, the destruction of personal property, the invasion of personality, haven or family????? 
        — If anything, religious moral law evolved out of humanity’s own needs for it. It is not a political. tactical design, it is preeminent before organized religion, as well as state politics. 

        Yes, there have been leaders who have used religion (and several other non, or anti-religious ideologies) for mass control. But still, history ultimately proves that 1) the human spirit can not be so easily bullied, and 2) the abuse of religious ideology is ultimately, by rational, thinking people, recognized as an abuse of the idea. The crux of christianity is not inherently evil. People who misrepresent and manipulate it is what creates the problem. I see people do the exact same thing with atheism all the time. The idea of atheism is a legitimate one. Having it preached by insulting bigots is the problem with it from time to time, as well as atheist’s propagating their own twisted view of what they *think* christianity is. People are the problem, more so than ideas. 

        Christianity is STILL a divided ideology as people interpret and practice it, regardless of the “historically relevant version”. The author of the “Orgies” article would do just as well with citing some present day anomalous sect: Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc., even Mormonism… take your pick. Once again PEOPLE are the problem. Even as a skeptic, I think the christian model of redemption and a basic gospel of love and forgiveness is nice idea. Yet, I’m not about to throw out the core concept because some “leader” ran with it in some “off” direction. Plenty of hedonists claim a belief in jesus even today. But do they define christianity? Of course not. 

        I largely agree with snizz, and snizz makes a point far more concisely than I do. But no mention of a rogue “believer” can bring any better accuracy to what christianity, according to it’s inventors, claim it to be. The people that wrote about it and died over it are better at defining it than some fringe individual bent on humping religiously. Such articles are not at all helpful in determining the validity of the distilled judeo-christian ideology. 

        One may not believe that the character of Jesus is historical, but the concepts attributed to him of love one anther, forgive one another, etc. are far more practical than the dubious gospel according to Bolelli.

  • Disinfo_censors_dissent

    >What if Christian theology dismissed the virgin birth and other miracles as fairy tales?

    Such a doctrine is called “Radical Christianity”or any of several other terms. Such a theology looks to the Bible for moral/philosophical ideas while rejecting supernaturalism or miracles. It’s nothing new.

  • Diabe_soul

    People of religous faith who believe in the censorship of certain undeniable truths that have beeb arbtrarily deleted from origoonaltheological txts, which have left very larg holes in the actual history of the fundimental beginings, life, and times of jesus of naz the miracles, and workins of god , have irrevocably turned what may hace been the greatest influencial time in recorded human history in nothing morethat an editors wet dream of single sieded and very narrow minded,power play of opinion. And all of those [explitive deleted]are [explitive deleted] to an eterity in [explitive deleted]. I’d personally commit the atrocity of the first commadment to get my hands on an unredacted complete set of the books of the bible I say $#@& that to every thing else

    • BurningTightRope

      @Diabe_soul — hmmmm…. I have yet to meet any real people of faith who believe in censorship of undeniable truths. As far as “arbtrarily deleted from origoonaltheological txts”, all of us would need to know the original ancient languages and see the oldest manuscripts to even realistically know that things were deleted. And if said things were, in fact, deleted, how might one know that such deletions were “arbitrary”? Hypothetically speaking, mightn’t such deletions actually have been deleted by honest copyists who removed added parts by comparing to even older, now lost manuscripts? How could a person possibly know based on current “wisdom”, much less your speculations? 

      As far as an “editors wet dream” (no disrespect) but I think your post may be in need of such service.  Forgive me, but you really seem to be presenting a lot of speculation and opinion of your own in presuming that old manuscripts have been so manipulated as a “very narrow minded,power play of opinion.”. Further, how can you or anyone else know if 1) such “editors” existed, and 2) if those “[explitive]” editors are damned to an eternity in Hell? If god actually exists and if god judges people, then it’s not for you or I to speculate on who is or isn’t damned. It’s god’s business alone, right? And will not the judge of all the earth do right? And is “he” not willing that any should perish? And did Jesus not allegedly pay for all the sins of all humankind once and for ALL? And isn’t it further allegedly possible for a person who once did such wrongs as you imagine occurred, that such a person might “repent” and go to heaven?

