Comments on: Baby Steps

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 01:31:36 +0000

The current Christian Bible is based on political decisions by Roman Emperors in Constantinople. It was written in multiple languages then translated into two principal languages then was subjected to hand copying. It is therefore subject to translation and copying errors in addition to ‘editorial decisions’. Judaism only guarantees the accuracy of the first five books of the Old Testament, so things start to get shaky after that.

Honestly if you have done a lot of reading you can see different authors arise and disappear as you go through the Bible, even the King James which is my preferred version because of its literary worth despite its many errors.

Just believe it, don’t try to make it something it isn’t. Given that for centuries the only literate people in societies were the clerics, it isn’t surprising that a lot of ‘evidence’ exists for the official dogma of the religions.

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:56:34 +0000

The thing that pisses me off, especially American supposed *Christians* is that they do so love the Old Testament! This in spite of the *Biblical fact* That Jesus specifically said that his followers *MUST* follow the New Testament! “I give you a new covenant..” You know it I’m sure. They are complete and absolute hypocrites. I know it isn’t only endemic to the USA, but does appear to be more prevalent there. We have them here too, the above psycho is a case in point. If you follow the Old Testament, then you are either Muslim (Islam) or Jew (Hebrew). Not that either of those would have these nut’s, except the extremist Muslims would love them for their mobile bombs. Be the only use for them. Except that these false Christians are mostly abject cowards. *shrug*

It’s all BS anyway. Even the 1st book of the New Testament “The Gospel According To Matthew”! It wasn’t even written by Matthew, and that wasn’t his name! It was Luke. He was a Tax Collector (nasty people in those days) before his *conversion*. He used Matthew because he was ashamed of his past. Same with *Paul*, he was Saul of Tarsus, another really nasty bastard. And so on. The first book is completely anonymous, there is no attribution at all. And they also get Paul’s Apostolic title wrong! He wasn’t a “fisherman”, Jesus called him a “Fisher of Men”! His job was to convert people to the cause. He was chosen for this as his previous *job* made him an excellent hunter of men! H mostly gave them the option “Join or die”!

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 70 and 100 AD. The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time. Writing in a polished Semitic “synagogue Greek”, the author drew on three main sources, the Gospel of Mark, the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source, and material unique to his own community, called “Special Matthew”, or the M source.

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous. The author is not named within the text, and the superscription “according to Matthew” was added some time in the second century. The tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c. 100–140 AD), who is cited by the Church historian Eusebius (260–340 AD): “Matthew collected the oracles (logia: sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language ( Hebraïdi dialektōi), and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen – actually means “translated”) them as best he could.” This has been taken to imply that Matthew’s Gospel itself was written in Hebrew or Aramaic by the apostle Matthew and later translated into Greek, but nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and Matthew’s Greek “reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation”.

And so on! Sorry… I’m annoyed by the whole insanity! Bah!

If Jesus appeared complete with wings & glowing halo, and said “You are all wrong” to them, they’d shoot him on sight! If you collected all their brain cells, you might have enough for a Chimpanzee!

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 26 Apr 2016 02:41:46 +0000

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want as long as they keep it to themselves. Belief doesn’t require proof and if you claim there is proof, well, you don’t really ‘believe’, do you?

Unless I have been badly misinformed I believe that most/all Jewish males have physical evidence of the Covenant…

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:15:01 +0000

Yep, the whiners are really in full tantrum mode.

Good! Should happen more often!

I’ve been pruning my Pinterest followers the past few weeks. After checking a few of their boards and realizing that they are either religious nut jobs, or right-wing gun nut wacko’s (or usually both), I made sure to pin things they would object to (you know, Science, facts truth about the Bible & the Apostles etc.) Most took the hint and left, but some are either more stupid than even I thought, or love a challenge (I had one stupid young woman try to “save my soul” on one of my pin’s! She ran off screaming eventually! LOL Especially after the “There is a special place in hell foryou!” To which I replied: “Ahhhh! And there it is, showing the true Christian values of love and faith! LOL Yes, I know… It’s called a Throne! I can’t WAIT to get you and the millions of hypocrites there! Ohhhh… The things I have planned!!” LMAO

Anyway, now I have 818 followers and at least some seem reasonably sane. I even have a few Americans I chat to regularly. 1 from Texas who despises most people there, another from one of the Southern states who can’t stand Religion either after being forced to be a Baptist as a child until she escaped. So there are some sane people there. 😉

Oh! For the record, not all religious wacko’s are American. We have them also. Here’s a Pinterest board of one of them:

Archeological evidence supporting the Old Testament/Covenant

No, I kid you not. And sadly, these morons really believe this shit!

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:53:32 +0000

Ol’ Hickory did sort of veto the re-authorization of the US Bank. FDR made it on the dime, but mostly because he had polio and the March of Dimes campaign.

Yep, the whiners are really in full tantrum mode. 🙂

By: Badtux

Badtux — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 05:06:20 +0000

Well, Andrew Jackson also a) hated central banks, and b) thought paper money was an invention of Satan and that if the nation ever adopted paper money as its official tender, the nation was doomed. Having him on the $20 was an ironic insult to him from day one, enacted by Republicans basically as a F.U. to the Democrats who were clamouring for a Democratic president to be on money. Okay, so they gave the Democrats a Democratic president on Federal Reserve notes — one who detested everything that the Federal Reserve stood for, LOL.

Frankly, I’m enjoying the RWNJ meltdown over having a black woman on their $20… it’s more entertaining than a box of monkeys.

– Badtux the Easily Amused Penguin

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:45:20 +0000

Andy Jackson is the only Democratic President on currency, so, along with his slave-holding and treatment of Native Americans, he was an easy target. Apparently they are going to have fewer buildings and more people on the backs of bills.

By: Badtux

Badtux — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 04:33:51 +0000

The very first $20 bill, issued in 1863, also had a lady on it. Lady Liberty, holding a sword. If they want to really freak out the tighty whitey righties, they ought to put a picture of Harriet Tubman hauling her shotgun and shooting at Confederate soldiers during the raid at Combahee Ferry. LOL.