      And lastly, what good would it do your soul to break the 1st commandment in order to have first edition books of the bible if it would ultimately send you to hell by essentially having ink on manuscript as your false god, above the god you’re concerned with, to the eternal damnation of your soul? This would be utter foolishness. Wouldn’t it just be better to throw out the book and seek god and worship god like Abraham did, or Adam did? NONE of those alleged people HAD A BIBLE OF ANY SORT! Not a jot or tittle, not a page, nor sentence. Yet they allegedly walked with god. If it’s at all true that “in the beginning was god…” then what more do you need? If god is — worship god and enjoy “him” forever. Trifling over manuscripts about alleged people who had alleged relationships with god who did NOT have a bible is the biggest impediment to actually having the sort of relationship with god that they allegedly had and was allegedly written about. You’re majoring in the minors. 

      If you can’t have a spiritual life (like Abraham, Moses, Noah or John the Apostle allegedly did WITHOUT A BIBLE, having a book in “perfect” order WILL NOT SAVE YOU.

  • BurningTightRope

    a curious thought Seeker – I’m no eye witness to the christian orgies that you speak of, and reports aside, the only thing I can deduce from any readings of “modern” christian ideology, bouncing off the bible as one might purchase at the local shop – the basic christian ideology does not support the practice of orgies as a part of church, worship or the christian lifestyle. 

    Did it happen in the old days? I’m not at all surprised if it did. But like anything in transition, a “pagan” roman culture steeped in such sexual expressions in tandem with the common worship of non-christian gods would surely be a hard habit to break as the two views collided. 

    My thought is that, christian ideology alone does not seem to support the practice of orgies, but christian ideology being merged into a long standing cultural climate that included sex orgies in pre-christian poly-theistic and / or “pagan” ritual would indeed take time for transition, with the result of orgies being still practiced by pagans who for spiritual or political reason find themselves as new “christians”. 

    The whole point being, such orgies may have occurred, but orgies are not = to christian ideology. One might observe that even today, *some* pastors f**k their secretaries in christian churches, but that act is not condoned as a common practice of christianity. Simply because something occurs does not make it definitive.

    Your point is well taken, though an ancient circumstance of human behavior as allegedly reported still doesn’t correctly define the ideology as the ideology defines itself. 

    I’m not really pro or con on christianity at the moment, but I do believe in defining a thing by what it is, as opposed to how people may errantly represent it. Simply because I (or anyone else) says “blue is red” does not change the true definition of what blue really is. No one has to agree or believe it, but blue will still always be what it shows itself to be no matter what.

    As far as Tertullian, I think we both need to do more research. It’s my current understanding the reports of christian orgies and cannibalism were indeed reported, but as pagan anti-christian propaganda. Tertullian wrote that such was not the case, but that christian “love-feasts” were in contrast to pagan orgies, and that these love-feasts were not sexual. It seems from the bits of Tertullian that I’ve read that, as a christian himself, he was an apologist of the faith as a spiritual and benevolently social practice and not as a carnal self-indulgent one.  

  • http://mrda.wordpress.com MRDA

    Blessed is he who cums in the name of the Lord!

  • BarttheCat

    “the New testament is the Prophecy that reveals the true love of God.”

    The New Testament is a collection of unrelated texts that were cobbled together by a bunch of theologians, nothing more.  I’m glad for you that you have your Bible to cling to.  I really like fiction too.

    • Elementoperation

      not only were the texts cobbled together, they were done so with an agenda.  the only Gnostic who nearly became pope, Valentinus of Alexandria, was defamed and run out of the city as a heretic.  here’s the kicker #1:  the Gnostics didn’t believe in a codified Bible.  they believe, correctly i believe, that the body of work that should be a source of information for the burgeoning “religion” of Christianity should be an ever evolving thing.  the past 20 years, much less the past 2000 years, is clear evidence that they were obviously correct.  to spell it out plainly:  social situations change and at an exponential rate in the current times.  the Bible is antiquated, and that can’t be denied by any rational person.  in case the reader hasn’t noticed, we don’t sacrifice animals to God anymore (Old Testament).  well, at least it’s not a common practice to my knowledge.  Kicker #2:  the Catholic church destroyed all extant Gnostic texts at the time, or so they thought, which sounds vaguely like what the Nazis did if you ask me.  thank goodness for the texts buried at Nag Hammadi.  someone had the foresight to protect these codices.  the Catholics also actively disbanded all known Gnostic settlements in what can only be called a war the early Catholic church waged against a peaceful sect.  namely, the Gnostics.  and why?  Kicker #3:  the Gnostics, almost if not exactly by definition, believed that true knowledge of the nature of reality could be gained by direct experience or by a mentor/mentee relationship.  and, you know, there isn’t a lot of money to be made under such beliefs and practices.  someone pass the collection plate please…  in short, the so-called early church fathers were misaligned with what Jesus taught.  and i don’t believe, in the Bible, said he was God in the flesh.  i’m pretty sure he referred to himself as the Son of Man.  i would also like to say that science and mystical traditions, Gnosticism, many Buddhist sects, and Sufism to name a few, which held training of the mind as the ultimate goal, are not in conflict with one another.   i mean no harm or to berate anyone, but sometimes i see debates where there is necessary information missing, and i try to add as much as i can.  (also, this writing is directed at SoldierOfGod.  no offense intended, once again).  i pray for peace and for people to accept one another unconditionally out of autonomy.

  • Anonymous Christian Soldier

    Disinformation is the perfect name for this site. Lovely.

  • Anonymous Christian Soldier

     Exactly, my friend. That is what I said. How apt they would inadvertently give themselves away!  Evil is ignorance.

  • BurningTightRope

    “What if your pastor/priest told you to flush the Ten Commandments down the toilet and instead live life to the fullest?”For all of the discussion that this post has generated, it’s been a while since I reread the original Bolelli article. The above opening quote I find hilarious and solid evidence that Bolelli exists on very odd, if not unrealistic ground concerning her seemingly reckless anti-religious/anti-christian views. Considering this hypothetical flushing of the 10 Commandments being a way to live life to the fullest. Hilarious!!!! Granted, one may find some fuller life experience by setting aside the 1st “… no other gods before me”. But I find the throwing out of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, and to a lesser degree, 2, 3 and 4, to hardly be expressions of living a fuller life. In fact, the absurdity of this is precisely why Carpocrates didn’t have his way. “All of this could have happened….” BULL CRAP! Does Bolelli really think that people are generally that stupid?#2 Knock yourself out in worshiping some animal, vegetable or mineral idols, get drunk and/or stoned, prance about and have a gay ol’ time of it, though probably best in moderation, considering such a thing in excess (worshiping a rock) might be a bit of a waste, especially to an atheist. But hey, if it gives your life fuller meaning, go for it. But it’s one thing to worship a conceptually personal alleged god, a carved stick, rock or poodle is bordering on genuine foolishness. #3 Name in vain – Unless you’re privy to the actual personal divine name of god, something the jews did not actually ever fully write or pronounce, good luck in breaking this one. I personally don’t count saying OMG or Oh gawd as taking the name in vain. You need to know the name to abuse it, as the name is the equal designation of the person of said particular god that commands one not to abuse it. Otherwise “god” (as in no other gods…) is a class of alleged beings. OMG can be Zeus, Odin, or the aforementioned Rock. #4 Being a sabbath breaker may or not result in living a fuller life. However, avoiding time of rest completely can result in neurological problems, as in cases of sleep deprivation. Getting delusional as a result is a really great way to live life to the fullest, isn’t it?#5 And how fulfilling is constant and heavy “diss-ing” of old mom and dad? Where will the dishonoring get you? Even if the folks have really totally sucked, is there real “living” in burning your energy on revenge on them? Maybe, but I’d hardly call it living life to the fullest. How burdensome might that behavior in excess be. Is it really life enhancing to dishonor ones parents?#6 Ahh, MURDER ~ There’s a great example of “living life to the fullest” (Does Bolelli even *think* when writing this stuff? Do the sycophantic head waggers?) #7 Adultery – I suppose some personal pleasure, even to great orgasmic degree can be had by screwing someone else’s spouse. But if “living it up” is turning another person into a cuckold, as well as the collateral damage to children, all for selfish gratification, eh… who am I to say that is or isn’t really living. #8 Stealing. Who hasn’t really improved their life by ripping off another. No victims there to get in the way of your fuller life excitement, thrills and warm fuzzies that you get from f**king someone else over. Gee, that commandment is such a hinderance to living a full life; really cramping my style. It’s not like stealing has any ill results to anyone.#9 Oooo And how can we stand to miss out on bearing false witness?!?!? Just think of the fun we’re missing by telling the whole neighborhood that that black guy sodomizes little boys (even though he doesn’t, heee hee), or that the hot blonde at the office used to be a man before “her” transgender surgery – HA-HA THAT’S a good one. Oh my life is richer already for causing some body else whatever fallout comes from those rumors. #10 And of course, what person’s life wouldn’t be fuller by coveting anything and everything that others have. What a STUPID STUPID thing to discourage a person from doing. Life is soooo much better spent in a heightened state of constant envy and lust for things that you don’t have. WOW! Filling you mind with that is sooooo fulfilling. So, this has all been quite tedious, but perhaps Bolelli and her legions will at last actually KNOW what those strangling 10 commandments are. What’s really weird is, the god stuff in the commandments aside, they actually are basic standard moral laws framed with the intention  of making it MORE possible to “live life to the fullest”Honestly, with a writer as shallow and ignorant of the obvious as Daniele Bolelli in the anti-theist camp, as well as being such a stellar voice for “disinformation”, how can rational, intelligent non-believers fail at convincing those religious fools of how idiotic the bible and their stupid morality is. EVERYBODY! Throw out those dumb religious commandments! LET’S ALL break ‘em all and get on with really living. (but btw, while I’m murdering your hot daughter, would ya mind not stealing my car? I’m gonna need it to dispose of the body so I can get on with my fuller life). 

  • BurningTightRope

    i’m just gonna be stupid here Cybersaur. Aside from there being non-bible flood stories that parallel the Noah account, mythical or misunderstood as an alleged “world wide” flood may be — god did not try to kill everyone with noah’s ark. god did not send said boat careening through the floodscape as a killing machine. (i know you didn’t mean it that way, but what you wrote sounds like that, and it’s funny :-D ) — 

    joking aside, god didn’t try to kill everyone, in the story, he DID kill everyone except for noah and family and a bunch of aminals. and even noah’s bunch was considered just barely salvageable (noah winds up drunk and naked screwing his daughters by their design later on). 

    the point of the story is that everyone on earth was so evil (noah included, but the best of the sorry bunch) that “god” wished “he” never made people ‘cos they were so screwed up and being so evil to each other. so god decided to wipe the slate clean and start over with noah being a pathetic last resort, but still a chance to show god punishing so much evil, while still showing some degree of mercy by saving a few people. And don’t forget, in the story everybody was warned before the flood that it was coming and people were given a chance to “repent” and stop being so evil. had they done so, the flood would not have been sent. and we can all agree that evil has its consequences whether we believe in god or not.

    think of it this way, if you got one okay guy in society and then you got another guy in society who is bent on evil and refuses to stop being evil, and if left to his evil inclinations will eventually kill the sorta okay guy and his sorta okay family, if it was in your power to end the run of evil to save the okay family, wouldn’t you do it? 

    A hard thing to consider from a purely human point of view, i think. but in this god scenario, if i were a god who made everyone and everything out of nothing, and if i had full knowledge of everyone’s thoughts and intentions, as well as prognosticating the future course of existent evil, then it’s not inconceivable that the “loving” thing to do is to cut out the cancer in order to save the sick, but better, still viable and hopeful part of the thing that i created. besides, if i, as god, have such ability, power and “wisdom” to create everything, then life and death is a small thing and not necessarily the cruel unloving thing that an evil, finite human with limited understanding might see my actions as. 

    I’m personally not so sure about whether god is or isn’t. god as a reality is certainly not impossible. and conceptually speaking, if god is, then the above could stand as a way to rationalize a “divine” flood. — if god isn’t – then it’s just a moral fable – one of thousands of attempts by humans to explain evil, calamity and tragedy in an often cold, cruel “shit happens” world. — but if a person tries, really tries to understand the story in context of itself, it is possible that (as i’ve explained) such killing of the evil can be an act of “love”. 

    If some evil fool was a threat to your family and all that you loved, planned and hoped for, would it not be the loving thing to do for the sake of your innocent (though not perfect) wife and kids, to shoot the idiot as he’s breaking down your door, especially after you warned him to stop and desist his evil advance. 

    force of good annihilates force of evil for preservation of the not so evil in hope of a second chance to do better next time. that’s the equation. 

    is it an actual event that really happened like that? idk – but at least we can try to understand the story in it’s own light and not make it mean something it doesn’t based on our own dislike of religion. 

    • Flimfla

      I would think God with all his power to create man from nothing would just kill all humans and start over from scratch…Why would he save Noah and family? He could just create the humans and animals again. And why was the Bible considered complete at some point wouldn’t God have some new information to add for new times…Does God still talk to people the same way he did when he told the people that wrote the Bible?

      • BurningTightRope

        totally understandable Flimfla. You have valid questions. If I remember the story and the general Genesis premise, god made all of this allegedly in order to have a working relationship with a being that had free will to choose to have said relationship back. Along with that premise came the idea of god making promises to people, like “he” did with the alleged Adam and Eve, that after the curse resulting from original sin, god promised to send a savior. Since such a promise was made, god wasn’t inclined to break it, regardless of how evil people got., hence not just killing everybody and starting over from zero. The alleged Noah was the way to keep the promise and show a smidge of mercy and continue the “relationship” between god and humans, since Noah, at least “tried” to have a relationship w/ said god. Plus Noah according to the story heard god’s warning about punishing all the evil, which resulted in him “obeying” and building the ark. If god woulda just killed everybody, he’d’ve been breaking his promise to Adam, et al. Then he’d really suck! and be a hypocrite regarding that promise. 

        As far as the bible being considered “complete”? Good question. It’s been argued by the moslems, and the mormons and a bunch of others that have claimed god still giving revelation since after the time in and around jesus. If god is still talking thru those books (koran / mormon) he’s got a lot o’ ‘splainin’ to do. since those books have conflicts with what the old and new testament contain. not sayin’ one is right-er than the others, just that they’re not conceptually in agreement. 

        The reason the “bible” is ideologically considered complete (never mind the arguments here about how it allegedly came together, etc. – (no disrespect to that worthwhile discussion) – but it’s considered complete ideologically based on the central story of “god creates/ man sins / god promises a savior / blah blah blah / savior comes / saviour dies to pay for all sin in the world / savior resurrects from dead (since sin caused death as a condition in the world) so sin and death are conceptually conquered / savior returns to heavenly realm with promise to return and renew earth to better than original condition like Adam and Eve walked with god. All better :-)  — That’s the whole story in a nutshell, so nothing else needs to be added or told – just “fulfilled” regarding still to come future prophetic events. Hardcore fundamentalist believers would say that amending said books with new stuff would be changes to the unchangeable plan and promises of god. so nothing new is needed. allegedly. Personally, i wish god would SPEAK UP once in a while about stuff – especially since so many people have these questions. And ESPECIALLY IF it *could* actually mean eternal life or death to people. If god would directly speak up and at least settle the question “Is gd there”, that’d help a whole lot, eh? 

        Does god still talk the same way? Some would argue YES, some, NO. 
        Bible-wise, god seemed to talk in a lot of ways, from materializing in physical forms as angles, jesus allegedly in the old testament, or the burning bush speaking with a voice, or Balaam’s jack ass… Then there’s through “prophets”, even ghosts, or the invisible finger writing on the wall, and the ever popular “still, small voice”. As well as the physical Jesus in those assorted forms (alive, resurrected, transfigured, manifest cozmikally to Paul (Saul), plus through dreams and visions….. 

        Sooooooo DOES god still talk like that today? Maybe. The tricky/scary thing is, if some guy says “god told me…..” it can be hard to argue what the guy experienced. that’s why there’s so much doubt and conflict.Tto borrow from todd rundgren “will the real god please stand up?”

        I used to thinks so, but now I’m not so sure. But just ‘cos people doubt it doesn’t prove unquestionably that some god/force/order of the universe isn’t “speaking”. it’s an age old question since the beginning of consciousness.

  • GregForest

    I just feel sorry for the poor kangaroos. It was one hell of a trek from Mt Arrarat to Australia. A respectable swim too.

  • phukreligion

    And yet here you are….

    • BurningTightRope

      ?¿?¿?¿?¿ Are you SERIOUS phuk? Don’t tell me you BELIEVE all of the stuff here?!!! I’m no fan of religious fanaticism, but neither am I a fan of anti-theist-ic dumbness and smugness. Bolelli’s articles, along with a lot of this stuff is so badly written and hyper-biased at best. ——- Fine that you loath religion. But please don’t tell me that doing so equals blanket sucking in and blowing out as intelligence, everything that you read. 

      Why is it that so many anti-theists are soooo phuking willingly gullible??? Not to mention your “And yet here you are….” statement bouncing back on yourself making you a prime example of what SoldierOfGod is referring to. 

      I may be agnostic bit I can at least be willing to see value in some of the things that I don’t fully ideologically agree with. So many atheists have such an air of superiority, posing as open minded and logical, bright people, above being duped by the illogic of “religion” — and yet they are so often more than religious in their blind faith in generic anti-religious ideology, so much so as to spout dumbness as wit and say “here here” in support of pseudo-intellectualism as if it has a fuller grasp on Truth. 

      It’s no wonder I’m on the fence > both sides are full of idiots.

  • FixedBayonets

    I don’t think the purpose of this article is to promote hedonism at church gatherings, but to illuminate some of the suppressed history behind mainstream christianity. An interesting read on the catholic church’s persecution of Gnostics is Forbidden Faith by Richard Smoley.

    • BTR

      Agreed. But I don’t think it’s an illumination of suppressed history. This sort of info is widely available and hasn’t been suppressed for a hundred years, likely more, if it was ever truly suppressed at all. — I just think it’s a poorly written article, full of bias, contortions and devoid of logic. —- I don’t at all mind the history, but spare me the taunting speculations. I’ve scrutinized a handful of Bolelli “articles” here and it’s all the same ~ blah! ;-p 

      I just can’t suck down the peripheral junque wagging my head “yes”. I’ve had my moments of stupidity, but I’m not that stupid.

  • BurningTightRope

    “…. miss the mark when you say that Christians (evidently you’re too lazy to even label them properly?)” 

    Sorry Anon – Though you make some very good points, Wyrdmaven is not “too lazy”. If you’re a christian x-tian, I’m surprised that you HAVE missed the mark yourself. Wyrdmaven at least knows that X is for the initial “chi” of the greek Khristos (Christ), hence chi = X + tians = Christ-ians. X-ians is a perfectly fine abbreviation. D’uh. 

    Otherwise… Speaking from personal observation while being part of the X-ian church in the past – I heard all of the hype concerning christian marriages and the beauties of “god created” sex within biblical parameters. Nice idea, but I can not believe, after “witnessing” what I have of christian D-I-V-O-R-C-E, premarital sex and pregnancy and re-marriage in conflict with Paul’s instructions to “remain single or be reconciled” plus if you’re divorced and remarry you make your new spouse an adulterer. PLUS the church’s general support for married people in VAST VAST VAST disproportion to that of helpful council for singles. I could go on………. people on their 3rd “christian” marriage and divorce, divorced pastors and their new divorced wives. Divorced ministers knocking their girlfriends up before marriage; sexually,  mentally, physically and emotionally abusive husbands, prudish naive wives…. all of this resulting from marriages that people are publicly declaring as “The LORD brought us together”.

    This is not to say that biblical ideas on fidelity and relationships can’t have merit, BUT… SOMETHING IS HORRIBLY WRONG IN THE CHURCH where the guys teaching this stuff are rendering crap council to people in between boinking the church secretary. With all that god allegedly has “penned” as wisdom, WHY ARE CHRISTIANS SO NEUROTIC in regard to relationships and sex???? AND DON’T blame it on people! Either god’s ways work or they don’t. Either this divine wisdom CAN be taught AND practiced, or there is waaaaaaaaaaaay too much wrong with the talking heads, hyped statistics and divine mismatching of X-ian couples. 

    This is one of the bigger things that made me SICK of trying to deal with the church and throw the whole mess into question. There is very little christian romantic altruism. 98% of the people use the exact same “darwinian” standards in search of physical fulfillment. Eeeeewwwwww GAWD would never lead me to marry a dorky fat guy for the sake of His kingdom. HA! Same old “natural selection / survival of the fittest” in church. You know it’s true.

  • BTR

    Hi Ginnung. Either you’re reeeeeeaaaaly OLD or you only have a caricatural view of xtians. 

    Aside from the fact that there are a multitude of different denominations in the broader sub-culture of people who believe and/or follow jesus and DON’T peddle Chick Tracts, there are >TA-DAA!!!! surprise < a lot of genuinely intelligent people who choose the faith, despite the chick comic set. That's one of the major problems with christian opposition, they're have too shallow a view of the basic reality that all kinds of people believe in god and jesus. If you can't wrap your brain around that simple idea, that there actually are unquestionably intelligent and educated people who believe, then you have blinders on. In contrast to your brainwashing, some christian people have brains and open minds, and actually use them. (LOL)   

21
More in 50 Things Religion, Ancient History, Gnosticism, Jesus, Morality, Religion, Sexuality
Christopher Hitchens on the Afterlife (Video)

Close